Saturday  

Posted by Jason

Bookmark and Share

Iran moved nuclear fuel above ground?

When Iran was caught last September building a secret, underground nuclear enrichment plant at a military base near the city of Qum, the country’s leaders insisted they had no other choice. With its nuclear facilities under constant threat of attack, they said, only a fool would leave them out in the open.

So imagine the surprise of international inspectors almost two weeks ago when they watched as Iran moved nearly its entire stockpile of low-enriched nuclear fuel to an above-ground plant. It was as if, one official noted, a bull’s-eye had been painted on it.


Russia not delivering S-300 to Tehran (This is good.)
The S-300 system is capable of hitting aircraft up to 90 miles away and tracking 100 targets at a time, and could be used in case of an Israeli air attack on Iranian nuclear sites.

But last week, Russia announced it would delay the shipment due to "technical problems" just one day after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Moscow.


Iran forces airlines to use "Persian Gulf" term
According to Dr. Vladimir Mesamed, an expert on Iran at the Hebrew University, the Gulf nomenclature issue comes up rather often in the Iranian press: “In 2008, when Google published a map that mentioned the name ‘Arabian gulf,’ Iranians were furious. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanded that the term ‘Persian Gulf’ be used instead.”

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Mesamed said Teheran’s decision to impose the use of “Persian Gulf” on its Arab neighbors is closely tied to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions.

“Iran is very unpredictable nowadays. Just a few days ago its spokesmen announced that Iran is already a member of the nuclear club and that it is able to enrich uranium to the 90-percent level. Their current move reflects tension in the region over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the position of Arabian Peninsula states caught between ties to Washington and fear of Teheran. It might also be a preemptive step meant to stop any Arab attempt to ‘Arabize’ the Gulf while Iran is in a vulnerable position,” Mesamed said.


And.. your Islamic funny for the day. Via MEMRITV.org
Video:Islamic cleric says Iran and U.S. allied against Arab States
We would like to draw the viewers' attention to the attempt to hijack the Arabian Peninsula – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Yemen – and to incorporate them in the false Persian state, desired by Khomeini's Safavid Persion followers.

It may come as a surprise – if not to you, to your viewers – that the American-Iranian alliance is one of the strongest alliances in the world. It is one of the strongest alliances in the world. Did this sink in, or is it too much of a shock?


This brings up the question: Are the Arabs more afraid of Iran than Israel? I think they are and they definitely should be.

George Will destroys, and other stuff  

Posted by Jason

Bookmark and Share

Dennis Prager ran audio, on his show, of George Will on ABC's The Roundtable. Will was so good I have to post it on here. Newsbusters had a post on it also, where I found this clip.

Also, Prager and Sowell have some good articles out.



George Will is a treasure to the Conservative movement.

Sunday  

Posted by Jason

Bookmark and Share

Bill Bennett commented on Glenn Beck's speech at CPAC. I have to agree with Bennett. Beck has not been fair to Republicans.

Update** - Hat tip to AvidEditor for tipping me off to this piece that Mark Levin posted on Facebook, which is along the lines of what Bennett wrote. Read them both. I'll add Levin's at the bottom of the post.

Saturday Night Beck

by Bill Bennett


There’s a lot to say about CPAC. This morning the major papers are highlighting Glenn Beck’s speech. I like Glenn a lot and I think he has something to teach us. But not what he offered last night.

Analogizing his own struggles with alcohol to the problems of our polity and in our politics, he said, “Hello, my name is the Republican party, and I have a problem!” “I’m addicted to spending and big government.” ”It is still morning in America.” ”It just happens to be kind of a head-pounding, hung-over, vomiting-for-four-hours kind of morning in America. And it’s shaping up to be kind of a nasty day. But it is still morning in America.” And, again, “I believe in redemption, but the first step to getting redemption is you’ve got to admit that you’ve got a problem. I have not heard people in the Republican party yet admit that they have a problem.”

Glenn is among the best talkers in the business of broadcast. I am not sure he’s a very good listener.

First, there is a good and strong tradition in alcohol and drug treatment that personal failings should not be extrapolated into the public sphere; that too often when this is done, conclusions are reached based on the wrong motives and, often, the wrong analysis. Glenn has made that mistake here and taken to our politics a cosmologizing of his own deficiencies. This is not a baseless criticism; they are his own deficiencies that he keeps publicly redounding to and analogizing to. It is wrong and he is wrong.

Read the rest

Mark's New Note: Feb 21, 2010
Today at 1:49am

I was invited to be the opening speaker at Saturday's CPAC session. I had accepted but then, to my amazement, I learned that the John Birch Society would be one of many co-sponsors. This takes the big-tent idea many steps too far for me. So, I withdrew. Apparently, others were not so moved. That's fine. But it wasn't for me. Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater, among others, chased the Birchers from the movement decades ago. And they're not a part of the movement. So, to give them a booth at CPAC was boneheaded.

I want to commend Bill Bennett for his wise piece this morning on the Corner. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzM5OTJkYWE1ZTA5OTI1NWJiMjYwNDI4ZDg0NmQ3MGQ=
I agree with him. I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It's incoherent. One day it's populist, the next it's libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it's conservative but not really, etc. And to what end? I believe he has announced that he is no longer going to endorse candidates because our problems are bigger than politics. Well, of course, our problems are not easily dissected into categories, but to reject politics is to reject the manner in which we try to organize ourselves. This is as old as Plato and Aristotle. Why would conservatives choose to surrender the political battlefield to our adversaries -- who are trashing this society --when we must retake it in order to preserve our society? Philosophy, politics, culture, family, etc., are all of one. Edmund Burke, among others, wrote about it extensively, and far better that I possibly can. But all elements of the civil society require our defense. Besides, why preach such a strategy when conservatism is on the rise and the GOP is acting more responsibly?

