Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

I mentioned the other day that Obama seems to be getting ready to bomb Iran before the election. Not only do I stand by that, but I think the evidence for it is growing. If I’m reading the signs right, look for three weeks of bombing at the end of August.

Before we hit the evidence, let me dispel a few conservative myths. Contrary to what people with Obama Derangement Syndrome will tell you, Obama’s foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush’s foreign policy. His rhetoric is weaker, but his actual policies are the same. Indeed, he’s almost been trigger-happy by comparison. He’s authorized thousands of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and throughout Africa (things Bush was afraid to do), he’s authorized the bombing of Libya, and he’s sent US troops into a half-dozen conflicts. He’s authorized the killing of American citizens who are suspected terrorists, he hasn’t renounced “enhanced interrogation,” and he even tried to erase the legal existence of the people they are holding at Gitmo. All in all, he’s been more than willing to fight.

Moreover, his latest chest thumping about killing Osama bin Laden, tells us that he thinks it will be vital to his re-election to appear tough. What this means is that Obama is willing and able to strike and most likely sees it as being in his interests to strike before the election.

But how do we know he will strike Iran? Well, for starters, he’s been laying the groundwork for some time. For two years, Obama spoke incessantly about sanctions while promising carrot after carrot if Iran would just play nice. They didn’t. And he can now tell his supporters he tried. Then last year, things began to change. The IAEA issued a stinging report saying that not only was Iran cheating, but that they would soon have a bomb. Meanwhile, Obama’s people created this bizarre story of Iran working with Mexican narco-gangs to assassinate people in the US. That story didn’t wash (except Rick Santorum believed it) but it signified a rhetorical shift toward getting the public ready for a possible attack. And with each of the Republican candidates buying into the need for an attack (except Ron Paul), Obama now has a green light to act.

At the same time, Obama apparently authorized the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and authorized the use of sophisticated computer virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These are acts you take before an attack, not when you are just passing time.

Now we’re suddenly getting a slew of clues that something is imminent:

● A few weeks ago, Obama moved a second aircraft carrier into the region. American attacks in the modern era always use two carriers. And they are rarely together otherwise.

● The troops in Iraq, who would have been a major target for Iranian counter-attacks, have been removed to safer Arab countries.

● A few months ago, Obama approved the sale of a sophisticated anti-missile system to the United Arab Emirates for $3.6 billion. Why would something like that be needed? To make them less nervous about hosting US troops should hostilities break out and to protect US troops in the country.

● Then last week, we learned that the Air Force positioned F-22 Raptors (the latest generation stealth fighter/penetrator) in those very same UAE. The F-22 is the perfect plane to get through Iran’s defensive grid. The Air Force claims this is all just a normal deployment, except that’s not true. The Air Force does not send F-22 Raptors to just anywhere.

● Yesterday, Obama signed an Executive Order allowing the US to boycott anyone who still does business with Iran. Notice the lack of fanfare. That’s key here because when countries aren’t ready to fight, they bang the table and make threats. When they are preparing to fight, they go silent and don’t trumpet their actions. And my guess is this Order will allow the seizure of assets at a critical time.

● Also yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first time mentioned moving elections up from November to August. Why? Because you can’t start an attack if you’re going to go before the voters right after it begins. This suggests the timeline is a late-August attack.

● And then this came out last night. The Pentagon has leaked that it is revising its defense strategy in accordance with current threats. Mentioned in the assessment is that U.S. Central Command is conducting “war planning” for Iran, with the belief that we can destroy Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks “using air and sea strikes.” Further, the Pentagon is “now conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.” Specifically mentioned were “maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters” as well as the deployment of the F-22. In other words, everything I mentioned above.

All this tells me that the Pentagon is getting ready to strike. It’s building the military capability and it has already assured the neighbors, who no doubt already gave a green light or we would be hearing screaming. Politically, Obama has clearly coordinated with Israel and is factoring this attack into his election plan. He’s also set the Treasury up to seize Iranian assets once the shooting starts.

Based on Israel and how unlikely it is that the Air Force would leave the F-22’s sitting over there too long or the Navy would leave two carriers floating in the gulf longer than necessary, I would expect an attack no later than the end of August, with the current plan being three weeks of bombing.

So the next question is will this help Obama's re-election chances? I doubt it. Weak- appearing leaders tend to get hurt when they start wars because people see it as a desperate attempt to look tough. Libya gave Obama his standard three point bounce which faded almost before it was recorded. I would expect this will give him a 10% bounce, which will fade in week two of the bombing and go negative if bombing goes on beyond three weeks. . . which it will. Plus, as he's shown with his Afghanistan garbage, he will quickly try to politicize it, and that will truly anger average Americans.

Thoughts?

I mentioned the other day that Obama seems to be getting ready to bomb Iran before the election. Not only do I stand by that, but I think the evidence for it is growing. If I’m reading the signs right, look for three weeks of bombing at the end of August.

Before we hit the evidence, let me dispel a few conservative myths. Contrary to what people with Obama Derangement Syndrome will tell you, Obama’s foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush’s foreign policy. His rhetoric is weaker, but his actual policies are the same. Indeed, he’s almost been trigger-happy by comparison. He’s authorized thousands of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and throughout Africa (things Bush was afraid to do), he’s authorized the bombing of Libya, and he’s sent US troops into a half-dozen conflicts. He’s authorized the killing of American citizens who are suspected terrorists, he hasn’t renounced “enhanced interrogation,” and he even tried to erase the legal existence of the people they are holding at Gitmo. All in all, he’s been more than willing to fight.

Moreover, his latest chest thumping about killing Osama bin Laden, tells us that he thinks it will be vital to his re-election to appear tough. What this means is that Obama is willing and able to strike and most likely sees it as being in his interests to strike before the election.

But how do we know he will strike Iran? Well, for starters, he’s been laying the groundwork for some time. For two years, Obama spoke incessantly about sanctions while promising carrot after carrot if Iran would just play nice. They didn’t. And he can now tell his supporters he tried. Then last year, things began to change. The IAEA issued a stinging report saying that not only was Iran cheating, but that they would soon have a bomb. Meanwhile, Obama’s people created this bizarre story of Iran working with Mexican narco-gangs to assassinate people in the US. That story didn’t wash (except Rick Santorum believed it) but it signified a rhetorical shift toward getting the public ready for a possible attack. And with each of the Republican candidates buying into the need for an attack (except Ron Paul), Obama now has a green light to act.

At the same time, Obama apparently authorized the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and authorized the use of sophisticated computer virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These are acts you take before an attack, not when you are just passing time.

Now we’re suddenly getting a slew of clues that something is imminent:

● A few weeks ago, Obama moved a second aircraft carrier into the region. American attacks in the modern era always use two carriers. And they are rarely together otherwise.

● The troops in Iraq, who would have been a major target for Iranian counter-attacks, have been removed to safer Arab countries.

● A few months ago, Obama approved the sale of a sophisticated anti-missile system to the United Arab Emirates for $3.6 billion. Why would something like that be needed? To make them less nervous about hosting US troops should hostilities break out and to protect US troops in the country.

● Then last week, we learned that the Air Force positioned F-22 Raptors (the latest generation stealth fighter/penetrator) in those very same UAE. The F-22 is the perfect plane to get through Iran’s defensive grid. The Air Force claims this is all just a normal deployment, except that’s not true. The Air Force does not send F-22 Raptors to just anywhere.

● Yesterday, Obama signed an Executive Order allowing the US to boycott anyone who still does business with Iran. Notice the lack of fanfare. That’s key here because when countries aren’t ready to fight, they bang the table and make threats. When they are preparing to fight, they go silent and don’t trumpet their actions. And my guess is this Order will allow the seizure of assets at a critical time.

● Also yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first time mentioned moving elections up from November to August. Why? Because you can’t start an attack if you’re going to go before the voters right after it begins. This suggests the timeline is a late-August attack.

● And then this came out last night. The Pentagon has leaked that it is revising its defense strategy in accordance with current threats. Mentioned in the assessment is that U.S. Central Command is conducting “war planning” for Iran, with the belief that we can destroy Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks “using air and sea strikes.” Further, the Pentagon is “now conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.” Specifically mentioned were “maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters” as well as the deployment of the F-22. In other words, everything I mentioned above.

All this tells me that the Pentagon is getting ready to strike. It’s building the military capability and it has already assured the neighbors, who no doubt already gave a green light or we would be hearing screaming. Politically, Obama has clearly coordinated with Israel and is factoring this attack into his election plan. He’s also set the Treasury up to seize Iranian assets once the shooting starts.

Based on Israel and how unlikely it is that the Air Force would leave the F-22’s sitting over there too long or the Navy would leave two carriers floating in the gulf longer than necessary, I would expect an attack no later than the end of August, with the current plan being three weeks of bombing.

So the next question is will this help Obama's re-election chances? I doubt it. Weak- appearing leaders tend to get hurt when they start wars because people see it as a desperate attempt to look tough. Libya gave Obama his standard three point bounce which faded almost before it was recorded. I would expect this will give him a 10% bounce, which will fade in week two of the bombing and go negative if bombing goes on beyond three weeks. . . which it will. Plus, as he's shown with his Afghanistan garbage, he will quickly try to politicize it, and that will truly anger average Americans.

Thoughts?

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

View Detail

Saudi Arabia Burning

Saudi Arabia Burning

News Update: Santorum has withdrawn from the race, but no endorsement yet.

Two days after Easter, it seemed appropriate to have a little chat about our “friend and ally” Saudi Arabia. We all know that Saudi Arabia is hostile to Christianity. Many of us first realized how hostile during the first Gulf War when the Saudis. ”

The beleaguered protectors of the Holy Sites reached out pleading hands to the United States, crying: “Save us from Saddam Hussein. Save us. Oh, and by the way, when you get here don’t even think of celebrating Christmas.
For decades now, the Saudis have forbidden the building of new Christian churches in Saudi Arabia, and the penalty for a Muslim who converts to Christianity remains death. But that’s simply not enough for the purveyors of the religion of peace. So the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Shaikh, chief cleric of the Saudi kingdom, has issued a fatwa that remedies that deficiency. He has called for the physical destruction of all Christian churches within the confines of the oil-rich, freedom-poor nation.

The fatwa was picked up by Islamist news stations in other parts of Jihadistan, but so far the Saudi king’s state-controlled media have not reported on the latest round of Islamic religious tolerance. Saudi king Abdullah does not want his phony interfaith “dialogue centers” in Europe endangered by the cleric’s move. He may also fear that the current robe-kissing, deep-bowing American president will be defeated in November and replaced by a new commander-in-chief with a backbone. It should also be noted that if the monarch were truly interested in interfaith dialogue he might open a center or two in his own kingdom.

