Updated: It's A Good Thing Iran Is Not Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons

From Breitbart:

The Israeli army on Monday said that all the long-range rockets fired by Gaza militants against southern Israel during the latest round of violence were manufactured in arch-foe Iran.

Speaking to the parliament's powerful foreign affairs and defence committee, a senior military intelligence official said that over 20 Katyusha-type rockets, also known as Grad, were fired against Israel since last Thursday.

"We are talking about regular Iranian-made rockets," an official quoted the intelligence official as saying.

What will Israel look like when Iran does get nukes? Oh wait a minute, there will be no Israel.

Update: More useless sanctions from the UN:

The United Nations Security Council voted on Monday to impose a third set of sanctions on Iran over its refusal to halt its suspected nuclear weapons activity.

A European-sponsored resolution was adopted at the 15-member Council by 14 votes in favour, none opposed, and one abstention from Indonesia.

The resolution increases the current mild trade ban on Iran to include certain goods with both civilian and military uses.

"Chemical Ali" To Meet With Saddam

In Hell:

Iraq's presidential council has endorsed the execution within a month of Saddam Hussein's cousin, known as "Chemical Ali," for his role in the 1980s scorched-earth campaign against Kurds, officials said Friday. But it spared the life of two other officials amid Sunni protests that they were only following orders.

The approval by Iraq's President Jalal Talabani and two vice presidents was the final step clearing the way for Ali Hassan al-Majid's execution by hanging. It could now be carried out at any time, a government adviser and a prosecutor said.

Al-Majid was one of three former Saddam officials sentenced to death in June after being convicted by an Iraqi court of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for their part in the Operation Anfal crackdown that killed nearly 200,000 Kurdish civilians and guerrillas.

Al-Majid was nicknamed "Chemical Ali" for ordering poison gas attacks that killed thousands.

Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

Who Says Guns Deter Criminals? The Law Enforcement Alliance Of America Does

From World Net Daily:

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

...

"Guns save lives," the brief said. "In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense."

The brief said handgun ownership reduces the number of confrontational home invasions, so "the total U.S. violent crime rate [is reduced] by about 9 percent."

Read the rest at the link.

This is probably one of the top 5 cases the Supreme Court has ever heard. Montana officials sure think so.

It Depends On What The Meaning Of "Change" Is

How many times have you heard it? Change. While it is true the majority of Americans do want change, most do not agree on the direction of change we need. I want things to change. The only thing is, I am sure the change I want is 180 deg. from the change Obama and Hillary want. And it is probably 145 deg. from the direction McCain wants to go.

So here is my idea of change:

1) I want to be able to watch a candidate give a speech and not keep repeating over and over "stop trying to pander to as many different groups as you can". I want to see them look right at the people and tell them what they truly believe.

2) I want a candidate that wants to honest to goodness cut my taxes and let me keep as much of my money as possible. And by this I mean permanently! I don't want a temporary cut of my taxes. I want them eliminated to the largest extent possible.

3) I want a candidate that will stop spending my money like crazy. This country cannot keep spending like it does and not see serious problems come from it. A million here, a billion there, for every little thing that comes along. It needs to stop. Spend our money wisely.

4) I want a candidate that will leave me alone so I can handle my own affairs. Let me take care of me. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government has a responsibility to provide for me. The government is here to ensure I have the opportunity to succeed, not to ensure that I do. Leave that part to me. If you are not willing to do what it takes to ensure you succeed then move to Europe.

5) I want a candidate that will put decisions about my health in the hands of my doctor and myself. Does the system need some change? Yes it does. But should we give the government control of making our health decisions for us? NO! Name one program the government runs fairly, efficiently, or effectively. Hurry I am waiting.

6) I want a candidate that is willing to accept all of the bill of rights. Freedom of press, speech, religion as well as the most important one- the second. Without it the others will soon disappear.

7) I want a candidate that is concerned with the sovereignty of the United States. Being nice and having good relations with other countries is important. But at the end of the day we need to worry about us.

