Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Liberals are whining about republican criticism

Since the failed attack on the American airline by a Moslem jihadist, the right-wing politicians strongly criticised president Obama for his failure to take terrorism seriously. Liberals turned up the highest whining levels and started to complain that they've been treated unfairly. After all, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia liberals always took the war on terrorism seriously, and they were ready to do anything to defend this country from jihadists.

Now, this is a strange response, given that Obama's head of security, Janet Neapolitano rejected the term "war on terror" as too aggressive. Not satisfied with this extravaganza, she decided to seek literary awards and and introduced one of the most bizarre term to describe a terrorist attack - "man caused disaster". It was same Janet that could not make up her mind if her priority was the domestic terrorism or Islamic terrorism. And it's same Janet that believed the security system worked perfectly, when asked if there was any failure during the latest attack.

One should also not forget that the CIA was defending itself from the concentrated attacks by the Obama's administration - the attacks led by Eric Holder, who previously worked as a senior partner in a pro-terrorist law firm Covington & Burling (and which represents multiple terrorists pro-bono), the same man who personally fought for freeing 15 FALN terrorists - and who is now the attorney general. And yet, liberals are stunned than anyone who be questioning their desire to fight terrorism alleged man-caused disasters?

While this drama was unfolding, the republicans were not silent. Back in May of 2009, Cheney was adamant that Obama's approach will lead to more attacks on US:

"It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe....
The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security."

In August, Cheney forcefully attacked Obama for his prosecution of CIA - a prosecution which deeply wounded this organization and made a lot of CIA operatives openly afraid to deal with terrorism.

During same time, liberal justices and lawyers worked hard to undermine any protections against terrorism that airlines could have - suing the companies that aggressively protected the passengers from jihadists and the passengers who reported suspicious behavior.

After the second terrorist attack on America in just a few months, Republican heavy-weights are strongly criticising Obama for his abysmal record on terrorism. Just yesterday, Dick Cheney made a very strong statement, which is undoubtedly true:

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war... He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, “war on terror,” we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe."

And then Cheney goes for the kill: "Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society."

Indeed few people, who watched the political developments in the last year would question the fairness of Cheney's claim that Obama's main goal is social transformation of the country, not the war on terror. There is little argument that for the last half year, Obama's main objective was to get unpopular Healthcare bill through Congress. It can be even speculated that Obama paid more attention into getting the 2016 Olympic games to Chicago than the war on terror (at the time the Copenhagen Olympic committee had more time tet-a-tet the president than the Chief commander of the US troops in Afghanistan).

And now, the liberals are whining that they've been unfairly attacked. The funny thing is that they fully understand that if they attempted to emulate Obama's rhetoric they would look silly. I haven't seen any liberal using the term "alleged attacks" or "alleged terrorist" when discussing the attack. I hope all republicans must insist that liberals should use Obama's terms - just so that the stupidity of the current administration became more obvious.

Rush Limbaugh hospitalized...

I am not into conspiracies, but I remember the time when all influential opponents to president Putin started dying for all kinds of causes. I believe the doctors should check him for poisoning - just in case. I mean, there are a lot of supporters of president Obama, and maybe one of them became a tad too enthusiastic and decided to take an extra step in helping Obama to "fundamentally change America"...

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

This is outrageous...

In Berkley, California, the epicenter of liberalism in America, the local leftists decided to close high-school science labs because evil White students (and quite possibly evil Asian students) spent inordinate time learning science, while some minorities (Blacks and Latinos) did not bother to do so. It's part of the social justice "thing" - if a kid is better than others in physics or math, the liberals will try to bring him down. Instead of promoting talented students (irrespective of their race and ethnicity), the liberals would rather blockc their path to knowledge. This is a disgrace! I cannot find the words to explain how evil it is what they do. Instead of growing kids into new Einstein and Landau, the liberals would rather turn them into lazy bums and ignoramuses. It's like these people have a death wish...

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Smart foreign policy...

Back in 2008, it was enough for Bush to whistle, and the leaders from all major countries jumped into the planes and flew to Washington DC to meet with him.

In 2009, Barack Obama begs the governments of China, India, Brazil to see him – and they refuse.

I guess Texas cowboys are better at diplomacy than community organizers. Who could have known this? Absolutely amazing. Hope and Change, Ladies and Gentlmen.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The best come back in world's history....

This exchange I read on Reason in response to an article critising Obama...

Liberal: You doctrinaire right-wing hack. What could Obama do that you would approve of?
Libertarian: Bend your mom over the kitchen table.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

I propose this song to become the official anthem of the Tea Party Movement!

"Taxman" by George Harrison, Beatles
(The song that was written in anticipation of the presidency of Barack Obama)

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one but me

You can listen to the tune HERE

I believe the activists of the Tea Party movement should not shy away from bringing the boom-boxes to the local, state and federal buildings and playing this tune. Lets make it fun!

Sunday, December 20, 2009

When public option meets public opinion....

The current debacle with Obama-care aptly demonstrates what happens when liberal philosophy collides with common sense. The tastiest part of the failure to promote the so-called "public option" is that it was the public opinion that killed it, by forcing the moderate liberals to abandon their support for it. Is it not ironic that the public hates the "public option"? By all means, the term "public option" is now sharing the pantheon of infamous code words with "public radio" and "people's democracy"...

What should conservatives do now?

At this point in time we are all breathlessly watching the amazing spectacle of descent of the Anointed One from the Garden of Eden into the crap-hole of history. What should the American conservatives do to accelerate this fall and make sure that our country gets back on track?

Firstly, they must follow the Napoleon's maxim "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." The Medical Care Bill is a major mistake, and Obama will come to regret it. The bill is already unpopular with nearly 60% of the population, and this is even before the republican operatives went through it with a fine net, found all the hidden new taxes, regulations and handouts to the politically connected and made them public. The next year will be very exciting...

The second goal is to follow Sun Tsu "If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him." Obama conceded in his memoirs that he is constantly in a state of rage – and there are only a few things more dangerous for a politician than losing his temper. There will be nothing more satisfying that watching Obama angrily react to mockery and criticism, which in turn would lead to more mockery and criticism. Republicans should use every opportunity to irritate Obama – and this goes from political speeches to the most basic moves on the human level. Nothing will upset him more than such treatment – which is why it is necessary to use it in large portions.

By now, Obama the president got all the major legislations he desired (save for the official proclamation of his divine nature) – two worthless (but very expensive) stimulus packages, the health care bill, two bloated budgets, and a major surge in Afghanistan (American soldiers will be have both hands tied behind the backs to make the war more fair to the taliban) – and it was all for nothing. He refused to ask American people if they agreed with his radical agenda – and now he will start paying the price.

Most Americans are not satisfied with the job he is doing as president, and his incessant speechifying while the country is falling apart is turning them against him – permanently. As someone said – “Obama is a one trick pony” – and his only trick is his ability to read heart-felt speeches from the teleprompter. When those speeches stop to work, he is finished. Luckily, Obama cannot follow Napoleon’s maxim “One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority.” He is all we have seen so far. There is nothing to him that he has not already shown to us in public - except the rage and hate, which he should start oozing in large quantities very soon.

What is even more important for republicans is to cleanse their party from RINOs – Republicans in Name Only. The GOP must become a conservative party, not the party of appeasement and compromise. The only way for republicans to present a unified front against the liberals and prevent the break up of the GOP through massive desertion of conservatives to a Third Party is to become the party of discontent. And the republican establishment should get it in their heads that their political future is very bleak if they do not move decisively to the right.

Lastly, the republicans must use all the available resources to defend two main pillars of democracy - freedom of the press and honesty of our electoral process. There can be no compromise on these two issues, and no step by Obama to mess with them should go without a thunderous response from republicans.

All in all, things are going quite well. I believe America is on the way to recovery. It will only take a few years now. But surely these will be very tumultuous years. Don't forget to purchase popcorn and beer. Stay tuned, America.

President commits political suicide by jumping from the "precipice"

A few days ago, our Glorious Leader, Barack Hussein Obama has sobered up and made a surprisingly astute observation about his Medical Care bill: "From the discussions we had, it's clear we are on the precipice of achievement that's eluded Congresses, presidents for generations -- an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American." For those unclear about the usage of the word "precipice" - let me remind you that it means either "an overhanging or extremely steep mass of rock, such as a crag or the face of a cliff" or "the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation".

It is clear that Obama's understanding of the implications of the Health Care Reform is very much attuned to the views of nearly 60% of Americans, who are against this travesty. Nevertheless, Obama decided to publicly jump of the cliff, the same "precipice" he was talking about - confirming once again the wisdom of an old proverb: "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." The funny part is that Obama did not jump alone - luckily for us he persuaded the entire Democratic Party and the media to follow him. It's as if madness is contagious.

