Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Should Do All Liberals a Favor and Retire Now

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Ruth Bader Ginsburg Should Do All Liberals a Favor and Retire Now

Monday, November 11, 2013

Sarah Palin’s Talk About Federal Debt Slavery Drives Liberals Crazy


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 11, 2013


Sarah Palin makes sense and liberal Democrats hate it.


Palin compares the national debt to slavery. “Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China,” she said in Iowa on Saturday. “When that money comes due… it’ll be like slavery when that note is due. We are going to beholden to the foreign master.”


For the libs at Salon, the online magazine that has squandered $ 83.6 million since its inception, Palin’s comment about servitude harks back to the Old South, plantations, whip crackers and slavery.


“Once again, Sarah Palin appears confused about United States history. In a speech at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition’s fall fundraiser over the weekend, the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate likened the federal debt to slavery,” Jenny Kutner leads off.


Democrats invariably liken any criticism of Obama, Democrats in Congress, socialism and the policies of the federal government to racism. It’s really the only weapon they have when faced with reality.


“Ultimately, debt is slavery,” Ron Paul wrote back in 2004. “Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders. So when you hear a politician saying America will do whatever it takes to fight terrorism or rebuild Iraq or end poverty or provide health care for all, what they really mean is they are willing to sink America even deeper into debt.”


But then Salon thinks Ron Paul is a racist. It’s the only ammo they have against him. He’s a racist so his economic critique should be dismissed out of hand.


It is not clear how those who defend socking their grand children into debt can simply dismiss this immense problem. If we take the art of statistics away from the government and the banksters at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, we discover that the national debt is around 17 trillion dollars. Unless this astronomical debt is excused, it will have to be paid back.


Earlier this year, San Diego economics professor James Hamilton said he “believes the government is miscalculating what it owes by leaving out certain unfunded liabilities that include government loan guarantees, deposit insurance, and actions taken by the Federal Reserve as well as the cost of other government trust funds,” Fox News reported in August. He pegged the national debt close to $ 70 trillion.


Put aside the debt slavery that will be imposed on future generations. Our problems are more immediate. But you don’t hear the liberals at Salon talking about it. Most of them believe we are on the road to recovery.


“The earthquake will come via a collapse in the market for U.S. government bonds as domestic and foreign investors realize that the only way Uncle Sam can meet his future spending obligations is to print massive quantities of money,” Boston economists Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns warned in 2008. “The result will be sky-high inflation and interest rates and, most surely, a prolonged reduction in output and employment. This could happen today. It could happen tomorrow. But it will happen here just as it has happened in every other country that tried to spend far beyond its ability to pay.”


This article was posted: Monday, November 11, 2013 at 12:27 pm


Tags: ,









Infowars



Sarah Palin’s Talk About Federal Debt Slavery Drives Liberals Crazy

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Government Shutdown 2013: One Liberal"s Advice to the Tea Party


In an attempt to find some talking points for the 2016 presidential campaign by shutting down the federal government, a few congressional Republicans instead found themselves shutting down the hopes of the Republican Party. They put the world economy at risk without any reasonable explanation. Instead of achieving a single goal they left the Republican Party, and their own chances of success, seriously scathed.


And now the Tea Party, lost in delusion, has concluded that moderate Republicans caused the shutdown defeat and that they must be eradicated. Already, conservative political action committees with money are seeking to dethrone Republican leaders, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Senate minority leader who once proclaimed that the Republicans’ single most important goal was to stop President Obama’s reelection. Apparently, by allowing the federal government to continue functioning, he broke ranks. Now he must go.


As a liberal, it’s hard to know how to feel when we see this kind of insurrection within the Republican Party. Republicans were steadfastly loyal to the party through the 2000s. Now, finally, we’ve seen signs of courage from pro-business conservatives who feel that the Republican Party best represents their political philosophies but recognizes how dangerous the Tea Party is to sound policy.


Admittedly, there’s some schadenfreude. Frankly, the Republican Party has been unforgivably hostile towards Democrats and the Obama administration, which for the most part has operated as a very moderate political party on many issues, including but not limited to budget cuts, social policy, and even Obamacare itself.


