iPandora

Iranian nuclear power plant southwest of Tehran

“In the last year, two things have happened,” he told the FADC. “Iran has advanced its military nuclear program, and the international community has lost its legitimacy.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commenting on reports that Iran is now capable of building nuclear weapons and delivering them as warheads to Israel.

I’d add one more thing that has happened in the last year, we’ve lost a President with backbone and nerve and a strong sense of leadership and gained one who believes in diplomacy above all.

Diplomacy is good and an excellent first choice, but the entire world is now held ransom by the tin-hat despots and megalomaniacal extreme religious leadership of Iran because we didn’t bring our big stick to the table.

Consistent discipline works for both recalcitrant children and rogue nations.

With children, letting them know their options and the consequences of their choices and allowing them to choose and accept their consequences is the bedrock of discipline.

Growing up, all of us children knew that for standard disobedience, the punishment was three swats from the Red bud rod. For lying, it was “triples” or 9 swats.

Some infractions had stronger or different punishments: when I tried burning the house down by inserting foreign objects into our old furnace, Dad grounded me for 6 months (I think I was out after 3 months on good behavior). For throwing nuts and dirt over my friend’s neighbors fence into their pool, we had to go to their front door and apologize. When I yelled at mom ( a few times), dad “tanned my hide” until he felt I’d learned that wasn’t an approved method of communication.

But the consistency was that we knew when we did something, there were expected and consistent consequences.

Now what if my parents were elected every 4 years, and they could only get 2 terms consecutively?

That wouldn’t work for child-rearing, obviously. But it is the best bet for a Republican form of government.

And yet, many of the weaknesses that make a constantly changing head of state such a bad idea for a family continue into the structure of the Presidency of the United States.

Right now, there is a nuclear-armed North Korea threatening severe retaliation to any attempts to curtail their missile-rattling. They are publicly stating their intention of shooting a missile towards Hawaii. None of their current arsenal will reach that far, but it’s no light thing to shoot a missile in the direction of the United States of America.

It’s my country.

The organization which likes to think it is the supreme chancellor of the entire world has already laid out sanctions against North Korea explicitly stating that country is not allowed to export any weapons or weapons materials.

North Korea has their number: now shipping to Myanmar/Burma is a shipload of weapons origination from North Korea.

So the cheeky brat has toed the line. It’s the recalcitrant child acting up and testing how far he can push against the rules.

The UN is in high dander over this and is threatening… wait for it… more sanctions! Yea, that’ll stop ‘em.

The United States of America is not the mother of the world, nor the father. We’re the big brother. We’re not responsible for controlling the internal workings of other nations, but as the largest and most moral (I did not say perfect, I said “most moral”) we bear a responsibility to the rest of the world that is not shared by any other nation right now.

In the Reagan and Bush days, our President would be standing tall and calling the leadership of North Korea on the carpet for the systematic denial of basic human rights even to their own citizens. Shame would be called upon the leadership of that nation for it’s repression of dissent backward, anti-liberty policies. And for it’s missile-rattling, North Korea would be facing an insurmountable and effectively devastating result to it’s brutish and bullying behavior.

In the Obama era we sit, and wait. And send a single ship to babysit the weapons-carrying vessel as it plies the waters heading towards the despotic dictatorship destroying Burma/Myanmar.

We aren’t allowed to board or hinder the vessel in any way.

We can ask them to stop.

Perhaps these people just feel they are misunderstood by the rest of the world. And if we just ask them how they’re feeling they’ll open up to us.

A word of advice, completely free: Don’t let psychologists run the police department and don’t let them run foreign policy.

“How do you feel” is not a valid question in foreign policy. Particularly when the one you’re asking is holding the trigger on a nuclear device and when his history shows mental instability on the part of the entire government.

You hold up a bigger hammer that he has and you let him know that if he takes one more step, you’ll whack him.

And when he takes that step?

Whack him.

As an expectant father, I’m none too interested in raising my child in a new round of fall0ut shelters and nuclear attack drills.

MADD is not peace. MADD is fear. (Nothing against Mothers Against Drunk Driving).

