The New World Order?

Something happened tonight that was a first for me in the two years I have been writing this blog. I sat down at my computer to do a final proofread on a blog that was going to appear here. It was written and ready to post. Before I uploaded it, I checked out Drudge. The first article I read made me scrap the old blog post, and start over. Here is the first part of the article, as reported by Reuters, and linked to on Drudge:

LONDON (Reuters) – The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say in a keynote foreign policy speech on Monday.

In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown – who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions – will say Britain, the United States[,]and Europe are key to forging a new world order.

I have seen no article on President Elect Obama that frightens me half as much as the intent of this article, and a comparable one from Bloomberg with the headline, "Brown Seeks 'Global Consensus' on Tax, Spending at G-20 Summit". Anytime I see the phrase "global consensus" in politics, I get very worried. This is no exception.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is trying to unite the world's economies to get a coordinated, global plan to trim taxes and boost spending. Since March, Britain has enacted spending increases and tax cuts targeting the low income earners to the tune of $7.6 Billion (U.S.). While I am almost always in favor of tax cuts, low income earners don't hire people to work for them. Brown is ready to increase borrowing and may be looking for a global consensus to protect his own hide. Has the Prime Minister considered cutting spending instead of increasing borrowing? To make matters worse, the Bloomberg article hints that other countries (such as China) may be interested in this new world order. Governments only make matters worse when they try to legislate the direction of the economy. I can't even imagine how much worse a global legislative agenda could make things.

Of course there is an even larger issue here. The United States should not cede our economic policies to any foreign body, global society, or new world order. I envision this new world order would be a United Nations like body focused on its own definition of economic policies. What does our current United Nations do well? Waste Money (with a capital M), and attack U.S. policy. What would supporters of Mr. Brown's position expect out of this UN-like body? Why should the citizens of the United States ever believe a global body would have our best interests at heart?

Our Constitution gives people we elect (Congress and the President) power over our own economic policies. These people are expected to represent us, and we have seen what a mess they have made of the economic crisis. What happens when representatives from France, Russia, Iran, or China get to dictate our tax and spend policies?

President Bush and President Elect Obama should both dismiss this idea from Mr. Brown as quickly as possible. The U.S. Senate should pass a resolution forbidding the President from signing any treaty that would require the U.S. to seek foreign council on economic policies. If we cede our tax policies and our economic policies, what happens next? When do we start suppressing other areas of the Constitution in favor of a New World Order? If you believe Mr. Brown's economic policies are a good idea, read this article on talks in Britain regarding,"…banning the media from reporting on matters of national security…" It won't stop with taxing…

A Return of Mother Russia

Russia has continued the war in Georgia, despite a EU brokered cease fire. This is likely to continue to get nasty, so I thought I would give my readers a quick history lesson, and bring everyone up to date on the latest reports from Georgia. I would also be disappointing my readers if I didn't weigh in on my thoughts as to what the motives are behind Russia and what the next steps in this conflict could be.

History

Georgia declared its independence just before the breakup of the Soviet Union. Around the mid 1990's, Abkhazia and South Ossetia began to have significant separatist movements. Prior to last week, these areas had been functioning independent of Georgia. Russia has had significant influence in the disputed areas including involvement in the government, stationing "peace keepers" in these areas, and even issuing Russian passports to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Last week, Georgia decided it was tired of the attacks into it from the South Ossetia region and sent in it's military to try and bring the area under control. They failed. Russia responded to the attack by sending it's own military into both disputing regions, and then launching a campaign into Georgia.

Today

Russia now has complete control of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Rumors prior to today said that the Russian military either controlled or had encircled the city of Gori. Between capturing Gori and launching an attack from Abkhazia, Russia now controls the major East West highway in Georgia, effectively splitting the nation in two. Up until yesterday, Russia stated there would be no more military operations, that Georgia had been punished enough.

Today found the Russian army moving towards the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. Reports in the capital were getting messages to, "Get out now!" Russia has also cut off the capital from Georgian Ports. This evening, it appears that the Russian military did take control of Gori. The original claims by Russian officials that they had not take Gori were based on splitting hairs on how you define the term "capture a city".

Now What?

