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

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

Fruits, Newts and Nuts

Fruits, Newts and Nuts

Let’s keep is simple today. Let’s do a bit of a news roundup mixed with some discussion questions. Feel free to add your own thoughts on anything else that comes to mind.

● You Dirty Fruits: Check out the article Patti found (HERE) dealing with Islam’s war against the perverted fruits and vegetables that will lead women astray. Not coincidentally, Saudi Arabia just executed a woman for “sorcery.” The religion of peace, huh? Sounds like an Erectile-Dysfunction-Idiocracy.

● Our Impotent President, Part 507: Speaking of impotence, the military lost a drone the other day over Iran. Obama failed to allow the military to destroy the drone. This news has gone virtually unreported, but here’s why it’s important. In the 1990s, when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, a stealth fighter crashed. The US failed to recover most of that plane. It is now believed that Chinese agents acquired the parts and used them to engineer their own stealth fighter, which they recently showed to the world. Letting Iran have this drone was stupid. It gives Iran the capability to make very long range, cheap drones. If a fleet of these things appears over Israel in a couple years, think back on Obama’s decision.

● Tebowmania: Is Tim Tebow for real? How far will Denver go? Is this the greatest story or what? Where does all the hate come from against this kid? And do you think God really is helping Tebow... maybe just a little?

● International What?: With Climategate 2.0 heaping fresh disgrace upon climate change enthusiasts, the UN has gone on the offensive and proposed an International Climate Court of Justice to make Western governments pay for their climate crimes. This would impose a mandate to “respect the rights of Mother Earth” and to pay a “climate debt.” If you ever had doubts about the motivates of these enviro-fascists, this should settle it.

● Liar of the Week: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the vile DNC Chair proved yesterday that she’s delusional as well. In an interview on Fox, Debbie Dumbass actually claimed that it is a myth that unemployment went up under Obama. She repeated this several times, finishing thusly:

“Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true.”

For the record, unemployment was 6% when Obama took office, it’s 9% now and that’s after millions of people stopped looking for work and thus stopped counting against the number. So is Debbie Dumbass that stupid or is she just a pathological liar?

● Newt Watch: I have resigned myself to Newt being our nominee. Hail Nero! But some conservatives and moderates (and whackos) are trying to warn us:

■ Glenn Beck: Beck said yesterday he would support Ron Paul in a third party bid before he would vote for Newt.

■ Rep. Pete King (NY): King credits Newt with winning back the House for Republicans in the 1990s. What does he think about Newt as our nominee? “He’d be a terrible nominee.” Why? Because Newt’s destructive and he’s in it for himself: “It’s not like, with Newt, you end up dying for a noble cause. You end up dying for Newt Gingrich, because he puts himself in the center of everything.”

■ New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu: Sununu gave the most direct warning:

“He has a personal priority over all else. The country comes maybe second or third. Philosophy comes maybe fifth. This is a man who is unable to prioritize needs in a constructive way. And frankly, his colleagues saw that when he was leader. . . This man is not stable.”

■ Former Gingrich collaborator Marvin Olasky: “Wisdom is knowing the difference between good and bad ideas. Newt is very intelligent; he has lots of ideas. But I’m not sure he always distinguishes between good and bad.”

■ NYT RINO David Brooks: “Gingrich loves government more than I do.”

■ National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The people who know Gingrich best — the ones who worked for him, or worked with him, or watched him closely as journalists in the 1990s — have almost all concluded that he is a bad fit for the presidency. That judgment is shared by conservative and moderate congressmen, by people who support Romney and people who want an alternative to [Romney]. The common denominator is alarm at what Gingrich would do to the Republican party as nominee and to the country as president.”

● Write Ins/Drop Out: Finally, a question. Several readers (looking at T-Rav and Indi) have said they will write in the name of a suitable candidate when they get to vote. The Elves seem to be contemplating moving to Singapore. I’m buying a new pitchfork. Anyway, given the other available choices in this primary, it’s hard to say a write in would be a wasted vote. But do you think writing in someone’s name helps?

Let’s keep is simple today. Let’s do a bit of a news roundup mixed with some discussion questions. Feel free to add your own thoughts on anything else that comes to mind.

● You Dirty Fruits: Check out the article Patti found (HERE) dealing with Islam’s war against the perverted fruits and vegetables that will lead women astray. Not coincidentally, Saudi Arabia just executed a woman for “sorcery.” The religion of peace, huh? Sounds like an Erectile-Dysfunction-Idiocracy.

