Friday, November 14, 2008

Antichrist's Astrological Chart

I am re-posting this, originally posted in March 2008.
It's worth a second look:
Barak "He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named" Obama's Astrological Chart

Here is the astrological chart for Barak Mohammed Hussein Obama:
Going by what I remember from studying astrology for a few years, this is what I see:
First thing I notice is that he is a Leo (the most charismatic, narcissistic, arrogant, egotistical, powerhungry sign of the zodiac).
And not only is he a Leo, he is a DOUBLE LEO, with the constellation Leo also ruling his First House, thereby placing his Sun in his First House - which also rules the ego and how you wish the world to perceive you - and how you subsequently are percieved.
This man is 100% ego. It has to be pathological with him because the intense grouping of five astrological players in the sign governing his house of ego and identity. If he ever does not get his way, he will not take it lightly. He already sees himself as King.
With the Moon on the cusp of Taurus and Gemini he is duplicitous, manipulating and vengeful - and stubborn, unmoving and never forgets an insult or grudge. He can change demeanor in an instant, and does so often. Perhaps most in privacy, as he is also secretive and guarded.
I see his Descendent is flanked by two extremely powerful planets: Jupiter and Saturn. Each of these planets inherently work against eachother in astrology. Jupiter is expansive, life affirming while Saturn is restrictive and oppressive. This is most interesting to me because I see that the Sixth and Seventh Houses are involved here. The Sixth House is work, plain and simple, which is where his Saturn is placed. The Seventh House is personal relationships in general, partners of all kinds. It is also governed by the powers attributed to Libra, which are justice, society.
What I see here is that he will be able to wear the generous mask of Jupiter in dealing with relationships, society and the people around him, while he is actually doing the work of Saturn - which is not good. Saturn is brutal, restrictive, remorseless, a very stern father - a slave driver.
I see here someone who is dangerous with power over others. What I see here is someone who can become a dictator of the people that would trust him.
Mars is the planet of war, and masculine forces and is seen here in the Second House, which governs your immediate environment, the material world around that surrounds you and your possessions. You might say that the First House is a window to the world where you see and are seen, and the Second House is a door, where you actually come out and interact with the real world. He may very well feel himself the Ultimate Warrior in this world... and this placement trines (aids, strenghtens, protects) Saturn in the Sixth House, and you remember how rough that looks.
I see here someone who can see his place in the real world (Second House) is to fight (Mars), destroy and then rebuild (Pluto) the world he sees around him to his own institutionalized specifications(Saturn).
Pluto is also here in Virgo, Second House. He's stingy with money, practical, pragmatic and will most likely assure his own house's financial security before anything else (and I bet he hides some money too), and this placement would also fall in line with his drug dealing. You see, the Second House, where his Pluto is, rules money and income along with material possessions, and Pluto rules the black markets, organized crime, underworlds and the like - oh, and CULTS too. Pluto also sybolizes death, as well as death and rebirth... another catch phrase for his "real change" rhetoric.
Venus in Cancer is a soft placing of this planet. Women will not be a problem for him. He is not a threat to them, he's more like one of them. Perhaps that points to his embracing of his feminine side - another hint of his bisexuality, perhaps. And in this sector of the chart sharing the spotlight with a female partner would not be difficult, although being number two DEFINATELY would.
But by now you all know how I feel about the guy anyway . I say he's an antichrist. I see nothing in his chart to convince me otherwise.

- jillosophy

Celente Predicts Revolution, Food Riots, Tax Rebellions By 2012
The man who predicted the 1987 stock market crash and the fall of the Soviet Union is now forecasting revolution in America, food riots and tax rebellions - all within four years, while cautioning that putting food on the table will be a more pressing concern than buying Christmas gifts by 2012...

Antichrist’s Coup To Destroy Capitalism and Force Socialism

Antichrist’s Coup To Destroy Capitalism and Force Socialism By Using The Cloward Piven Strategy


The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse."How's this? I think I posted something on this even before the Obomunists took over but it never hurts to refresh the memory.

What is the Cloward Piven Strategy?