In order to appease voting blocs inspired largely by racism, illogical mantras, and Fox News talking points, Republicans hoping to retain their congressional seats have embraced bigotry and ignorance as a means of fending off other conservatives in primary races. Many of these congressional races have become races to the right, as each candidate tries to convince voters that she hates Obama more instinctually and thoroughly than the next candidate.


So, to put it bluntly, liberals were just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Eventually, we knew moderates and people who lean conservative would have a moment of reflection and realize they were alienated by a party disinterested in conservatism and instead obsessed with political opportunism and appeasing the ignorant, even at the expense of the world’s financial stability.


As for the potential consequences for the Democratic Party, deep pockets may increasingly turn to the Democrats to ensure market stabilization. After the Tea Party brought Wall Street and Big Business near the abyss, major financial institutions and corporations will look to prioritize the health of the world economy over philosophical differences in regulatory policy. The Democratic Party will become the clear choice and the lesser of two evils. In turn, the Democratic Party may shift further right, embracing the opportunity to take substantial funding from its rival.


For the Republican Party, the future is very unclear. It looks to remain that way for some time. But it’s certainly in the hands of Republicans.


In case you think the Tea Party is going somewhere, it isn’t. Despite the shutdown disaster, they still have majority support from Republicans, because of their broad-based appeal to those who unconditionally despise the President and the federal government. Although they do have lots of money, they don’t need it, because they rely heavily on grassroots movements and social capital to win elections.


Over the next 12 months, the Tea Party is going to conduct a witch hunt against the “establishment” in order to intimidate any conservatives who refuse to identify as Tea Party Republicans. Whether the rest of the Republican Party chooses to deal with the problem, as opposed to run from it or surrender to it, will dictate the future of the Republican Party.


I wish the Tea Party well. So far, every effort of theirs has directly or indirectly led to success for the Democratic Party. And as long as Ted Cruz gets to be on television, he doesn’t seem to mind. But if I were a Republican, I would start expressing my concern quickly.




PolicyMic



Government Shutdown 2013: One Liberal"s Advice to the Tea Party

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Liberals Should Lose This Affirmative Action Case


(Newser) – The Supreme Court has another high-profile affirmative action case on the docket this year, and it likely won’t fare well with the court’s conservative majority. But liberals shouldn’t fret, writes Emily Bazelon at Slate, because this is actually the right decision in the march toward equal-opportunity education. “The current huge fairness problem in university admissions isn’t race-based,” she argues. “It’s class-based.” This year’s case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, is about whether states have the right to ban schools from using affirmative action policies.


Ten states have such a ban, and it is at schools in those states “where the most interesting socioeconomic alternatives are unfolding,” writes Bazelon. “The Supreme Court won’t stand in the way of those experiments. And it shouldn’t.” What the court should do, however, is encourage all states to get more poor kids into higher education, no matter their color. “That’s the fairness we need most.” Click for her full column. (For a dissenting view on how the court should decide in the upcoming case, click for a New York Times editorial.)




Politics from Newser



Liberals Should Lose This Affirmative Action Case

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Liberals Embrace Fatherless (and Motherless) Families


Kids Sc Liberals embrace fatherless (and motherless) families


With the Supreme Court giving a major boost to gay marriage, liberals face fewer impediments to their relentless push for fatherless (and motherless) families.


Of course, it wasn’t always this way. In a speech for Father’s Day 2008, Barack Obama was emphatic in championing fatherhood: “We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”


Obama added: “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives … family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.” If “we are honest with ourselves,” said Obama, “we’ll admit that … too many fathers” are missing—they are “missing from too many lives and too many homes.”


Obama summed up: “We need fathers.”


I couldn’t agree more. In fact, as a conservative, I don’t know a single conservative who would disagree with any of this—alas, a rare moment of complete agreement with Barack Obama. For that matter, I don’t know any liberals who would disagree.


