Every indication points to the eventuality of Iran obtaining the technology to build a nuclear bomb.  It is my humble opinion that:

  1. A nation has the right to obtain such technology.
  2. We have no real ability to prevent this eventuality.

Rather than expend resources and political capital on attempting to prevent the inevitable, I think that we should prepare for the undeniable.  A nuclear Iran.  And as part of that planning, we need to address the following.

Can We Trust Iran To Be Rational

In other words, is Iran a nation ruled by people who respond to incentives in the way and manner that we would respond to those same incentives?

It turns out that Soviet Russia was.  They understood and reacted rationally to our nuclear stand-off.  Same goes with India and Pakistan.

Or do we think that Iran is led by a mindset that is mostly based in ideology, a religious ideology?  The most obvious example of which is the existence of Israel.

This question HAS to be answered.  And after it has been answered, all plans must account for the general agreement.

What Nations Put And Take With A Nuclear Iran

Who gains and loses when Iran obtains the technology and the ability to launch nuclear weapons?  The obvious losers are the United States and Israel.  But less obvious is who gains?  Understand not only who gains but why will allow us to negate many of the perceived “advantages” of those nations.

My guess is that the current modern world is mostly stable in terms of boundaries.  Certainly there will be small and rather negligent “map changes” but by and large the shape of our nations are mostly settled.  What isn’t settled is the economic influence of our nations as they stand.

How does China benefit, if they do, by a nuclear Iran?  Hell, how does Iran benefit from a nuclear Iran?

How Do We Negotiate With A Nuclear Iran

The Soviets had them and modern Russia does.  North Korea does, as does China.  Several other nations as well.  None of them have initiated a nuclear launch.


How will Iran be prevented from the same?  What will it take, what changes will have to be made, if any at all really, to prevent the launch of an Iranian weapon?  Is it the United States, in the end, that has to be the primary negotiator in these talks?  Is the United States the primary agitator in Iran’s mind?

In the end, these are the concepts that our leaders need to address.  There is little, if any, grounds to stand on that would allow us to prevent Iran from obtaining this technology.  Further, there is little, if any, hope that we’ll be able to prevent the


Children!  Children, gather ’round.  I wanna tell you the story of the Leftist.

When someone you disagree with enters into a war to overthrow a brutal dictator, you protest him, call him Hitler and burn him effigy.  It is IMMORAL to use force against a foreign nation in an attempt to overthrow an evil brutal dictator.

But.  But….if Barack Obama would like to do the same, it is okay if:

  1. He does it quickly.
  2. There is no #2.

See, if one President goes to the United Nations and obtains resolution after resolution forcing the evil bad-guy dictator to allow this or allow that, and the evil bad-guy dictator doesn’t, AND the President gathers a coalition of foreign nations to assist in the overthrow of that evil bad-guy dictator AND that President goes to, you know, CONGRESS, AND….AND Congress authorizes force to remove evil bad-guy dictator AND that evil bad-guy dictator is captured AND that evil bad-guy dictator is imprisoned with human right’s representatives on guard AND that evil bad-guy dictator is given a trial and found guilty; well, THAT is immoral and the President is a douche.

He is greedy and is Hitler.

But, if the other President is Barack Obama, well, then we can target the evil bad-guy dictator in an assassination attempt, never go to Congress, the UN or any other body, watch as he is strung up on the hood of a truck like a deer, beat and shot without trial THEN allowed to have his body, decaying, be placed on public display for all to see while crooning:

We came, we saw, he died.

THAT is a foreign policy success, and the President is macho.

The Left is without morals.  They have none.  Which is why they try to legislate morals to force ME to abide by ’em.  They demand the rich donate to charity, but never do the same.  They demand that the Right care for the poor, but never do the same.  They scream that the Right engages in immoral wars, yet don’t care that they are the worst offenders.

They legislate others to do what they themselves can’t or won’t.

Without a doubt the United States has made mistakes in our dealings with a whole host of people and nations.  In some cases, we were straight forward-no deception, just straight poor behavior.  In other cases, there WAS deception that preceded this poor behavior.

I have always acknowledged that our government’s treatment of native populations, nations and people was unacceptable.  However, I have always been leery at any attempt to make up for this all these years later through reparations or special benefits.

With that in mind, I am planning a family trip this weekend and I came upon this site for one of North Carolina’s State Parks:

The Town of Pilot Mountain is home to Pilot Mountain State Park, which is a remnant of the ancient Sauratown Mountains. The Saura Indians who inhabited the area knew Pilot Mountain as Jomeokee, the “Pilot” or “Great Guide”. The Cherokee Indians eventually drove the Saura Indians out of the area. Pilot Mountain became the 14th State Park in 1968 when it was purchased from Mrs. J.W. Beasley. Pilot Mountain State Park is made up of 3,703 acres of land, which preserves the natural resources of North Carolina.

So, if the United States government is expected to compensate the Cherokee, would the Cherokee than be expected to compensate the Saura?

My guess is probably not.  And why this is stumps me.  I’m sure it has to do with some form of “ism” or intolerance inherent in me; being conservative and all.

Tomorrow, President Obama is going to speak in front of Congress.  There are things that he ought to say.