It looks as if Russia may be intending to annex not just South Ossetia and Abkhazia (something they have wanted for a long time), but Georgia as well. Georgia also has the only major pipeline that brings oil from the Caucasus to the West outside of Russia. I think Prime Minister (Tzar?) Putin may be hoping to destroy it before this is done. Whatever Putin's motives, this war is a clear signal to the world and to the former Soviet Nations: Russia is the big gun on that side of the world and if former Soviet countries make attempts to join NATO, or become close with Europe and the U.S., watch out.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been dispatched to France and then Georgia to try and negotiate a settlement. She will be working with the French to do this. Hopefully this cease fire will go over better than the last one. I expect any settlement will include Russia controlling South Ossetia and Abkhazia at a minimum. At the end of the day, Putin and Mother Russia will have invaded a free and democratic nation, and will be rewarded for their effort. I hope I am wrong, but I don't believe the EU or the United Nations are strong enough to force Russia back inside her own borders. My one hope is that immediately after a cease fire that holds, NATO will grant immediate membership to any of the previous Soviet states that want it.

Cyclone Nargis

Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar (or Burma) on May 3rd. As of the posting of this blog, the military government of Myanmar has allowed one U.S. aid plane to land, and has confiscated two U.N. aid shipments. With relief organizations forecasting the death toll to exceed 100,000 people, the government of Myanmar has yet to issue a single visa to any relief workers. The government has asked foreign countries to send aid, but not people. Many organizations and governments don't want to blindly turn over supplies for fear these supplies will never reach the people who have been hurt by the cyclone. I have seen quotes in news articles from people in Myanmar saying the government doesn't care about it's people, only its hold on the country.

The Danish Red Cross is one of the only relief groups to be allowed into the nation so far. They are reporting that many of the dead are still floating in the water around the villages. If people with the knowledge to deal with this kind of devastation aren't allowed in soon, things could go from tragic to catastrophic. The UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian affairs says, "If we do not act now, and if we do not act fast, more lives will be lost." To make matters worse, the region is expected to get more rain in the coming days. With this in mind, I offer my humble solution:

Operation Merciful Python

As drastic times call for drastic measures, I offer what may be the only hope for ten's of thousands of people still holding on in Myanmar. This solution requires fast action on the part of the U. S. government, and a true re-ordering of priorities for the military government of Myanmar.

Phase I would begin with an immediate televised speech by President Bush. During his speech, the message would also be delivered to China with instructions to pass it along to their contacts in Myanmar. The message is simple: The Myanmar government has 72 hours to allow humanitarian relief in the form of aid and workers into Myanmars worst regions, or the U. S. will get the relief in by force. The President would immediately mobilize the Marine Expeditionary Force on ready status to steam towards Myanmar.

Phase II would be implemented 72 hours later. If the government was still refusing relief workers access, the Marine Expeditionary Force could create an entry point in Rangoon. By controlling this city, U.S. forces could establish a safe haven for refugees and relief workers. Supported by the Marines and an appropriate carrier battle group, this force should be able to withstand anything the Myanmar government could throw its way.

Phase III would be implemented within 3 days of the establishment the U.S. controlled city of Rangoon. The military would set up a democratic government within Rangoon, and hold free elections to govern the U.S. occupied territories. As the villages are rebuilt, and as the clean up continues, more local governments could be elected until we have replaced the military government of Myanmar with the Democratic government of Burma.

I recognize this is a bold and unheard of solution for a humanitarian crisis. However, it does three things. First, it gets aid to the victims in Myanmar who may otherwise die. Second, it replaces a military government that has no concern for its citizens with a democratic government. Finally, it gives other regimes something to think about if they don't want to allow aid from the U.S. or the U.N. to reach their citizens in times of crisis.

The Next Step with Ahmadinejad

Over the last few days Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has continued his dance with the United Nations and the West. His goal is quite simple: a nuclear Iran. He has successfully stalled and bullied the United Nations, all the while racing to get nuclear capability. Every time the United Nations has given Ahmadinejad a deadline, he has given the United Nations the finger, and continued to do what he wishes.

The United States and Israel have both said they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. France has now gone on the record saying that war may be necessary to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. French President Sarkozy said if the United Nations allows, “Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.” Germany, one of the countries that have stalled sanctions against Iran, is calling for a tougher stance against Iran. The German government has even said they don’t believe sanctions are going to work.

Where does that leave the world? If the world truly believes Iran can’t be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, it is time to make some very difficult decisions. Those decisions may include military action in Iran. The United States and Israel have probably (and hopefully) drawn up a point of no return scenario. This would be a list of criteria that would require an immediate military response. We may not have hit that time yet, but it is fast approaching.

For those who argue against a military action, it is time to get deadly serious with Iran. Former Governor Mitt Romney released his plan for Iran this week. His plan is tough, and works to so isolate Iran that if Ahmadinejad were to continue to press for nuclear technology, the world would have reason to respond militarily. Governor Romney’s plan includes:

1) Putting Iran in a diplomatic isolation.

