Hillary Clinton: We Won't Stop Iranian Nuclear Program

Or, “how to sound like you’re talking tough, but you really ain’t“:

GREGORY: Did you mean to suggest that the U.S. is considering a nuclear umbrella that would say to nations in the Arab world that an attack on you, just like NATO or Japan is an attack on the United States, and the United States would retaliate?

CLINTON: Well, I think it’s clear that we’re trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime. You know, the Iranian government, which is facing its own challenges of legitimacy from its people, has to know that that a pursuit of nuclear weapons, something that our country along with our allies stand strongly against. We believe as a matter of policy it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. The G-8 came out with a very strong statement to that effect coming from Italy.

So we are united in our continuing commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen.

First, we’re going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed, it is something that we view with great concern, and that’s why we’re doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening.

GREGORY: All right, but let’s be specific. Are you talking about a nuclear umbrella?

CLINTON: We, we are, we are not talking in specifics, David, because, you know, that would come later, if at all. You know, my view is you hope for the best, you plan for the worst.

Our hope is — that’s why we’re engaged in the president’s policy of engagement toward Iran — is that Iran will understand why it is in their interest to go along with the consensus of the international community, which very clearly says you have rights and responsibilities; you have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power; you do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon; you do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control.

But there’s a lot that we can do with Iran if Iran accepts what is the international consensus. (emphasis added)

First off, Madam Secretary, it is absurd to talk of Iran not having a right to nuclear weapons. No nation has an intrinsic right to such horrific things – some nations have them, and some don’t. As a nuclear-armed nation the question for us always will be: do we want “Nation X” to obtain nuclear weapons? If you’re going to argue a point that Iran doesn’t have a right to the weapons, then Iran’s position in any negotiations will be to get us to agree that Iran does have a right to such weapons. We’ll be arguing in circles and making no progress. So, do we want a nuclear-armed Iran?

The official Obama Administration position is, “no” – but the statements of Secretary Clinton indicate we consider a nuclear-armed Iran a foregone conclusion unless the Iranians, by some chance, voluntarily agree to eschew such weapons, out of the goodness of their hearts (the same hearts which gun down young women in Iran’s streets, that is). We have just telegraphed, loud and clear, that we will not act to prevent Iran from obtaining such weapons…the talk of “we won’t allow” or “we will stop” is just mindless yammering right after anyone in the Obama Administration says, “What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen”. What needed to be said is, “we will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and Iran should pay heed to our resolve and seek to make the best deal they can in return for their voluntary surrendering of the nuclear option”.

Once Iran has a nuke, they will inherently intimidate their neighbors and will inherently be able to project their power – these two things are the result of building nukes, not something you do with a nuke after you’ve built it. A nuclear armed Iran changes the power calculus in the middle east because the statements of Iran’s leaders cannot be ignored – while it might all be bluster, everyone will have to work on the assumption that they’re crazy enough to use them. And don’t think a “nuclear umbrella” will do much…no one in Saudi Arabia or Turkey is really going to think we’ll risk a nuclear counter attack on ourselves because Iran nuked Ankara or some other city. And the Israelis won’t care about it – a couple nukes over Israel means the end of Israel, period: Holocaust II. It wouldn’t even be cold comfort to think that after 5 million more are murdered the US will possibly nuke Tehran in response.

Clinton, speaking for Obama, has blown our chances of using something short of all out war to prevent an Iranian nuclear force. Nice job. No we’ll either get a nasty war in a couple years, or a generation of nuclear brinksmanship and even worse terror-sponsoring.

Was Obama's Police Gaffe Rehearsed?

Goodness, I really hope this isn’t the case:

On today’s Fox News Sunday, presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted President Obama had been prepared to answer questions about the Henry Louis Gates arrest at his press conference last week. Bret Baier, filling in for regular host Chris Wallace, asked Gibbs, “Before Wednesday’s news conference, did you prepare [the president] for a question about Henry Gates’s arrest in Cambridge?”

“Well, look,” said Gibbs, “Let’s just say it’s safe to say we went over a whole lot of topics that we thought might come up, and certainly this was a topic that was, has been in the news . . .” He then went on to try to un-ring the bell by repeating the line that the president “hadn’t calibrated his words well,” and blah, blah, blah, beer at the White House, blah, blah, blah.

So now we know that President Obama didn’t properly “calculate” his words about the Cambridge police “acting stupidly” even after being prepared for such a question in advance. Thus is revealed the president’s tone deafness in failing to anticipate the backlash such an answer might provoke…

I’m getting concerned that we really did elect a smooth talking dunce – someone who is great on the stump and who looks good in a photo shoot, but can’t be trusted with a burnt out match. I’m looking for signs that Obama can think on his feet and can adjust his policies to changing reality. So far, I’m seeing no such thing.

