Well, she's a moron, but at least she's consistent...

....on the other hand, maybe she's just a media whore.

Sheehan returns to rebuke Obama

After spending weeks dogging George W. Bush's presidential vacations, anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan is now trying to make life uncomfortable for President Barack Obama.

Sheehan used to pitch a peace camp near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, becoming a symbol of the anti-war movement after her son Casey died in action in Iraq.

On Thursday, she and a band of anti-war protesters turned up outside the media center used by journalists covering Obama's vacation on the well-heeled east coast resort island of Martha's Vineyard.

Suckers!

Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax

Obama giveth, and Obama taketh away:

But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.

"They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.

ABC's John Stossel vs. Obamacare

Once again, Stossel hits it out of the park.

Health Care and the Boomers

The big group that has not yet been discussed in this Heath Care debate is not “Grandma and Grandpa”; it’s the Baby Boomers, of which I am one.

My generation, this big lump of humanity flowing through the body politic, has transformed American society for the last half-century, or more, and we will continue to do so until we die – and when we die, we will transform the mortician industry.

Well, let me tell you something, since the Clinton era, I’ve been hearing about “Big Insurance” and Big Pharma” being spoken about as they were the dragons to be slain in search of “Health Care reform”. I have to say, I’m not so sure about that and never was.

I’m 56. In the last year, I’ve had some pretty serious health issues; I was treated by a “Big Hospital” corporation and “Big Insurance” picked up the tab - and the tab was enormous. I now take a myriad of medications that, keep me alive and productive. All of these medications were developed by “Big Pharma” and are being subsidized by “Big Insurance”. During this debate on Health Care, I have to ask myself how I would have fared under a government-run system.

In short, where would I be now, under the care of “Big Government”, better off or worse off?

Now, let’s take this one step further. We Boomers are aging and all of these health issues will only get worse. Sure, we’ve had our fun with the “Death Panels”, but seriously, when Boomers are in their 80s or 90s and are subject to a government system, how will the scarce resources be distributed?

By then, we will have likely bankrupted the Social Security system and we will likely come close to bankrupting a national health care system. So, will finite resources be expended to keep us alive, or will those resources be funneled to the “more productive”?

If you are younger, don’t contemplate that fate of the Boomers, contemplate your own fate; you’re next on the list.

It's All About Priorities

The Obama Administration: Making America safe from...........inflated invoices?

Lebanese man is target of first rendition under Obama

Contractor Raymond Azar is arrested in Afghanistan, hooded, stripped and flown to the U.S. His alleged crime? Bribery. A human rights activist calls the case 'bizarre.'

Reporting from Alexandria, Va. - A Lebanese citizen being held in a detention center here was hooded, stripped naked for photographs and bundled onto an executive jet by FBI agents in Afghanistan in April, making him the first known target of a rendition during the Obama administration.

Unlike terrorism suspects who were secretly snatched by the CIA and harshly interrogated and imprisoned overseas during the George W. Bush administration, Raymond Azar was flown to this Washington suburb for a case involving inflated invoices.

Azar, 45, pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy to commit bribery, the only charge against him. He faces a maximum of five years in prison, but a sentence of 2 1/2 years or less is likely under federal guidelines.

Defense lawyers and prosecutors declined to comment on the case Friday.

But Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counter-terrorism director at Human Rights Watch, called the case "bizarre."

"He was treated like a high-security terrorist instead of someone accused of a relatively minor white-collar crime," she said.

No "rendition" of actual terrorists and certainly no waterboarding, but inflate invoices, and you get stripped naked, hooded, photographed and spirited half way across the world.

Notice the somewhat passive reaction to this situation adopted by Human Rights Watch and imagine if this has been done by the Bush administration.

"Bizarre' doesn't even begin to describe it.

A Reciprocating Saw Would Be REALLY Scary

Report: CIA Conducted Mock Executions of Detainees

WASHINGTON -- The CIA's internal investigator found that interrogators conducted mock executions of terror suspects and in one case threatened a detainee suspected in the USS Cole bombing with a gun and power drill, congressional officials said late Friday.

The disclosure is contained in a 2004 report by the CIA's inspector general, which has keep secret and is to be released next week, two officials told The Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been cleared for release.

The report's findings were first reported by Newsweek on its Web site Friday night.

In one case, interrogators brought a gun and power drill into a session with suspected Cole bomber Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, the report says. The homicide bombing of the warship USS Cole killed 17 U.S. sailors in Yemen in 2000.

In another episode, a gunshot was fired in a room next to a detainee to make the prisoner believe another suspect had been killed, according to the report, which a federal judge has ordered to be made public Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

I have to say that I have no problem with scaring the piss out of terrorists. As for the ACLU, enemy combatants have no "civil liberties", so perhaps they should confine their efforts to people who do.

Obama's Hemorrhagic Spending Continues Apace

Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

That's an increase of 26.6%, but who's counting? Certainly not the President. And remember, he's only been there for 7 months.




Graphic courtesy of gunzip.weebly.com

I DO Want to See This Movie!

Jews killing Nazis, with extreme prejudice What's not to like?

Do Muslims Celebrate Terrorism? Well, Yes.

I would like to say this is stunning, but it's not really stunning at all. This is the video of Libyan Bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, responsible for the murder of 270 innocent people in the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, after his "Humanitarian" release.

Reportedly he's dying of cancer; may his trek toward death be long and agonizing.

Met by throngs of Libyans, he's a national hero. No shame and no regret, just celebration for this monster.

When can we say that Islam is an impediment to human progress and no more than a means to satisfy primal blood lust? NOW?