On March 30, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a private meeting with the king, in which the topic was allegedly the miserable state of women in the sand kingdom. It is also rumored that she brought up the fatwa, but that remains unconfirmed. If she did discuss the matter with the king, he must have replied “shut up, foolish woman” since nothing has been heard from State since.

The news concerning the fatwa first came out in the Kuwaiti newspapers. Kuwait’s parliament was kicking around the idea of a ban on new church construction to match Saudi Arabia’s. They invited al-Shaikh to speak on the topic, but the chief Saudi cleric figured it was a dandy time to go that one step farther and propose the destruction of existing churches as well.

The grand mufti speaks officially only for the Saudi Muslim state, and then only after consultation with the king. But al-Shaikh was taking advantage of his position as chief cleric for the home of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina, a position which gives his words significance outside the Saudi realm. It’s likely no coincidence that he made his decree known in a neighboring Muslim state which was considering banning all Christian churches. Although he has no authority outside Saudi Arabia, this message was addressed to all Muslims. It will have an effect, even in those states where Sunni-Shiite rivalries are vicious. Even mass murderers are know to occasionally rally around a common cause such as destroying Christian places of worship. Take Egypt and Lebanon for starters.

Think of it this way. The Pope is the single most influential Christian in all of Christendom, but his secular authority does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the Vatican, and his religious doctrine cannot be enforced outside the Roman Catholic Church. Still, anything he says is going to be taken note of by his fellow Christians. If the Pope declared that the doctrine of transubstantiation must be enforced throughout the Christian world, Protestants would take little note of it.

But what if the Pope announced an official decree (called a “bull,” something very similar to an Islamic fatwa) requiring the destruction of all mosques in Italy, the home of Roman Catholicism? And what if he did so in an address to the British Parliament? You can let your imagination run wild with that. But two things are sure. The secular authorities would declare the bull to be in violation of civil law, and many Christians would be horrified.

But in theory, at least, it would be an order to Italian Catholics, an encouragement to Catholics elsewhere in the world, and a call to arms even for many Protestants. With or without the support of the majority of Christians, trouble would soon be in the offing among those who are scarcely able to tolerate Islam in their homelands now. Medieval Popes did something very similar. The generic term for it is The Crusades.

In reality, of course, the current Pope is a real man of peace, as opposed to Islam and its major clerics who are advocates of the phony religion of peace. So don’t expect any Papal calls for mosque demolitions. In Saudi Arabia and adjacent lands, religious tolerance is honored more in the breach than in the observance. But at least until this fatwa came along, there was a small pretense that Islam was not out to destroy or reduce Christianity into submission.

And let us remember, that the Arabic word “Islam” does not mean “peace.” It means “submission.” Islamists and weak-kneed non-Muslims would have you believe that the word means “voluntary submission to the will of Allah.” Would that it were true, but the words of the grand mufti prove otherwise.

News Update: Santorum has withdrawn from the race, but no endorsement yet.

Two days after Easter, it seemed appropriate to have a little chat about our “friend and ally” Saudi Arabia. We all know that Saudi Arabia is hostile to Christianity. Many of us first realized how hostile during the first Gulf War when the Saudis. ”

The beleaguered protectors of the Holy Sites reached out pleading hands to the United States, crying: “Save us from Saddam Hussein. Save us. Oh, and by the way, when you get here don’t even think of celebrating Christmas.
For decades now, the Saudis have forbidden the building of new Christian churches in Saudi Arabia, and the penalty for a Muslim who converts to Christianity remains death. But that’s simply not enough for the purveyors of the religion of peace. So the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Shaikh, chief cleric of the Saudi kingdom, has issued a fatwa that remedies that deficiency. He has called for the physical destruction of all Christian churches within the confines of the oil-rich, freedom-poor nation.

The fatwa was picked up by Islamist news stations in other parts of Jihadistan, but so far the Saudi king’s state-controlled media have not reported on the latest round of Islamic religious tolerance. Saudi king Abdullah does not want his phony interfaith “dialogue centers” in Europe endangered by the cleric’s move. He may also fear that the current robe-kissing, deep-bowing American president will be defeated in November and replaced by a new commander-in-chief with a backbone. It should also be noted that if the monarch were truly interested in interfaith dialogue he might open a center or two in his own kingdom.

On March 30, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a private meeting with the king, in which the topic was allegedly the miserable state of women in the sand kingdom. It is also rumored that she brought up the fatwa, but that remains unconfirmed. If she did discuss the matter with the king, he must have replied “shut up, foolish woman” since nothing has been heard from State since.

The news concerning the fatwa first came out in the Kuwaiti newspapers. Kuwait’s parliament was kicking around the idea of a ban on new church construction to match Saudi Arabia’s. They invited al-Shaikh to speak on the topic, but the chief Saudi cleric figured it was a dandy time to go that one step farther and propose the destruction of existing churches as well.

The grand mufti speaks officially only for the Saudi Muslim state, and then only after consultation with the king. But al-Shaikh was taking advantage of his position as chief cleric for the home of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina, a position which gives his words significance outside the Saudi realm. It’s likely no coincidence that he made his decree known in a neighboring Muslim state which was considering banning all Christian churches. Although he has no authority outside Saudi Arabia, this message was addressed to all Muslims. It will have an effect, even in those states where Sunni-Shiite rivalries are vicious. Even mass murderers are know to occasionally rally around a common cause such as destroying Christian places of worship. Take Egypt and Lebanon for starters.

Think of it this way. The Pope is the single most influential Christian in all of Christendom, but his secular authority does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the Vatican, and his religious doctrine cannot be enforced outside the Roman Catholic Church. Still, anything he says is going to be taken note of by his fellow Christians. If the Pope declared that the doctrine of transubstantiation must be enforced throughout the Christian world, Protestants would take little note of it.

But what if the Pope announced an official decree (called a “bull,” something very similar to an Islamic fatwa) requiring the destruction of all mosques in Italy, the home of Roman Catholicism? And what if he did so in an address to the British Parliament? You can let your imagination run wild with that. But two things are sure. The secular authorities would declare the bull to be in violation of civil law, and many Christians would be horrified.

But in theory, at least, it would be an order to Italian Catholics, an encouragement to Catholics elsewhere in the world, and a call to arms even for many Protestants. With or without the support of the majority of Christians, trouble would soon be in the offing among those who are scarcely able to tolerate Islam in their homelands now. Medieval Popes did something very similar. The generic term for it is The Crusades.

In reality, of course, the current Pope is a real man of peace, as opposed to Islam and its major clerics who are advocates of the phony religion of peace. So don’t expect any Papal calls for mosque demolitions. In Saudi Arabia and adjacent lands, religious tolerance is honored more in the breach than in the observance. But at least until this fatwa came along, there was a small pretense that Islam was not out to destroy or reduce Christianity into submission.

And let us remember, that the Arabic word “Islam” does not mean “peace.” It means “submission.” Islamists and weak-kneed non-Muslims would have you believe that the word means “voluntary submission to the will of Allah.” Would that it were true, but the words of the grand mufti prove otherwise.

Saudi Arabia Burning

View Detail

The Economist Believes In Magic

The Economist Believes In Magic

As I’ve said before, The Economist is a wonderful magazine if you want to see the insanity of liberalism presented in pure form. This time, they go all out to demonstrate how insanely stupid liberal foreign policy is in an article ludicrously titled “How To Set Syria Free.” Watch as they demand that we enter an unjustified war, and then they come up with a plan of action which relies on magic.

The Economist starts by trying to overwhelm your logic with emotion by talking about victims, butchery, dead being buried under cover of darkness, mourners, makeshift clinics, and floors slick with blood. They are trying to paint a picture so emotionally horrible that you put aside your reasoning and just accept that something must be done. Then they say the Syrian people have the “fire of conviction” that they will win, but “the outside world, to its shame, has shown no such resolve.” In other words, victory is inevitable and you are shameful to oppose intervention. These are peer pressure arguments.

Having set you up emotionally, they now give the “logical” case for intervening:

Argument No. 1: Almost 7,000 people have died and “the people of Syria deserve better. . . the world has a responsibility to act.” Uh. For starters, the number is actually half that. And if world-intervention is justified just because people are being killed, then why not invade Brazil? Don’t the 55,000 people killed there each year “deserve better” too? Why isn’t The Economist demanding the world invade Mexico where 30,000 people have been killed in the past few years in a drug war?

Argument No. 2: “[The world] also has an interest. Syria occupies a vital position in the Middle East, jammed between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon.” Holy cow! That’s the argument? The mere fact that Syria has neighbors is now considered an interest which justifies an attack? What country doesn’t have neighbors? Using this logic, there is literally nowhere on Earth that doesn’t have some vital world interest. And yet these people said we had no interest in Iraq and have no interest in Iran?

That’s it for the justification, by the way. Clearly, the case for intervention is unassailable, so let’s talk about what the world should do.

Right out of the gates, The Economist shows that it has no stomach to do anything real: “shifting Mr. Assad from power as fast as possible is essential.” Talk about a mealy euphemism. We’ve gone from defeating and killing to eliminating to regime change to shifting from power. That sounds like retirement. And it’s ominously passive, like they want Assad to agree to quit. In fact, they do. Observe.

First, they claim that it’s too late for Assad to “negotiate an accommodation” to oversee “an increase in democracy.” In other words, they’re sick of talking and he needs to be taken out -- notice how this flies in the face of their positions on Iraq and Iran where they demand never-ending talk. And why must he go? Because he’s lost the will of the people and if he gave them democracy, they would only use it against him violently. Translation: we can’t not-kill him because if we don’t kill him, the people would kill him, and we can’t have them killing him, so we are forced to kill him. Try figuring that one out.

But don’t worry about an actual attempt to kill or dethrone him, because The Economist doesn’t have the cojones for that. Indeed, watch them crumble.

See, Assad’s military is loyal and is willing to kill civilians. That’s a big advantage which we must overcome. So how do we stop them? “The most direct answer is. . . bombing Mr. Assad’s troops.” This would satisfy “outsiders’ urge to do something to show their outrage.” BUT, The Economist notes, Russia and China will stop the UN from doing that. Also, Syria’s terrain isn’t like Libya and there are no front lines, so The Economist says bombing won’t work. Ergo, take bombing off the list.