How did we arrive here? It's amazing if one remembers how well the Obama's presidency was starting - the media adored him, the crowds loved him. Newsweek proclaimed that Obama was a "some kind of God", while MSNBC’s commentators were climaxing every time they mentioned his name. Barry photos were on all newspapers and magazines – even pet stores featured his portraits. And lets not forget my favorite - remember a youtube video of a liberal activist proclaiming that "I wont have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage.. You know, If I help him, he's gonna help me." How’s that working for you, babe?

Back then, Barack Obama was confidently following Napoleon's maxim that "A leader is a dealer in hope." But pretty soon things starting going South. Firstly, Obama demonstrated that he had no inclination to take his job seriously, which was obvious when one were to watch how slowly and ineffectively he was forming his administration. At times of severe economic crisis, he took nearly a year to fill up the positions that had to do with economics and finances. He also managed to over-hype the stimulus package, which was supposed to keep the unemployment below 8%. And then, there were constant parties, golfing tours, and speeches, speeches, speeches - speeches about everything and nothing.

What was even worse, is that Obama continued to push the most left-wing agenda in the US history, both domestically and abroad. In his vanity, Obama forgot that “The great proof of madness is the disproportion of one's designs to one's means." America is essentially a center-right nation, and its population is still far more progressive than the Western European people. In the end, Obama’s attack on the fundamental principles of this nation could not succeed. To me, an immigrant from theformer Soviet Union, Obama’s regime represents the most consistent attempt to destroy this nation, more dangerous than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And still, I believed in 2008, and I believe now that Obama is destined to fail. Sure, he will/was be able to run wild for a couple of years, but after that there is little expectation of success for him.

I am confident that the only thing Obama did was to awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.

And last but not least, Obama himself proved to be a far less capable politician than was previously advertised. He revealed himself to be a snarky arrogant fool, whose minute of fame is over, and whose time of eternal infamy has just begun. As Napoleon said: "When small men attempt great enterprises, they always end by reducing them to the level of their mediocrity." And I say – Amen to that!

Note 1
In 1940, the Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, spoke to the Japanese Cabinet during planning for war with the United States in 1940 and said "I can run wild for six months... After that, I have no expectation of success.”

Note 2
In 1941, after successfully executing the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto was still very pessimistic: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Never let a good crisis go to waste

And so it seems that the Obama’s administration was able to locate or purchase the 60 imbeciles in the US Senate that were ready to support the Healthcare Bill. I believe this is very good for America in the long run. As Lenin said – “the worse, the better.” Don’t forget that the massive tax increases kick in instantly, while the multiple free handouts won’t be offered until years from now. There will be a lot of pain and gnashing of teeth – with no apparent gain to the public.

And note that the healthcare plan is not yet known to the people (actually, even the DNC leadership did not read it) – and the public already hates it. It is beyond any doubt that the bill is filled with special treats, pork and corruption, so I hope conservatives will make sure that the most disgusting parts of the new law will be shown one after another (like the ACORN videos) to the outraged public before the 2010 elections.

And conservatives must use this opportunity twofold. Firstly, they must clean up the Republican Party and throw away the sell-outs and the moderates. As Lenin said – “we must split before we unite”. After that, GOP must present itself as the only alternative to the insane and possibly treasonous leftist regime. No compromises this time.

Conservatives cannot let this crisis go to waste. Personally, I believe that the election of an extreme left-wing president was the only way for the American people to wake up from sleep-walking into socialism. If we want a drastic turn from the path to hell, we may need a very loud wake up call. And Obama is pretty loud these days. Back in November 2008 I explained why I welcomed Obama’s presidency. It seems like my predictions are coming true.

There are a few dangers that lie ahead. Right now, conservatives must defend two things above all – freedom of the press and our electoral process. I predict that Obama’s next target will be either the media or the fairness of elections. It is absolutely critical for conservatives to man the walls against any encroachment on the foundation of our democracy. And secondly, as I said, GOP must cleanse itself and get ready to drastically change the country in 2011. American economy cannot survive an Obama-lite in 2013 – it needs Thatcher or Reagan to drastically change the course of the country.

But all in all, I am quite optimistic. I believe the better days lie ahead.

Monday, December 14, 2009

It's the Vietnam War

This is Vietnam War Redux. The troops are sold out for political correctness AGAIN. Their blood is worth nothing. Things will get much worse, and Taliban will now always use civilians as their shields. And the US military will become even more cautious, and Taliban will be emboldened.

I am curious when Obama will be personally choosing the bombing sites and specifying the exact amounts of ordinance allowed to use - as LBJ did in the 60ies.

For all intents and purposes, the war is lost until we change the president. It's only a matter of time before US troops will start losing more personal than they did at the height of the Iraq War.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

How to quickly collect raw temperature data...

I am sure everyone but the legacy media is now familiar with the so-called "Climate-Gate" - a clear record of government financed scientists, who were sexing up the climate data in order to create an impression of climate catastrophy. At this point, I don't trust any data coming from the official sources, and I propose a simple and effective method to bypass the government agencies altogether. Here it goes.

It is necessary to collect the newspapers in most or all Western countries for the last 100 years, and carefully record all the reported local temperatures. While the government agencies can falsify or make inaccessible the raw data, I believe the newspapers will most likely report the correct information. I am sure there will be some effects due to urban heating, but these should have less impact on the later data. It is also plausible, that some newspapers will be reporting the air temperature outside of the urban zones.

All in all, it's an interesting experiment, and I am sure there should be enough enthusiasts with time on their hands to do this.

Monday, December 7, 2009

A few points on civilian trial of KSM

There are plenty of reasons why using civilian court for KSM is a very bad decision - and is an illogical one. Lets go one by one.

1. Obama publicly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced KSM. If the court agrees with Obama - then it would be difficult to prove to anyone outside US that the trial was fair, that Obama had no influence on the jury or the judges. In short, the usual suspects will simply proclaim this was a kangaroo court - and there is nothing Obama can say to change this impression. In short, the entire rational for the civilian court is lost already.

2. Obama and his lackeys explained that one of the reasons KSM is being brought to a civilian court is because they have enough evidence on him to convict him. In other words, the administration publicly proclaimed that military tribunals are kangaroo courts, and that they will be used to convict possibly innocent people. In short, the usual suspects will assertain that Obama is using military tribunals to kill innocent moslems. And sure enough - Obama agrees with them - military tribunals are not fair.

3. Lastly, if KSM has same rights and priviliges as any American accused of criminal behaviour - then it is clear that the current policy of targeted assasinations practiced by the US military is illegal. I would want to see a single liberal trying to square their claims about KSM's Constitutional rights versus their support for assasinations of Al Qaeda leaders. After all, does the US Constitution allow the police or the military to assasinate common criminals?

Sunday, December 6, 2009

As I predicted before - Obama is bailing out liberal media...

As reported by Michele Malkin, Obama's administration leaned on Goldman Sachs Group to force it to "renegotiate" the loan with the ultra left-wing City Broadcasting Corp, the Air Americas "Sugar Daddy". If this is not the corruption of a highest level (government using a tax-payer subsidized bank to bail out a media outlet friendly to the government) - I don't know what is corruption then.

The remaining question is - when will Obama bail out the rest of the media lapdogs? Will this come in 2010?

Why I don't believe in the global warming ...

Global Warming is one of the most hotly debated issues in the political arena. And finally I decided that I could not be silent any longer and add my 5 cents to the debate. As an attentive reader of this blog could have guessed, I don't believe that Global Warming is a burning issue and I don't think that American people to sacrifice their living standards in order to stave off the impeding crisis of cosmic proportions.

First of all, it is necessary to dispel any doubts and announce that I personally want our planet to prosper, I do not wish the mankind to become extinct, and, moreover, that I am smart and educated to understand the basics of the debate between the skeptics and the alarmists. This preamble is necessary, since it is often maintained that people skeptical about the Global Warming are either stupid, ignorant or evil - and I am surely neither.

Secondly, I want to make it obvious - in order to justify the need for massive measured to reverse the global warming, the alarmists must indeed prove four assertions. The failure to prove either of these assertions should immediately put an end to any and all measures promoted by the alarmists.

1. There indeed exists measurable and consistent increase of global temperature;
2. The warming is caused in most part (more than 90%) by human activity;
3. The proposed methods to stop this increase by regulating CO2 emissions will be less costly than allowing the increasing trend to continue for some time (50 years or so) until new technologies will cheaply reduce CO2 emissions;
4. Harmful effects of global warming are larger than the sum of positive effects of global warming and the costs of drastically lowering the CO2 emissions.

