“This is a dangerous world, and this cat isn’t remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you.” – Former President G.W. Bush speaking about then Democratic Presidential nominee Barack H. Obama

War is coming soon. Count on it. I am not talking about the kind of war such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which inconveniences no one beyond the deployed soldiers and their families. No, you are soon going to get the real deal. A conflict that will involve every thought of every moment of your waking lives. President Obama’s announcement that he will not fulfil the United States’ commitment to install an anti-ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe has provided further proof, as if any were needed, that so called “progressives,” in spite of all their pseudo-intellectual arrogance, never learn from their mistakes.

VIENNA (AP) - Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press. The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency’s leaders share Washington’s views on Iran’s weapon-making capabilities.

It appears to be the so-called “secret annex” on Iran’s nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA’s chief. The document says Iran has “sufficient information” to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to “overcome problems” on developing a delivery system.

The failure to follow through on the previous administration’s promise, combined with Iran’s continued, and now possibly completed, development of nuclear weapons is an invitation for war…and a big one at that. If you count the cold war as World War Three then gird your loins for World War 4. It’s coming.

You have to work very hard to make as many mistakes as fast as this administration has in just nine months. Fear matters in a dangerous world, and make no mistake about it, no-one is afraid of Barack H. Obama. So far he has alienated all of America’s traditional allies while encouraging those countries hostile to us.

Obama failed to stand with Iranians protesting the pre-ordained election results that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to office. He is so determined that he can negotiate with this maniacal lunatic that he has acted to keep him in power just so he can prove it to us. He likewise has sided with the Hugo Chavez backed president of Honduras who was rightly ousted by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress for trying to illegally alter their constitution. Even now, this administration is insisting that Chavez’s man be put back into power or the U.S. will not recognize this government or ANY future elected government! Thats insane.

He has also been pressing Israel for more concessions while authorizing money for Palestinians. Such financial aid has historically been returned to Israel in the form of unprovoked rocket attacks. Throw in an ill-conceived investigation into the CIA’s interrogation of terrorist detainees, and even our own people see no reason to trust this administration. What’s next, granting terrorists captured on the battlefield as prisoners of war rights of Habeas Corpus?

BAGRAM, Afghanistan – Afghan inmates held in the US’s Bagram military custody center will soon have their first opportunity to exercise expanded rights to challenge indefinite detention. The Obama administration has prepared a new set of guidelines regarding the legal rights of over 600 Afghan inmates detained at Bagram air-base.  The administration hopes to implement the new system during this week.  The new system will also grant extended rights to an unknown number of captive nationals from numerous other Middle Eastern states. - Impunity Watch, Asia

The “Blame America First” people are now in charge and they are on an appeasement crusade. The decision not to deploy the missile defense system was part of the Obama administration’s “reset” negotiating policy with Russia. Although he was willing to make this concession to Russia, alienating still more U.S. allies in Poland and Czechoslovakia, he apparently got nothing in return other than the possibility that Russia might assist in future negotiations with Iran. This is not what one would call savvy negotiating. The only thing less comforting than this administration’s weak negotiating skills is its apparent tactlessness. How do you announce you are backing out of a defense deal with Poland on the 70th anniversary of the day that the Russians and Germans invaded the country to start the second world war? Are they really this callous, or worse, ignorant? These arrogant people pride themselves on their intellectual superiority…where is it?

For their part the government of Poland reacted as you should well expect they would. They refused to to take Secretary Of State Hilliary Clinton’s calls. The Czech and Polish governments put themselves out on a limb to be supportive of the United States, and this is their reward? Interestingly, although this decision is an offense to the governments of these countries, the people themselves actually approve of this decision. It is their fear that allowing such a system to be deployed on their territory would make them a desirable target for terrorists.

If there is one thing you can count on, it is the consistency of European cowardice. We have seen their willingness to appease aggressors lead to disaster time and again in the last century. Yet they not only fail to learn from those disasters, they also fail to remember the lesson of Ronald Reagan. In the 1980’s, at the peak of the cold war, he deployed medium range nuclear missiles in West Germany…and oh how the people did complain. Once again, they argued it would increase the likelihood of war. What happened? Ten years later both the missiles AND the Soviet Union were gone, without a shot being fired. Peace through strength is the only thing that will prevent a war. Weakness will always provoke an aggressor to strike. Unfortunately cowardice comes too easily to the European. Too bad.

