In Washington the conservatives get the rhetoric and the liberals get the action.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

Sometimes it seems that as far as politics goes, nothing changes. I have been politically aware since the mid-1960s and in those seemingly ancient days when wars were more often cold than hot, my country was still the most powerful in the world and we had peace at home. Sort of, anyway. The biggest scandal then was the liberal policies of the State Department dictating to our Armed Forces on how to fight the Communist forces in Vietnam. And apologizing to our allies when we accidentally shot up one of their ships supplying aid to our enemy. That was so long ago that back then we still had good relations with most of the Arab countries and no one ever heard of a Mosque being built in one of our neighborhoods. But the pot was always simmering on the back burner of the stove. I know because I worked for Pan American World Airways for 30 years and we used to fly to every one of those countries that now hate us today. Pan Am was so widely known around the world that we were often looked upon as being the American flag representative of our country and our government. We were the favorite target of the radical Islamic movement back then and several of our aircraft were hijacked and blown up. This was our reward for pioneering air routes into the Middle East and elsewhere. But this is not about Pan Am, it is about politics, and about selling out our government. Pan Am died because of mismanagement, and so is our once great nation suffering the same fate.

Today we are reading about the multitude of scandals surrounding the Democratic Party being investigated by Congressional committees. Every day brings some new rhetoric to the headlines and seemingly nothing happens beyond the talk, talk and more talk. I am reminded of the wisdom spoken in years past when the news media used to tell the truth and the most famous quote that comes to mind is: “In Washington the conservatives get the rhetoric and the liberals get the action.” Back in the 1950’s we used to have a House Committee on Un-American Activities. The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. It was created in 1938 to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having Communist ties. We learned about a State Department employee named Alger Hiss who was a Communist spy and who was also the first Acting Secretary General of the United Nations during the establishment conference in San Francisco in 1945. Wikipedia has this:

Alger Hiss (November 11, 1904 – November 15, 1996) was an American lawyer, government official, author, and lecturer. He was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and U.N. official. Hiss was accused of being a Soviet spy in 1948 and convicted of perjury in connection with this charge in 1950.

On August 3, 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party member, testified under subpoena before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) that Hiss had secretly been a Communist while in federal service. Chambers had previously testified under oath that Hiss had never been a Communist or a spy, and Chambers would admit, under oath, to other instances where he had committed perjury under oath. Called before HUAC, Hiss categorically denied the charge. When Chambers repeated his claim on nationwide radio, Hiss filed a defamation lawsuit against him.

During the pretrial discovery process, Chambers produced new evidence indicating that he and Hiss had been involved in espionage, which both men had previously denied under oath to HUAC. A federal grand jury indicted Hiss on two counts of perjury; Chambers admitted to the same offense but, as a cooperating government witness, was never charged. Although Hiss’s indictment stemmed from the alleged espionage, he could not be tried for that crime because the statute of limitations had expired. After a mistrial due to a hung jury, Hiss was tried a second time. In January 1950, he was found guilty on both counts of perjury and received two concurrent five-year sentences, of which he eventually served three and a half years.

Hiss was secretary-general of the San Francisco United Nations Conference on International Organization (the United Nations Charter Conference), which began on April 25

Two generations ago, we put Soviet spies in prison and a few more in the electric chair. Today, the primary influence on the Democratic Party comes from the left-wing group called the Democratic Socialists of America. Barack Hussein Obama even boasts of a longtime childhood mentor, Frank Marshal Davis, who was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, and the most powerful advisers in The White House are David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, both known to have parents who were members of the Communist Party.

Today, in Washington, the conservatives get the rhetoric and the liberals get the action. And the mainstream news media, supposed to be the protectors of our free speech and bastion of our freedom of the press are virtually all members of the Democratic Party and appear more like a state-run Ministry of Information and white-washer of all things uncomplimentary to the Democratic leadership. Even while the latest scandal in our nation’s capitol involved the wire-tapping of phones from the Associated Press by the Dept. of Justice, and the subpoena of emails from a Fox News reporter – both obvious attacks on our First Amendment, the news media is taking a much less than concerned approach to covering the story.

Today, our sworn enemy, as we have been reminded by countless clerics around the world, is the radical teachings of Islam that has prompted so many disastrous attacks on our country. And our response was to have elected an occupant to The White House who was himself once and may still be a Muslim. And who has surrounded himself with radical members of The Muslim Brotherhood. And we have now purged all of our government training manuals of all mention about Islam. And the mainstream news media remains quiet. And the Dept. of Homeland Security identifies conservatives who support the Second Amendment as potential terrorists but does not see any terrorist motivation when a Muslim in the U.S. Army who identified himself as a Soldier of Allah murders a room full of unarmed soldiers while yelling Allahu Akbar, the Muslim proclamation that Allah is Great. Or that the Dept. of Defense claims that Christians in our military may be against our government and can be Court Marshaled for preaching their faith.