10 Possible Political Reforms

As I ponder options and make preparations, many things bubble through the brain as regards the flaws in our way of doing business. Here are some ideas I’ve come up with:

1. Term limits – one term and you’re out. And then at least two years must elapse before you take another federal office.

2. Perhaps modify the terms of office – Representative to 4 years, Senator to 8 years, President to 6 years. Stagger House elections so only half the members are up ever two years.

3. Add 100 members to the House. We’ve been with 435 members for a century or so now – and a century ago our population was less than a third of what it is now. The House is supposed to be directly responsive to the will of the people, and I think that with districts approaching 690,000 residents, this is not possible.

4. Break up some of the States in to smaller entities. California with nearly 37,000,000 people has two Senators. Vermont with 621,000 people has two Senators. It makes sense that a Vermont Senator can represent the whole State as it is a fairly compact unit where most citizens share the same general concerns. Do the concerns of San Francisco even remotely resemble the concerns of Santa Ana? The concerns of Los Angeles, are they even in the same ballbark as those of Daly City? Such modifications would, of course, require State consent, but common sense dictates that the people of California north of San Francisco/Sacramento would prefer Senators committed to Northern California rather than beholden to groups in Los Angeles and San Francisco directly hostile to the aspirations of the people of Northern California.

5. All legislation coming to the President must be contained on no more than 10 type-written, 8.5×11 inch pages. If it takes more than ten pages to tell what you’re doing, it shouldn’t be done.

6. Make it illegal to be in fact or in form a lobbyists without a clear declaration of such employment. Allow no lobbyists to reside within 100 miles of Washington, DC.

7. End all pensions and health benefits for elected officials.

8. Remove all controls on campaign donations and expenditures. Make it illegal to expend money on a political campaign more than 180 days prior to the election.

9. With the National Guard essentially the ready reserve of the active military, States lack a military force at their disposal in case of emergency (when the emergency comes, it is very likely that the US government will call up the Guard, leaving the State with, perhaps, insufficient military resources) – create State militias made up of older men and women (preferably former service members) who can never be used outside of US territory, but who can backstop the Guard when it is called to active duty and provide an armed security force for static defense (such as guarding ports, airports, bridges, tunnels, etc during a time of external threat to America, itself).

10. Make it illegal for the federal government to ever take more than 30% of a person’s annual income.

What would you add, take away or modify?

Phrase of the Day

Should we ever force a good thing to happen?

…if we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion. – F A Hayek

Remember That Swine Flu Thingy?

That we weren’t supposed to worry about and it was all just a big nothing? Well, perhaps not:

In a disturbing new projection, health officials say up to 40 percent of Americans could get swine flu this year and next and several hundred thousand could die without a successful vaccine campaign and other measures.

The estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are roughly twice the number of those who catch flu in a normal season and add greater weight to hurried efforts to get a new vaccine ready for the fall flu season.

Swine flu has already hit the United States harder than any other nation, but it has struck something of a glancing blow that’s more surprising than devastating. The virus has killed about 300 Americans, and experts believe it has sickened more than 1 million, comparable to a seasonal flu with the weird ability to keep spreading in the summer.

Health officials say flu cases may explode in the fall, when schools open and become germ factories, and the new estimates dramatize the need to have vaccines and other measures in place.

A world health official said the first vaccines are expected in September and October. The United States expects to begin testing on some volunteers in August, with 160 million doses ready in October.

That last bit is “if we get it right and if the bloody thing doens’t mutate”. You know how some times we’re “cautiously optimistic”? Well, I’m cautiously quite concerned over this – if we don’t get a handle on it, then the fall might be a long, miserable season this year.

So, Just What is the Argument Against Assisted Suicide?

Interesting and revolting story over at Pajamas Media:

…Earlier this month, British conductor Sir Edward Downes, 85, traveled to Dignitas — the Zurich-based suicide clinic — with his wife Joan, 74, who had terminal cancer. Sir Edward was frail, with failing eyesight and hearing, but not terminally ill. After fifty-four years of marriage, the couple drank a fatal draft of poison and “fell asleep” for the last time, holding hands across the bed. Their son described his parents’ last moments as “very calm and civilized.” Who could object to that? Surely, in a civilized society, everyone has the right to a calm death. Dignitas has found a gap in the market, and countries like the UK, where assisted suicide is illegal, should get with the program.