What about arming the rebels? That might work, EXCEPT the rebels are disorganized and lack unity and “such a policy would not suddenly turn the opposition into a fighting force.” Also, The Economist warns us that “a country awash with weapons would be plagued by the very violence the world was seeking to avoid.” It then argues that giving the rebels guns would create another situation like Afghanistan, where the flood of guns “helped create the chaos that spawned the Taliban.” This is, of course, ludicrous. First, it was a civil war which spawned the Taliban, not the presence of guns. Secondly, the Syrian regime has more than enough guns to cause this to happen if they fall.

So what do we do? Well, The Economist has the answer. It would be “far better to attack Mr. Assad’s regime where it is vulnerable – by peeling away his support.” Specifically, we need to SOMEHOW convince Russia to stop defending Assad in the UN because that would let us do a bombing campaign (which The Economist already said won’t work). We also need to convince all of the minorities in Syria to rise up as one. Yep. There it is: the Kumbaya Plan.

How stupid can you get?! When faced with a dictator killing his own people, the liberal response is to wish that people would stand up to them. Doesn’t The Economist realize that’s what’s happening in Syria right now and it’s not working? And how in the world can they think this will work when they just said the following a couple paragraphs before about Assad’s advantages:

“One is his willingness to do whatever it takes to put down the rebellion. . . Syrian soldiers are steeped in blood [and] Assad commands crack units and a relatively loyal officer corps.”

In other words, Assad doesn’t care how many people stand up to him, he’ll kill them all. Yet, The Economist’s plan is to hope enough people stand up that Assad gives up? Insane.

And The Economist isn’t done yet. See, to make this happen, “Syria’s fractious opposition must unite. . . with a single voice and credible leader.” In other words, they need a Magic Syrian they can all trust. Then this leader can talk to “the Kurds and Christians who back Mr. Assad.” Oh oh. Wait. The Kumbaya Plan relies on everyone rising up and “isolating” Assad, but now we’re hearing that chunks of the population support Assad? Doesn’t that doom the Kumbaya Plan? Oh, that’s right, the Magic Syrian can heal the sick and bring everyone together.

Then The Economist goes into all-out fantasy mode. Once this Magic Syrian appears, “the Russians would also begin to shift ground.” Why? Because Russia would then know that defeat for Assad would be inevitable, and unless Russia wants to lose a naval base it has in Syria and its arms export business to the country, then it would clearly shift sides. As this happened, naturally, the Syrian military will change sides too because the Magic Syrian is just unstoppable. . . somehow.

So let’s put this together. We need to enter a civil war without provocation because people are dying. And to defeat a military that is willing to kill as many of its own people as needed, we need only hope that a Magic Syrian arises who can unite all the people, including those who have a vested economic and social interest in backing Assad, and can convince the Syrian military and Russians to abandon Assad. And like that, the world will have solved the Syria problem.

Nice work Economist, you’ve solved everything.

Finally, for good measure, while we wait for the Magic Syrian, The Economist suggests that we kind of, sort of ask someone to create a safe haven somewhere near Turkey where Syrians can flee. Why? Because “a free patch of Syria would be powerful evidence that Mr. Assad’s brutal days are numbered.” Yes, refuge camps always defeat dictators.

Idiots.

As I’ve said before, The Economist is a wonderful magazine if you want to see the insanity of liberalism presented in pure form. This time, they go all out to demonstrate how insanely stupid liberal foreign policy is in an article ludicrously titled “How To Set Syria Free.” Watch as they demand that we enter an unjustified war, and then they come up with a plan of action which relies on magic.

The Economist starts by trying to overwhelm your logic with emotion by talking about victims, butchery, dead being buried under cover of darkness, mourners, makeshift clinics, and floors slick with blood. They are trying to paint a picture so emotionally horrible that you put aside your reasoning and just accept that something must be done. Then they say the Syrian people have the “fire of conviction” that they will win, but “the outside world, to its shame, has shown no such resolve.” In other words, victory is inevitable and you are shameful to oppose intervention. These are peer pressure arguments.

Having set you up emotionally, they now give the “logical” case for intervening:

Argument No. 1: Almost 7,000 people have died and “the people of Syria deserve better. . . the world has a responsibility to act.” Uh. For starters, the number is actually half that. And if world-intervention is justified just because people are being killed, then why not invade Brazil? Don’t the 55,000 people killed there each year “deserve better” too? Why isn’t The Economist demanding the world invade Mexico where 30,000 people have been killed in the past few years in a drug war?

Argument No. 2: “[The world] also has an interest. Syria occupies a vital position in the Middle East, jammed between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon.” Holy cow! That’s the argument? The mere fact that Syria has neighbors is now considered an interest which justifies an attack? What country doesn’t have neighbors? Using this logic, there is literally nowhere on Earth that doesn’t have some vital world interest. And yet these people said we had no interest in Iraq and have no interest in Iran?

That’s it for the justification, by the way. Clearly, the case for intervention is unassailable, so let’s talk about what the world should do.

Right out of the gates, The Economist shows that it has no stomach to do anything real: “shifting Mr. Assad from power as fast as possible is essential.” Talk about a mealy euphemism. We’ve gone from defeating and killing to eliminating to regime change to shifting from power. That sounds like retirement. And it’s ominously passive, like they want Assad to agree to quit. In fact, they do. Observe.

First, they claim that it’s too late for Assad to “negotiate an accommodation” to oversee “an increase in democracy.” In other words, they’re sick of talking and he needs to be taken out -- notice how this flies in the face of their positions on Iraq and Iran where they demand never-ending talk. And why must he go? Because he’s lost the will of the people and if he gave them democracy, they would only use it against him violently. Translation: we can’t not-kill him because if we don’t kill him, the people would kill him, and we can’t have them killing him, so we are forced to kill him. Try figuring that one out.

But don’t worry about an actual attempt to kill or dethrone him, because The Economist doesn’t have the cojones for that. Indeed, watch them crumble.

See, Assad’s military is loyal and is willing to kill civilians. That’s a big advantage which we must overcome. So how do we stop them? “The most direct answer is. . . bombing Mr. Assad’s troops.” This would satisfy “outsiders’ urge to do something to show their outrage.” BUT, The Economist notes, Russia and China will stop the UN from doing that. Also, Syria’s terrain isn’t like Libya and there are no front lines, so The Economist says bombing won’t work. Ergo, take bombing off the list.

What about arming the rebels? That might work, EXCEPT the rebels are disorganized and lack unity and “such a policy would not suddenly turn the opposition into a fighting force.” Also, The Economist warns us that “a country awash with weapons would be plagued by the very violence the world was seeking to avoid.” It then argues that giving the rebels guns would create another situation like Afghanistan, where the flood of guns “helped create the chaos that spawned the Taliban.” This is, of course, ludicrous. First, it was a civil war which spawned the Taliban, not the presence of guns. Secondly, the Syrian regime has more than enough guns to cause this to happen if they fall.

So what do we do? Well, The Economist has the answer. It would be “far better to attack Mr. Assad’s regime where it is vulnerable – by peeling away his support.” Specifically, we need to SOMEHOW convince Russia to stop defending Assad in the UN because that would let us do a bombing campaign (which The Economist already said won’t work). We also need to convince all of the minorities in Syria to rise up as one. Yep. There it is: the Kumbaya Plan.

How stupid can you get?! When faced with a dictator killing his own people, the liberal response is to wish that people would stand up to them. Doesn’t The Economist realize that’s what’s happening in Syria right now and it’s not working? And how in the world can they think this will work when they just said the following a couple paragraphs before about Assad’s advantages:

“One is his willingness to do whatever it takes to put down the rebellion. . . Syrian soldiers are steeped in blood [and] Assad commands crack units and a relatively loyal officer corps.”

In other words, Assad doesn’t care how many people stand up to him, he’ll kill them all. Yet, The Economist’s plan is to hope enough people stand up that Assad gives up? Insane.

And The Economist isn’t done yet. See, to make this happen, “Syria’s fractious opposition must unite. . . with a single voice and credible leader.” In other words, they need a Magic Syrian they can all trust. Then this leader can talk to “the Kurds and Christians who back Mr. Assad.” Oh oh. Wait. The Kumbaya Plan relies on everyone rising up and “isolating” Assad, but now we’re hearing that chunks of the population support Assad? Doesn’t that doom the Kumbaya Plan? Oh, that’s right, the Magic Syrian can heal the sick and bring everyone together.

Then The Economist goes into all-out fantasy mode. Once this Magic Syrian appears, “the Russians would also begin to shift ground.” Why? Because Russia would then know that defeat for Assad would be inevitable, and unless Russia wants to lose a naval base it has in Syria and its arms export business to the country, then it would clearly shift sides. As this happened, naturally, the Syrian military will change sides too because the Magic Syrian is just unstoppable. . . somehow.

So let’s put this together. We need to enter a civil war without provocation because people are dying. And to defeat a military that is willing to kill as many of its own people as needed, we need only hope that a Magic Syrian arises who can unite all the people, including those who have a vested economic and social interest in backing Assad, and can convince the Syrian military and Russians to abandon Assad. And like that, the world will have solved the Syria problem.

Nice work Economist, you’ve solved everything.

Finally, for good measure, while we wait for the Magic Syrian, The Economist suggests that we kind of, sort of ask someone to create a safe haven somewhere near Turkey where Syrians can flee. Why? Because “a free patch of Syria would be powerful evidence that Mr. Assad’s brutal days are numbered.” Yes, refuge camps always defeat dictators.

Idiots.

The Economist Believes In Magic

View Detail

Iran: Sanctioning Stupity

Iran: Sanctioning Stupity

I always enjoy it when The Economist presents insanely stupid liberal arguments with a straight face. That’s high entertainment, like exquisite parody. The latest example involves an attempt to explain why Obama is doing just fine in his efforts to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. This argument is so awful that a child could see the problems with it. But apparently, The Economist can’t.

The Economist’s argument runs like this. First, they claim that Obama is on the verge of solving the Iranian problem because he just signed a measure into law which imposes “sanctions of unprecedented severity.” Yep. Specifically, these sanction will “ban” sales of Iranian oil to Europe, Japan and South Korea, who currently account for 40% of Iran’s sales. It will also “punish any foreign financial institution transacting business with Iran’s central bank.” This is meant to pressure Iran into stopping its development of nuclear weapons and “to show a jumpy Israel that there is an alternative to a military attack.” This is important because a military attack would raise tensions and might not actually work.

Makes sense, right?

Well, that depends on whether or not you keep reading the article. For in the very next breath, The Economist admits that skeptics “are entitled to ask” if sanctions will really work, “given that a variety of sanctions over the past 30 years has failed to change Iran’s behavior.”

