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.

I think that I am consistent with the Republican party’s claim that one Mr. Barack Obama spends too much.  Further, I think that I am consistent with the same Republican party in their view that it’s spending, not revenue that’s the problem.  After all, I’ve demonstrated that receipts increase year over year at a 7.2%.  And by simply slowing the growth of government, we can balance the budget in as little as 19 years.   God forbid what happens if we actually REDUCE the year over year of the government spend.

To that end, there has been much talk in the nation about that government spending.  Where it came from and who is actually spending it.

Remember, the subject is spending.  And that Barack is doing more of it than anyone else.

The context is “who is contributing to the massive increase in government spending we are seeing?”

And the answer to that question is being answered by this graph:

Read More

Well, just finished watching and listening to John Boehner.

Yeah, any good will established by Obama in trying to give the Speaker of the House props for being willing to work with the Democrats is out the window.  John Boehner came out swinging and he didn’t let up.  Almost with a vengeance the Speaker took Obama to task going back to January and the President’s request for more money.  And this after sending America on the largest spending binge of all time.  While I think he’s right, I’m not sure that the approach the Republicans just took is the wise one.

Where Obama made the case that we all need to agree to get along, Boehner went right at the President.  Where Obama looked to build a coalition with the Speaker, Mr. Boehner attacked the President for his priorities and his tactics in the debt talks to date.  Further, by appearing so dug in, the Republican may have set himself up for a situation that he can’t win.  A long time ago I learned that to be successful, you have to create a situation where your opponent can retreat or compromise in honor.  I’m afraid that Mr. Speaker has removed that option from the table.  I can see many things being thrown at the TV in the Democrat Head Quarters.

This is not to say That I don’t agree with the Republicans.  We DO spend too much.  We DO waste money.  Obama DOES negotiate in bad faith.  I know Obama is not a centrist but rather an over-matched Leftist Statist.  However, tonight, America was watching, not just us political junkies.  And America wants compromise more than they want ideology.

Either way, tonight set the die.  How it impacts the debate and the 2012 elections will, of course, remain to be seen.

I’ll be a son of a bitch!  President Obama reads TarHeel Red!

In spelling out what Barack Obama SHOULD say I neatly laid out Obama’s speech for him and he delivered what I think was a very strong message; a very good speech.

Obama DID talk about the battle in Washington.  He did bring into play the question that each side would have to give and compromise.  And he did it while sounding Presidential.

Kudos Mr. President, well done.

Further, I predicted that Mr. Obama would bring up the fact that much of the problems we’re faced with today are the result of Dubya and his policies.  I mentioned that he wouldn’t blame Bush directly, but rather use the code phrase “of the last decade”.  Imagine my excitement as I was proven right within the first 90 seconds.  However, much to his credit, he only ever touched on Bush 2 more time, so I fell short of my “at least 4 times” prediction.  Obama took a shot at Bush giving him credit along the lines of Reagan, Clinton and himself; Obama.  Further, there was a shot when Obama listed the troubles that brought us to this position included tax cuts to the wealthy, 2 wars and a Medicare Part D program.

In describing the talks, Obama made the point that it was himself that compromised and agreed to a path forward that was not popular within his party.  And he did call out Republicans for failing to give ground.  So, while he didn’t credit Democrats [that honor was reserved for him] he also didn’t accuse the Republicans of “leaving him at the altar” as I suggested.

Further, I did say that Obama would mention the strategy Republicans have taken in pushing this debate out only 6 months.  And he did.  But I also said that Obama deride this as politics and blast the “two tiered approach”.  And he didn’t.  Rather, he made well-reasoned arguments against such a strategy; arguments that I tend to agree with.

Finally, I had thought Obama would take advantage of the fact that Democrats were willing to stipulate that there would be no tax increases in the plan.  That in exchange for an extension past the election, they were willing to give on those increases.  I was wrong; Obama made it clear he expects the wealthy to “pay their fair share”.

In fact, I thought the constant “we-they” warfare was a touch over the top.  He again brought oil companies, hedge fund managers and jet owners into the conversation.  He mentioned that those who have benefited the most in the past decade [a nifty wink at Dubya that even I didn’t score against him] shouldn’t be exempt from bearing part of the burden.

However underscored the class warfare argument was, it was overshadowed by some pretty strong points made by the President.  I thought his best moment was when he descried the voters who elected both himself and the House Republicans into office.  His comment that:

They’re offended by that.

Was especially on target and scored several points.  Further, Obama was strong when he mentioned that as recently as 2000 we had budget surpluses, that we need to act in a bi-partisan manner and that both parties need to shape up.  People are, after all, bone tired and are fed up with this three-ring circus.

On one hand, I’m excited that our President delivered a strong speech more leader like than I expected.  I’m humbled some that I was so wrong, but that is tempered by the fact that it’s now clear Obama not only reads my little rantings, but takes them to heart!