O-Be-Wise is on leave until Monday, June 25th spending time with extended family. Capital Cloak will be back with a vengeance next week.
In the meantime, Capital Cloak invites readers to follow current events through the headline links to news sites and blogs provided on Capital Cloak.
Capital Cloak also offers a list of books O-Be-Wise recommends, with Amazon links to purchase them for your summer reading enjoyment, or outrage (Good title for Dick Morris' latest work).
Friday, June 22, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Clinton Policy: Hard Work No Solution to Poverty
Would you like to earn $25 for attending your child’s parent teacher conference? Could you use $25 per month for each of your children who achieve 95% school attendance? For your trouble, would $400 for each child who graduates from high school come in handy? How about $100 for each child who visits a dentist every six months as recommended? Would you be interested in $150 per month just for holding a full time job? If you live in New York City under Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s care, you could earn cash rewards for each of these behaviors and many others if you are poor enough to qualify. Experimental cash reward programs are the new cause celebre of wealthy philanthropists like Bloomberg, and giving more money and benefits to the poor regardless of behavior has long been the desired panacea for societal ills advocated by socialist leaning liberals such as Hillary Clinton. Where do the groups diverge? They differ over the issue of hard work. Bloomberg's plan rewards work and better behavioral decisions, while the Clinton socialist vision considers hard work anathema to maintaining a poverty-stricken class of voters perpetually in need of government to "solve" their poverty problems. The difference between how the two groups would "solve" poverty is striking: Bloomberg raised $43 million in private donations to fund the experimental programs in order to avoid using government funds; Hillary and her fellow socialists intend to place the burden for all efforts to offer more benefits and free health care on American taxpayers through government funding.
Fox News reported Bloomberg’s participation in the cash reward program, and the contrast between the philanthropic approach (private donations) and Clintonesque socialist government spending is striking:
The idea of paying people, regardless of their income level, to make good common-sense decisions is the epitome of government run amok. It does not matter whether the funding of such a program comes from philanthropy or taxation; the theory behind the program is morally bankrupt and dangerous to the survival of American ideals such as individualism and personal responsibility. Paying someone in cash to make the same logical decisions everyone else makes with no expectation of government reward is socialism in its purest and most personally debilitating form. The Republican Bloomberg’s experiment with such a program demonstrates how far America has fallen from the nation that tamed a continent and outpaced the world in industry and science for generations. We have now gone from “You can feed a man with fish, but it is better to teach him how to fish” to “Let’s pay the man $100 per month for having a fishing pole.”
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the cash rewards for good behavior programs was not that former Clinton administration officials oppose the program in New York, but the reason why they oppose it. While I dislike the cash reward idea on moral and out of control government reasons, Clintonesque socialists are outraged because the programs teach people that hard work is rewarding. Here is how one former Clinton administration official evaluated the cash program:
If you were looking for a single, crystallized statement of how Clinton socialists view poverty and the government's role in solving it, you need look no further than Waller’s remarks. According to the Clinton worldview, personal responsibility, hard work, and changes in behavioral choices are irrelevant to solving poverty in America. What is the solution under Clinton’s “compassionate” watchful eye? Not surprisingly, the answer, as it always is when Democrats promise services they cannot deliver, more benefits, whether they be forcibly extracted from employers or from the government through increased taxes on the “wealthy.”
What happens to a society when one of only two major political parties believes that better personal choices, responsibility, and hard work cannot solve problems? Hasn’t that always been the recipe for success in America, the land of opportunity? Opportunities are taken and capitalized upon through good and wise decisions, such as staying in school, earning a degree, gaining specialized training, developing a marketable skill in a field that can support a family, investing a modest amount in world markets, starting one’s own entrepreneurial enterprise, avoiding a criminal record, staying away from drugs, being a better parent, studying harder rather than playing more video games or watching TV. Opportunities begin at a young age, and the only sure way to break out of a cycle of poor decisions is to stop making poor decisions and correct the course one’s life is taking.
All Americans, but particularly those who are in poverty, should examine closely the question of why liberal socialists want to keep them in poverty by teaching them that their choices don’t matter and they are poor because they are victims of societal greed or uncontrollable misfortune. It is fascinating that on one hand there is an intense debate raging over illegal aliens flooding America allegedly because of the opportunity to find employment and share that income with their families in other nations, while on the other hand Clintonesque socialists insist that hard work and responsible common-sense behavioral choices are no solution to poverty. Many illegal aliens, through their long hard work find employment in respectable industries such as construction and manage, albeit illegally, to eke out a modest lifestyle for themselves and their families. Socialists like Wallen, however, refuse to encourage America’s poor to do likewise rather than subsist entirely on government welfare or charitable donations such as Bloomberg’s well meaning but completely misguided cash rewards for behavior program.
America is indeed in grave danger of losing its competitive place among the world’s elite nations if its populace is continually taught that personal behavior and hard work do not overcome problems, setbacks, or obstacles. America’s poor should be taught that there is no magic path to success that avoids hard work and decisions based on life priorities. Both Bloomberg and liberal welfare socialists do a disservice to those in poverty; Bloomberg by paying them to make good decisions they should make simply because they want to get out of poverty; and liberals welfare socialists by brainwashing the poor to believe that nothing they do for themselves will make a difference, thus sapping their natural human spirit of self-respect.
Technorati:
Michael Bloomberg Cash Rewards for Good Behavior Poverty New York Philanthropy,Margy Waller Hillary Clinton Socialism Personal Responsibility
Fox News reported Bloomberg’s participation in the cash reward program, and the contrast between the philanthropic approach (private donations) and Clintonesque socialist government spending is striking:
The theory behind cash rewards is that poor people are trapped in a cycle of repeated setbacks that keep them from climbing out of poverty. A person who doesn't keep up with his vaccinations and doctor's visits, for example, may get sick more often and struggle to stay employed.
Bloomberg, a billionaire Republican, said he believes paying people in such circumstances to make good decisions could help break those patterns. The program "gives New Yorkers in poverty a financial incentive to look ahead and make decisions that will improve their prospects for the future," he said in a statement.
The idea of paying people, regardless of their income level, to make good common-sense decisions is the epitome of government run amok. It does not matter whether the funding of such a program comes from philanthropy or taxation; the theory behind the program is morally bankrupt and dangerous to the survival of American ideals such as individualism and personal responsibility. Paying someone in cash to make the same logical decisions everyone else makes with no expectation of government reward is socialism in its purest and most personally debilitating form. The Republican Bloomberg’s experiment with such a program demonstrates how far America has fallen from the nation that tamed a continent and outpaced the world in industry and science for generations. We have now gone from “You can feed a man with fish, but it is better to teach him how to fish” to “Let’s pay the man $100 per month for having a fishing pole.”
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the cash rewards for good behavior programs was not that former Clinton administration officials oppose the program in New York, but the reason why they oppose it. While I dislike the cash reward idea on moral and out of control government reasons, Clintonesque socialists are outraged because the programs teach people that hard work is rewarding. Here is how one former Clinton administration official evaluated the cash program:
But some critics have raised questions about cash reward programs, saying they promote themisguided idea that poor people could be successful if they just made better choices.
"It just reinforces the impression that if everybody would just work hard enough and change their personal behavior we could solve poverty in this country, and that's not reflected in the facts," said Margy Waller, co-founder of Inclusion, a research and policy group in Washington.
Waller, who served as a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration, said it would be more effective to focus on labor issues, such as making sure wage laws are enforced and improving benefits for working people.
If you were looking for a single, crystallized statement of how Clinton socialists view poverty and the government's role in solving it, you need look no further than Waller’s remarks. According to the Clinton worldview, personal responsibility, hard work, and changes in behavioral choices are irrelevant to solving poverty in America. What is the solution under Clinton’s “compassionate” watchful eye? Not surprisingly, the answer, as it always is when Democrats promise services they cannot deliver, more benefits, whether they be forcibly extracted from employers or from the government through increased taxes on the “wealthy.”
What happens to a society when one of only two major political parties believes that better personal choices, responsibility, and hard work cannot solve problems? Hasn’t that always been the recipe for success in America, the land of opportunity? Opportunities are taken and capitalized upon through good and wise decisions, such as staying in school, earning a degree, gaining specialized training, developing a marketable skill in a field that can support a family, investing a modest amount in world markets, starting one’s own entrepreneurial enterprise, avoiding a criminal record, staying away from drugs, being a better parent, studying harder rather than playing more video games or watching TV. Opportunities begin at a young age, and the only sure way to break out of a cycle of poor decisions is to stop making poor decisions and correct the course one’s life is taking.
All Americans, but particularly those who are in poverty, should examine closely the question of why liberal socialists want to keep them in poverty by teaching them that their choices don’t matter and they are poor because they are victims of societal greed or uncontrollable misfortune. It is fascinating that on one hand there is an intense debate raging over illegal aliens flooding America allegedly because of the opportunity to find employment and share that income with their families in other nations, while on the other hand Clintonesque socialists insist that hard work and responsible common-sense behavioral choices are no solution to poverty. Many illegal aliens, through their long hard work find employment in respectable industries such as construction and manage, albeit illegally, to eke out a modest lifestyle for themselves and their families. Socialists like Wallen, however, refuse to encourage America’s poor to do likewise rather than subsist entirely on government welfare or charitable donations such as Bloomberg’s well meaning but completely misguided cash rewards for behavior program.
America is indeed in grave danger of losing its competitive place among the world’s elite nations if its populace is continually taught that personal behavior and hard work do not overcome problems, setbacks, or obstacles. America’s poor should be taught that there is no magic path to success that avoids hard work and decisions based on life priorities. Both Bloomberg and liberal welfare socialists do a disservice to those in poverty; Bloomberg by paying them to make good decisions they should make simply because they want to get out of poverty; and liberals welfare socialists by brainwashing the poor to believe that nothing they do for themselves will make a difference, thus sapping their natural human spirit of self-respect.
Technorati:
Michael Bloomberg Cash Rewards for Good Behavior Poverty New York Philanthropy,Margy Waller Hillary Clinton Socialism Personal Responsibility
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Bush is Warming Whimp Next to Klaus
It is rare for a the president of a nation to write a guest column for a newspaper. It is even rarer for a president to openly challenge, in an international publication, the prevailing politically correct view of a controversial issue that appears to be dictating the policies and actions of many governments worldwide. Yet perhaps because an issue is in fact dictating in a manner that reminds Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus of another oppressive form of public thought control, communism, he chose to warn the world of the dangers of climate change hysteria. President Bush relishes his image as a “cowboy” president, a man who talks tough, talks straight, and never runs from a fight, but when it comes to confronting the increasingly alarmist radical political movement that surrounds “global warming,” President Bush is no match for President Klaus. While President Bush attends summits and pays verbal homage to man’s contributions to global warming, President Klaus adopted the true cowboy swagger and spoke his mind about climate change and the flawed science behind this hysterical phenomenon.
In a guest opinion column in the Financial Times last week, President Klaus offered the following view of global warming, quoted here in part:
President Klaus in this column demonstrated courage and common sense to a degree that is lacking, on this issue of global warming, in the leaders of both American political parties. Democrats embrace global warming like lemmings, prepared to follow the pied-piper of the day, Al Gore, off the environmental cliff without considering any of the voluminous contradictory evidence. Republicans, including the President and Newt Gingrich, concur that it is politically inadvisable to question the existence of global warming as a man-made phenomenon and thus are out on the speaking stump proposing solutions for a problem many scientists do not believe is a problem at all. A Republican who bows at the altar of global warming should be sacrificed upon it when voters choose the Party’s nominee for 2008. Blindly following any form of hysteria is a sign of poor judgment that is not worthy of one who would lead the strongest of the world’s free nations.
The fall of communism in Eastern Europe provided the free world with an influx of people starving for liberties and thirsting for freedom, and they, better than many unappreciative and apathetic Americans, recognize threats and intrusions on freedom. President Klaus sees such danger in the global warming movement. The world tends to ignore lone voices in the wilderness, but it would do so at its peril if it chooses to set aside the advice of Vaclav Klaus, a true straight-talking president.
Technorati:
Vaclav Klaus Global Warming Czech Republic Climate Change Al Gore Hysteria Communism Environmentalists
In a guest opinion column in the Financial Times last week, President Klaus offered the following view of global warming, quoted here in part:
We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of thefact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.
In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.
The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.
…Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).
…I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.
The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.
As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:
■Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
■Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
■Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
■Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
■Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
■Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.
President Klaus in this column demonstrated courage and common sense to a degree that is lacking, on this issue of global warming, in the leaders of both American political parties. Democrats embrace global warming like lemmings, prepared to follow the pied-piper of the day, Al Gore, off the environmental cliff without considering any of the voluminous contradictory evidence. Republicans, including the President and Newt Gingrich, concur that it is politically inadvisable to question the existence of global warming as a man-made phenomenon and thus are out on the speaking stump proposing solutions for a problem many scientists do not believe is a problem at all. A Republican who bows at the altar of global warming should be sacrificed upon it when voters choose the Party’s nominee for 2008. Blindly following any form of hysteria is a sign of poor judgment that is not worthy of one who would lead the strongest of the world’s free nations.
The fall of communism in Eastern Europe provided the free world with an influx of people starving for liberties and thirsting for freedom, and they, better than many unappreciative and apathetic Americans, recognize threats and intrusions on freedom. President Klaus sees such danger in the global warming movement. The world tends to ignore lone voices in the wilderness, but it would do so at its peril if it chooses to set aside the advice of Vaclav Klaus, a true straight-talking president.
Technorati:
Vaclav Klaus Global Warming Czech Republic Climate Change Al Gore Hysteria Communism Environmentalists
Monday, June 18, 2007
IAEA, Dems Prefer Iran Nukes to "Warmongers"
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a highly specialized international nuclear watchdog has apparently branched out into other fields and now feels qualified to offer unsolicited military tactical advice and political policy recommendations to world governments, particularly the United States. With no access to classified intelligence obtained by the U.S. and its allies regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program development or the feasibility of dismantling it with military action, the IAEA nevertheless now presumes to tell world powers what they should and should not do in their own defense rather than sticking with the allegedly neutral task it was created to perform, namely nuclear facility inspections.
Late last week IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei warned world powers that an attack on Iran
over its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons despite UN Security Council resolutions would be "an act of madness." According to the Jerusalem Post report, the indirect warnings appeared to be directed towards the United States and Israel.
El-Baradei, after offering what was clearly his personal political opinion of military action in Iran also reportedly stated that Iran would likely be operating nearly 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges by the end of July. The 3,000 centrifuge total is critical because IAEA officials have made clear in past statements that once Iran has that many centrifuges in operation, Iran will have reached a point of no return after which it could enrich uranium in quantities and enrichment levels sufficient for large-scale production of weapons-grade material.
The IAEA performed its primary function well in identifying a potential point of no return and estimating, based on inspections, when that point could be reached. Reporting the results of its inspections to the UN, however, should have been the limit of IAEA involvement in the discussions of Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, El-Baradei felt it necessary to editorialize on military and political strategies neither he nor the IAEA are privy to, or qualified to discuss. El-Baradei apparently feels that preventing Iran from completing its development of nuclear weapons would be “an act of madness,” but allowing Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, to possess nuclear weapons would be acceptable to him.
It is beyond disconcerting that a man with such an obvious lack of common sense is responsible for inspecting the world’s nuclear facilities. Then again, many Democrats express views similar to El-Baradei’s and label conservatives who speak openly about confronting Iran before it reaches the IAEA point of no return as “warmongers.” Last week on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes, White House Adviser John Bolton (former ambassador to the UN), was a guest, and after he made a sensible and firm statement about not permitting Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, Alan Colmes attacked Bolton for being a “warmonger” because of his position on Iran. It was clear after the “debate” (and I use that term loosely) that Bolton made a much stronger case for action than Colmes did for inaction, which was based largely on personal attacks and “you got it wrong on Iraq now you want to attack Iran,” but it would be useful for Colmes and other Democrats to examine their use of the term “warmonger” in the context of Iran.
Was Winston Churchill a warmonger because while Hitler was building massive armies and weaponry Churchill was urging his disbelieving colleagues in parliament to begin arming Britain to matching levels? Churchill foresaw the danger of allowing Germany to rearm in violation of Treaty of Versailles terms, but PM Neville Chamberlain and many others in parliament dismissed Churchill’s agitations in much the same manner that Colmes berated Bolton as a warmonger. This is how Churchill was relegated to the humiliating status of "backbencher" in parliament.
Had anyone listened to the "warmonger" Churchill before Hitler began invading territories and neighboring nations in Europe, untold millions might have been spared the ravages of WWII. Iranian president Ahmadinejad shares many personality traits and racial views with Hitler, and it is not warmongering to believe the world should take him at his word when he states that no one can stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and that Israel must be annihilated in a glowing fireball. In today's world of rampant political correctness, where are the ACLU, the Democrats, and the gay and minority rights groups and their condemnations of "hate speech?" These groups seek severe penalties for "hate speech" and "hate crimes" directed toward specific races or lifestyles, but when the world's most radical anti-American and anti-Semitic regime vows to destroy a nation of Jews, the political correctness crowd stands in a puddle of its own cold sweat of cowardice and chastises conservatives who want to confront the threat before "hate speech" becomes a "hate crime" in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Is someone a warmonger whose stated goal is to prevent the ultimate weapon, a weapon with potential to kill millions with each detonation and befoul the entire world with radiation (the ultimate man-made global warming) from being produced, stored, and utilized by a radical terror-sponsoring regime? Is it warmongering to advocate tactical strikes on nuclear sites even with some civilian loss if doing so would spare millions of lives from nuclear annihilation in the name of jihad? If so, I choose the warmonger over the pacifist appeaser with no regrets.
Fortunately, our current president, regardless of what one thinks of his handling of Iraq or immigration, is no Colmes or El-Baradei. The only act of madness here would be to allow Iran to reach its point of no return and being high-level enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Israel has already recognized this and as reported previously on Capital Cloak, considers December 31, 2007 as the date after which sanctions and political solutions will no longer be considered sufficient action.
In the meantime, El-Baradei and the IAEA should continue inspecting facilities and reporting on the construction and operation of centrifuges in Natanz and other sites in Iran, and not move beyond that function by offering unsolicited opinions of the sanity of attacking Iran before it is too late. Each nation should consider the available intelligence, determine what it will and will not tolerate when it comes to a potentially nuclear Iran, and then take appropriate action to preserve its national interests and security. There is no nation on earth that would be immune from the fallout, literal and figurative, from a nuclear armed Iran. To allow it to happen through “peace mongering” would be a fatal act of madness.
Technorati:
El-Baradei IAEA Alan Colmes John Bolton Warmonger Peace Monger Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Program Centrifuges Inspections
Late last week IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei warned world powers that an attack on Iran
over its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons despite UN Security Council resolutions would be "an act of madness." According to the Jerusalem Post report, the indirect warnings appeared to be directed towards the United States and Israel.El-Baradei, after offering what was clearly his personal political opinion of military action in Iran also reportedly stated that Iran would likely be operating nearly 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges by the end of July. The 3,000 centrifuge total is critical because IAEA officials have made clear in past statements that once Iran has that many centrifuges in operation, Iran will have reached a point of no return after which it could enrich uranium in quantities and enrichment levels sufficient for large-scale production of weapons-grade material.
The IAEA performed its primary function well in identifying a potential point of no return and estimating, based on inspections, when that point could be reached. Reporting the results of its inspections to the UN, however, should have been the limit of IAEA involvement in the discussions of Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, El-Baradei felt it necessary to editorialize on military and political strategies neither he nor the IAEA are privy to, or qualified to discuss. El-Baradei apparently feels that preventing Iran from completing its development of nuclear weapons would be “an act of madness,” but allowing Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, to possess nuclear weapons would be acceptable to him.
It is beyond disconcerting that a man with such an obvious lack of common sense is responsible for inspecting the world’s nuclear facilities. Then again, many Democrats express views similar to El-Baradei’s and label conservatives who speak openly about confronting Iran before it reaches the IAEA point of no return as “warmongers.” Last week on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes, White House Adviser John Bolton (former ambassador to the UN), was a guest, and after he made a sensible and firm statement about not permitting Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, Alan Colmes attacked Bolton for being a “warmonger” because of his position on Iran. It was clear after the “debate” (and I use that term loosely) that Bolton made a much stronger case for action than Colmes did for inaction, which was based largely on personal attacks and “you got it wrong on Iraq now you want to attack Iran,” but it would be useful for Colmes and other Democrats to examine their use of the term “warmonger” in the context of Iran. Was Winston Churchill a warmonger because while Hitler was building massive armies and weaponry Churchill was urging his disbelieving colleagues in parliament to begin arming Britain to matching levels? Churchill foresaw the danger of allowing Germany to rearm in violation of Treaty of Versailles terms, but PM Neville Chamberlain and many others in parliament dismissed Churchill’s agitations in much the same manner that Colmes berated Bolton as a warmonger. This is how Churchill was relegated to the humiliating status of "backbencher" in parliament.
Had anyone listened to the "warmonger" Churchill before Hitler began invading territories and neighboring nations in Europe, untold millions might have been spared the ravages of WWII. Iranian president Ahmadinejad shares many personality traits and racial views with Hitler, and it is not warmongering to believe the world should take him at his word when he states that no one can stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and that Israel must be annihilated in a glowing fireball. In today's world of rampant political correctness, where are the ACLU, the Democrats, and the gay and minority rights groups and their condemnations of "hate speech?" These groups seek severe penalties for "hate speech" and "hate crimes" directed toward specific races or lifestyles, but when the world's most radical anti-American and anti-Semitic regime vows to destroy a nation of Jews, the political correctness crowd stands in a puddle of its own cold sweat of cowardice and chastises conservatives who want to confront the threat before "hate speech" becomes a "hate crime" in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Is someone a warmonger whose stated goal is to prevent the ultimate weapon, a weapon with potential to kill millions with each detonation and befoul the entire world with radiation (the ultimate man-made global warming) from being produced, stored, and utilized by a radical terror-sponsoring regime? Is it warmongering to advocate tactical strikes on nuclear sites even with some civilian loss if doing so would spare millions of lives from nuclear annihilation in the name of jihad? If so, I choose the warmonger over the pacifist appeaser with no regrets.
Fortunately, our current president, regardless of what one thinks of his handling of Iraq or immigration, is no Colmes or El-Baradei. The only act of madness here would be to allow Iran to reach its point of no return and being high-level enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Israel has already recognized this and as reported previously on Capital Cloak, considers December 31, 2007 as the date after which sanctions and political solutions will no longer be considered sufficient action.
In the meantime, El-Baradei and the IAEA should continue inspecting facilities and reporting on the construction and operation of centrifuges in Natanz and other sites in Iran, and not move beyond that function by offering unsolicited opinions of the sanity of attacking Iran before it is too late. Each nation should consider the available intelligence, determine what it will and will not tolerate when it comes to a potentially nuclear Iran, and then take appropriate action to preserve its national interests and security. There is no nation on earth that would be immune from the fallout, literal and figurative, from a nuclear armed Iran. To allow it to happen through “peace mongering” would be a fatal act of madness.
Technorati:
El-Baradei IAEA Alan Colmes John Bolton Warmonger Peace Monger Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Program Centrifuges Inspections
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)