I don’t live in fear.

I choose to live in peace brought about by the appropriate and effective use of threat and fact of force.

President Obama apparently plans to achieve peace through the shrinking violet method.

Something the American populace needs to understand, and quickly, is that every election is a foreign-policy election.

The less our government does internally to America, the better off we’ll be. The more our government is involved in protecting American interests off-shore, the better off we’ll be.

And because, right now, we’re still the most moral nation in the world. It can be generally said that when America operates in it’s own best interest, the world benefits from it.

Not that we are so full of ourselves that we believe goods things for us are good things for all.

But a strong United States of America means petty tyrants the world over will know they can trust the actions and will of America will be continually against their petty tyranny. And that if they attempt to export either their pettiness or their tyranny, we’ll be there with a big stick, a mop, and a bucket to beat them into submission again and clean up their mess.

A strong United States would be calling steadily and constantly for freedom of the election in Iran, and working actively in support of the open and democratic process in that nation. And the world would safer.

A strong United States would be responding to North Korea’s insane and idoitic ambitions as it would to a petulant and rebellious child. We would state the consequences of their continued stupidity, and if they continued, we would give them the consequences they were promised. And the world would be safer.

It’s not really a difficult or complex idea, from this side. Which is probably why the hyper intelligent President Obama, who, along with his leadership team insist on seeing everything in so many shades of grey it would make a color blind person swear they could differentiate green and blue.

But unless there is a consistent, strong, and swift exercise of our own (and all others on this globe’s) rights to life and liberty ensured through the appropriate show and use of force, there will be consequences…

For us.

I’ll be wearing green Friday to support an Iran ruled by law and not despots.

So . . . I spent some time browsing and have some news to share.

Iran is working on nuclear capabilities and has the neccessary nuclear material.Should we be worried? I honestly do not think we need to be worried about our own safety, but world politics could change. After all, India will be the first target.

We all knew this was comming, but Proposition 8 in California, the ammendment defining marriage as a man and a woman (not directly banning homosexual marriage) is being challenged in courts.Now let me get this right. Prop 8 was a Constitution amendment that passed . . . So, why are courts considering these cases? After all, Prop 8 is now basically the law of the land in California. The California Supreme Court may interpret the Proposition (scarry thought) but may not rule is Unconstitutional (because it is part of the Constitution). So, in light of this logic, what does the California Supreme Court think they can do?

Here is a very revealing quote from the article:

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

I am sorry, this just gets my blood up. If voters, the most fundamental part of our governmental system, do not have the authority to enact such legislation (more importantly, a constitutional amendment, than who does? Because, even though the legislature and courts have enacted similar legislation, they have done it outside their authority. All I can do is shake my head.

Change we can believe in has become change that always was.Obama, in a further effort to show his bipartisanship, continues to appoint Clinton and Democrat stalwarts. And the Republican party grows smaller.

Hey, there is some good news though. A disabled man in California who has filed over 400 suits against businesses for not totally complying with the American’s With Disabilities Act (not enough disable parking spaces, no hand rails . . .), has been barred from filing and more suits. The man would sue and ask the courts to fine the businesses $4,000 a day till the changes were implemented. So, your might be thinking, that is a little crooked, but he isn’t making anything off it. Well, it turns out that a lot of businesses were afraid of him and would settle out of court, earning him hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

We all like being generous, right?Well turns out that the people that have managed our money for years . . . and years, are asking for us to be generous again . . . to the tune of $1 Trillion. Yep, we gave them our earning and investments, they screwed us over, and now they want more of our money so that they can somehow “get back” what we initially invested in them. On a side note, there is only $350 Billion left from the $700 Million bail out package. It is good that the money has gone to help . . .  to help . . . to help . . . hmm . . . that is funny, I don’t know what the $350 Billion dollars helped. Probably created another bureaucracy somewhere and is helping pay for salaries. Hey it could be anything seeing as there is no oversight board.

And lastly, Obama is already voting “Present” in high profile public policy.It seems that Obama does not mind changing our anti terror policy by releasing inmates from Guantanamo, but is wary of change when it comes to taking a stand on bailouts for under producing, over paid auto companies. Maybe if they made a better product their revenue might be better. Just a thought.

