Middle East Rundown 1-10-12

As Ahmadinejad visits his good old buddy Chavez in Venezuela, the two have found time from the their busy schedules to take a moment and discuss bombing Washington D.C. The press has been so nice to them going with the story that they were just joking. Anyone else remember the crap Reagan for joking about bombing things? God forbid Bush had joked about bombing anywhere. And if Obama, well actually if Obama said he was bombing D.C. himself, he'd probably get cheers from the press.

Meanwhile back home in Iran, the IAEA has confirmed that Iran is truly enriching uranium at it's Fordo site, well beyond the percentage required for peaceful energy purposes. Seems that we were totally on top of things with this article. Even Russia has expressed "regret" that Iran continues on this path that only idiots wouldn't recognize as being towards nuclear armament.

Remember when the US Navy rescued Iranians the other day? Well it kind of got repeated. Only this time it was the US Coast Guard rescuing stranded Iranian fisherman, who's boat was sinking, in the Persian Gulf. Iran has yet to comment to this one, but don't be surprised if they say the US sabotaged or sank the boat on purpose.

Hold on! What the hell is the US Coast Guard doing in the Persian Gulf? As @prfekrdumbrella tweeted, "Which of the 57 states are defending in the Persian Gulf?" A most excellent question. Since when does the United States have coast on the Persian Gulf? US Navy being there, that's what they're there for. Coast Guard? Aren't they for things a little closer to home?

Moving on to Bahrain. Protesters there gathered by the thousands in front of the United Nation buildings to demand that the UN help them against their government and it's oppressive ways of teargas and stun guns. Don't hold your breath there. It's taken the UN eight months to decide they should meet to discuss Syria, where thousands of people have been killed.

Speaking of Syria, President Bashar al-Assad made a televised address blaming basically the entire world for instigating the trouble his government is having. Not exactly new, but he did add the Arab League to his list of those responsible for encouraging terrorist acts in Syria. As mentioned the UN has finally decide that the Security Council should address the troubles there. So in another couple of years maybe they'll decide on action there.

Scottish Independence

Most of you when you hear Scottish independence are likely picturing Mel Gibson, as William Wallace, shouting "Freedom!" in the movie Braveheart. Whilst not the most entirely historically accurate movie (William Wallace was actually in France for most of the war) it has endured itself into the hearts of most who've seen it. All the Hollywood glory and everything not withstanding, Scotland once again seeks to be an independent nation.

Now there's not the fighting that the movie so clearly shows, or in the sense of the Irish Republican Army that seeks independence for Northern Ireland even til this day. No, Scotland is seeking it's freedom purely through political action. In 1934, the Scottish National Party was formed and in 2007 and again in last May it won major elections. In 2011 it actually gained a majority of the Scottish Parliament. As of today they have officially announced that in the fall of 2014 there will be a referendum for all of Scotland to vote on whether or not they wish to be free and independent of England.

One of the biggest reasons for Scotland to seek independence is economic. Scotland has many natural resources and the SNP feels that Scotland, not England should decide how they are used. Towards this the British Parliament has proposed and is discussing the 'Scotland Bill', which would give Scotland control of one third of it's own budget, rather than it being dictated to them. The SNP has refused to engage on the bill, as they do not see it as coming near enough.

Some major issues that would arise from Scottish independence would include, how close ties would be to England. Most likely Scotland would end up as part of the Commonwealth system that Canada and Australia are part of. Also of importance would be defense. Scotland would have to form it's own military, and all of England's nuclear weaponry is based in Scotland. Other questions would include how to treat the border and should Scotland come up with it's own currency or stick to the pound. Truly any kind of actual independence would require a long drawn out process.

So we are left with three and a half years for the people of Scotland to decide whether or not they wish to remain under English control. That seems a very long time from now, but SNP leaders want to allow the people to be very sure on this issue, and it'll give them time to make their case. Opposers of independence wish to have the vote much more quickly.

The best news in the situation is that both the nationalists and unionists have made it clear they would much rather this be something that is voted once a generation, rather than becoming a mess like that of Quebec in Canada, where independence referendums occur every couple years.

