Quote:

Zero is not John Wayne and that slow response threat to the supreme court was just that a threat. IMHO These guys do a great job expressing our opinions and attitudes.

Quote:
Hello Friends,

B Hussein like any good and respectable Chicago gangster is now attacking the Supreme Court. They are now on his hit list with Fox News, Glen Beck, Limbaugh and virtually anyone who dares disagree with him.

His audacity and chutzpah doesn't amaze or surprise me cos that's what he does best. The next question is when he'll call the Supremes RACISTS. That usually works for him but I have a feeling that it won't work this time.

His 2 women in the Supreme Court (Sottomeyer & Kagan) are probably leaking him information he's not happy about so gangsta style he attacks. Kagan should have recused herself but as a good and decent progressive liberal left winger didn't cos that's the progressive way screw what's right and do what you were nominated to do protect the fraud and great pretenders back.

Here's a great video with Bill Whittle, Scott Ott and Steven Green discussing B Hussein's attack on the Supreme Court.

Shalom,

Peter

President Obama has declared war on the Supreme Court in advance of the Court's ObamaCare decision. Declaring the Justices of the Court "unelected," Obama seems eager to create a constitutional crisis. Why is Obama insulting the integrity of the judiciary and not making the constitutional argument for his health care legislation? Find out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGsNZx9e9Y4&feature=uploademail

Quote:
It would be hard to become nostalgic about Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign in disgrace. But at least you could tell when he was lying. Obama's lies are just as big but not as visible, and the media that exposed Nixon is covering for Obama.

Quote:

Hi Peter and friends, I think you'll find this article by Thomas Sowell very interesting and very astute. He certainly has Obama pegged.

Political word games

Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist - 4/4/2012 10:10:00 AM

One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring.

That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether he thought the Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional.

He replied: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

The Supreme Court has been doing precisely that for 209 years!

Nor is it likely that Barack Obama has never heard of it. He has a degree from the Harvard law school and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. In what must be one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history -- Marbury v. Madison in 1803 -- Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle that the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress null and void if these acts violate the Constitution.

They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way that Barack Obama has never heard of it or really believes it to be "unprecedented" after two centuries of countless precedents.

In short, he is simply lying.

Now there are different kinds of liars. If we must have lying Presidents of the United States, I prefer that they be like Richard Nixon. You could just look at him and tell that he was lying.

But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are.

He is also counting on something else -- namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies.

One of the many ways of lying smoothly is to simply redefine words. Barack Obama is a master at that as well.

In the comment on the case pending before the Supreme Court, President Obama said that he wanted to remind "conservative commentators" that they have complained about "judicial activism" -- which he redefines as the idea that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

First of all, every law that the Supreme Court has overturned for the past 209 years since Marbury v. Madison was "a duly constituted and passed law."

Second, the "judicial activism" that conservatives have complained about was judges making rulings based on how they felt personally about the issue at hand, rather than about what the Constitution of the United States said.

In recent years, great efforts have been made to redefine "judicial activism" in terms of judges declaring laws unconstitutional, instead of "deferring" to Congress or other government institutions.

But what is the Constitution's Bill of Rights supposed to protect the ordinary citizen from? Government institutions! If judges are to defer to the very institutions that the Bill of Rights tries to protect the citizen from, what is the point of having a Bill of Rights?

As for Supreme Court justices being unelected, that has been true since the Constitution was created. That was done deliberately, so that they could render their judgments without fear of political repercussions. If unelected Supreme Court justices are to automatically defer to elected officials, that again raises the question of why they are there at all.

Why are the taxpayers paying their salaries and housing them in an expensive marble building -- just so that they can go along to get along?

It would be hard to become nostalgic about Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign in disgrace. But at least you could tell when he was lying. Obama's lies are just as big but not as visible, and the media that exposed Nixon is covering for Obama.

Quote:
Hi Lydia,

You posted 2 different videos with Gen. Ivashov. In the first one he said this:

Quote:
Leonid Ivashov: "These maneuvers and training will demonstrate Russia's readiness to use military power to defend its national interests and to bolster its political position. The maneuvers will show that Russia does not want any military operations to be waged against Iran or Syria.

and this:

Quote:

"A strike against Syria or Iran is an indirect strike against Russia and its interests. Russia would lose important positions and allies in the Arab world. Therefore, by defending Syria, Russia is defending its own interests.