The founder of Dignitas, human rights lawyer Ludwig Minelli, sees nothing wrong with making his product available to as many people as possible. His motives are noble: death is a “human right without conditions” and a “marvelous possibility.” Besides, if people stick around needlessly, they cost the taxpayer money. Jenny McCartney writes in the Telegraph:

[He] offered an economic argument for the efficiency of his clinic. “For every 50 suicide attempts we have one suicide and the others are failing, with huge costs to the National Health Service.”

Forty-nine people still alive because they didn’t use a professional? That is failure indeed. Mr. Minelli has missed a marketing trick here. Just think of all the money that is wasted at The Samaritans, training staff to talk people out of suicide. They could be replaced by a recorded message saying: “Suicidal? Don’t botch it. Phone Dignitas — stone dead or your money back. Two for one offer — spouse goes free.” And unlike most products, there will be no need for an after-sales service…

…In seeing death as a right, Minelli is not alone. Blogging as Bradlaugh, John Derbyshire writes:

I have never been very clear about the religious objections to suicide and assisted suicide. The only time I tackled a religious colleague about it he launched into a “slippery slope” argument. Well, I suppose some slopes are slippery, and some aren’t. I can’t see this one as being particularly slippery.

I disagree. There has been some slippage already. From helping a terminally ill person kill himself before he becomes incapacitated, Dignitas has slithered down to dispatching the frail and sad.

Derbyshire either unfortunately ran in to a believer who hadn’t thought the matter through, or he dismissed the argument out of hand and characterizes it as “slippery slope”, as that seems to be a weak argument. Its not, of course – it is the argument; once admit the exception, and the exception becomes the rule.

Divorce is so common nowadays that it isn’t really remarked upon as a thing in itself – we talk about how divorce can have an ill effect on children and other effects of divorce, but the fact of divorce is taken as a given. Its no big deal in society if someone gets a divorce. Used to not be that way – in fact, a divorce was a gigantic scandal and, at times, led to utter social destruction for both parties to the divorce. People would go to all sorts of lengths to avoid divorce – including mutual winking at each others affairs…divorce was so rare and scandalous that adultery was considered a lower risk! What happened? We admitted the exception, and it became the rule.

Back when the concept of liberalizing divorce laws came up, the assertion was that it was only needed for the exceptions to the rule against divorce. Certainly, marriage was for life and no valid marriage should be broken up – but what about those cases where something really horrible is happening? A man beating his wife routinely and/or engaging in extra-marital affairs was used as the prop for the straw man – who would be so heartless as to condemn a poor woman to such a marriage just to adhere to a musty, old rule which only Christian cranks took seriously? From what I understand, a least a version of the “slippery slope” argument was marshaled against liberal divorce laws. Such arguments were calmly ignored because everyone knows who weak the “slippery slope” argument is.

Fast forward, and here we are today with nearly half of all marriages ending in divorce and in some communities marriage has been so degraded as a concept that vast majorities of couples never bother with a wedding before entering in to a household and producing children. And this only begins to note the social pathologies subsequent to liberal divorce laws. Divorce has been a sociological catastrophe – and taught us (a) don’t tinker with the sanctity of marriage and (b) don’t take that first step on a slippery slope.

Assisted suicide is not the first step on the slippery slope. Its the fourth or fifth step. The first step was the legalization of birth control. You see, either life is worthwhile, or its not. Once you admit the exception to this (“who would be heartless enough to force a couple to have a child when they aren’t ‘ready’?” – its ok to cut off this aspect of human life, because its just this one, little thing and we’re just being reasonable), the rest follows like a train running down hill. We now practically admit that life is only good if its perfect – when a person has sufficient wealth and health to do as they please whenever they please to do it. Once this level of perfection is gone, life is not worthwhile – or, at least, not as worthwhile as it used to be and so birth control, abortion, euthanasia, infanticide.

If life is not inherently valuable, then it is contingent upon our pleasing those around us. The final stop on this road to perdition is a society where people are not allowed to live if they don’t fit a certain set of parameters determined by others for what constitutes a worthwhile life. You can want to live in such a society, I don’t want to. Life is far to wonderful an adventure for me to want to give it up because some pseudo-intellectual pinhead decides I’m not living as well as he thinks I should prefer. It is the ultimate act of a coward to kill one’s self – someone who is afraid to live life, all of life, is someone who kills themselves. I will take what God gives me – if it is pain and suffering, I’ll endure because this, too, shall pass. I’d rather not have the pain and suffering, of course, but it is not for me to rule all events.