... Go to this link and scroll down to first reply:

"Something of Historic Proportion is Happening"

Thursday, November 13, 2008
A reader comment over at Dollard's place nails it. Plain and simple .... and true. This is what I see. I wish I had written it. (hat tip mg)
I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about)–the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more imporant.)
Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change.
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.
This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
And that is only the beginning.
And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media–did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.
(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)
Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.
Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years–a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency–it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.
Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe–and why I believe it.
I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The Antichrist Has Taken Power

I will not accept nor claim the Antichrist as my president. I will not be his citizen.
And I will never get my country back.

I am sick. Sickened. Ill.
I cannot eat.

The future is so very dark.

There will NEVER be another free and fair election in this country again.
Why should there be? Do you honestly think they will EVER let that happen? Why whould they?

I will not be blogging or posting for a while. Maybe days, maybe weeks. I have no idea. All I know is that I am losing it now and have to find a way to come to terms with this new world. I need to breathe again.
Here is my final offering to pass on to you. It pretty much says it all:

I need to stop and ponder the coming four years, as that is how long we have. And until then, things will continually deteriorate. Spiralling downward, sucked in by evil and swallowed deep.

I need to decide on how best to spend my time left. How to keep from going crazy amidst the coming turmoil and likely civil war... and the imminent and eventual next act of jihad. And the many more - thousands in fact - violent islamic acts that will undoubtedly follow. And all the whining! God the whining! ... and those petty, nauseatingly pathetic soft jihad assaults on our sense of logic, decency and justice. Three things they inherently know nothing about.

And it will be happening everywhere. That's E-V-E-R-Y-W-H-E-R-E. To everyone - all around the world. There is nowhere to go anymore.

I expect I will crave living life to the fullest, with not a thing to lose anymore. Carefree, fearless, indulgent... But the world will not be safe for me any more. And freedom, sanctuary, peace of mind and even a little luxury (like being able to afford to heat my apartment) could be something hard to achieve. And it will be that way for the rest of my life. It's going to get ugly.

It is quite probable that I will not watch the news for quite some time to come. I don't wish to witness who will be trapsing through the White House. I can't even begin to imagine...

So now, what does my life really mean to me - now that the end is near and life will never be the same again? That is what I am considering for the time being.
That and how to keep my sanity.

And what now to live for? Seriously.

Take stock.

The End Times are here.