Domestic Air Travel, Afghan Style

Those who know me know that I travel a lot by air; generally 4 days a week. I take a very early flight out in the morning and usually a late flight out in the evening. This amounts to 10 hours working and another 3 commuting.

Needless to say, I spend a a great deal of time in airports and I often observe the American public - let's fact it, an airport is a fairly representative microcosm of America- and I'm often depressed by what I see.

I came across this posting about domestic air travel in Afghanistan by an American blogger reporting from that sad corner of the world. Needless to say, I'm feeling much better about my lot now, and that of America.

The following pictures are from Herat, Afghanistan, of the domestic Airport, provided by said blogger, JD Johannes. hit his tip jar, he's doing good work there!

The Afghan "Jet Set"(where's the Starbucks?):

The airport and tower:

Baggage Claim:

It makes O'Hare look like Oz!

Test Post

Sitting in the airport in CLT and just thought that I would do a test post with my Palm Pre.  I've had this gizmo for about a month now, and I have to say I like it!  The only problem I've had with it is the cover over the USB jack broke off, but my BlackBerry didn't have a cover over its USB jack so who cares?

I'm on the road so much that this seems to be a good option.  Why didn't I think of this before?

The Missing Two Words (Still Missing)

President Obama's opening remarks at today's press conference are below. Basically, they're a rehash of Saturday's remarks and, once again he fails to even utter the two words; FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

Why is it so difficult for the President to enunciate the principles for which we stand?

The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will
choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will
choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

The Missing Two Words

After a week of inexplicable silence on the subject of Iran, President Obama finally issues a statement. Note that the tone of the statement is rather tepid, and that neither the words FREEDOM or DEMOCRACY appear once. Not even once.

The situation in Iran is all about freedom and democracy! The Leader of the Free World, after waiting a week, makes a flaccid statement that doesn't even include the words that define us, as Americans, and that represent the concept for which the Iranian people are risking their lives?

The excusion is disgraceful.

His remarks of today:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it mustrespect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

A Week Later, Obama Still Mum on Iran. Why?

A full week after Iran's clearly fraudulent "election", President Obama remains conspicuously reticent on the subject; no forceful denunciation of the Mullahs and no verbal support for the protesters.

As I wrote below, the President famously campaigned on the slogan "Hope and Change", yet as the Iranian people flood the streets, literally risking their lives in a bid for "Hope and Change", the President does not even feel compelled to pay them lip service.

If the President of the United States will not champion democracy, who will?

Yesterday, Iran's "Supreme Leader", Ayatollah Ali Khamenei clearly stated what is to come:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's supreme leader sought Friday to end the deepening crisis over disputed elections with one decisive speech—declaring the vote will almost certainly stand and sternly warning opposition leaders to end street protests or be held responsible for any "bloodshed and chaos" to come.

But a first sign of possible resistance came shortly after nightfall in Tehran. Cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu akbar"—"God is great"—rang from rooftops in what's become a nightly ritual of opposition unity.

The sharp line drawn by Iran's most powerful figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is a gambit that pushes Iran's opposition to a pivotal moment: either back down or risk a crushing response from police and the forces at Khamenei's disposal—the powerful Revolutionary Guard and their volunteer citizen militia, the Basiji.

Also yesterday, the President reiterated his "position":

WASHINGTON — With Iran on a razor’s edge after a week of swelling protests, the Obama administration has fended off pressure from both parties to respond more forcefully to the disputed election there. But if Iranian authorities carry out their latest threat of a more sweeping crackdown, the White House would reconsider its carefully calibrated tone, officials said Friday.

Administration officials said events this weekend in Tehran — when demonstrators plan to rally in defiance of the authorities — would be a telling indicator of whether President Obama would join European leaders and lawmakers on Capitol Hill in more harshly condemning the tactics of the Iranian government.

Congressional Republicans and conservative foreign-policy experts stepped up their pressure on the White House to take a firmer stand in support of the demonstrators, even as Mr. Obama worked to keep Democrats from breaking openly with him on Iran.

For now, administration officials said they had not been swayed by criticism that Mr. Obama’s refusal to speak out more had broken faith with democracy advocates in Tehran, or by the fact that European leaders and even members of his own party in Congress had responded more assertively than he had.

In an interview with CBS News on Friday, Mr. Obama spoke cautiously about warnings by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of bloodshed if the protests go on. “I’m very concerned, based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made, that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching,” Mr. Obama said.

First, when European leaders, such as Germany and France and the U.S. Congress are out in front of the President in a foreign policy crisis such as this, denouncing the Iranian thugs and defending democracy, does this not signal a lack of leadership?

Secondly, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is already whining about foreign "interference" :

TEHRAN, June 19 (Reuters) - Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned on Friday what he said was interference by "some foreign powers" in
this month's election in the country.

"After street protests, some foreign powers ... started to interfere in Iran's state matters by questioning the result of the vote. They do not know the Iranian nation. I strongly condemn such interference," Khamenei said.

"American officials' remarks about human rights and limitations on people are not acceptable because they have no idea about human rights after what they have done in Afghanistan and Iraq and other parts of the world. We do not need advice over human rights from them," he added.

In view of this, why won't the President, at the very least, issue statements of condemnation of Iran's thuggish tactics and verbally support the protesters who are risking their lives? After all, since we're already being blamed for meddling, the President should at least state the traditional American position in favor of democracy. Is he trying to position himself to "deal" with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, once the uprising has been quelled?

If that is the case, it would represent an unspeakable level of cynicism and wanton disregard for the lives of the Iranian people who simply want their freedom.