Today, we have learned of another scandal in Washington wherein officials working for the Internal Revenue Service have been targeting conservative groups because they oppose the corruption in Washington. There is nothing strange about this scandal, it is an act of revenge similar to the Stalin purges of the 1950’s but without the bloodshed. Matter of fact, it was reported that Barack Hussein Obama’s Senior White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett, the same Red Diaper Baby mentioned above, and the most influential person in Washington supposedly told her staff: “After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.” But the Republicans who control the House of Representatives are merely concentrating their attention on low and mid-level IRS officials not the policy makers in The White House who set the marching orders. They are certainly getting a lot of the rhetoric making speeches about who is going to jail and such but they seem to be more interested in making this into some political advantage in the next elections rather than actually charging anyone with perjury. This certainly isn’t like it used to be in the 1950’s. Guess the only way to impeach a president is to catch him lying about sex in the Oval Office. Committing Treason is too nasty to even think about in our Politically Correct times.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.


Musician Recovers From Heavy Metal And Launches “Healing America”

Jeffrey Gilliam, a musician based in San Rafael, CA launched “Healing America”: A Patriotic DVD Dedicated To Veterans. The idea, if funding is completed through rockethub.com, will come to fruition after a long recovery from mercury toxicity.

With a new appreciation for life and the desire to help others, Jeffrey was strongly inspired to create a DVD with patriotic images and songs put to his own arrangement. The whole intention behind it is to help war veterans in their healing process.

The DVD is only the beginning of a much bigger vision. Mr. Gilliam wants to provide training and a platform for veterans to tell their personal story in a powerful and positive way. He has been working with storytelling coaches and instructors that are very well experienced in that field. This would give veterans top notch training to present their stories in a much more professional and interesting way. They all have amazing personal stories that can directly inspire and help others to overcome adversity in their own lives.

Mostly due to a large amalgam filling from 2008, Jeffrey developed many severe symptoms from mercury poisoning. There was fatigue, depression, digestive disorders, fuzzy thinking, prostatitis and worst of all, muscle weakness. At one his lowest points, his legs were getting weaker and it was getting harder to walk. He was fighting for his life and his health. Jeffrey used a mercury free dentist to remove all metal fillings and a holistic detox strategy with herbs, and a specific diet involving foods that pull the toxic metals out of your body.

He also began using meditation as a very effective tool for pain relief, peace of mind and even inspiration. It turns out that this project was created out of doing the meditation practice. One of the aspects of the practice is to notice coincidences in your life then take action when you see the meaning behind them. After many coincidences around veterans, patriotic music, Washington D.C. and more, Jeffrey knew he was meant to create this healing oriented DVD for veterans.

Now that he is “mercury free”, Jeffrey is gratefully looking forward to this project that could help veterans in their own healing. To see the video and get more information visit http://www.rockethub.com/projects/26269-healing-america-dvd.


Trevor Loudon’s Fall 2013 U.S. Book Tour

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

I will be touring the U.S. from August to November in 2013, then at least twice again in 2014, with my new book “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress.”


My first confirmed engagement is the August 20 official book launch at the National Press Club Washington, D.C., with Cliff Kincaid’s America’s Survival organization.

Depending on a book availability, I may also address some events in Hawaii, California and Colorado before that date. TBC.

I addressed more than 150 events, in 30 states in 2011/12, so my schedule for this trip is already filling up fast. I will be be in the Washington, D.C./Maryland/Virginia areas from August 19 to around August 25, before traveling, probably through South Carolina to Florida.

I will be attending the Right Online bloggers conference in Orlando over the weekend of August 29/31, then touring Florida until September 11.

From there, the plan is to visit Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Arizona and California.

If you’d like me to address your audience in the above mentioned states, or adjacent areas, or express interest in the 2014 tours, please contact my agent Regina Thompson at Email me.

If you’re a U.S. resident and would like to be one of the very first people on the planet to own a copy of my new book, you may pre-order through the button below.

Trevor Loudon

Trevor Loudon

New Zealander, Trevor Loudon, Editor of Trevorloudon.com and Keywiki.org, and the author of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, will tour his new book, The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress, across America this Fall.