Yours truly in spirit,

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

An African Pastor’s Uncomfortable Warning to America

By J. Lee Grady
November 4, 2008
Rev. Mbijiwe Mwenda, a former Kenya Air Force officer, is the Founder and President of Resurrection Glory Ministries International (RGMI) and the Senior Pastor of the Glory Cathedral Church (GCC) based in Nairobi, Kenya.
By J. Lee GradyMbijiwe Mwenda says we are being naive to ignore Barack Obama’s ties to a dangerous Kenyan politician.
Mbijiwe Mwenda is a voice crying in the wilderness—from the other side of the world.The Kenyan pastor, founder of Glory Cathedral Church in Nairobi, does not have a voice on CNN or Fox News. But he has been warning Christians during a recent visit to the United States that more is at stake in the 2008 election than anyone supposed.
“Many Americans do not seem to realize the price that has been paid for your freedom,” Mwenda says. “I am afraid we are about to lose the America we have known in the past—the America that has been a hope for the world.”
Mwenda’s main concern: That Democratic presidential challenger Barack Obama has a cozy relationship with Raila Odinga, an avowed Marxist politician who now serves as Kenya’s prime minister. Obama, who made taxpayer-funded visits to Kenya in 2004, 2005 and 2006, campaigned for Odinga in 2006.
During public appearances in Kenya, Odinga introduced Obama as his cousin. But later a family member denied that claim, saying that Odinga and Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., simply came from the same village. Both Obama Sr. and Odinga are from the Luo tribe, Kenya’s third largest.
When Odinga ran for president of Kenya last year and lost by a slim margin, tribal violence erupted amid claims of voter fraud. About 1,500 people died (many were killed in machete attacks), hundreds of churches were burned and 600,000 villagers were displaced. The international community had to broker a peace deal, allowing Odinga to serve as prime minister while his opponent, Mwai Kibaki, was named president.
Today, Odinga hopes that Obama will win the White House on Nov. 4 to boost support for his bid to become president of Kenya in 2012.
Pastor Mwenda says he is amazed that Americans don’t seem concerned that Obama is tied to Odinga. He rattled off a list of facts that Charisma has verified:· Odinga was trained in communist ideology in Europe and holds Marxist views. “He even named his son Fidel Castro,” Mwenda says.· He has obvious ties to Muslim interests and even received funding for his presidential campaign from Libya. Although he officially claims to be an Anglican, Mwenda says, “[Odinga] has been very sympathetic to Muslims and some say he is a Muslim secretly.”· Odinga fits in nicely with Arab leaders’ plans for Africa. When they convened in Nigeria in 2001, they released a statement indicating that Kenya is to play a key role in spreading Islam throughout southern Africa. Says Mwenda: “Odinga is a dangerous man. A dictator.”
Odinga has promised to enact Sharia law in “Muslim declared regions” of Kenya—meaning that pork would be outlawed, women could not drive and crimes would be punished according to Islamic tradition.
So why did Obama campaign for Odinga? Independent journalists around the world have been asking that question since 2006. Paula Abeles of African Press International wrote in August: “Clearly Obama campaigned for someone who is corrupt, ruthless and has financial ties to terrorists. …
Senator Obama’s actions—intentional or not—were in direct conflict with the efforts and interests of U.S. national security.”
Many Kenyans are proud that a son of Kenya has a shot at the White House. But Kenya’s evangelical Christians are less enthusiastic. Like Mwenda, many of them are also troubled that Obama’s paternal grandmother has publicly stated that she sacrifices chickens and pours libations daily when praying for Obama to win the election. “She has been doing this since the [Democratic] primaries,” Mwenda says.
“Something is about to go wrong in your country,” Mwenda warned me.
I know many people who read my column will assume I am only writing it to boost John McCain’s chances at the polls next week. Some of my critics have also assumed that I must have racist tendencies if I am not voting for Barack Obama.
They can assume what they want, but the truth is that I have made eight trips to Africa in the last seven years and it is my second home. I will return there in early 2009. If my situation allowed it I would move there permanently—I love the people, the culture and what the Holy Spirit is doing all over that beautiful continent.
This week I did my own informal poll of African church leaders in Nigeria and Kenya. What I found was that none of them support Obama. Like many American Christians, they are staunchly pro-life, they defend traditional marriage and they certainly do not support politicians who don’t take the threat of militant Islam seriously.
They have seen enough torched churches and amputated arms to know better. They have seen Christian children thrown into the bottom of wells to die. They have seen Shariah law cast a dark pall over whole regions. They have watched as Middle Eastern governments pour millions of dollars into their local economies to build mosques and infrastructure and to buy votes.
I asked Pastor Mwenda how American Christians should pray in light of this sobering information. He told me: “I am praying that Obama does not win the White House. It is never too late for God. We can turn the tide. We need to pray: ‘Our Father, Who art in heaven, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’ We must not allow anything in this nation that is not in His will.”
J. Lee Grady is editor of Charisma. Many people responded to his column last week, and to the column by Kimberly Daniels that he attached to his message.
For more information about the Rev. Mbijiwe Mwenda, or to get his new book, America, Fear No Evil, go to

