Right-Wing Extremists

Is Iran Nearing a Bomb?

by  Patrick J. Buchanan

09/29/2009

That Iran is building a secret underground facility near the holy city of Qom, under custody of the Revolutionary Guard -- too small to be a production center for nuclear fuel, but just right for the enrichment of uranium to weapons grade -- is grounds for concern, but not panic.

Heretofore, all of Iran's nuclear facilities, even the enrichment plant at Natanz -- kept secret before exiles blew the whistle in 2002 -- have been consistent with a peaceful nuclear program.

Iran has also been on solid ground in claiming that, as signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, she has a right to enrich uranium and operate nuclear plants, as long as she complies with treaty obligations.

 

Under the Safeguard Agreement to the NPT, these include notification, six months before a nuclear facility goes operational.

According to U.S. officials, construction of this site began in 2006 and is only months from completion. And Tehran did not report it to the International Atomic Energy Agency until a week ago, when they were tipped the Americans were onto it and about to go public.

Iran's explanation: This facility is benign, a backup to Natanz, to enable Iran to continue enriching uranium to fuel grade, should America or Israel bomb Natanz. It is a hedge against attack. And contrary to what Barack Obama implies, the facility is designed to enrich uranium only to the 5 percent needed for nuclear fuel, not the 90 percent needed for nuclear weapons.

Still, the burden of proof is now upon Tehran.

President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei must convince IAEA inspectors this small secret facility that can house only 3,000 centrifuges has the same purpose as Natanz, which can house 58,000. Or they will be exposed as liars -- to the West, to the Russians who have served as their defense counsel and to their own people.

For while Iranians are near unanimous in backing their national right to peaceful nuclear power, they do not all want nuclear weapons. And the Ayatollah has declared, ex cathedra, that Iran is not seeking them, and possession or use of such weapons is immoral and contrary to the teachings of Islam.

If Obama is right that the secret facility is "inconsistent with a peaceful program," but compatible with a weapons program, Ayatollah Khamenei has a credibility problem the size of Andrei Gromyko's, when he assured President Kennedy there were no Soviet missiles in Cuba. And President Kennedy had the photos in his desk.

Diplomats have been called honest men sent abroad to lie for their country. But ayatollahs, as holy men, are not supposed to be descending to diplomatic duplicity.

Obama's dramatic announcement represents a coup for U.S. intelligence, but it also raises questions.

Reportedly, we have known of this Qom facility "for several years." Yet, in late 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) said that U.S. agencies had "moderate confidence" that Iran had ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003.

In August, Walter Pincus, in a Washington Post story -- "Iran Years From Fuel for Bomb, Report Says" -- wrote, "Despite Iran's progress since 2007 toward producing enriched uranium, the State Department intelligence analysts continue to think that Tehran will not be able to produce weapons-grade material before 2013."

This was the judgment of the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, based on "Iran's technical capability."

Query: If State's top intelligence analysts, this year, did not think Iran could enrich to weapons grade until 2013, had they been kept in the dark about the secret facility near Qom?

Two weeks ago, in a Web exclusive, Mark Hosenball wrote, "The U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons development program, two counter-proliferation officials tell Newsweek."

The officials told the White House the conclusion of the 2007 NIE -- i.e., Iran had halted its weapons program in 2003 -- stood.

Were these two counter-proliferation officials also out of the loop on the secret site? Or did they know of it, but fail to share the sense of alarm and urgency President Obama showed last week?

Despite last week's revelation, the Obama policy of talking to Tehran makes sense. Whatever the ayatollah's intentions, IAEA inspectors have his lone ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz under observation. To enrich it to weapons grade, it must be moved.

America's twin goals here are correct, compatible and by no means unattainable: no nukes in Iran, no war with Iran.

Bombing would unite that divided country behind a regime whose repressed people detest far more than we, as they have to live under it. Patience and perseverance, as in the Cold War, may be rewarded with the disintegration of a state that is today divided against itself.

We outlasted the Red czars. We will outlast the ayatollahs.

"Are you a deer hunter?"

October 1st, 2009

Dear Nobama, are you a deer hunter?

If you are, this message is for you.

I believe hunting wild game is a right, not a privilege- just like concealed carry. We have the right to choose not to hunt, and the right to choose to hunt.