2) Tougher economic sanctions against Iran.

3) Call on Arab states to join this effort. This would require the Arab states to support the government of Iraq, stop all financial support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and thaw relations with Israel.

4) Communicate to the people of Iran. There are those within Iran that do not share the views of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. Governor Romney believes we should do everything in our power to help those people.

5) Create a Partnership with the “entire world of Islam”. Romney argues that, “[o]nly Muslims will be able to permanently defeat the radical jihadist threat. We should help them any way we can.”

The full text of his outline can be found at the National Review Online. Ahmadinejad has made it crystal clear to anyone who is listening that he is going to acquire nuclear technology. He has also made it crystal clear that he intends to destroy both Israel and the United States. If the leader of a nation tells me he wishes to commit genocide and destroy my country, I tend to take him at his word. The current process is failing. The United Nations and the IAEA continue to demand and ask Iran for cooperation when Iran has no intention of giving it. Really isolating Iran may be the only way to avoid a military strike. Once Ahmadinejad has acquired a nuclear weapon is too late.

Ahmadinejad's 2007 U.S. Tour

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran will be speaking at the United Nations next week. I am not comfortable with the thought of our government allowing him to travel to the United States. However, as part of our treaty to host the U.N., we have agreed to allow those who the U.N. calls to speak into our country. What I am more outraged about is Ahmadinejad’s current plans to speak at Columbia University and to visit Ground Zero.

Columbia University was contacted by an Iranian Ambassador and asked to allow the President of Iran to deliver a speech at the University. The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, will introduce the man who has denied the holocaust and who has threatened to wipe Israel from the face of the planet. The University describes this as an, “…opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran.” Mr. Bollinger said he told the Iranians that Ahmadinejad would be introduced with, “…a series of sharp challenges…” on the issues facing Iran. I am sure the thought of facing the President of Columbia University has frightened the man who has given the proverbial finger to the world while he seeks a nuclear program for Iran. Mr. Bollinger also says, “It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.” Mr. Bollinger has extended this courtesy to a man who is responsible for killing Americans. At the same time, Mr. Bollinger has refused to extend the same courtesy to the ROTC program. While he will allow someone such as Mr. Ahmadinejad the “freedom of speech,” at Columbia University, in 2005 Mr. Bollinger helped defeat an effort to bring the ROTC program back to Columbia. Terrorist and tyrants are apparently welcomed at Columbia University, but not those who would defend against them.

If this doesn’t sound like a PR coup for Iran, then the President’s next stop on his agenda will. The President of the country that helps fund and organize Hezbollah will visit Ground Zero. Think of how these two events will play on Arab television. President Ahmadinejad will be shown addressing a group of America’s Youth. This image will fade to scenes of Ahmadinejad touring the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

So that this doesn’t sound like a simple partisan issue, I thought I would close with statements from a Republican Presidential candidate and a Democratic Presidential candidate. Both quotes come from WABC in New York by way of Matt Drudge:

“Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring bin Laden’s son and other al-Queda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero – hallowed ground for all Americans – is outrageous.”

-- Mayor Rudy Giuliani

“It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support for terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history.”

-- Senator Hillary Clinton

We have agreement on an issue that truly should be offensive to all Americans.

Time to Ban Chinese Products?

In what seems to be a daily happening, there has been another major safety warning issued for a product made in China. As of this writing, there hasn't been a recall on the product. The new recall involves vinyl baby bibs that have been found to contain three times the amount of lead that is allowed in paint. While there hasn't been a true recall, parents have been warned that if they have these bibs and they are damaged or torn, they should be thrown away.

This "non-recall" comes on the heel of a number of other recent recalls on items and products from China. Recently an assortment of toys have been recalled because of the lead in their paint and toothpaste and dog food have been recalled because of toxic ingredients that have been found in them. Whether this list of recalls is directly because of the Chinese government or not, the government does have its share of blame in this. Just as our government passes standards for products made in the U.S.A, the Chinese government has a responsibility to provide an assurance that the products from it's country won't kill consumers in other countries.

When the recalls started, many news agencies wrote of the "open secret" in China. It seems it was well known that certain industries were replacing ingredients with ingredients that could hurt the consumer. While I have never been to China, if this is true, then the Chinese government is as much at fault as those businesses that made the products that are now being recalled.