More on Santorum

Via Twitter, I was told that this article defending Rick Santorum was a rebuttal to my own article "Who is Rick Santorum?", so I felt I really should respond to it as well. It would be really easy to simply respond with this article: "The Santorum That America Doesn't Know", which was sent to me by @politiJim, and was written by a reporter who followed Santorum for twelve of the years that he was in office. It includes ten points which pretty much show Santorum to be a rather corrupt individual. Ironically I had been told to investigate some of this very information by @Bpepoydensmore, whilst I was writing the first article. I kind of find myself at an "are there enough nails in the coffin yet?" moment.

The numbers for Santorum show he's voted for some great things, including voting for welfare reform and fixing social security even when the economy was good. Yet the financial numbers say which way he actually votes. He votes for the money into his own pocket. Now yes that is something most politicians do, which is why we don't like career politicians. However Santorum is someone who claims and is praised by some for being an honest conservative person, let alone politician. That just doesn't add up. As Chris Rock says in Head of State, "That ain't right!".

Partially annoying, actually very annoying to me, is how much of the time I see people defending Santorum by saying, "Well Gingrich did it." "Romney did it.". That doesn't matter, nor does it make it right. If Santorum really wants to show he's the biggest conservative then he's going to have to find some magic, because I don't really see how it is possible.

All of the candidates have faults, they are human after all, but Santorum to me seems the most hypocritical of the lot. And that is why I won't support him unless it truly did come down to him and Obama. Because we can't forget that we must "Hang Together or Hang Separately". For even as much as we are totally in the midst of ripping apart all of the Republican candidates, we must in the end remember who the really enemy is, and what we are fighting for.

Arab League Debates Syria, Russia Picks a Side

As previously reported, the protests in Syria have been spreading rapidly with the arrival of Arab League observers. The opposition has paused from threatening Israel, to defend itself against charges of terrorism. Apparently President Bashar al-Assad, knows how to strike back where it hurts, with bad public relations.

With the spreading of the protests, so came increased violence. Suicide bombings began occurring at various government buildings. The al-Assad regime was quick to blame the attacks on the opposition. The opposition claims no responsibility, and has even responded back that the government made the attacks happen so as to make the movement look bad. The Arab League observers have been unable to say which side was responsible, but it is unlikely anyone could ever know due to the ever so splintered opposition movement and the secrecy of the totalitarian government. A nice touch by the government was to hold the funerals for slain police officers in a mosque that has been a center for the opposition. Now it is a loyalist stronghold. Armed conflict has also continued to build as Syrian military forces continue to fight against their own who have defected to join rebel forces across the country.

Many Syrians blame the Arab League observers for the increased violence, as no matter who loaded it on, did it surely for the viewing pleasure of the observers. The Arab League has backed off it's own calls for withdrawing the observers, to a debate of deciding whether to increase it's own presence or ask the United Nations for help. UN involvement does seem an eventuality, but the major groups of Syrian opposition have made it clear they do not want it.

An event of interest was the arrival of a Russian flotilla in Tartus, Syria. This naval group did include an aircraft carrier, and members of it were quoted as saying they were sent to show Russia's support for President al-Assad. Russia has upped the ante, as all other international nations have either stayed out of the Syrian conflict, or condemned the regime for it's violent crackdowns.

Iran Adds to The Pile

Iran has now begun uranium enrichment at it's Fordo location. This enrichment facility is an estimated three hundred feet under ground, to protect it from possible air strikes. It is also reportedly the home of Iran's most efficient centrifuges, and will be the focus of enriching uranium to a point well beyond what it is needed for energy output. Fordo is the most likely location for Iran to build weapons grade uranium at because of it's deep defensive location as well as it's isolation.

At the same time Iran has continued to build hostilities with the world. Revolutionary Guard deputy commander Ali Ashraf Nouri stated that Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz, where a sixth of western oil sails through, if oil exports are sanctioned as promised by, President of The United States, Barack Obama and other world leaders. The sanctions were brought into law, though not act yet, in response to Iran's refusal to halt previous enrichment that was a little above energy grade. The beginning of production of even higher grade uranium at the Fordo facility, clearly shows Iran's response to the world.

Diplomacy has failed with the Iranian government. Sanctions has failed as well. Setting up a stage semi-reminiscent of late 1930s Japan. Will it take such a major war to end the situation with Iran? Or can a peaceful situation yet be attained? Difficult to see hope when the antagonistic regime in Tehran not only refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, but has pledged to see her and her allies wiped from the earth. Hardly the sort of people one wishes to see with weapons that could wipe a city at a time out.

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.