● Our Impotent President, Part 507: Speaking of impotence, the military lost a drone the other day over Iran. Obama failed to allow the military to destroy the drone. This news has gone virtually unreported, but here’s why it’s important. In the 1990s, when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, a stealth fighter crashed. The US failed to recover most of that plane. It is now believed that Chinese agents acquired the parts and used them to engineer their own stealth fighter, which they recently showed to the world. Letting Iran have this drone was stupid. It gives Iran the capability to make very long range, cheap drones. If a fleet of these things appears over Israel in a couple years, think back on Obama’s decision.

● Tebowmania: Is Tim Tebow for real? How far will Denver go? Is this the greatest story or what? Where does all the hate come from against this kid? And do you think God really is helping Tebow... maybe just a little?

● International What?: With Climategate 2.0 heaping fresh disgrace upon climate change enthusiasts, the UN has gone on the offensive and proposed an International Climate Court of Justice to make Western governments pay for their climate crimes. This would impose a mandate to “respect the rights of Mother Earth” and to pay a “climate debt.” If you ever had doubts about the motivates of these enviro-fascists, this should settle it.

● Liar of the Week: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the vile DNC Chair proved yesterday that she’s delusional as well. In an interview on Fox, Debbie Dumbass actually claimed that it is a myth that unemployment went up under Obama. She repeated this several times, finishing thusly:

“Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true.”

For the record, unemployment was 6% when Obama took office, it’s 9% now and that’s after millions of people stopped looking for work and thus stopped counting against the number. So is Debbie Dumbass that stupid or is she just a pathological liar?

● Newt Watch: I have resigned myself to Newt being our nominee. Hail Nero! But some conservatives and moderates (and whackos) are trying to warn us:

■ Glenn Beck: Beck said yesterday he would support Ron Paul in a third party bid before he would vote for Newt.

■ Rep. Pete King (NY): King credits Newt with winning back the House for Republicans in the 1990s. What does he think about Newt as our nominee? “He’d be a terrible nominee.” Why? Because Newt’s destructive and he’s in it for himself: “It’s not like, with Newt, you end up dying for a noble cause. You end up dying for Newt Gingrich, because he puts himself in the center of everything.”

■ New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu: Sununu gave the most direct warning:

“He has a personal priority over all else. The country comes maybe second or third. Philosophy comes maybe fifth. This is a man who is unable to prioritize needs in a constructive way. And frankly, his colleagues saw that when he was leader. . . This man is not stable.”

■ Former Gingrich collaborator Marvin Olasky: “Wisdom is knowing the difference between good and bad ideas. Newt is very intelligent; he has lots of ideas. But I’m not sure he always distinguishes between good and bad.”

■ NYT RINO David Brooks: “Gingrich loves government more than I do.”

■ National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The people who know Gingrich best — the ones who worked for him, or worked with him, or watched him closely as journalists in the 1990s — have almost all concluded that he is a bad fit for the presidency. That judgment is shared by conservative and moderate congressmen, by people who support Romney and people who want an alternative to [Romney]. The common denominator is alarm at what Gingrich would do to the Republican party as nominee and to the country as president.”

● Write Ins/Drop Out: Finally, a question. Several readers (looking at T-Rav and Indi) have said they will write in the name of a suitable candidate when they get to vote. The Elves seem to be contemplating moving to Singapore. I’m buying a new pitchfork. Anyway, given the other available choices in this primary, it’s hard to say a write in would be a wasted vote. But do you think writing in someone’s name helps?

Fruits, Newts and Nuts

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

Modern Day Christian Martyrdom

Modern Day Christian Martyrdom

The barbarians of Central Jihadistan (or as Barack Hussein Obama calls it, the Islamic Republic of Iran) are in the final stages of deciding whether or not to hang a Christian pastor for his religious belief. The primitives are debating among themselves whether he is an apostate, a capital crime among Islamists who believe they commune directly with Mohammed the Prophet.

So far, they've largely decided it doesn't matter if he's actually a sharia-defined apostate. He's a Christian, and that's good enough. Evangelical Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani accepted Christianity as his faith at age nineteen. He was not a convert, which would be clear apostasy under Islamic law. He says that he was never a practicing Muslim, and the Iranian authorities have never proved otherwise. But there's always that handy-dandy thing about being born into a family where mom or dad or both are practicing Muslims.

Apostasy, even in Muslim lands, has the definite meaning of having been a practicing member of the religion of peace, then consciously leaving that clan of cave-dwellers to become a member of one of the false religions which Allah condemns (through his prophet Mohammed and the Book of Mass Murder). The Koran actually is unclear on whether apostasy by proxy such as Pastor Nadarkhani's is a crime punishable by death. But what the heck, it could be, so the Iranian clerics have found ways to make sure their blood-lust is satisfied.

Under the form of sharia law embedded in Iran's political system, the punishment for apostasy is death, but the statute under which Pastor Nadarkhani was convicted uses the far more nebulous word "abandonment" of Islam. In order to protect his parents, Pastor Nadarkhani "abandoned" the family when he was baptized as a Christian. By Iranian logic, he abandoned a Muslim family, so he abandoned Islam, and he is therefore an apostate, even though he never professed Islam himself.

The statute was passed in September of 2008, and Pastor Nadarkhani was one of the early prominent Christians to be arrested under the statute in 2009. By then, the now thirty-two year old pastor had a wife and two small children. So far, the Iranian government hasn't managed to find a sharia rule that provides death for apostasy by association, so the pastor's wife and children are temporarily not being prepared for the gallows. Still, I have no doubt that the ghoulish mullahs and ayatollahs are searching mightily for a way to take their lives as well.

Iranian "law" provides that the accused apostate must be given three opportunities to renounce his apostasy and return to the gentle arms of the religion of peace. Those opportunities were presented to Pastor Nadarkhani, and on each occasion he said "I cannot reject Jesus Christ." The founder of my church, Martin Luther, said something similar at the Diet of Worms just short of five hundred years ago. One would be hard-pressed to find an American Lutheran today who would be willing to repeat the words echoed by Pastor Nadarkhani when facing death: "I cannot, I will not recant. Here I stand. God help me I can do no other."

After passage of the statute by Iran, the European Union sent the Iranian government a letter of protest (the Europeans are very good at protesting rather than acting). It said: "In the past, the death penalty has been handed down in apostasy cases [in Iran], but it has never before been set down in law." What exactly do they think Islamic law (sharia) is? They fail to understand that in throwback Islamic nations such as Iran, the law is a creature of the religion, not a thing apart from it. All Iran did was codify what the ayatollahs had already determined was what Mohammed and Allah want.

Pastor Nadarkani's plight is only one highly-publicized case of religious suppression and state-sanctioned murder in Iran and its barbarian fellow-travelers throughout the Middle East. Thousands of less high-profile religious martyrs are being held in Iranian prisons, with drastic sentences ranging from life in prison to hanging awaiting them. Christian organizations throughout the world have been attempting to get world-wide assistance in stopping the pending execution of Pastor Nadarkhani.

Barack Obama's mouthpiece Jay Carney read a statement from the President: "A decision to impose the death penalty would further demonstrate the Iranian authorities' utter disregard for religious freedom, and highlight Iran's continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens. We call upon the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Nadarkhani and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion."

The statement of course is something less than a revelation to anyone except possibly Obama himself. Perhaps he should have used the words of his own former pastor to say "No, no, no. God damn Iran." At least I think that's what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said. The statement comes from the same president who did everything in his power and utilizing every bit of his lack of skill in foreign diplomacy to miss the opportunity to give strong and material support to the freedom movement in Iran. He lifted not a finger to help the pro-civilization movement as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thugs beat and murdered them by the thousands. Does he think the primitives are going to listen to him now?

In the long run if the pastor's life is spared, which we should all be praying will be the ultimate result, it will be because citizens and governments from the West put enough pressure on Iran to make it worthwhile for them to call off the hanging. It won't be because a pathetically weak American president threatened not to hug Ahmadenijad at the next U.N. confab. In order to save face, the ayatollahs will suddenly have to find a passage in the murder manual which revisits the way the pastor became a Christian so that his act of conscience does not amount to apostasy. After all, Humpty Dumpty sharia law means exactly what they say it means, no more, no less.

Lest it sound like I am not exactly a devotee of Islamic law, let me point out that I'm aware that Islam treats women far more fairly than you have been led to believe. The penalty for male apostates in Iran is death by hanging. For women, it's merely life in prison without possibility of future release.

The barbarians of Central Jihadistan (or as Barack Hussein Obama calls it, the Islamic Republic of Iran) are in the final stages of deciding whether or not to hang a Christian pastor for his religious belief. The primitives are debating among themselves whether he is an apostate, a capital crime among Islamists who believe they commune directly with Mohammed the Prophet.

So far, they've largely decided it doesn't matter if he's actually a sharia-defined apostate. He's a Christian, and that's good enough. Evangelical Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani accepted Christianity as his faith at age nineteen. He was not a convert, which would be clear apostasy under Islamic law. He says that he was never a practicing Muslim, and the Iranian authorities have never proved otherwise. But there's always that handy-dandy thing about being born into a family where mom or dad or both are practicing Muslims.

Apostasy, even in Muslim lands, has the definite meaning of having been a practicing member of the religion of peace, then consciously leaving that clan of cave-dwellers to become a member of one of the false religions which Allah condemns (through his prophet Mohammed and the Book of Mass Murder). The Koran actually is unclear on whether apostasy by proxy such as Pastor Nadarkhani's is a crime punishable by death. But what the heck, it could be, so the Iranian clerics have found ways to make sure their blood-lust is satisfied.

Under the form of sharia law embedded in Iran's political system, the punishment for apostasy is death, but the statute under which Pastor Nadarkhani was convicted uses the far more nebulous word "abandonment" of Islam. In order to protect his parents, Pastor Nadarkhani "abandoned" the family when he was baptized as a Christian. By Iranian logic, he abandoned a Muslim family, so he abandoned Islam, and he is therefore an apostate, even though he never professed Islam himself.

The statute was passed in September of 2008, and Pastor Nadarkhani was one of the early prominent Christians to be arrested under the statute in 2009. By then, the now thirty-two year old pastor had a wife and two small children. So far, the Iranian government hasn't managed to find a sharia rule that provides death for apostasy by association, so the pastor's wife and children are temporarily not being prepared for the gallows. Still, I have no doubt that the ghoulish mullahs and ayatollahs are searching mightily for a way to take their lives as well.

Iranian "law" provides that the accused apostate must be given three opportunities to renounce his apostasy and return to the gentle arms of the religion of peace. Those opportunities were presented to Pastor Nadarkhani, and on each occasion he said "I cannot reject Jesus Christ." The founder of my church, Martin Luther, said something similar at the Diet of Worms just short of five hundred years ago. One would be hard-pressed to find an American Lutheran today who would be willing to repeat the words echoed by Pastor Nadarkhani when facing death: "I cannot, I will not recant. Here I stand. God help me I can do no other."

After passage of the statute by Iran, the European Union sent the Iranian government a letter of protest (the Europeans are very good at protesting rather than acting). It said: "In the past, the death penalty has been handed down in apostasy cases [in Iran], but it has never before been set down in law." What exactly do they think Islamic law (sharia) is? They fail to understand that in throwback Islamic nations such as Iran, the law is a creature of the religion, not a thing apart from it. All Iran did was codify what the ayatollahs had already determined was what Mohammed and Allah want.

Pastor Nadarkani's plight is only one highly-publicized case of religious suppression and state-sanctioned murder in Iran and its barbarian fellow-travelers throughout the Middle East. Thousands of less high-profile religious martyrs are being held in Iranian prisons, with drastic sentences ranging from life in prison to hanging awaiting them. Christian organizations throughout the world have been attempting to get world-wide assistance in stopping the pending execution of Pastor Nadarkhani.

Barack Obama's mouthpiece Jay Carney read a statement from the President: "A decision to impose the death penalty would further demonstrate the Iranian authorities' utter disregard for religious freedom, and highlight Iran's continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens. We call upon the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Nadarkhani and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion."

The statement of course is something less than a revelation to anyone except possibly Obama himself. Perhaps he should have used the words of his own former pastor to say "No, no, no. God damn Iran." At least I think that's what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said. The statement comes from the same president who did everything in his power and utilizing every bit of his lack of skill in foreign diplomacy to miss the opportunity to give strong and material support to the freedom movement in Iran. He lifted not a finger to help the pro-civilization movement as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thugs beat and murdered them by the thousands. Does he think the primitives are going to listen to him now?

In the long run if the pastor's life is spared, which we should all be praying will be the ultimate result, it will be because citizens and governments from the West put enough pressure on Iran to make it worthwhile for them to call off the hanging. It won't be because a pathetically weak American president threatened not to hug Ahmadenijad at the next U.N. confab. In order to save face, the ayatollahs will suddenly have to find a passage in the murder manual which revisits the way the pastor became a Christian so that his act of conscience does not amount to apostasy. After all, Humpty Dumpty sharia law means exactly what they say it means, no more, no less.

Lest it sound like I am not exactly a devotee of Islamic law, let me point out that I'm aware that Islam treats women far more fairly than you have been led to believe. The penalty for male apostates in Iran is death by hanging. For women, it's merely life in prison without possibility of future release.

Modern Day Christian Martyrdom

View Detail

Do We Really Want The Hikers Back?

Do We Really Want The Hikers Back?

San Francisco Chronicle headline: "U. S. Hikers Leave Iran Prison Fitter With Sean Penn to Thank." By their friends shall ye know them. Iran has kept two of the three American hikers in prison for 781 days, releasing them earlier this week. They were finally released after the Sultan of Oman paid their $1 million bail (read "ransom").

I truly hope the United States government doesn't decide to reimburse the sultan with taxpayer money for the return of these two twerps. It isn't just that they didn't have the brains to stay out of harm's way. It's the question of whether these two were worth all the breathless headlines and sob-stories that led up to their release. In case you didn't know the details, these two (along with a female companion who was released earlier) couldn't find a good hiking trail anywhere in America or Europe, so they decided to take a jaunt around the Iraq-Iran border.

All three were arrested by Iranian storm troopers and tried on charges of spying. Needless to say, they were found guilty. Is anyone brought before an Iranian court ever found not guilty? Whether they were actually inside Iranian territory is debatable, as is the question of whether or not they knew exactly where the border is. So naturally, American indignation was fanned into a blaze. American diplomacy failed to get them released. We must obtain the release of these young American innocents! How dare Iran imprison such fine young American patriots?

Despite my feelings about Iran, its insane concept of "justice," and the imprisonment of American citizens, I can't get too exercised about their incarceration nor too joyful about their release. Let's take a slightly closer look at these sweethearts. Asked why they were stupid enough to explore a waterfall in the wilds of Kurdish Iraq without a map, they acted as if the questioner was the stupid one. "This was never about crossing the unmarked border. We were held because of our nationality. We do not know if we crossed the border. We will probably never know."

I'm not one for believing anything that the government of Iran tells us, but how did the Iranians know what nationality they were when they were arrested inside Iranian territory? Their nationality may very well have been the big issue at the show trial, but it has damned little to do with their original arrest. Sarah Shourd, who was the earliest of the trio to be released (on $500,000 "bail") said: "We regret we didn't know more about the area." Well, duh.

Shourd and Shane Bauer had been shacking up with each other in Damascus before they got the brilliant idea of hiking along the Irag-Iran border with their companion, Josh Fattal. Shourd was studying Arabic and teaching English to our good Syrian friends when they all met up in Damascus. Fattal is a radical environmentalist who joined the other two just before they went hiking. When they encountered locals who spoke Farsi rather than Arabic, Shourd should have been able to figure out they weren't in Kansas anymore. And if Fattal wants to investigate waterfalls, then I suggest he visit Yosemite next time, and gaze at the wonders of Bridalveil Falls. Or Niagara, maybe.

Ironically, all three of these UC Berkeley graduates are ardent advocates of closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo. And surprise, surprise, they compare the two as if the purposes of the Iranian jails are based on the same rationale as Guantanamo and as if the two facilities are like each other. That silliness is worth another entire article, so I won't bother vetting that argument here. But whether it's Stockholm syndrome or their radical education at Berkeley, the trio found very little negative to say about their Iranian captors. (Full disclosure: These clowns are among the multiple reasons why I am not attending my 45th Berkeley reunion, despite multiple pleas, letters and e-mails from the Alumni Association).

At their homecoming festivities, the families of the former captives read a written statement in which they credited the release to Hollywood celebrities and heads of state. Chief among the former was America-hating Sean Penn. It's probably no coincidence that the Chronicle ballyhooed Penn's role, since they also used him as a "war correspondent" during the hostilities in Iraq. Among the latter group, Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez (a great friend of Iran) received special notice, as did the Sultan of Oman (for obvious reasons).

We are expected to celebrate their safe return. Cindy Hicks (mother of Shane Bauer) praised her son's brillance in keeping fit by exercising using full water bottles as exercise equipment. Well, I guess that shows that a UC Berkeley education is worth it. "They're both thinner than when we left them," she said, "Their hair is nicely cut. They had slight gray under their eyes because they did not have much sunshine. No vitamin D." Well, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

On the same day that the two fans of Mideast democracy returned to New York, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived at the United Nations building to make his speech damning American imperialism, touting the elimination of Israel from the face of the map, repeating his Holocaust denial, and charging capitalism with the decimation of the world economy. I'm not so sure that the unholy trinity of Bauer, Fattal and Shourd would disagree with Ahmadinejad.

San Francisco Chronicle headline: "U. S. Hikers Leave Iran Prison Fitter With Sean Penn to Thank." By their friends shall ye know them. Iran has kept two of the three American hikers in prison for 781 days, releasing them earlier this week. They were finally released after the Sultan of Oman paid their $1 million bail (read "ransom").

I truly hope the United States government doesn't decide to reimburse the sultan with taxpayer money for the return of these two twerps. It isn't just that they didn't have the brains to stay out of harm's way. It's the question of whether these two were worth all the breathless headlines and sob-stories that led up to their release. In case you didn't know the details, these two (along with a female companion who was released earlier) couldn't find a good hiking trail anywhere in America or Europe, so they decided to take a jaunt around the Iraq-Iran border.

All three were arrested by Iranian storm troopers and tried on charges of spying. Needless to say, they were found guilty. Is anyone brought before an Iranian court ever found not guilty? Whether they were actually inside Iranian territory is debatable, as is the question of whether or not they knew exactly where the border is. So naturally, American indignation was fanned into a blaze. American diplomacy failed to get them released. We must obtain the release of these young American innocents! How dare Iran imprison such fine young American patriots?