Alas, it's already too late; the die has been cast. Waiting to see "if Iranian authorities carry out their latest threat of a more sweeping crackdown", in the words of the White House, to "reconsider its carefully calibrated tone" is unacceptable and vacuous. The "bully pulpit" from which presidents once spoke in support of the oppressed, from which presidents once spoke in favor of the American values of liberty and democracy, stands vacant at a pivotal time in history.

President Obama's silence is deafening, and those Iranians who may well die in their struggle for "Hope and Change" deserved more from the Leader of the Free World. They deserved, at least, his moral support, and all they received was equivocation.

What Will Obama Do, or Fail to Do, Next?

Well, you can't say that, domestically, President Obama doesn't have ambition; in less than five months, he's sought to heavily regulate or take over the financial sector and two of three of the country's automobile manufacturers and he's largely succeeded. The Speaker of the House seems to be no more than a botoxed lapdog and the Senate Majority Leader a lobotomized Obamadrone. The President and the Democrat Members of Congress resemble the Borg, all but muttering "resistance is futile" and urging voluntary absorption.

The Obamanation has truly eclipsed Orwellianism. Even FDR would blush at his naked power grabs.

On the other hand, his foreign policy seems to consist of "speak apologetically for ever having used the Big Stick" with pledges to reduce the the size of said stick. Teddy Roosevelt he certainly isn't.

In short, the Obama administration's answer to domestic problems is "control it". Their answer to foreign problems (such as the sham "election" in Iran) seems to be to "ignore it"- they can't even bring themselves to denounce, in no uncertain terms, the Iranian Thugocracy's threats of violence against Iranian protesters or to forcefully and vociferously support the Iranian people's quest for the very ideals on which Obama ran for President - "Hope and Change". If there is a better example of blatant hypocrisy, I'd like to see it, and from the way things are going, I probably will.

Had someone told me 12-18 months ago that we would be at this place at this time, I would have called them paranoid, or worse.

I feel like I'm living in the "Twilight Zone".

John McCain to Intercept North Korean Ship

Sorry, I just couldn't resist that headline. Actually, the US Navy is putting the USS John McCain, a Navy destroyer, in position for a possible intercept of a North Korean ship suspected of proliferating nukes and missiles.

I wonder if President Obama, upon hearing the news, asked "don't we have any other destroyer in the area?"

The irony is priceless.

North Korea: 'Hey, look at me, look at me!'

Meanwhile, not to be outdone in the "Crazy Nuclear Despotism Department" by Ahmadinejad; North Korea - its people starved for food and its leadership starved for attention - actually make Iran look moderate, by comparison.

NKorea says it will 'weaponize' its plutonium

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea vowed Saturday to step up its atomic bomb-making program and threatened war if its ships are stopped as part of new U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing the nation for its latest nuclear test.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry also acknowledged for the first time that the country has a uranium enrichment program, and insisted it will never abandon its nuclear ambitions. Uranium and plutonium can be used to make atomic bombs.

The threats, in a statement issued through the official Korean Central News Agency, came a day after the Security Council approved new sanctions aimed at depriving the North of the financing used to build its rogue nuclear program.

The resolution also authorized searches of North Korean ships suspected of transporting illicit ballistic missile and nuclear materials.

The sanctions are "yet another vile product of the U.S.-led offensive of international pressure aimed at undermining ... disarming DPRK and suffocating its economy," the North Korean statement said.

Pyongyang blamed Washington for the nuclear tensions, saying it was "compelled to go nuclear in the face of the U.S. hostile policy and its nuclear threats."

Carter's wish: "US and Israel on collision course"

From my perspective, this what Carter has been working toward for decades and may be a little wishful thinking on his part. At what point can we just start calling Carter "Jew Hater"? He has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for Islamic radicals and with each statement he makes, it becomes increasingly clear that, in his view, the Israelis are the only stumbling block on the road to Middle East peace.

In an environment where Israel is continually pressured by her "allies" to make more and more concessions in the interest of peace, surrounded by countries that cannot even agree on her right to exist and continually attacked by them, how is it that Israel is the problem?

Carter warns US and Israel on collision course

Israel is headed for a clash with main ally the United States over the issue of Jewish settlements, former US president Jimmy Carter said in an interview on Sunday.

Asked by the liberal Haaretz newspaper whether the Jewish state was looking at a "head-on collision" with the United States if it doesn't comply with Washington's demands, Carter said "Yes."

The former president, who brokered the historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, said Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank were the biggest hurdle in the hobbled Middle East peace process, saying they were "illegal and (an) obstacle to peace."

The administration of US President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, which is viewed as one of the key obstacles in the stalled Middle East peace process.

This "obstacle to peace" canard is tiring, unfair and dangerous as it fuels the anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middle East which is doing quite nicely on it's own.

Where are the concessions from the Arabs or the Iranians who continually call for the destruction of Israel? Did it ever occur to this old fool that maybe, just maybe that the blood curdling hatred that many in the "Islamic community" have for all things Israeli might be an obstacle as well? Did it ever occur to Mr. Carter that Israel may be becoming weary of making sacrifices, in the blood of her own citizens as well as the relinquishment of even more land and getting nothing but more war in return?

Carter was a failure as a president and is an unqualified disgrace as a man. Israel should block his entry as an "undesirable".

Ahmadinejad Remains Unclenched

Alas, for all of President Obama's happy talk, on Friday-

"Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways"

The Mullahs' newly "reelected" pit bull, Ahmadinejad, remains as feisty as ever and comes out swinging:

Ahmadinejad Makes New Threats, Plans Victory Rally Amid Protests

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his re-election was "real and free" and cannot be questioned. He also indicated there would be no change in the country's nuclear policy during his second term, saying any country attacking Iran would deeply regret it, Reuters reported.