For concealed carry, I believe we also have the responsibility to make sure we're prepared, and that we could do more good in a defensive situation than we do bad. I'm sure you agree with me there.

Well, I think the same thing is true for hunting. It's our right to hunt, but we've got a responsibility to hunt right, and to be proficient with our gear and weapons- and above all, to have utmost respect for the animals that we take in the field.

A good friend of mine definitely believes that as well, and in fact, he's way more passionate about it than I am.

His name's David Barrett, and I met him last year in Boston. We were both at a seminar on how to make our websites more organized and user-friendly.

As you can imagine, I didn't tell 98% of the people there what my website was all about- Concealed Carry- because they just wouldn't understand.

But when I found out what David's site was all about, I knew: This was my kind of guy.

We've talked a lot since then, and let me tell you that he definitely is 'one of us'.

Anyway, if you're interested in this kind of thing, I thought I might be doing you a favor by telling you about his website.

There are no "if it's brown, it's down" hunters there- these guys are the real deal.

    Dear Friends,=> Watch the video here.

Remember- check out his video when you get a chance!

=> Go Here to Watch Dave's video.

 

     The words is out... the game is played... the man behind the curtain has been exposed... and it's now as plain as the nose on your face.  Obama and the leftists in Congress don't want you to know what's in ObamaCare... they just made it clear that they just may try to hide all the sordid details from you.

     But what's even worse, Obama and the leftists in Congress may even be trying to muzzle, and intimidate, those who dare to speak out against ObamaCare.

     It's becoming more and more apparent that Obama and the leftists in Congress don't want the American people to know... or read... or hear anything negative about ObamaCare... and that they may be willing to shut-down debate by any means necessary.

     One thing is certain, Obama and the leftists in Congress are leaving the door wide open to enact ObamaCare in the dead of night... under the cover of darkness... shove it down our throats before any of us are any the wiser.

     When Senator Jim Bunning offered an amendment that would have required that the language of the bill be made available to the American people 72 hours prior to a vote, Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee squashed it.

     Michael Franc, writing for the Heritage Foundation's blog, The Foundry gives us the sordid and sickening details:

"During the Senate Finance Committee mark up of the Baucus health bill ... Senator Bunning of Kentucky put forth an innovative amendment. This amendment stipulated that before voting on the measure in Committee, legislative language would have to be accessible to the public for 72 hours and that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would need to publish an official tally of how much this bill will cost the American people and what the real impact will be on health costs."

     Franc continued:

"The amendment failed 11-12 on nearly a party line vote. Senator Blanche Lincoln (AR) was the sole Democrat to support this attempt at transparency. The bottom line: when the committee completes its work on this re-make of one-sixth of our economy, Senators will have voted on a phantom - a bill that does not exist with costs that are unknowable until, that is, the unelected legislative draftsmen write the real bill in some back room on Capitol Hill."

     If nothing else that has transpired up to this point has convinced you that ObamaCare must be rejected... thrown aside... taken off the table... these shenanigans should.

     It's time to tell our elected officials that no good can come from ObamaCare... that's it's rotten to the core... and that it must be scrapped

Sit Down And Shut Up. ObamaCare Is None Of Your Business... When We Pass It, You Can Learn To Live With It.
     It's bad enough when our federal legislators vote on bills they have not even bothered to read....

     But to actually start "negotiations" on 200 pages of notes and ideas... on a bill that has not even been written....

     To squash an amendment that would require them to give you 72 hours to read what will likely be thousands of pages before they vote on it... what's going on here?

     It's as if they're saying, We Ain't Gonna Read It And We Don't Want You Reading It Either.

     The American people are not children to be scolded or bullied.

     This is the United States... not the old-Soviet Union.

     And yet, ObamaCare may actually pass because the willingness of some Republican Senators to "negotiate" is keeping it on life support.

     It's possibly the only thing keeping it alive right now.  If Republican Senators simply walked away... if they left it alone... ObamaCare would likely just wither on the vine.

     You can only scratch your head and ask why?

     Why negotiate over something the American people have soundly rejected?

     And furthermore, in consideration of the tactics being employed by the proponents of ObamaCare, why negotiate with a bully... even a 10 year-old knows better than to do that?