Life or death – the choice has always lain before us since the Fall. Death, of course, stalks the land – all of us will die, in the by and by. But we can rule our fate in this much – we can, if we wish, take despair as our guide and take our own lives in consequence. But even as we exercise that sovereign choice to die, we are actually abdicating that authority and turning in to slaves of the flesh – people doubly doomed. Choose life is not just a slogan: it is the fountainhead of wisdom.

Are Lobbyists Driving Obamacare?

This should make you liberals think, if you’re at all capable of it:

A strong force, perhaps as powerful in Congress as President Barack Obama, is keeping the drive for health care going even as lawmakers seem hopelessly at odds.

Lobbyists.

The drug industry, the American Medical Association, hospital groups and the insurance lobby are all saying Congress must make major changes this year. Television ads paid for by drug companies and insurers continued to emphasize the benefits of a health care overhaul—not the groups’ objections to some of the proposals.

“My gut is telling me that something major can pass because all the people who could kill it are still at the table,” said Ken Thorpe, chairman of health policy at Emory University in Atlanta. “Everybody has issues with bits and pieces of it, but all these groups want to get something done this year.” As a senior official at the Health and Human Services department in the 1990s, Thorpe was deeply involved in the Clinton administration’s failed effort.

Now, does anyone out there think that all or part of the lobbying effort is altruistically designed to ensure that Joe and Jane Average obtain good health care at a reasonable cost? If you do think this, then I’ve a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

There are just so many things wrong with the very concept of health insurance that it’d be days just listing them. But, among the many terrible things is the fact that the people who provide insurance – whether private or government – are not in it for the people who use the insurance. Private insurers are, of course, in it for a profit – and nothing particularly wrong with making a profit, but it should make everyone wary of what the insurance companies say is a good idea…it might be a good idea, but it must be cast against the fact that it might merely be a good idea for the insurance companies.

Our liberals answer to this, of course, is the magic wand of government – just put bureaucrats in charge of it, take away the profit motive and, hey presto!, everything’s peachy. I’ll pause while all non-liberals get themselves up off the floor due to their fits of laughter at that concept…

The problem with government insurance is that the government is in it for the government – meaning that the bureaucrats who run the system are primarily interested in having the least amount of work and the highest amount of pay possible. This is because government isn’t a for-profit enterprise…a bureaucrat doesn’t get a bonus for making a citizen happy. In fact, citizens are the bureaucrats’ natural enemy…we take up their time and cause nothing but trouble. Try and help a citizen out and you might make a mistake and then you’re in trouble, so what good did that do? The fewer citizens a bureaucrat has to deal with, the better (for those of you who don’t believe this, I present you as evidence your local DMV).

The problem is that we are stuck with insurance. Liberals created Medicare in the 1960′s to just take care of Granny so that no one had to bother their little heads about her. Trouble is, by providing coverage for every little thing, Granny started to exhaustively use the system, pushing up prices which impelled the rapid spread of private insurance, which drove up costs even further, which priced un-insured people out of the market…etc, etc, etc. But probably 99% of Americans (or, heck, I might actually be the only person who has figured this out, as no one I’ve ever talked to has noted this before I did) don’t understand that the problem with health insurance is the fact that it exists. If we had catastrophic and chronic medical insurance, that would be another story – like having car insurance to fix the $5,000.00 while everyone ponies up for their own oil changes, etc. But to tinker with the concept of insurance is a losing proposition right now – people are so used to insurance that there isn’t the ability to break in and offer the alternative. We have to some how or another fix what we’ve got in a manner which doesn’t bankrupt the country.

I’m working on such a plan, but I haven’t got it ready, yet; and I don’t want to present the half-formed to criticism. But one thing I know for certain, asking lobbyists for health care (of whatever stripe) is not the thing to do. We’re on the verge of disaster if we go the route we’re going – double disaster if the lobbyists are as involved as this linked article indicates. And as for you liberals – weren’t you once upon a time horrified at the very concept of lobbyists? Where is your outrage, now?

Weekly Recap (2009-07-25)

• Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-07-18 http://bit.ly/co1QF #
• Larry Summers Proves He’s a Dolt http://bit.ly/4jpCaI #
• Obama’s Deficits Risk His Presidency http://bit.ly/tPyu2 #
• Was Zelaya Rigging the Proposed Honduran Vote? http://bit.ly/WD8be #
• We Will Only Survive by Embracing the Culture of Life http://bit.ly/52Zrn #
• Pfc. Bowe R. Bergdahl http://bit.ly/4GfBu #
• An Emerging Center/Right House Coalition? http://bit.ly/pSRno #
• The Over-Hyped Death of the Vastly Over-Rated http://bit.ly/1u2OQc #
• Phrase of the Day http://bit.ly/vzZdL #
• The Future of the Space Program http://bit.ly/4ZK3U #
• Barack Obama Hides Budget Data http://bit.ly/22kwMf #
• The Porkiest of Pork Spending http://bit.ly/OFrMj #
• What Media Bias? Part 153 http://bit.ly/A66e #
• $23,700,000,000,000.00 http://bit.ly/5MdXE #
• Obama vs Romney, 45%-45%; Obama vs Palin, 48%-42% http://bit.ly/1dbWwS #
• Banks Being Stupid, Again http://bit.ly/FEqVl #
• Phrase of the Day http://bit.ly/YsE4b #
• The Final Degradation of American Government http://bit.ly/1pRJQ3 #
• Liberals: You Got What You Wanted http://bit.ly/fygTm #
• A Worthwhile Space Program http://bit.ly/5zUP #
• Obama Admits He’s Clueless http://bit.ly/SR1xi #
• The Obama Birth Certificate Issue http://bit.ly/pYhYY #
• Global Warming Update http://bit.ly/joAAG #
• Obama Administration Continues to Fumble Honduras Issue http://bit.ly/o1BP7 #
• Phrase of the Day http://bit.ly/KX0Rm #
• Wednesday Open Thread http://bit.ly/17w7a5 #
• Sen. Hatch (R-UT) Refuses to be Tool of Obama http://bit.ly/13tc9N #
• Alaska Asserts Sovereignty http://bit.ly/r4gO0 #
• Top Five Things I’d Rather Do Than Watch An Obama Press Conference http://bit.ly/11ZUX7 #
• The Death of Blue America http://bit.ly/13ebzO #
• 31% of Americans Still Buying the Obama Scam… http://bit.ly/YBGK8 #
• Commercial Loans in Trouble http://bit.ly/GS8ww #
• Phrase of the Day http://bit.ly/Oqovg #
• Dr. Obama Experiments With America http://bit.ly/vDwqO #
• Obama Slanders Police Officers http://bit.ly/atep5 #
• Liberal Fascists Strike Again http://bit.ly/TF5yZ #
• What Media Bias? Part 154 http://bit.ly/l961Z #
• MoveOn Hijacked http://bit.ly/LT97b #
• Phrase of the Day http://bit.ly/14deAI #
• The Un-Exploded Economic Bomb http://bit.ly/AvceE #
• Democrat Aid: “solve the prolonging of life issue” http://bit.ly/YbJ3L #
• Obama Goes in to Full Fledged Damage Control http://bit.ly/5SP3v #
• 64, 25, 3 http://bit.ly/DGhWV #
• Disturbing Trend in Foreclosures http://bit.ly/fBMWP #
• Phrase of the Day http://bit.ly/jRTMd #
• Pro-Life Amendment Passes House Committee http://bit.ly/apxPE #

Pro-Life Amendment Passes House Committee

This is both stunning and quite wonderful:

An amendment introduced to strip Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer funding has passed the Rules Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, and is up for a vote on the House floor Friday, reports Jim Sedlak of the American Life League.

U.S. House Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) submitted, as part of the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, an amendment to render Planned Parenthood ineligible to receive Title X funds for “family planning” services.

The Pence Amendment states: “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.”

The backers of the amendment are counting on the people to carry it through – so:

Contact your House member and

your Senators.

My bet is that Pelosi will try to spike this on the floor – she doesn’t want to have common-sense issues like this coming to a vote because it would force moderate Democrats to vote rationally, thus exposing the weakness of the liberal’s House position…that it is dependent upon the votes of people who are in fundamental disagreement with the Democrat leadership. We’d be back to the early 80′s situation where the Democrats’ House majority was nominal while a coalition of GOPers and conservative/moderate Democrats really ran the show.

That aside – and I do urge everyone to make their voice heard – the mere fact that we can get such an amendment out of committee shows how badly weakened the liberal House leadership is. We can stop Obamunism – we can stop Pelosi and Reid from running rough shod over our nation. All we need do is fight and fight and then fight some more.

Phrase of the Day

The beginning of wisdom:

If through the machinations of Beelzebub or his fellow-devil Mammon, your house is in suburbia, plant your garden not with things lovely to see like roses, or sweet to smell like lavender; but good to eat like potatoes or French beans. At the end of two years you will have done three things: (1) You will have a higher appreciation of yokel-intelligence; (2), you will have a wider knowledge of Natural History (especially of slugs and the like); and (3), You will have a sardonic scorn for the economics of our present Sewage System. In other words you will have had the beginnings of a liberal education. – Fr.Vincent McNabb