The USA is making progress with Iran on the nuclear issue.

That's what I keep hearing, anyway. Progress in this case is defined as Iran allowing the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to inspect it's uranium processing facility outside Qom on October 25th. IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei said the inspection is to insure Iran's nuclear plant is "for peaceful purposes." This is interesting, because the Iranians attempted to hide that "peaceful" nuclear facility from the outside world for years, and didn't acknowledge it's existence until very recently, after several Western intelligence agencies blew Iran's cover. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the IAEA will not find nuclear weapons sitting around at the Qom facility during their inspection. I'm basing my prediction on the fact that the Iranians are not the Three Stooges. They are not THAT dumb. They just think we are.

Even more interesting is the fact that we don't know how many other secret nuclear enrichment plants Iran has. Back in january, the NY Times reported the following about a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded Iran had suspended it's pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003:

The public version [of the NIE] made only glancing reference to evidence described at great length in the 140-page classified version of the assessment: the suspicion that Iran had 10 or 15 other nuclear-related facilities, never opened to international inspectors, where enrichment activity, weapons work or the manufacturing of centrifuges might be taking place.

The Israelis didn't buy the American conclusion in 2007 that Iran had stopped working on nuclear weapons, and reportedly presented evidence to the U.S. that Iran was still pursuing nukes. Israel requested bunker-busting bombs from the U.S. in 2008, which were capable of penetrating Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Israel also requested refueling equipment that would allow Israeli aircraft to fly to Iran and back to Israel, along with the right to fly over Iran. Obviously, Israel wanted to take out Iran's nuclear sites. President Bush turned the requests down. Bush pursued further covert ops instead. Israel wasn't the only one who thought the CIA's 2007 NIE was wrong. British intelligence agreed.

So here we are in 2009, knowing for certain that Iran has engaged in deception regarding it's nuclear ambitions, and the problem has been kicked down the road to President Obama. The Iranians continue with their nuclear plans unabated, while America and the UN continue the same path as always, negotiations and threats of sanctions. In the meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting with Vladimir Putin to ask Russia to stop helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. I assume Russia cannot stop helping unless they have already BEEN helping.

The problem with negotiating with Iran is simple – the Iranians lie.

The problem with sanctions against Iran are mainly two – Russia and China, who have shared economic interests with Iran, namely, oil. India is also heavily interwined with Iran's oil industry, along with many other countries. The Russians and the Chinese help Iran negate the power of any sanctions. One of the sanctions being discussed against Iran now is a ban on importation of oil products to Iran. Even though Iran is an oil-rich country, a lack of oil refining facilities causes Iran to import much of it's gasoline and other petroleum products. China opposes those sanctions and has restated it's prioritization of Iranian oil. Russia said recently it will "consider" new sanctions against Iran (my translation: Russia will vote against any truly harsh sanctions, or will continue to help Iran get around them. I'd love to be wrong about this).

If negotiations are fruitless, and sanctions can be gotten around, what's left ? Military action against Iran ? Non-military regime change ? Can anyone see Obama or the UN actually taking military action against Iran ? Very doubtful, and the American people are extremely war weary already. The way I see it, Israel is the only one who'd be willing to take military action, but they'd most likely have to do it without American or UN approval, which makes that a lot more dicey, and since we don't even know how many nuclear facilities Iran has, it may not even work.

In conclusion, welcome to the dawning of a new age – an Iranian theocratic, terrorist-supporting government, with a holocaust-denying, apocalyptic President who openly states that he wants to destroy Israel, having nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong ? Besides everything. Various experts say Iran could have a bomb between next year and 2013, but the experts have been wrong about quite a lot in the Middle East in recent years, so who knows ?

I sure hope I'm wrong. We need your help, President Obama. This is way beyond partisanship or political ideology. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it could and probably would start an arms race throughout the Middle East. I can barely think of a less desirable outcome.

"For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." - President Barack Hussein Obama, narcissist, addressing the United Nations, September, 2009.

I'm sure glad Barry came along and fixed the character and cause of this nation after 232 years of American villainy, aren't you ? On the bright side, at least he didn't call pre-Obama America "The Great Satan." And our President spoke these words in front of an audience that included the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Moammar Gadhafi, and a slew of other human rights violators (many of whom are on the Orwellian UN Human Rights Council).
===
"Since Americans can only be prodded into doing something with money, we need to tax crappy foods that make us sick like we do with cigarettes, and alcohol." - pot-smoking comedian Bill Maher, September, 2009.