Ok, let’s stop right there. This 30-years-of-failure fact tells us that the skeptics have been 100% right for 30 years now and what The Economist proposes has a miserable track record of absolute failure. Hence, the skeptics are more than just “are entitled to ask.” To the contrary, they are entitled to laugh uproariously at this idiotic suggestion. Indeed, what The Economist is doing fits Einstein’s definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Also, let’s be clear, this is the same Economist which claims that sanctions against Cuba can’t work but which now says they will work in Iran.

So why does The Economist think these will work? Because these sanctions are different. These are “sanctions of unprecedented severity” (sounds like “rodents of unusual size”). Indeed, according to The Economist, these sanctions will finally hurt the regime because they will stop Iran from selling its oil! Ah ha! Take that you Iranians! And take that too you dirty “Republican candidates” who are cynically trying to “depict Mr. Obama as weak.”

Yep, Obama is great. The end.

Oh wait, there are more words in this article. Words like this: “China, which is Iran’s biggest trading partner and has little truck with sanctions, will probably take up much of the slack created by Europe and America’s Asian allies.” Hmm. So Iran will shift its sales from Europe to China and Iranian sales will decrease by exactly 0%. Interesting. And no one at The Economist thought this might make their description of these as “sanctions of unprecedented severity” suddenly seem rather ridiculous? No one thought that Iran suffering NO economic consequences at all from these sanctions meant their estimate that “the latest sanctions will cause [Iran] more pain,” could perhaps be completely and utterly wrong?

It gets worse.

See, it turns out that this could be bad for Europe and the US: “the fragile economies of Europe and America would suffer if Iran’s oil exports disappeared from the world market.” Now think about this. This means these powerful sanctions will result in ZERO harm to Iran, but could tip the West into recession, thereby weakening Iran’s enemies. Yet The Economist, with a straight face, says this is “nevertheless worthwhile.”

Soooooo, let me see how this logic works. Doing something that hurts you but not the person you want to hurt is worthwhile because it will somehow force them to change their behavior. Hmm. Well, in that light, I think we should shoot pineapples up the rear ends of everyone who works for The Economist. That might just be what’s needed to stop Iran. Sure, I can guarantee you that it won’t actually do anything to Iran and it will certainly hurt the staff at The Economist, but it’s “nevertheless worthwhile” because. . . well, because it is. Problem solved, crack the bubbly!

Idiots.

Anyways, the pineapple sitters at The Economist aren’t done supporting their argument. They say, it’s clear that Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is proof that the mere threat of these sanctions has put the regime under strain.

Of course, it’s more likely the Hormuz threat is a direct response to Israel fueling up its jets. But let’s not confuse The Economist with facts or logics as they clearly are not equipped the handle either. Also, for the record, this is the same threat Iran makes whenever something displeases it. They made it during the Iran-Iraq war, in response to the 30-years of ineffective sanctions, in response to UN reports, in response to Gulf Wars I & II, Saudi saber rattling, movies they didn’t liked, etc. In other words, thinking this threat shows a regime under pressure is purely wishful thinking.

The Economist also thinks Iran is worried about the Arab Spring. Of course, it conveniently ignores the fact that Iran already had its spring and the springers lost.

Finally, it suggests offering Iran “a carrot” by telling it everything it stands to gain if it just starts playing nice. This is idiocy. Can they really believe that Iran doesn’t know what it could gain or lose either way and hasn’t made a rational decision that it has more to gain going this route? “Wait Ahmed, you mean the Americans will open a McDonalds in Tehran if we stop trying to kill them? Why has no one told me this before?!”

The Economist also suggests we could promise to enrich their uranium for them. Yay! Never mind that this was only ever a temporary suggestion to slow Iran’s own enrichment and it’s been offered twice, by France the first time and then Brazil and South Africa the second, and Iran laughed it off because they want to build a bomb.

Liberalism is a mental condition and articles like this prove it. No human being with even a hint of intelligence could think that a plan which would do no harm except to the person proposing the plan will cause a bad guy to become a good guy. Yet here it is. I am honestly at a loss for words to describe how stupid this is.

I swear I’ve been punked.

I always enjoy it when The Economist presents insanely stupid liberal arguments with a straight face. That’s high entertainment, like exquisite parody. The latest example involves an attempt to explain why Obama is doing just fine in his efforts to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. This argument is so awful that a child could see the problems with it. But apparently, The Economist can’t.

The Economist’s argument runs like this. First, they claim that Obama is on the verge of solving the Iranian problem because he just signed a measure into law which imposes “sanctions of unprecedented severity.” Yep. Specifically, these sanction will “ban” sales of Iranian oil to Europe, Japan and South Korea, who currently account for 40% of Iran’s sales. It will also “punish any foreign financial institution transacting business with Iran’s central bank.” This is meant to pressure Iran into stopping its development of nuclear weapons and “to show a jumpy Israel that there is an alternative to a military attack.” This is important because a military attack would raise tensions and might not actually work.

Makes sense, right?

Well, that depends on whether or not you keep reading the article. For in the very next breath, The Economist admits that skeptics “are entitled to ask” if sanctions will really work, “given that a variety of sanctions over the past 30 years has failed to change Iran’s behavior.”

Ok, let’s stop right there. This 30-years-of-failure fact tells us that the skeptics have been 100% right for 30 years now and what The Economist proposes has a miserable track record of absolute failure. Hence, the skeptics are more than just “are entitled to ask.” To the contrary, they are entitled to laugh uproariously at this idiotic suggestion. Indeed, what The Economist is doing fits Einstein’s definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Also, let’s be clear, this is the same Economist which claims that sanctions against Cuba can’t work but which now says they will work in Iran.

So why does The Economist think these will work? Because these sanctions are different. These are “sanctions of unprecedented severity” (sounds like “rodents of unusual size”). Indeed, according to The Economist, these sanctions will finally hurt the regime because they will stop Iran from selling its oil! Ah ha! Take that you Iranians! And take that too you dirty “Republican candidates” who are cynically trying to “depict Mr. Obama as weak.”

Yep, Obama is great. The end.

Oh wait, there are more words in this article. Words like this: “China, which is Iran’s biggest trading partner and has little truck with sanctions, will probably take up much of the slack created by Europe and America’s Asian allies.” Hmm. So Iran will shift its sales from Europe to China and Iranian sales will decrease by exactly 0%. Interesting. And no one at The Economist thought this might make their description of these as “sanctions of unprecedented severity” suddenly seem rather ridiculous? No one thought that Iran suffering NO economic consequences at all from these sanctions meant their estimate that “the latest sanctions will cause [Iran] more pain,” could perhaps be completely and utterly wrong?

It gets worse.

See, it turns out that this could be bad for Europe and the US: “the fragile economies of Europe and America would suffer if Iran’s oil exports disappeared from the world market.” Now think about this. This means these powerful sanctions will result in ZERO harm to Iran, but could tip the West into recession, thereby weakening Iran’s enemies. Yet The Economist, with a straight face, says this is “nevertheless worthwhile.”

Soooooo, let me see how this logic works. Doing something that hurts you but not the person you want to hurt is worthwhile because it will somehow force them to change their behavior. Hmm. Well, in that light, I think we should shoot pineapples up the rear ends of everyone who works for The Economist. That might just be what’s needed to stop Iran. Sure, I can guarantee you that it won’t actually do anything to Iran and it will certainly hurt the staff at The Economist, but it’s “nevertheless worthwhile” because. . . well, because it is. Problem solved, crack the bubbly!

Idiots.

Anyways, the pineapple sitters at The Economist aren’t done supporting their argument. They say, it’s clear that Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is proof that the mere threat of these sanctions has put the regime under strain.

Of course, it’s more likely the Hormuz threat is a direct response to Israel fueling up its jets. But let’s not confuse The Economist with facts or logics as they clearly are not equipped the handle either. Also, for the record, this is the same threat Iran makes whenever something displeases it. They made it during the Iran-Iraq war, in response to the 30-years of ineffective sanctions, in response to UN reports, in response to Gulf Wars I & II, Saudi saber rattling, movies they didn’t liked, etc. In other words, thinking this threat shows a regime under pressure is purely wishful thinking.

The Economist also thinks Iran is worried about the Arab Spring. Of course, it conveniently ignores the fact that Iran already had its spring and the springers lost.

Finally, it suggests offering Iran “a carrot” by telling it everything it stands to gain if it just starts playing nice. This is idiocy. Can they really believe that Iran doesn’t know what it could gain or lose either way and hasn’t made a rational decision that it has more to gain going this route? “Wait Ahmed, you mean the Americans will open a McDonalds in Tehran if we stop trying to kill them? Why has no one told me this before?!”

The Economist also suggests we could promise to enrich their uranium for them. Yay! Never mind that this was only ever a temporary suggestion to slow Iran’s own enrichment and it’s been offered twice, by France the first time and then Brazil and South Africa the second, and Iran laughed it off because they want to build a bomb.

Liberalism is a mental condition and articles like this prove it. No human being with even a hint of intelligence could think that a plan which would do no harm except to the person proposing the plan will cause a bad guy to become a good guy. Yet here it is. I am honestly at a loss for words to describe how stupid this is.

I swear I’ve been punked.

Iran: Sanctioning Stupity

View Detail

John Kerry's Strange Associates

John Kerry's Strange Associates

Over the years, Sen. John Kerry has gotten his ideas of how the world works from people ranging from the Viet Cong to Alinsky radicals to Yale professors. Having pretty much successfully worked with his fellow Democrats on making the United States a social democratic government-dependent nation, over the past few years he has turned his attentions to foreign affairs.

Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Currently he is basking in the warmth of the Arab Spring. Like his counterparts in the executive branch, Barack Obama, Kerry seeks advice from those who can be trusted to tell the truth. Like Obama and his White House free-speech meeting with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Kerry has chosen to get his information on political developments in Egypt from the Freedom and Justice Party. The FJP is an arm of the Muslim brotherhood, which now (along with the even-more fundamentalist Salafists) controls about 70% of Egypt's legislative seats as of the most recent round of elections.

Let's face it. It would have been almost impossible for a man like Kerry to resist getting his advice from men who represent a party that has both "freedom" and "justice" in its name. So Kerry invited three honchos from the FJP to come to his Senate office. It's not as posh as the White House, but not bad. The three are Essam El-Erian, vice chairman of the FJP, Mohamed Saad Katani, Secretary-General of the FJP, and the big falafel, Mohamed Morsi, chairman of the FJP.

