No Guts, No Glory! Carter Iran - Obama The Middle East!

My friend Ne'eman asks 'stupid' questions when in fact they are rhetorical.

Hypocritical Human Right protests are reserved only for Israel.

Because world opinion tolerates duplicity, prospects for war and real human tragedy increases.

No guts no glory! (See 1 below.)
---
Is Mitch Daniels too talented to be elected president? Perhaps, since guile and slickness seem to be the favored attributes of presidential candidates and their campaign styles.(See 2 below.)
---
I live in a city where the mayor is a throwback to former times and a card playing racist. Not all political neanderthals are white.

His recent act of shoving an unqualified black city manager down the throats of our city could backfire and help elect our first white mayor in a long time.

What we need is a qualified, competent and creative mayor regardless of color and that is a tall order considering the racial make up of our city and poor state of education.
---
Carter lost Iran, Obama will lose the entire Middle East. All in a days work.(See 3 below.)

I have just begun reading Rumsfeld's "Known and Unknown" and in the chapter entitled "Into The Swamp" he writes about his dispiriting experience in Lebanon as personal representative of President Reagan.

He writes about the consequences of deserting friends, that Bin Laden observed our weakness in Lebanon which gave him the insight and conviction to plan for 9/11. Finally, Rumsfeld explains how small nations (in this instance Syria) can manipulate large nations when the large nation acts weak and without clear resolve.

Rumsfeld made a prophetic statement in a speech as follows: "...Unchecked state-sponsored terrorism is adversely changing the balance of power in our world."

The only way to deal with terrorists is to confront them head on and one of the problems we face is that many in the Middle East believe America is all powerful and they come to depend upon us at their own peril. Thus, when America sends mixed and weak signals we embolden our/their adversaries. We fail not only ourselves but also our supposed friends.

I do not cite this to suggest I agree with everything Rumsfeld did as Secretary of Defense under GW but his comments about the consequences of projecting weakness is right on and this is why I continue to believe Obama is a disaster and his foreign policy initiatives are dangerous.

Never feed a bully. It simply expands their appetite.

Terrorist understand Democracies lend themselves to conflicting public dialogue and thus often compromised policies, that we do not have the stomach for long term engagements and our approach is often myopic and when Liberals are in power America generally projects weakness. Islamist radicals are not stupid and have leaned from experience and how we handled ourselves in Viet Nam. They know how to play us like a violin and for the fools we often allow ourselves to become.

Obama and our State Department's recent overtures to Syria are symptomatic of our continuing incomprehensible stupidity.

I truly believe Obama is more naive than even Carter and the consequences of his fuzzy headed ambivalence and arrogance is costing us dearly.


Obama's speech in Cairo sent a message to The Street that we support Arab/Muslims in their quest for status and their rightful (though possibly unearned) place among the nations of the world. He basically apologized for Colonialism ignoring Islam's historical contribution to past and current bloodshed.

Now that The Street people are bringing down regime after regime Obama's reticence and confusion, as to how to respond, is a mockery of what he said in Cairo. His own Sec. of Homeland Security and Justice Department were instructed not to regard acts of terrorism as such.

Obama's unwillingness to become energy independent, to drill for energy resources that we know exist on our own soil, our wrongheaded nuclear energy policies and obeisance to outlandish and unrealistic demands of Greens sends a clear message to terrorists that we are not serious about the threat they pose to our economy and national security. Spending billions on a rail system is sop to unions. Drilling in Anwar and off shore, expanding development of oil shale would create jobs but that is politically anathema to Obama's Far Left.

Strong leadership in pursuit of clear, sensible and committed policies is what America needs and what Americans always respond to but where are they?