Our “Appeaser in Chief’” should have insisted on one very important concession from Russia. His failure to do so has guaranteed war. The Russians have agreed to sell Iran anti-aircraft missiles. Obama should have insisted that the sale be canceled in exchange for betraying our allies. He insisted on nothing and bowed to the Kremlin’s wishes. Those anti-aircraft missiles are for the purpose of defending Iran from a potential strike by Israel on their nuclear facilities. Failure to get that sale stopped, combined with the IAEA report claiming Iran can now build an atomic weapon, makes it imperative that Israel strike sooner rather than later. Rhetoric like this doesn’t help either:

“The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false … It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim. Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty. This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it … This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end.” – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Sept. 18, 2009

Israel knows those weapons have but one purpose, their annihilation. They will strike, and they will strike first. They must. But that will present several problems. Last year the Democratically controlled Congress blocked the sale of several “bunker buster” bombs to Israel. They thought that, by depriving Israel of these deep penetrating conventional weapons, they could discourage a war with Iran. However, for Israel, this is about survival. Denying Israel the use of these weapons does not reduce the likelihood of military action. It just forces them to use different munitions. Israel dares not risk a failed attack, or one that does not significantly disable Iran’s nuclear capability. With hardened facilities buried deep underground, you need devastating firepower. Thanks to the shortsighted actions of the Democrats in Congress, Israel may be forced to use nuclear weapons to destroy their targets. Consider the ramifications of that.

In any event, an Israeli attack will lead to worldwide condemnation of Israel, and likely, a worldwide counter-attack via terrorism. Decades of acquiescence to Islamic immigration will envelope Europe in a firestorm of internally delivered attacks. Perhaps it is the just reward for their perpetual cowardice. Such attacks will certainly find their way to the United States as well. After all, the President has been in a rush to dismantle the apparatus that the previous administration built to protect us after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Fortunately, this time, the terrorists will have adequate legal representation in the event they get caught.

Israel has the capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, but can they, or will they, attempt to destroy all of Iran’s military assets? Almost certainly not. The consequences of an Israeli attack will be the certainty that the Iranian navy will close the Persian Gulf, shutting off the oil supply to the West. Welcome to world war. Oil prices will spike the world over from the instantaneous shortages this will create. Someone will have to reopen the Persian Gulf. Conventional wisdom says that “someone” will have to be the United States.

But in the Obama administration there is no place for either convention or wisdom. The crisis that will occur when the oil spigot is cut off will have spectacularly useful repercussions to an administration that doesn’t believe a crisis should be allowed to go to waste. Therefore, there is no guarantee that Obama will give the order to reopen the Persian Gulf. Failure to do so will definitely prolong the crisis and almost certainly will have the effect of suffocating every Western economy. If the crisis can be prolonged long enough, it may prove fatal. Not a bad days work if you are not only the president of the most powerful economy on earth, but also the president of the Karl Marx/Che Guevara fan club. Considering the economic decisions this administration has made thus far, such a crisis could be irresistible. For a man with Obama’s ego, the opportunity to rebuild the world in his own image may be too much of a temptation. To hell with the rest of us.

GENESIS 27:29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

And yet there is another possibility. One that may be the most diabolical of them all. For Israel to have any chance of succeeding in its’ primary objective of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, it must have the element of surprise on its’ side. If it trusts the Obama administration, and there is no reason that it should, Israel may, as a courtesy, notify Washington of its’ intentions. Israel may, however, choose not to tell Washington in advance since the Obama administration, unlike Bush’s, is not likely to offer any assistance.

In either event, the United States has plenty of military assets in the region that will be able to detect that such a strike is underway. I propose that, given this administration’s tendency to cater to the Muslim world, it is very possible Obama will tip off the Iranian’s that such an attack is coming and from where. After all, have you ever seen a nation more determined to switch sides in all of its commitments, both internationally and domestically, than this one? This will guarantee that the Israeli attack fails. Perhaps, in return, Obama will extract a promise from Iran not to close the Persian Gulf…but only by betraying one of our our closest allies. Of course, who but a naive negotiator like Obama could trust the government in Tehran to keep such an agreement? Muslim history is full of backstabbing.