     But you can do something other than just scratch your head.

     You can send all of these Republican Senators a loud and clear message that it's time to stop negotiations. It's time to stand firm in opposition to ObamaCare and defeat ObamaCare once and for all.

Its Gollum, tigersabertooth or F.O.F. OR Brat or dfrogpong all the same person busted fool

SURRENDERING SOVEREIGNTY

While all eyes were on the rantings of Ahmadinejad at the United Nations, the United States -- under President Barack Obama -- was surrendering its economic sovereignty at the G-20 summit. The result of this conclave, which France's President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed as "revolutionary," was that all the nations agreed to coordinate their economic policies and programs and to submit them to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for comment and approval. While the G-20 nations and the IMF are, for now, only going to use "moral suasion" on those nations found not to be in compliance, talk of sanctions looms on the horizon.

While the specific policies to which the U.S. committed itself (reducing the deficit and strengthening regulatory oversight of financial institutions) are laudable in themselves, the process and the precedent are frightening. We are to subject our most basic national economic policies to the review of a group of nations that includes autocratic Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. Even though our GDP is three times bigger than the second largest economy (Japan) and equal to that of 13 of the G-20 nations combined, we are to sit politely by with our one vote and submit to the global consensus. Europe has five votes (U.K., France, Germany, Italy and the EU) while we have but one.

And the process will be administered by the IMF, whose counsel to less developed nations over the past two decades has consistently called for social pain and economic austerity. The IMF's misguided policies have been responsible for more revolutions than Marx, Engels and Lenin combined. Its bureaucrats' arrogance is legendary and their search for appropriate punishments to fit the crime of spending too much on the poor smacks of colonialism and imperialism. They are our new overseers.

This combination of the IMF and the G-20 will not only work to structure national economic policies but to limit executive compensation at financial institutions. The watchful, wise leaders of such nations as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia -- among others -- will monitor Wall Street to assure themselves that its compensation is not out of line. One particularly looks forward to the views of the Saudi monarchy on this question of excessive personal enrichment.
Perhaps as part of his public spasm of apology, President Obama also strove, successfully, to increase the voting strength of the debtor nations on the IMF from the current 43 percent to 48 percent. This is the economic equivalent of giving deadbeat debtors more votes on their bank's governing board of directors.

Thus, the world's most successful economy -- ours -- which is the only one that has produced reliable economic growth for three decades and has lifted real personal incomes almost every year, is going to subject itself to the burden of justifying its own economic policies in front of a global community of 20 nations, some of which do not even embrace free-market economies in the first place. Indeed, it is only through access to our markets that nations have been able to escape poverty. Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China and India have sequentially trod this path into prosperity.

Obviously, we live in a global economy. But the United States is 24 percent of it. We are entitled to more than one-twentieth of a voice, and it is the world that should be following our policies -- not the other way around.

Much of the damage of the Obama administration can be undone at the next election. But such grants of sovereignty to autocratic, backward, bureaucratic and even communist nations will be hard to undo. The world is recovering from its leftist obsession -- e.g., the Merkel victory in Germany. But by the time the voters discover how phony, failed and fraudulent these policies are, we may have given it all away already. Irrevocably.

Canada's Health Care 'Refugees'

by  Jessica Peck Corry

10/01/2009

Sometimes, patriotism can be awkward.  Especially when it means admitting to an international TV audience that your nation’s broken health care system forced you onto welfare, into adult diapers, and hobbling with a walker. And all before the age of 30.

Embarrassing perhaps, but for Canadian Lin Gilbert, the time had come to share her story publicly this week.  Especially after her 15-year-old son was recently diagnosed with the same health condition leading to her suffering. “As a parent, I will do anything to help him.  I will borrow the money, I will do whatever it takes,” she said.  “If the Canadian system can’t take care of him, I’ll find a way.”

Specifically, Gilbert wants to prevent her son from enduring the agony of government waiting lists she has known all too well.  After first encountering excruciating back pain in 2001, she was forced to wait six months for an MRI.  Nearly three more years passed before she made it to the top of a waiting list for spinal fusion surgery.  Even then, she recalls, one surgeon refused to operate because she “hadn’t suffered enough.” Another, however, saw things differently, lobbying for Gilbert to get the procedure and successfully performing it himself.