Trevor’s work has been featured in numerous books and articles, thousands of blog posts and many interviews.

Trevor was responsible for exposing Barack Obama‘s childhood mentor, the Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, and for exposing Van Jones, Obama’s communist “Green Jobs Czar,” who was then forced to leave the White House.


“Obama’s Sword and Shield”

New Zeal

From The American Spectator

By Paul Kengor & Ion Mihai Pacepa

Our president has a deaf ear, no thanks to the KGB.

Lubyanka, KGB HQ, Moscow

Lubyanka, KGB HQ, Moscow

Call us crazy anti-communists. Tell us we’re conspiracy-minded. Insist that maybe we’ve spent too much time living and studying the Cold War. Either way, this is our business, and we can’t help but notice such things.

In watching President Obama speak on terrorism last week, we were taken aback to hear him say that America needs an anti-terrorism program that is both our sword and our shield. This was a striking choice of words by an American president. Remember the emblem of the KGB? Maybe you don’t, but we do. One of us (Pacepa) spent over two decades working for the KGB community as one of the highest ranking intelligence/military/political officials in the entire Soviet Bloc, and paid with two death sentences for his freedom. The emblem of the KGB was a sword and a shield symbolizing its duties: to put the country’s enemies to the sword, and to shield and protect the communist revolution.

When we initially heard President Obama’s remarks, we thought we might have heard wrong, and so we waited for the written text of his speech. Here is the prepared text, as published in the Wall Street Journal after the speech:

“Our victory against terrorism won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield.

To repeat: the sword and the shield is well known as the KGB’s emblem. To give just one example, many readers of this site are familiar with the classic work on the KGB archives, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB.

To be sure, this could be simply an eye-opening coincidence by our president. If so, forgive us for drawing a connection or even countenancing the mere thought. For the record, we can claim that it’s no more than a coincidence. It is a general statement. But it is also the KGB’s emblem. A Google search on “sword and shield” quickly yields a Wikipedia entry, which correctly lists the KGB emblem among its main references.

Unfortunately, we’ve become sadly conditioned — by President Obama himself — to notice these often-bizarre coincidences. This was a man who spent his first term engaging in the most strident class-warfare rhetoric we’ve ever heard from an American president. He demonized profits, corporations, Wall Street, corporate executives and fat-cats, the wealthy, millionaires and billionaires, big oil, big banks, bitter-clingers, while touting wealth redistribution, government stimulus, government management, government centralization, and on and on. Much of this was standard Socialist rhetoric. And then, for his 2012 reelection slogan, the president and his handlers chose the communist world’s old socialist battle cry: “Forward!”

So, pardon us for being a little sensitive to these phrases.

About the Author

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

About the Author

Ion Mihai Pacepa (Lt. Gen., R) is the highest intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. His book Red Horizons has been republished in 27 languages. His new book, Disinformation, co-authored with Prof. Ronald Rychlak, will be published by WND Books in June 2013.




Arlene from Israel

Ah that I were a mind reader. But, alas, I am not. So I garner as much information as I can, and rely on my analysis and my intuition. Sometimes that’s not enough.

Last time I wrote, I alluded to a statement by Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud), who had criticized Peres’ eagerness for that “two state solution” and his fawning over Abbas. Peres doesn’t speak for the government, he said, and, “every declaration of this sort, certainly on the eve of negotiations, does not help Israel’s stance.”

I caught that “on the eve of negotiations,” and pointed it out with some unease, but with no certainty about what he was saying.


Yesterday, Steinitz had something else to say. “The government’s position is very clear, and I support it: We do support two states for two peoples…” he told Times of Israel.”

Oh, I see.

He even added that, “We are ready to make painful concessions on two conditions: that there will be peace and security.” That’s in spite of the fact, which he conceded, that there are many members of the coalition who are solidly opposed to a “two state solution.”



There are those who will see this as a caving of the Netanyahu government — a sign of some dangerous things to come. And perhaps they are right.

But I am seeing it differently, and far more tentatively.

First — and this is purely my own speculation — I can see Netanyahu having told Steinitz that, after saying that Peres didn’t speak for the government, he would have to make a statement that was on behalf of the government. After all, Peres was in there, tight with Kerry, and embracing Abbas — which made the US and the international community more broadly very happy. It wouldn’t pay to be too negative and let the world think that Israel was not on board.

So, Steinitz made his statement, which made headlines.


Is Steinitz really ready to see us make “painful concessions” for the right deal? Does this genuinely represent what Netanyahu wants to see? That’s what I don’t know.