If you think I am just an alarmist and talking out of my hat consider this conversation with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama’s top foreign policy adviser United States National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, and notorious anti-Semite in an interview with the Daily Beast:

Daily Beast: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

Daily Beast: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

To the contrary, there are plenty on the far left, particularly among Reverend Wright style Black Liberationists, who would be delighted to see a battle between the United States and Israel. This is the conversation happening in the White House right now. Obama’s top adviser in this very matter is encouraging a military confrontation against our ally Israel in defense of our enemy Iran. And you thought it couldn’t get worse. If you voted for change in the last election, you certainly got it!

“Under section 370 of the House Of Representatives Rules and Manual it has been held that a member of the house cannot refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” Yet, as he alienates our allies and coddles our enemies, it would appear he is doing just that. And you know what that means…WAR!

But whose side are we on? Ask Poland and Czechoslovakia. They know…and Israel is soon going to find out.

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” -President Obama

There is a dangerous consistency to President Barack Obama that, thus far, is proving elusive to many people. This elusiveness, of course, is promoted by a media that marches in lockstep to the wishes of this administration. The recent protests over fraudulent elections in Iran and the President’s belated and lukewarm response is, in fact, quite consistent with his much more aggressive reaction to the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras. Understanding the underlying principles that drive President Obama’s actions in both instances is the key to interpreting the diabolical consequences he and his cohorts have in store for us in the United States as they attempt to implement their plans for “social justice.”

“It is not productive, given the history of US and Iranian relations to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections.” -President Barack Obama

It should appear obvious that an American president should want to be seen as supporting the people in Iran as they rise up in protest against a repressive, and oppressive, regime that has kept them bound to Islamic fascism for over thirty years. It should also be equally obvious that President Obama would be extremely reluctant to be seen as supporting protesters of a legally recognized government. After all, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “legally” elected, just as was President Obama, and the similarities don’t end there.

That the Iranian presidential election bears all the hallmarks of a “rigged” election with a predetermined outcome does not intrude on President Obama’s perception of its legality. Democracy, it would appear, is only a shallow facade, not a deep and fundamentally held principle of this President. That there were “irregularities” in the process is of no concern to him.

One of the primary grievances against this election was the tendency for districts to have more votes cast than there were voters. This is just the type of “irregularity” that wouldn’t bother Obama…and why should it? If you will recall, this is the same “irregularity” that turned up in the highly contested election for the Senate seat from Minnesota this year. The very election which has resulted in comedian Al Franken effectively stealing the election. Republicans rightly protested many “irregularities” in that election process such as votes being “found” during the recount in the trunk of an election official’s car. Conveniently, all these newly discovered votes seemed to overwhelmingly favor Franken. When the recount began Franken trailed incumbent Norm Coleman by 250 votes, yet after the recount he led by just as many votes. Likewise, in Iran, Mahmoud Ahmidinijad managed to wind up with still more votes during the recounting process. Imagine that!

Strangely enough, just as in Minnesota, several voting districts had more more votes counted than there were voters. However, this is a problem that can be solved…and don’t you know how to do it? You get someone to go out and register as many people as possible. It doesn’t matter if the people registered actually exist. All that matters is that you increase the voter rolls. If you increase the number of registered voters then you can arrange for your candidate to get as many votes as they need to win without risking detection by having more votes than voters. It is a tactic sure to win in especially close elections where recounts are certain to be done.

Does this sound familiar? Have we heard of anyone recently registering a lot of new voters and getting caught for their registrations being fraudulent? By God, I think we have heard of such a thing haven’t we? Our friends at ACORN ( the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) have been charged in over a dozen states for committing this very act! Often in the most brazen and ridiculous manner. In Las Vegas, authorities said the group’s petitions included the names of the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys, who could reasonably be expected to be registered somewhere other than Nevada. They even went so far as to register Mickey Mouse…several times, in several states.

The media dismiss these charges by trying to convince us there is no real harm accomplished by these phony registrations. Yet stuffing the ballot box with extra votes for your candidate is a tried and true method for rigging elections. Registering voters AND making sure that only registered votes are counted is how we attempt to prevent ballot stuffing from happening. That is why we KNOW there were crimes committed in Minnesota where there were more votes than voters in twenty five counties! If ACORN had succeeded in registering more voters in those districts it might well have gone undetected. We must take these fraudulent registrations seriously. In 2008 ACORN signed up 1.3-million voters nationwide!