So, with that being the case, why are President Obama and liberals suddenly pushing unrelentingly for fatherless families—or, more specifically, for a new form of American family that is fatherless?


The answer, of course, is gay marriage. With their sudden embrace of gay marriage (a massive shift not only within America, American culture, and human civilization, but also within the Democratic Party), liberals/progressives nationwide are—whether they realize it or not—simultaneously advocating a redefinition of family that embraces fatherless families. Think about it: married female-female parents will be households without dads.


In so doing, liberals are shattering a rare, precious consensus that they had nurtured with conservatives. There are few things that liberals and conservatives agree upon, but one of them was the crucial importance of children being raised in a home with a dad and a mom.


In his 1984 Father’s Day proclamation, President Ronald Reagan described fathers as “beacons” of “strength and well-being,” of “leadership and direction.” They give their children guidance and teach them “integrity, truth, and humility.” “Every father rises to his tallest stature as he selflessly cares for his family, his wife, and his children,” said Reagan.


Liberals from Walter Mondale and Daniel Patrick Moynihan to the pages of The New Republic and New York Times emphatically agreed with Reagan. A decade later, such sentiments were consistently reinforced by Democratic President Bill Clinton, who understood the toll delivered by fatherless homes. Groups like the National Fatherhood Initiative popped up, creating wonderful ad campaigns reminding Americans of something that societies long deemed indispensable: kids need dads. Sons need dads. Daughters need dads. Families need dads.


That principle remains unchanged. What has changed, however, is liberals’/progressives’ fierce acceptance and advancement of gay marriage. In this rapid push, they are jettisoning this national consensus on fathers, demanding a form of parenting that excludes fathers. As for those who disagree with their new paradigm, they are derided as cruel, thoughtless bigots, with no possible legitimate reason for their unenlightened position.


Actually, what today’s liberals are advocating is far more radical than that. They are pushing not only for fatherless families, but also, conversely, motherless families. Think about it: married male-male parents (the other half of gay marriage) will be households without moms.


Everyone reading my words knows that mothers are utterly irreplaceable. That’s a statement of the obvious. I’m incapable of doing what my wife does. Fathers raising kids without their mother because of divorce, death, or some other unfortunate circumstance, know what I’m talking about. Why would anyone, let alone a country or culture, want to open the door for a reconstitution of “parenthood” and “family” that, by literal definition, excludes mothers?


To be sure, we know why liberals are doing this. Again, they are doing this in the name of gay rights.


Yet, supporting gay rights, and the right of gay people not to be discriminated against, should not automatically mean supporting the literal redefinition of marriage. Why must tolerance mean the redefinition of something as ancient and stable as marriage between one man and one woman?


The original push for gay rights was about stopping discrimination. Gays should not be persecuted, denied benefits, or fired because of their sexual orientation. We all support that. But like with many other things, liberals in their zeal for whatever new “rights” are pushing too far, without pausing to carefully consider the impact. Their furious dash to redefine marriage in the name of gay rights has innumerable consequences that they have not begun to try to contemplate; that includes a new marriage/parenthood paradigm that repudiates their onetime insistence on father-based families, and even mother-based families.


Liberals always appeal to our emotions regarding children: What about the children? Well, yes, what about the children?


As Barack Obama said in 2008, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that children need fathers. Yes, if we’re honest. They need fathers, and mothers.


Editor’s note: This article first appeared at The Guardian.


Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and New York Times best-selling author of the 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.” 


Photo credit: JPott (Creative Commons)


Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.



Western Journalism



Liberals Embrace Fatherless (and Motherless) Families

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Liberals Declare IRS Political Targeting Scandal Dead


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 26, 2013


Photo: TravelingOtter



Mother Jones, the progressive magazine published by the Foundation for National Progress, a Soros funded nonprofit, hopes the discovery that not just Tea Party groups were targeted by the IRS will defuse the scandal.


“Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee have obtained a list of group names IRS staffers used when applying extra scrutiny to applications for nonprofit status,” writes Andy Kroll for the magazine. His article is titled Poof! The IRS Scandal Evaporates.