These men represent the best of Egyptian secular democracy (irony intended). Day-dreaming a western-style democracy in Egypt (and the Middle East) is a Democratic habit. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, back in February the Obama administration announced without even twitching that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular." And Kerry has the quotes to prove it.

As for secularism, Katani agrees with the Salafists (really militant Islamists) that "Nobody dares oppose the application of Sharia law." El-Katani and El-Erian previously issued a joint statement saying: "If you want to know what principles guide our party, let me tell you: the principles of the Islamic Sharia law."

But there's still the "freedom and justice part," right? Says peaceful chairman Morsi: "Israel is a Zionist usurper that has been created by international terrorism and injustice. Israel must be destroyed and any nation that supports it is perpetrating genocide against the Palestinians." Kerry seemed entirely unruffled by that remark, unlike his reaction to Newt Gingrich referring to the Palestinians (correctly) as an "invented people."

Kerry's friendliness toward the Brotherhood was bolstered by an earlier statement from US Special Coordinator for Transitions in the Middle East William Taylor who had said that the US would be satisfied with a Brotherhood victory. Kerry's domestic partner at the meeting was Anne Patterson, US ambassador to Egypt.

Prior to the latest Egyptian elections, the Muslim Brotherhood had at least feigned a moderate stance toward secularism, democracy, and Israel. Since those elections the facade has begun to crumble. Even the liberal and Islamo-friendly The New Republic sensed there was something rotten in the state of Egypt. Correspondent Eric Trager conducted a series of interviews with FJP and Muslim Brotherhood leaders. He concluded: "Far from being moderate, these future leaders share a commitment to theocratic rule, complete with a limited view of civil liberties and an unmistakable antipathy for the West."

Kerry mustn't read TNR these days, or watch TV news stories about new outbreaks of anti-Christian violence and the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The Islamist masses have been considerably emboldened since their electoral victories. The FJP plans to follow strict Sharia law including, but not limited to, banning interest-bearing banking, banning alcohol, requiring women to wear clothing that covers everything but their faces (covering them will come later), and banning any speech which is critical of Islam or promotes in any way another religion. It's not clear whether they intend to make apostasy a capital offense, but leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have made it clear they would like to.

Given all this, you might think that the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee might be a little cagey about whom he invites to his office and how far he would go to encourage them. Silly you. After the meetings, Kerry announced that he had learned just how good the intentions of the FJP are. In fact, they're so good, he first praised the "transparency and integrity" of the elections, then pledged his support for Egypt's new government. He also promised that he would do everything he could to get the International Monetary Fund to support the fledgling Islamist government (paid for largely out of the pockets of the US taxpayer).

Over the years, Sen. John Kerry has gotten his ideas of how the world works from people ranging from the Viet Cong to Alinsky radicals to Yale professors. Having pretty much successfully worked with his fellow Democrats on making the United States a social democratic government-dependent nation, over the past few years he has turned his attentions to foreign affairs.

Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Currently he is basking in the warmth of the Arab Spring. Like his counterparts in the executive branch, Barack Obama, Kerry seeks advice from those who can be trusted to tell the truth. Like Obama and his White House free-speech meeting with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Kerry has chosen to get his information on political developments in Egypt from the Freedom and Justice Party. The FJP is an arm of the Muslim brotherhood, which now (along with the even-more fundamentalist Salafists) controls about 70% of Egypt's legislative seats as of the most recent round of elections.

Let's face it. It would have been almost impossible for a man like Kerry to resist getting his advice from men who represent a party that has both "freedom" and "justice" in its name. So Kerry invited three honchos from the FJP to come to his Senate office. It's not as posh as the White House, but not bad. The three are Essam El-Erian, vice chairman of the FJP, Mohamed Saad Katani, Secretary-General of the FJP, and the big falafel, Mohamed Morsi, chairman of the FJP.

These men represent the best of Egyptian secular democracy (irony intended). Day-dreaming a western-style democracy in Egypt (and the Middle East) is a Democratic habit. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, back in February the Obama administration announced without even twitching that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular." And Kerry has the quotes to prove it.

As for secularism, Katani agrees with the Salafists (really militant Islamists) that "Nobody dares oppose the application of Sharia law." El-Katani and El-Erian previously issued a joint statement saying: "If you want to know what principles guide our party, let me tell you: the principles of the Islamic Sharia law."

But there's still the "freedom and justice part," right? Says peaceful chairman Morsi: "Israel is a Zionist usurper that has been created by international terrorism and injustice. Israel must be destroyed and any nation that supports it is perpetrating genocide against the Palestinians." Kerry seemed entirely unruffled by that remark, unlike his reaction to Newt Gingrich referring to the Palestinians (correctly) as an "invented people."

Kerry's friendliness toward the Brotherhood was bolstered by an earlier statement from US Special Coordinator for Transitions in the Middle East William Taylor who had said that the US would be satisfied with a Brotherhood victory. Kerry's domestic partner at the meeting was Anne Patterson, US ambassador to Egypt.

Prior to the latest Egyptian elections, the Muslim Brotherhood had at least feigned a moderate stance toward secularism, democracy, and Israel. Since those elections the facade has begun to crumble. Even the liberal and Islamo-friendly The New Republic sensed there was something rotten in the state of Egypt. Correspondent Eric Trager conducted a series of interviews with FJP and Muslim Brotherhood leaders. He concluded: "Far from being moderate, these future leaders share a commitment to theocratic rule, complete with a limited view of civil liberties and an unmistakable antipathy for the West."

Kerry mustn't read TNR these days, or watch TV news stories about new outbreaks of anti-Christian violence and the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The Islamist masses have been considerably emboldened since their electoral victories. The FJP plans to follow strict Sharia law including, but not limited to, banning interest-bearing banking, banning alcohol, requiring women to wear clothing that covers everything but their faces (covering them will come later), and banning any speech which is critical of Islam or promotes in any way another religion. It's not clear whether they intend to make apostasy a capital offense, but leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have made it clear they would like to.

Given all this, you might think that the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee might be a little cagey about whom he invites to his office and how far he would go to encourage them. Silly you. After the meetings, Kerry announced that he had learned just how good the intentions of the FJP are. In fact, they're so good, he first praised the "transparency and integrity" of the elections, then pledged his support for Egypt's new government. He also promised that he would do everything he could to get the International Monetary Fund to support the fledgling Islamist government (paid for largely out of the pockets of the US taxpayer).

John Kerry's Strange Associates

View Detail

Anti-Semitism Is Back In Fashion

Anti-Semitism Is Back In Fashion

In the United States, Jews have long been stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Indeed, they’ve never voted for Republicans by more than about 40% (Reagan) and typically they do about half that: McCain got 21%, Bush got 19%. But the left’s passion for a little anti-Semitism will not be denied. And Jews may soon find themselves in an uncomfortable position vis-à-vis the Democratic Party.

Until the late 1980s, the Democrats promoted the idea that Republicans are anti-Semitic. Indeed, you heard this claim a lot: that Republicans “hated” blacks, women and Jews. This was usually supported with some vague urban legend about some religious right personality talking about converting Jews or sometimes a mention of the Inquisition. . . I kid you not. This was then combined with a demand for unquestioned support for Israel.

Then Bill Clinton came along.

It wasn’t that Clinton was anti-Semitic, because he wasn’t. But after Clinton decided to make Middle-East peace his legacy, Israel elected the Likud Party, which refused to playing along with Clinton’s “peace process.” Team Clinton responded by becoming the first American administration I can think of that broke with the unquestioned support for Israel stance (in fact, they actively undermined Likud). Suddenly, it became acceptable to disagree with Israel in liberal circles.

At the same time, Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam ilk were making inroads in both the black community and the Democratic Party. This is a group that railed against Jews, particularly buying into the world-wide Zionist/banking conspiracy theories, and preached to blacks that Jews were “the hooked-nose blood suckers of the black community.” Interestingly, this wasn’t condemned by liberals at the time, unlike Jesse Jackson calling New York “Hymietown” in 1984.

In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon. The wire services and groups like Al Jazeera slanted their coverage of this war to make Israel look like it was trying to kill civilians. In fact, at least one Reuters reporter got caught faking photos of supposedly dead civilians. But the deceptions worked and the world was outraged, including many in the anti-War/ anti-Bush left in the US. Suddenly, members of the American left were demanding war crimes charges be brought against Israel.

Fast forward to the financial crisis in 2008. When Wall Street imploded. The left started tossing around all the historical anti-Semitic stereotypes only without the word “Jew” attached to them. In other words, it became acceptable for leftists to rail against “Jewish bankers” so long as they only implied the “Jewish” part.

Then Obama got elected. Obama came through Rev. Wright’s “Christian” version of the Nation of Islam and his friends were 1960s radicals. Why does this matter? Because some of the radicals were Palestinians who had been fighting Israel for decades.

In 2010, a group of Palestinians tried to force their way through the Israeli blockade of Gaza. They used force and Israeli commandos responded by killing nine “activists.” The liberal world was outraged at Israel and friend-of-Obama Bill Ayers and Code Pink both became involved in trying to break the blockade and get Israel condemned at the UN.

Later in 2010, OWS is born from a jackass. . . like Damien from The Omen only dumber. Within days they start trotting out anti-Semitic statements and carrying anti-Semitic signs. They even allowed the NeoNazis to join them in some locations.

Just this week, Obama’s ambassador to Belgium told an audience that there are two types of anti-Semitism, the “traditional” kind, “which should be condemned,” and Muslim hatred for Jews, “which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians” and which, by implication, is apparently acceptable.

Enter George Soros.

The Center for American Progress, the Democratic Party’s “key hub of ideas and strategy,” and George Soros’s Media Matters have started attacking the Democratic Party’s “staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership.” In fact, they have gone to war with those who would support Israel:

● MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters spends his days online “heaping vitriol” on those who support Israel. In particular, he openly questions the loyalty of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin when it comes to Israel. . . this is an old tactic of anti-Semites and racists, to suggest secret foreign loyalties.

● Both CAP and Media Matters have attacked anyone who tries to argue that Iran is trying to build a bomb, even the White House, as Israeli stooges. CAP’s Eric Alterman accused the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC of trying to get America to go to war for Israel and called this AIPAC’s “big prize.”

● They attack people who support sanctions against Iran as “Israel-firsters,” implying racial supremacist beliefs in such actions. In one instance, Rosenberg blasted Democrat Brad Sherman for supporting sanctions as “the most ugly expression yet of this country’s almost bizarre obsession with punishing Iran, its people along with its government.” Note the idea that opposition to Iran is aimed at Iran’s people, i.e. “racism,” and it’s a result of a mental condition.