It is our own 'king' that has no clothes much less a clue! (See 4 below.)
---
This from a friend and fellow memo reader who is not thrown by liberal media and press distortions and false claims because he knows his facts unlike most of our nation's gullible! (See 5 below.)
---
Bill Cosby would get my vote and think of the humorous press conferences. (See 6 below.)
---
Sent me by a long time friend and fellow memo reader.
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)A Stupid Question or Two
By Yisrael Ne'eman


I have a stupid question. Where are the self proclaimed Left wing humanitarian activists? Arab/Muslim regimes oppress their own people mercilessly over the decades and we are not being treated to mass protests by those good hearted European and North American types. Iran arrests opposition leaders and puts down anti-government demonstrations mercilessly. Tunisia and Egypt saw violence with tens of casualties in the former and hundreds in the later (over 350 killed) – but there were no protests – no tens of thousands marching in the streets, even in Australia. Now we have Libya. The Arab satellite station Al Jazeera reports thousands killed, hundreds of thousands of refugees and the beginnings of a civil war. Pictures show men face down, hands tied behind their backs lying in pools of blood – a typical form of execution with a bullet to the head. Libya only now has been removed as a member of the UN Council of Human Rights, apparently there were no human rights violations by Muammar Qadaffi's government in the past – only now there are suspicions or "alleged" violations. Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chavez, darling of left wing revolutionary and anarchist self righteousness calls on the world not to judge his good friend Qadaffi, inferring some sort of Western and American plot.


In the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 at least half a million were killed and another million injured – many of them child soldiers, Saddam Hussein slaughtered Shiites and Kurds by the hundreds of thousands throughout the 1980s – 90s and the Turks have never truly relented on persecuting their own Kurdish population over the years. Has anyone ever seen a massive human rights demonstration on behalf of these groups?


The knee jerk Left wing "humanitarian" demonstrators and their organizing committees have a problem. Previously one jumped into the fray in the name of Arab and Palestinian rights. They screamed hysterically during Israel's "Cast Lead" Operation in Gaza two years ago, pointing out Palestinian civilian casualties despite full awareness that Hamas fired rockets at Israel from heavily populated urban areas in the hope of incurring civilian casualties when Israel would be forced to fire back. Anyone who died was a "shaheed" or martyr. When asked why they were protesting the demonstrators declared the holiness of "human rights" and the Palestinian cause. Israel was deemed fascist, Nazi and any other repressive term that came to mind.


Last spring we saw similar scenes when the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara led by the Muslim Brotherhood Turkish faction IHH decided to break the Israeli shipping blockade on Gaza, implemented for fear of weapons and ammunition contraband reaching the Hamas dictatorship. The Turks could have docked in Ashdod and shipped all humanitarian supplies overland, but no, they had to play the media game of "breaking the blockade". Everyone knows that with close to a thousand tunnels between northeastern Sinai and western Gaza, there is no blockade. The Turkish Muslim Brotherhood activists attacked the Israeli forces landing on the ship, beating them with metal bars and flailing knives. In the Israeli response nine were killed and many sere wounded on both sides. In both incidents Israel was condemned.


I have more stupid questions. Were people marching in the name of Palestinian rights? Arab rights? Human rights? When Hamas fires rockets into Israel (two Grad missiles last week hitting Beersheva and Netivot) does Israel have human rights? Ah, I get it, these are not Palestinian or Arab rights – and apparently not human rights either. Somehow the Jews are less than human, or at least those living in Israel. Okay, so the self-proclaimed "Left" does not like Jews – well neither did Stalin or any of those "liberationist" types ruling in Eastern Europe after WWII.


So let's take it from the other side. Don't you feel for the Arab people and their suffering? This has been going on for several generations, whether with former Soviet or Western and American backing. There are said to be "pro-democracy" uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan. There is even a demo or two in Saudi Arabia – remember that far away oil kingdom where there are areas off limits to non-Muslims and "women's rights" are an oxymoron. Iran and Syria are said to be crushing all opposition but the Western press does not really have access, so we may have to believe Assad and Ahmedinejad respectively when they tell us that all is well – or maybe it is just the Zionists stirring up rebellions and propagandizing against these most lovable of regimes. Libya is bombing civilians in the developing civil war and not a peep out of our popular human rights activist types – and I do not mean Human Rights Watch and the institutionalized organizations which for sure have a few honest workers and in any case are expected to put out reports about every country world wide. Oh yes, and where is the big press conference by Amnesty International? They are most probably still collecting data on "alleged human rights abuses". Let's hope the press shows up when they finally file their report.