The list of words include “Medical Marijuana,” “Occupied Territory Advocacy,” “Healthcare legislation,” “Paying National Debt,” and “Green Energy Organizations.” Kroll argues that the words signify that the IRS wasn’t simply targeting Tea Party groups, but “were on the watch for groups of all political stripes,” including ostensibly liberal or so-called progressive groups.


In order to equalize the investigation and downplay the Tea Party targeting, an IRS spokeswoman said that J. Russell George, the Treasury Department inspector general, is reviewing to what extent the IRS harassed other groups.


“So is it case closed on the IRS debacle?” muses Kroll. “Not yet. The agency still needs to explain why its staffers singled out groups in this way, and how it further intends to streamline the vetting process. But is this a liberal political conspiracy? Sure doesn’t look like it.”


Kroll and Mother Jones are unable to see over the false left-right political divide. Obama, the IRS, and the totality of the federal government are controlled by a shadow government not beholden to or governed by liberal or conservative politics, as Mother Jones would have us believe. This should be painfully obvious, even to the most obtuse and brainwashed Democrat, by the fact that the political agenda under Obama has deviated little from his Republican predecessor. Obama’s social rhetoric is liberal and Democrat, but his political actions, most notably the subversion of the Constitution, are right out the authoritarian elite’s playbook.


Is it surprising that the IRS – long used as a political tool in addition to an agency of grand thievery – also targeted the Occupy movement or groups dedicated to promoting medical marijuana? Not at all. Naturally, and predictably, groups that do not follow the establishment script will be targeted for elimination.


Sheriff Mack: IRS Are White Collar Criminals



This article was posted: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 11:59 am


Tags: domestic news









Infowars



Liberals Declare IRS Political Targeting Scandal Dead

Liberals Declare IRS Political Targeting Scandal Dead


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 26, 2013


Photo: TravelingOtter



Mother Jones, the progressive magazine published by the Foundation for National Progress, a Soros funded nonprofit, hopes the discovery that not just Tea Party groups were targeted by the IRS will defuse the scandal.


“Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee have obtained a list of group names IRS staffers used when applying extra scrutiny to applications for nonprofit status,” writes Andy Kroll for the magazine. His article is titled Poof! The IRS Scandal Evaporates.


The list of words include “Medical Marijuana,” “Occupied Territory Advocacy,” “Healthcare legislation,” “Paying National Debt,” and “Green Energy Organizations.” Kroll argues that the words signify that the IRS wasn’t simply targeting Tea Party groups, but “were on the watch for groups of all political stripes,” including ostensibly liberal or so-called progressive groups.


In order to equalize the investigation and downplay the Tea Party targeting, an IRS spokeswoman said that J. Russell George, the Treasury Department inspector general, is reviewing to what extent the IRS harassed other groups.


“So is it case closed on the IRS debacle?” muses Kroll. “Not yet. The agency still needs to explain why its staffers singled out groups in this way, and how it further intends to streamline the vetting process. But is this a liberal political conspiracy? Sure doesn’t look like it.”


Kroll and Mother Jones are unable to see over the false left-right political divide. Obama, the IRS, and the totality of the federal government are controlled by a shadow government not beholden to or governed by liberal or conservative politics, as Mother Jones would have us believe. This should be painfully obvious, even to the most obtuse and brainwashed Democrat, by the fact that the political agenda under Obama has deviated little from his Republican predecessor. Obama’s social rhetoric is liberal and Democrat, but his political actions, most notably the subversion of the Constitution, are right out the authoritarian elite’s playbook.


Is it surprising that the IRS – long used as a political tool in addition to an agency of grand thievery – also targeted the Occupy movement or groups dedicated to promoting medical marijuana? Not at all. Naturally, and predictably, groups that do not follow the establishment script will be targeted for elimination.


Sheriff Mack: IRS Are White Collar Criminals



This article was posted: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 11:59 am


Tags: domestic news









Infowars



Liberals Declare IRS Political Targeting Scandal Dead

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Iran liberals ask: Snub election or take chance?