● Matt Duss at CAP wrote this: “Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza, and the entire Israeli occupation for that matter, is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values.”

● They get really conspiratorial too. For example, Eli Clifton of ThinkProgress attacked a Quinnipiac poll that referenced Iran’s “nuclear program” because the poll was creating a presumption that such a program exists when there is no “definitive evidence.”

● And they actually called Holder’s idiotic idea that Iran is working with Mexican drug cartels a creation of “conservative think tanks” and AIPAC.

Incredibly, CAP only halfheartedly distanced itself from this after people pointed out these comments were “borderline anti-Semitic.” Incredibly, they claimed these comments, posted on their own blog, were not their official opinions. Yet, they have not taken them down, retracted them, condemned them, or fired anyone.

So what you have here is THE Democratic think tank and THE group that controls the media for the Democrats turning on Israel and batting about the idea that Jews in American (AIPAC) have some hidden control over our government which is being used to help world-wide Jewish interests. This is otherwise known as the International Zionist Conspiracy conspiracy theory. It is anti-Semitism at its worst.

Add in the fact the Democrats have made the Wall Street banker into the new enemy of mankind and their street urchins are actively spouting anti-Semitism in support of this, and American Jews may want to rethink their relationship to the Democratic Party.

The trend is there. I wouldn’t ignore it.

In the United States, Jews have long been stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Indeed, they’ve never voted for Republicans by more than about 40% (Reagan) and typically they do about half that: McCain got 21%, Bush got 19%. But the left’s passion for a little anti-Semitism will not be denied. And Jews may soon find themselves in an uncomfortable position vis-à-vis the Democratic Party.

Until the late 1980s, the Democrats promoted the idea that Republicans are anti-Semitic. Indeed, you heard this claim a lot: that Republicans “hated” blacks, women and Jews. This was usually supported with some vague urban legend about some religious right personality talking about converting Jews or sometimes a mention of the Inquisition. . . I kid you not. This was then combined with a demand for unquestioned support for Israel.

Then Bill Clinton came along.

It wasn’t that Clinton was anti-Semitic, because he wasn’t. But after Clinton decided to make Middle-East peace his legacy, Israel elected the Likud Party, which refused to playing along with Clinton’s “peace process.” Team Clinton responded by becoming the first American administration I can think of that broke with the unquestioned support for Israel stance (in fact, they actively undermined Likud). Suddenly, it became acceptable to disagree with Israel in liberal circles.

At the same time, Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam ilk were making inroads in both the black community and the Democratic Party. This is a group that railed against Jews, particularly buying into the world-wide Zionist/banking conspiracy theories, and preached to blacks that Jews were “the hooked-nose blood suckers of the black community.” Interestingly, this wasn’t condemned by liberals at the time, unlike Jesse Jackson calling New York “Hymietown” in 1984.

In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon. The wire services and groups like Al Jazeera slanted their coverage of this war to make Israel look like it was trying to kill civilians. In fact, at least one Reuters reporter got caught faking photos of supposedly dead civilians. But the deceptions worked and the world was outraged, including many in the anti-War/ anti-Bush left in the US. Suddenly, members of the American left were demanding war crimes charges be brought against Israel.

Fast forward to the financial crisis in 2008. When Wall Street imploded. The left started tossing around all the historical anti-Semitic stereotypes only without the word “Jew” attached to them. In other words, it became acceptable for leftists to rail against “Jewish bankers” so long as they only implied the “Jewish” part.

Then Obama got elected. Obama came through Rev. Wright’s “Christian” version of the Nation of Islam and his friends were 1960s radicals. Why does this matter? Because some of the radicals were Palestinians who had been fighting Israel for decades.

In 2010, a group of Palestinians tried to force their way through the Israeli blockade of Gaza. They used force and Israeli commandos responded by killing nine “activists.” The liberal world was outraged at Israel and friend-of-Obama Bill Ayers and Code Pink both became involved in trying to break the blockade and get Israel condemned at the UN.

Later in 2010, OWS is born from a jackass. . . like Damien from The Omen only dumber. Within days they start trotting out anti-Semitic statements and carrying anti-Semitic signs. They even allowed the NeoNazis to join them in some locations.

Just this week, Obama’s ambassador to Belgium told an audience that there are two types of anti-Semitism, the “traditional” kind, “which should be condemned,” and Muslim hatred for Jews, “which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians” and which, by implication, is apparently acceptable.

Enter George Soros.

The Center for American Progress, the Democratic Party’s “key hub of ideas and strategy,” and George Soros’s Media Matters have started attacking the Democratic Party’s “staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership.” In fact, they have gone to war with those who would support Israel:

● MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters spends his days online “heaping vitriol” on those who support Israel. In particular, he openly questions the loyalty of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin when it comes to Israel. . . this is an old tactic of anti-Semites and racists, to suggest secret foreign loyalties.

● Both CAP and Media Matters have attacked anyone who tries to argue that Iran is trying to build a bomb, even the White House, as Israeli stooges. CAP’s Eric Alterman accused the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC of trying to get America to go to war for Israel and called this AIPAC’s “big prize.”

● They attack people who support sanctions against Iran as “Israel-firsters,” implying racial supremacist beliefs in such actions. In one instance, Rosenberg blasted Democrat Brad Sherman for supporting sanctions as “the most ugly expression yet of this country’s almost bizarre obsession with punishing Iran, its people along with its government.” Note the idea that opposition to Iran is aimed at Iran’s people, i.e. “racism,” and it’s a result of a mental condition.

● Matt Duss at CAP wrote this: “Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza, and the entire Israeli occupation for that matter, is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values.”

● They get really conspiratorial too. For example, Eli Clifton of ThinkProgress attacked a Quinnipiac poll that referenced Iran’s “nuclear program” because the poll was creating a presumption that such a program exists when there is no “definitive evidence.”

● And they actually called Holder’s idiotic idea that Iran is working with Mexican drug cartels a creation of “conservative think tanks” and AIPAC.

Incredibly, CAP only halfheartedly distanced itself from this after people pointed out these comments were “borderline anti-Semitic.” Incredibly, they claimed these comments, posted on their own blog, were not their official opinions. Yet, they have not taken them down, retracted them, condemned them, or fired anyone.

So what you have here is THE Democratic think tank and THE group that controls the media for the Democrats turning on Israel and batting about the idea that Jews in American (AIPAC) have some hidden control over our government which is being used to help world-wide Jewish interests. This is otherwise known as the International Zionist Conspiracy conspiracy theory. It is anti-Semitism at its worst.

Add in the fact the Democrats have made the Wall Street banker into the new enemy of mankind and their street urchins are actively spouting anti-Semitism in support of this, and American Jews may want to rethink their relationship to the Democratic Party.

The trend is there. I wouldn’t ignore it.

Anti-Semitism Is Back In Fashion

View Detail

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

Currently, the Obama administration has requested $550 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority for 2012. That request is based on present notions and past reality. Although the head of the Palestinian Authority is Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, all assumptions were based on his retaining sole authority over all of Palestine. But that is simply not the case.

While Fatah may hold nominal leadership of the P.A., it has never fully-controlled the artificial creation called Palestine. Though Fatah has its strongest representation in the West Bank, it had a strong rival in Gaza. It is estimated that Fatah controls about 40% of the Palestinian population while its rival controls approximately the same percentage. The rival is terrorist Hamas. Hamas is Iran-fueled, anti-American and pledged to the destruction of Israel.

Until recently, the American State Department could maintain the fiction that it was dealing only with the duly-constituted government of Palestine, namely the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah. Then last May, P.A. chairman Abbas entered into an agreement with Hamas to form a "unity government." The strength of Hamas in the negotiations is evidenced by the recent exclusion of American trained economist and current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from the future unity government.

For all practical purposes, the United States would now be negotiating with a government that American law says we cannot deal with, let alone fund. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act conditions aid to the Palestinian Authority on its exclusion of any group which will not renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by current agreements. Until now, the U.S. has also maintained that it is America's policy to abide by the decisions of the Middle East "quartet" comprised of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations which require that the Palestinian Authority maintain all agreements between the P.A. and Israel.

It will be well-nigh impossible for the Palestinian Authority to continue to adhere to any of these foundational agreements once Hamas is part of a unity government. Hamas is pledged to its very core to the destruction of Israel. That is its guiding principle. This created a problem of serious proportions during the Bush administration when Hamas won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The "quartet" reacted to this by issuing its firm statement that it would not tolerate any Palestinian government controlled by a terrorist group such as Hamas.

After an angry Hamas seized the Gaza strip from Fatah in 2007, a coalition government which did not place any Hamas members in important executive positions was formed. The pretense continued, but will no longer be viable once Hamas is actually made a formal, active member of the Palestinian unity government. Yet the Obama administration acts as if tomorrow were yesterday, and continues to request aid for a government which will be openly hostile to both the United States and Israel. The vast majority of rocket attacks on Israel are already launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. It will soon have the entire area to work from.

The chairman of the House Appropriations foreign aid subcommittee, Republican Kay Granger of Texas and the ranking minority member, Democrat Nita Lowey of New York sent a joint letter to Abbas warning the P.A. that forming a government with Hamas would "threaten the provision of United States assistance and support." That prompted the Obama administration to request the $550 million aid package to counter the objections of the subcommittee.

A decision will have to be made, and the potential victim is Israel if Obama prevails. With the exception of the mass-murder part, the President seems far more in tune with Palestine than with our longtime ally Israel. Obama has been openly contemptuous of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is hard to say at this point how the whole matter will play out. If Congress refuses to fund the new unity government, there is always the chance that Obama will simply issue an executive order diverting funds from other targets and giving them to the Palestinian Authority. The House's sole power of the purse means very little to constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama.

Currently, the Obama administration has requested $550 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority for 2012. That request is based on present notions and past reality. Although the head of the Palestinian Authority is Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, all assumptions were based on his retaining sole authority over all of Palestine. But that is simply not the case.

While Fatah may hold nominal leadership of the P.A., it has never fully-controlled the artificial creation called Palestine. Though Fatah has its strongest representation in the West Bank, it had a strong rival in Gaza. It is estimated that Fatah controls about 40% of the Palestinian population while its rival controls approximately the same percentage. The rival is terrorist Hamas. Hamas is Iran-fueled, anti-American and pledged to the destruction of Israel.

Until recently, the American State Department could maintain the fiction that it was dealing only with the duly-constituted government of Palestine, namely the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah. Then last May, P.A. chairman Abbas entered into an agreement with Hamas to form a "unity government." The strength of Hamas in the negotiations is evidenced by the recent exclusion of American trained economist and current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from the future unity government.

