US Rescues Iranians, and Iran Spits Back

As tensions grow between an ever belligerent Iranian government, United States forces from the USS Kidd undertook a mission to rescue Iranians who had been held captive by Somali pirates since November. Ironically enough the Kidd is part of the forces assigned to the John G. Stennis air craft carrier, the very same task force which Iran threatened less than a week ago. Iran responded with thanks for the "humanitarian" rescue, added that Iran has been responsible for many great glorious rescues of the same type, and then went on to say that this one was suspicious and accused the US of staging the whole thing. Iran states that this rescue was a Hollywood attempt to justify keeping a United States aircraft carrier near the Persian Gulf, which Iran has forbidden, after threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. The response to which has included the British sending the HMS Daring, supposedly the best ship of the royal fleet, to join an international effort to ensure Iran can never succeed in closing the strait, where much of oil to the west travels through.

Despite the world's sanctions against Iran, due to worries of it's nuclear program being militaristic, Iran announces that yet another nuclear reactor will be at full strength by February first. These are the very sanctions which in retaliation to Iran made the threats to close the Strait of Hormuz and against United States naval ships in particular. Iran claims that a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency has been there to inspect the new centrifuges, but this could not be confirmed by the IAEA. This new power would allow this plant to enrich uranium beyond the amount required for fuel production. That is very suspicious because if purely for energy and electrical power why would they need to go beyond that? However, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that the United States does not see this plant as a threat, but rather other ones.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is visiting the Latin American nations remaining friendly to his Iran, also know as the countries who have anti-USA tendencies or policies. With stops in constant US harasser, Venezuela, as well as Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and possibly Guatemala. Iran has made many investments in those countries, though a lot less than what they've actually promised. Guatemala would be a key visit as they hold a temporary seat on the UN Security Council, and Iran may try to use relations there to avoid more sanctions from the United Nations.

Who is Rick Santorum?

Many people have suddenly had the name forced upon them, with his near win in Iowa. Losing to Mitt Romney by eight votes, when he wasn't even considered in the race by many is a huge thing, if he can repeat it anyways. So now let's go over him a bit.
For those that don't know he's a former Representative and Senator from Pennsylvania. He lost huge there after serving for over a decade. Known for his Catholic ultra conservative social policies, he is extremely pro-life and very big on defending traditional marriage. He's called the most conservative of the candidates by his supporters, but that's not really what history shows.
1) Supported bills that reduced freedom and increased the size of government. He very likely would have voted for NDAA.
2) Does not support a fair flat tax, instead he states set tax amounts that are the highest amongst any of the Republican candidates. Yet at the same time desires to set up, what would actually be, a protectionist market in the United States. (Yes that link was from his own site even)
3) Has fought to keep earmarks as part of the government, as if senators and representatives are entitled to them. Even attacking Senator Jim DeMint for fighting against earmarks.
4) Voted to keep the 1930s-era Davis-Bacon Act "that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers".
5) Stopped the National Right to Work Act of 1995 from being voted on, by joining Democrats in a filibuster.
6) Supported those who voted for Obamacare.
7) States he's pro-life, yet campaigned for a liberal pro-abortion Republican called Specter (who later ran to the Democrat side), against a conservative pro-life Republican called Toomey.
And O could we go on. Erick Erickson was totally right to call him a "pro-life statist". That's what he is at best. Even with the tiniest amount of digging Santorum does not at all appear to be what he claims.
So I say NO to Santorum. I want someone who isn't quite so liberal as my Republican nominee.




This was also posted on Landmark Report.

