Sohel Ajani
From the day, the Ottoman Empire collapsed after the World War I, things are not so good in the Middle East region. Creation of countries based on tribes & families was general rule for British.

Things never stopped over here. Immediately after the end of World War II, creation of Zionist state (Israel) on the Arab soil of Palestine was the biggest crime the west has ever done. As a result, millions migrated from their mother land, scores killed including kids, women & elders.

This was followed by the era of Cold war for the supremacy over the world. Soviet Russia’s invasion on most of the Muslim region and American plan to defeat its archrival through various evil strategies includes creation of Taliban & several terrorist organizations across the globe. Although, things were seems to be haphazard, but the situation was in control of The USA.

Coincidently, President Jimmy Carter visited Iran in 1978 and called Iran as “an island of stability” in his speech. It seems that the title was not liked much by the masses of Iran. Late in the year and early 1979 the deposed Shah of Iran flew into exile on his private jet, while the Ayatollah Khomeini returned from expatriation to lead the country. Suddenly, the Island of Stability changed to ‘Axis of Evil‘ for The USA.

After this, series of incidents followed in the Middle East region which aimed to destabilize the newly created government of Islamic Republic by Ayatollah Khomeini. The imposition of 8 years Iran ? Iraq war in which super powers of the world openly supported the Saddam Hussein Regime followed by extreme round of sanctions on Islamic Republic purely aims at weakening of the Islamic regime.

The war is on between The US & The Islamic Republic from the day one of the Islamic Revolution and US is making every effort to dismantle the regime through any means, legal or illegal. Hence they supported the terrorist organization, Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) (Although its black listed in US, but they supported it), invaded Iraq & Afghanistan to surround Islamic Republic, played the game of regime change in Pakistan from civilian to military and again back to civilian leaded by American puppets.

Currently, they are making scenario of Nuclear weapons to attack Iran. The question over here now is; will US attack Iran?

Let us analyze the scenario in Middle East in case The US attacks Iran. We first have to find the friends and foes of Iran in that region. The first and foremost open enemy of Iran is the Zionist regime of Israel while on the other hand open friends are the Lebanese resistance movement of Hezbollah, Palestinian resistance movement of Hamas and regime of Bashar Al-Assad of Syria. The friendship of Assad and Iran is majorly based on invasion of Israel on Golan Heights. In any case of attack on Iran, any of these three groups will attack Israel which is close ally of The US in Middle East.

Hence the first step of The US administration right now is to overthrow all these groups / governments and impose puppet regimes in these places. For Syria, there is full-fledge movement against Assad. The recent sanction from the Arab League against Syria is clear indication of pro-American stand. After Assad, US might plan to impose extremist regime which is Anti-Iran / Anti-Shia in nature in Syria. The current inclination of protestors shows the sign of Anti-Shia move. Similarly, Israel might attack Gaza to remove Hamas through any excuse. They have to design some other strategy to wipe out existence of Hezbollah, which is not in view currently.

Before elimination of these three forces surrounding Israel, US will not be in a position to plan regime change in Iran.

   By: Michael Tomasky
It was a rare confessional moment for Barack Obama. At a Miami fundraiser in mid-June, the president acknowledged that it’s “not as cool” as it was in 2008 to support him. It isn’t just a matter of fewer hip posters and viral videos. It’s a matter of votes. Rekindling the enthusiasm of African-Americans, educated white liberals, Latinos, young people, and union members–the Democratic Party’s most loyal and progressive members–will be a huge challenge. After all, you can only elect the first African-American president once, and the past two and a half years have deeply disappointed many liberals. “I know a lot of the kids who worked hard in 2008,” says Hodding Carter III, adviser to the last one-term Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) and now a professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. “They walk around like cattle who’ve been hit with stun guns between their eyes. This isn’t how it was supposed to be.”

Obama and his people have heard this sort of thing so often that they no longer bother to take umbrage. When I asked chief Obama reelection guru David Axelrod about this sense of disillusionment, he patiently ticked off a list of accomplishments: health-care reform, repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” financial regulatory reform, the drawdown from Iraq, student-loan reform. “Did we keep faith with the things that the president said he would do when he ran?” asks Axelrod. “There is a long list of things he said he’d do that we in fact did.”