Sharia Finance - Infidels Financing Their Own Murder

Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The U.S. Treasury Department is submitting to Shariah -
the seditious religio-political-legal code authoritative Islam seeks to impose worldwide under a global theocracy.As reported in this space last week, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt set the stage with his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. His stated purpose was to promote the recycling of petrodollars in the form of foreign investment here.Evidently, the price demanded by his hosts is that the U.S. government get with the Islamist financial program. While in Riyadh, Mr. Kimmitt announced: "The U.S. government is currently studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis.""Islamic banking" is a euphemism for a practice better known as "Shariah-Compliant Finance (SFC)." And it turns out that this week the Treasury will be taking officials from various federal agencies literally to school on SFC.The department is hosting a half-day course entitled "Islamic Finance 101" on Thursday at its headquarters building. Treasury's self-described "seminar for the policy community" is co-sponsored with the leading academic promoters of Shariah and SCF in the United States: Harvard University Law School's Project on Islamic Finance. At the very least, the U.S. government evidently hopes to emulate Harvard's success in securing immense amounts of Wahhabi money in exchange for conforming to the Islamists' agenda. Like Harvard, Treasury seems utterly disinterested in what Shariah actually is, and portends.Unfortunately, such submission - the literal meaning of "Islam" - is not likely to remain confined long to the Treasury or its sister agencies. Thanks to the extraordinary authority conferred on Treasury since September, backed by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the department is now in a position to impose its embrace of Shariah on the U.S. financial sector. The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Treasury's purchase of - at last count - 17 banks and the ability to provide, or withhold, funds from its new slush-fund can translate into unprecedented coercive power.Concerns in this regard are only heightened by the prominent role Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari will be playing in "Islamic Finance 101." Mr. Kashkari, the official charged with administering the TARP fund, will provide welcoming remarks to participants. Presumably, in the process, he will convey the enthusiasm about Shariah-Compliant Finance that appears to be the current party line at Treasury.As this enthusiasm for SCF ramps up in Washington officialdom, it is worth recalling a lesson from "across the pond." Earlier this year, the head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, provoked a brief but intense firestorm of controversy with his declaration that it was "unavoidable" that Shariah would be practiced in Britain. Largely unremarked was the reason he gave for such an ominous forecast: The U.K. had already accommodated itself to Shariah-Compliant Finance.This statement provides an important insight for the incumbent U.S. administration and whomever succeeds it: Shariah-Compliant Finance serves as a leading edge of the spear for those seeking to insinuate Shariah into Western societies.Regrettably, SCF is not the only instrument of the stealth jihad by which Shariah-promoting Islamists are seeking to achieve "parallel societies" here and elsewhere in the West. The British experience is instructive on this score, too. Her Majesty's government has allowed the establishment of at least five Shariah courts to hear (initially) family law cases. Polygamists in the U.K. can get welfare for each of their wives (as long as all the marriages beyond the first were performed overseas).Thus far, we in this country may not have reached the point where evidence of this sort of creeping Shariah is so manifest. But Treasury's accommodation to SCF demonstrates that we are on the same trajectory - the one ordained and demanded by the promoters of Shariah, one to which we serially accommodate ourselves at our extreme peril.The most dangerous thing about Sharia Finance is that it dictates the giving of Zakat; donation to Islamic Charity.
From Wikiepedia:
Zakāh "alms for the poor" (Arabic: زكاة‎ IPA: [zækæːh] is the Islamic principle of giving a percentage of one's income to charity. It is often compared to the system of tithing and alms but unlike these older systems, it serves principally as the welfare contribution to poor and deprived people in the Muslim lands, although others may have a rightful share.
It is the duty of the state not just to collect it; but to distribute it fairly as well.
Zakat is one of the Five Pillars of Islam.It is an obligation on Muslims to pay 1/40th (2.5%) of the wealth which they have had for a full lunar year, 2.5% of goods used for trade, and 5% or 10% of certain type of harvests depending on irrigation. Exempt from Zakat are a person's house and personal transportation.
The reality is the prohibition against the paying of interest in Islamic Finance is not real. In Islamic Finance, the bank buys the home, and you pay them rent on it for a pre-determined number of years, at which point, the home is yours. Over the years, the bank makes money by charging you more rent (in total) on the home than if you had bought the home outright with cash.
There is no fundamental distinction between that and our system of finance, wherein the bank buys the home for you and you pay the principle pluspre-determined interest.
So, if there is no difference between Islamic Finance and our system of Finance in that way, then why is it that Muslims want us to "submit" to Sharia-compliant finance? In my opinion, the primary reason is, precisely, that the institution of Zakat, which, as Wikipedia makes clear, is Islamic taxation.
Follow the money. So goes the wise dictum.
The Muslim world wants America to pay taxes to Islamic Charities. And, let us be clear, Islamic Charities are known to finance the Jihad. And, of course, that would be the Jihad against Infidels like you and me.
They want us to pay for them to kill us. Do you understand?
By the way, I ran an article on the subject of Sharia Finance by Ilana Friedman yesterday. Today, I am running this article from Frank Gaffney. Both Friedman and Gaffney are known to be brilliant students of the problems we face with the Jihad.
Yet, neither dealwith Zakat, which is the primary affront we face with regard to Islamic Finance.
The purpose of Sharia-compliant finance is to get Infidels to pay for their own murder. If our best minds do not understand, or are not clear about this fact, then we are in trouble.
By the way, let us take note of one other thing here. Zakat is, in its stated essence, Socialism. Indeed, many Islamist parties in the Muslim world are Socialist.
As Wikipedia states, Zakat is, "the welfare contribution to poor and deprived people in the Muslim lands," and, "It is the duty of the state not just to collect it; but to distribute it fairly as well."
That fits very well with Barack Obama's plans for America, doesn't it? Whether he means for his economic policy to be Sharia-compliant or not, the temptation would be there for him to make agreements with Muslim countries, to do what he has already states he intends to do, and to call it Islamic Finance.
After all, what could it hurt, as long as no one is pointing out the dangers of Zakat being diverted to Jihad?