Threats from Syria

To update my Syria Protests Spread piece, here's some new information for y'all.
Two of the largest Syrian opposition groups have met and signed an agreement that after President Bashar al-Assad is removed from power, they will form an interim government until democratic elections can occur. They further state that they agree all Syrian people have equal rights, and specifically mention the Kurdish population. Interestingly enough, it also calls for the liberation of Syrian territory.
Now that is an unfortunate addition. They are most likely thinking of the Golan Heights, which Israel gained during the war in 1967. Not even actually in control of the country, and already plotting against Israel. Guess we at least won't have to wonder which side they'll be on should they win.
Meanwhile, in Israel, the Israel Defense Force is preparing for the end of al-Assad's government, which does seem to be inevitable with even the Arab League being more and more against him. The IDF has many various scenarios that it is prepared for including attacks upon it by either a new jihadist government, rebel troops, or civilian mobs. No matter what Israel will be ready to face any threat that comes her way.
All in all, tis just a matter of time until President al-Assad is no longer in power. Questions really come to when, how, and what the aftermath will truly look like. We in the west, can but watch as another violent oppressive dictator slowly goes tumbling down. Hopefully this one won't be replaced by antiAmerican antiSemite jihadists. It would definitely be great if a truly peaceful democratic Syria emerged from the fight.

Syrian Protests Spread

As Syrian protests spread to now eighteen provinces, hundreds of thousands of Syrian's flocked to the streets after noon prayers on Friday. At least thiry-two were killed across the country, with hundreds more injured. The Damascus suburb of Doumas saw the worst of it. In the nine months of protests the United Nations estimates that over five thousand protestors have been killed by the Syrian government.
Currently Arab League observers are in Syria, but even members of their group have stated they do not think they will be successful in determining if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is actually trying to find a peaceful solution. Syrian freedom activists say that the government has not tried at all.
Around the world, governments have verbally condemned the actions of al-Assad's government, but where is the outcry that met less death in Libya? By the time hundreds had died in Libya, the world was calling for Muammar Qaddafi to resign and leave the country, and when he didn't they used military force to aid the rebels in defeating him. Yet with Syria, the world seems content to ask President al-Assad to find a peaceful end to the protests.
What is the difference you might ask? Why does the world not step in as they did before and end this violence? How are Libya's people worth more than Syria's? Sadly it comes down to one simple answer, oil. Libya supplied and transported oil for the western world, especially Europe. Where as Syria, does not. Now if this was Kuwait action would've already been taken to ensure that there was no violence anywhere near the oil.
Syria is a true humanitarian crisis. Yet other than mentions does not seem to gather any sympathy from the world. Something more than saying "bad al-Assad" must be done. But what? Troops on the ground is not an answer. Nor are airstrikes really. But the world truly can not just sit back and watch as the Syrian people are brutalized and massacred by their government. The time has come for action that hurts the government, but not the people of Syria.
Will the world leaders of the United Nations, Arab League, European Union, Russia, China, and the United States have the guts to do it?

Advantages of Bringing In-N-Out to Denver

If you've ever been to Southern California, you've likely enjoyed an In-N-Out burger. Over the last decades, they've expanded into Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Texas. You may have even traveled out of your way to hit one of the locations. I know I have added an hour or so to a trip for a burger and shake there.
Recently it was announced that Denver city councilman, Albus Brooks, is working with In-N-Out to bring them to Denver and other parts of Colorado. Some have come out against the idea complaining that we should stick to the local burger places and keep Colorado for Colorado. But the overwhelming majority support this idea in full. There really are many great benefits for Colorado to get In-N-Out to open stores in the state.
The most obvious of the benefits would be the great quality and taste of the restaurants. Yes it is fast food, but everything is fresh, never frozen. As the company's slogan says "Quality you can taste". The official menu is quite simple, but for those who desire there is a "secret" menu to be had.
Secondly, as those of us who live in Denver know, there really aren't that great of burgers to be had here. O some will argue for one place or another, but let's face it, if they really were that great everyone would know of them (If you're one of those, tell me where and I will gladly come try it). Truly our best hope has been another California chain, Fatburger, which has a couple locations in the metro. Other than that we really only have places like Red Robin and McDonald's to rely on for our burgers. So basically here we have a large city without great burgers. Anyone else see the demand for In-N-Out here? Remember the insane lines when Krispy Kreme opened at Park Meadows? In-N-Out would make that look like nothing.
The most important benefit of In-N-Out coming to Colorado would be the economics. They would create jobs, at their stores and distribution center. And good paying ones with benefits. This is not a company that gives minimum wage and that's it. They truly take care of their employees. And more importantly to the rest of the state, the fact that the company uses everything fresh means they would be buying their food supplies from local companies, who with the increased demand might be able to grow and expand themselves. Just one In-N-Out could literally mean hundreds of thousands more dollars being spent in state, each year. Imagine what a dozen or more locations could mean.
I truly can not think of an actual negative to In-N-Out expanding to Denver, the front range, and the rest of Colorado. There is nothing but win in such an arrangement.