It is time to discuss a possible ban on Chinese imports. A government's role is to protect its constituents first and foremost. It is time for the United States to consider what it needs to do to guarantee citizens can buy products without fear they may kill them. China has been preparing itself for an eventual war with the United States for some time. Many argue that China has already started this war on the economic front. It was a travesty for the United Nations to award this communist nation with an Olympics. We shouldn't be worried about hurting the feelings of the Chinese regime. We should be concerned with the well being of our citizens. If China can't promise their products are safe, maybe the United States should ensure no one here will die from those same products.

Russia aides Iran in Quest for Nuke's

The day after I posted my blog on Iran, a news story broke out of Iran that fit in directly with my post. Iran has instituted a fuel rationing system in expectation of sanctions being placed against it for its nuclear program. There have been riots in the street with buildings and gas pumps being burned. FOX News reported that many Iranians believe they are entitled to cheap gas because of the oil reserves found in Iran. Ahmadinejad is being heavily criticized for both the rationing and the way it was broken to the public.

This morning, another news story appeared that I believe is important. I have argued against the effectiveness of the United Nations. In my post from Tuesday, I commended Peter Schweizer for his article recommending action against Iran. I commended him because he never calls for the United Nations to assist in the economic warfare he lays out against Iran. The riots over gas rationing show that Iran would be hurt if we prevented it from importing gasoline, a news story from this morning shows why we shouldn’t involve the United Nations.

FOX News is reporting that Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman is attempting to invest heavily in the Iranian market. His company, Alfa Group, is trying to buy a controlling share in an Iranian mobile phone company. Why is this important? Because in doing so, Alfa Group is making financial deals with Bank Saderat. Bank Saderat has been providing funding to Hezbollah. There is evidence that the deal by Alfa group would dilute the control of a political rival of Ahmadinejad’s thereby helping him to consolidate power.

Russia has had a history of both supplying Iran with conventional weapons, and blocking any sanctions against Iran. Russia has also sold Iran a $1 billion nuclear reactor which is currently under construction. Russia has shown it has a vested interest in helping the Iranian government. With Russia working actively against sanctions on Iran, can the United Nations impose any sanction that might actually work to bring Iran back from its nuclear course?

As I said on Tuesday, Iran can not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Some have offered that we should avoid military action until Iran gets to the testing stage of a nuclear weapon. I counter that by then it would be too late. Ahmadinejad and the mullah’s of Iran believe there is a religious component to their quest for nuclear power. They believe they are preordained to hasten the arrival of the 12^th Imam. They also believe the best way to do that is to begin a war with Israel. With nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad could make his desire to destroy Israel a reality. Because of that, there is no reason to believe Ahmadinejad won’t consider “testing” his nuke’s in Israel. Russia could also give him cover by allowing a test in Russia, and thereby hide the fact he is even testing weapons.

If we continue to wait to act in Iran, Ahmadinejad will get nuclear weapons. Once he gets nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before he uses them.

Time for Action against Iran

There are two interesting news articles today that I thought might represent a good departure from the global warming debate. With the temperatures of some of my readers getting high enough to force certain “Anonymous” readers away from my blog, I thought it might be worth discussing something that is more likely to destroy the world than global warming. What is this terror that Al Gore is ignoring? Iran.

I have written previous post on this site arguing that Iran represents a clear and present danger to the United States. I am for the use of the military in Iran if we decide it is the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran. With the mindset of the rulers of Iran what it currently is, I believe Iran would not hesitate to use a nuclear warhead if it was able to get one. Mutually assured destruction means next to nothing if you believe you are preordained to usher in a new world order.

Iran has been at war with the United States and Europe since at least 1979. The latest salvo appears to be the use of the Iranian military to place bombs in Iraq. This story has been reported inThe Sun Online. This is still a developing story as I haven’t seen it reported anywhere else yet. The Sun sites an intelligence source as saying that British forces have seen Iranian helicopters ferrying soldiers into Iraq so they can place IED’s. The Sun says this claim is backed up by, “…very senior military sources.” However, the Sun is the only place reporting this story. Is this enough to go to war with Iran over? No. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only piece of evidence that Iran is at war with the West.

Peter Schweizer has a very good piece in USA Today outlining some of the other marks against Iran. Among other things, Iran is providing military equipment and funding to our enemies in Iraq. They captured British sailors and continue to hold 4 United States citizens. The Iranian President has stated more than once his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I am inclined to take people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at their word. If he wants to destroy the Little Satan because he says he can win a war of attrition between Jews and Muslims, the West should be very concerned.