For all practical purposes, the United States would now be negotiating with a government that American law says we cannot deal with, let alone fund. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act conditions aid to the Palestinian Authority on its exclusion of any group which will not renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by current agreements. Until now, the U.S. has also maintained that it is America's policy to abide by the decisions of the Middle East "quartet" comprised of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations which require that the Palestinian Authority maintain all agreements between the P.A. and Israel.

It will be well-nigh impossible for the Palestinian Authority to continue to adhere to any of these foundational agreements once Hamas is part of a unity government. Hamas is pledged to its very core to the destruction of Israel. That is its guiding principle. This created a problem of serious proportions during the Bush administration when Hamas won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The "quartet" reacted to this by issuing its firm statement that it would not tolerate any Palestinian government controlled by a terrorist group such as Hamas.

After an angry Hamas seized the Gaza strip from Fatah in 2007, a coalition government which did not place any Hamas members in important executive positions was formed. The pretense continued, but will no longer be viable once Hamas is actually made a formal, active member of the Palestinian unity government. Yet the Obama administration acts as if tomorrow were yesterday, and continues to request aid for a government which will be openly hostile to both the United States and Israel. The vast majority of rocket attacks on Israel are already launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. It will soon have the entire area to work from.

The chairman of the House Appropriations foreign aid subcommittee, Republican Kay Granger of Texas and the ranking minority member, Democrat Nita Lowey of New York sent a joint letter to Abbas warning the P.A. that forming a government with Hamas would "threaten the provision of United States assistance and support." That prompted the Obama administration to request the $550 million aid package to counter the objections of the subcommittee.

A decision will have to be made, and the potential victim is Israel if Obama prevails. With the exception of the mass-murder part, the President seems far more in tune with Palestine than with our longtime ally Israel. Obama has been openly contemptuous of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is hard to say at this point how the whole matter will play out. If Congress refuses to fund the new unity government, there is always the chance that Obama will simply issue an executive order diverting funds from other targets and giving them to the Palestinian Authority. The House's sole power of the purse means very little to constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama.

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

View Detail

Primer: Obama/Holder v. Iran

Primer: Obama/Holder v. Iran

I figured you might like a primer on the new Iranian issue, as it’s all over the headlines and it’s an issue which could actually lead to war if mishandled -- although that’s extremely unlikely. Here’s what’s up:

● What Happened: On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DEA and FBI had foiled a plot to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies. This plot was supposedly masterminded by Iran’s “elite” Quds military unit. The Quds are a special unit within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard whose job it is to “export” Iran’s Islamic revolution to other countries.

According to Holder, Manssor Arbabsiar (a Corpus Christi, Texas car salesman) was tasked by the Iranian government with finding someone to carry out the killing and the bombings. Arbabsiar turned to the nastiest of the Mexican drug cartels, Los Zetas, a group of former special forces soldiers who started their own cartel. I wrote about Los Zetas here: LINK. Arbabsiar wanted Los Zetas to do both the killing and the bombings and he wanted them to agree to funnel tons of opium from the Middle East into Mexico.

However, the person Arbabsiar contacted turned out to be a DEA informant. Whoops.

● Team Obama’s Response: The administration accuses Iran and describes this as: “a dangerous escalation of Iran's long-scale use of violence.” The reason they claim Iran did this was “the Iranians watch the Saudis roll tanks in Bahrain, and they see a key ally in Syria going down, so they step up the Quds Force.”

Joe Biden has been sent forth from the Idiotorium to take the lead on this. He described this as “really over the top” and said it was “an outrage that violates one of the fundamental premises on which nations deal with one another.” He also said that “no options have been taken off the table” for dealing with this, though the administration has already ruled out military action. Instead, they are considering sanctions, the standard response by liberals when they don’t know what to do.

● The Saudi Response: Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter regional rivals largely because their versions of Islam consider the other to be heretics. The Saudi embassy said this was “a despicable violation of international norms, standards and conventions,” and their former head of intelligence said Iran will have to “pay the price.” They have not been more specific yet. However, Saudi Arabia does not have a military capable of defeating Iran.

● The Iranian Response: For its part, Iran denies involvement. They told the UN they are “outraged” and “strongly and categorically reject these fabricated and baseless allegations, based on the suspicious claims by an individual.” Tehran claims Obama has fabricated this to “divert attention from the Wall Street uprising.” Ha ha! They also repeated claims the US has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years.

For the record, the only link so far to Iran is that the car dealer apparently is a cousin of someone in the Qud and he visited Iran right before $100,000 was wired into the informant’s account by the car dealer. The FBI claims this was wired from a Qud bank account.

● The World Reaction: The world reaction has been skeptical. Iranian experts say that Arbabsiar does not fit the profile of the typical Iranian agent, who tend to be professionals. And they say it’s unlikely Iran would be behind such a plot. Similarly, an Iranian expert in Berlin said these claims would be viewed with skepticism as “everyone is extremely skeptical about US intelligence revelations” and added, “I don’t regard it as impossible but rather improbable, even if the details of the story presented by the attorney general are essentially true.”

One western diplomat said: “I don't believe Iran's regime was behind the plot. If we assume it was Iran's plot, it would seem like a group of professional gangsters hiring a careless agent for their most important project. It's impossible.”

Even a senior American law enforcement official said (on condition of anonymity) that the US isn’t quite sure what this was and it was likely a “rogue plan. . . so outside their normal track of activity.”

● Some Questions: This all leaves us with some odd questions. If we assume Holder is correct, then what will Obama do about it? Even Clinton dropped a few cruise missiles on Sudan after the embassy bombings in Africa. So Obama can’t just pretend this didn’t happen.

But if Holder is wrong, then is he simply wrong or is there more to this?

I never like conspiracies as an answer, especially when there are more likely answers -- such as this guy just being a nut job. But it is extremely coincidental that the day after Darrell Issa starts talking about subpoenaing Holder to answer for what are likely criminal acts related to Fast and Furious, that Holder manages to unveil a huge distraction involving the very elements of Fast and Furious -- DEA, drugs, Mexican cartels and cross border crime. This is one of those coincidences you can’t put in films or people will lose their suspension of disbelief.

My normal response would be to trust professional law enforcement. BUT we’ve already seen how compromised they’ve been by Democratic Justice bosses, such as when Janet Reno ordered the Branch Davidian attack to show that she was tough or the Elian Gonzalez deportation to show Castro goodwill or Holder’s actions in Fast and Furious itself, where potentially hundreds of lives have been taken or destroyed by Holder’s attempt to use the ATF for political purposes. Trust is in short supply here.

So I think we should keep an open mind at this point and not assume anything unless and until strong, verifiable, independent proof is provided.

I figured you might like a primer on the new Iranian issue, as it’s all over the headlines and it’s an issue which could actually lead to war if mishandled -- although that’s extremely unlikely. Here’s what’s up:

● What Happened: On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DEA and FBI had foiled a plot to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies. This plot was supposedly masterminded by Iran’s “elite” Quds military unit. The Quds are a special unit within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard whose job it is to “export” Iran’s Islamic revolution to other countries.

According to Holder, Manssor Arbabsiar (a Corpus Christi, Texas car salesman) was tasked by the Iranian government with finding someone to carry out the killing and the bombings. Arbabsiar turned to the nastiest of the Mexican drug cartels, Los Zetas, a group of former special forces soldiers who started their own cartel. I wrote about Los Zetas here: LINK. Arbabsiar wanted Los Zetas to do both the killing and the bombings and he wanted them to agree to funnel tons of opium from the Middle East into Mexico.

However, the person Arbabsiar contacted turned out to be a DEA informant. Whoops.

● Team Obama’s Response: The administration accuses Iran and describes this as: “a dangerous escalation of Iran's long-scale use of violence.” The reason they claim Iran did this was “the Iranians watch the Saudis roll tanks in Bahrain, and they see a key ally in Syria going down, so they step up the Quds Force.”

Joe Biden has been sent forth from the Idiotorium to take the lead on this. He described this as “really over the top” and said it was “an outrage that violates one of the fundamental premises on which nations deal with one another.” He also said that “no options have been taken off the table” for dealing with this, though the administration has already ruled out military action. Instead, they are considering sanctions, the standard response by liberals when they don’t know what to do.

● The Saudi Response: Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter regional rivals largely because their versions of Islam consider the other to be heretics. The Saudi embassy said this was “a despicable violation of international norms, standards and conventions,” and their former head of intelligence said Iran will have to “pay the price.” They have not been more specific yet. However, Saudi Arabia does not have a military capable of defeating Iran.

● The Iranian Response: For its part, Iran denies involvement. They told the UN they are “outraged” and “strongly and categorically reject these fabricated and baseless allegations, based on the suspicious claims by an individual.” Tehran claims Obama has fabricated this to “divert attention from the Wall Street uprising.” Ha ha! They also repeated claims the US has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years.

For the record, the only link so far to Iran is that the car dealer apparently is a cousin of someone in the Qud and he visited Iran right before $100,000 was wired into the informant’s account by the car dealer. The FBI claims this was wired from a Qud bank account.

● The World Reaction: The world reaction has been skeptical. Iranian experts say that Arbabsiar does not fit the profile of the typical Iranian agent, who tend to be professionals. And they say it’s unlikely Iran would be behind such a plot. Similarly, an Iranian expert in Berlin said these claims would be viewed with skepticism as “everyone is extremely skeptical about US intelligence revelations” and added, “I don’t regard it as impossible but rather improbable, even if the details of the story presented by the attorney general are essentially true.”

One western diplomat said: “I don't believe Iran's regime was behind the plot. If we assume it was Iran's plot, it would seem like a group of professional gangsters hiring a careless agent for their most important project. It's impossible.”

Even a senior American law enforcement official said (on condition of anonymity) that the US isn’t quite sure what this was and it was likely a “rogue plan. . . so outside their normal track of activity.”

● Some Questions: This all leaves us with some odd questions. If we assume Holder is correct, then what will Obama do about it? Even Clinton dropped a few cruise missiles on Sudan after the embassy bombings in Africa. So Obama can’t just pretend this didn’t happen.

But if Holder is wrong, then is he simply wrong or is there more to this?

I never like conspiracies as an answer, especially when there are more likely answers -- such as this guy just being a nut job. But it is extremely coincidental that the day after Darrell Issa starts talking about subpoenaing Holder to answer for what are likely criminal acts related to Fast and Furious, that Holder manages to unveil a huge distraction involving the very elements of Fast and Furious -- DEA, drugs, Mexican cartels and cross border crime. This is one of those coincidences you can’t put in films or people will lose their suspension of disbelief.