The Strait of Hormuz

After the United States and European Union increased (as well as threatened even more) sanctions against Iran for it's continued work towards becoming a country with nuclear weapons, as well as other incidents (like the storming of the British embassy), Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. For those unaware the Strait is where a sixth or more of the world's oil travels through on it's way to western markets, fifteen million gallons every single day. Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament was quoted by Iranian media as saying “soon we will hold a military maneuver to the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure." Clearly no misunderstanding there, or friendliness for that matter.
In various times in the past the United States has made it clear that such an action would be "an act of war". Has the Iranian government been pushed to the point of 1941 Japan? Where no more shall be taken from the westerners. Is war the only response left?
Many would not be upset by such. Since Iran has refused to back off it's attempts towards nuclear armament, more and more have called for some sort of military action to ensure Iran does not join the ranks of nuclear powers. Various mishaps, deaths, and explosions have led some to believe that it has already unofficially started.
Troubling is the near silence from Washington this time. In fact the main response has been from the US 5th Fleet, which is based in Bahrain, not far to the west. The 5th, clearly stated that any such action would not be tolerated and well within the means of the fleet to deal with.
This brings forth questioning of Washington's power and ability to control. Is the Obama administration afraid to back up our own policies and ensure that the world will not be held powerless by the terrorism of Iran's threats? And if that is so, are the leaders of the American military willing and prepared to strike out on their own to protect American and world interests?
Dangerous questions coming about in dangerous times.
Who will back down or stand up first? Iran, Obama, or the US military? Or will some one else take the center stage and ensure access to oil for the world? China has been wanting to show off it's new carrier and stealth fighter, maybe they'll be the ones to not only force Iran to back down, but also to one up Obama who has been maneuvering the United States into a cold war with them. Either all parties will back down or someone will emerge the winner. The answer to that could very likely decide the power balance of the world for the next few years if not longer.

The Latest From Mexico and The Drug War

Well at least we can see that the Mexican government is taking the drug war a little more seriously. As of today they disbanded the entire nine hundred person Veracruz-Boca Del Rio police force. No small measure there. Since they don't know who the corrupt cops are, they're getting rid of every single one of them and having the Mexican Navy take over law enforcement for the area. Former members of the police force can rejoin, after passing a series of loyalty tests. Would be interesting to find out what that involves.

The slashing attempt to curb corruption comes in answer to sixty-seven bodies being found in four sites, in the area, thought to be the scenes of a major battle between two of the largest drug gangs. This isn't the first area where Mexican armed forces or federal police have taken over, but the largest to this point.

Quite an interesting and bold statement by the Mexican government, it is inspiring to actually see a government making steps towards ending this major issue, which effects a good portion, if not all, of North America. And the question still remains will they ever be able to stem the flow?

The United States has been seen to do less and less under the Obama administration. That administration has definitely done nothing visible to increase help against the cartels. At least to public view, they seem to have stopped caring about that war, and even ignored drug gang's encroachment into US territory.

One thing is for sure, Mexico's job would be made easier if a certain person named Holder would not have been supplying the drug cartels with guns and ammunition. We can only hope that Holder and anyone else who was responsible for that be held accountable for not just crimes against the United States and Mexico, but literally war crimes against humanity.

For now though, good move Mexico! Proud to see someone working on the problem facing us all.