Supporters of the Iranian presidential candidate Hasan Rowhani, former Iranian nuclear negotiator, chant slogans, as they hold a banner containing pictures of Rowhani, center, former Presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, right, and Mohammad Khatami, during a street campaign, in Tehran, Iran,Wednesday, June 12, 2013. The presidential election will be held on June 14. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)





Supporters of the Iranian presidential candidate Hasan Rowhani, former Iranian nuclear negotiator, chant slogans, as they hold a banner containing pictures of Rowhani, center, former Presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, right, and Mohammad Khatami, during a street campaign, in Tehran, Iran,Wednesday, June 12, 2013. The presidential election will be held on June 14. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)





Female supporters of the Iranian presidential candidate Saeed Jalili, a nuclear negotiator, attend a campaign rally, two days prior to the election, in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, June 12, 2013. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — In the end, Iran’s presidential election may be defined by who doesn’t vote.


Arguments over whether to boycott Friday’s ballot still boiled over at coffee shops, kitchen tables and on social media among many liberal-leaning Iranians on the eve of the voting. The choice — once easy for many who turned their back in anger after years of crackdowns — has been suddenly complicated by an unexpected chance to perhaps wage a bit of payback against Iran’s rulers.


The rising fortunes of the lone relative moderate left in the race, former nuclear negotiator Hasan Rowhani, has brought something of a zig-or-zag dilemma for many Iranians who faced down security forces four years ago: Stay away from the polls in a silent protest or jump back into the mix in a system they claim has been disgraced by vote rigging.


Which way the scales tip could set the direction of the election and the fate for Rowhani, a cleric who is many degrees of mildness removed from being an opposition leader. But he is still the only fallback option for moderates in an election that once seemed preordained for a pro-establishment loyalist.


“There is a lot of interesting psychology going on. What is right? Which way to go?” said Salman Shaikh, director of The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. “This is what it means to be a reformist in Iran these days.”


It’s also partly a political stock-taking that ties together nearly all the significant themes of the election: the powers of the ruling clerics to limit the choices, the anger over years of pressures to muzzle dissent and the unwavering claims that the last election was stolen in favor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who cannot run for a third consecutive term.


Iran’s presidency is a big prize, but not a crown jewel. The president does not set major policies or have the powers to make important social or political openings. That rests with the ruling theocracy and its protectors, led by the immensely powerful Revolutionary Guard


But for liberal-leaning Iranians, upsetting the leadership’s apparent plans by electing Rowhani could open more room for reformist voices and mark a rare bit of table-turning after years of punishing reprisals for the 2009 protests, the worst domestic unrest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.


“Rowhani raises a lot of interesting questions,” said Scott Lucas, an Iranian affairs expert at Britain’s Birmingham University. “Among them, of course, is whether he gets Iranians who have rejected the system to then validate the system by voting again.”


And there are many other factors at play.


Many Iranians say they are putting ideology aside and want someone who can stabilize the sanctions-battered economy — one of the roles that does fall within the presidential portfolio. This could boost candidates such as Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, who is seen as a fiscal steady hand.


Also, the rest of the candidates approved to run by election overseers — from more than 680 hopefuls — are stacked heavily with pro-establishment figures such a hardliner Saeed Jalili, the current nuclear negotiator. Among those blocked from the ballot was former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is one of the patriarchs of the Islamic Revolution.


The vetting appeared aimed at bringing in a pliant and predictable president after disruptive internal feuds with Ahmadinejad, who upended Iran’s political order by trying to challenge the authority of Khamenei. The desire for calm is also fueled by the critical months ahead, which could see the resumption of nuclear talks with the U.S. and other world powers.


But the presumed plans have met an obstacle in the form of Rowhani, who is a close ally of Rafsanjani and is now backed by other reformist leaders who had previously seemed resigned to defeat. In the span 24 hours earlier this week, Rowhani received a major bump when a moderate rival withdrew to consolidate the support. Endorsements from artists, activists and others poured in.


At the final rallies, Rowhani’s supporters waved his campaign’s signature color purple — a clear nod to the now-crushed Green Movement and its leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has been under house arrest for more than two years. On Wednesday, the last day of campaigning, thousands of supporters welcomed Rowhani in the northeastern city of Mashhad yelling: “Long live reforms.”


Some Rowhani backers also have used the campaign events to chant for the release of Mousavi and other political prisoners, including former parliament speaker Mahdi Karroubi, leading to some arrests and scuffles with police.


Rowhani is far from a radical outsider, though. He led the influential Supreme National Security Council and was given the highly sensitive nuclear envoy role in 2003, a year after Iran’s 20-year-old atomic program was revealed.


But he is believed to favor a less confrontational approach with the West and would give a forum for now-sidelined officials such as Rafsanjani and former President Mohammad Khatami, whose reformist terms from 1997-2005 opened unprecedented social and political freedoms. Many are now a memory after clampdowns in the wake of massive protests claiming ballot fraud denied Mousavi victory in the 2009 election.


There are no credible voter polls in Iran, and supporters of each candidate claim their camp is leading. Yet Rowhani seems to be tapping into growing energy and could force a two-way runoff next week with one of the presumed front-runners: Jalili and Qalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander.


Any significant boycott would likely hurt Rowhani the most. And a change of heart to vote by many liberal-leaning Iranians could push Rowhani toward the top.


The worries appeared reflected Thursday in reported comments by Rafsanjani opposing the boycott.


“I urge them to vote,” he was quoted as saying by several pro-reform newspapers.


Rowhani’s backers, meanwhile, have adopted a motto of “one for 100″ — meaning every reformist should try to encourage 100 people to the polls.


It’s not hard, though, to find Iranians promising to snub the election. On some Tehran streets, about every third person planned to stay away.


“Why should I vote?” asked Masoud Abdoli, a 39-year old paramedic. “They have kept opposition leaders under house arrest. They barred Rafsanjani.”


Samaneh Gholinejad , a psychology student, said she abandoned politics after the 2009 chaos. “Honesty left the country then,” she said.


On social media sites, Iranians have sparred round-the-clock over the boycott.


Supporters often quote Albert Einstein’s definition of “insanity” to describe the futility of voting after the allegations of fraud in 2009: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Responses on the other side note that great discoveries would never have occurred if people gave up.


While there are no current signs of street protests resuming, security forces are on high alert. The Revolutionary Guard’s volunteer paramilitary force, the Basij, is present in virtually every neighborhood. Authorities have steadily boosted controls on the Internet, attempting recently to close off proxy servers used to bypass Iranian firewalls.


Last month, the U.S. eased restrictions on export of communications equipment to Iranian civilians in an attempt to counter the cyber-crackdowns. There is no evidence, however, of any major U.S. shipments opening new channels for Iranian Internet activists.


In California, meanwhile, Google said it stopped a series of attempts to hack the accounts of tens of thousands of Iranian users with a technique known as phishing.


“The timing and targeting of the campaigns suggest that the attacks are politically motivated,” said Eric Grosse, Google’s vice president for security engineering, wrote on the company’s blog Wednesday. He gave no other details.


Iranians traditionally have shown high interest in voting. The average reported turnout in the past 10 presidential election is more than 67 percent, with officials saying there was 85 percent participation in 2009. There are no independent election observers allowed to verify the numbers, but no major allegations of vote rigging emerged until 2009.


Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly called for a high turnout as a reply to Western governments that have strongly questioned the openness of Iran’s elections — including the process of vetting candidates.


But Khamenei went further in his appeals Wednesday, when he equated voting — no matter for whom — as a patriotic act.


“It is possible that some do not want to support the Islamic Republic while seeking to support their own country. They should vote too,” said Khamenei.


A prominent political Twitter activist, who goes by the handle Koroush, showed the inner conflicts of many Iranians. He posted a message Thursday saying he will stay home but prays he will regret it.


“I will not vote,” he wrote. “But I hope I will be regretful if others vote and Rowhani wins.”


___


Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.


Associated Press




Top Headlines



Iran liberals ask: Snub election or take chance?