The second half is mostly fluff, meant to tickle ears.

But the first half is a major difference between him and his current rivals, Clinton and Obama.

McCain on foreign policy:

The FARS news service of Iran writes a glowing piece on Huckabee.

Regarding the conduct of Huckabee in the White House, there is a lot we do not know. Like another governor from the same state, Bill Clinton, Huckabee has little experience in foreign affairs. Nonetheless, last week he dropped a bomb in an article he published in Foreign Affairs, where all the other candidates have contributed articles. He wrote of “urgent concerns” regarding Iran’s nuclear program and its support for militants, saying that he does not discard the military option. But he was critical of the Bush foreign policy, which he described as “arrogant bunker mentality.”

In the Iranian context, his policy is being interpreted as a change, calling for bringing to the table non-military options as well. Huckabee is of the opinion that relations with Iran deteriorated following Bush’s “axis of evil” speech. In many points his message on Iran is more akin to that of the Democrats: there is a need for dialogue with Iran, and more diplomacy is needed. He quoted the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who authored The Art of War 2,500 years ago: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

They like him.

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt.

A friend of mine supports Ron Paul for president. Admittedly, his libertarian views are very appealing to many people feeling as though the Republican mainstream has hung them out to dry. However, there are deep issues that I have with Ron Paul, very deep issues.

My friend and I got into a discussion regarding Ron Paul, and they have graciously given me permission to post it here:

Matthew:

Please tell me you only joined the group supporting Ron Paul as a joke.

Friend:

No, I wasn’t joking. Why should I? Go ahead and convince me! =] I’m game.

Matthew:

His political platform is mostly appealing, I do agree with that. However, he supports pulling us out of a war that, regardless of whether you agree with the necessity of the war or no, you must understand to pull out is to give a victory to an enemy who will not accept our defeat graciously but who will next bring the war to our doorstep again. His consistency on the issues he is most vocal about on the campaign trail is also less than stellar, with a marked propensity for bringing “pork” projects to his district.

Finally, and I know he himself does not espouse these beliefs, but white supremacists have jumped on his campaign, contributing money and support. Ron Paul has not repudiated these supporters or returned their money or prevented their support.

He is not a leader in the sense America needs. And while the the pickings are few in the field, I think of all the candidates running with an (R) after their name, Paul is least qualified.

Friend:

We are in a war that can’t be won. Don’t you remember that Bush declared victory over 4 years ago? Since then, 3,735 American soldiers have lost their lives. If that is victory, then we can’t win this war.

Do you remember Vietnam? We lost that war, and had the common sense to get out of there, (although it wasn’t until we lost 58,000 of our guys) and now? We trade with them! Our relations with Vietnam are as they should be with any country!

If a forthcoming attack is your concern, think about this. When Ron Paul talks about bringing our troops home, he’s talking about bringing home ALL of the troops from over 700 military bases, in over 160 different countries, all over the world. We would not no longer be growing resentment in any of these countries, who all deserve, as much as we do, to run their countries how the want, and not have a bigger, more powerful government come and tell them how to live. How would you feel if China or Russia came over here, and built 15 military bases or more, and started telling us how to run our lives? Would you sit back, and let them? I wouldn’t… I would do everything in my power, (which isn’t much=]) to stop them!

So, who would you stand behind for the next president of the US?

Matthew:

First, what about the war we are currently in is failing so very badly that there is no way the war can be one? Have you followed the news beyond what has been force-fed us by the media? Read the post here to see one side of the new growth of freedom in Baghdad. Even the New York Times, a paper arguably more invested than any other in our defeat in Iraq, last week published on the front page an article telling of the good that is occurring there.