Despite my feelings about Iran, its insane concept of "justice," and the imprisonment of American citizens, I can't get too exercised about their incarceration nor too joyful about their release. Let's take a slightly closer look at these sweethearts. Asked why they were stupid enough to explore a waterfall in the wilds of Kurdish Iraq without a map, they acted as if the questioner was the stupid one. "This was never about crossing the unmarked border. We were held because of our nationality. We do not know if we crossed the border. We will probably never know."

I'm not one for believing anything that the government of Iran tells us, but how did the Iranians know what nationality they were when they were arrested inside Iranian territory? Their nationality may very well have been the big issue at the show trial, but it has damned little to do with their original arrest. Sarah Shourd, who was the earliest of the trio to be released (on $500,000 "bail") said: "We regret we didn't know more about the area." Well, duh.

Shourd and Shane Bauer had been shacking up with each other in Damascus before they got the brilliant idea of hiking along the Irag-Iran border with their companion, Josh Fattal. Shourd was studying Arabic and teaching English to our good Syrian friends when they all met up in Damascus. Fattal is a radical environmentalist who joined the other two just before they went hiking. When they encountered locals who spoke Farsi rather than Arabic, Shourd should have been able to figure out they weren't in Kansas anymore. And if Fattal wants to investigate waterfalls, then I suggest he visit Yosemite next time, and gaze at the wonders of Bridalveil Falls. Or Niagara, maybe.

Ironically, all three of these UC Berkeley graduates are ardent advocates of closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo. And surprise, surprise, they compare the two as if the purposes of the Iranian jails are based on the same rationale as Guantanamo and as if the two facilities are like each other. That silliness is worth another entire article, so I won't bother vetting that argument here. But whether it's Stockholm syndrome or their radical education at Berkeley, the trio found very little negative to say about their Iranian captors. (Full disclosure: These clowns are among the multiple reasons why I am not attending my 45th Berkeley reunion, despite multiple pleas, letters and e-mails from the Alumni Association).

At their homecoming festivities, the families of the former captives read a written statement in which they credited the release to Hollywood celebrities and heads of state. Chief among the former was America-hating Sean Penn. It's probably no coincidence that the Chronicle ballyhooed Penn's role, since they also used him as a "war correspondent" during the hostilities in Iraq. Among the latter group, Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez (a great friend of Iran) received special notice, as did the Sultan of Oman (for obvious reasons).

We are expected to celebrate their safe return. Cindy Hicks (mother of Shane Bauer) praised her son's brillance in keeping fit by exercising using full water bottles as exercise equipment. Well, I guess that shows that a UC Berkeley education is worth it. "They're both thinner than when we left them," she said, "Their hair is nicely cut. They had slight gray under their eyes because they did not have much sunshine. No vitamin D." Well, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

On the same day that the two fans of Mideast democracy returned to New York, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived at the United Nations building to make his speech damning American imperialism, touting the elimination of Israel from the face of the map, repeating his Holocaust denial, and charging capitalism with the decimation of the world economy. I'm not so sure that the unholy trinity of Bauer, Fattal and Shourd would disagree with Ahmadinejad.

Do We Really Want The Hikers Back?

View Detail

Like Father, Like Son

Like Father, Like Son

For a couple of decades now, we’ve been subjected to the entertaining but left-skewed works of film director Oliver Stone. The torch is being passed to a new generation in the form of Stone’s son, Sean. Sean Stone has accompanied his father on grand visits to such fine people as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and supports them as enthusiastically as his father. Sean has inherited his father’s taste for dictators and mass-murderers.

Sean is not exactly a big-time legendary actor, having appeared in small parts in his father’s movies such as The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Any Given Sunday, and most notably (or ignobly) Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. We’re supposed to believe that his acting career and his father’s tutelage will make him a great director. That may be true, but like his father, it may also make him a big-time nutcase propagandist.

Sean was returning from the Toronto Film Festival when he got cornered by reporters with nothing better to do. So they asked him about his plans to become a director in light of his recent favorable remarks about Iran and its apocalyptic leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The younger Stone bypassed arguments that Iran’s current nuclear development is all about energy-production, and went straight to defending Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons. Says Sean: “Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran has the right to them. Every nation has the right to self-determination for defense.”

Even Ahmadinejad doesn’t go so far as to admit that Iran’s nuclear facilities are going to be used for the production of nuclear weapons. He still spouts the pretense that only the production of energy is involved in those facilities, despite the fact that his nation is sitting on an ocean of oil. But like young Sean, Ahmadinejad will, if pushed, loudly and clearly proclaim Iran’s right to have nuclear arms to defend against nuclear Israel.

So, let’s count the number of times that Israel has been the aggressor in Middle East Wars. Um, zero. But it has been attacked by its Muslim neighbors many times, always to the dismay of the members of the People’s Republic of Jihadistan who lose wars like I lose car keys. Iran is about the only nearby Muslim neighbor that hasn’t attacked Israel. But a nuke or two might just make the odds more attractive. Only the blind, the stupid, and Sean Stone could believe for a minute that the weapons would be for self-defense.

Iran must be wiped off the face of the map. No, wait. It’s Israel that must be wiped off the face of the map, or so says Ahmadinejad. In a war that Iran will initiate in self-defense, no doubt. Stone doesn’t say the magic Jew words of Ahmadinejad, he merely defends them. A-Jad denies the Holocaust, says unreservedly that 9/11 was an inside job executed by the loathsome US/Israel alliance to stir up aniti-Muslim hatred, and categorically proposes that both World Wars were started by Zionists to increase their wealth and create the State of Israel.

Does Stone outright defend these vile libels? No. After all, he’s a big intellectual who is far more nuanced. Stone tosses out his defense of Ahmadinejad in a different way: “He did come to America to extend a hand. And there’s a lot of mistranslation, literally, I’ve seen it. Ahmadinejad will say something and it will be mistranslated. A lot of this is bullshit, mistranslation. It’s an aggressive attitude on both parts, mostly on the American side.”

Now how one “mistranslates” something like “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map” is entirely beyond me. But what do I know? I’m not a film maven. From daddy Oliver’s love for Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Chavez, it’s only one small step for son Sean to tout Ahmadinejad and Iran. Sean even makes sure you understand how well he knows Iran and its regime by stating “Iran is ruled by law.” Yep, Sharia law. You know, the law that would wipe out most of his potential stars because of homosexuality, lack of Islamic devotion, and general all-around immorality since Iranian Sharia requires death for each of those offenses.

Stone also supports the right of benign leaders like Ahmadinejad to maintain law and order against pesky dissidents. When challenged about Ahmadinejad’s brutal suppression of the growing freedom movement in Iran, Stone shot back: “People don’t like Ahmadinejad, but that doesn’t warrant a war or an uprising.” Stone has previously supported exactly that in several nations during the “Arab Spring.” But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and Sean has no doubt that his mind is big enough to pick and choose which rebellions to support.

Iran has arrested or banned all Iranian film-makers who have dared to utter a word of criticism against the current regime. In this, A-Jad has had the active assistance of the ayatollahs. But there probably won’t be the same enmity toward Stone, who apparently knows more about the lack of repression in Iran than actual Iranians and sees the actions of the regime as simply avoiding civil unrest. If an American cop looks the wrong way at a property-damaging anti-government rioter, Stone goes off the cliff in his condemnation of brutal, fascist American tactics. But in Iran, where enforcement of civil order includes government-sanctioned rape and summary execution, well, we just don’t understand Iran as well as he does.

So what is Stone actually planning—film-wise? He says he wants to introduce Persian culture and civilization to the West in his upcoming films. He had better introduce them to the Ahmandinejad regime first, since anything that doesn’t comport with the ayatollahs’ primitive form of Islam is ruthlessly suppressed. Omar Khayyam would have been hanged from the mosque minaret if only for his admiration of “comely youths.” Any culture that was uniquely Persian prior to its Islamization has been wiped from the official registry of Iranian culture.

Knowing that Stone will be welcomed with open arms and open wallets by the Hollywood crowd, I want to cash in on his future fame. I am writing a movie script for him in which it is revealed that a Jew who hated the ayatollahs conspired with the Mafia and the CIA to assassinate John Kennedy by using a Kaballah-blessed magic bullet. It should be a big hit, and Sean can pride himself on the fact that he discovered the true conspiracy that his father missed when making JFK. Maybe I’m a film maven after all. Anyone have a suggestion for a working title?

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! At 7 PM (Eastern/Blogger Time), 4 PM (Pacific Time) The T-Rav Sockpuppet Theater will live blog the Republican debates and at the same time give you plenty of time to make pre-debate predictions. Come early, stay late.

For a couple of decades now, we’ve been subjected to the entertaining but left-skewed works of film director Oliver Stone. The torch is being passed to a new generation in the form of Stone’s son, Sean. Sean Stone has accompanied his father on grand visits to such fine people as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and supports them as enthusiastically as his father. Sean has inherited his father’s taste for dictators and mass-murderers.

Sean is not exactly a big-time legendary actor, having appeared in small parts in his father’s movies such as The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Any Given Sunday, and most notably (or ignobly) Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. We’re supposed to believe that his acting career and his father’s tutelage will make him a great director. That may be true, but like his father, it may also make him a big-time nutcase propagandist.

Sean was returning from the Toronto Film Festival when he got cornered by reporters with nothing better to do. So they asked him about his plans to become a director in light of his recent favorable remarks about Iran and its apocalyptic leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The younger Stone bypassed arguments that Iran’s current nuclear development is all about energy-production, and went straight to defending Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons. Says Sean: “Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran has the right to them. Every nation has the right to self-determination for defense.”

Even Ahmadinejad doesn’t go so far as to admit that Iran’s nuclear facilities are going to be used for the production of nuclear weapons. He still spouts the pretense that only the production of energy is involved in those facilities, despite the fact that his nation is sitting on an ocean of oil. But like young Sean, Ahmadinejad will, if pushed, loudly and clearly proclaim Iran’s right to have nuclear arms to defend against nuclear Israel.

So, let’s count the number of times that Israel has been the aggressor in Middle East Wars. Um, zero. But it has been attacked by its Muslim neighbors many times, always to the dismay of the members of the People’s Republic of Jihadistan who lose wars like I lose car keys. Iran is about the only nearby Muslim neighbor that hasn’t attacked Israel. But a nuke or two might just make the odds more attractive. Only the blind, the stupid, and Sean Stone could believe for a minute that the weapons would be for self-defense.

Iran must be wiped off the face of the map. No, wait. It’s Israel that must be wiped off the face of the map, or so says Ahmadinejad. In a war that Iran will initiate in self-defense, no doubt. Stone doesn’t say the magic Jew words of Ahmadinejad, he merely defends them. A-Jad denies the Holocaust, says unreservedly that 9/11 was an inside job executed by the loathsome US/Israel alliance to stir up aniti-Muslim hatred, and categorically proposes that both World Wars were started by Zionists to increase their wealth and create the State of Israel.

Does Stone outright defend these vile libels? No. After all, he’s a big intellectual who is far more nuanced. Stone tosses out his defense of Ahmadinejad in a different way: “He did come to America to extend a hand. And there’s a lot of mistranslation, literally, I’ve seen it. Ahmadinejad will say something and it will be mistranslated. A lot of this is bullshit, mistranslation. It’s an aggressive attitude on both parts, mostly on the American side.”

Now how one “mistranslates” something like “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map” is entirely beyond me. But what do I know? I’m not a film maven. From daddy Oliver’s love for Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Chavez, it’s only one small step for son Sean to tout Ahmadinejad and Iran. Sean even makes sure you understand how well he knows Iran and its regime by stating “Iran is ruled by law.” Yep, Sharia law. You know, the law that would wipe out most of his potential stars because of homosexuality, lack of Islamic devotion, and general all-around immorality since Iranian Sharia requires death for each of those offenses.

Stone also supports the right of benign leaders like Ahmadinejad to maintain law and order against pesky dissidents. When challenged about Ahmadinejad’s brutal suppression of the growing freedom movement in Iran, Stone shot back: “People don’t like Ahmadinejad, but that doesn’t warrant a war or an uprising.” Stone has previously supported exactly that in several nations during the “Arab Spring.” But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and Sean has no doubt that his mind is big enough to pick and choose which rebellions to support.

Iran has arrested or banned all Iranian film-makers who have dared to utter a word of criticism against the current regime. In this, A-Jad has had the active assistance of the ayatollahs. But there probably won’t be the same enmity toward Stone, who apparently knows more about the lack of repression in Iran than actual Iranians and sees the actions of the regime as simply avoiding civil unrest. If an American cop looks the wrong way at a property-damaging anti-government rioter, Stone goes off the cliff in his condemnation of brutal, fascist American tactics. But in Iran, where enforcement of civil order includes government-sanctioned rape and summary execution, well, we just don’t understand Iran as well as he does.

So what is Stone actually planning—film-wise? He says he wants to introduce Persian culture and civilization to the West in his upcoming films. He had better introduce them to the Ahmandinejad regime first, since anything that doesn’t comport with the ayatollahs’ primitive form of Islam is ruthlessly suppressed. Omar Khayyam would have been hanged from the mosque minaret if only for his admiration of “comely youths.” Any culture that was uniquely Persian prior to its Islamization has been wiped from the official registry of Iranian culture.

Knowing that Stone will be welcomed with open arms and open wallets by the Hollywood crowd, I want to cash in on his future fame. I am writing a movie script for him in which it is revealed that a Jew who hated the ayatollahs conspired with the Mafia and the CIA to assassinate John Kennedy by using a Kaballah-blessed magic bullet. It should be a big hit, and Sean can pride himself on the fact that he discovered the true conspiracy that his father missed when making JFK. Maybe I’m a film maven after all. Anyone have a suggestion for a working title?

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! At 7 PM (Eastern/Blogger Time), 4 PM (Pacific Time) The T-Rav Sockpuppet Theater will live blog the Republican debates and at the same time give you plenty of time to make pre-debate predictions. Come early, stay late.

Like Father, Like Son

View Detail