Anyone following the debate on Global Warming can easily see that there is scarce evidence to support each and any of the above mentioned assertions - let alone all of them. The measurements of global temperature are quite unreliable, and it's clear that only small number of people (who's job security is strongly dependent on maintaining the Global Warming scare) have access to raw data - and their honesty and integrity are very questionable .

Moreover, there is little direct evidence that the temperature increase is indeed caused by human activity.

Lastly, the costs of lowering the CO2 emissions are staggering, while the actual danger of Global Warming to society is quite unclear.

It is also obvious that the current plans include drastic increase of government power, impoverishment of billions of people, creation of super-governmental elite, which will be given arbitrary power to control economies of whole nations. Last but not least, the proposed efforts to confront Global Warming will result in an unprecedented weakening of the Western World with unpredictable foreign policy ramifications. For example, it is beyond doubt that drastic cut in CO2 emissions will cause the de-industrialization of United States, Western Europe, Japan and Australia, while the communist China, Islamic World and India will be allowed to continue the CO2 emission. I am not sure anyone pondered the actions of China if it becomes the lonely manufacturing superpower - while its population demonstrates an explosive mixture of extreme nationalism and unbridled desire for world domination. It is also known that China's "one child policy" resulted in two very dangerous consequences:
1. There are far more men than women in China - which surely results in a lot of sexual frustration for young Chinese men;
2. The country cannot afford to support its older population due to relatively small number of young people;

It is indeed quite plausible that China will at some point engage in military expansion, with Taiwan and Russia, and possibly Middle East and Japan becoming their targets. The de-industrialized West will be unable to contain China, and it is very possible that India will be forced to act. All in all, the foreign policy implications of a drastic CO2 reduction are very dire, and it is quite a surprise to me that few people dare to discuss them.

On a more personal level, I cannot possibly reconcile the words of famous Global Warming activists and their dids. For example Al Gore, probably one of the most renown alarmists, shows a complete disconnect between his doomsday rhetoric (we all going to die if we don't cut CO2 emissions - and anyone doubting this is a criminal) - and his rather lavish life style. I find it hard to believe that a man seriously concerned about CO2 emissions, and who believes the West must drastically cut its consumption, would live like a Middle Eastern despot - with his huge house, private jets and expensive life style.

And surely Al Gore is hardly an exception - it is reported that the Global Warming alarmists recently rented 1200 limousines and 140 private jets in order for the Copenhagen meeting. Does this sound to you like these guys believe their own rhetoric? Would they travel in private jets and have their own chauffeurs drive them in limousines if they believed that would destroy the planet?

Moreover, it is interesting to note the bifurcation of opinions on Global Warming among American people. It is fair to say that there is a close correlation between the support for Global Warming scare and the attitude towards the role of the government in the country's economy. Clearly, the more likely the person to support liberal causes (higher taxes, more regulation, more handouts to the poor) - in other words, the more socialist one is - the more likely he is to believe in the Global Warming Scare. On the other side, it is also quite noticeable that very few libertarians or conservatives support the alarmists. In short, there is a close correlation between one's political views and the support for Global Warming - with income, education and sex being of no regard. From this analysis, it is clear that Global Warming can hardly be a purely scientific issue - given that the sides are so clearly divided by their political outlook.

I hope this short essay will be of some use to aspiring freedom loving activists. Please don't hesitate to comment on it.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Liberals want to control the media - is anyone surprised?

According to this article, a high-ranking liberal congress-person Henry Waxman wants the government to have more control over the media. Or, as the weasel said -"Government's going to have to be involved, in one way or the other," to save journalism from an ongoing "market failure" that will only worsen without intervention..."

Moreover, the Reuters says that Waxman claimed ""quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy," and that "eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model."

Now, do you feel comfortable knowing that some years from now, a government strongman (or woman) would be personally deciding what is "quality journalism" (read - left-wing) and, therefore should be funded by the state, and what is "non-quality journalism" (read - right-wing) and, therefore should be severely taxed by the state?

And the liberal lapdogs in the media are applauding this, of course - after all, they are losing a lot of money because American people are turning away from the the left-wing propaganda machine. All of this is going according to the plan that I predicted a year ago. How boring...

BTW, don't we have a wall of separation betwen the state and media? That's what the Bill of Rights says - just read it. It is all there, right between the "Wall of Separation between State and Religion" and the "Abortion Clause".

Friday, November 27, 2009

What does the term "progressive" mean?

It is quite customary for people leaning to the left to utilize self-congratulating names to describe their political views. One of terms which is being recently used is "progressive", which denotes a set of left-wing to extremely left-wing sets of assumptions and ideas. In reality, of course, left-wing ideology is just as "progressive" as communist regimes were "people's democracies" or "people's republics".

In general, it is amusing how many benign code words, or self-congratulatory terms are in use today. In reality, one cannot even guess what these words mean without sufficient background. Most of the terms came from the left, since there is no need for the right to mask their ideas. The readers are free to add more terms.

Left-wing Terms
Affirmative Action ("politically correct" discrimination of people based on skin color, ethnicity, gender and sexual preferences)
Social Security (compulsory government pension system)
Progressive (left-wing)
Pro-choice (pro-abortion)
New Deal (left-wing)
Medicare (compulsory government insurance for the elederly)
Welfare (handouts for the poor)
Housing Projects (subsidized housing)
Liberation Theology (marxism-leninism)
Multi-culturism (all cultures are better than the Western culture)
Diversity (normally means that people of politically-correct racial groups are present)
Inclusive (left-wing)
Crisis (situation which is not the left-wing liking)
Solution (a policy which the left-wingers like)
Social Justice (liberals divide other people's property as they see fit)
Fairness Doctrine (government decides how the media presents the views)
The Employee Free Choice Act (giving more power to the union goons to force workers to join the labor unions by getting rid of secret ballots)
Insensitive (a term used to describe the views which are factually correct, but offend the liberals)

Right-wing Terms
Patriot Act (exanding the power of the government to combat terrorism)

Friday, November 20, 2009

"Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy"

Remember those infamous words from the Downing Street Memo? Well, today, progressive hackers got into the computers of a leading climate research group in the world, University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and made their records public. What a horror! Hoi Polloi can now look at the raw data and email exchanges, and find out how the climate data and facts are fixed around the policies promoted by the government. And this is only a few months after CRU declared that all its raw climate data was "accidentally" deleted.

Here is one example of a Downing Memo that became public - an email from one "researcher" to another "researcher":

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

As was reported before, indeed it is a nice "trick" - you keep mixing different sets of data from different measurements until you get the result you want - i.e. the "hockey stick". CRU is now in complete disarray, I have a feeling they will now appeal to the government to make sure all the facts and intelligence they fixed around the policies be withdrawn from public review.

Rick Moran - a silly monument to arrogance

I've read an article by one Rick Moran (what a telling name - someone clearly misspeled it some decades ago), and I must say it made me smile again. The self-described conservatives and intellectual geniuses - with their arrogance only matched by their stupidity. Anyway....

Upon re-reading the article, I found a few interesting pieces....

Firstly, Rick writes: "So we await the inevitable bio where the applicant can either prove herself worthy of joining the ranks of cotton candy conservatives or prove me wrong and be taken seriously. From what I’ve read so far, Sarah Palin has not disappointed me."

After this, Rick goes ahead and quotes what other people wrote about Sarah's book - which, if we consider his careful phrasing, demonstrates that Rick has not read her book. So, in order to be clear, let me ask this question directly:
Rick, you seemed to have read a lot ABOUT Sarah's book - but did you actualy read her book?

The second amazing point that Rick made was that Reagan's views are outmoded and no longer relevant: "Palin and many of her supporters are stuck in this past, unable or unwilling to comprehend the basic reality that the world, America, and time itself have moved on, making whatever Reagan wanted or believed in the 1980s virtually irrelevant to where we are today and, more importantly, where we are headed in the future."

Rick, since in your mind you are an intellectual genius, would you mind explaining which Reagan's economic and political ideas are irrelevant? And if his views (essentially views of Hayek and Friedman) on the role of the government in the economy are irrelevant today due to unspecified changes in our society - would you care to explain what those changes are? Moreover, ss Social Security better today than it was in 1988? Is government welfare any more efficient? Has medicare finally proved to be fiscally sustainable? Do we finally reached the stage when the government can set prices and wages? And if your answer to all these questions is a blind stare (or embarassed silence) - then what is the source of your belief of your intellectual superiority over Sarah Palin?

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Dahlia's article is a perfect example of liberal debating tactics...

I just got back from vacation, and the first day back home I came across article by Ms.Dahlia Honest to God, this article made me laugh. Dahlia's articles normally show what happens when a liberal lives among liberals and never dares to get outside of her little gated paradise to find out the conservative point of view. Of course, my analysis presumes that Dahlia is simply ignorant, and is not deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue and is creating a straw man. It's your pick really, what is true.