Why are there no protests? – and I do not mean by ex-patriots from those same countries. Where is the self proclaimed altruistic, peace loving, liberal democratic "Left" when it comes to the Arab and Iranian leaderships attacking their own people? Or take Afghanistan and Pakistan, almost every day there are suicide homicide bombings with every year thousands killed and many more maimed for life. Where is the "humanitarian Left"?

The answer lies as to who is involved in the clash. When Arabs butcher Arabs, or Muslims slaughter Muslims or Iranians torture and kill other Iranians, Western do-gooder types do not care and will not act. When Hamas won the Palestinian civil war in Gaza hundreds were killed in an eight day period in June 2007 and no one protested even when filmed executions were highlighted on U-Tube. Encouraged, Hamas fired on unarmed pro-Fatah demonstrators killing several more and injuring dozens – no one cared and no demonstrations ensued. There apparently are no Palestinian human rights when Palestinians kill each other.



When Israel (yes, the Jewish State) is involved in the clash then it is a holy obligation to highlight all casualties and suffering – on the Palestinian side of course. Are there any protests when Hamas or Hezbollah in Lebanon hide in civilian zones firing rockets with impunity? Are rockets landing on Israel and the resulting casualties of any great concern? Barely, or only as far as it elicits an Israeli military response.


These popular demonstrations are neither pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, pro-democracy nor pro-humanitarian. When these people march they are anti-Israel and by extension antisemitic, eternally defined as Jew hatred and Judeophobia. If these sanctimonious types demonstrated against all state authorities involved in conflict, the human rights logic might stand a chance of being understood, even if somewhat mistaken since states are not categorically wrong when using force – context and circumstance being of overriding importance. Or if they demonstrated against Israel's adversaries as well – in particular when there are suicide homicide bombings or calls for Israel's destruction, then none could accuse them of antisemitism. Most hypocritically they only demonstrate against the Jewish State.

So I only have one last stupid question. Why don't you come clean with us all and declare your unswerving opposition to Jewish independence as your only true goal and halt the hypocritical veneer of advocating Arab/Palestinian/human rights? After all we are waiting with baited breath for a massive demonstration including tens if not hundreds of thousands demanding the much flaunted Arab/Palestinian/human rights, even if Israel and Jews have nothing to do with the events at hand.

***Note: You will see these people demonstrating once again should Israeli-Palestinian attempts at conflict resolution not succeed over the next few months.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Mitch Daniels' Moment
By David Shribman

Politics has its moments, and right now Mitch Daniels is having his.

Daniels is a former top executive at Eli Lilly and Co., a onetime director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, the current governor of Indiana and a possible Republican candidate for president. He is having a good winter, in the way some decorated British heroes between 1939 and 1945 had a good war that prepared them for a fast track in politics and business.


Nobody, including Daniels, knows whether he actually is going to run for president and nobody, especially Daniels, knows whether he will be a sensation or a dud if he decides to do so. Some politicians hear the siren song only to discover that it's not playing their tune (you can ask President Pete Wilson or President Fred Thompson). Some politicians heed the call and find that presidential politics is truly their calling (the best recent example is President Ronald Reagan, though his first two tries were debacles).

But right now a lot of smart people think that Daniels -- a cost-cutter who seems to have the vision of an actuary grafted onto the character of a biker -- is the man to take on Barack Obama, the mountain of federal debt, the looming Social Security and Medicare crises, and just about everything short of a potential NFL labor impasse, which, by the way, would be a disaster for Indiana, its Colts being an engine of the state economy.

The other day the cerebral David Brooks of The New York Times called Daniels "the man who would be the (Republican) party's strongest candidate for the presidency" and lamented that he might not run. This sort of thing brings to mind the way Republicans (and some Democrats) longed for Dwight Eisenhower to join the presidential ticket in 1952.

The question for any politician is how to make the best use of his moment.

Rep. Richard Gephardt, the Missouri Democrat, made his own moment in 1987 when he intruded on the serenity of the week between Christmas and New Year's Day with a barrage of effective television ads about the threat of foreign imports. He rode that to a victory in the Iowa caucuses in early 1988.

But Gephardt's moment came on the eve of actual caucusing. Daniels' moment comes on the eve of, well, the Big East men's basketball tournament in New York, not ordinarily known as an important milestone on the way to the White House.

So what's a governor of Indiana to do?

Daniels has already told the big annual convention of conservatives that nothing matters so much as the deficit and entitlements. And he's already told Republicans they've gone too far with the cultural wars on social issues -- which means he's already had yet another kind of moment, a Sister Souljah moment, long before many people have started to pay attention.

A Sister Souljah moment? That's when a politician tells his best friends, or potential supporters, to buzz off and quiet down. It derives from Gov. Bill Clinton's (altogether calculated but nonetheless brilliant) 1992 repudiation of the hip-hop artist who suggested killing white people. Daniels also used his SS moment to signal that he was a centrist, not an extremist.

The man may have views congenial to the NRA, but he has the soul of a CPA. His radio isn't constantly tuned to conservative talk radio and Rush Limbaugh's fellow travelers.

More than the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is a constantly changing organism, with a constantly shifting profile.

Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio looked positively horrified cradling a red rooster in a Life magazine photo published shortly before the 1952 New Hampshire primary. Daniels looks positively at ease in a much-distributed Associated Press photograph of him riding his Harley Davidson down an Indiana highway.

Do you suppose Taft (or the 1960 GOP nominee, Richard M. Nixon, who in starched shirts strayed far from his Yorba Linda childhood) would wax positively eloquent about a Coney Island hot dog and a butterscotch milkshake at a soda shop in Vincennes?

Maybe Daniels, whose greatest asset is that he is normal, is what the Republicans need.

Meanwhile, President Obama is channeling Harry Truman, who lost both houses of Congress in 1946 and then checked in with a 36 percent approval rating the spring before the 1948 election. Obama's record is actually better than that at the moment; he lost only one house of Congress, and his approval rating in the RealClearPolitics running average checks in at just above 49 percent. Compared to Truman, Obama is a giant.

A giant -- but one with giant problems. Some are overseas (the Middle East is remaking itself) and some are in his own administration (the Middle East is remaking itself with America largely on the sidelines). Most are in the counting house (the economy is a mess and is only going to get worse unless the debt and social-welfare entitlements are brought under control).

As a potential Obama opponent, Daniels is a zealot but not possessed of a martyr's death wish. With rebellions against public-employee unions raging in Wisconsin and Ohio, Daniels urged Republican lawmakers to back away from a right-to-work bill for Indiana. He wasn't amused that Democratic legislators, ripping a page from the Wisconsin playbook, decamped to Illinois, but he had bigger issues in mind. That is very Daniels; he knows how to look beyond the spectacle and the tactics to see the bigger picture and fashion a strategy. Obama mastered that on the campaign stump, but not at the White House podium.

Only twice since 1936 has Daniels' state sent its electoral votes to the Democrats. The first time was in the 1964 Lyndon Johnson landslide. The other time was in Obama's 2008 triumph -- and then by only one percentage point. Indiana is no swing state, except perhaps now. It has contributed only one president, Benjamin Harrison. Is this Daniels boomlet a real moment -- or a momentary mood? Much depends on the answer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) The New Middle East
By Caroline Glick

A new Middle East is upon us and its primary beneficiary couldn't be happier. In a speech Monday in the Iranian city of Kermanshah, Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Politburo Chief Gen. Yadollah Javani crowed, "Iran's pivotal role in the New Middle East is undeniable.

Today the Islamic Revolution of the Iranian nation enjoys such a power, honor and respect in the world that all nations and governments wish to have such a ruling system."

Iran's leaders have eagerly thrown their newfound weight around. For instance, Iran is challenging Saudi Arabia's ability to guarantee the stability of global oil markets.

For generations, the stability of global oil supplies has been guaranteed by Saudi Arabia's reserve capacity that could be relied on to make up for any shocks to those supplies due to political unrest or other factors. When Libya's teetering dictator Muammar Gaddafi decided to shut down Libya's oil exports last month, the oil markets reacted with a sharp increase in prices. The very next day the Saudis announced they would make up the shortfall from Libya's withdrawal from the export market.

In the old Middle East, the Saudi statement would never have been questioned. Oil suppliers and purchasers alike accepted the arrangement whereby Saudi Arabian reserves - defended by the US military - served as the guarantor of the oil economy. But in the New Middle East, Iran feels comfortable questioning the Saudi role.

On Thursday, Iran's Oil Minister Massoud Mirkazemi urged Saudi Arabia to refrain from increasing production. Mirkazemi argued that since the OPEC oil cartel has not discussed increasing supplies, Saudi Arabia had no right to increase its oil output.

True, Iran's veiled threat did not stop Saudi Arabia from increasing its oil production by 500,000 barrels per day. But the fact that Iran feels comfortable telling the Saudis what they can and cannot do with their oil demonstrates the mullocracy's new sense of empowerment.

And it makes sense. With each passing day, the Iranian regime is actively destabilizing Saudi Arabia's neighbors and increasing its influence over Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite minority in the kingdom's Eastern Province where most of its oil is located.

Perhaps moved by the political unrest in Bahrain and Yemen, Saudi regime opponents including Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite minority have stepped up their acts of political opposition. The Saudi royal family has sought to buy off its opponents by showering its subjects with billions of dollars in new subsidies and payoffs. But still the tide of dissent rises.

Saudi regime opponents have scheduled political protests for March 11 and March 20. In an attempt to blunt the force of the demonstrations, Saudi security forces arrested Tawfiq al- Amir, a prominent Shi'ite cleric from the Eastern Province. On February 25, Amir delivered a sermon calling for the transformation of the kingdom into a constitutional monarchy.

Iran has used his arrest to pressure the Saudi regime. In an interview with Iran's Fars news agency this week, Iranian parliamentarian and regime heavyweight Mohammed Dehqan warned the Saudis not to try to quell the growing unrest. As he put it, the Saudi leaders "should know that the Saudi people have become vigilant and do not allow the rulers of the country to commit any possible crime against them."

Dehqan continued, "Considering that the developments in Bahrain and Yemen affect the situation in Saudi Arabia, the [regime] feels grave danger and interferes in the internal affairs of these states."

Dehqan's statement is indicative of the mullah's confidence in the direction the region is taking.

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Iran is deeply involved in all the anti-regime protests and movements from Egypt to Yemen to Bahrain and beyond.

"Either directly or through proxies, they are constantly trying to influence events. They have a very active diplomatic foreign policy outreach," Clinton said.

Iranian officials, Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists and other Iranian agents have played pivotal roles in the anti-regime movements in Yemen and Bahrain. Their operations are the product of Iran's long-running policy of developing close ties to opposition figures in these countries as well as in Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Morocco.

These long-developed ties are reaping great rewards for Iran today. Not only do these connections give the Iranians the ability to influence the policies of post-revolutionary allied regimes.

They give the mullahs and their allies the ability to intimidate the likes of the Saudi and Bahraini royals and force them to appease Iran's allies.

This means that Iran's mullahs win no matter how the revolts pan out. If weakened regimes maintain power by appeasing Iran's allies in the opposition - as they are trying to do in Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen - then Iranian influence over the weakened regimes will grow substantially. And if Iran's allies topple the regimes, then Iran's influence will increase even more steeply.

Moreover, Iran's preference for proxy wars and asymmetric battles is served well by the current instability. Iran's proxies - from Hezbollah to al- Qaida to Hamas - operate best in weak states.

From Hezbollah's operations in South Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s, to the Iranian-sponsored Iraqi insurgents in recent years and beyond, Iran has exploited weak central authorities to undermine pro-Western governments, weaken Israel and diminish US regional influence.

In the midst of Egypt's revolutionary violence, Iran quickly deployed its Hamas proxies to Sinai.

Since Mubarak's fall, Iran has worked intensively to expand its proxy forces' capacity to operate freely in Sinai.

Recognition of Iran's expanded power is fast altering the international community's perception of the regional balance of forces. Russia's announcement last Saturday that it will sell Syria the Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missile was a testament to Iran's rising regional power and the US's loss of power.

Russia signed a deal to provide the missiles to Syria in 2007. But Moscow abstained from supplying them until now - just after Iran sailed its naval ships unmolested to Syria through the Suez Canal and signed a naval treaty with Syria effectively fusing the Iranian and Syrian navies.

So, too, Russia's announcement that it sides with Iran's ally Turkey in its support for reducing UN Security Council sanctions against Iran indicates that the US no longer has the regional posture necessary to contain Iran on the international stage.

Iran's increased regional power and its concomitant expanded leverage in international oil markets will make it impossible for the US to win UN Security Council support for more stringent sanctions against Tehran. Obviously, UN Security Council-sanctioned military action against Iran's nuclear installations is out of the question.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has failed completely to understand what is happening.

Clinton told the House of Representatives and the Senate that Iran's increased power means that the US should continue to arm and fund Iran's allies and support the so-called democratic forces that are allied with Iran.

So it was that Clinton told the Senate that the Obama administration thinks it is essential to continue to supply the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese military with US arms. Clinton claimed that she couldn't say what Hezbollah control over the Lebanese government meant regarding the future of US ties to Lebanon.

So, too, while Palestinian Authority leaders burn President Barack Obama in effigy and seek to form a unity government with Iran's Hamas proxy, Clinton gave an impassioned defense of US funding for the PA to the House Foreign Relations Committee this week.

Clinton's behavior bespeaks a stunning failure to understand the basic realities she and the State Department she leads are supposed to shape. Her lack of comprehension is matched only by her colleague Defense Secretary Robert Gates' lack of shame and nerve. In a press conference this week, Gates claimed that Iran is weakened by the populist waves in the Arab world because Iran's leaders are violently oppressing their political opponents.

In light of the Obama administration's refusal to use US military force for even the most minor missions - like evacuating US citizens from Libya - without UN approval, it is apparent that the US will not use armed force against Iran for as long as Obama is in power.

And given the administration's refusal to expend any effort to protect US interests and allies in the region lest the US be accused of acting like a superpower, it is clear that US allies like the Saudis will not be able to depend on America to defend the regime. This is the case despite the fact that its overthrow would threaten the US's core regional interests.

Against this backdrop, it is clear that the only way to curb Iran's influence in the region and so strike a major blow against its rising Shi'ite-Sunni jihadist alliance is to actively support the prodemocracy regime opponents in Iran's Green Movement. The only chance of preventing Iran from plunging the region into war and bloodshed is if the regime is overthrown.

So long as the Iranian regime remains in power, it will be that much harder for the Egyptians to build an open democracy or for the Saudis to open the kingdom to liberal voices and influences. The same is true of almost every country in the region. Iran is the primary regional engine of war, terror, nuclear proliferation and instability. As long as the regime survives, it will be difficult for liberal forces in the region to gain strength and influence.

On February 24, the mullahs reportedly arrested opposition leaders Mir Hossain Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi along with their wives. It took the Obama administration several days to even acknowledge the arrests, let alone denounce them.

In the face of massive regime violence, Iran's anti-regime protesters are out in force in cities throughout the country demanding their freedom and a new regime. And yet, aside from paying lip service to their bravery, neither the US nor any other government has come forward to help them. No one has supplied Iran's embattled revolutionaries with proxy servers after the regime brought down their Internet communications networks. No one has given them arms.

No one has demanded that Iran be thrown out of all UN bodies pending the regime's release of the Mousavis and Karroubis and the thousands of political prisoners being tortured in the mullah's jails. No one has stepped up to fund around-the-clock anti-regime broadcasts into Iran to help regime opponents organize and coordinate their operations. Certainly no one has discussed instituting a no-fly zone over Iran to protect the protesters.

With steeply rising oil prices and the real prospect of al-Qaida taking over Yemen, Iranian proxies taking over Bahrain, and the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt, some Americans are recognizing that not all revolutions are Washingtonian.

But there is a high likelihood that an Iranian revolution would be. At a minimum, a democratic Iran would be far less dangerous to the region and the world than the current regime.

The Iranians are right. We are moving into a new Middle East. And if the mullahs aren't overthrown, the New Middle East will be a very dark and dangerous place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Click on:http://www.iraniumthemovie.com/


Iran's nuclear program presents a threat to international stability. Yet successive American administrations-Republican and Democratic alike-have misread the intentions and actions of the Iranian regime.

How dangerous is a nuclear Iran, even if it never detonates a weapon? What are the guiding principles of the Iranian leadership? To what lengths would the regime go to carry out its agenda? How far have Iran's leaders already gone to fund the world's most powerful terrorist organizations? And why have American leaders failed to gain the upper hand in relations with Iran during the past 30 years?

In approximately 60 minutes, Iranium powerfully reports on the many aspects of the threat America and the world now faces using rarely-before seen footage of Iranian leaders, and interviews with 25 leading politicians, Iranian dissidents, and experts on: Middle East policy, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.

■Iranium documents the development of Iran's nuclear threat, beginning with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the ideology installed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini.
■Iranium tracks Iran's use of terror as a tool of policy, beginning with the 444 day seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, through Iran's insurgent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
■Iranium details the brutal nature of the Iranian regime to its own citizens, and the Iranian people's desire to rejoin the international community.
■Iranium outlines the various scenarios the greater Middle East and the Western world may face should Iran cross the nuclear threshold.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)"B-b-b-but it's his fault ... he started it"..

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge
deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.

So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the
party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY
2009 as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them
to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on
spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until
Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus
spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very
Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the
omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the
deficits looked like during that period: If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted
for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Bill Cosby has a great way of "distilling" things ...Looks like he's done it again!


AMERICA NEEDS A CANDIDATE WITH THIS PLATFORM!!


I HAVE DECIDED TO BECOME A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT IN THE YEAR 2012...
HERE IS MY PLATFORM:

(1). Any use of the phrase: 'Press 1 for English' is immediately BANNED!!!. English is the official language; speak it or wait outside of our borders until you can.

(2). We will immediately go into a two year isolationist attitude in order to straighten out the greedy big business posture in this country. America will allow NO imports, and we'll do no exports. We will begin using Wal-Mart 's policy,
'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.' We'll make and sell it here!


(3). When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it coming in here.


(4). All retired military personnel will be required to man one of the many observation towers located on the southern border of the United States (six month tour). They will be under strict orders not to fire on SOUTH BOUND aliens.


(5). Social Security will immediately return to its original state.

If you didn't put nuttin in, you AIN'T getting nuttin out. Neither the President nor any other politician will be able to touch it.

(6). Welfare. -- Checks will be handed out on Fridays, at the end of the 40 hour school week, AFTER the successful completion of a urinalysis test for drugs, and passing grades.

(7). Professional Athletes -- Steroids? The FIRST time you check positive you're banned from sports ... for life.

(8). Crime -- We will adopt the Turkish method, i.e., the first time you steal, you lose your right hand. There is no more 'life sentences'. If convicted of murder, you will be put to death by the same method you chose for the victim you killed: gun, knife, strangulation, etc.

(9). One export of ours will be allowed: wheat; because the world needs to eat. However, a bushel of wheat will be the EXACT price of a barrel of oil.

(10). All foreign aid, using American taxpayer money, will immediately cease and the saved money will help to pay off the national debt and, ultimately, lower taxes. When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask The American People if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision as to whether, or not, it's a worthy cause.


(11). The Pledge of Allegiance will be said EVERY day at school and every day in CONGRESS.


(12). The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies, sporting events, outings, etc.


My apology is offered if I've stepped on anyone's toes .... nevertheless......
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------