Passing of Kim Jong Il

At the age of 69, Kim Jong Il has died. The 'Dear Leader' of the Communist nation had ruled since 1994 when his father had died. Apparently he died on a train Saturday, with the North Korean government taking the time in between to strengthen it's grasp and avoid any riot or such. Kim Jong Il, leaves a greatly impoverished country, that has a military over one million strong.
His leadership caused former President George W. Bush to list North Korea as part of the 'axis of evil'. Definitely one of the worst dictators of this century, he will very unlikely be missed in the world.
At the news of his death South Korea went on high alert, whilst their government and that of Japan went into emergency meetings. His expected successor is his third son, Kimg Jong Un, of which little is really known. Un, was not even really seen until the last couple years as he was brought to the forefront and given the rank equivalent to that of a four star general. He is thought to have studied computer sciences. Much of the next while will depend on him, and how he takes the reins of power.
Will he lead the people in the footsteps of his father and grandfather? Will he attempt to lead them out of the darkness of communism towards a more free state? Will he aim for somewhere inbetween, more in the lines of China? Or will he even be the one to make the decisions?
Only time will tell, and the next few days in North Korea will be crucial in the telling.

Where's The Freedom?

The United States Senate has passed the "indefinite detention" bill, which had already cleared the House of Representatives. This bill allows for the US government to hold anyone, no matter their citizenry, indefinitely without trial. All the govenment has to do is accuse them, without proof, of being a terrorist.
That should really worry you!
Already some in the Obama administration have labeled the Tea Party movement as terrorists. The Occupy movement, has also been called such. Comparing them isn't really fair to either, as they stabd for completely different things and are on totally different levels of intelligence and organization, but they now could legally be grouped as one and the same.
The government now has the ability to lock away someone from either of those groups, or any other, forever without ever going to trial, just because they felt like it.
There is no longer the protection of an American citizen's right to a trial of their peers. There is no longer even a guaranteed tiral.
How easy for the government to label anyone who publically disagrees with it, or even annoys it in any way, as a terrorist just to get rid of the problem?
The guy who cut me off on the way home from work, definitely a jerk, but if I was in the government all I need to do is brand him terrorist and he's never heard from again. Now there's some road rage.
That was am extreme example, but it is something that is totally legal now that the bill has passed. All it takes is Obama's signature and it's official.
Where's the freedom, America? We're losing it, and now could realistically lose our freedom fighting for it. We are beyond trying to maintain our freedoms, now we have to fight to get them back. If the fight isn't brought to them soon, then eventually we'll have to sacrifice lives to get it back.

Welcome to America, Occupy

Remember when Occupy was just an annoying distraction? Ah the good ole days.
Now instead of just "peacefully" trashing parks, they've gone on a move to disrupt even more of the working American's lives. Today they moved into being "Occupy Walmart". Parks were one thing, but this is where millions of Americans work, let alone shop and take their kids.
Many people like to take shots at Walmart and "the people of Walmart", but the company is about as American as you can get. It believes in the free market system, the people who work for it, and giving back to the communities. O no one can deny that Sam Walton's kids are ridiculously well off. But Walmart and Sam's Club stores give back hundreds of thousands each to charities, medical foundations, and other community helpers in their areas.
And this is now the company that they've chosen to protest. Once again they've chosen to protest a lot of what makes America great, rather than the actual problems that sit in Washington.
But all that you my readers know, as you're intelligent Americans unlike the occupiers.
I really wanted to hit on some highlights of the attempt by Occupy to block a Walmart distribution center in Loveland, Colorado.
This was apparently organized by Occupy Denver, but led by a member of Occupy Oakland. You may remember Occupy Oakland as the ones who keep trying to shut down the port there, and cause other forms of general mayham like rape and murder. The arrests have definitely increased with 13 of 50 Occupiers taken into custody for blocking Walmart trucks from entering and leaving the center.
Out of today at Loveland, came my (at least so far in the movement) all time favourite quote from Occupy: "I'm out here for fairness for all people of this country," said Loveland resident Carla Massaro. "Corporations are not people. I have a sign on my car that says, 'I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one.'" Wait! Did Occupy just say they're pro death penalty?
But my definite all time favourite moment was that whilst the Loveland police sent out their SWAT, the Larimer County Sheriff sent the Posse. Was great seeing the Occupiers met by horses ridden by cowboys with long mustaches. Welcome to America!
Also very proud of the police who were there. Even one protestor that was arrested commented on how polite and nice the officers that arrested him were.