Ahmadinejad made the comments Sunday during a press conference — his first since the government announced that he was re-elected to a second term in a landslide victory during Friday's vote.

"Who dares to attack Iran? Who even dares to think about it?" Reuters quoted Ahmadinejad at the press conference.

Ahmadinejad also accused foreign media of launching a "psychological war against" against the country.

It would appear that the "robust debate" thing didn't work out as hoped. The "whoever" that won the "election" apparently wasn't the "whoever" the administration envisioned.

So, what's "Plan B"?

A Whiff of Anti-Semitism from Bill Clinton?

In all fairness, it's unclear whether Clinton actually used the words I've emphasized below, or if is just a bit of editorializing on the part of the writer. Either way, it just smells of classic antisemitism which seems to be more prevelent on the Left every day.

Bill Clinton: United States growing more diverse

WASHINGTON
(AP) - Former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that Americans should be mindful of the nation's changing demographics, which led to the election of Barack Obama as president.

He told an Arab-American audience of 1,000 people that the U.S. is no longer just a black-white country, nor a country that is dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority, given the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here.

Clinton said by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with European heritage and that in an interdependent world "this is a very positive thing."

Speaking in a hotel ballroom to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee during its annual convention, Clinton also praised Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt, that was focused on the Arab world.

The words "powerful Jewsh minority" are a bit alarming since this is exactly how antisemitism was spread in 1930s Europe, and we know how that worked out.

Does this mean that Iran isn't a real democracy?

Alright, I'm one to give credit where credit is due, so it would now appear that the Obama administration is, indeed, "getting a clue". What they do with it is another thing, but this is a good start.

US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad

NIAGARA FALLS, Ontario (AP) — The U.S. on Saturday refused to accept hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of a landslide re-election victory in Iran and said it was looking into allegations of election fraud.

Any hopes by the Obama administration of gaining a result similar to Lebanon's recent election, won by a Western-backed moderate coalition, appeared to be in jeopardy.

"We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran, but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference with Canada's foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon.

Minutes after Clinton spoke, the White House released a two-sentence statement praising "the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians," but expressing concern about "reports of irregularities."

How they expected anything other than election "irregularities" in Iran is surprising, and I think it's doubtful that Iran will go out of its way to calm our "concern" regarding the veracity of their election.

That said, casting public doubt on Iran's sham "election" is a welcome turnaround from the pollyannaish statements coming from the administration as detailed in the previous post.

Naiveté on Stilts

Obama "excited" by Iran's robust election debate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he was hopeful the robust debate taking place in Iran's presidential election would advance his administration's efforts to engage longtime U.S. rival Tehran in new ways.

"We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran," Obama told reporters when asked about the Iranian election during an event at the White House.

"Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways," he said.

I wonder, will his excitement continue as the opposition is rounded up and quietly "disappeared" during the coming weeks and months?

The United States has had no ties with Iran since shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution, but Obama has expressed an interest in a dialogue if Tehran "unclenches its fist."

Obama said he had tried to send a clear message during a speech to the Islamic world last week in Cairo that his administration sees a possibility for a change in relations.

He said while "ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide,"voters in the Middle East had shown they were looking at the possibility of a change.

Sorry, Mr. President, Ahmadinejad was reelected, the fist remains clenched and that "Hopey Changey" thing that worked so well on the American electorate doesn't work so well in Tehran.

How could anyone, even remotely familiar with Iran, think that the Iranians decided this election, or that they have any say in the "possibility of a change"?

Get a clue, Mr. President.

In Rememberance of D-Day June 6, 1944

I can think of no better tribute to these brave men, than to post Ronald Reagan's moving "The Boys of Pointe-Du-Hoc" speech at the 40th anniversary in 1984. As one of the last Presidents of that "Greatest Generation", it seems fitting to hear his words, once again.


(This is a good copy, I suggest you click on "HQ" when it starts)

PRAVDA Laments Capitalism's Decline in America?

Yes, that Pravda. In what can only be described as life imitating parody, this writer writes about America's accelerating descent into Marxism. While riddled with hyperbole (I hope) and, to the American eye, some highly politically incorrect comments, perhaps there is a point to be made here.

The astonishing speed at which this country has changed, in just four months, is unsettling. The government's takeover of the automobile industry sets a dangerous precedent and the sea of red ink that that extends as far as the eye can see does not bode well for our future.

Speaking of change, I never thought that I would be linking to, much less recommending an article on Pravada but maybe this underscores the "change" Americans chose last November.

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

The piece continues and I encourage you to read it all with, as always, a healthy amount of skepticism and I warn you that there are remarks that some may find highly offensive. I know nothing of this man's history or agenda, but I did find kernels of truth in his oft overblown rhetoric, and reasons for some introspection in his observations made from afar.

We, as Americans, have always made our own history and, in doing so, we have largely influenced the history of the world. We should, however, remember that this does not make us immune to the mistakes of past history and should be ever cautious in choosing our path.

The Perils of Populism

LGF has a most interesting post, with links, regarding Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo and the lesser known Marcus Epstein. These people are finding common cause with known European Fascists.

This has caused me to think about "Populism", and the perils thereof.

Personally, I've never cared for "Populists", however they're masked. When I hear someone portrayed as a "Populist", I , envision a guy with a noose in his hand, rallying the mob to do his bidding.

In my view, "Populism" is no more than mob rule, appealing more to emotion than to reason.