It’s a solid inventory. But it’s countered by the undeniable reality that the country hasn’t noticeably moved in a more liberal direction (quite the opposite), and by the widely held perception among progressives that Obama will never wage fierce battle on behalf of liberal ideals. When I interviewed Justin Ruben, the executive director of MoveOn.org, whose 5 million members (many in swing states) must be revved up and mobilized if the president is to be reelected, he gave me four or five variants of the line “People need to feel like the president and the Democrats are really going to fight for their side.”

   President Obama arrives in Miami on June 13.

Unfortunately, making tough, partisan economic arguments has never been the president’s strong suit. “Since the beginning of his candidacy in 2007, Barack has struggled to put together a sustained, winning economic argument,” said Simon Rosenberg of NDN, a Washington-based think tank.

“With ‘Morning in America’ not really a viable option for 2012, he is going to have to draw brighter lines with the GOP, and particularly do much more to discredit their failed and reckless economic approach.”

The base vote can still emerge in large numbers, but the dominant factor this time won’t be hope and change. Instead, the factors will be fear of the other side, state and local political conditions (think of how motivated Democrats are to regain control of their politics in Wisconsin), and demographic changes that are still redounding to the Democrats’ benefit. And because we elect presidents by states, the place to assess Obama’s prospects is on the ground.

Wake County, N.C.; Arapahoe County, Colo.; Franklin County, Ohio–these are representative base Democratic counties. They are in swing states, which means the president will need a big vote in these places to offset a presumed high conservative turnout in other parts of these states. And they are counties that have only recently become solidly Democratic, because of demographic changes. “Obama’s majorities in these counties are not secure,” says Ruy Teixeira, coauthor of the 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority, which predicted the bluing of states like then-red Colorado. “He needs a full-bore mobilization effort in these counties to get his supporters out and develop the margins he needs to carry swing states like Ohio, Colorado, and North Carolina.”

Wake County is home to Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina. Bush won it by 7 points in 2000 and then, in a sign that demographics were changing, by just 2 points in 2004 against the Yankee John Kerry. But in 2008 Obama blew it open–a 15-point win, 57-42, and a turnout 80,000 votes higher than in ’04. Since then? Very different story. In 2009 voters installed an aggressive conservative majority on the school board, and in 2010 Republicans took a congressional seat and swept most state and county offices (the GOP won back both statehouses last year).

I don’t know a single expert who thinks Obama has a great shot at winning the Tarheel State again. But he wants it badly enough to hold the Democratic convention in Charlotte (Mecklenburg will be another county to watch). Mack Paul, the attorney who chairs the Wake County Democratic Party, believes that population growth has brought in more Democrats since 2008, and he insists, “I hear more anger directed at Democrats who don’t support the president.” His GOP counterpart, Sue Bryant, ventures that her party’s candidate might just carry Wake, but “even if we come within 5 points here, that’s the election in North Carolina.”

In Arapahoe County, outside Denver, Democrats only recently came to outnumber Republicans in voter enrollment. But the trend lines are clear: whereas Bush beat Kerry 51-47 in 2004, Obama romped McCain by 56-43 in 2008, when turnout was about 15 percent higher than four years earlier.

In the last decade, the Latino population of Arapahoe County has more than doubled, to 105,249. If the Democratic Party can register and mobilize this key Obama constituency–Latinos gave him 67 percent of their votes nationally last time–the president would likely carry Arapahoe by a far larger margin than he did in ’08. But Olivia Mendoza, executive director of the nonpartisan Colorado Latino Forum, says the community’s temperature about Obama is awfully lukewarm. “This is very anecdotal,” Mendoza ventures, “but overall, in my experience? General dissatisfaction.”

Todd Mata, the county Democratic chairman, acknowledges that “a lot of people are a little disillusioned, rightly or wrongly,” with Obama, but he says that on the ground, the party structure is working much more closely than last time with Organizing for America (OFA), the Obama get-out-the-vote vehicle. Obama might benefit here from a local GOP that “doesn’t have it together,” according to Scott Adler, political-science professor at the University of Colorado. When I spoke with Joy Hoffman, the county Republican chairwoman, she did acknowledge she’s herding cats, between the more traditional Republicans and no fewer than “15 or 16 distinct Tea Party groupings in the county.” But, she insisted, the state GOP is picking up the pieces from its 2010 debacle, when its gubernatorial candidate got just 11 percent of the vote.