Moreover, when he does discuss politics, which, ironically, is often, how can he claim today that there is no difference between the two parties when, but for the Republicans in Congress, government-run health care, cap-and-trade, card check, and a long list of other disastrous policies would already be law? The GOP is becoming more conservative thanks to the grass-roots movement and a political uprising across the country, which has even reached into New Jersey and Massachusetts. Why keep pretending otherwise? My only conclusion is that he is promoting a third party or some third way, which is counter-productive to defeating Obama and the Democrat Congress. These are perilous times and this kind of an approach will keep the statists in power for decades.

And what of his flirtations with Ron Paul's lunacy respecting America's supposed provocations with her enemies, including al-Qaeda? Why should such a fatal defect in thinking be ignored? Do we conservatives agree with this?

Finally, Beck is fond of congratulating himself for being the only or the first host to criticize George Bush's spending. This is demonstrably false. I not only attacked his spending, but the creation of the Homeland Security Department, the prescription drug add-on for Medicare, his "moderate" tax cuts, as well as his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, "comprehensive immigration reform," and so forth. And I was not alone -- Rush and Sean did the same, for example. And as someone who fought liberal Republicans in the trenches when campaigning for Reagan in 1976 and 1980, I don't need lectures from Beck, who was nowhere to be found, about big-spending Republicans. But this is not about me, or Beck, or Beck's past drunkenness (which he endlessly wears as some kind of badge of honor). It is about preserving our society for our children and grandchildren. Beck spent precious little time aiming fire at Obama-Pelosi-Reid in his speech, and it is they who are destroying our country.

On as a positive note, I am personally happy to see that Beck has cleaned up his public act -- as best I can tell, no more boiling fake frogs on TV or pretending to pour gasoline on someone -- and the rest of it. But I do think his speech, which contained nuggets of truth heard before and read elsewhere, including on Rush's show and in my book and many other books, may have distracted from some of the more compelling and coherent speeches at the event, including Marco Rubio's superb speech. I fear the media will see to this. I hope not.

Thursday  

Posted by Jason

Bookmark and Share

The case for an Israeli strike against Iran by Spengler

George Will with a new piece about Sarah Palin. Also, Krauthammer has a good one, here.

Tuesday  

Posted by Jason

Bookmark and Share

Apologies for my absence but my PC is down.

Hillary made some remarks about Iran. I think the most important one was that the U.S. will not support sanctions that would harm the Iranian people. That means no gasoline sanctions. That means diplomacy is officially worthless in regards to chilling Iran's nuclear ambitions.

I'm starting to believe that the Obama administration is going to allow Iran to build nuclear missiles/bombs and continue the Islamic theocracy. They should be fighting them with words at the very least. But Obama began his relationship with Iran by giving a speech to Iran on the Zoroastrian New Year and referred to Iran as an "Islamic Republic". Then the revolts in Tehran began and he had no moral support for those Iranians fighting for freedom. Still, the regime accused the protesters of being backed by America.

Obama should at least give them moral support. Instead, he will show his love by withholding sanctions! Sanctions that would harm the Iranian people... and thereby increase their rage and disgust of their rulers. Right now, with the U.S. taking this position, a revolution in Iran may be the only thing that can stop the mullahs from assembling a nuclear missile. It seems the U.S. is OK with a nuclear Iran.

Update: I should have added this excellent article from Michael Totten. I have to agree with him, "regime change" is the only thing that will end this game.

In other news...
Taliban #2 Caught
A Scott Brown for California?

And, are we losing the space race or not?

Tuesday  

Posted by Jason

Bookmark and Share

Gates wants sanctions on Iran within a month.

If you read here, you know that the only sanction that could change Iran's attitude would be on gasoline imports; since Iran imports so much of the gasoline it needs. But Russia and China will not approve of this. Therefore, Gates must make a deal. What will Gates offer them? (I really doubt he will get this done.)

Also, Sowell has a new article out and, Prager dismantles Frank Rich

Monday  

Posted by Jason

Bookmark and Share




Found @: The Corner - National Review Online

Chinese man convicted of spying for China - Associated Press

Foreign PH.D.s stay in U.S. by David Wessel

Sunday  

Posted by Jason

Bookmark and Share

How to get the country to solvency on entitlements By George Will

After U.S. cuts to NASA who will lead in space? By John Brandon (hat tip: Sharku)

Saturday  

Posted by Jason

Bookmark and Share

I'm back! It's only been about 7 months. I'm still in the process of redecorating this page.

Here are some articles I found interesting today.

How to Make a Weak Economy Worse by Amity Shlaes

A historical comparison. How Presidents can prolong recessions.

Think Again: Asia's Rise by Minxin Pei

Old but still relevant. Will China and the East pass the U.S. and the West?

A Defensive Buildup in the Gulf by George Friedman

Happenings in the middle east.

A Crime Theory Demolished by Heather Mac Donald

Debunking another stupid liberal theory.