In recent years, "Populism" has been trotted out wearing a "Conservative" mask; Pat "peasants with pitchforks" Buchanan, Ross Perot, Tom Tancredo and, most recently, Ron Paul are the most notable. They all offer "simple" solutions to complex problems and inspire a nearly blind allegiance among their followers.

This isn't Conservatism; it's fascism. We ask Muslims to disown the radicals in their midst, so must we disown the radicals in ours.

I don't know if Pat Buchanan went to the dark side at some point over the last 20 years, or if he's always been on the dark side and kept it well hidden. At this point, I don't care; he is a dark figure in American politics and delights in playing upon the vilest emotions in the recesses of man.

As for Tom Tancredo, his overheated rhetoric regarding immigration always had a putrid smell of racism.

These perilous times do not call for "Populists" or the tainted message that they sell; these times call for reason and statesmanship. These people are neither Conservative nor are they Republican and their very presence among us marginalizes all of us.

Conservatives must embrace a positive message, offer reasoned solutions to the problems before us and, most importantly, extricate the crypto-fascist parasite that threatens our worthy goals.

BHO's BOCD

Victor Davis Hanson is always an enjoyable read, no less so here as he hits it out of the park. I offer you a tantalizing snippet:

Last July I wrote a column entitled “Barack W. Bush” outlining how candidate Barack Obama was strangely emulating Bush policies — even as he was trashing the president.

Nearly a year later, President Obama has continued that schizophrenia, criticizing Bush while keeping in place Bush’s anti-terrorism protocols. The result of this Bush Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is that, thanks to Obama, history will soon begin reassessing George W. Bush’s presidency in a more positive light.

Why? Because the more Obama feels compelled to trash Bush, the more he draws attention to the fact that he is copying — or in some cases falling short of — his predecessor. He seems to wish to frame his presidency in terms of the Bush years, even though such constant evocation is serving his predecessor more than it is serving Obama himself.

For eight years conservatives whined — and Democrats railed — at the Bush deficits. In the aggregate over eight years they exceeded $2 trillion. The administration’s excuses — the 2000 recession; 9/11; two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq; Katrina; and two massive new programs, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Prescription Drug — fell on deaf ears.

Between 2001 and 2008 we still spoke of annual budget shortfalls in billions of dollars. But an early effect of the Obama administration is that it has already made the Bush administration’s reckless spending seem almost incidental. In the first 100 days of this government we have learned to speak of yearly red ink in terms of Obama’s trillions, not Bush’s mere billions. Indeed, compared to Obama, Bush looks like a fiscal conservative.

Please do read the whole piece here, you shan't be disappointed.

"Government Motors" Was Not Hyperbole

I ask you, how could anything be so wrong on so many levels?

U.S. Expected to Own 70% of Restructured G.M.

DETROIT — In better times, many employees of General Motors called their company “Generous Motors” because of its rich benefits.

Now G.M. may stand for something else: Government Motors.

The latest plan for the troubled automaker, which is expected to file for bankruptcy by Monday, calls for the Treasury Department to receive about 70 percent of a restructured G.M.

Including the more than $20 billion that has already been spent to prop up G.M., the government will provide G.M. at least $50 billion to get the company through Chapter 11, people with direct knowledge of the situation said Tuesday. By some estimates in Detroit, tens of billions beyond that amount may be required.

The United Automobile Workers, meanwhile, will hold up to 20 percent through its retiree health care fund, and bondholders and other parties will get the remaining share. Shareholders would be virtually wiped out.

Although it has been clear for weeks that Treasury would have a majority stake of a reconstituted G.M., a 70 percent share — a figure that could still change — is higher than what had been expected.

So, the government will own 70%, the unions will own 20% and the shareholders will be "virually wiped out."

When can we start calling this naked "socialism" without fear of being called frothing right-wing lunatics?

(More on the GM/Chrysler debacle in the post below.)

Get Ready to Open Your Wallets, America

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

When Democrats start talking about "fundamental tax reform", it generally means "higher taxes" and, after months of profligate spending, they are now trying to find a way to present us with the tab. It seems that the only thing that's "off the table" is spending less money.

This is fiscal irresponsiblity at its worst; it will further grow a government that's already too big and reduce the means for economic expansion.

Sure, you'll be able to avoid this tax by not buying, but how will that effect an already struggling private sector? Alas, the more the private sector struggles to survive, the higher the unemployment figures will rise.

This would be a bad idea, even in good times. In times like these, it's like throwing gasoline on a fire.

Memorial Day, 2009

As we honor our nation’s fallen, let us also honor the nation for which they fell, for the two are inseparable.

We are a warrior nation of sorts, but our warriors are, and always have been defenders, not conquerors. We have defended our own nation, as well as peoples in foreign lands who could not defend themselves. The warriors we honor paid the ultimate price to make the world a better place, and their sacrifice has not been in vain.

This is what separates us from previous great civilizations, and that difference is the one that defines us.

Imagine the history of the past 100 years without the United States. That history would have been far more brutal but for the sacrifices that this country has made, in the blood of its warriors and the treasure of its generous people. The world today would be a far darker place but not for our existence and intervention.

In the history of mankind, what other nation has so selflessly contributed to the safety, security and overall betterment of all mankind, and literally asked for nothing in return but its own safety and security? We have taken the great philosophies of past great civilizations and, in many ways perfected them, at least to the extent than man can perfect anything.

While our history is not without its sinister periods, slavery in particular, we have confronted those evils and changed them. We have made mistakes, admitted them, and looked ahead to a brighter future rather than wallowing in the past.