But I would like to share Steinitz’s full statement, which sheds more than a little light on his position:

“Genuine peace would entail a ‘real recognition’ of Israel as a Jewish state and the end of all claims and incitement against Israel…Israel’s security requirements include a ‘total demilitarization’ of a future Palestinian state. Jerusalem would have the right to supervise and control that arrangement in order to be able to prevent arms smuggling or ‘any other negative security developments in the West Bank.'”


I don’t know how we define “real” recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as versus “fake” recognition, but it’s moot, for Abbas won’t recognize Israel as the Jewish state in any terms.

End of claims is standard as a criterion for the peace agreement. But the end of all incitement? I believe this is a new stipulation. We’re talking about a PA that still teaches its students about jihad and honors terrorists (who, not incidentally, would love to see Israel leave Judea and Samaria so that they might operate more freely).

As to “total demilitarization” (which is not possible, really) we all know that the PLO is not going to go for this. And then with the further stipulation (which I believe is also new) that the Israeli government supervise and control the arrangements to prevent “negative security developments.” In Steinitz’s dreams, maybe. Nowhere else. Were Israel to “supervise and control,” the PLO would not have a sovereign state.

So, he says he’s for a state for the Palestinian Arabs — he’s “on board.” But then insists upon parameters that he knows full well would NEVER be accepted.

This might be called game-playing, and in a way it is. But I think it’s more. I think he’s saying that in an ideal world he would be for two states, and he doesn’t want to appear negative in this regard. But because he doesn’t trust these guys as far as he can throw them, the stipulations he outlines are essential for Israel’s security.

My gut tells me that this is probably Netanyahu’s real position.

It’s a far cry from Peres’ nauseating “you are our partner and we are yours. You share our hopes and efforts for peace.”


I must comment here on a statement made by head of the Israeli negotiating team Tzipi Livni — who met with Kerry in Amman earlier this week.

She wants the international community and the Europeans in particular, to pressure Abbas to come to the table.

“It’s the only way to have negotiations,” she declared at a conference sponsored by The Israel Project. “[Abbas] needs to know that the Europeans, and the world, they want him to sit in the negotiating room.”


Is Livni so obtuse that she doesn’t realize that if Abbas must be forced to “sit in the negotiating room” it means he doesn’t want to be there, and thus, will never constructively and sincerely negotiate “peace”?

It certainly appears that “negotiations” have become an end in themselves.


Rumors about a proposal for negotiations to be advanced by Kerry abound. And I will pass over much of what is being said because it is without verification or documentation. The PLO’s Saeb Erekat declared recently that Kerry was about to announce a “plan.” Maybe. But that’s Erekat talking and not a spokesperson for the US State Department.

David Ignatius of the Washington Post says that Kerry is “seeking agreement on basic parameters – the borders for a Palestinian state and an understanding about Israel’s security requirements – that would allow negotiations to begin in earnest.”


This is unmitigated nonsense — simply a sample of what passes for analytic writing but is nothing of the sort. An agreement on borders BEFORE negotiations have begun? Understand that “borders” encompasses, in addition to the question of retention of communities past the Green line, the issue of Jerusalem: united, or eastern Jerusalem as the Arab capital. What Kerry wants, of course, but will not get, is Israeli agreement to use the ’67 line, with adjustments, as the basis for negotiations.


According to Ignatius, Kerry is also “reanimating” the Arab League “Peace Initiative,” Heaven help us. If Kerry thinks Netanyahu is going to go for this, he’s got his head in the stratosphere. (Never mind: even if Kerry doesn’t think Netanyahu will go for this, he has his head in the stratosphere.)

This is Ignatius’s logic:

“The bottom line for Israel is that rather than just a two-state solution, it would get a 22-state solution (the Arab League members) and even a 57-state solution (if you add in the additional Muslim countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).”

Wow! All Israel would have to do for this is return to the dangerous and unjust pre-’67 lines and allow “refugees” to return. In other words, commit suicide. And I’m aghast that he imagines the OIC would also go along with this deal.


But take a look at what Guy Bechor says about this (emphasis added):

“Who does the Arab League represent? Only the regimes of the Sunni countries, or what’s left of them. The Shiite countries – Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon – no longer cooperate with this League. So Israel makes peace with the Sunnis; but what about the others? We must keep in mind that the territory the IDF will withdraw from will be seized immediately by armed Salafis from all across the Arab world – as was the case in Sinai and Syria. Who will come to Israel’s aid when it is attacked? The fighters of the ‘peace-loving’ Arab League?