As I said earlier, I am for a military strike in Iran to keep them from acquiring a nuke. However, Mr. Schweizer lays out an economic war that I could support. He believes in a two prong assault, the first is a full gasoline embargo. This would be enforced by the United States Navy Fifth Fleet. Mr. Schweizer says that Iran imports almost half of its gasoline and is particularly vulnerable in this area. Secondly, he argues that the United States should begin counterfeiting Iranian currency. As I stated in another post attacking China for this very ploy, counterfeiting another nation’s currency is an act of war. However, in this case, Iran has been at war with the United States for decades. We can stick our head in the sand and hope the bully leaves us alone, or we can fight and stand up to these bullies.

The other very interesting part of this article is that Mr. Schweizer never once calls for aid or approval from the United Nations. Whether this course of action is taken or not, Mr. Schweizer should be applauded for this. It is time the United States shows that she is willing to stand up to those who would kill us, and we are willing to do it without international approval. The United States is the lone Superpower in the world. It is time we started acting like it.

The UN blames Global Warming for Darfur

Writing on Saturday, the Secretary General of the United Nations illustrated why the United Nations is no longer taken seriously. Ban Ki-moon said that man-made global warming was to blame in Darfur for the deaths of 200,000 or more people. How exactly did global warming spark the fighting between the government and rebels? The Secretary General would have us believe that a decrease in rain over the last two decades has led to the violence we are witnessing today. Please keep in mind that Sudan has been independent for the last 51 years. In that time, civil war has raged for 40 of those years.

How did war start in Sudan? That is a very complicated question. It also depends on which war you are talking about. After spending some time searching for writings on Darfur and Sudan, it is quickly apparent that war has been with this country for some time. The most recent version seems to have started around 2003 because rebel groups felt the government was neglecting certain areas of the country. Many have accused the government of participating in genocide in Darfur. The rebels have accused the government of using Arab militia’s, referred to as “Janjaweed”. The Janjaweed groups attack villages after the government has softened the targets up with air power. Most agree that there are active Arab militias in the country doing whatever they wish. The UN has launched its own investigation and doesn’t believe there is genocide going on in Darfur, but in an interesting play on words, acknowledges that there are those who have the intent to commit genocide.

If we weren’t talking about the deaths of 200,000 to 400,000 people, this might be a joke. If the UN itself was capable of doing anything in Sudan, one might be concerned about the thoughts of the Secretary General. However, for the Secretary General to say this may be caused by global warming is simply one further illustration that the United Nations should be ignored. Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere aren’t causing Muslims to kill each other in huge quantities. Hummers in America aren’t raping women for walking to far from home at night in search of water or firewood. “Big Oil” isn’t ……actually….there is a problem with “Big Oil” in Sudan. However, this big oil comes in the form of China and Russia.

There is a very limited African Union force in Darfur (7,000 to 9,000). Many want to boast that number. However, two of the veto votes on the Security Council (Russia and China) have blocked those attempts because of their own trade contracts in the Sudan. Perhaps instead of citing climate change Mr. Ki-moon should look at the United Nations and seriously consider that it might be part of the problem in Sudan. Instead of the United Nations conjuring phantoms to blame for it’s own incompetence, perhaps the UN should recognize that some of its own members are helping to continue the problem in Darfur.

Protect your Enemies and Attack your Friends?

With the new funding bill being discussed for Iraq, both Republicans and Democrats are claiming a win. Many Democrats and Republicans have called for benchmarks and timetables for Iraq. The theory seems to be that if we only threaten the Iraqi government, things might go the way we want.

The current threat is if the Iraqi government doesn’t meet certain benchmarks, it jeopardizes reconstruction assistance. While the President has the option to wave these restrictions, the intent of this bill shouldn’t be glossed over. If signed into law, the US would tell Iraq that the Iraqi government must meet certain benchmarks, or the US will stop funding reconstruction projects in Iraq. I think it is imperative that we continue to fight in Iraq without a surrender date. However, what are we really saying to our allies with these benchmarks?

Many Democrats are constantly demanding we negotiate with Iran and Syria regarding Iraq. The Democrats look at Iran, look at its continued involvement in Iraq and its continued UN violations and decide that Iran is a country they can trust. Just today, the IAEA released a report saying Iran continues to violate UN resolutions. The IAEA says it can not assure the world that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for exclusively peaceful purposes. If only we would negotiate with the leaders of Iran, they would help us in Iraq. How many of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have discussed having a conference in the Middle East to discuss Iraq with Syria and Iran? The Democrats would have us believe we can trust Iran.

However, when the Democrats turn their eyes on Iraq, they insist on benchmarks with teeth. If the Iraqi government can’t pass laws and meet benchmarks by a date set by politicians in DC, then we should stop funding reconstruction efforts in Iraq, or we should withdraw our troops and leave Iraq to the wolves. Let’s not forget that after 200+ years of experience with Democracy here in the US, we still miss the ball. Look at how long it takes our congress to pass laws. However the DNC would have the Iraqi government held to a higher standard.