Add that to your second post with the translated text he said:

Quote:
In the event of an attack on Iran, other countries also participate.China has warned of a willingness to go to war in the event of an attack on Iran

So my statement that both Russia and China might defend Iran if attacked is correct.

Quote:

I'm not sure why you wrote this:

Quote:
What forget?
Who did liberated people from concentration camps in Germany in 1945?

it has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was referring to the wars with Russia's neighbors (previously part of the USSR ) for geopolitical reasons and or for oil or a combination of both.

Quote:

There were a few wars of this nature with many casualties. I wasn't referring to the WWII period or to the millions of Russians that were killed by the Stalin regime.

Quote:


You asked for a source but didn't specify for what. In the quoted text it could have been for my comment about the rigged elections or that Russia assisted the Iranians in their nuclear effort.

Quote:


For rigged elections see here and you can pick and choose which one you like best.

Quote:


For aiding the Iranian nuclear effort there are many here choose your favorite. The below text is a part of a Wikipedia article on Russian aid to the Iranian nuclear effort:

Quote:

1990–2002

From the beginning of 1990s, Russia formed a joint research organization with Iran called Persepolis which provided Iran with Russian nuclear experts, and technical information. Five Russian institutions, including the Russian Federal Space Agency helped Tehran to improve its missiles. The exchange of technical information with Iran was personally approved by the SVR director Trubnikov.[64] President Boris Yeltsin had a "two track policy" offering commercial nuclear technology to Iran and discussing the issues with Washington.[65]

In 1990, Iran began to look outwards towards new partners for its nuclear program; however, due to a radically different political climate and punitive U.S. economic sanctions, few candidates existed.

In 1991, an agreement was found for the French-Iranian disagreement since 1979 (see Post Revolution, 1979–1989): France refunded more than 1.6 billion dollars. Iran remained shareholder of Eurodif via Sofidif, a Franco-Iranian consortium shareholder to 25% of Eurodif. However, Iran refrained from asking for the produced uranium.[66][67]

In 1992, following media allegations about undeclared nuclear activities in Iran, Iran invited IAEA inspectors to the country and permitted those inspectors to visit all the sites and facilities they asked to see. Director General Blix reported that all activities observed were consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy.[68][69] The IAEA visits included undeclared facilities and Iran's nascent uranium mining project at Saghand. In the same year, Argentine officials disclosed that their country had canceled a sale to Iran of civilian nuclear equipment worth $18 million, under US pressure.[70]

In 1995, Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the partially complete Bushehr plant,[71] installing into the existing Bushehr I building a 915 MWe VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor, with completion expected in 2009. There are no current plans to complete the Bushehr II reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

BTW, the Bushehr reactor was completed not long ago.

In addition as you'll see from the google page there were many Russian scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program.

Quote:


Shalom,

Peter

P.S. Lydia, Why did you post the same post twice?

Quote:

Quote:
Hi Peter!

Quote:
Hi Lydia,

It's a bit better after the edit but there are still parts that are hard to understand.

This American so called geopolitical doctrine the "National Security Strategy" might exist in the US but on the same hand might very well exist in Russia and China. I would like to know the source of this information cos it's written as facts without sourcing it.

National Security Strategy of USA:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf
National Security Strategy of Russia:
http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/99.html

Quote:

This article combined with your previous post simply indicates to me that Russia and China both are committed to Iran and in the case of Russia to Syria as well.

Sorry my bad English. Ivashov said, in the case of an attack on Iran, China could intervene, and Russia might suffer from the war in the neighboring country:
>In the event of an attack on Iran, other countries also participate.
China has warned of a willingness to go to war in the event of an attack on Iran.
The conflict could lead to World War III, it is possible that the war would be nuclear.
Iran will have the right to defend themselves, using all means at its disposal.
And the aggressor strikes against targets in a foreign country, not only possible but necessary.
The Iranians know that to stop the aggression can only be a great loss of people and the American public protests against the war.
Where no rockets fly so far, can be subversive action.
Effects of war on Russia and the Caspian Five consequences will be severe.
These are huge refugee flows, strengthening radical elements, the reduction of economic cooperation.
Gen. Ivashov assesses the possibility of war between 50 and 50.
He believes that the Obama administration and U.S. military does not want war.
The military are already tired of the war. Obama is afraid that this adventure would prevent his election.