“Moreover, according to the League’s regulations, any amendment to the Arab initiative requires a vote among the heads of the Arab states, or, at the very least, their foreign ministers. But this will never happen, as no Arab leader will ever vote in favor of any such change. This initiative has always been nothing more than a diplomatic whim, and the Arab street will never accept it. Indeed, the Arab media hardly reported on this ‘amendment’ to the initiative, because it is virtual.

Note: I’ve been saying there has been no amendment, even though I keep seeing commentators, including Ignatius, who talk as if there has been. Bechor sets it straight.

See his entire informative piece:


Credit: idc


I highly recommend this article, “More Peace, Less Process,” by Ben Cohen (emphasis added):

“U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has already visited the Middle East four times since President Barack Obama named him to the post back in February. Perhaps anticipating the large number of yawns that such a statistic is likely to produce, Kerry directly addressed, during his latest jaunt, the growing number of peace process skeptics on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.

“‘There have been bitter years of disappointment. It is our hope that by being methodical, careful, patient, but detailed and tenacious, we can lay out a path ahead that can conceivably surprise people…’

“However much Kerry would like us to believe that there are routes to peace that haven’t yet been explored, there is a dreary sense of deja vu about his words. Every day, it seems, an American politician declares that time is running out…

“…it’s now 2013, and there is no State of Palestine, only a Palestinian Authority (PA) that shuns direct negotiations in favor of a unilateralist strategy…Moreover, the Palestinians are openly distrustful of U.S. efforts. ‘I’m hesitant to say we are seeing a miraculous transformation in American policy and its blind strategic alliance with Israel,’ said the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi upon Kerry’s arrival, conveniently regurgitating the widespread myth in the Arab world that American Middle East policy is determined solely by Israeli imperatives.

“Nor has Palestinian rhetoric changed for the better. The eliminationist desires of the Palestinian leadership—and I’m not talking here about Hamas, but about our ostensible peace partner, the PA—remain as ingrained as ever…

“The traditional approach of American and western negotiators has been to play down this kind of rhetoric as ideological baggage that will disappear once meaningful progress has been made. Time and again, this patronizing, even racist, manner, which treats Arab politicians as tantrum-prone children who say things they don’t really mean, has been proved wrong by events. And yet, the template for peace negotiations has barely been modified during the last 20 years.

“Which is why negotiators at the State Department would be wise to consult an important new paper published by two Israeli academics, Joel Fishman and Kobi Michael, in the academic journal, the Jewish Political Studies Review. Introducing the notion of a ‘positive peace,’ Fishman and Michael warn against efforts to create a Palestinian state without worrying about its governance and internal political culture…

“Positive peace, the authors assert, is not just the about the absence of war, nor about elevating the right of national self-determination above all other considerations. ‘The real problem,’ they write, ‘is that, long ago, the would-be peacemakers, in their haste and fear of failure, did not frame the problem correctly. They failed to ask the right question. In order to avoid disagreement, they concentrated on process and postponed the substantive issues of content…’

“In the Israeli-Palestinian context, a positive peace entails a complete overhaul of the zero-sum attitude toward Israel that has become institutionalized in Palestinian politics. For decades, the Palestinians have regarded negotiations as simply one of several avenues in pursuing their war on Israel’s existence…

“Fishman and Michael cite the pioneering Israeli scholar Yehoshafat Harkabi’s observation that in Arab discourse, the idea of peace with justice is equivalent to the vision of a Middle East without Israel. And in marked contrast to American worries that time is running out, they point out that as far as the Palestinians are concerned, we’ve got all the time in the world…

“Though they don’t say it explicitly, there is a strong sense in the paper that negotiations that are not preceded by meaningful, internal political reform in the Palestinian entity will share the miserable fate of the Oslo Agreement. And if that’s correct, then the ‘path that could conceivably surprise people,’ as John Kerry put it, begins not with discussions about settlements, water rights or the size of the Palestinian security forces, but with what the Palestinians themselves believe about the world around them—and whether they are capable of change.”


Credit: stljewishlight


You might also like to see a piece — “Memo to Kerry: It’s not the economy, stupid” — by David Horovitz, which explains the fallacies behind Kerry’s $4 billion initiative, which is supposed to come from private business persons but is exceedingly unlikely to appear.



In my last posting, I wrote, “the Russians expected that Israel would refrain from further attacks inside Israel on armaments bound for Hezbollah..” I believe for almost all of my readers it was clear that I meant attacks inside of Syria, but I do appreciate it when an eagle-eyed reader picks up the error. And so I note it here.

The Syrian situation is deteriorating further and I hope I’ll get to that next posting.