So, as we remember those who have given their all for this bold idea that we call “the United States of America”, let us renew and recommit ourselves to that idea. We are now living in perilous times, fractured in many ways and for many reasons. There are those who find that apologies are in order and placation of the enemies of all we hold dear is the easiest road to peace and prosperity, for our nation and the world.

I reject that notion.

The road to peace and prosperity has never been, and never will be, short and easy; neither for us or the world. It is only with perseverance, faith in our abilities as Americans, and unswerving belief in America’s singular uniqueness in the whole of man’s history, that this journey can be completed and we must lead, not follow.

Those who we honor on this Memorial Day gave us the map; all we need do is follow it.

Ford and the Battle for Capitalism

Of the three American auto manufacturers, Ford is the only one to have eschewed Federal bailout money, instead, preferring to embrace a solution in keeping with traditional capitalist business practices; relying on stockholders and bondholders rather than the American taxpayer.

At the same time, GM and Chrysler have sold their souls and prostrated themselves before the Federal Government and the Bush/Obama administrations in an effort to to secure their future at an immense cost to the American taxpayer which some say may reach as high as $130 Billion, but no one really knows what the final tally will be.

Today from the Financial Times, we find that, under the government restructuring plan for GM "the US government would cancel most or all of its existing debt in the company and invest in a “new” GM that could emerge from bankruptcy in the autumn, said a person close to the matter."

Additionally, from the same piece, "GM on Friday said it had borrowed another $4bn from the Treasury, taking its total federal funding to $19.4bn, and expected to need $7.6bn more after June 1."

So, what of Chrysler? Via Reuters:

"Chrysler has a government deadline of June 15 to close the transaction to sell itself to a "New Chrysler" owned by the U.S. and Canadian governments, Chrysler's union and Fiat, according to court papers. Chrysler's unsecured creditors' committee said in court papers on Friday that if the sale was not able to go forward it would mean certain liquidation for the iconic U.S. automaker."

But it would appear that Fiat sees that the corpse, of which they are buying a part, is quickly deteriorating from rigor mortis to outright decay; "Fiat, however, said that any delay to the sale process "could ultimately prove fatal" to Fiat's plan to revive Chrysler. It said it already has concerns about the value of the assets "New Chrysler" is expected to acquire from "Old Chrysler" as the company's plant shutdown is affecting its suppliers and dealer networks."

Chrysler, who, from what I could find, has received "only" $7 Billion in Federal bailout money, so what becomes of that money if, and when Chrysler is owned by its Union, Canada and Fiat? "Under the new scenario, the U.S. Treasury would recover 3 to 5 percent of its investment, compared with 3 to 6 percent in Capstone's previous analysis." Capstone Advisory Group is Chrysler's financial advisory firm.

So let's get back to Ford. All three of these companies competed in the same market, played by the same rules and were represented by the same union. At least at the moment, Ford is surviving, while GM and Chrysler are essentially corpses; either being propped up by billions of taxpayer dollars or their parts being sold to foreign competitors.

How is this fair to Ford? GM is being assisted in terms of tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and has plans on forgiving that debt in the hope that they can emerge from bankruptcy later this year. Were this a traditional bankruptcy, investors would have agreed to take a share of losses, but when the investor is the Federal government, forgiving debt owed to the American people, this presents a whole new pernicious and disturbing aura of government control in the private sector. Certainly, the government will expect "some influence" within these quasi-state-owned auto companies, will it not? President Obama has already virtually fired the CEO at GM.

As for Chrysler, it seems likely that liquidation or being "sold off for parts" may well be its fate. Currently, the UAW is becoming the majority stockholder in Chrysler, arguably one of the very same groups that got them into this situation in the first place. (I seem to remember something about workers controlling the "means of production").

None of this bodes well for the American automobile industry, or the state of capitalism in the United States as a whole. Ford may well prosper in the long run, given the government's utter incompetence in dealing with anything it touches, aside from those tasks it is constitutionally mandated to perform. I have serious doubts that a quasi-state-run automobile company will be anything but a taxpayer money pit, producing cars nobody wants at prices nobody wants to pay.

In the interim, Ford plays by one set of rules while GM and Chrysler play by another. Are Ford"s debts being forgiven as are GM's? Are Ford's creditors willing to settle for 3 to 5 percent of their investment as is Chrysler's government investor?

Ford stood strong and did not invite the government onto its house knowing, I believe, that there would be a price to be paid; the greatest of which being their autonomy. For that, I applaud them and, should I be in the market for a car, I will buy a Ford. I will shun GM and Chrysler like the plague they have become.

All of this should be a cautionary tale about the fragility of the capitalist system, the balance between it and the government, and the envious eyes that that some in the government cast upon corporations in times such as these, under the guise of "help". A "free market economy" is just that, and corporations should be wary of the tentacles involved in "government bailouts".

Capitalism is what has made this nation the strongest and richest nation in the history of mankind and we should not abandon it during this time of contraction. To do so is a betrayal of American principles and hastens our journey, in the words of Hayek, down the "Road to Serfdom".

Clueless in Annapolis

Upholding values will shield US from terror: Obama

President Barack Obama Friday warned America risked its security when it compromised its values, seeking support for his bid to sketch a new legal framework for anti-terror policies.

Obama used the backdrop of the US Naval Academy graduation ceremony to argue that founding US ideals must guide the future battle against terrorism, a day after trying to quell raging debate over Guantanamo Bay in a major speech.

"We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to -- not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe," Obama told 30,000 graduating navy cadets and family
members.

"When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops."

Obama told the graduates they would face a "full spectrum of threats" from 18th century-style piracy to cyber terrorism.