 

At 38, Gilbert is now off public assistance, owns her home, and manages a financial services business. Life is good, though she still suffers immense guilt from memories of being “an absent mother,” agonized by being unable to play with her kids, and struggling to remain coherent as she downed morphine to drown the pain.

Fortunately, Gilbert’s son faces better prospects.  Enter Rick Baker, a Canadian determined to improve health care in his country.  Baker joined Gilbert Monday at a Vancouver hotel to speak with American reporters as part of a health care dialogue organized by the Colorado-based Independence Institute, a free market think tank where I am a public policy analyst.

Baker began by offering a blunt disclosure.  “I make my living sending patients to the U.S.,” he said.  “This is medical tourism, but instead of sending someone to Thailand, we’re sending them to Delaware.”

Through an innovative partnership with 22 independent American surgery centers and doctors in 13 states, Baker and his American counterparts transport Canadians to the U.S. for timely care at cost savings up to 80 percent. The partnership operates largely outside the traditional health insurance system.  And this isn’t just about helping Canadians. Baker now also provides a similar state-to-state service for Americans seeking more affordable or timely care.

Under Canada’s controversial federal health legislation, surgeons are prohibited from charging patients to provide “medically necessary” treatment.  In addition, they are limited to performing surgeries to six hours a week.  Gilbert recalled one surgeon telling her, “I spend six hours in surgery each week, less time than I spend explaining to sick patients why I can’t perform theirs.”

Currently, Baker is involved an Ontario lawsuit that could effectively eliminate such limits. “The Canada Health Act is responsible for more pain, more suffering, and more death than any other piece of domestic legislation in history,” he said.  “Imagine a law that prevents you from taking care of yourself and preventing your own death.”

The Vancouver gathering came as President Barack Obama continues his push to radically expand the role of government in administering American health care. But participants weren’t just focused on bashing Canada as a role model. It was also about explaining that America’s health care woes don’t come from an absence of government, but rather too much government and not enough consumer choice.

“The Canadian system is a Ponzi scheme is that is just a little further along ours,” explained Dr. Keith Smith, an Oklahoma anesthesiologist who partners with Baker and manages his own outpatient surgery center.  Baker believes real change will come only when patients are given the incentive to help control costs, freed from being forced to blindly abide by the decisions of insurance companies.

To attract patients, Smith lists the costs of all packaged surgery services on his center’s Web site, adding that if the center’s costs rise above the figures provided, patients aren’t required to pay more.  “If we are wrong, we eat it.”

Smith hopes the model catches on. “It’s radical.  But when people go to our competitor across town and pay $21,000 [for a procedure], and then find out we could have done it for a fifth of that, they start to ask a lot of questions, starting with ‘why didn’t my insurance company go there?’”

Smith says insurance companies opt to pay more at hospitals because of a “cartel” where both inflate the total costs of services as a way to increase profit. Smith’s approach, meanwhile, also includes a commitment to not accepting any federal funding, standing in stark contrast to the position espoused by the American Medical Association, which recently endorsed Obama’s plan.  Smith was unsympathetic.  “The reason the AMA is endorsing this plan is that 90 percent of its funding comes from the federal government,” he said.  “Less than 15 percent of AMA’s budget comes from physician dues, so they are seen largely as irrelevant.”

Hospital lobbyists argue that surgery centers like Smith’s are given an unfair advantage in that unlike traditional hospitals, they are not required to take every patient coming to their door. But Smith rejects this, saying hospitals often exaggerate costs associated with treating uninsured patients as a way to gain political sympathy and more public funding.  “They love to see the uninsured person come through the door,” he said.  “They run a bunch of tests and say it cost them $80,000.  Meanwhile, it probably really cost $1000.”  And while Smith’s center is taxed, his “not-for-profit” hospital competitors are not, a distinction Smith says helped net those in his city net up to $100 million in profit last year.

Despite the intense political opposition they face, Smith and Baker are soldiering on, building a new system that is transforming lives one at a time.  “I know it sounds a bit naive, but it’s true that reform is as simple as charging less for the delivery of health care,” Baker said.

Imagine that.