He should say that he is going to work to create an environment where people feel comfortable hiring other people.  In order to say this with a believable demeanor, I certainly hope that he has brought in people who hire people and worked to figure out what hiring people would take.

For example, if people who hire people say that they would hire more people if it cost less to hire people, he should then say that he will make it less expensive for people to hire people.

Pure and simple.

After he says that, Mr. Obama should say that he will allow companies that wanna hire people to, you know, actually hire them.  He could do this by allowing Boeing to open a factory in South Carolina.

For my non-Socialist Liberal friends, this is what we mean when we say that Obama is a socialist-fascist.  The President is preventing a private company from opening a factory where they want to.  In the United States.  He’s doing this because he doesn’t approve of the affiliation of the people that might be hired.

Now, after we make it cheaper and legal to hire people, the President should acknowledge that passing legislation that makes it impossible to estimate the cost of hiring people prevents the people who hire people from hiring people.  In other words, the President should declare that he is going to halt the implementation of his health care legislation.

What he WILL say:

The President won’t, of course, say the things that he SHOULD say.  Rather, he’ll continue his march down the campaign trail.  In fact, he signaled his intention Monday when he addressed labor groups in Detroit.

The President is going to call on Republicans to set aside party and do what’s right for America.  He’s gonna call on us all to help him pass him legislation that will reward big labor by initiating infrastructure spending.  He’ll call this repairing our roads and bridges.

Additionally, President Obama will continue to claim that the current economic conditions that we face were not created in 3 years and therefore, won’t be solved in three years.  The theme that the past decade of poor policy decisions will permeate the President’s campaign rhetoric from now until the election.  Tacking onto this will be the gentle and subtle reminder that “more of the same”, or a “return to the failed policies” is a recipe for disaster.

Make no mistake.  Obama should take this opportunity to lead.

He won’t.

It’ll be an exercise in a middle manager casting blame for his own bad decisions.

There’s been much talk in the last few days weeks months years about the need to compromise.  To reach out, walk the aisle and find partners in diplomacy in order to strike a deal, pass legislation. And I think, to a large degree, that such sentiments are noble and admirable.  In the end, a compromise or coming together, where both sides can walk away and succeed in front of their “bosses” is, or should be, the goal.

Much of what I do in my job is such positioning, or compromising.  There are certain jobs that have to be done, some that don’t of course, and they must be done, or sunset, by a certain group of people.  Often times, the group that SHOULD be doing the work doesn’t WANNA do the work.  Or, the converse is true as well, the organizations that own the work today don’t wanna give it up.  Either way, two divergent thoughts about how to get the thing done.  Only in rare circumstances do I advocate for a total power play.  Most often I urge an agreement that will allow both managers to succeed in front of their boss.

Politics should be no different.

However, it assumes that both players are moderates.  That they don’t have the dogma associated with the zealot.  Faced with conflicting ideas and paths toward success, they feel sure that the “other guy” has the same goal in mind.

Today, that is not the case.  We are dealing with a different kind of conflict today.  We’re debating the very essence of how our government should be organized.  We are NOT debating about how we are going to run an agreed upon government.

On one side, you have a group of people who feel as free and as open a market is best suited to bring about prosperity to a nation as a whole.  On the other, you find a group f of people who feel that by taking more and more of another’s property is the best way to bring about prosperity as a whole.

This is not a debate about a middle ground, this is a debate about which form we wanna live under.

Ayn Rand said it best:

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property.

I can’t compromise with today’s Democrats when it comes to their larger world view.  It has come down to what system of government we will agree to abide by.

The United States of America has lost it’s AAA credit rating for the first time in the history of time.  It lost it in part because of it’s long term debt and deficits and, to be fair, because of the political nonsense displayed by the Congress and the White House.

The markets are down, at one point down nearly 400 points.

Barack Obama is going to address the nation this afternoon at 1:00.

Here’s what he should say:

  1. America DOES have a spending problem.  While you can debate whether or not the S&P should have made the downgrade move, the point has been made; we need to address our fiscal irresponsibility and that begins with the President of the United States of America.  To be sure, there have been bad decisions made along the way.  But right now, right here, I am the CEO of the country; the quarterback.  And it’s my job to bring us back.
  2. I have a plan.  I am going to address the spending problems that have brought us to where we are.  I’ll identify the areas where spending has increased faster than we thought and what we want.  I’ll find ways to end programs that don’t work and streamline those that we can.  This is going to be painful.
  3. Taxes on a fragile economy are dangerous; something we don’t wanna investigate.  However, where possible the tax code should be rewritten to avoid needless loopholes and poor incentives.  It doesn’t serve anyone to implement a 35% corporate tax rate only to have the most powerful corporations hire IRS tax attorneys to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.

Here’s what he will say:

  1. The credit rating was downgraded last week by Standard and Poor’s.  This organization, who largely missed the worthiness of sub-prime securities during the housing boom and brought about the 2007 recession used numbers that were not accurate in arriving at the downgrade decision.
  2. The political infighting we saw from Congress in the last few weeks was brought about by a minority of the minority.  A few select Congressmen felt that America had to be held hostage in order to maintain ideological positions.
  3. This downgrade is not reflective of America’s ability to pay her debts; it’s a Tea Party downgrade.