"As long as I am your commander-in-chief, I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary," Obama said, in an apparent veiled criticism of the Bush administration war in Iraq, which the president has argued was unnecessary.

Ah yes, the rule of law. How, exactly does the "rule of law" protect us from the lawless. How, exactly, do "American values" protect us from those who find those very values to be their Casus belli?

With Iran testing missiles and moving full speed toward developing nukes, the nuclear state of Pakistan battling the Taliban for its survival and the U.S still waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the President actually says that the "rule of law" and "American values" will de-energize our adversaries?

This rhetoric represents naivete at a level that is simply unacceptable from the President of the United States and confirms my worst fears about his foreign policy, once he actually develops one. At the moment, he seems to be adopting all of the Bush policies at the same time he derides them. This is no time for mixed messages.

I would like to know which "values" from which we have strayed that, once re-embraced, will keep us safe. I would like to know how "the rule of law" can protect us from those whose only law is that of Sharia.

The campaign is long over, the time for leadership began four months ago.

The Unbearable Annoyance of "Celebrities"

Cannes celebrity AIDS gig hit by credit crisis

A celebrity AIDS fundraising gala at Cannes headed this year by Sharon Stone and Bill Clinton was able to raise just 4.5 million dollars -- less than half the amount raised last year, organisers said on Friday.

In 2008, the mega gala organised by the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmfAR) raised 10 million dollars.

A highlight of the Thursday evening's event at the nearby Riviera town of Cap d'Antibes was the sale of Clinton's celebrated saxophone, which fetched 130,000 euros.

A-list celebrities who turned up included Annie Lennox, who sang several of her hits to 700 guests who paid 150,000 dollars (108,000 euros) for each 10-seater table, or 4,000 dollars (2,900) per head.

Cannes jury member, actress Robin Wright Penn, joined the fundraiser, along with Michele Yeoh, Elisabeth Hurley, "La Vie en Rose" star Marion Cotillard, Harvey Weinstein, Terry Gilliam, Danny Glover and "Twilight" star Robert Pattinson.

Models Claudia Schiffer and Eva Herzigova, the designer duo Dolce & Gabbana and Donatella Versace added a serious splash of glamour, joined by heiress Paris Hilton.

Oh, the tragedy of it all! Is it too much to expect that this (largely liberal) crowd of pampered, overpaid "A list" celebrities to, collectively, cough up more than $4.5 million for a good cause? I would venture to guess that many, if not all of these people are making, at the very least, eight figures per year, yet they use the "credit crisis" as an excuse not to open up their bulging bank accounts to a cause they so vociferously champion.

Better, I suppose, to beat the drum for more "government funding" for AIDS research thus burdening an already over burdened American middle-class, struggling to pay existing taxes, while eyeing the increases that will most assuredly come as a result of explosive deficits as far as the eye can see.

It would appear that these privileged gilded lilies would feel an obligation to share their enormous wealth with the causes about which they are so vocal. Look at the names above and the next time one of them says "we need more money spent on AIDS research" ask yourself "why didn't they put their money where their moth is when they had the chance?"

OTV?

Do You Want Your OTV?

On April 27, President Obama welcomed the University of Connecticut Lady Huskies, who had just won the NCAA women's basketball championship.

After the event, President Obama went to the White House basketball court to shoot hoop with the Lady Huskies. The White House press corps was not allowed to attend.

My even mentioning this may seem a little petty, but the Obama administration has done this before and it's becoming an unnerving habit; this obsession with media control.

It's perfectly fine, of course, for the White House to put out its own version of events -- but is it right to do so by preventing actual reporters from covering something? (Even something like a pickup basketball game).

Do Obama White House officials think their media coverage isn't flattering enough?

No, I don't think it's right to prevent reporters from, well, reporting. And yes, it would appear that the White House feels that their coverage is not quite as flattering as it should be; clearly, they're not "feeling the love" though the love is, has been, and continues to be clearly abundant.

This is not the first time this has happened. In March, "Mr. Transparency" was honored as "Newsmaker of the Year" by the National Newspaper Publishers Association:

We are not making this up:

Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.

This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."

The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.

The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.

So, the President is given an award by the press and the White House closes the ceremony to the press?

There is one similarity between these two instances of press exclusion. The fact that the UConn Women's Basketball Team is predominately black, and the press award was given by the Federation of Black Community Newspapers, might lead one to think that Obama, or the White House, could be sensitive to the President being seen with groups of black people. I sincerely hope that is not the case for it would be insulting to the American people.

Perhaps the administration is seeing just how far they can go in their control of the President's media image. Considering that the media have been obedient lap dogs through the campaign and the first four months of the administration, it appears that the boundary has not yet been reached and the drooling worship from the media seems to continue, largely unabated.

It Wasn't That Long Ago That Survival Was The Fad

Fitness clubs are in ... in Iraq

BAGHDAD - Across a mirrored room from stationary bikes and an occasional treadmill, men in tank tops knock back protein shakes and pump iron to loud hip hop.

It's a common scene in America - and the latest craze in Baghdad.

In a city of few diversions and long cut off from the outside world, the boom in health clubs represents another sign that Iraq is slowly emerging from decades of dictatorship and war.

At least 300 gyms and fitness centers are believed to be operating in Baghdad, compared with about 30 before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to people who work in the industry.

These are a people who have regained their self-respect and are looking toward the future; how could it be construed otherwise? There is palpable progress in Iran, but it is fragile. Though leave we should, and will, we simply mustn't abandon this campaign, or these people, prematurely.

This Can't be Good News

Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says

Pakistan needs more nuclear arms like a 3 year old need a sawed-off shotgun.