But there are powerful financial interests who want to make money on this war, there are Republicans and neocons who insist on this beat, there is a pro-Israeli circles in the U.S. who advocate an immediate hit.
And something can happen that will make a decision about the beginning of the aggression.
This can be either some kind of provocation, or, for example, a terrorist act, which accuse Iran, or right-wing supporters of the war could trigger a fast attack on Israel, or a fifth column in Iran could cause the closure of the Strait.
These provocation excuse to unleash the U.S. war against Iran.

Quote:

This article also states that not only Russia will consider an attack on Iran as if she was attacked but China warned she might defend Iran too.

Quote:

I think I get the basic gist of this article even though much is still not clear. I can assure you of one thing only. Israel is not concerned with the "unipolar world" or any other name you might call it. She's concerned only with the safety and security of the Israeli people and the Israeli nation. All else is speculation and no more then that. A Nuclear Iran endangers Israel. This might not be of importance to others but it is to us. B Hussein and his regime is doing all it can to sabotage Israel's ability to defend herself and I have a feeling will no longer be privy to sensitive and secret information. At least as long as B Hussein is in the WH it can't be trusted in my opinion and proof of that are all the "leaks".

Lydia, if the author didn't source his claims it can't be considered facts but opinions only and as such you can take it or leave it. Change the name to Russia instead of the USA and everything in regard to what you called a "unipolar world" would fit her like a well worn shoe or a glove if you wish. We're all old enough to remember recent history of the last century and also to understand that certain things didn't change with the fall of the USSR.

You know it's become very popular to attack the US lately and the 2 articles you posted do just that (and Israel of course, but that's a given :) ). It seems that people tend to forget to look in their own back yards.

What forget?
Who did liberated people from concentration camps in Germany in 1945?

Quote:

The recent elections in Russia left many very unhappy Russians who think the elections were rigged. Till now people are protesting or trying to protest and being arrested or detained simply for showing up to protest (see below article). The fighting with neighboring countries over the past years etc. It seems so easy to criticize others but not take stock of ones own actions. I find it hard to understand for instance Russia's protection of Syria and Assad who is systematically killing his own people. The same goes with Iran and we all know Russia assisted Iran with its nuclear facilities.

Sourse?

Quote:



Your security and safety might not be threatened by a nuclear Iran (at least not yet but with that lunatic regime it can change with a blink of an eye) but Israel is and most assuredly has the right to defend herself against this threat.

Shalom,

Peter

Russia shuts Red Square, detains dozens of activists

It was April 1st

By REUTERS

LAST UPDATED: 04/01/2012 18:37

MOSCOW - Russian authorities closed Moscow's Red Square on Sunday and detained dozens of people trying to hold a silent anti-government protest there, prompting opposition charges that they were denying Russians their right to free assembly.

Several hundred people responded to calls on the Internet to gather in Red Square outside the Kremlin wearing white ribbons or clothing as a symbol of protest, but found the iron gates to the sprawling square closed.

Police detained four people heading for the square from a nearby subway station, and later picked people out of the crowd at the gates and pushed them into buses. A police spokesman said about 55 people had been detained near Red Square "for attempting to hold an unsanctioned demonstration."

Opposition leaders say the government violates Russians' constitutional right to free assembly by requiring permission from local authorities for street demonstrations. Police often disperse unsanctioned rallies and detain protesters.

"There are no freedoms, no rights, and Putin is always being shown on all the TV channels," said Inna Bachina, 48, director of a metal products wholesaler, standing outside the Red Square gates with her daughter. "I do not consider Putin my president."

Quote:
Hi Peter, I edited translation, I hope it will be more clearly.

Threat or thought out plan of a military strike on Iran

The nuclear issue of Iran is not the main reason that Western European countries and the U.S. is preparing to strike.

America has a geopolitical doctrine called "National Security Strategy."
This doctrine defines the goal for all U.S. agencies, nongovernmental organizations and, of course, for the armed forces.
This goal - a "unipolar world" led by the United States.

Achieving the "unipolar world" is described in details.

Installation of American dominance requires access to key regions of the world, strategic communications and global resources.

Iran has one of the key areas of the world.

In the event of an attack on Iran, other countries also participate.
China has warned of a willingness to go to war in the event of an attack on Iran.
The conflict could lead to World War III, it is possible that the war would be nuclear.
Iran will have the right to defend themselves, using all means at its disposal.
And the aggressor strikes against targets in a foreign country, not only possible but necessary.
The Iranians know that to stop the aggression can only be a great loss of people and the American public protests against the war.
Where no rockets fly so far, can be subversive action.
Effects of war on Russia and the Caspian Five consequences will be severe.
This is a huge refugee flows, strengthening radical elements, the reduction of economic cooperation.
Gen. Ivashov assesses the possibility of war between 50 and 50.
He believes that the Obama administration and U.S. military does not want war.
The military are already tired of the war. Obama is afraid that this adventure would prevent his election.