8) I want a candidate that will close our borders, and control the amount and the kinds of people that enter this country. We also need to ensure companies are following the laws about who is legal to work in this country. We cannot keep supplying for our people and Mexico's.

9) I want a candidate that will cut our dependence on foreign oil. We need to take advantage of our own resources. Drill it. In case you did not know the whole ethanol thing is destroying our economy. Food prices are sky rocketing and the production of this product is just as bad for the environment as oil. I agree that something needs to be done, but let the private sector take care of it. ( see no.4)

I don't think I am going to be excited about the "change" that we are going to see, do you?

These are just a few ideas I have for "change". Feel free to add your own in the comments.

What do you think?

What do you think when you see this?:



I don't have a huge problem with this. Of course, he should have known this was going to happen. The fact that he goes to a foreign country and "kisses up" a little just puts him in line with most of the other politicians in Washington.

It is a little "iffy" doing this at a time of war with soldiers that wear this uniform, but we know what he thinks about the war.

My problems with Barack H. Obama has to do with the issues. I think he would badly damage this country should he get the opportunity to become president.

John Stossel: Guns Save Lives

This is a great article on guns:

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

Read it all at the link. The money quote from the article:

..."If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."

I heard a discussion the day after this shooting on the radio. Sorry, I can't remember who it was. One of the people said that an armed citizen might have been able to prevent, at least, some of the deaths. The other person raked them over the coals for politicizing the topic so close to the time of the shootings. I guess that all depends on which side of the topic you agree with.

It is a simple fact that an armed citizen is safer in these situations than an unarmed one.

Why We Need To Insure Iran Does Not Go Nuclear

Forget about the threat to Israel for a minute. We know what would happen there. Read this:

Two more Iraqis with false Bulgarian passports were detained by Mexican officials in Monterrey – bringing the total to four this month.

Wisam Gorgies, a 34-year-old man, and Rana Nazar Peyoz, a 26-year-old woman, reportedly flew from Madrid and landed in Monterrey, according to reports in two Mexican newspapers today.

Following questioning, the pair admitted they intended to reach the United States. They were taken to Saltillo in the state of Coahuila, for final determination of their status.

They claimed to be fleeing the war, but the last time I checked there wasn't a lot of war related activities going on in Iran. Look we all know how easy it is to get into this country. Given that the next president will not do anything to curtail this, we must not allow rouge countries to get nukes.

Hillary Says Something I Agree With, Sort Of

I know it is hard to believe. In tonights debate she was talking about illegal immigration. She said: “We need a path to legalization to bring the immigrants out of the shadows.” (not what I agree with) She went on: “If they committed a crime, they should be deported. But a path to everyone else.” (this is what I agree with) I will go along with this 100%. If they committed a crime deport them! A path (to citizenship) to everyone else. Of course, the number of people on that path would be nil, since it is a damn crime to enter this country illegally.

Red Skelton Explains The Pledge of Allegiance

It looks like Red knew what was coming:



H/T: A Soldier's Prespective

Montana Officials Claim Second Amendment Rights Are Clear

From World Net Daily:

Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment's application, defining that "any person" has the right to bears arms.

That's the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is "reasonable" and therefore enforceable even given the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment.

...

"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."

He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be "reasonable" would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.

How serious are these lawmakers?:

In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.

"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.

"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

Good for them. I hope there are a lot more states that come out with Resolutions like this. As a matter of fact, I think I am going to write my representatives now. If you feel inclined to do the same, check out the new "Write to Congress" gizmo in the side bar. Just throw your zip code in there and start writing.

Fox News: Duke Lacrosse Players File Federal Lawsuit Against University, City of Durham

From Fox:

More than three dozen current and former Duke lacrosse players filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the university, saying the elite school "turned its back" on them.

They also are suing the city of Durham and others involved in the case.

The players claim they suffered emotional distress during the since-discredited rape case pursued against three of their teammates.

Lead attorney Chuck Cooper said Thursday the private university refused to support the players to protect the school's image.