Lets go step by step and see what arguments the right-wingers give against the civil courts for a few hand-picked terrorists per Dahlia, and compare that with reality.
Ms Dahlia starts the article with asserting that anything less than civil trial for the terrorists is a sacrifice of American legal principles:
“What both camps [people who object to having civilian trial for moslem terrorists] share, besides a kind of unhinged logic and complete disregard for the legal process, is an obsessive fascination with the accused. The result is a broad willingness to sacrifice our commitment to legal principles in favor of the symbolic satisfaction of crushing the hopes and dreams of a motley group of criminals.”

If Ms.Dahlia were familiar with the views of the right-wingers, she would have known that her assertion is the exact opposite of what they say. As American scholar and famous economist Thomas Sowell writes: “Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Convention, nor are they among those covered by it.”

Now, whether the terrorists are entitled to the civilian trials or not is a very serious legal question. It’s also important to resolve whether military tribunals for moslem terrorists is a violation of American principles (Dahlia’s assertion) or on the contrary is quite normal and expected. Moreover, if Dahlia’s assertion is correct, then she cannot in all sincerity support Obama’s decision to bring only a handful of terrorists to civilian justice, while keeping the rest of them either in indefinite detention or subject them to the military tribunals.

Powerline correctly asks pertinent questions, which are obviously news for Ms.Dahlia: “At the same time time that the Obama administration announced its decision regarding KSM et al, it also announced that it will try other Guantanamo detainees before the military commissions established by Congress conforming to the Supreme Court's specifications. If anything, however, the acts of KSM et al. against the United States are far more heinous and destructive than those of the others to be tried by military commission. No serious rationale supports this disparate treatment.”

Now, Ms.Dahlia is not the smartest person on Earth, but it’s amazing that it did not enter her mind to wonder how she can reconcile her claims that only civilian courts are the appropriate avenue allowed for trying the terrorists, while completely ignoring the decision of the Obama administration to use the military tribunals for the rest of the detainees.

Ms.Dahlia spends inordinate amount of time nitpicking on whether we should or should not follow the wishes of the terrorists on bringing them to NY city for trial – which is, surely, is a minor issue. She also poo-poohs Sarah Palin’s views on the subject, claiming that: “In addition to her argument that witnessing the American justice system at work will lead U.S. allies to "become less likely to support our efforts in the future," Palin ends her post with an exhortation to "Hang 'em high." Here's betting there's nothing KSM wants more.”

She also deny the accusation that terrorists will turn the trial into circus “Both Palin and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., are also obsessed with the prospect of allowing these terrorists to have an opportunity to mount a so-called "circus trial." They must be awfully afraid of the other side's message to believe that allowing the defendants to utter even a word in their own defense is to risk recruiting millions of new adherents worldwide.”

Indeed, it is worthwhile to look at the right-wing claims on the subject – and one would be of very feeble mind not to agree that their arguments hold water. Sarah Palin correctly asserts that “It is crucially important that Americans be made aware that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks may walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment because of a “hung jury” or from any variety of court room technicalities.”. Indeed, what guarantee is there that there will be no hung jury?

If Dahlia were to spend a bit more time studying history, she could easily find examples of civilian trials going awfully wrong - Bill Ayers for example or Simson's trials come immediately to mind. But lets look at the example of Milosevic, a former dictator of Yugoslavia. He was tried by the International Court for nearly a decade – and in the end he died in jail, when there was still no end in sight for the trial. Indeed, the trial did become a circus – and I would like to understand Dahlia’s confidence that the Obama trials would not end up this way. How can she predict the decisions of 12 juries?

Moreover, it’s clear that the trial may be much harder than she imagine, given that “when terrorists like KSM were captured, we did not gather information on the assumption that it would be presented in federal court. Thus, the prosecution is at a disadvantage in proceeding down this road now.” If KSM was not read his rights – would this mean that everything he said becomes un-admissible in court? This is something that could be easily spotted by a person of average intelligence, but Ms.Dahlia is clearly not an average person – she is most likely quite below that level.

Ms.Dahlia mindlessly repeats that “It would be nice if we could call off the trial of anyone with plans to use the proceedings to promote hateful ideas. We could have refused to try all sorts of bigmouths who have used their trials to spread noxious garbage, but we don't. The purpose of a criminal trial isn't to suppress a political message. It's to put forth a better political message: Namely, that we believe in our legal system.”

Of course, the purpose of the trial is not to suppress hateful ideas, but neither it is to send a political message. The purpose of a trial is to find the truth and punish the guilty parties - in other words, the goal is justice, not propaganda one way or another. It’s a tad strange that Ms.Dahlia does not understand this.

But wait, there is more to this. As Eric [Black Panter] Holder said: “In addition to that, this is a matter that, as I said, happened in this country as opposed to overseas, which is different from what we might do with regard to those who are going to be tried in the military commissions. But that is a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence, that crimes are tried in the places where they occur.”.

Powerline immediately notices that Obama’s chief prosecutor in effect created an incentive for the terrorists to strike on American soil: “Put yourself in the place of a would-be terrorist: If you want to garner maximum publicity; if you want to make yourself into a world-famous martyr; if you want an endless platform for disseminating jihadist propaganda; if you want to be treated with kid gloves at all times; what should you do? That's right: you should organize an attack on American soil that kills thousands. You'll be rewarded with top-flight legal representation at taxpayer expense and a forum in which to advance the cause of jihad. Like so many things the Obama administration does, this creates exactly the wrong incentives and needlessly puts American lives in danger.”.

Now, it would be interesting to see what would be Ms.Dahlia’s argument against these observations – but it’s unlikely to be written since, as I said before, she is not terribly smart, and she is not very knowledgeable – in other words she did not read this argument, nor can she figure it out on her own.

Ms.Dahlia also sneers at the argument of former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, “who tried Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing”, Ms. Dahlia says that “According to this critique, the problem isn't only that the accused may turn the trials to their own advantage. It's that the U.S. judicial and executive branches are overrun with people who really like terrorists and want them to prevail. “

In reality, McCarthy’s arguments are a tad more complex and are fact based, so it’s clear that either Ms.Dahlia did not read his article or did not understand it. To wit: “In the current Justice Department, several top officials, including the attorney general himself, are recused from various national-security cases under conflict-of-interest guidelines. The reason? They, or their former firms, represented enemy combatants in lawsuits against the American people. Indeed, such is the mindset of the Obama DOJ that, to help formulate detention policy, Holder recruited Jennifer Daskal - a Human Rights Watch official with no prosecutorial experience - who had been a tireless advocate for terrorists held by the United States.”

Are there more examples of the ways for liberal judges to make the terrorist prosecution more difficult? Sure enough, McCarthy provides just that: “The intelligence and evidence supporting the military's designation of Mutairi as an enemy combatant were not merely solid, they were overwhelming. The Kuwaiti intelligence service identified him as a "hardcore extremist" affiliated with al-Qaeda before he left for Afghanistan shortly after the September 11 attacks; to get to Afghanistan, he used a known al-Qaeda smuggling route; he contributed money to an al-Qaeda front designated as a terrorist entity by both the United States and the U.N.; after the U.S. invasion, he fled towards Tora Bora at the same time and using the same route as al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters; when al-Qaeda safehouses were raided after his apprehension, his name was found on a roster of "captured Mujahideen" (a mujahid is one who fights in a jihad); and his passport was deposited in a safe-deposit box consistent with the al-Qaeda practice of having operatives turn in their passports (which gives the network more control over them, makes identification difficult if they are captured, and provides al-Qaeda opportunities to forge fraudulent identification documents). In the face of these damning facts, the military's determination that Mutairi is an enemy combatant was invalidated. A federal district judge in Washington, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, absurdly held that the evidence was insufficient.”

“Naturally, the Obama Justice Department went along for the ride. No appeal was pursued, nor would one have expected otherwise. The way Kollar-Kotelly warped the case is precisely the kind of "justice" top Obama lawyers were pushing for over the last eight years. Now they're in charge, and they readily cited Kollar-Kotelly's ruling as justification for transferring Mutairi back to Kuwait, where he'll be free to rejoin the jihad and take up arms against the United States - like so many other former detainees who've been released in the mad dash to empty Gitmo.”

If one were to read McCarthy’s articles and Ms.Dahlia’s petty attempts to minimize his arguments – who would win?

But Ms.Dahlia’s does not stop there. She also manages to attack the views of John Yoo, by claiming that his concerns about the intelligence information getting into the hands of terrorists in the case of a civilian trial are limited to the number of of times KSM was waterboarded. Compare Ms.Dahlia’s writing with John’s Yoo’s:

Ms.Dahlia: “Yoo warns, apparently without irony: "KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it." Wait, wait. John Yoo—isn't he the same guy who is being sued for creating the legal structure that justified the entire U.S. torture program? And now he's saying he opposes open trials because he doesn't want the world to learn secret information, like how evidence was gathered from a man who was water-boarded 183 times? Curious.”

Curious or not, but Yoo's views are based on facts, which Ms.Dahlia refused to deal with.

John Yoo: “Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it. Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.
This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.
In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit. Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be. Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the "crime scene" under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby "witnesses"? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.”

Again, would a reasonable person conclude that Ms.Dahlia treats John Yoo’s arguments in a reasonable fashion? Surely not…

In the end, Ms.Dahlia was exhausted with the legal arguments (I am being generous here) and ends with a refusal to admit that America is at war, after which she proudly proclaimed that “Of course, these aren't so much legal arguments as political theater. And it's hardly surprising that, after eight years of insisting that the law doesn't apply to extremely bad people, opponents of Holder's decision are now focusing their arguments on the bad people, not the law. Still, it's awfully depressing to keep hearing that the only thing wrong with the criminal justice system is the criminals themselves.”

Well, for one, whether US is at war and moslem terrorists are combatants is a rather important issue. Secondly, Ms.Dahlia must provide legal rational for her claims that military tribunals for moslem terrorists is against the US law. For some reason, it slipped her mind to write down those arguments – assuming she actually understood that it’s not enough to assert this.

Finally, it is worth noting an interesting question asked by powerline: “Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury. Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so, they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?”. Indeed, Ms.Dahlia – can you think beyond step one?

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Republicans lost connection with American Middle Class.

Our republican leaders have lost the connection with the middle class Americans. They don’t understand anymore what issues concern us most – and I am not sure they even care. At this point I don’t care for them either, we need new young leaders who are not afraid to upset the status quo and fight for this country. In order to win, GOP must appeal to the middle class, it must become a popular party, and it must fight back. And sure enough, we should learn from the other side. Firstly, GOP must start following the Alinsky’s rules for radicals. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

We can destroy the DNC if we follow this simple rule. And the current debacle with H1N1 vaccines is a golden opportunity to strike back at the liberal establishment.

Obama wants to spread the wealth? Obama wants everyone to have same healthcare? All children should have same coverage? All right, comrade. Then same rules applies to you and your children. No more jumping in front of the line to get the vaccine. My children should be treated no better than the children of a welfare bum? My kids should stand in the same line for 3 hours with the kids of illegal immigrants? Fair enough - then send YOUR Natasha and Malia, and have them stand together with my kids in the same line. If you want social justice - then live it, don't push it on others. If you want the government perks and privileges, then you cannot demand the middle class to share its wealth. Either all of us have to provide their fair share and sacrifice – or none at all. An American president behaving like a middle-eastern nabob, while appealing to social justice?! As Alinsky said: “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

At this point, the GOP must start exploiting the popular anger. Remember, there are literally millions of very upset people, who are standing for hours on the streets, waiting to get the government vaccines. These people pay taxes, play by the rules, and now they are screwed by the teleprompter in chief. He plays golf, goes to cocktail parties, calls for sharing the wealth, tells the masses that everyone is equal – and the middle is stuck with higher taxes and no vaccines. Is this the social justice he promised? Is this the equality he was supposed to deliver? Is this the new and changed America he promoted?

How about an ad with a series of pictures - long lines for the vaccines for the middle class, an interview with an outraged parent – NYT report on Obama's children getting their vaccines without any trouble and inconvenience - Obama talking about how all kids are precious and how all have to be treated the same. This followed by the CNN glamorous report about Obama’s exquisite cocktail parties, another quick interview with an upset parent, Obama talking about spreading the wealth, Obama talking about new America – and another picture of long-long lines for vaccines. Obama: We are the ones we were waiting for” – a mother with a child on her shoulders, who just did not get a vaccine, and she is upset and she is crying. Ask the mother who voted for Obama – did she vote for this?

A few more quick picks: If I vote for Obama, I don’t have to pay my mortgage

When Obama in power: People trying to get free money

Another scene – a mother is upset – “We pay for these vaccines in taxes, but we cannot get them”. Is this the Obama America?” And then we get an interview with a man who just lost his job, a family which is losing its house. And then a piece of Obama telling the people that economy is getting better. And lastly – another CNN report on Obama’s vacation, a few pictures from the People magazine, and Michele’s claims how much she had to sacrifice to come to Copenhagen.

This ad is fairly easy to do - just go to the next place which is distributing the H1N1 vaccine and talk to the people in line. Talk to the people when the doctors tell the crowd to go home because there are no vaccines. It's so simple, really...

In the conclusion of this rant, I want to tell you that the task at hand is fairly simple and straightforward, and I say this from personal experience. I was born and raised in the USSR, and I distinctly remember the fall of the Soviet Empire. What broke the spine of the regime was not the just publication of the communist crimes – these was fairly well known. The Soviet elite was ousted when the plebs started openly questioning the government perks and openly mocking their left-wing propaganda. It was a devastating weapon - when the left claims everyone is equal, and yet demands special treatment for themselves – people get mightily annoyed, and the bureaucrats get really uncomfortable when people start asking questions.

We can destroy the Obama regime – but we must attack them with scorn and mockery, not just intellectual talking points. I am all in favor of quoting Hayek and Friedman, but awaking people’s outrage at the corruption and hypocrisy of the Obamunists is a much more immediate and devastating weapon.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

A challenge to liberals...

Dear liberals,

Do you believe it's "socially just" that Obama's kids got government distributed H1Na vaccines from their personal doctor, while the hardworking parents had to stand hours in long lines under rain to have their children vaccinated - and many were sent home because there were not enough vaccines?

Do you think that if Obama's kids were put in exact same conditions as the kids from less afluent families, then he would have paid more attention to the production of the vaccine and the nation would not face the severe shortages?

More on the H1N1 vaccines or back to the USSR

My wife just called - she stood in line for 3 hours under rain with a baby on her hands and yet our 1.5 year old son could not get a H1N1 vaccine because the doctors ran out of doses. It all resembled the good old Soviet times - unruly crowds, people cutting in the front on the line, and at the end of the day - there is not enough for everyone.

But fear not, comrades, you would be happy to know that Obama's kids got the swine flu vaccine - without any lines or delays, reported a few days ago by the venerable NYT. Moreover, in the comment section it is claimed that DC has an abundance of the vaccines - which is a tad strange, given that Obama administration produced 1 vaccine per 15 Americans. On the second thought, I am not surprised that the “people’s servant” gets the flu vaccine before his masters, “we the people” get it. After all, do you really want the people who implement government policies to feel the results of the failure of those policies? Come on! Be realistic. The government is here to help you, so it makes sense when the government agents get all the goods. Back to the USSR - long lines for the plebs, the nation's political capital gets everything faster than anyone else, and the government officials (same ones who were responsible to make sure there are enough vaccines for everyone) jump in front of the line.

Anyway, I am happy that Obama’s kids are safe now. Once all the legacy cats in the federal government get enough - it will be time for the taxpayers. So, don’t worry, be happy, things will get better when the leeches feel their stomachs.

My neighbor today said something profound - American people are being vaccinated for the Obama-care through standing in long lines under rain with their children on their hands for the H1N1 vaccine. Get used to it, comrades. It's USSR time.

This is damn funny...

I was reading an article from the Washington (com)Post about Breibart, a man who single-handidly put ACORN on the radar of American people and forced mainstream media to release some of the damaging information on Obama's alma mater. The author quotes a paid operative for the Soros-funded group "Media Matters", who critisizes Breitbart by saying that "Capturing a raw video isn't journalism; journalism includes some content. A real journalist would have contacted ACORN..."

In reality, this is a weird response, since the entire report on the ACORN machinations was an accurate depiction of the ACORN response to a series of questions. Two aspiring journalists contacted numerous ACORN offices and asked them for assistance in setting up whore houses, importing underage girls for prostitution and the ways to shield their profits from taxation. ACORN was only too kind to oblige - and Breitbart showed to the world the ACORN response. What exactly is the critisism here?

Thursday, October 29, 2009

The swine flu vaccine - update

Sometimes I read liberals newspapers - just for the giggles. Today, my eyes were drawn to an article by the New York Times about the flu vaccines.
The article is quite unremarkable, the author is glad to inform the readers that president Obama is dealing very effectively with the flu epidemic. It says that Obama left little to chance, namely:
1. He created a website with public information;
2. He produced a series of public announcements which as the NYT says "featured fuzzy Sesame Street characters Elmo and Rosita singing in English and Spanish";
3. Obama even "staged role-playing exercises for public health officials". There were uncomfirmed reports that Barack Obama took an active part in the role-playing and came to the exercise dressed as a fireman, while Michele Obama was a Dominatrix;
4. And lets not forget the highly memorable and efficient appeal by Obama to the people of Earth to wash their hands and wipe their asses;
5. Lastly, Obama met with a lot of people and told his team to work hard.