It seems to me these roles should be reversed. If Iraq is our ally, we should be working with them to get their nation rebuilt. We should protect them from enemies who would assassinate her leaders and enslave her people while raping the nation of its natural resources. Surely the United States can be called on to protect its allies?

If the Democrats insist on passing benchmarks, then let’s look at an Iranian resolution. If the Iranian government can’t prove to the world that it is pursuing a purely peaceful nuclear program in the next 60 days, then we will cut off all economic ties and aid to Iran. I would not advocate using ground forces in Iran, but I read we have three carrier groups near Iran right now. If Iran continues to kill US soldiers in Iraq, then perhaps it is time to see how effectively our military can bomb one country while fighting a war in another one.

The Democrats have taken the saying of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer to a new and corrupted level. The Democrats seem to be saying, “Protect your enemies while attacking your friends.”

A Pro US France?

The French have elected a new president. One who sounds more favorable to the US, one who is not a socialist, and one who has said the US will always have a friend in France. Could this be a new day in France?

The two French candidates ran on very different platforms. The winner ran on a pro-US, pro-job growth, and pro-immigration control platform. The looser ran promising to protect welfare benefits, and promised to create new government jobs for young people. The French people have spoken. They have voted (by 53 %) for a more conservative president. I think there are a few very important long term implications for the US with this election.

One lesson is obvious. A Pro US foreign leader is always good for us. France has an important vote in the UN. I disagree with our involvement in the United Nations. However, the more pro US votes in the UN, the better for the United States. In addition, the new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, ran on a tougher immigration policy. He believes that many of the rioting that has taken place in France since 2005 is because of a weak immigration policy. He stated that France cannot become the refuge for, “…all the world’s miseries.” Could it be that a European government has started to recognize the war the West is in with Islamist?

The other important lesson that should be taken from this is that France has thrown out socialism. The Socialist party in France has lost its third straight presidential election. Democrats in our country need to pay close attention to this lesson. The Socialist party has been preaching an anti-US, anti-capitalist, government can do everything message. The people of France have tired of it. The Democratic Party in the US runs a very similar message. If France is willing to reject this message for three straight presidential elections, might US voters as well?

Some of the problems cited as defeating the socialist are problems that might face Democratic candidates for the 2008 election. Two of the examples cited on FT.com include: suggesting huge government programs with no way to fund them and backing off core party beliefs while the party power based attacked their candidate for it. Both of these tactics have started to appeal to potential Democratic Presidential candidats.

Many, including myself, would argue the 2006 election was more about the Republicans loosing the election than the Democrats winning the election. The Democrats have made themselves the American Socialist party. They have campaigned on the belief that America is the root of many of today’s problems. Party leadership has declared the war in Iraq lost, while playing political theatrics with those fighting the war. The Democrats need to study what happened in France or they may find the same happening here.

It’s Good to be Ahmadinejad

If your name is Ahmadinejad, you have had a very good couple of weeks. First, Iran captured 15 British Sailors and Soldiers. While many in the West followed the plight of these 15, very few seriously condemned the action, and no one really expressed any resolve to do anything about it. Then on Monday, President Ahmadinejad announced to the world that Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges and can push its nuclear energy program even further. And again, with only minor exception, very few in the media or in positions of power seem to have taken much notice.

I would speculate that Iran was trying to see what the West and the rest of the world would do if they captured a few Western sailors. Iran found that the west would do nothing, and they gained an extra PR advantage in the Middle East with the assorted confessions and PR video released to the world. While the West had a few (and I emphasize few) strong words, there was never any threat that the Western response would go past a few words.

Fresh from that success, President Ahmadinejad gave the world, the UN, and anyone not studying Don Imus the collective finger. The Iranian President revealed to the world that Iran has no intension of suspending its uranium enrichment program. The UN had previously given Iran 60 days to stop its program or face tougher sanctions. Since Iran has ignored the last three similar warnings from the UN, no one should have been surprised when they ignored the UN yet again. However, President Ahmadinejad raised the stakes by claiming to have 3,000 centrifuges now operating. This number caught most experts off guard. While Russia and a few others have expressed disbelief at this number, the implications are very ominous if Iran is telling the truth. With 3,000 centrifuges, Iran could be anywhere from 1 to 3 years away from producing 1 to 2 nuclear weapons a year. Personally, I believe we should take our enemies at their word. If they say they have no intention of complying with the UN, and are in fact increasing their production, we should take them at their word. The West should assume at this point that Iran will not stop until it has a usable nuclear weapon. However, most in the media seem to be more distraught over “racially insensitive” comments by Imus.