Is the Antichrist the Shiite "promised warrior" assist to the Hidden Imam?

Obama and Ahmadinejad
Amir Taheri 10.26.08, 1:33 PM ET
Is Barack Obama the "promised warrior" coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?
The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.
According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet's cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a "tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West." Commanding "the strongest army on earth," the new ruler in the West will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us."
In a curious coincidence Obama's first and second names--Barack Hussein--mean "the blessing of Hussein" in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means "he is with us," the magic formula in Majlisi's tradition.
Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama's rise as another sign of the West's decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama's promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama's position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions. Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a "systematic violator of human rights."
Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is "a state sponsor of terrorism." Instead, he uses the term "violent groups" to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations.
Obama's election would boost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chances of winning a second term next June. Ahmadinejad's entourage claim that his "steadfastness in resisting the American Great Satan" was a factor in helping Obama defeat "hardliners" such as Hillary Clinton and, later, it hopes, John McCain.
"President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson," says Hassan Abbasi, a "strategic adviser" to the Iranian president. "This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran's power." The Iranian leader's entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan "Yes, We Can" from Ahmadinejad's "We Can," used four years ago.A number of Khomeinist officials have indicated their preference for Obama over McCain, who is regarded as an "enemy of Islam." A Foreign Ministry spokesman says Iran does not wish to dictate the choice of the Americans but finds Obama "a better choice for everyone." Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran's ersatz parliament, has gone further by saying the Islamic Republic "prefers to see Barack Obama in the White House" next year.
Tehran's penchant for Obama, reflected in the official media, increased when the Illinois senator chose Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Biden was an early supporter of the Khomeinist revolution in 1978-1979 and, for the past 30 years, has been a consistent advocate of recognizing the Islamic Republic as a regional power. He has close ties with Khomeinist lobbyists in the U.S. and has always voted against sanctions on Iran.
Ahmadinejad has described the U.S. as a "sunset" (ofuli) power as opposed to Islam, which he says is a "sunrise" (toluee) power. Last summer, he inaugurated an international conference called World Without America--attended by anti-Americans from all over the world, including the U.S.
Seen from Tehran, Obama's election would demoralize the U.S. armed forces by casting doubt on their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not actually transforming them into defeat. American retreat from the Middle East under Obama would enable the Islamic Republic to pursue hegemony of the region. Tehran is especially interested in dominating Iraq, thus consolidating a new position that extends its power to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon.
During the World Without America conference, several speakers speculated that Obama would show "understanding of Muslim grievances" with regard to Palestine. Ahmadinejad hopes to persuade a future President Obama to adopt the "Iranian solution for Palestine," which aims at creating a single state in which Jews would quickly become a minority.
Judging by anecdotal evidence and the buzz among Iranian bloggers, while the ruling Khomeinists favor Obama, the mass of Iranians regard (and dislike) the Democrat candidate as an appeaser of the mullahs. Iran, along with Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where the United States remains popular. An Obama presidency, perceived as friendly to the oppressive regime in Tehran, may change that.
Amir Taheri is the author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam. His new book The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution will be published by Encounter Books in November.