But there are powerful financial interests who want to make money on this war, there are Republicans and neocons who insist on this beat, there is a pro-Israeli circles in the U.S. who advocate an immediate hit.
And something can happen that will make a decision about the beginning of the aggression.
This can be either some kind of provocation, or, for example, a terrorist act, which accuse Iran, or right-wing supporters of the war could trigger a fast attack on Israel, or a fifth column in Iran could cause the closure of the Strait.
These provocation excuse to unleash the U.S. war against Iran.

Chairman - Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of International Journalism, MGIMO, Colonel-General.

He was born August 31, 1943 in Kyrgyzstan. He graduated from the Tashkent Higher Military Command School named after VI Lenin Military Academy named after MV Frunze. Since 1976, he served in the central office of the Ministry of Defense, served as Secretary of the Council of CIS Defense Ministers, was chief of the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation of the Ministry of Defense. He was awarded orders and medals of the Soviet Union, Russia and foreign countries. Passion for life - Poetry.

Quote:
Hi Lydia,

Many times the source for an article gives an option for other languages and then the translation is an accurate one.

This translation aside from being trans literal also lacks the flow of the arguments in it. I found he whole read difficult and the usage of words that are incomprehensible to me like

Quote:
pripishut

.

So, in order to correctly understand and respond a much better translation would be appreciated.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Hi again Peter!
Sorry for not very good translation.
I wrote speech in Russian and translated using http://translate.google.com
It was deep night, and I didn't edit translation.
If You are interesting, I'll try to do more accurate translation.
Or to state it more simple sentences.
What parts of speech are unclear there?
Frendly, Lydia

Quote:
Hi Lydia,

I read through the transcript of the video but the trans literal translation is not a very good one and the meaning is unclear in many parts.

I'd appreciate an accurate translation if you can find one.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Hi Peter!

Threat or thought out plan of a military attack on Iran

The nuclear issue of Iran is not the main reason that the West and the U.S. is preparing to strike.
The American geopolitical doctrine called "national security strategy," defined by the target system for all U.S. agencies, non-governmental organizations, and of course for the armed forces. This target setting - unipolar world led by the United States.
In the "U.S. national security strategy" in the 21st century is described in detail an implementation of the unipolar world. It is written that the installation of American dominance requires monitoring (secure access) for key areas of the world, strategic communications and global resources.
Iran meets all these requirements.
In the event of an attack on Iran's leading powers will not go away.
About ready to go to war in the event of an attack on Iran has already warned in China.
Conflict can result in a third world war, and it is possible that it will be nuclear.
If there is a war waged against Iran, he will have the right to defend themselves using all means at its disposal.
And the aggressor strikes against targets on foreign soil are not only possible but mandatory.
The Iranians know that to stop the aggression can only be a great loss of people to the American public opposed the war.
Where no rockets fly so far, there may sabotage actions.
For Russia and the Caspian Five consequences will be severe.
This is a huge refugee flows, strengthening radical elements, reduction of economic cooperation.
Gen. Ivashov assesses the possibility of war 50 to 50.
He believes that the Obama administration and U.S. military
do not want war. The military is already tired of war, and Obama is afraid that this adventure will prevent his election.
But there are powerful financial circles, who want to earn on this war, there is a Republican neocons who insist on this beat, there is a pro-Israeli circles in the U.S. who advocate an immediate hit.
But this can happen that will make a decision on aggression. This is a provocation, or that pripishut Iran, for example, a terrorist act, the right-wing supporters of the outbreak of war could trigger rapid whether attacks on Israel, or whether there is a terrorist attack, or a fifth column in Iran could trigger such as closing the Strait and it would be a provocation and the United States an excuse to unleash the war.


Chairman - Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of International Journalism, MGIMO, Colonel-General.

He was born August 31, 1943 in Kyrgyzstan. He graduated from the Tashkent Higher Military Command School named after VI Lenin Military Academy named after MV Frunze. Since 1976, he served in the central office of the Ministry of Defense, served as Secretary of the Council of CIS Defense Ministers, was chief of the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation of the Ministry of Defense. He was awarded orders and medals of the Soviet Union, Russia and foreign countries. Passion for life - Poetry.