Obama today agreed to commit an additional 40,000 troops

...to help fight Fox News. Jay Leno

In an attack on the press that we haven’t seen since Nixon’s “enemies” list Obama continues his war with Fox News.

“This is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you and they're going to cut your legs off." Karl Rove

No kidding. It’s ominous but in keeping with the attacks on the health care and insurance industry when they oppose him. When managed care provider Humana published a letter to its members warning them of potential drastic cuts to the Medicare Advantage program Centers for Medicare and Medicaid sent this order:

“As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to immediately discontinue all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your Web sites”

When the insurance industry’s trade association released a report saying a measure in the Senate Finance Committee would produce sharp increases in premiums for millions of people who currently have insurance the Dems launched a drive in both Houses to strip the industry of its decades-old exemption from federal antitrust laws. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come under attack even though they began with a friendly attitude towards this administration. Disagreements with Obama over the “crap and tax” legislation and on socialized medicine have put the Chamber square in the sights for punishment. These attacks against the Second Amendment rights of citizens are part and parcel of the Chicago Way and should come as no surprise to anyone who was aware of the political climate Obama came out of. Still one could only wish they would fight the war in Afghanistan with the same zeal they attack domestic opponents of Obama’s policies.

“If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” March 27, 2009 Barak Obama announcing a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan.

“I will give you a clear mission, defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.” August 17, 2009 Obama’s promise to America’s armed forces speaking at the VFW.

Granted this President hasn’t had a stellar performance in fulfilling his promises, Jim Geraghty’s quip that everything he says has an expiration date has really caught on, but that promise has life and death consequences, not just to our troops but to the security and reputation of our nation. It has now been seven weeks since General McChrystal requested 40,000 additional troops be sent to Afghanistan ASAP, and the President has yet to decide whether he will listen to his handpicked General on the ground or follow the advice of military genius “Oh that Joe!” Biden. Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that Obama had not even decided when a decision would be reached. Obama has only managed to squeak McChrystal into his busy schedule a couple times and Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters Tuesday that he is working to get face time with the commander in chief.

Having turned the tide in Iraq by routing the radical Islamists there, a front Al-Qaeda’s Ayman Zawahiri said was crucial to restoration of the Caliphate; the terrorist enemies of Democracy have stepped up their efforts in Afghanistan. This makes sense because there is nowhere else to go to fight for global jihad. None the less, having won the war on one front President Obama may have decided that we should abandon it on the other; this at a time when Pakistan has finally begun to recognize that the Taliban presents more danger to its fragile Democracy than its value as a thorn to India justifies. Reacting to a Taliban breakout from the Swat region that threatened Islamabad itself as well as stepped up terror attacks the Pakistani forces have launched a major offensive against Taliban sanctuaries in South Waziristan. While pressure is being applied in Pakistan the situation presents itself for a modified hammer and anvil tactic against the Taliban forces in both regions. While there are not enough forces on either side to be a classic hammer or anvil that could crush and destroy the Taliban the Pakistanis can drive significant forces out of the region. If we could gain sufficient control of the areas they would like to flee into we could then further stress those troops into giving up or retreating into Iran. However we need to be more than a collection of isolated firebases spread out over the countryside. General McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy is designed to actually clear and hold territory and that would give us the presence and intelligence to be at least a modified anvil to deny them a safe haven.

Obama will wait till after the November elections before angering his base and probably sending some troops, a McChrystal light strategy that he will figure is the most politically expediant course. It may be too little too late. It's too bad that he will be a politicain first and Commander in Chief second but that's where we are. If he would commit to victory can anyone doubt that this military can win?

Weekend at Khamenei's

The “free” Iranian press did its best to put fears to rest today that Supreme Leader and election fraud supporter Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei is in a coma or dead. He was shown meeting with President Ahmadinejad and the President of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade. Unfortunately for those of us familiar with faux photography this is not enough and so conspiracies abound whether this is real or photoshop. First we have the photograph from the Supreme Leader’s official website.


President Wade is in the same garb that he is in when he met with Ahmadenijad in this set of pictures from the Fars News Agency.


So far so good. Enter the Fars News Agency’s story on the meeting and the picture they use.


Turns out someone screwed up because this is a picture from a meeting that occurred in 2006. So is this.

So the question for the experts out there, is the first picture legit?


In the new picture the color of the wall is lighter, Khamenei’s suit color is darker and Ahmadenijad’s is lighter. Same couch three years later and the thing on the table, a Koran?, is the same. Just to add one other point, The Islamic Republic News Agency’s story has a blank space where the photo should be. Tons of pictures from the 2006 meeting, one lousy picture for the 2009 meeting that proves he’s alive? We may be reading a lot more into this than is actually there, but there you are. They are really just going to have to trot this guy out for all to see to kill this rumor.

Hat tip to Michael Ledeen and Enduring America for the story and pics.

Update I:

A few other photos of the new meeting are up a SL's web site, I don't thing they are photoshopped. Too bad.

Chuck Johnson Race Detective vol I

BITE ME has a comic that is going viral. Ex-Lizards, even current Lizards will love this.