Unbelievably, Maher calls himself a Libertarian. In reality, he's just another authoritarian left-winger. Someone should familiarize Maher with the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's none of Bill Maher's business who smokes, drinks, or eats what, which Maher would quickly realize if someone took his weed away. Maher's "libertarianism" extends only to his desire to get high. What a hypocrite.
===
"Is capitalism a sin ?" - Leni Riefenstahl Award-winning, Castro-loving filmmaker Michael Moore, in a trailer from his forthcoming movie, Capitalism, A Love Story.

The answer from Moore's questionee is "yes," by the way, capitalism IS a sin. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it better.
===
"President Obama didn't make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows … with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. … Mr. Obama was asked by [ABC] host George Stephanopoulos about the 'individual mandate.' Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when 'the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. … How is that not a tax?' 'Well, hold on a second, George,' Mr. Obama replied. 'Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's…' 'That may be,' Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, 'but it's still a tax increase.' (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.) Mr. Obama: 'No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore…' In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy — don't call it a tax — is for your own good. … Mr. Obama complains that 'My critics say everything is a tax increase,' as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular." –The Wall Street Journal, September, 2009.

Yes, of course, Obama's penalty for not having health insurance is a tax, no matter what he wants to call it. Obama probably wouldn't consider his cap-and-trade proposal a tax either, but that's exactly what it is. The creative subterfuge being engaged in by Democrats these days is to pass tax increases without calling them tax increases. Instead, they are called penalties, mandates, fees, carbon allowances, etc. Does this stuff actually fool anyone ? (except for liberals, that is). I hope not. Obama isn't "helping the little guy" one bit, in case anyone hasn't noticed (and the media sure hasn't). He's only raising the little guy's expenses, through both direct and indirect means. This brings to mind Ronald Reagan's quote about the most terrifying words in the english language – "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
===
"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations." - Barack Obama, speaking at the UN climate change conference, September, 2009.

"Responsibility to future generations," eh ? More than a tad ironic, coming from the President who is running up the debt faster than every other administration in history combined, thereby irresponsibly ruining the prospects of future generations.
===
"It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore. It smells of something else. It smells of hope." - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, addressing the UN, September, 2009.

The "sulfur" smell was Bush, whom Chavez called "the devil" at last year's UN meeting. The "hope" smell is Obama. It's sure nice that we've won over Chavez, don't you think ? Yes, he may be a tyrannical nut who nationalizes industries, shuts down opposition media, and puts opposition political figures in jail, but that's the socialist way. Because Chavez's version of "hope" would be hope of a worldwide socialist revolution, I wonder what it is he likes so much about Obama ??? I can agree with Chavez on this much – something smells alright.

When the democratically elected Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, was removed from office by the Honduran military, President Obama immediately denounced it as an illegal military coup. Obama stated "our goal now is on restoring democratic order in Honduras." Obama was joined by a slew of others criticizing Honduras for removing Zelaya. United Nations chief Ban Ki-Moon called the Honduran actions "an unconstitutional change of power." The Organization of American States (OAS) issued an ultimatum to Honduras to either restore Zelaya within 72 hours or be suspended from the OAS. Latin Leftist leaders (dictators) are in an uproar and threatening violence. Cuba's Fidel Castro called the Zelaya coup "a suicidal error," and urged a reverse coup. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez pledged that "we will bring them [the new Honduras leaders] down," and said Venezuelan troops are on alert. Chavez, who in addition to being a Leftist strongman, is also a coked up lunatic, also blamed the USA for the coup, by saying the Honduran coup leaders "had Yankee support," though Chavez admits that Obama was against the coup (it must be that other US government that supported it). Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega called on President Obama to stand firm against the Honduran coup (pretty ironic when only a few months ago, Ortega blasted Obama with a 50-minute long diatribe railing AGAINST the USA's interference in Central America).

With all this condemnation taking place, it's easy to forget what actually happened in Honduras. What makes it even easier to forget is that our media doesn't tell us what really happened there. They gloss over the details by saying something like "the military removed Zelaya shortly before a vote about term limits." Well, that doesn't quite cover it. There's more to that story. A lot more.

First, a few words about the government of Honduras. It is a democratic constitutional republic. Honduras holds free elections. It has a Constitution (since 1982), a Congress, and a Supreme Court. A division of power.