My normal response would be to trust professional law enforcement. BUT we’ve already seen how compromised they’ve been by Democratic Justice bosses, such as when Janet Reno ordered the Branch Davidian attack to show that she was tough or the Elian Gonzalez deportation to show Castro goodwill or Holder’s actions in Fast and Furious itself, where potentially hundreds of lives have been taken or destroyed by Holder’s attempt to use the ATF for political purposes. Trust is in short supply here.

So I think we should keep an open mind at this point and not assume anything unless and until strong, verifiable, independent proof is provided.

Primer: Obama/Holder v. Iran

View Detail

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

I find the liberal response to Libya rather fascinating and I can draw only one conclusion: liberals are the ultimate unprincipled hypocrites. There is no other way to put it. Observe:

Point One: Winning a war does not make an illegal war legal. Nor have liberals ever accepted such an argument. . . until now. When Obama started this war, liberals rushed out to declare it illegal. Not only did Obama not have a legitimate reason (using liberal principles) for attacking Libya, but he didn’t even bother to inform Congress, as required by the Constitution. Had this been Bush, the left would have screamed bloody murder and would be demanding Bush be tried for war crimes. As it is, they just grumbled about the illegality, but took no action against O Duce.

Apparently, liberals don’t believe war is illegal, they just say that when it wasn’t their guy who started the war.

Point Two: All their whining about the invasion of Iraq being “illegal” or “stupid” is total hypocrisy. Bush invaded Iraq because he believed Saddam was involved in terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction. This belief was based on (1) statements by Saddam that he had such weapons, (2) sales by German companies of the necessary materials, and (3) a history of using weapons of mass destruction (like gas) on his own population. Saddam also was linked to terrorist groups, just not al Qaeda, constantly killed his own civilians, and even was behind an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. during the Clinton years. Yet liberals whined that Bush had no justification for “waging an aggressive war against Iraq.”

So what justification did Obama give for attacking Libya? Qaddafi was killing civilians, i.e. rebels, who were trying to overthrow him. That’s it. Bush gave that as a justification for Iraq and was still called a criminal. So what makes this better?

What’s more, The Economist, which always reliably toes the Democratic line, explains that Obama’s war policy is justifiable because:

“The West does indeed have a dog in this fight: if Colonel Qaddafi can be replaced by a decent regime, the forces of modernity and reform across the Arab world will get a huge fillip, which in turn will benefit the West in a host of economic and political ways.”

The exact same thing could be said about Iraq. . . or Iran, or Syria, or Venezuela, or Russia, or virtually any other country on the planet. This is a doctrine of limitless war.

Point Three: Liberals love to whine that Republicans politicize wars. Yet, they were the first to complain that Republicans caused 9/11 and that Republicans ruined the global Kumbaya-spirit after 9/11. They were the first to politicize Iraq, trying to declare the war lost and illegal the moment the bullets started flying. They also couldn’t run to microphones fast enough to play up Obama’s killing Osama bin Laden. Heck, they even made a film about it they want to release right before the election.

And now Libya? Check out this quote: “The president will achieve a tremendous military and political victory with Qaddafi’s ouster.” Really? So liberals intend to exploit this politically? Who could have guessed? And since when has sending a few planes to support rebels as they take six months to beat a third rate dictator who hasn’t been able to buy military hardware since the 1980s been considered a “tremendous military victory”? What's next, is Obama going to take on the Wyoming Highway Patrol?

Point Four: And what’s this crap about Libya vindicating Obama’s “lead from behind” policy? The US provided almost all the supplies, did all the reconnaissance, provided the ammo, did the refueling, provided all the logistical support and the headquarters, and flew the largest portion of the combat missions. The only thing we didn’t do was send our generals to the press conferences. If this was “lead from behind,” then it involved a serious reach around.

I’m sorry my cowardly liberal friends, but you are idiots. It is impossible to win a war without fighting it. And using the locals as your cannon fodder while you drop bombs from 35,000 feet is neither new nor noble. It also only works in certain very narrow circumstances, which all happened to exist in Libya -- small population, unpopular government with limited resources, flat terrain with no trees. When you tried this in Vietnam and Yugoslavia and Pakistan, you lost. I also can’t help but notice that Obama isn’t trying this anywhere else.

And another thing, I seem to recall the same liberals who are currently dancing in the streets at this great political victory whining that Bush “lost” Iraq because the country didn’t immediately turn into a full-fledged modern democracy because Bush never sent enough American ground troops to control the situation on the ground. They made the same complaint in Afghanistan. Yet, in Libya, it’s suddenly ok send to no American ground troops whatsoever and to declare victory before anyone has any idea how this will turn out? "Mission accomplished" O Duce!

Point Five: Make up your minds on drones, jerks. Liberals whine that drones are evil. Some even call their use a war crime. Yet, when Obama uses them, the whining stops? Hypocrites. And what’s wrong with drones anyway? This more than anything proves what’s wrong with the left: they don’t care that people get killed, they just want American pilots to put themselves at risk to do the killing.

Point Six: Finally, how is this supposed to work exactly? One of the big liberal complaints about taking out Saddam or the Taliban or any other dictator was that it’s pointless “because someone worse will take their place.” Indeed, when Bush talked about installing a democracy in Iraq, liberals scoffed, claiming that Arabs weren’t prepared for democracy and Bush should not be nation-building. Yet, now we’re told these Arabs will create a perfect democracy and this was a worthwhile goal to start a war. Why is this exactly?

Considering all of this, I am left with one thought: liberals are hypocrites and nothing they say can ever be trusted or taken seriously.

I find the liberal response to Libya rather fascinating and I can draw only one conclusion: liberals are the ultimate unprincipled hypocrites. There is no other way to put it. Observe:

Point One: Winning a war does not make an illegal war legal. Nor have liberals ever accepted such an argument. . . until now. When Obama started this war, liberals rushed out to declare it illegal. Not only did Obama not have a legitimate reason (using liberal principles) for attacking Libya, but he didn’t even bother to inform Congress, as required by the Constitution. Had this been Bush, the left would have screamed bloody murder and would be demanding Bush be tried for war crimes. As it is, they just grumbled about the illegality, but took no action against O Duce.

Apparently, liberals don’t believe war is illegal, they just say that when it wasn’t their guy who started the war.

Point Two: All their whining about the invasion of Iraq being “illegal” or “stupid” is total hypocrisy. Bush invaded Iraq because he believed Saddam was involved in terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction. This belief was based on (1) statements by Saddam that he had such weapons, (2) sales by German companies of the necessary materials, and (3) a history of using weapons of mass destruction (like gas) on his own population. Saddam also was linked to terrorist groups, just not al Qaeda, constantly killed his own civilians, and even was behind an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. during the Clinton years. Yet liberals whined that Bush had no justification for “waging an aggressive war against Iraq.”

So what justification did Obama give for attacking Libya? Qaddafi was killing civilians, i.e. rebels, who were trying to overthrow him. That’s it. Bush gave that as a justification for Iraq and was still called a criminal. So what makes this better?

What’s more, The Economist, which always reliably toes the Democratic line, explains that Obama’s war policy is justifiable because:

“The West does indeed have a dog in this fight: if Colonel Qaddafi can be replaced by a decent regime, the forces of modernity and reform across the Arab world will get a huge fillip, which in turn will benefit the West in a host of economic and political ways.”

The exact same thing could be said about Iraq. . . or Iran, or Syria, or Venezuela, or Russia, or virtually any other country on the planet. This is a doctrine of limitless war.

Point Three: Liberals love to whine that Republicans politicize wars. Yet, they were the first to complain that Republicans caused 9/11 and that Republicans ruined the global Kumbaya-spirit after 9/11. They were the first to politicize Iraq, trying to declare the war lost and illegal the moment the bullets started flying. They also couldn’t run to microphones fast enough to play up Obama’s killing Osama bin Laden. Heck, they even made a film about it they want to release right before the election.

And now Libya? Check out this quote: “The president will achieve a tremendous military and political victory with Qaddafi’s ouster.” Really? So liberals intend to exploit this politically? Who could have guessed? And since when has sending a few planes to support rebels as they take six months to beat a third rate dictator who hasn’t been able to buy military hardware since the 1980s been considered a “tremendous military victory”? What's next, is Obama going to take on the Wyoming Highway Patrol?

Point Four: And what’s this crap about Libya vindicating Obama’s “lead from behind” policy? The US provided almost all the supplies, did all the reconnaissance, provided the ammo, did the refueling, provided all the logistical support and the headquarters, and flew the largest portion of the combat missions. The only thing we didn’t do was send our generals to the press conferences. If this was “lead from behind,” then it involved a serious reach around.

I’m sorry my cowardly liberal friends, but you are idiots. It is impossible to win a war without fighting it. And using the locals as your cannon fodder while you drop bombs from 35,000 feet is neither new nor noble. It also only works in certain very narrow circumstances, which all happened to exist in Libya -- small population, unpopular government with limited resources, flat terrain with no trees. When you tried this in Vietnam and Yugoslavia and Pakistan, you lost. I also can’t help but notice that Obama isn’t trying this anywhere else.

And another thing, I seem to recall the same liberals who are currently dancing in the streets at this great political victory whining that Bush “lost” Iraq because the country didn’t immediately turn into a full-fledged modern democracy because Bush never sent enough American ground troops to control the situation on the ground. They made the same complaint in Afghanistan. Yet, in Libya, it’s suddenly ok send to no American ground troops whatsoever and to declare victory before anyone has any idea how this will turn out? "Mission accomplished" O Duce!

Point Five: Make up your minds on drones, jerks. Liberals whine that drones are evil. Some even call their use a war crime. Yet, when Obama uses them, the whining stops? Hypocrites. And what’s wrong with drones anyway? This more than anything proves what’s wrong with the left: they don’t care that people get killed, they just want American pilots to put themselves at risk to do the killing.

Point Six: Finally, how is this supposed to work exactly? One of the big liberal complaints about taking out Saddam or the Taliban or any other dictator was that it’s pointless “because someone worse will take their place.” Indeed, when Bush talked about installing a democracy in Iraq, liberals scoffed, claiming that Arabs weren’t prepared for democracy and Bush should not be nation-building. Yet, now we’re told these Arabs will create a perfect democracy and this was a worthwhile goal to start a war. Why is this exactly?

Considering all of this, I am left with one thought: liberals are hypocrites and nothing they say can ever be trusted or taken seriously.

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

View Detail