Saturday, April 28, 2012

Provide Iranians freedom of information with WIMAX wifi transmitters and they will choose Democracy

Winston Churchill said after Neville Chamberlain returned from negotiating with Adolf Hitler in Munich, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."
Nationally recognized investigative reporter and international religious-freedom advocate Ken Timmerman is challenging Van Hollen in the November election Maryland's 8th District

Da Gunny says: Vote for Ken Timmerman!
How To Avoid Another Defeat in Iran
 by Kenneth R. Timmerman April 25, 2012

We should, for example, provide money for a strike fund; provide secure communications equipment and training on how to use it, and airlift WIMAX wifi transmitters that can provide internet service to all regions currently under a regime-ordered communications-blackout. Why? Because it is in our national security interest to do so.

Thirty-two years ago this week, on April 24, eight U.S. servicemen died in the southeastern desert of Iran when their mission to rescue 52 Americans held captive by the revolutionary regime in Tehran was aborted by President Jimmy Carter.

Operation Eagle Claw was one of the first missions conducted by the recently-formed Delta Force. Depending on whose account you read, it was either an unlucky masterpiece of complex planning or a desperate attempt to save a doomed presidency that never should have been given the green light in the first place.

The mission's failure convinced U.S. military leaders to rethink how they would conduct special operations in the future: formulating plans that were simpler, carrying them out under unified command, and managing the risk.

While our military has learned the lessons of the failed hostage rescue mission, however, our political leaders have not.

When the first reports came in of the deadly aircraft collision during a sandstorm in the Iranian desert, Jimmy Carter lost his nerve. Rather than follow the advice of his military advisors and continue the mission with a smaller force, he pulled the plug and exposed it to the world. His fear of defeat trumped his will to win. The result? Our enemies smelled weakness and sought to deepen our humiliation by parading about the sand-clotted bodies of our dead servicemen like trophies in a Roman Triumph.

Jimmy Carter's multiple failures in Iran have given us thirty-two years of state-sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. By allowing the forces of chaos and extremism to unseat the Shah of Iran, a staunch U.S. ally, Carter not only destroyed the future for two generations of Iranians; he ushered in an era where a sovereign government operating under the guise of terrorist proxies was allowed to murder, maim, and bomb with impunity.

The victims of Iran's terrorist rampage included people such as Robert Ames, the CIA Near East chief of operations, who was killed when Iranian-backed terrorists blew up our embassy in Beirut on April 17, 1983.

As one of the first journalists on the scene after the bomb ripped off the front of our seaside embassy, I will never forget a dust-and-debris-covered press officer named Ryan Crocker emerging from the rubble to tell us that he had seen the U.S. ambassador, saved by the weight of his office desk, climbing down a broken fire escape at the rear of the embassy.

The victims also included people such as Donald G. Havlish, Jr., an insurance executive from Yardley, Pennsylvania who missed taking his daughter to her first day of preschool on the morning of September 11, 2001 so he could attend a business meeting in New York. He worked on the 101st floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center, and was killed by the al Qaeda terrorists who crashed a hijacked airplane into his building that morning.

Although I did not know him, I came to know his widow, Fiona, and helped her and other families of 9/11 victims trace the origins of the 9/11 plot back to Iran. These brave families won a measure of justice in a federal court on December 15, 2011, when District court judge George B. Daniels, after hearing our testimony, determined that the Islamic Republic of Iran shared "material responsibility" for the 9/11 attacks with the al Qaeda terrorists.

Mihaela, their daughter, who had turned 13 by then, and she impressed me to tears as she stood near me in the cold winter winds where once the South Tower had stood. With TV cameras trained on her, she made a brushing of her father's name in the commemorative marble plaques around the foundation. "I am Mihaela Havlish, the daughter of Donald G. Havlish, Jr, who died on September 11, 2001," she said. Simple, clear, brave.

We have an opportunity today to ensure that Robert Ames, Donald Havlish and so many others -– including hundreds of our servicemen in Iraq -- will be the last American victims the evil regime in Iran can claim. We have the opportunity today to craft effective policies that will end the rein of terror in Iran.