We lost Vietnam because the politicians (the revered but Clintonesque JFK and the worst president in history Lindon Baines Johnson) would not allow the military to prosecute the war as it needed to be. The president selected the military targets, micromanaging far beyond what any true and wise leader would have or should have done. There was a small but vocal contingent at home which proclaimed the injustice of the war, getting their faces (and other body parts) smeared all over the evening news as our country fought for it’s soul. Public figures such as Jane Fonda openly consorted with the enemy while our soldiers, not allowed to fight as they should have, were captured and imprisoned and tortured. We still do not know the fate of many of those imprisoned, as the Vietnamese Communists who gained power through the pride and ineptitude of our leaders at the time, persecuting and killing many of their own countrymen as well as our servicemen.

Comparing that just but unjustly-prosecuted war with the conflict we are currently in, the times when the current was going poorly coincide with times when the military leadership has taken away responsibility and power from their field-level commanders, much as in the Vietnam war. One of the the reasons freedom from tyranny is succeeding right now and we are experiencing success in our military operations is that the generals are giving direction and responsibility and allowing the people under them to work and decide and wage their battles as they know best.

And regarding the justice of the war. Who do you believe attacked us in 1992, attempting to topple the trade towers? And again in 2001? The same people made both attempts. And regarding specifically the portion of the conflict in Iraq, yes, we have not found weapons of mass destruction. But operating on the intelligence we had then, all the leaders, not just Bush, not just Republicans, not just ‘hawks’, and not just Americans, but the UN security council (regardless of the morality of their position) supported us in our use of force to depose Saddam Hussein and protect the world from any furtherance of his tyranny, either on his own people or on others through his state-sponsoring of terrorists and their weapons systems. Important to remember in this is that while we have not found any actual WMDs we have not found evidence that they were not or never there. Instead, the consensus is that they were trucked across the border to Syria and Iran, both countries with despotic governments who are not shy about broadcasting their intentions of world domination by their religion by their leadership.

As far as defense goes. The worst defense is the kind where all your assets are kept close by. With the world getting “smaller” as technology and transportation move more and more people further and further more and more quickly, and with weapons capable of striking anyplace from anywhere in mere hours, being “on-site” and in the region of conflict is a much more effective defense.

Regarding the bad feelings we are breeding by our presence in the regions. First, America is the only superpower in the history of the world which has neither forced it’s culture upon those it is around as superior, nor have we failed to relinquish sovereign control of the nations we’ve fought in to legitimate governments of those nations in most cases (several islands in the Pacific being the only exceptions to that). Instead, we fight alongside indigent warriors to free their nations, then we spend billions upon billions of dollars to shore up those nations economies and social structures. The hotbeds of hatred spring up wherever they will regardless of our presence. And to remove from the area would only grant unwelcome power to an unworthy underclass of malcontents and misfits.

I am not sure who I’m supporting for the nomination. I will support any Republican nominee in the main presidential race because: 1, they are all and each morally and pragmatically superior to any of the Democrat nominees, and 2, third party candidates are never a viable option except to take votes away from one of the two main party’s candidate (yes, liberal third partiers… keep up the good work, grin).

As far as the nominees, I’m becoming more and more convinced that Rudy is bad news, and his promises to set up conservative judges are likely to be empty. Romney, I think most of his detractors are picking at straws in their critiques of him, but I do not think I’ll vote for him in the nomination for his lack of history to his moral beliefs regarding abortion. Thompson is (little) talk and I think he’ll fade away soon. Huckabee looks good but I’ve heard those close to him call him a pro-life liberal. I think he’d make an excellent VP if given a position of counsel and some authority. I’m not sold on him.

Of all these, I think Huckabee, if he shows strength continuing into these upcoming primaries, is my preferred choice, pending a bit more investigation.

We didn’t continue the conversation further mainly due to busy-ness.

Huckabee is looking to be less and less of a man I’d want to lead this country. He’d make an admirable vice-president, but his fiscal and many of his social programs are not good. He does not see that the best way to help people is to remove all government-sponsored assistance and as much government-required hindrance and and encourage as much private assistance as possible.

Instead his proposals include large amounts of money to be given to people by the government. Government money is never free and it always comes with strings. And it costs you and me. Why not just take less to start with?

But Ron Paul is the last person this nation needs. He does not appreciate the necessity of remaining in Iraq to bring it to a place of stability. A process in which much progress has already been made. He is not a man of his word.