The Constitution of Honduras sets strict term limits and bars any changes to those term limits, and that is where the current problem started. President Zelaya would have been term-limited out of office next january, and Zelaya, a Chavez wannabe, wasn't too keen on that idea. He wanted term limits repealed, and moved unilaterally to have a referendum vote on the matter, in violation of the Honduran Constitution, against the Honduran attorney general, and in violation of the Honduran Supreme Court, who ruled against him. Zelaya went ahead with his referendum anyway. When the military refused to pass out the illegal ballots, Zelaya fired the head of the military, then he had (drumroll, please) his buddy HUGO CHAVEZ print up the ballots for the illegal term limits vote. With the illegal vote only hours away, the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya be arrested. At that point, Zelaya was removed from office and kicked out of the country.

Is that a coup, or is it enforcing the constitutional rule of law against Zelaya's illegal power grab ? I think it's far more the latter than the former. It's true that Zelaya didn't get any due process according to our standards, but the Honduran standards are not our standards. Here's article 239 of the Honduran Constitution:

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

The Constitution mandated that Zelaya be removed from office IMMEDIATELY, and that's exactly what happened. The rule of law prevailed over Zelaya's selfish interests. So, when you hear the new interim President of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, say ""We are abiding by the Constitution of our country and that's why we have national support," he is correct. That's also why the Congress of Honduras voted to keep Zelaya out of office.

I understand why Leftist leaders around the world are condemning the so-called coup in Honduras, because they are interested in obtaining power through any means necessary, but why did President Obama join in so strongly and immediately in denouncing the removal of Zelaya ? What does Obama stand for, the constitutional rule of law, or the unilateral and illegal bullying tactics of Manuel Zelaya ? There's a question I'd love to hear the press ask our President.

In 2006, North Korea attempted a launch of a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile. The launch failed, with the missile blowing apart about 40 seconds after takeoff. In response to the North Korean launch, the United Nations issued Resolution 1718, which stated, "[We demand] that the DPRK [North Korea] not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile." The North Koreans ignored the resolution, and launched another test of the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile last week. Rogue regimes like North Korea treat UN resolutions like the toothless requests that they usually are. Saddam Hussein ignored about 14 UN resolutions regarding WMD inspections in Iraq during the 1990's. Iran hasn't cared a whit about multiple UN resolutions calling for Iran to alter it's nuclear ambitions.

So, now that North Korea has proven it will ignore UN resolutions, guess what President Obama wants in response to the Korean missile test ??? He wants ANOTHER UN resolution, of course. Here's Obama on the missile test:

We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council.

I don't mean to single out only Obama here. Things were much the same under Bush and Clinton too. If countries like North Korea and Iran were responsive to the international community, they wouldn't be considered rogue regimes in the first place. NK and Iran didn't comprise two of the three countries in Bush's "axis of evil" for nothing (notably absent from the axis of evil now is IRAQ. I wonder what happened there ?)

President Obama called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in response to North Korea's launch. After a three hour closed door session, the Security Council announced…..nothing. They couldn't agree on a response. Obama is urging for a strong response to North Korea, whatever that means, but Russia, China, Libya, Uganda, and Vietnam all called for restraint by the UN (is the UN ever anything OTHER than restrained ?). These countries are saying a strong UN response will endanger the Six Party Talks (that North Korea is already ignoring). Russia even laughably claimed to be "studying" whether North Korea actually violated any UN resolutions, which NK so obviously did.

Ironically, the North Koreans launched their Taepodong-2 missile on the same day Obama called for "a world without nuclear weapons." While I applaud Obama's notions to reduce strategic nuclear weapons, stop their proliferation, and secure nuclear material around the world, there will NEVER be a world without nukes. That genie is out of the bottle. There's no going back. Obama was being naive in that respect. At this point, it is the dark threat of mutually assured destruction that keeps nuclear weapons from being used. If the major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China abandoned their nuclear weapons, it would actually increase the threat that rogue regimes and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda could pose to the world if they acquired nukes. The rest of the world would be defenseless.

Obama also reversed course on European missile defense, and is attempting to use it as a bargaining chip to get Iran to stop it's nuclear program. Here's Obama again:

"Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the US, but to Iran's neighbours and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system."