"They simply turned their back on these students," said Cooper. "Players have made every effort to resolve these issues with Duke. There is no other course at this point."

Good for them. They were treated like criminals and were not even involved in the case.
Colleges

McCain Is Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Well it looks like the libs in the MSM are finally ready to go after Senator McCain. I am sure all of you have heard about McCain and the female lobbyist. If not check it out at here.

Senator McCain has a very big problem. He has to try to appeal to the base of the Republican Party all while keeping his support from the moderate and independents. The things that make him popular with the moderates and independents are the very things that is causing the problems with the "base". Sure he will get a lot of support from Republicans because he is not Obama or Clinton, but will it be enough? Right now it could go either way.

One thing is for sure, the courtship with the MSM is over. When push comes to shove the will side with the left every time. So let the fireworks begin. This should be an interesting six months.

Government Controlled Health Care At It's Best

Say you want Universal Health Care:

Created 60 years ago as a cornerstone of the British welfare state, the National Health Service is devoted to the principle of free medical care for everyone. But recently it has been wrestling with a problem its founders never anticipated: how to handle patients with complex illnesses who want to pay for parts of their treatment while receiving the rest free from the health service.

...

One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.

By December, she had raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor. “He looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.

“I said, ‘Where does that leave me?’ He said, ‘If you pay for Avastin, you’ll have to pay for everything’ ” — in other words, for all her cancer treatment, far more than she could afford.

Better to let her cancer spread than to let her buy the drugs she needs to extend her life. In an effort to make everyone equal Mrs. Hirst has to pay the price, with her own health. She could not really afford the drugs but had raised about one sixth of the money and was willing to sell her home for the rest. What has happened to her you ask:

But in a final irony, Mrs. Hirst was told early this month that her cancer had spread and her condition had deteriorated so much she could have the Avastin after all — paid for by the health service. In other words, a system that forbade her to buy the medicine earlier was now saying that she was so sick she could have it at public expense.

Mrs. Hirst is pleased, but only up to a point. Avastin is not a cure, but a way to extend her life, perhaps only by several months, and she has missed valuable time. “It may be too bloody late,” she said.

“I’m a person who left school at 15 and I’ve worked all my life and I’ve paid into the system, and I’m not going to live long enough to get my old-age pension from this government,” she added.

She also knows that the drug can have grave side effects. “I have campaigned for this drug, and if it goes wrong and kills me, c’est la vie,” she said. But, she said, speaking of the government: “If the drug doesn’t have a fair chance because the cancer has advanced so much, then they should be raked over the coals for it.”

This is one story about government controlled health care out of many. This is the kind of thing that I am afraid we are going to hear about in the near future in the good old USA. Do you really want the same people that are destroying Social Security, Medicare and everything else they control in charge of what treatment you get. I think these decisions should be made by my doctor and myself.

H/T: Red State

Michelle Obama Is Finally Proud To Be An American

Check this statement, from Michelle Obama out:

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” she told a Milwaukee crowd today, “and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Let me just say this: I have always been proud of my country. I know we have some problems, but where else on this Earth would you want to live?

It is amazing to think that any citizen of this country, much less the wife of a Senator could actually say such a thing.

I would like to go on record right now and say that I am against change. I am not saying things could not be better, but every time those asshats in Washington "change" something, it ends up a lot worse than when they started.

Is It "Global Warming" Or "Climate Change"?

We all know about Global Warming, right? Here is some news you won't see in the MSM:

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.

"That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as last year."

...

"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimeters thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.

Don't worry though, the fear mongers have already started to work this into there argument. You don't hear the term "Global Warming" anymore. Now it is " Climate Change". So let's see, if the temperature goes up, it is our fault. If the temperature goes down, it is our fault. So the experts have no idea what is going on. The only thing they can tell us is it is our fault.

I was listening to Dennis Miller last week and he said something along these lines: The same people that are predicting warmer weather in the year 2050 is the same people who told you it was not going to rain today. Before you start looking 50 years ahead, figure out how to get tomorrow right.

Indeed.