In short, Obama was nothing short of brilliant in his struggle against the swine flu. There was one tiny little problem - maybe the word "problem" is a bit too strong, I guess we should say a "hic-up" - and I am not sure is even worth mentioning. Namely, not enough vaccines were made. Obama's administration promised in July to deliver 120 million doses of vaccine by the end of October. In reality, 23.2 million doses were made available to the masses. That's about 1 vaccine per 15 Americans - and Obama handily beat the record previously held by the Soviet Army, when in autumn of 1941 it was providing about one rifle per four soldiers on the frontlines with the Nazi wermacht.

I don't know about you, but I would say that this situation is typical - Obama wages a brilliant campaign filled with slogans and speeches, nice websites are run by well-trained people, and the president himself makes heart-felt appeals to the masses - but at the end of the day, well, people are left standing in the rain waiting for the actual cure. And some of them blame Obama for this?! The ungrateful bitches!

At some point, Obama will blew the casket at the annoying prols who whine about the so-called issues, and he will most likely sound like John Cleese from Fawlty Towers.
Scroll to the end of the video around 28th minute to see John Cleese, who finally had it and gives all he has to the guests of his hotel.

In fact, I believe John Cleese perfectly encapsulates the reply that Obama administration is already giving to the plebs - from complaint that troublemakers with nothing better to do are sticking noses into his affairs to the conclusion that his critics are nazis. I am really curious at what point he will tell the American people to pack their things and leave HIS country - and it won't be a moment too soon. It's the Obama country now, and we are simply renting our living quarters from him. If we misbehave, Obama will kick us out - as he should...

Friday, October 9, 2009

This is really funny...

Ezra Klein wrote: "Obama also awarded Nobel prize in chemistry. 'He's just got great chemistry,' says Nobel Committee

An excellent smack down...

Debating the Obama's Yasser Arafat Peace prize:

Maybe they wanted to show, say, Iran, that Obama has the backing of the international community, and it will strengthen Obama's hand in diplomacy with Iran.

Yup, because Iran is all about issues that have 'the backing of the international community'. It's like in their DNA.

Obama's peace prize makes sense....

As we all know, because of Obama's clumsy actions, Israel, the staunchest US ally now solidly believes that the US president hates her and is supporting the anti-american islamo-fascists. I guess this was enough for the Nobel peace committee to celebrate Obama's achievements.

Surely, if Obama nukes Israel, he will get all Nobel prizes in one sitting, and IOC will declare him the winner of all Olympic events now and forever. Of course, Obama is now in competition with Iran and Al Qaeda, so he better act fast.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

A tale in quotes and comments...

As a classic tragedy, it starts very optimistically, when the main character is happy and naive, and the world looks very promising...

“In 2016, I’ll be wrapping up my second term as president,” Obama told a rally in Chicago in June 2008. “So I can’t think of a better way than to be marching into Washington Park … as president of the United States and announcing to the world: Let the Games begin!”…

Even later, when the destiny was starting to suck the main character into its dark and smelly place, his top advisor and executioner (officially the Chief of Important Stuff and tax-evading Staff) Rahm Emanuel played down the expectations of the public: “They [right-wing mobsters and evil-mongers] shouldn’t try to make politics of this. I think they [right-wing mobsters and evil-mongers] should take some pride in the U.S.’s win, and you know, we’ll make sure they [right-wing mobsters and evil-mongers] get some good seats once Chicago does host the games.” I am not sure about you, but Emma's promise to provide good seats to the right-wing mobsters and evil-mongers does not sound too reassuring. But alas, Emma did not get a chance to fullfil his promise (threat)....

Now, the introduction is over, and the stage is ready for the main character to enter and change the world forever. President Obama makes an eloquent speech to the IOC committee, a humble speech of a humble man - a speech containing sentences with four Is:
I’ve come here today to urge you to choose Chicago for the same reasons I chose Chicago nearly twenty-five years ago – the reasons I fell in love with the city I still call home.”

Michele Obama, not to be over-shied by her modest husband, had this to say:

"But I never dreamed that the Olympic flame might one day light up lives in my neighborhood. But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago that will light up lives in neighborhoods all across America and all across the world."

This surely was enough to silence all the nay-sayers in the IOC. After all, can Rio fulfill Michele's dream, let alone Tokyo? No freaking way! Case closed, right?

But the First Lady in Chief did not stop there. She also reminded the world of how much personal sacrifice she had to go through for the Olympic movement: "Some of my ... memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis and others for their brilliance and perfection." If one remembers that Michele was 20 years old when Carl Lewis participated in the Olympics, it's clear that the First Lady was tearfully reciting the tale of abuse and humiliation by her late father. I presume the IOC could also imagine how many 20 year old girls would be forced to sit on their Daddy's laps through the entire Olympic Games if Chicago wins the bid - and that surely made them think twice about their choice. After all, some of those Chicago Daddie could be quite accomodating and may well share those nice girls, if you know what I mean.

If this heartbreaking testimony were not enough, Michele noted to her supporters: "As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home."

And indeed, it was a sacrifice. Not only the president, the first lady, and their 100 top advisors had to fly to Copenhagen, a place where all those rednecks clinging to guns and religion live in - a much worse thing happened there - a disgruntled American general leading the US military efforts in Afghanistan was able to sneak through the Obama security service into the Airforce One and bore his Excelency with tales of war and suffering in the far away lands of Afghanistan for a whole of 30 25 minutes. As if president Obama does not have any more burning issues than the war in Afghanistan! What a douchebag! Notice though that this failure of security would not have occurred had Mr.President stayed in the White House, and the general would continue to converse with Obama via the pigeon mail and whine about the failure of the Afgan war Overseas Contingency Operation during the talk shows on Oprah.

After all this hard work and unbearable sacrifice - the thunder struck - (think about the steps of the Commodore from the Pushkin's tragedy) - the IOC committee decided that Chicago, a place where Obama grew up from a smallish community organizer to the Top Olympic Games Salesman, and where Michele sat on the lap of her father, was not a suitable avenue for the Olympic games.

When the IOC announced its decision, the NYT was puzzled tothe point it actually wrote something honest: “A sense of stunned bewilderment suffused Air Force One and the White House.”

Senator Burris immediately confirmed what every liberal knew - that Chicago lost the bid “…due to the animosity against the US created by the policies of the last eight years.”

HoosierHawk though is willing to give the president some slack: "I don’t think that you can blame the President for the decision of the Olympic Commitee. My understanding is that the IOC actually visited Chicago. That’s pretty difficult to overcome."

A response from the extreme right was quite predictable - let me quote Hogarth whose response was quite typical for the right-wing mobsters and evil-mongers: "For the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of the Olympic Committee." For some reason this sounds like a quote, but my memory is failing me, and I cannot identify who is being mocked by this right-wing mobster and evil-monger... Wait, don't tell me...

Another writer, Mark Buehner dryly observes: "I’m just really glad to see this new era of humility and diplomacy is paying such startling dividends."

I believe Alex Bensky summarizes the views of many with his astute comment: "Personally, I’m at a loss to understand this. The president went there, gave a talk illustrating why it would be a recognition of his charisma and specialness to grant Chicago the games. He even brought his wife who also talked about how special she is and how she would personally find it gratifying if they gave Chicago the games. And yet…the IOC immediately voted otherwise. I can’t figure it out."

Honestly, I am too quite puzzled by this result. Aren't you too?

Friday, October 2, 2009

Is there a resemblance between Obama and Gorbachev?

An interesting article was published about Obama here. The author says that Obama is an American version of Gorbachev. I disagree with this view. Gorbachev took a sclerotic communist system and tried to fine tune its apparatus by giving a little bit of freedom and democracy. As to be expected, communism could not withstand this and the USSR went down in flames.

Obama on the other side took control of a relatively free country, and is trying to drastically decrease its freedom and democracy, while claiming it would make it a better place. In all reality, Obama is a mix of Jimmy Carter, FDR and Peron. Another person to keep in mind is Egypt's dictator Nasser. All in all, Obama intends to make things worse in this country for all freedom loving progressive people, and most surely he will achieve it - and he will hurt whole more folks in the process.

The only positive thing is that he has only 4 years - after that the people will send him a pink slip, and we can start rebuilding America.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

A challenge to liberals...

Obama's plan requires insurance plans to accept all people with pre-conditions, cover regular check ups (free of charge) and, moreover, they cannot drop anyone from the plan.

Here are a couple of questions for you - what do you surmise this would do to the insurance premiums, will they go up or down? Will the medical insurance be more or less affordable to the people who is now covered?

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Obama is becoming an easy target for mockery.

Comrade Obama is getting ready to make a speech to American school children. This is an unprecedented move - the economy is in ruins, his medical care reform is on the ropes, America still fighting two wars (and the war in Afghanistan is getting really hot) - and at that precious time, president Obama decides to make a sweet speech to the kids. Ahm! This is just so similar to what other marxists (think Castro) would do...

Personally, I believe this is perfect. After a while, American people will puke everytime they hear the voice of the annointed one. Another win for critical thinking - moreover Americans could lose some weight too.

Republicans, don't forget to instruct your kids to laugh and boo and make funny faces during the Obama speech. Also, don't forget to buy funny teeshirts that mock Obama. Maybe get the Obama ears to wear.

I've heard on the radio, that one time Alinsky (Obama's left-wing Godfather) organized a protest at the local opera theatre. How did he do it? He got his supporters eat a lot of beans and then they all went to the same opera performance. Alinsky recalls that the effects were hillarious and the "establishment" was very upset.

So, why not learn from the best? Rebellion is fun, really. Lets see how the liberal establishment reacts to mockery. Don't forget to feed your kids a lot of beans before the Obama speech. We cannot let his speech go to waste.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Obama becomes a religious zelot...

That's pretty funny. In order to promote the government takeover of medical care, Obama is now channelling Jesus and other religious figures. He even claimed he was his brother's keeper.

It's funny though that Obama's own brother lives in utter poverty in a hut in Africa, and the president is unwilling to spend a dime to help him. So, what exactly does Obama mean, when he claims he is his brother's keeper?

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Nice quote from C.S. Lewis

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Obama should provide legal protection for liberal activists

The Obama administration recently announced that it would be collecting information about people’s views on the proposed health care reform. American citizens are asked to report emails, personal conversations and blogs that criticize Obama’s plan to overtake the medical insurance. It’s all good and dandy, and the civil rights groups that went ballistic when president Bush proposed same methods to combat terrorism are quiet now. It also looks unlikely that the media and the courts will attempt to stop Obama from getting American citizens to spy on his opponents. But what is going to happen if a republican wins the 2012 elections, and the new president decides to make the citizens’ reports public? Imagine how would a freedom loving civil activist feel if it is revealed to the nation that he informed the authorities that his neighbor had questioned the Obama care? I mean, we are all progressive people here, but there may be still some reactionaries among us who for some reason hold outmoded and racist prejudices against telling on your friends. I believe Obama must propose a law that would absolutely protect the anonymity of his informants. After all, we know that light is the best disinfectant - so it's only reasonable for the Obama administration to turn off as many lights as possible...

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Who could have doubted this?

According to Moscow Komsomoletz, Russian president Medvedev is saying that he found it much easier to talk to Obama than Bush.


Concerning American Jews...

A. Miller wrote an interesting article about American Jews and their suicidal devotion to the Democratic party in general and Obama in particular. Surely, I could not let it pass without my comment. Here it goes...

As a Russian Jew who immigrated to America I am dumbfounded by the utter stupidity of American Jews. What the hell is wrong with them?! Can they not see with their eyes, can they not hear with their ears?! Obama's soulmate and spiritual father Wright openly hates Israel and "them Jews" - and they cannot put two and two together?! Obama drops on his knees in front of a moslem tyrant, and then farts at a democratically elected prime-minister of Israel - and they don't see anything wrong with this? These people are pathetic, the blood of the slaves is still flowing through their veins. We should have left those cocksuckers in Egypt.

Shalom, comrades!

Saturday, July 4, 2009

As a Russian immigrant, I can only sigh...

I am looking at what is happening in America, and I have a deep feeling of sorrow. Where is this country going? Is the American experiment over? Is this beautiful country joining the rest of the world in its futile quest for human perfection through Nanny-statism and inevitable fascism? America is turning into the evil Empire - literally, not figuratively. American president bowing before the Saudi tyrant, befriending the marxist dictator in Venesuela, while denigrating Britain, Israel and supporting the marxist take over of Honduras? What the fuck?! And this same child-king is taking over American industries, attacking the productive members of society and is ready close opposition media, and increase government corruption ten-fold. And his cohorts marching around with the photos of the Cuban chief of Gestapo, Che Guevara.

These will be long 4 years, comrades, long 4 years for all who love freedom. But fear not, I remember same emotions expressed by the Russian dissidents in the 1970ies during the Carter administration. The same feeling that everything was over for this beautiful country that saved the world from communism.

And all my immigrant brothers and sisters - lets remember one thing. America is the last refuge! There is nowhere to run. There is nowhere to hide. If we don't defend freedom in America, the entire mankind is doomed. Lets organize and fight back. 2010 elections will determine if this country lives or dies. Blood, sweat and tears.

If we are lucky, US will be a neutral country...

It pains me to say this - but with B. Hussein Obama in power, the best scenario for the world is America becoming a neutral country. I am sure we all remember how Iranian revolution humbled comrade Obama - he could hardly comment on the slaughter of students on the streets of Tehran. But when the people of Honduras followed the orders of the Supreme Court and the Congress and ousted the would-be dictator and personal friend of Castro and Chavez, Manuel Zelaya, our dear president could not pause for a minute and published a speech filled with open threats and denouncements.

And now, our dear supreme leader is trying to torpedo the sanctions against the Iranian mullahs

As I said in the title - if we are lucky, US will be a neutral country for the next 4 years. What a disgrace!

Did Obama make the economy much worse?

A few months ago, Obama said that his economists analyzed the economy and decided that without the stimulus package, the unemployment will go up to 8.7%, with his stimulus package passed it would top at 7.9%. Today, we already see 9.4%, and it is especulated that unemployment will go above 10%.

Assuming that Obama hired the top economists, and their analysis AT THE TIME was correct, we can conclude that Obama's policies added 2.1% unemployment.

Of course, one could say that Obama's economists are idiots, who could easily miss a 25% increase in the number of unemployed - but then, who hired them? One could also claim that Obama knew the real numbers, but he lied so his programs could pass. That's another view.

BTW, in my posts on Slate, months and months ago I predicted 10% unemployment. I wonder if I am better than Obama's economists. I also wonder why right-wingers were able to predict that Obama would try to raise taxes on the middle class. I mean, the guy swore on his mother's grave that he won't do so. How coud they know? It's magic, I tell you.

When you see a liberal, ask him this question...

Barack Obama swore on his mother's grave that he would not raise taxes on people who earn more than 250,000 dollars. Mainstream conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, publicly mocked Obama's promise as completely unrealistic, based on the analysis of his political views. So, next time Obama makes promises on taxes - wouldn't it be prudent to find out what Rush Limbaugh thinks about them?

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Do you need evidence that Iranian opposition does not want Obama to meddle in the Iranian affairs?

Here is one interesting evidence that the head of Iranian dissent against the mullahs, the top opposition candidate Mousavi does not think so...

From the Office of Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi
To the President of the USA, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:

Dear Mr. President,

In the name of the Iranian people, we want you to know that when you recently made the statement "Achmadinejad or Mousavi? Two of a kind," we consider this as a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.

It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for Mr. Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country.

Your statement misled the people of the world. It was no doubt inspired by your hope for dialogue with this regime, but you cannot possibly believe in promises from a regime that lies to its own people and then kills them when they demand the promises be kept.

By such statements, your administration and you discourage the Iranian people, who believe and trust in the values of democracy and freedom. We are pleased to see that you have condemned the regime's murderous violence, and we look forward to stronger support for the rightful struggle of the Iranian people against the actions of a regime that is your enemy as well as ours.

Would Biden be better than Obama?

Personally, I believe Biden would be a far better president than Obama. Both of them inherently want to destroy this country and its economy (or, as they see it - make it more progressive) - but Biden would be far less effective, given the fact that he is an idiot, and everyone laughs at him. It will take months and months before Obama's popularity drops to the level of the approval of his policies. Obama is quite effective in promoting the left-wing reactionary policies, even though Americans are against them. I am sure Biden would be simply laughed out of office.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Revolution in Iran - quoting Lenin

When discussing the situation in Iran, it is a worthwhile exercise to study the works of famous revolutionaries. The most talented of them all, Vladimir Lenin, the father of the communist revolution in Russia, proposed a concept of what he called "The Revolutionary Situation". According to Lenin, if and only if such a situation arises, it is possible to destroy the existing regime through the uprising.

According to Lenin, there are three objective signs of a revolutionary situation (my translation):

1. The inability of the political elite to continue its rule over the people - i.e. the elites cannot force, and the people would not agree to the status quo.
2. Dramatic increase of economic hardship for the working class.
3. Dramatic rise of people's political activity and their readiness to spontaneous revolutionary actions.

So far, it seems all three conditions are satisfied for Iran. The elites are split, the loss of oil revenues wrecked the economy, the masses cannot take it any more, and there is a massive increase in the number and intensity of demonstrations. So far, three for three. Not too bad.

What is left to find out is whether Lenin's "subjective conditions" are being satisfied. Quoting Lenin: "Are the revolutionary movement and its leadership strong enough to organize the massive uprising which will destroy the old government?"

It would appear that Mousavi is quite up to the task. Not only the dissident leader publicly said that he was ready to die for the revolution - he even smacked Obama for equating him with Ahmadinejad. It looks like Mousavi is ready to fight the mullahs and Obama at the same time. Attaboy!

I personally believe that Iranian dissidents may well win this time. God's speed, comrades! Lets finish off the Islamo-Fascist-Theocracy. Death to Tyrants!

Can Iranians win?

I am not an Iranian, but I was born, raised and educated in the USSR, so I believe my experience could help in figuring out the nuts and bolts of the current events in Iran.

Can Iranians defeat the mullahs? I most surely believe so. Here are my reasons.

1. The Iranian political elite is split.
This is a very important issue, since it gives a lot of leverage and legitimacy to the pro-democracy movement. After all, they've gotten one of the top contenders on their side, a contender with some clout within the Iranian military appratus and police.

2. The regime is caught in an obvious hypocrisy
On one side, the mullahs claim that Iran is a democratic state, but the opposition says that the mullahs falsified the results of the elections. This by itself is a very strong argument which is difficult to refute. If the people don't trust the regime's propaganda, then the mullahs have little chance of persuading the people to calm down. When the people are ready to puke at the mere sound of a "great" ayatollah's voice - there is no chance his arguments will be even heard by the people, let alone trusted. I strongly believe that many Iranian people are ready to believe the worst about the regime, and dismiss any explanations out of hand - same as it was in the USSR by the 1991. Every Soviet citizen remember the common belief - if the government is denying that an something happened - you are damn sure it did happen.

3. There are no tanks on the streets
So far, the regime did not attempt to use the Iranian armed forces to put down the rebellion - which indictates that the mullahs are not certain about their loyalty. Moreover, there are reports (unconfirmed at this moment) that the mullahs are using arab thugs (Hezballah and Hamas) as well as Venesuelian police to harrass the rebellion. This may be a major PR advantage for the dissidents - they should use the Iranian nationalism card to defeat the regime. I am sure there are plenty of Iranian soldiers who would shoot down the Hezballah thugs without a moment's hesitation (if not an outright glee). Imagine the Russian tsars using Austrian thugs to put down the people's rebellion in Russia in 1917 - at the height of WW1. Even tsar's personal guard would tear them into pieces.

All in all, if people of Iran play it right, they may well get rid of the mullah's regime. And the longer this is going on, the better (for at least a few weeks), since people are getting more and more radicalized. A few days ago, most Iranians would be fine with the mullahs declaring Mousavi a winner. Today, they are storming the headquaters of the mullah's Gestapo. Tomorrow, they may try to hang the mullahs on the lamposts.

How to make anti-Obama claims stick...

Very simple. Run ads with Obama in 2008 swearing on his mother's grave that he won't raise taxes on people who earn less than $250,000. Then, run some recordings in 2008 from Rush or Hannity questionning Obama's promise. Follow this with DNC proposals for all the new taxes, and end with a question - who are you gonna believe in 2010, Obama or Rush?

Mousavi versus Gorbachev...

It's now often said that Mousavi is no Gorbachev. Well, let me remind the people about comrade Gorbachev. For one, he came from a typical communist carrer ladder, and he was being promoted by a KGB Chief Andropov. Secondly, while Gorbachev indeed brought some reforms to the USSR, those were done due to American pressure. Thirdly, don't forget that Gorbachev was doing his best to prevent Eltsin from being elected, and was trying to get his hard-core communist buddy into power. Fourthly, lets mention that the Soviet troops invaded Vilnus, the capital of Estonia in 1990, and took over the TV station. And all this was not in vain, after the anti-communist revolution in August 1991, which was won under the slogan to defend Gorbachev from the communist putch - Gorbachev lost his power and presidency in December 1991.

What does it all mean? If the dissisdent movement in Iran wins, there is a good chance that Mousavi won't last long. It's not unusual that revolutions start with people's demonstrations against some non-ground breaking issues, and later people become extremely radicalized and break down the whole regime. So, don't be afraid by Mousavi, he is riding the tiger now. Pay attention to the tiger, the Iranian people who finally got tired of the mullah's regime.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Does it matter if Mussavi is as bad as Ahmie?

Some nay-sayers believe that America should stay away from the Iranian revolution because, among many other reasons, Mussavi is just as bad as the current imbecile in charge of Iran. Interestingly enough, Obama, the man who said that his America-is-so-wrong-please-forgive-us speech in Cairo resulted in fruitful and sincere debates between the presidential candidates in Iran - is now claiming that both candidates are in fact equally distateful. A more pragmatic view would be to remember that the Soviet president Gorbachev, a man who's reinstatement was demanded during the August revolution in 1991, was and is a devoted communist. And yet, the defeat of the communist putch resulted in drastic democratization of Russia, and Gorbachev lost his power in a matter of months after the putch was defeated. In case of Iran, it matters little if Mussavi is a progressive moslem like Ahmie or Arafat, or he actually wants Iran to become a free Western country. What matters is that succesful revolution against the mullahs will shake the whole system, and empower the people of Iran. Once they break the yoke of mullahs - they will not rest until they become free - this is the logic of the revolution.

Obama is awfully quiet on Iran...

Obama regime is afraid to mutter a single critisism about Iranian oppression of dissidents. "Who are we to meddle in Iranian internal affairs" - they say. And yet, does anyone doubt that if Israel were to build a dozen houses for the Jews in the West Bank - then Obama would be all over the news blasting the evil zionist regime?

Obama is not a stupid man, it's just that he has a different system of priorities. "Them Jews", as his spiritual leader Wright said, "them Jews".

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

What Iranian dissidents and American patriots should do...

Iranian dissidents must immediately call for the Persian army to intervene and protect Iranian students from the arab merceneries, who are killing the people on the streets of Tehran. Notice that the mullahs did not send the army to stop the protests, which is a clear sign that they are not sure that the generals and the soldiers will shoot at their fellow citizens. No tanks on the streets of Tehran is a very promising sign. This weakness must be immediately exploited. Appeal to Persian nationalism!

In America, Dick Cheney should imediately give a speech and push Obama to abandon his pre-election promises of appeasement, and instead confront the Iranian mullahs. The first step for Obama would be to come out 100% for the Iranian dissidents and demand an immediate halt to repressions and violence. Secondly, Obama must urgently convene all Western nations and use his skills, influence and popularity and convince them to declare an immediate embargo on all economic relations with Iran until the mullahs back down. GOP must show itself a powerful pro-freedom force. America will not forget this!

It seems like Bush's Middle East strategy is working and the domino is starting to fall. Progressives and patriots must make sure that Obama does not squander the opportunity to democratize the Middle East. Hooray to Bush!

Monday, June 15, 2009

What is happening in Iran? The view of a Russian immigrant.

The events in Iran remind me of the 1991 revolution in the USSR, except there is no Eltsin to raise the million-strong masses and there is no "White House" surrounded by armed supporters of democracy. This is a giant minus for the freedom fighters. A big plus is the reported use of imported thugs from Lebanon, Syria and Venesuela. This clearly means that the islamic regime does not trust the regular armed forces.
What must be done is obvious - the leaders of the movement must appeal to the Iranian Armed forces, beg them to protect the people of Iran from the bloodthirsty foreign thugs-for-hire. It's a risky move, but it may work.

It's extremely unfortunate that America is rendered impotent by the liberal fifth column. The uprising of the Iranian people is what progressive people of the entire world expected for years. Bush's domino of democracy is finally starting to fall - but a year too late. It's as if Bush Sr. lost the 1988 elections or the USSR broke apart in 1993.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Events in Iran complicate Obama's plans for the Middle East

As you may know, thousands of people demonstrate against the mullahs rule in Iran. As a result, hordes of progressives from Lebanon and Syria (Hezbollah) and Venesuelan security personnal are called in to suppress the people's rebellion. If the people's revolution in Iran is not defeated, Obama's plans for the Middle East will be in serious jeopardy. Today, the Glorious Leader Barack Hussein Obama is using Iran's regime as as his enforcer against the state of Israel. If the mullahs are defeated, Obama would lose his best bogey-man.

Based on this logic, I predict that Obama will not support the revolution in Iran.