I guess you could call this a kind of nuclear cap-and-trade policy, but to my way of thinking, this bargain should not be struck, even if Iran does agree to it. Iran isn't the only nuclear threat to Europe, not to mention that Iran cannot be trusted to keep their side of the bargain, any more than North Korea could be trusted to keep it's past pledges.
—
FYI – Don't forget to attend the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th. The event will take place from 4-6pm. The location has been moved from Public Square to Mall C. Nuclear weapons aren't the only thing proliferating. So is the government confiscation of our hard-earned money.

The Global Poverty Act (S.2433). That sounds worthwhile. We all want to reduce global poverty. This pleasant sounding bill is sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama (D-God), the "new kind of politician", The Man From Hope (no wait, that was Bubba Clinton, the sexual predator president), The Audacity Of Hopester, who transcends all who came before him. He's The Great And Powerful Oz-bama. Swoon at mere mention of his name, ye lowly mortals. Pay no attention to the man in the booth.

The Global Poverty Act would commit the US to paying 0.7 percent of our Gross National Product to the United Nations to meet the UN's 2000 Millenium Development goals. This amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the US already spends in foreign aid. The US gives more in aid than any other country on this planet to begin with.

If this sounds like a global tax to you, well, it does to me too, payable to one of the most corrupt organizations on earth, the United Nations (who, btw, recently had it's Human Rights Council start on a mission to find countries who are "abusing freedom of speech". I hope you heard that. The UN is looking for countries who are too free, and calling that a problem. That's what happens when the Human Rights Council is dominated by the Arab League. They start prosecuting freedom rather than human rights violators. Also, guess who the biggest human rights violator on earth is, according to the mega-corrupt UN ??? If you said "Israel", you win first prize). The UN is a complete joke, is increasingly anti-american, is anti-Israel, is becoming anti-human rights, and is anti-sanity…and Barack Obama and others want to give it a big old chunk of our money, since we have so much extra that we don't need. All you foks out there have tons of extra money laying around, don't you ? Of course you do. That's why we don't have any problems here in America. We are rich. Yahoo ! It's a non-stop party here in the USA. The streets are paved with gold.

If you ask me, we should be considering withdrawing from the UN, not surrendering our sovereignty to it through a global tax. I think the chances of the UN eradicating global poverty with our global tax dollars are slightly less than my chances of finding an armed nuclear device in my backyard this morning.

It just occurred to me that I might be, to quote Obama, "distracting us from the issues that americans truly care about" by bringing this stuff about Barack's global tax up. If so, I truly and deeply apologize, and if Obama does become president, I will report to a re-education camp immediately. Until that time, I will operate on the assumption that this is still a somewhat free country guided by a Constitution, where the notion of paying a global tax to an unfriendly group of corrupt nations not only wouldn't be considered a good idea, but would be considered treasonous. I guess that makes me old-school, out of touch with Barry O's "new kind of politics". I hope they have real orange juice at the re-education camp. It's so much better than that sugary orange drink or that Tang stuff, and I've never even tried Sunny D. Like I said, I'm old school. But I digress…

Wait a second…Could it be that the Global Poverty Act is intended to BRING poverty to the entire globe ? Now, THAT makes sense. I should have thought of that earlier. We redistribute the wealth away from the rich people (like you and I. "Rich" will be defined as "anyone with a roof over their head"), and we give it to the UN, who will then do something with it, resulting in Global Poverty. Got it. I wonder why Obama didn't explain it like that to begin with ?

The text of the Global Poverty Act purposely avoids ANY mention of the cost of the bill, instead making it sound more like a generic and compassionate commitment to reduce poverty, as follows:

"…[The legislation] requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

It's only when you get to the UN's Millenium Development Goals that you discover the 0.7% tax on US GNP. Nice trick, Mr. Obama. That trick got the House to pass the bill without discussion via a voice vote back in february 2008. It is set to come up for a Senate vote soon, and it seems nobody is raising much of an objection. It seems nobody is even mentioning it. So far, this is pure stealth legislation. I have yet to hear the issue raised in any newscast or in any debate. Tim Russert just spent an entire hour with Barack Obama on Meet The Press and didn't raise the issue. Making the US subservient to the United Nations seems like a major issue to me. I hope it is to others as well.

And incidentally (or not), the Global Poverty Act would also commit the USA to the Kyoto Protocol, which is part of the Millenium Development Goals. Funny how that works.

You can send a blast fax to president Bush and Republican congressional leaders to ask that they stop the Global Poverty Act here.