And yet, President Obama has embarked on a different course – a course that I believe will lead directly to a major war with Iran that we do not need and that we can actually prevent.
His course is called appeasement. It begins with the notion that you can rationally discuss matters of import – such as nuclear weapons development and terrorism -- with a regime that seeks just one thing: to negotiate the size of your coffin.

The Islamic Republic leaders have shown repeatedly that their only goal in these negotiations is to buy time to complete their nuclear weapons development. During their latest round of talks with the Obama administration on April 14, they succeeded yet again.

If you read the opening of this Bloomberg News wire story; you'll see what I mean:
"The first international talks with Iran on its nuclear program in 15 months produced a promise to reconvene in May amid calls for urgent diplomacy to avert military strikes."
See anything there about getting the Islamic Republic to stop uranium enrichment? Neither do I. Forget about any calls on the regime to lift its stranglehold on the Iranian people.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama, backed by top Congressional Democrats such as Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, were calling for "negotiations without preconditions" with the Iranian regime.

To their mind, it was U.S. "intransigence" that was causing the bad behavior of the Iranian regime. If only we would relent, they would behave.

Almost immediately after taking office, Obama sent emmissaries to open a chanel to Teheran. Six months later, the Iranian regime got its first payback: When three million Iranians took to the streets after a fraudulent presidential election and publicly begged for U.S. help (with signs in English for the benefit of international TV cameras), President Obama remained silent.

When he finally spoke, it was to declare haughtily that the United States had a bad history of intervening in Iran's domestic affairs, and so we would abstain from playing any active role in aiding the Iranian people in their quest for freedom.

This, too, was appeasement.  Remember what Winston Churchill said after Neville Chamberlain returned from negotiating with Adolf Hitler in Munich, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."

And that is precisely where we are headed now because of the appeasement policies of Obama, J Street, and the Obama Democrats.

I believe we have a real alternative, but one that has never been tried before: we must urgently launch a massive program to help the pro-freedom movement in Iran.

We need a comprehensive strategy that uses all the tools of power diplomacy to help them achieve their freedom frm tyrrany. Why? Because it is in our national security interest to do so.
We should, for example, provide money for a strike fund to support the families of Iranian workers who leave their jobs to protest the regime.

We should provide secure communications equipment and training on how to use it.
My own favorite is to airlift in WIMAX point of site Internet wifi transmitters at a cost of $500,000 each, a relatively small investment in terms of defense, that can provide free, secure Internet service to all regions of Iran that are currently under a regime-ordered communications black-out.

We should provide the pro-freedom movement with the best political consultants money can buy, who know how to wage high visibility grass roots campaigns. During the Cold War, such operations were carried out covertly by the CIA. These days, ironically, they mostly are done by George Soros and the Democrat party.

We owe it to our men and women in uniform to try this approach before they get called on once again to pick up the pieces from the mistakes of our politicians.

When the war from the dishonorable decisions hits, who can predict the ultimate consequences in terms of regional stability, oil prices, and, worse, the number of Americans who will lose their lives?
Kenneth R. Timmerman is the author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum 2005), and was nominated jointly with Amb. John Bolton for the Nobel Peace prize in 2006 for his work on Iran. He is the president of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and is the Republican nominee for Congress in Maryland's 8th District.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Each time you are at the Pump - Give thanks to Obama

Coming Soon: The Commercials that Obama Fears
By Ed Lasky

...There is no need to rehash all the steps that the Obama administration has taken over the last three years that have helped supercharge the price it takes to fill our cars. These would include slow-walking drilling permits, shutting down much offshore development, closing off federal lands, and killing Keystone XL. There are many more that could be listed and have been by others. The Republicans should also point out that Obama has wasted three-plus years on passing two very unpopular pieces of legislation (ObamaCare and the Stimulus) rather than taking the steps needed to bring us affordable gasoline.

But there is a delicious irony in taking advantage of Obama's Obama Obsession. He has been so busy bloviating over the last few years, so eager to display his omniscience when it comes to energy, that there is plenty of visual material to cull from the public domain that can and will be used against him as the campaign season rolls on, if the GOP has any brains. Call it divine justice that the man who seemingly can never stop talking can be hoisted on his own petard.

One can start with a graph of how gas prices have gone from $1.84 when Obama took office to $3.79 and climbing during March (and this is before the summer driving season spikes them upward). Then there's the voice we have heard so many times over the years that it seems to come straight from George Orwell's 1984: Barack Obama talking during the campaign about his wish to see higher gas prices.

Fade to Ken Salazar, Obama's choice to head the Department of Interior -- the department that has done so much to stop oil exploration and development on federal land. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell proposed a bill to encourage offshore oil drilling. Ken Salazar kept objecting to the bill even when McConnell suggested that the amendment be triggered when gas prices hit $10 a gallon at the pump. Even when gas prices hit $10 a gallon, Salazar was opposed to allowing more offshore drilling. The YouTube clip can be found here.

Then pair it up with Energy Secretary Chu telling us in 2008 that his desire is to figure out "how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." He is well on his way to accomplishing his goal. Nor is he showing much repentance in the face of high gas prices ruining people's budgets (it won't ruin his -- he doesn't drive). He recently testified before Congress that reducing gas prices was not a top priority for his department. Remind me again: why do they call it the Department of Energy? Then flash "Solyndra: $550 million wasted," "Beacon Power: out of juice," "Karma: The Cool Car that won't work no matter how many taxpayer dollars are bundled into it." Show Obama beaming inside a Volt on a factory visit, and then a Volt on fire.

There are many examples of wasted green energy boondoggles. Only the federal government using other people's money could produce as many disasters.

Follow with Obama's recent statement that while he is president, he will not ever give up on green energy -- not ever.

That should set the right tone.

Then fade to a new scene from last April during a town hall meeting. A father of ten children complains about the high price of gasoline. Obama has one of his Marie Antionette moments (see his suggestion to hard-up farmers that they grow arugula, for example, since it sells for such a high price at Whole Foods) when he gives this sarcastic piece of advice to the needy dad:

If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting eight miles a gallon -- [laughter] -- you may have a big family, but it's probably not that big. How many you have? Ten kids, you say? Ten kids? [Laughter.] Well, you definitely need a hybrid van, then.

Being publicly ridiculed by the president of the United States on national television has to hurt. (Shades of his notorious Special Olympics joke on Jay Leno.) Who taught Barack Obama his sense of humor? Don Rickles?

Aside from the fact that no one sells a hybrid van in America, where is the empathy and fairness that the president wants voters to believe drive him? After all, high gas prices are regressive -- harming the less well-off disproportionally.

Then segue to all those convoys of gas-guzzlers that Obama takes to campaign events -- including Air Force One and that absurd armored bus (made in Canada) that drove him around the Midwest as he trolled for votes on our dime.

Next up: Obama deflecting calls for increased drilling by insisting that people just inflate their tires more. That is so reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's wearing of cardigans and turning down the thermostat in the White House. Here would be a nice opportunity for a split-screen comparison of the two presidents. Americans can be reminded that apropos of Jimmy, Obama also scolded us that we can't...well, be comfortable in our homes:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

There would be the added bonus of revealing the hypocrisy that is the center of ObamaWorld since, at the same time he was hectoring the rest of us to sacrifice warmth so other nations would not disapprove of our lifestyles, he was turning the White House into a hot-house during winter so he could be reminded of the carefree days of his youth in Hawaii. If only we could figure out a way to harness Obama's hypocrisy to generate energy.

Another commercial could feature his claim that increased drilling would not solve our high gas prices by showing how increased drilling for shale has produced so much natural gas that prices have plummeted, houses are far cheaper to heat than they had been for decades, and the parts of America than can take advantage of access to this bounty are becoming Boomtowns. That technology -- produced by the same private companies that Obama regularly attacks -- is now being used to tap vast oil riches in North Dakota. Drill, baby, drill may be derided as a bumper sticker by Obama, but not only is it sensible on an intuitive basis, but it works to lower the price of energy. The more Obama criticizes the concept that drilling leads to more energy, the more out of touch he appears to voters. His opposition to more drilling reinforces the perception (as with ObamaCare) that he ignores voters' concerns.

Obama constantly dismisses drilling as a solution to high prices by peddling the line that it takes too long to produce results. A commercial could point out that when President George Bush issued an executive order abolishing the moratorium on offshore drilling, oil prices started falling precipitously as it became clear to the market that the administration would be adopting policies likely to produce more crude oil and lower prices at the pump. Furthermore, the ad could point out the self-defeating nature of Obama's claim. If the reason to oppose more exploration and development is that results are in the future, there would never be a reason to encourage oil drilling.

Obama's claim that he is concerned about America's energy security can be belied by a clip telling Brazilian leaders how much he looked forward to America buying more oil from Brazil and video of his obsequious bow to the Saudi king.

And of course, saving the best for last, Obama's everlasting, God-awful obtuseness can be shown for all to see by comparing the vast increase of natural gas that has come from drilling more to his plan to fill our tanks with energy derived from algae or pond scum. This proud statement is so ridiculous that even the normally staid Charles Krauthammer was driven to a comic monologue.

And he says, as we heard, drilling for oil to relieve our dependency is not a solution, it's not a plan. He said we have to go to clean energy. He talks about something really revolutionary today. Algae. A $14 million grant for the development of algae. It's not oil. His solution is algae. And because we know that the Secretary of Energy is physicist that won the Nobel Prize, the president knowing this stuff said that one of the reasons we should do this is because we can grow algae here in the United States.

Now, it happens that algae will grow on anywhere on earth. I looked it up while I was away for those three days. You thought I was sunning myself. I did research. It grows in oceans, in lakes and ponds, in your swimming pool when the pool man is on vacation. In snow, in ice, on soil, on turtles, on sloths, the bark of trees and rocks. Why are we drilling for oil? We are the Saudi Arabia of rocks. We have a mountain range called the Rockies and we are allowing ourselves to be dominated by these oil producers. I think he's on to something here that is truly revolutionary. Why would you build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline with real oil from Canada to put in real refineries and put in real existing cars when you can do algae? I think he is on to something. And I think this shows the vision, the hope and change he promised in 2008.

Humor always sells. Sadly, there is nothing funny about the people in charge of energy policy. Nor is there anything funny about the numbers we see spinning by as we fill our cars while emptying our bank accounts.

Read more:

The glamorous world of homemaking
By Cranky Housewife -
...Remember a few years back when President Obama suggested that all citizens should be required by law to volunteer their time and give back to their communities by participating in organizations like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps?

Okay. Motherhood is a little like that only there's no federal mandate involved and that's where you might be getting thrown off. We volunteer our time to our husbands and children of our own volition, work between 16 and 18 hours a day and give back to our families by keeping the house, cooking the meals, helping with the homework, caring for pets, volunteering at school and church, driving kids to soccer practice, making sure that they know right from wrong and by simply being there when we are needed. Me…right there for my own kids when they're sick, when they have a concert or a big game, when they have a bad day and just need a hug. It's neither a luxury to stay at home, nor is it a sacrifice. It's a choice and this is me - living up to the bargain that I struck with my husband many years ago when we said to each other, "I do." My husband in turn works about 16 to 18 hours a day, brings home a paycheck, and provides a roof over our heads, bon-bons, Frappuccinos, and security for our young family as an added bonus.

And oddly enough, it's not like it's a battle of the sexes in our house. I don't assume that I'm being kept down by the man just because the man leaves the house and I stay at home. I don't feel crushed by the glass ceiling or constrained by my biology because I don't get a corporate credit card and a lunch meeting with the crew. I don't view my life as me against my husband. I don't worry if we have divvied up the workload fairly. It's not a constant battle of "When is it my turn to do what I want to do." We are actually both doing what we want to do because we didn't enter into our marriage with an "I promise to honor and cherish you until something better comes along" attitude. We aren't caught up in some soap opera fantasy world where we expect to have all our needs and wants met at every moment of every day or else we will leave to start our own cosmetics company. Who do you think I am? Erica Kane?

We are a team.

And I understand this. To the Left, Utopia is when government provides everything that anyone could ever possibly need or want and makes certain everything is as equitable as possible so that no one person has anything more or less than any other one person at any given moment in time. Paradise for them is an EFT card to pay for their birth control pills, and Nirvana is a swift punishment for anyone who thinks they're going to rise above their assigned station in life to be more than anyone thought they could be. One person's paradise is another person's Hell, I guess.

Perhaps because Hilary Rosen is standing outside of the Romney family and looking in, it seems like life is unfairly perfect and should be held in disdain. Easy. Pampered. Pretty wife, handsome husband with a uniquely wrinkle-free forehead, beautiful family, big homes, lots of cars…and perhaps this just doesn't seem right, so perhaps Ms. Rosen feels justified in belittling Ann Romney for what Ms. Rosen has deemed to be "an easy life." Oh, I know. She apologized if anyone was offended by that sentiment…of course. Now, perhaps Rosen feels that she didn't have the same kind of choice that Ann Romney had to stay at home and raise her children, so she believes that this disqualifies Ann Romney from having an opinion about what women are worried about in this election.

But choice is precisely what is at the crux of the issue here. Choices. Good ones and not so good ones. It's also about working our way out of the mess we find ourselves in when we make the not-so-good choices. Maybe Hilary Rosen thinks that she didn't have any choice, but I suggest that this is because Hilary Rosen holds herself captive by her own preconceived notions and the limitations that she places on herself. There is no such thing as the empowerment fairy and no one will give you permission to have a happy life. You either do or don't do. There is no try.

It takes courage to look at one's own life and resist wallowing in resentment and envy long enough to say, "what if." Ann Romney of all people is a prime example of American Exceptionalism in action and what is possible if one just dares to dream. She has not only not "never worked a day in her life," (and how's that for the granddaddy of all double negatives?) she has been extremely successful in the work that she does because her children and her husband are her priority. From my perspective, that makes her eminently qualified to hold an opinion on this subject and I look forward to hearing more from her about the "what ifs" of freedom, choice and prosperity.

I also look forward to Hilary Rosen now keeping the promise that she made that she will wake up tomorrow and not be in the news…because from where I'm sitting, I've seen enough of the Class Warfare Show now and I'm ready to change the channel.

Time for a change...Vote Obama OUT!!!!

Obama started war on american housewives

Hilary Rosen, a partner at SKDKnickerbocker, the PR firm of former Obama communications director Anita Dunn, charged that Ann Romney "hasn't worked a day in her life" and suggested that Ann Romney can't possibly understand economic issues because she's a lowly homemaker.

What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, “Well, my wife tells me what women really care about are economic issues.” And, “When I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.” Guess what? His wife has never actually worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing—in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and how do—why we worry about their future.

In the same breath Rosen ironically says:

... there’s something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney—he just seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women, and I think that comes across, and I think that’s going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn’t really see us as equal.

Yes, there is something old-fashioned about the belief that a homemaker couldn't understand the complexity of the economics affecting her household. Rosen apparently subscribes to the Linda Hirschman worldview, one that posits women are only as valuable as their contributions outside the home, unrelated to children and family. Rearing up the next generation that will someday run the world is woefully under appreciated.

From an overflow of the heart the mouth speaks and Rosen makes it clear that her prejudice against women who stay home stems from a lack of respect and appreciation for what those women do. If the goal of feminism is choice, Rosen betrays the mutual respect amongst members of the female sex by degrading the choices of other women.

Considering Ann Romney is a breast cancer survivor who reared five children and played the backbone to her successful husband, I'm not sure this is a battle Democrats want to pick -- especially with an opponent like Ann Romney, a breast cancer survivor living with MS who raised five children.