Debts, Deficits, Discontent and Discouragement

First, it's important to understand the difference between a "Deficit" and the "National Debt". Not to be condescending, but some people really don't understand the difference and that lack of understanding is one of the reasons we are in such poor financial shape in this country.

The Deficit is the budget shortfall for one year. The Nation Debt is the cumulative effect of all of the Deficits combined, or the total amount of the country's debt that, incidentally, will have to be paid back. Somehow.

I remember Ronald Reagan lamenting that the total National Debt was $1 Trillion. In 2009, the deficit (the shortfall for 2009 alone) will be in excess if $1.85 Trillion.

Think about that. In 2009, the budget shortfall for a single year will be nearly 2 times what the entire National Debt was less than 30 years ago.

This is a problem that's just getting worse by the day; we're going to need a bigger graph.

Reality TV Hits New Low

I've never been much of a fan of the phenomenon known as "Reality TV", in fact I despise it. I have enough reality already, thank you. I watch TV for entertainment and some escapism, but to each one's own. It seems to fulfill Andy Warhol's prophesy that "in the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes" and, much like Warhol himself, It's largely tasteless, devoid of talent and preys upon our voyeuristic tendencies.

But this redefines "sick", and I am not referring to Ms. Fawcett's illness. Even in our over-saturated media culture, some things should be kept personal and handled with dignity. This is one of those things.

I have no doubt that, now that the barrier has been crossed, other celebrities will follow suit and it will eventually become a "genre".

I sincerely regret Ms. Fawcett's imminent demise, but I wish that she hadn't forever taken the boundaries of good taste with her.

The UN: Making the World Safe for Malefactors

Mohamed ElBaradei warns of new nuclear age

The number of potential nuclear weapons states could more than double in a few years unless the major powers take radical steps towards disarmament, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog has warned.

In a Guardian interview, Mohamed ElBaradei said the threat of proliferation was particularly grave in the Middle East, a region he described as a "ticking bomb".

ElBaradei, the outgoing director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said the current international regime limiting the spread of nuclear weapons was in danger of falling apart under its own inequity. "Any regime … has to have a sense of fairness and equity and it is not there," he said in an interview at his offices
in Vienna.

So, the way to end nuclear proliferation is for the major powers to disarm?

It's hard to comment on such sand-pounding idiocy. The fact that ElBaradei has occupied his post for as long as he has is a major cause for much of the problems we now have. Iraq developing WMDs? No action. North Korea developing nukes? No action. Iran developing nukes? No action. He laments about the Middle East having become a "ticking bomb", but he has taken no action whatsoever to stop it - apparently because, in his view, it's a matter of "fairness and equity" that radical Islamic apocalyptic basket-case states have nuclear capability. His words, not mine.

If there's one organization that has made the world less safe, it has to be the UN. It is no more than an international forum for thugs, tyrants and murderers, giving them equal status with freedom loving democratic states. I would suppose that mindset springs from the UN's quest for "fairness".

Had there been a UN in 1939, all of Europe would now be called Germany and UN diplomats would still be debating the question of Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia. There would be no Israel because there simply would be not enough Jews left to populate it, though the UN might have issued a statement somewhat critical of the "alleged" slaughter of all European Jews.

As for the IAEA, they have, by their lack of action, given the green light for every crackpot regime in the world to develop and threaten the world with nuclear weapons, and developing them they are.

ElBaradei is right, though, the Middle East IS a ticking bomb. The problem is that neither the UN or the IAEA will do anything to diffuse it; that task will, as usual, be left to countries with the will to do so - if there are any left.

Rogues and Charlatans

Al Gore to Dick Cheney: 'I waited two years'

Al Gore said Friday that fellow former Vice President Dick Cheney has jumped back into the political fray too soon into the new administration’s term.

“I waited two years after I left office to make statements that were critical,” Gore said during an interview on CNN, pointing out that his critiques were focused on “policy.”

“Talk about somebody that shouldn't be talking about making the country less safe, invading a country that did not attack us and posed no serious threat to us at all,” Gore said of Cheney.

Uh, not even close to the truth, Mr Gore:

Flashback: Gore Calls Bush Policies "Un-American" In 2002 Speech

"Far more damaging is the administration's attack on fundamental constitutional rights that we ought to have and do have as American citizens. The very idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the president of the United States or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale and un-American and it ought to be stopped."

"Un-American? This, from the party becomes apoplectic when their patriotism even seems to be questioned. Gore raved like a lunatic for eight straight years. For him to now play the part of genteel statesman and member of the loyal oppositions is, in his own words, "beyond the pale".

Additionally, Cheney's criticisms have been based solely on policy differences; Cheney believes that Obama's policies "make us less safe". It would also appear that even Obama is starting to agree, since he seems to be keeping more Bush-era policies than he's discarding.

Stimulation for the Dead?

Keeping with Obama's reputation as a messianic figure, his administaration attempts to "stimulate" the dead.

At this writing, no reports of success.

So, who is responsible, Mr. President?

I think the proper word for this is chutzpah:

Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Well, Mr. President you are correct. So, from where did this problem come?

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

Please read the whole thing.

A lot of people are confident that this man can change water into wine. As for me he's sounding more and more like a huckster; playing the populace and hoping he can charm his way into peace and prosperity. It doesn't work that way - neither peace or prosperity are products of charm; they are products of hard decisions and even harder work and each require a reliance on core principles.

Please, Mr. President, don't create a problem then lament the fact that the problem exists - it's cheap and tawdry and, quite frankly the American people deserve more. We have seen the payers of this debt, and it is us.