The West must focus on the important thing and decide what to do with Iran. There are really only two possible outcomes, the West accepts a nuclear Iran, or the West prevents Iran (and by extension Hezbollah, Hamas, and maybe Syria) from getting a nuclear weapon. No matter what the rhetoric, to date both the West and the UN seem willing to grudgingly accept a nuclear Iran. While we have said this is unacceptable, we really haven’t done anything to prevent it from happening.

The second case is the much more difficult one, but the one we really should be following. It would be a terrible thing for the entire world if Iran was able to get a nuclear weapon. Iran has said it would use a nuke in Israel. Iran is accused of helping our enemies in Iraq. Iran has definitely been a huge backer of Hezbollah. I would argue that Iran has been at war with the US since the Islamic revolution and capture of American hostages in the 1970’s. Because of that, Iran represents a terrible threat to the West, to Israel, and to the US.

It is time for the West to wake up and realize that maybe we should take our enemies at thier word. Hitler promised to eliminate the Jews and no one took him at his word. Are we ready to repeat the same mistake?

Book Review: Londonistan

Towards the end of October, I came across an op-ed piece by Melanie Phillips. Mrs. Phillips is a columnist for London’s Daily Mail. I was intrigued by her article, so I looked for anything else she had written. I came across Londonistan. Mrs. Phillips makes an argument in the book that Britain may already have lost its own “War on Terror”. I don’t get to read much from the other side of the ocean, so I thought this might be interesting.

Mrs. Phillips argues that while America and the UK focus on battlegrounds in the Middle East and elsewhere, the UK is losing the war at home, and is in danger of loosing it for good. She backs up her arguments with straight forward logic, and some very startling facts. She quotes British sources as saying, “…up to sixteen thousand British Muslims either are actively engaged in or support terrorist activity…with several hundred thought to be primed to attack the United Kingdom.” From here she traces how the UK has been loosing the war at home for years.

On July 7th, 2005, suicide bombers blew up three London trains and one bus. Even more startling, the bombers in this case were from middle class London. A tape from one of the bombers showed a terrorist like those in tapes from Al-Jazeera, but with a definite British accent. Britain had been loosing a war it wasn’t even aware it was fighting for some time. Mrs. Phillips traces how the UK placed the interest of United Nations and the interest of the world community ahead of the security of its own citizens. Because of that, terrorist turned London into their own recruiting ground.

As Mrs. Phillips points out, we are engaged in a war with a particular brand of Islam, and not in a war with Islam. However, the Muslim community must look inward and recognize that there are Muslims trying to kill Christians, Jews, and other Muslims in the name of their interpretation of Islam. At the same time, British judges and lawmakers must realize that in order for the UK to survive, British common law must come before UN resolutions. While reading this book, I couldn’t get over how eerily certain passages echoed in today’s political world.

I recommend this book to anyone who wishes to protect the West from those who would have us give up our freedoms. This book should be a required read for anyone who ever admired what the UK once was, or wishes to keep America from following a similar path.

Kick the United Nations out of the United States

The more I follow politics, the more I think the United Nations doesn’t work anymore. If the United Nations doesn’t work, should the United States continue to be a part of the process?

I think I can get agreement from the majority of people out there when I say that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the three biggest hot spots in the world today. If the UN is to work, they must react quickly and decisively in these three areas. Currently, the US and Britain seem to be the major governments trying to stabilize Iraq. Iran and Syria seem to be the major nations trying to destabilize Iraq. If the UN is going to be the forum for the world to resolve its issues, I would expect the UN to be actively engaged in seeking solutions with the US, the UK, and Iraq, and actively trying to prevent Iran and Syria from influencing Iraq. I don’t see that happening.

The United Nations seems to be very reluctant to do anything in Iran. France, Germany, and Britain are working to impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear development efforts. Russia and China are working hard to prevent sanctions against a nation they consider to be a valuable trading partner. The United States wants tough sanctions, but is trying to give the European nations a chance to work things out. At face value, this sounds like diplomacy at work. The truth of the matter is that this is a continued failure of diplomacy. The UN Security Council set an August 31st deadline for Iran to stop work on enriching uranium, or face dire consequences. Since August 31st, the Security Council has been unable to reach any decision on what those consequences should be. In the mean time, Iran has been working to expand its nuclear program and continues to thumb its nose at the world community. This week’s elections show that the people of Iran don’t support Ahmadinejad’s policies, but the UN can’t develop a similar message to send to Iran.

