As If I Needed Another Reason

It's been said, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." Clearly, this statement is referring to modern liberalism, not classic liberalism. And it's referring to conservatism in the United States, not conservatism in... say, Iran. 

I would guess that most people, between their college years and their thirties or forties, have rethought their views to a certain extent. I have met people who were "conservative" in their college years and describe themselves as becoming "enlightened" since then, progressing them to their more liberal view of things today. And I have met people who were "liberals" in their college years and describe themselves as "coming to their senses" and being far more conservative today. I, personally, was raised in a conservative household - complete Reagan fans, my parents were - and in my early twenties I questioned all I had been taught. I went through a phase of wandering, then eventually ended up close to where I started, with a few tweaks here and there.

Today's edition of the NYT has a prominently featured story on Barak Obama (no surprise, that) titled "Obama's Youthful Ideals Shaped the Long Arc of His Nuclear-Free Vision." It's a must-read... As usual, an article which is supposed to be delivering the world news gives us insight both into Barack Obama AND the author of the article.

Back when Obama was a senior in college, he wrote of his vision of a "nuclear free world." His article, titled "Breaking the War Mentality," is indicative of his vision yet today. He writes,

"The more sensitive among us struggle to extrapolate experiences of war from our everyday experience, discussing the latest mortality statistics from Guatemala, sensitizing ourselves to our parents' wartime memories, or incorporating into our framework of reality as depicted by a Mailer or a Coppola... We know that wars have occurred, will occur, are occurring, but bringing such experience down into our hearts, and taking continual, tangible steps to prevent war, becomes a difficult task.

"Two groups on campus, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Students Against Militarism (SAM), work within these mental limits to foster awareness and practical action necessary to counter the growing threat of war."

He goes on to talk about the two groups and how they approach the subject. The ARA leader is quoted as saying "People don't like having their intelligence insulted, so we try to disseminate information and allow the individual to make his or her own decision." A gentleman (Mark Bigelow) who worked closely with the leader of ARA is quoted in the article as saying, "We do focus primarily on catastrophic weapons. Look, we say, here's the worst part, let's work on that. You're not going to get rid of the military in the near future, so let's at least work on this."

One of the students involved in SAM said, "At the heart of our organization is an anti-war focus. From there, a lot of issues shoot forth - nukes, racism, the draft and South Africa." Apparently, the main focus of the group SAM at the time had to do with registration for the draft. There was a new law that required from male students proof of registration in order to receive government aid for schooling. This upset the students who wanted to be educated with public dollars while having no desire to protect and defend the public.

Barack Obama then went on to say,

"Perhaps the essential goodness of humanity is an arguable proposition, but by observing the SAM meeting last Thursday night, with its solid turnout and enthusiasm, one might be persuaded that the manifestations of our better instincts can at least match the bad ones."

And this,

"The Reagan administration's stalling at the Geneva talks on nuclear weapons has thus already caused severe tension and could ultimately bring about a dangerous rift between the United States and Western Europe. By being intransigent, Reagan is playing directly into the Russians' hands."

And this, 

"In 1933 the German establishment thought it could use Hitler to restore a modicum of order to the confused and confusing Weimar Republic. In fact, Hitler did strengthen the German establishment, but not exactly in the way the bankers and businessmen had wanted; and now, fifty years later, it is clear who was using whom. 

"Nevertheless, the Western World did not complain in 1933 because Hitler, though a fascist and a totalitarian, was seen, like countless American puppet dictators today, as someone who leaves the established order in place."

"If a group [Green Party] of young, anti-establishment pacifists with unusual ideas and uncomfortable answers to hard questions terrifies us more today than Hitler, Himmler, Goering and Goebbels did back in 1933, our terror says more about us than it does about the Greens or the Germans. It indicates that we have failed to comprehend the meaning of Nazism and blind obedience to authority in their full horror, and that we, unlike the Greens, have yet ourselves to learn the democratic lesson that we have taught the Germans so well....

"... It is at once a warning to us that the old solutions of more weapons and again more weapons will no longer be accepted in a Europe that is already a powderkeg waiting to go off; and it is an invitation to work towards a peace that is genuine, lasting and non-nuclear."

Bravo, really... for a good piece of writing by a college student. Although infused with personal opinions and not exactly a news piece, he wrote rather well. I'll give him some major kudos for that. Unfortunately, hindsight being 20/20, we can't exactly give him kudos for content. Reagan's ideas paid off, the cold war was won without any nuclear fallout, and it can be reasonably stated that Obama was wrong in his statement about Reagan playing into the Russians' hands. It's also fair to say Obama was a wee bit off in saying Reagan was an "American puppet dictator." 