Iranian War

Victor David Hanson has a rather scary article on the demise of Israel should Iran get the bomb. In his scenario however Iran realizes its goal of wiping Israel off the map without ever using its nukes.

The net effect would be for half the world’s Jews to hear constantly two messages — there was no Holocaust, but there might well be one soon. It would be analogous to the American public reliving the threats of the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 — every day.

A recent poll revealed that a quarter of Israel’s population quite understandably might emigrate if Iran gets the bomb. And it seems likely that within a decade or two, a nuclear Iran could so demoralize the Israelis by such psychological intimidation that it could unravel Israel demographically without dropping a bomb.

Aside from being at war with Iran since the takeover of our embassy, a war every administration since and most Americans are in denial about, when Iran gets the bomb things in the Middle East will go from bad to horribly worse. That Iran will get the bomb seems to be a safe bet. Obama’s shafting of East Europe by reneging on his campaign promise to keep the missile defense shield in Poland was supposed to yield Russian help on sanctions against Iran. (Ironically enough, scuttling a defensive missile shield designed to prevent attacks was one reason given by the Norwegians for giving Obama his Peace Prize.) When Russian President Medvedev signaled in September that Russia’s opposition to sanctions was being reconsidered it was hailed as a diplomatic victory for Obama, but that victory turned out to be only short lived rhetoric from the Russians. While Hillary was making her first public visit to Moscow on Monday the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, was in China reassuring Beijing that he had no intention of supporting tough sanctions. From China Putin told reporters the threat of sanctions is unneeded at this point because it could scare the Iranians, scuttling chances that talks with global powers could end Tehran's recalcitrance. Equally worthless diplomatically was Obama’s pandering to the Chinese. During Hillary’s trip to China human rights were taken off the table and Obama dissed the Dalai Lama. That didn’t gain much vis a vis Iran either, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Jiang Yu said that "China always believes that sanction and pressure should not be an option and will not be conducive to the current diplomatic efforts over the Iran nuclear issue”. Trade between China and Iran grew 35% last year, to $27 billion. China wants Iran’s oil and no amount of hope from Obama will change that, sanctions will only drive up the price of oil for China, the world's second-largest buyer of crude oil.

Obama himself isn’t ready to sanction Iran, still hoping that more talks will change Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but he would at least like the Iranians to think that maybe sanctions could be a possibility if the talks lead nowhere. Why these talks would lead to anything substantial when the previous nine years of talking didn’t is anyone’s guess. What Obama should be doing is unilaterally imposing sanctions and telling Tehran that we will lift them only when they drop their nuclear program and allow verification. Republican candidate for Senate, (Pennsylvania), Pat Toomey explains here that Congress is attempting to do just that:

Many in Congress understand the importance of using the diplomatic “stick.” The vast majority of members of Congress in both the House and the Senate are sponsoring legislation to do that.

The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act is a bipartisan bill that would require President Obama to sanction foreign firms that sell, ship, or insure gasoline and diesel fuel to Iran, unless Iran agrees to drop its nuclear ambitions. To date, 75 senators and 321 representatives have co-sponsored the legislation.

The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act would authorize state and local government to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with large investments in Iran’s energy sector. To date, 34 senators and 247 representatives in both parties have co-sponsored this important legislation.

He also asks “Why aren’t Sen. Arlen Specter’s and Rep. Joe Sestak’s names on either of these bills?” My question is will Obama veto the bill?

The other option that everyone hopes for and yet justifiably fears is an Israeli attack. An attack by Israel will be really tough to pull off and only delay the bomb by about five years. Of course allot can happen in five years., but then all hell will break loose if Israel attacks, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and along the Syrian border from Iranian orders alone. While Egypt and Saudi Arabia will privately applaud Israel for slowing down a Shiite bomb publicly they would come down hard on Jews and Americans worldwide. The rest of the Muslim world would do likewise.



Currently we are hearing rumors that Khamenei is either in a coma or dead. Should the current military takeover fail with the death of Khamenei and a more moderate reform minded theocracy take its place that would only be good for America. It may not mean an end to Iran’s nukes or support for terrorism. If however a new Democratic revolution comes out of the impending chaos then maybe we could see the end of the Iranian war on America, and maybe an end to support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Al Qaeda, and Hugo Chavez.

War on Iran

Dr. Michael Ledeen has been the foremost advocate for the people of Iran. His posts are headlined by the plea “Faster Please!” in a cry for more support of those who would overthrow the tyrannical regime in Iran. That is a plea that was largely ignored by G.W. Bush and even more ignored, even apparently disdained, by B.H. Obama. In an effort to promote his extended hand of diplomacy towards Iran Obama mutely sat by while the Iranian people took to the streets to protect what little voice they have, had, in the governance of Iran. For that he got the peace prize?