And then there’s Ohio. Big numbers in Franklin County–home to the state capital of Columbus, Ohio’s largest city–are crucial to Democratic hopes. Again, the trend is evident: Al Gore won the county 49-48 in 2000, when 414,000 votes were cast. Kerry won it 53-45, with 517,000 total votes. Obama: a 59-40 blowout on the strength of 575,000 total votes.

It’s pretty difficult to imagine another nearly 20-point win. But Greg Schultz, the county’s Democratic chairman and the state director for OFA, says an on-the-ground network exists today in a way it didn’t even in 2008. “There’s a structure that remains in place today that is self-organizing,” he boasts, even in Republican-leaning parts of the county like Westerville.

Another factor that might motivate Democrats in Franklin, and across Ohio: the unpopular Republican governor, John Kasich. He won a narrow victory over Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland in 2010, when base Republican voters turned out and their Democratic counterparts did not. Now Kasich and his public-employee-union-bashing bill (S.B. 5) are targets of rage. “If the Democrats are smart,” says Herb Asher of the Ohio State University, “here and in Wisconsin they’ll have a very simple theme: Elections have consequences. Look at what happened in your states.”

That’ll be about the strongest argument Obama can make to base voters: it could, and will, be a lot worse if you don’t vote for me. That’s true, and fear is usually a pretty good motivator in politics. But it still isn’t what people were hoping for, and it seems inevitable that some percentage of the most loyal Democrats will stay home. In these three counties and others like them, that percentage will be the difference between reelection and retirement.

Playlist: Road To 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections [ 194 Clips ]

Playlist: Road To 2012 — Barack Obama Re-Election Campaign [ 43 Clips ]

A few days ago Fox’s original nincompoop Bill O’Reilly — with a straight face (as expected) challenged Professor Marc Lamont Hill to provide evidence of racism in the Tea Party. Lamont promised to provide and to discuss the evidence next week.

Professor — there is plenty, but will this colossal bigot allow you to air any to his imbecilic viewers?

HERE IS PROOF: [ Tea-Bagger Videos ] [ Tea-Bagger Pictures ] [ + Remember To Read The Articles Linked on those Two Pages ]

————————————————————————

O’Reilly’s wrong, Carter’s right: Fox features race-baiting, birtherism, and religious smears: Bill O’Reilly attacked comments from former President Jimmy Carter about Fox News’ race baiting and its role in promoting falsehoods about President Obama’s citizenship and religion. But Carter was right: birtherism, race baiting attacks on Obama, and lies about his religion have all found a home on Fox News. [ READ MORE ]

Right-wing media attempt to erase “bigoted statements” from the tea party movement — [ READ MORE ]

References:

1. The Great ‘Tea-Party’ Fear: Pollution of The White ‘Stock’ — The Strange Sexual Obsessions Driving the Tea Party Movement: The great white fear of interracial “pollution” has found its most acute expression with Obama as president. He is the offspring of not simply an interracial relationship, but an international coupling as well. He is the child of 21st century globalization, the symbolic representation of a hope for a world without borders, without race prejudice, without white privilege. — [ READ MORE ]

2. America Just Can’t Deal With Reality Any More

3. The Real ‘Un-Americans’ and Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Summa Idiotica’

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

BBC: The US Secret Service says it is investigating after an effigy of Barack Obama was found hanging in the home town of former President Jimmy Carter.

TV footage showed the doll hanging by a noose in front of a red, white and blue sign that reads “Plains, Georgia. Home of Jimmy Carter, our 39th President“.

Witnesses said the effigy had President Obama’s name on it.

Plains Mayor L.E. Godwin III said the fire department had been called to take it down.

In Washington, US Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan confirmed that the agency was investigating the case.

One Plains resident said the Secret Service had already interviewed local people.

“We wish it hadn’t happened. It’s not the kind of publicity the town of Plains likes,” Jan Williams, who runs a hotel, was quoted as saying by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

She described Plains, which has a population of fewer than 700 people, as a “nice, quiet town“.

   Here is what some Americans [REPUBLICANS] would love to do to their president!

   [ MORE LYNCHING PICTURES ] [ IMAGES OF REPUBLICAN TERRORISM IN AMERICA ]

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

 By: Allison Kilkenny
President Obama has long suggested that he would like to move beyond race. The question now is whether the country will let him.

He woke up one Wednesday to a rapidly intensifying debate about how his race factors into the broader discussion of civility in politics, a question prompted in part by former President Jimmy Carter’s assertion the previous day that racism was behind a Republican lawmaker’s outburst against Mr. Obama as the president addressed a joint session of Congress. — via Political Memo – As Race Debate Grows, Obama Steers Clear of It – NYTimes.com.

There is a prevalent misconception that racism is a self-contained problem. The myth goes like this: unless a hooded clansman is burning a cross on an African American family’s lawn, the United States is not dealing with traditional racism. Our country has transcended race, since the election of President Obama, this myth says. Furthermore, race is only a relevant factor when something overtly hostile happens to our leader, who happens to be black (not that any of us notice, since we have transcended the problem of racism). The myth leaves no room for discussions of institutionalized racism, or the acceptance that race and racism are always in the room with us, and not just when President Obama delivers nuanced, thoughtful speeches about them.

Aside from the obvious targets of a Joe Wilson or Rush Limbaugh, the problem of racism infests every facet of the American experience, including the ongoing health care debate, though few politicians and journalists seem to realize racism is bigger than a few of Glenn Beck’s disciples shouting something about Obama being Kenyan. "Race issue lingers over health care debate," an AP headline declares, but what it fails to mention is that the health care debate is also a race debate, and the racism issue does not belong exclusively to the province of zaftig, paranoid white Conservatives, flawed reasoning that comforts many liberals.

Another Reuters headline reads, "Healthcare, anger, and race," presenting the three nouns as if they are separate, autonomous entities. Such compartmentalization seems to suggest we can only talk about one issue (healthcare, anger, or race) at a time. We’re either chatting about Obama’s plans for health care reform, or we’re snickering about those crazy birthers, but we’re never talking about the same thing. However, in reality, the broken healthcare system and anger are subsidiaries of racism, and the three share a deeply interconnected relationship.

According to a study by researchers at Dartmouth, race and place of residence have a huge impact on the kind of medical treatment a patient receives. For example, blacks with diabetes or vascular disease are nearly five times more likely than whites to have a leg amputated. The widest racial gaps in mammogram rates within a state were in California and Illinois with a difference of 12 percentage points between the white rate and the black rate. The country’s lowest rate for blacks — 48 percent in California — was 24 percentage points below the highest rate — 72 percent in Massachusetts. In all but two states, black diabetics were less likely than whites to receive annual hemoglobin testing. But blacks in Colorado (66 percent) were far less likely to be screened than those in Massachusetts (88 percent).

Statistics released by Advocates for Children and Youth, an independent statewide nonprofit organization, show that the infant mortality rate is 8 deaths per 1,000 births in Maryland, with African American babies dying at a 2.5 times higher rate than white babies. African Americans’ life expectancy is six years shorter than whites at birth, two years shorter at age 65, and numerous studies document the relatively poor health and health outcomes of African Americans, reflecting a long history of economic deprivation and barriers to health care.

Race has infrequently been addressed in this fashion possibly because it removes racism from the territory of crazy, right-wing protesters and delivers the blame to larger institutions like the private health care industry, and the United States government at large. It’s one thing to make fun of Rush Limbaugh’s ignorance, it’s another thing to ask multi-billion dollar industries to change their racist practices, or accuse the entire government of being rotten at the foundation. Such accusations would earn a dissenter the title of "race-baiter," or one who "plays the race card." These kinds of platitudes are usually euphemisms for "You’re making me uncomfortable. Don’t rile up the black folk. Shut up."

As much as white Americans hate to admit it, we are always talking about race, even when we’re not poking fun at Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Race and racism will play a huge roll in the health care reform debate, and not just when Joe Wilson is the topic of discussion. Rep. Donna Edwards has said that proposed legislation overhauling health care would likely address racial disparities in education and health among children. Let’s hope so. At least then the discussion of race and racism may reap some productive rewards instead of more empty chatter about Joe Wilson’s motives.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-