Under the UN’s watchful eyes, North Korea has now become a nuclear power. While North Korea has returned to the negotiating table, it has done so with a list of demands for the rest of the world. North Korea currently sees these negotiations not as a chance to become a member of the world community, but as a forum to negotiate bribes for the Kim Jung-Il, and to discuss world wide arms reductions. As North Korea has admitted it broke previous treaties, I don’t hold my breath that anything good could come from this latest round of talks.

There are other reasons the United Nations no longer is a legitimate forum for the US. In the view of the UN, all countries are equal, and all should have an equal voice in how the world works. This is a logical conclusion if you believe that there are no nations that are better than other nations. This basic belief is flawed. The United States is quite simply the greatest nation on the Earth. Any forum that equates the views of the US with every petty dictator throughout the world instantly handicaps the US. We have every responsibility to help those individuals and those nations less fortunate than us. However, we don’t have to do it with a gun to our heads as the UN would have us. We can administer our own foreign aid, and peruse our own diplomatic resolutions.

What more can we give North Korea?

North Korea proudly proclaimed itself a Nuclear Power today. The six party talks resumed today, and as I predicted last month, North Korea showed up with a laundry list of demands. In stead of sounding like a nation interested in becoming a part of the world community, North Korea sounded like a landlord demanding rent.

First, North Korea demanded the US stop all financial sanctions against the “Fearless Leader” and North Korea. This is to include the frozen banks that the US began due to North Korea’s high counterfeiting of the US $100 bill. Secondly, someone other than North Korea is to come build them a nuclear reactor. Next, the rest of the world is to provide power for North Korea until the nuclear reactor is built. After that, North Korea and Kim Jung-Il will consider abandoning their nuclear weapon program. And by the way, since they were able to “successfully” test a nuclear weapon, they want equal treatment as any other nation in the world.

When a child misbehaves, he doesn’t come to the principles office with a list of demands that must be met before he will begin to behave again. If a criminal were to show up at the police station with a list of demands before he would abide by the law, we would all laugh at him. However, because the UN and the rest of the world allow tyrant regimes to do as they wish, more and more dictators come to the UN with demands before they will act like a responsible, equal share holder in the world community.

This is the basic flaw with the modern Democratic Party and the UN. Both treat all individuals (except George Bush) and all nations (except the US) as equal. No matter how you treat others, or how bad your ideas may be, you can’t be called wrong. If you feel it is ok to deny the right of another race of individuals to exist, you’re not condemned and cut off from the rest of the world. You are allowed to present your ideas as if they have merit. If you funnel money, troops, and training into a war zone to kill American and International forces, the Iraq Study Group says the US and the world should negotiate with you and give you an equal share in the fate of your neighbors.

Until the UN or the world at large is willing to hold nations like Iran and North Korea responsible for their actions, these rouge leaders will continue to threaten other nations, kill and starve their own people, and grow fat off the weak knees of the world at large. Maybe we should just ask President Carter what to do.

UN Threatens to Slap North Korea on the Wrist Harder

Earlier today, the UN Security Council voted to impose harsher sanctions against North Korea. From the articles I have seen, this includes the following:

1) A complete ban on the sale of “luxury goods” to North Korea. That means no more lobster tail, fine cigars, or expensive wine for the “Dear Leader”.
2) A ban on the sale of conventional weapons to North Korea. This is limited to major conventional weapons.
3) A demand that North Korea immediately return to the six-nation talks.
4) A promise of no military action from the United Nations.

I am impressed that we actually got a resolution from the Security Council. China has already said it won’t impose the ban on its dealing with North Korea, but at least they voted for it. The US had wanted a ban on all conventional weapons. China and Russia weren’t willing to go along with the total ban, so the resolution was watered down. Ultimately, I am not sure either North Korea or Iran will be very deterred by this resolution.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this week. When talking about possible responses to North Korea’s nuclear test earlier in the week, he cited a John F. Kennedy speech about Cuba. President Kennedy (a Democrat) was telling the world what the US would do in response to a build up of nuclear weapons in Cuba. In part, President Kennedy said, “…It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.” Rush said that this would be the equivalent of the US saying that any launch by North Korea would result in America flattening North Korea. I think he is wrong. I think the equivalent, and the message President Bush needs to send is this: Any nuclear weapon fired from North Korea at any ally of the United States of America or NATO, will result in a “full retaliatory response” on China.

That might be the only way to really get China on board with a non-nuclear Korean peninsula.