I’ve got no proof, but I called this: The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the master document of US Intelligence agencies is wrong.

Those for Sharia law around the world have spent the last day crowing that Iran doesn’t have any Nuclear weapons or programs to develop them, stating they’d stopped after we asked them to. But it turns out the report is, putting it nicely, a fabrication.

The NIE was compiled by people who value their own power and ambition over that of the rest of the entire world. Is there a just punishment for this?

UPDATE:

Doug Ross put in his (researched) 2 bits on the NIE and has some explanation that should confirm Iran is not being all lovey-dovey as the reporting on the NIE would have us believe.

UDATE:

Powerline gives some perspective.

I found this interesting article about Iran. We all know that this nation and Syria are involved in the battle in Iraq but this article puts forth a reasonable arguement for not going to war with them… It’s worth the read…

I wouldn’t go to war with them ONLY because I know we don’t have the political spine for it…

World Tribune LINK

So as some of you may know I’m back to Jr. College to finish up some transfer classes required by the UC system and one of the classes happens to be English critical thinking. I already had a fairly good knowledge of what I was getting myself into but it’s still fun to actually experience ignorance. Let me get to the point which is the little story I have from yesterday.

Our instructor wants to focus on interpretative argumentation which in my opinion is fine because I didn’t want to argument about the existence of god, morality of abortion and whether or not gays have the right to marriage. Her first exercise for us was interpreting a piece of art that was published in “The New Yorker”. You can find it here . We were to determine as a class what the artist was conveying in the picture. We students immediately begin to describe the picture factually with three women, NY subway bench, Catholic, Muslim, Secular, etc. Then we began interpreting. I said, “On either side of the middle woman we have the extreme representation of the world religions and the woman in the middle is obviously someone who is suppose to stand out.” Students bounce that idea around in their own way. And then I pointed out, “She’s clearly meant to be out there because most women don’t wear a halter top and a short shirt.” Immediately a girl next to me says, “Well women do dress that way, so it not like its abnormal.” I took my leave for the moment, let the students continue analyzing and looked about the room to see NOT ONE girl dressed that way. Thankfully the African man came to my rescue. “These aren’t just women they are the extreme forums. This isn’t just a Catholic it is an extreme Catholic, this isn’t just a Muslim it is an extreme Muslim,” all the students paused in adoration of such foreign intelligence and he continued, “and so in the woman in the middle. I do not see one woman in here whose dress like the woman in the middle,” he finished in his thick African accent.

Students came up with other ideas like the three monkeys, “Speak no evil, See no evil and hear no evil.” But nothing really stuck like our first statements so we continued in that direction which led to good old’ feminism. The teacher brought up the idea of the current anti-feminism movement with such figure heads as Dr. Laura. Then an Indian man, though very American, spoke up in reference to feminism and commented that feminism was like when a teenager receives freedom, they don’t know exactly what to do with it. Knowing he was on the right path but would be lynched if it wasn’t finished I stated, “Well yeah, its like a pendulum which swings from abortions and pole dancing to all you’re (as a woman) good for is making babies.” And no sooner than I finished my sentence the later thirty something getting married to PhD in three months over weight woman pipes up and says, “What about a pole dancer mother?” Thankfully the teacher took it from there but I was just shocked at the stupidity of feminism.

Thank you for your patient reading but the point of this of post is how shocking to me hearing feminism spoken from women’s’ mouths. I expect it from the liberal media from the New Yorker, MSNBC, CNN, my local news paper etc, but to hear it for real just strikes me differently and is just shocking. Feminism began in the late 1800s and eventually succeeded in its objective to give women suffrage in early 1900s. This in great numbers was driven by Christian women. But in the wake of this came the second and third feminist movement which as we see today has taken women to the other extreme. I understand the reasons for feminism in regard to men objectifying, raping, disrespecting, insulting and in so many ways treating women like a second class human being. I often think of the “Leave It To Beaver” mother who takes care of everything in the home, the children, the husband and is more of a robot than a person. Often for these 50s women the husband thought little of her and would go out and arrogantly have an affair or two knowing the wife would do nothing. Women have indeed suffered so much under men through out all of history so in this regard I understand the reaction of feminism.
God created man and woman in the beginning and put them as equals to each other and to God. They were equally responsible to keep the covenant; they were partners. However, with the fall of mankind God placed specific curses on man and to the woman he stated:

3:16 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

So from that point on women were on a hierarchal lower position than man in the world, which I believe has given the fact that “Its a man’s world.” Women do not have a lesser nature and have equal rights to God’s love, forgiveness and grace but as the Father has a position of authority of the rest of the Trinity the husband has the position of authority over women and they have suffered because of this curse. And as my wife points out, this is what happens when women chose another thing to be there God. When Eve chose to heed Satan she was placing herself under his rule and not God’s rule, therefore, God said, “Okay if what you want is to be under another’s headship and not mine then this is what you’ll have.” Since that time women have been under the rule of man. The world of Islam, for example, in Iran is a perfect example of how women are made to be less human than men. Women are stoned to death for dating a man the family doesn’t agree with, they must wear their dress even when swimming at the beach, and they are even segregated at the Mosques because it’s believed they distract the men from their prayers.

Getting back to the extreme which feminism in America has achieved its understandable why the anti-feminist movement has come to be. Feminism in its blind desire of “freedom” has received it but not known what it would do with it, at least nothing more than abortions, divorce, spousal abuse and pornography (visual in strip dancing or physical in prostitution). Yet all of these things are not forums of freedom but enslavement and self hatred. Freedom for the sake of freedom is dangerous. Often the argument for abortion is “choice”. Choice is placed over the sacredness of life! Insanity! Choice is placed over the sacredness of the woman’s body so you have women who see themselves merely as sex toys and honestly not people. Feminism is clearly not just about getting more legal rights and job opportunities which I believe are good, its been about the freedom to have choice for the sake of choice. The social aspect is a lie because choices have consequences and choice is not the ultimate achievement as I hope people will come to see.

In America the only reason why people such as Dr. Laura are so successful is because there’s a deep need for answers and guidance for women who need to know how to be a woman because what they’ve done in their past has not worked. This is why Dr. Laura is so strict. Women need to date for a certain period of time and need to become engaged and married before they “shack up” lest they become “humped and dumped”. If these feminists would take the time to listen to Dr. Laura they’d realize she isn’t as far off her rocker as they think. Feminism has produced the lie that women are just like men and the truth is we are not the same which is clearly displayed by the fact that we have different but complimenting bodies. Men and women were created for specific purposes and similar purposes. Men are physically stronger and built for hard work and war and do this in great numbers though some women can do this as well. Women are very good communicators and find it natural to give and help, though men can do this also. Specifically though men are designed for humble leadership in all regards of the word (its no coincidence that Jesus Christ was a man) and women are specifically designed for giving life. The fault is when we begin to place priority on certain things over another but the fact is we need both to be fulfilling their abilities and callings because they fit together like puzzle pieces to make life.

The inability of men to teach and disciple their sons and daughters with this wisdom is why feminism and chauvinism came to be. The problem with feminism fundamentally is that it is still placing women under the headship of something other than God. Christian women are not called to be mice who are stuck in a corner of our churches. Women are called to challenge the men in their lives, particularly husbands and their children to become better people. Not to say that one must become married to be fulfilled or feel whole but the fact is we were created to be complimented by the opposite sex in marriage. Therefore, a wise man chooses a woman who he can love and respect. A wise woman is patient and chooses a man whom she can respect and challenge and not a chump. All to often either sex selects another in the hope such things can come to be, but it never passes. I was once told the following which I find very true:

“A man marries the woman he has come to know and the woman marries the man whom she hopes he will become.”

It just illustrates how man and woman are different but how they also compliment one another.

I hope in my class that as we continue in our discussions this white, middle class, blue eyed, Christian male gets a little more credit. Nevertheless, I am thankful that we’re not going to be discussing such hot topics as abortion and homosexuality as they always opens up a can of worms with lots of vitriol.

Peace out.