Things may be coming to a boil however, Dr. Ledeen has reported that a source he respects has said Khamenei is in a coma. Commenter Uzi asks a brilliant question:

If the Supreme Leader ( if I’m not mistaken that translates into German as der uberfuhrer) is really in a coma, what will happen if his situation doesn’t change, if he doesn’t recover and doesn’t die? Arik Sharon has been in a state of low conciousness for nearly four years. A client of mine who was hit by a car has been in a coma since April, 2006.
But the Supreme Leader is supposed to be Allah’s representative on earth. How will they deal with an unconcious leader if the situation persists?

Dr. Ledeen is the first to express cation that this an unconfirmed report. We have seen the death of Castro, Bin Laden, and Khamenei before and have been bitterly disappointed. The death of Khamenei, or even his being immobilized politically as well as physically, will bring to a boil the simmering clash between the military and the clergy in Iran. Khamenei’s support for Ahmadinejad’s blatantly fraudulent election came as a surprise and did not sit well with many of Iran’s clerics. Ayatollah Khomeini, the founding father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, had set up a theocracy that had within it some form of checks and balances based on the elections of parliament and the presidency, (although candidates are chosen by the Guardian Council). Khamenei was always suspicious of elections and reform and pretty much destroyed the illusion of both in the last election. Standing against him and Ahmadinejad was the power broker Rafsanjani, top cleric Montazeri, Mousavi (second place in the election), Karroubi (third place), Khatami (the reformer), and the people of Iran. Fence sitters like speaker of parliament Larijani will most likely support whoever comes out on top.

Rafsanjani heads the Assembly of Experts, those clerics who will choose the next Supreme Leader; a position Ahmadinejad has no hope of filling. Supreme Leader is a position that can be held only by extremely respected Islamic clerics, Khamenei barely had the religious creds to hold the job. When the Assembly of Experts elects a new Supreme Leader, and that title is no joke, Ahmadinejad will find that his authority will be subjected to a veto by the new Supreme Leader. That will set up a power play between Ahmadinejad and the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, (who are supposed to take their orders from the Supreme Leader but are very supportive of Ahmadinejad), against the Mullahs. Rafsanjani will have support from most of the business community but the IRGC has taken bigger and bigger pieces of the economy into their hands. This could get really ugly and could present Obama with excellent opportunities to exploit the situation to America’s advantage but he won’t. To take a side in the interests of his country would be very abrasive against his sensibilities as a member of the post America world community organizer that Obama visions himself to be. Obama doesn’t believe in meddling with other countries, except of course Israel.

I got bounced at Little Green Footballs

I got the bounce but at least I didn't flounce at LGF . This post got me banned:

My bad, his dual citizenship is as a Kenyan, so he is a Kenyan apostate. And socialist.

Charles hit the roof:

What the hell are you talking about?! Barack Obama does NOT have dual citizenship in Kenya!

Why are you spreading this hateful garbage at my website?

Then he lowered the boom:

I've thought about this a little bit, and that's the end of the line for you. If you want to promote your stupid "Obama's a sekrit Muslim" bullshit it will have to be somewhere else.

Charles doesn't put up with any talk of Obama being Muslim or not being born in the US. Of course I didn't call Obama a Muslim, I don't believe he is. Obama is a murtad fitri, the worst type of apostate, because he was blessed by Allah to be born into the true faith of Islam. This is not in dispute, his father was Muslim so he was born a Muslim. When he later became a Christian he became an apostate. Where I did screw up was in saying that Obama has dual citizenship. My source for this belief was a series of NRO articles, (like this one) on Obama's birth and status in regards to his eligibility to run for President. My mistake was in thinking that because he was also born with Kenyan citizenship he still had Kenyan citizenship. Had I gone to Obama's fact checking web site I would have seen the following:

He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 23rd birthday.

So for saying such a hateful thing, that his dual citizenship is as a Kenyan, instead of was as a Kenyan, I got banned. What I don't understand is what is so hateful about saying someone is a dual citizen? Interestingly enough, this post wasn't considered hateful:

You know what pisses me off the most? The tea party turds are trying to tell us that more people showed up to hear loonies rant than to see President Reagan's inaugurations.

But at least I didn't flounce. Many Lizards have flounced lately, which is to say they had finally had enough of Charles ripping into tea parties, Glen Beck, Mike Huckabee, creationists, Sara Palin, birthers, etc. while hardly touching on the war with radical Islam. The latter of course has been the main reason most conservatives became Lizards in the first place. So when someone comments on the fact that LGF just isn't fun anymore and that they are no longer going to visit the site Charles bans them and they are said to have been "flounced". I never wanted to be banned, and certainly never for being "hateful", because I still liked LGF and could actually get into reasoned debate with those who supported some recent policies of Obama's such as the stimulus package. My take on those who flounce was "why burn your bridges"? John Hawkins at Right Wing News has more on what he calls "The Descent of Little Green Footballs". As for me if Charles was to let me back on I would stay away from such toxic subjects as creationism or Obama's birth and focus on issues that actually matter. Sadly, being banned means that I can't even apologize and beg forgiveness for being a bit of a bore, on a dead thread no less. So now I have come back to my blog to vent, but at least here I don't have to watch my mouth.

Finally I do have to laugh at the birther story because it just wont die.

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue.