GOP playing around

CBS had this headline this morning: "Santorum stunner: Sweeps 3 GOP contests". Rick Santorum won Republican primaries in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. It is a remarkable turn of events. CBS began it's article with the words:

It took one night for Rick Santorum to become a player again in the Republican presidential race.

I have to agree, Santorum has become a contender, even if for a short time, but it's the GOP voters who are playing around. What is their purpose? Did social conservatives come to the polls to prove their relevance for in the nomination process?

A couple weeks ago, Rick Santorum laid out his case for extreme opposition to abortion, even in the cases of rape: 'Make The Best Out Of A Bad Situation'. If Santorum was to become a nominee (which he won't) this would give Barack Obama the opportunity he needs to win a second term -- by making the election about anything other than Obama's record in the White House. Talking about Roe v. Wade and abortions is one of the favorite subjects of U.S. liberals.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul came in second in one of the three contests and was jubilant: "A strong second place, and it’s going to continue", he said. Continue to what? A strong second place in a general election?

GOP playing around with 'anyone but Romney' may indeed end up with a candidate, like John McCain who couldn't explain the diffidence between his economic policy and that of Obama. 

Utopia: Lies and Force

This blog is dedicated to exposing the Lies of Western societies, particularly the US and EU.

The West is trying to build a Utopia, which is based on Lies and Force. Historical precedents are there, including USSR (where I was born), China, Cuba and other communist nations.

Lies and Force are the proper combination for a stable Utopia, either one alone is insufficient and impractical. Utopia needs true believes, who sincerely bought into the lies of paradise. They are instrumental for applying Force onto those who reject the scheme. Utopias are inherently dehumanizing; they reduce people to mere cogs in the machine, or ants in an ant hill. Some people will innately sense the depravity of the system. If they cannot be 're-educated', as they do in special 'camps' in China and North Korea, they have to be forced into compliance. If they still do not comply, they should be removed society so they do not spread their ideas, or better yet culled.

You probably think that couldn't happen in the US. Think again. If there is a veneer of lawfulness it can and will happen. What makes a suitable veneer? All it takes is to assert that some government action is for the 'greater good', 'political and social justice' to enable police to carry out its duty of maintaining order, which becomes indistinguishable from civil repression.

An article published on February 6th, 2012 by Reuters entitled "FBI warns of threat from anti-government extremists" illustrates my point. The article summary states:

Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned on Monday.

Do you see? Being opposed to excessive taxation and regulation makes you an extremist. Maybe the FBI should declare the Tea Party and extremist organization? It won't go that far, yet.

The Reuters article was at pains to justify the description of 'extremism'. It wrote

Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 each in 2010 and 2011, FBI agents said.

The definition of extremist applies "mostly to white-collar crimes such as fraud". A little rhetorical magic and we can treat frauds like extremists.

In Fitchburg, located in the lovely state of Taxachusetts where I live, FBI recently used a chain saw to cut through the door and held Judy Sanchez at gunpoint for over half an hour before agents realized they were conducting a raid at the wrong home.

Wrong door or wrong methods?

 The lady told CBS station WBZ in Boston that she was held face down on the floor for 35 minutes at gunpoint while her 3-year-old daughter cried in another room. Sanchez says she and her daughter now have trouble sleeping.

Was the FBI after a dangerous drug dealer? Looking for weapons? How long does it take to realize a single lady with a small child is not a threat to be handled in this way? This incident supports the fact that the Feds are less reluctant to use force against 'white-collar' crimes -- otherwise it would not have taken them so long to figure out they were completely off base.

Egypt follows Iran's path

Barack Obama started his foreign policy in 2009 with a world-wide apology tour (here are some clips). Before Obama delivered his speech in Cairo, Mitt Romney warned about the fallacy of apology:

I draw the line by saying in reaching out to other nations we certainly should not stand up and apologize for America. America has sacrificed too much to restore liberty to people in the world to ever be in a position of constant apology. I think the president was wrong in going on Arabic TV and saying that America has in the past dictated to other nations. I think he was wrong in fact and that it was the wrong thing to say. Ahmadinejad of Iran seized upon that to demand more apologies for America....

Two days later, on June 4th 2009, Obama delivered a sweeping, hour-long 6000-word address in Cairo, Egypt, aimed at reaching out to the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. Some, including Rush Limbaugh have called it an apology speech, others like NY times have disputed that assessment. Here are three quotes:

The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism.

America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.

The first quote suggests an understandable rise in American misconception of Islam, if not outright bigotry. The second quote is directly applicable to France, which passed a ban on wearing burqas in public that went into effect in April of last year. Apparently, the French are trying to "disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism".

Hosni, I'm going to have to throw you under the bus.

The last quote has a direct bearing on the Arab spring. A little over a year ago Obama called on Mubarak to leave by announcing publicly that he told on the phone that "transition must begin now". Obama also expressed his hope that Egyptians will "seize the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren and I say that as someone who is committed to a partnership between United States and Egypt".

Mubarak was an authoritarian dictator to whom FDR's statement "he might be a bastard, but he’s our bastard” is applicable. Arab spring has replaced him with something far worse - approximately 3/4 or the People's Assembly, the more powerful lower parliament of Egypt has been taken by Islamists. They are already changing the direction of the country.

Mubarak was an authoritarian dictator to whom FDR's statement "he might be a bastard, but he’s our bastard” is applicable. Arab spring has replaced him with something far worse - approximately 3/4 or the People's Assembly, the more powerful lower parliament of Egypt has been taken by Islamists. They are already changing the direction of the country.

Recently, 19 Americans who worked for NGOs in Egypt were prevented by the military from leaving the country. They have sought refuge in the American embassy. This elicited a response from the U.S. State Department, which said the $1.3 billion in annual aid to Egypt may be in jeopardy. One of the Americans, Sam LaHood is the son of U.S. Transportation secretary, said at the time that the group was "expecting the worst". His instinct was correct - Egyptians have announcing their intention to prosecute the American NGO workers that can result in sentences of up to five years. In addition, Egyptians canceled meetings with U.S. lawmakers today in response to warnings about aid.

As I suggested ten days ago, Egypt appears be going Islamist and is following in the footsteps of Iran, including detention of Americans. There are other worrying signs, described by Barry Rubin that suggest the new Egyptian regime is choosing confrontation. Having the U.S. as a scapegoat for internal troubles is apparently worth more to them than Obama's speeches, and billions of aid.

Ayatollah calls for genocide

Last Friday, in a major speech at prayers, Ayatolah Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” that is Israel. This statement was seen by some in the West as mere rhetoric, but today the Iranian government, through a website proxy , has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews everywhere.

The doctrine states that because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a preemptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues. The article, written by Alireza Forghani, a conservative analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned conservative sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.

This announcement comes on the heel of Iran's successful launch of a new satellite into orbit, reminding the West that its engineers have mastered the technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles even as the Islamic state pushes its nuclear weapons program. In addition Iran’s Defense Ministry announced this weekend that it test-fired an advanced two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile.

Hatred so intense it make an old man perspire.

Some time ago, I wrote an article making fun of Ayatollah's pathological hatred, effectively suggesting he needs to be medicated. If he was in the West, he probably would be a nasty crank, who could be managed with the right pills. But in Iran, he can lead a nation and openly call for genocide.

Unfortunately, we cannot medicate foreign leaders, no matter how much it would help them. Only one kind of cure remains - regime change. Nobody wants to do it, but the alternatives of merely taking out nuclear facilities, etc. are anti-Machiavellian. This man is an implacable enemy of US ('the great satan') and Israel, which it won't even dignify by naming, calling it a cancerous growth. Europe is also in Ayatollah's sights, after freezing the Iran's central banks assets, and beginning to institute an oil embargo.

Japan found itself in a similar economic blockade after US placed an embargo on the oil in the West Indies. It chose to strike first, hitting Peal Harbor. In its present situation, it's not inconceivable that Iran may opt for a first strike. It has recently demonstrated its willingness to take risks, by attempting to hire Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C. Iran didn't have much concern about collateral damage and the possibility of killing Americans on US soil, either.

Jerusalem Post recently published an article entitled "Israel isn't about to hit Iran: Get used to it!" by Barry Rubin. He is the director of the GLORIA institute, author of many books on the Middle East, who modestly calls himself a 30-year 'student' of the region, and is typically flawless in his analysis. Rubin laid out logical reasons against the Israeli strike: the risks are too high, the benefits are uncertain. However, Ayatollahs deranged, pathological hatred makes Israel's calculation very difficult. Could political and military leaders of a country facing an existential threat take any chances?

If Obama gave support for the 'Persian spring' in 2009, as he did for the 'Arab spring' in 2011, the regime could have been overthrown, or at least completely deligitimized Assad in Syria. Now, unless the US steps up overthrow the mullahs militarily, the only remaining questions appears to be whether Iran or Israel chooses to strike first, and when.

Scandalous Russian behavior at UN

Despite the killing of more than 400 people by Syrian army on Saturday, Russia vetoed the UN resolution the same day, with China following suit. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had said the resolution made too few demands of anti-government armed groups, and that Moscow remains concerned that it could prejudge the outcome of a national dialogue among political forces in Syria.

Like Father, like Son.

Before the latest round of intense negotiations at the UN, Vladimir Chizhov, Russian ambassador to the EU, said it was still "missing the most important thing: a clear clause ruling out the possibility that the resolution could be used to justify military intervention in Syrian affairs from outside". In an effort to placate Russia, UN had dropped specific references in the resolution to Mr. Assad’s ceding power and calls for a voluntary arms embargo and sanctions, and added language barring outside military intervention. However, a source close to the negotiations said that the Russians new demand was for a clause to cover all future resolutions as well. "One UN resolution cannot bind future resolutions," the source said.

Underscoring the frivolous nature of Russia position is that Syrian opposition (unlike Libyans, who opposed Gaddafi) have recently refused Western military intervention in Syria in a signed an agreement between the Syrian National Council (SNC) and National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC).

“It’s quite clear — this [Russian veto] is a license to do more of the same and worse,” said Peter Harling, an expert on Syria at the International Crisis Group. “The regime will take it for granted that it can escalate further. We’re entering a new phase that will be far more violent still than what we’ve seen now.” The veto is almost sure to embolden the government of President Bashar al-Assad, which brazenly carried out the assault on Homs on the very day that the Security Council had planned to vote. It came, too, around the anniversary of its crackdown in 1982 on another Syrian city, Hama, by Mr. Assad’s father, in which at least 10,000 people were killed in one of the bloodiest episodes in modern Arab history.

“What more do we need to know to act decisively in the Security Council?” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked at a news conference in Munich. “To block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria.”

Clinton squared off over Syria with her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, to whom she delivered the infamous "Reset" button almost three years ago. Responding to Lavrov, who asked, “What’s the endgame?” Clinton replied: “The endgame in the absence of us acting together as the international community, I fear, is civil war.”

Moscow has acknowledged that the situation on the ground in Syria amounts to a civil war, but refused to act, while providing vain hope that it didn't view the resolution as “hopeless,” but in need of adjustment to avoid “taking sides in a civil war.” In fact, Russia is taking sides in a civil war - the side of murderous Assad regime. As I pointed out recently Russia has continued to supply Assad with weapons for repression, and to sign new deals. It has provided a political firewall for Assad in UN. What else could Russia do to help prop up Assad, short of sending in its own military?!

Russia earned uncommonly harsh rebuke for its behavior from the Western and nations, and Morocco, the sole (temporary) Arab nation on the UN Security Council. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said America is "disgusted" by the vote. "For months this council has been held hostage by a couple of members," Rice said. Hillary Clinton said in Munich: "Almost 30 years to the day after the infamous Hama massacre, the international community must send Assad a clear message: By repeating the horrors of Syria’s past, you have lost your place in Syria’s future. The French Ambassador Gerard Araud said Russia and China had "made themselves complicit in a policy of repression carried out by the Assad regime."

President Obama is finally waking up to reality, as well: “the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault against the people of Homs,” saying in a statement that Assad “has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community.” He accused Syria of having “murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children.” Better late, than never.

Lavrov defended Russia's position, saying: "The problem is, the peaceful protesters have our full support, but they are being used by the armed groups, who create trouble. And this is reaching quite dangerous proportions." Lavrov said that Russia stands by the Syrian people but not the "armed groups" in Syria that he alleged were contributing to the violence. He said Russia would not agree to any resolution that amounts to outside interference or presupposes the political outcome in Syria other than supporting a dialogue between the two sides. So, Russia supports peaceful demonstrations ... being dispersed with live ammunition, tanks and mortars it continues to sell to Syria.

Russia views its brinkmanship as consistent with its responsibility as a permanent member of the UNSC: "We are not friends or allies of Assad," Lavrov protested the suggestion that Russia going to end up on the wrong side of history by supporting Assad, "We try to stick to our responsibilities as permanent members of the security council and the security council doesn't by definition engage in the internal affairs of states, it's about maintaining international peace and security." As I wrote recently Syria, which is ruled by minority Alawites (10%), has recently invited Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah to help out with repression of Syrian Sunni majority (74%). Allowing Assad to continue his repression is the most likely way to spark a wider Sunni-Shiite conflict.

Mr. Lavrov said Saturday that Moscow still had two objections: that it did not place sufficient blame for the violence on the opposition, and that it unrealistically demanded that the government withdraw its military forces back to their barracks (which Assad agreed to do in November, pursuant to the Arab League's demands). In a television interview quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency, he said that ignoring Russia’s objections would result in “another scandal.”

Allies shake hands over bodies of the dead in Homs

“The scandal is not to act,” Peter Wittig, the German ambassador to the United Nations, said. “The scandal would be failure to act.” The resolution’s Western and Arab sponsors said they had compromised enough, and pushed the measure to a vote, virtually daring Russia to exercise its veto and risk mounting international opprobrium for preventing action to stanch the escalating death toll in Syria. Russia did not disappoint in showcasing its scandalous behavior. "An angry response by American Ambassador Susan Rice reflected the frustration of the U.S. that even a diluted Resolution - which had removed all sanctions and an arms embargo - could not pass," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk. Russian intransigence seems obtuse. Why is Russia doing this?

As I suggested recently, there may be more to Russian intransigence than mere ideological support of a 'brother' dictator, and profit from sales of arms. Russia  is facing several political pressure from the West. It is likely Russia may be concerned about a possible embarrassment over it's illegal sales of WMD to Saddam in the 1990's and the transfer of remaining materials by Spetsnaz to Syria.

It may be difficult to explain Russia's behavior, but it's easy to predict it - just imagine the actions of a patron saint of dictators, with no conscience and no shame.