President Obama, however, is a product of ACORN and has benefited greatly from these “extra-legal” practices. He cannot acknowledge these crimes whether they occur in Iran, Minnesota or any of over a dozen states where charges have been filed without implicating himself. Do I need to point out that voter fraud has a long history in Chicago politics? Some things are as obvious as they appear. So how could President Obama possibly stand up for free and fair elections in Iran? He can’t. He does NOT support free and fair elections. He supports outcomes. Remember, this man is part of the “by any means necessary” crowd…and he means it!

“The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people.”

“Martin Luther King once said: ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’ I believe that. The international community believes that.” -President  Barack Obama

It always bothers me that Obama and his ilk throw the word “justice” around so often. Their idea of justice is like an algebra equation. They know what the outcome must be, they are just solving for a variable that will accomplish it. Iran should be very wary that our president wishes “justice” for them. His “justice” is not such that he can stand with their people against a repressive government….but hey, at least he did ask them to stop killing the protesters. One questions the sincerity of even that lightweight gesture when his own UN ambassador had this to say:

“The political situation in Iran is for the Iranians to work out internally.” -Susan Rice, UN Ambassador

But of course, no meddling.

“I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs.” -President  Barack Obama

The Iranian people have not, and will not receive even so much as an “atta boy” for their efforts to free themselves from their shackles. This, in spite of the fact that the Iranian people are trying to do exactly what Israel may soon feel compelled to do militarily. If successful, the Iranian could disarm this entire nuclear nightmare, yet our President does…nothing.

This is not the case in Honduras. Our calm and disinterested President is all about meddling in this Central American country. In the aftermath of the Honduran army’s physical removal of the president of their country, our president was quick to condemn what was, for them, a reasonable and legal action. The Honduran constitution clearly states that presidents can only serve one term in office. President Manuel Zelaya , following the model of his socialist mentor Hugo Chavez, was attempting to get around this inconvenient law and set up a referendum that would allow the people a chance to vote on a change of that law. You know, another one of those free and fair elections that the “by any means necessary” crowd specializes in manipulating. The Honduran supreme court wisely, and rightly, saw this as a usurpation of authority and therefore authorized the army to remove the president…and they did. His replacement will simply finish out the remaining time and hold elections on schedule. Considering that violent overthrows are commonplace in this part of the world, this is a rather peaceful return of power to the people of Honduras.  It is actually President Zelaya who was attempting a coup by trying to make himself a permanent president. It was the Supreme Court and the army that acted in the defense of liberty and democracy.

“We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections.” -President Barack Obama

Why such a different, bold and quick response from our president in this instance when he was so lackadaisical in responding to the Iranian uprising? Barack Obama is what is often referred to as a “college socialist.” If you have ever attended college then you should be familiar with the type. They are a group of perpetual adolescents who are always looking for justification for not only their perceived grievances against society, but also for their perceived sense of self-importance. The shallow idealism and man-made morality of socialism provides them with both. They get to proselytize against the selfishness of individualism and capitalism while also promoting themselves as an educated “elite,” rightfully entitled to dispense “social justice” and fix the world to their liking. It really isn’t so much politically idealistic as it is arrogant and and condescending. Its the old “Divine Right Of Kings” mentality with them as both the divine and the kings. Therefore they feel both morally and intellectually unassailable. Now we have elevated one of these “know it all” adolescents to be leader of the free world. God help us.

Like all adolescents, these Marxists are entirely dedicated to scheming and deceiving. If we are foolish enough to let them scheme their way into positions of power, they will betray the people who voted them into office by working to destroy the machinations of free society. We have seen this all too often, whether it be Obama’s promises to govern in a fiscally responsible manner or Sonia Sotomayor’s chameleon-like performance before the Senate, denying her history of racial preferences and judicial activism and lying to make herself sound like an adherer to strict constructionism in interpreting the constitution. The ends always justify the means to these people. Once in positions of power they will attempt to force changes in the law through dubious manipulations of the parliamentary system or reinterpretation of existing laws through the courts. Sound familiar?

The American Democratic Party has been the primary host to just such political schemers for the last century and now they have arrived at the point where it is hard to view them as anything less than an organized criminal institution. They know that they have a short period of time as the majority party and that none of their initiatives will stand up to public scrutiny. Therefore we have had the debacle of a stimulus bill, the largest spending spree in all of human history, passed in a rush with NO ONE HAVING READ THE BILL! But hey it worked the first time so the Democrats have passed a budget, and an omnibus bill the same way. Worse, the House of representatives likewise passed the Cap and Trade bill without even having a finished version at the start of the voting debate!

In every instance the idea is to get a law passed before we can find out what it is. Now they intend to target our health care with the same tactics. Mandating that EVERYONE have health care and making citizens pay for the health care of other citizens are NOT the actions of a free country. This is an illegal, unconstitutional coup, of our entire society! Once they intrude into this part of our lives they will have total control over us. Everybody is related to someone who needs major medical care even if they don’t, as of yet, need it themselves. You will become a docile and obedient citizen to make sure they get that care now won’t you? Don’t say politics won’t play a part in deciding who will and who will not receive certain medical procedures. It will. You will obey. Don’t say it can’t happen here. It is happening here. How fast do you think they will try to pass this health care monstrosity? No need to worry, it will NEVER be read unless or until it becomes law.

Which brings me back to the theme of this writing, which is Obama’s entirely consistent view of the Iranian and Honduran situations. The one thing President Obama and his democratic accomplices in congress truly fear are exactly the two things happening in Iran and Honduras. Why would Obama support the Iranian people’s attempt at overthrowing a “legally elected” government when he and the congress are themselves enacting unpopular legislation aimed at giving them greater and permanent control in our own country? As more and more people here are slowly coming to see what Obama has in store for our future, we just might follow Iran’s initiative and rise up against the intolerable actions of the Obama administration…and we are an ARMED citizenry! To support a peoples revolution in Iran may soon foreshadow the one he is provoking here.

Then consider that in Honduras it was the army, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, that acted in defense of their constitution. I challenge the United States military to remember that they too swore an oath. This one:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Every soldier in the United States military has to swear this oath at the time of every enlistment. You will clearly see that a soldiers first duty is to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. Presidents with dubious citizenship records who exceed constitutional authority may have to be REMOVED by the military. Supreme Court justices who deny constitutional law, such as interpreting that citizens do not have the right to bear arms, may have to be REMOVED. There are reasons the constitution is constructed as it is written. It cannot be legally changed by judicial fiat. Likewise, no president can legally CHANGE America. The attempt, in and of itself, is acceptable grounds for the people, or the military, to act in defense of our country. We have a legal right and a legal obligation to remove and replace government officials who exceed, betray or deny the constitution's words.

President Obama is loathe to support any actions to defend the rights of a people to self-rule under a constitutional government anywhere because he is busy attempting to disassemble our constitutional government here. And he has only just begun.

There has, of late, been a glut of left leaning writers and speakers condemning the “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war as an immoral, if not illegal, act. Many have even gone so far as to demand that articles of impeachment be initiated against him for “war crimes” for attacking Iraq under what they claim were “false pretenses.” Not the least of the president’s critics is Senator Barack Obama, the presidential nominee for the democratic party. Senator Obama claims that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Fortunately for him, Illinois state legislatures don’t actually get to vote on such matters and therefore he didn’t actually have to take his position on record. If he had, one wonders if he would have opposed it the same as he did the recent FISA bill. Which is to say he opposed it right up until the point that he voted in favor of it. His recent rhetoric on Iraq suggests he will say whatever you want him to say.

The war in Iraq was initiated for several reasons. Failure to abide by the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, in and of itself, was a valid justification to go in and finish off the regime of Saddam Hussein, let alone the matter of 17 violations of United Nation mandates. After all, President Clinton wasn’t flinging cruise missiles into Iraq late in his administration for no reason now was he? However the opponents of the Iraq war have always focused on President Bush’s belief that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, as well as an intent to use them. This is the reason most people believe the U.S. attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq in a preemptive war, to prevent any possibility of future Iraqi aggression.

You can argue whether or not the basis for the president’s decision was justified. He had many sources of information claiming that Hussein possessed these weapons, even though the treaty that he signed at the end of the first gulf war forbade him to have them. Not only did our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believe that it was a “slam dunk” (their actual words) that he had them, but also the intelligence agencies from several other countries corroborated this information. These included countries such as France and Russia who opposed the idea of the United States taking military action. This combined with the fact that Saddam Hussein had previously used chemical weapons against his own citizens in 1988 rightly convinced President Bush that in a post 9/11 world, military action was required.

It is true that no “working” weapons of mass destruction were found. It is also true that 500 tons of yellow cake uranium, the kind used to make such weapons, were found. So arguments can be made to justify or criticize the president’s actions. Yet the question of the morality of a preemptive war still haunts many of our countrymen. There is a certainty among many that it is never right for the United States to strike first. However, in a world confronted with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, this is a matter of judgement…a very important attribute for a president. Consider these words from Barack Obama:

“When people talk about experience, what they really want to know is: does he have good judgment? You would hope that if someone has more experience it gives them better judgment. But everyone knows many 50-, 60-, and 70-year olds who don’t have good judgment because they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. What we want to talk about is judgement, common sense, and how we get stuff done.” 08/22/07

Ahh, judgement. It appears Mr. Obama has a lot of faith in his own judgement. But should we have faith in his judgement, or in the judgement of anyone who would question the current president’s wisdom in his choice of action for a preemptive war? For as you shall see, such wisdom, fortitude and judgement will be required again, and soon. Allow me to introduce you to the “Doomsday Machine” known as the Electromagnetic Pulse Weapon. Or, as the Iranian’s call it, “change you can believe in:

“WASHINGTON — Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America’s technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world’s lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.

The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.

Scientists, including President Reagan’s top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons - even one of which could knock out America’s critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years. (World Net daily)

You better read that paragraph over again to make sure you understand the ramifications of what it is saying. Many people often refer to the United States as a superpower that can bomb someone else into the “stone age.” Well, you have just been told that the same can be done to us. Let that sink in.

What is an electromagnetic pulse weapon? It is important that you understand this weapon and the implications of having such a weapon used against you. William R. Graham, chairman of the “Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack” described electromagnetic pulse weapons thusly:

“A single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth. EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that ’shocked’ - upset, damaged and destroyed - electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects.”

“The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation.”

The purpose of an electromagnetic pulse attack is not to kill people, at least not immediately. The initial attack will wipe out electricity, fry electrical circuit boards and destroy communications apparatus over the target area. The higher the altitude of the detonation the greater will be the affected area. The cascading effects on our society would be dramatic to say the least. The financial system would instantly be ruined, making even the simplest of transactions impossible. Food water and fuel would become scarce. Why? Lack of electricity will mean a lack of refrigeration, which would leave food rotting in warehouses. The inability of water treatment facilities to sanitize and distribute water would threaten public health. The lack of electricity would likewise make it impossible to refuel vehicles as the fuel cannot be dispensed from gas stations without the electricity. Fuel unavailability would lead to vehicles being stranded when they run out of gas. This will result in severely limiting transportation capability, and the increasing chaos would result in a rapid breakdown of social order.

No one will know what has happened, and know one would be able to tell anyone if they did. Realistically there will be no one coming to anyone’s aid. No government or civilian services will exist. This is a catastrophe of the highest magnitude. If this country is deprived of it’s electricity it immediately will become function-less. Our extreme dependence on electricity and electronics has created an “Achilles Heel” that our enemies are now seeking to exploit. Once disabled by an electromagnetic pulse attack, it will take from months to years to repair the damage. What will become of us in the meantime? Will the world come to the aid of the United States, or will our enemies pounce on us while we are down? Imagine the chaos and lawlessness witnessed in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Will we descend into a sub-civilization and become our own worst enemy? Do you really want to find out?

The EMP threat is not a new one. The Soviet Union also had the capacity to deliver such a blow to the United States. However certain military and government facilities can be hardened and protected against the effects of an electromagnetic pulse attack. Therefore preserving the ability of the United States to retaliate with our own strategic nuclear forces. This was a deterrent to a nation state like the old Soviet Union as it is to most nation states. However this is not a deterrent to a rogue state like Iran which is governed by a lunatic who believes his messiah (The 12th Imam) will only return due to an apocalyptic event. Such a man can, and will, initiate the apocalyptic event himself. Nor is the threat of a catastrophic counter attack much of a deterrent to terrorist groups that have no state identity. Who are you going to attack? In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center it was quickly ascertained who was responsible, yet with the United States electrical systems shut down and most electronics fried, how will we even be able to accurately determine which terrorist group is the aggressor?

This is a relatively inexpensive way to destroy us. The Iranian government may be trumpeting their success at detonating their Shahab 3 ballistic missiles by remote control, but a the missile itself need not be that sophisticated. A nuclear weapon detonated on a simple scud missile will produce the same results. And there is a glut of such missiles in the world. We also know that al-Qaeda has access to upwards of 80 ships from which such a missile could be launched. Considering Iran’s relationships with not only al-Qaeda but also other terrorist groups such as their proxies Hezbollah, it becomes more imperative that they not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to develop them.

I know some of you out there are thinking about our ABM (anti-ballistic missile) weapons. Won’t they offer us some protection? It is true that we have successfully tested and deployed some of these weapons for exactly this reason. However, lets be honest here, these weapons are not necessarily that dependable. We have managed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles under test conditions where we knew when, and from where they were coming. In the event of a real attack the response time will be severely shortened as we will not know when, or from where the attack is coming. Therefore we will not know how effective these counter measures are until they are tested under the real world conditions of an attack. That is quite a risk to take, especially if there is an alternative.

It is interesting to note that President Bush has made deploying an ABM system in Europe a major part of his foreign policy. His argument being the same as the justification for deploying such defenses in the United States, to protect against rogue states launching weapons of mass destruction. Just this week, Poland agreed to accept an anti-ballistic missile defense system on its territory. Vladmir Putin, Prime Minister and de facto ruler of Russia, has strongly opposed deployment of such a system in eastern Europe and has threatened Poland with an attack in the event such a system is installed. All the while he has been providing “technical assistance” to the Iranians in developing their “peaceful” nuclear program. Coincidence? Considering the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, do we dare to contemplate the potential for a Moscow-Tehran alliance?

Now ask yourself if a man can make the following statement and still consider himself qualified to be president of the United States:

“I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. You know, Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

Who would say such a thing? Why Mr. “Judgement” himself, Senator Barack Obama. As a United States Senator he is privileged to have all the information I have presented thus far, and yet he has the “audacity” to make such a foolish statement. Why? Because he is aware that MOST Americans do NOT know the extreme threat that Iran poses to our nation. As you can see, it is a far greater threat than Iraq ever presented. He is counting on the public’s ignorance, and its impatience with the Iraq occupation, to drive public opinion away from the use of force to actively defend our nation. Unfortunately many, if not most, Americans seem to agree with him. There is an arrogance that comes with extended periods of safety that blinds us to the constant threat to survival that has always been part of the human experience. The most vulnerable society is the one that fails to perceive its own weaknesses. You would think that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center would have awakened us to this ever constant danger. But once again, we see ourselves turning towards distractions, that are far less important than our survival.

But the question remains. What should we do about Iran? Should we use the military option and destroy Iran’s nuclear program? Certainly a regime as dangerous as theirs that consistently threatens the annihilation of both the United States and Israel should not be allowed to ever get possession of such weapons. Israel rightly views a nuclear armed Iran as an existential threat to them but, as we have seen, it is likewise an existential threat to us as well.

There are those who would suggest that we should let Israel attack Iran, essentially letting them do the dirty work for us. This however is very foolish. For starters, Israel does not have the capacity to destroy all of Iran’s military capacity and it is doubtful they can even seriously harm their nuclear assets. This is not the same situation as when they bombed Iraq’s nuclear program in the 1980’s. That target was concentrated in one location and was totally caught by surprise. Iran is a much more determined adversary who is more than aware of a potential attack.. Their nuclear assets are scattered in numerous places which would force Israel to divide its attack upon several targets and hope to be successful at all of them. A military improbability. Also, once attacked, Iran is going to strike back. Not only will they strike back at Israel, but they will also attempt to close down the Strait of Hormuz and shut down the flow of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf. Then the United States will have to get involved to reopen the passage. So Israel can only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a small factor, and in so doing, create a big international mess that the United States will have to clean up anyway.

No. There is no way of getting around the obvious. The job must fall to the United States. We must strike in such a thorough way as to eliminate, not only all of the various sites Iran has dedicated to developing nuclear weapons, but also we must destroy all of their military capacity. This will not necessarily require an invasion, but it will require a prolonged air and naval campaign to render the regime in Tehran impotent. Only the United States has the military capacity to do this.

But that returns us to the same moral dilemma we faced on the eve of the Iraq war. Is it moral for the United States to attack another country first? The threat is clearly present in the form of both the actions and words of the Iranians. Yet, in spite of all the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, many feel it would be a second immoral preemptive action.

Does the United States have the right to attack another sovereign nation? ABSOLUTELY!! There is no doubt about the intent of the government in Iran. They have boasted of their desire to destroy the United States and Israel to the point where almost no one pays them any attention anymore. So much so that presidential hopeful Barack Obama feels comfortable belittling the threat they present as part of his campaign rhetoric. But now we all can see that they can carry out their threats in a manner equal to their bravado. As always, I am led to a passage in the Bible:

EZEKIEL 33:1-6 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

Here we see that God holds those who know of an impending attack into account. The fate of the people rests in the hands of the watchman if he fails to warn the people. However, once warned, it is the people themselves who are accountable for their lives. Interesting…

Our leaders, acting as our watchmen, have known of this threat for some time. Our blood has been on their hands. The electromagnetic pulse weapon is designed as a first strike weapon. If successful it may be the only strike required to destroy us. It would be completely immoral for our president to fail to protect us from this attack. In fact, it can be argued, that the president has no greater responsibility than that of protecting the country. But consider this: you who are reading this, and many others throughout our country, are now aware of this threat as well. Your blood may very well be falling into your own hands as you cast your vote in the next election. We must be sure we elect a man with the moral fortitude to act in our defense. When dealing with a weapon that can start and finish a war in one strike, survival depends on shooting first. Some people in our country are clamouring for a change. Iran and their terrorist proxies would love to give it to us. This is a danger every bit as serious as the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. In fact it is more dangerous! We better be sure there is a man in the White House who can handle it, not one who belittles the situation.

“When a country doesn’t recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, it cannot claim any national or international rights. Therefore, anyone who wants to invade a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is morally justified in doing so, because he is doing no worse than what that country has accepted as its social system. It is improper to attack a free country, because it recognizes the individual rights of its citizens.”

Who could have said such a thing? Why none other than the world famous and renowned atheist Ayn Rand. Though I am no fan of atheism, she was quite an interesting and very reasonable woman. Her Objectivist philosophy is thoroughly based on reason and self-interest, two things the political left in this country arrogantly thinks they have bestowed upon themselves. A nation that oppresses its own people and does not recognize the individual rights of its own citizens cannot itself claim a right of sovereignty now can it? On what would their claim be based? How can a nation which openly calls for the annihilation of other nations not expect that those nations might seek to act in their own defense and strike them down first? The truth is, such a nation can and should be destroyed BEFORE it causes harm to a free state. It is immoral to put free societies at risk just to placate a bully state for a few more moments of delusional safety. It is time to go about the business of acting in the interests of protecting the free world, whatever the short term consequences and inconveniences.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Iran qualifies as a society that fails to recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, as also did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. So all of you who have worried your consciences over the moral ethicality of attacking an oppressive society need to get over it. Talk of impeaching President Bush for war crimes for the Iraq invasion is rendered childish and silly when seen in its proper perspective. In fact, he would be more entitled to an impeachment if he had failed to act! If the populations of oppressed countries can tolerate their own oppression, they are not going to do anything to prevent their country from attacking and oppressing others. They deserve the same as their government deserves. There are no innocent people in an oppressed country. Oppression is a cancer on civilization. You don’t tolerate cancer, you remove it. The Iranian people wanted a change in the 1970’s…and they got it. They got the Islamic Revolution and they have been living under the yolk of Islamic totalitarianism ever since. Their leaders are leading them straight toward a confrontation with us. They made their choice and have been antagonistic to the United States from the moment they took our embassy and held its members hostage. Let us act in our own interests and not concern ourselves with their fate anymore than they are concerning themselves with ours. I choose for them to be destroyed, and will not vote for a president who fails to perceive the seriousness of their apocalyptic agenda. If this sounds like an endorsement of John McCain…so be it.

I’ll conclude by quoting the President of the recently invaded country of Georgia, a free country that was improperly attacked. When asked what America could do to help his country, Misha Saakashvili replied: “Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?” Who else, indeed?

A better question might be: Who will stand up for America when she has been neutralized by an electromagnetic pulse attack? Some people want change…this is one we must prevent! Its time to deliver to the Iranian government its final ultimatum…give up their nuclear program and openly allow international inspectors, or give up their lives. Each day we fail to act is another day closer to our own demise. To risk the death and destruction of our free society at the hands of an oppressive, Islamic Iran is an immoral act. Attack!

August 17, 2008 - Sunday