These writings - of a college student - and the views they represent could easily be overlooked and forgiven were the writer to grow up and renounce them, saying that history has proven him wrong. However, the college student grew up to be elected president of the United States and has not renounced his views. Twenty six years later, the college student is "pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can establish a nuclear-free world." In Prague, Obama said "I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence." Note to self: if someone feels they need to tell you they're not naive, they just might be naive. 

Obama has laid out a step by step plan to reduce the arsenals of the world's nuclear superpowers to 1,500 warheads each, as a beginning. He is reducing arsenals in order to "remake the nuclear world" with a goal of "halting weapons programs in North Korea and Iran." But he's not naive - don't worry. Perhaps his next step will be to halt criminal activity within the borders of the United States by disarming the police officers and the FBI. 

What's to learn from all this? What I've learned about our current sitting president:

1. He's a man who appears to have not changed his views between college and today.

2. He despises the military, perhaps even more than Bill Clinton did.

3. He's a man who seems to be incapable of learning even from the history which transpired during his own lifetime.

4. He is determined to weaken the United States through both our economy and our military.

5. His views and actions make no sense to me whatsoever.

As if I needed more reasons not to like him.

Moochers, Looters, and Producers

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor - your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?" -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I am more an unapologetic capitalist today than I was a week ago... and a week ago, I would have told you I was as staunch a capitalist as they come. What is the difference in me today? I suppose I shall just be louder. Goodness knows, somebody needs to be out there in favor of capitalism... the capitalist crowd appears to be dwindling at a rapid rate. Honestly, I blame this sad fact on a pathetically poor education system. 

What is capitalism but the best among imperfect systems? I will admit that capitalism is not without its faults... free markets are not perfect, nor will they ever be. Human nature dictates that life on earth can never be utopian. This is one essential fact of which everyone needs to be constantly aware. This fact needs to inform us first - before we begin thinking of systems and what needs to be done about them. This is my bias and will inform everything I write from here on.

There are states "in crisis" financially - if you were not already aware of this, you've probably been living under a rock somewhere. But as of Thursday, even the rock dwellers will have an inkling that all is not well in the state of California. There, the state's controller started printing "i.o.u.'s" instead of checks to pay those they owe. To quote a line from my favorite movie, "Humiliations galore!" But I have to hand it to Arnold... the pressure has been on for quite some time and he just won't cave. He is calling for "changes in policy as part of any budget deal." What changes is he looking for?

1. He refuses to sign on to anything that is a temporary fix. 

2. He refuses to sign on to tax increases for the people of California.

3. He insists on the fingerprinting of recipients for certain state services.

4. He insists on checks on the job status of welfare recipients.

5. He insists on changes to the state pension program.

My personal opinion is that the state should probably stop spending money to save the seals right now, too... but maybe that's just me. 

Charges leveled against the governor?

1. "The governor is playing brinksmanship in the middle of the most serious economic crisis since the '30s with possible consequences for the nation's recovery as a whole." I had to look up "brinksmanship." It means, "pursuing dangerous policy to the brink of calamity before stopping." Call me crazy, but I don't see anything in 1-5 above that would qualify as "dangerous policy" except insofar as he doesn't go far enough.

2. "We did everything in our power to avert the i.o.u.'s. This was a strategic move by the governor and the Senate Republicans." This juicy bite was from Darrell Steinberg of the State Senate. He also accused the governor of "stale rhetoric." 

Huh. It's interesting, isn't it? The state of California is in a glorious mess -- and states are required to run on a balanced budget. I really wish the federal government had the same requirement! Think of what might change if that were the case... but I digress.

The national mood is somber, at best. The June report of jobs lost was more dismal than that of May. Of course, the fact that the press was out rejoicing in the streets at May's numbers simply because the number of jobs lost was lower than the previous month was a bit pathetic, and one had to expect that the party was going to be over soon. 

In June, almost half a million jobs were lost again. It's not looking good for the economic recovery cheerleaders right now... not to mention the fact that it's not looking good for quite a few Americans. But that's okay, because the New York Times has advice for President Obama in their editorial section... wanna hear it? "President Obama and his advisers must start preparing now for what is sure to be a tough legislative fight over more stimulus." No, I'm not kidding. 

They also go on to say that the unemployed will need more help. Want to know why? "The jobless rate ticked up to 9.5 percent in June... and it appears headed inexorably higher. For adult men, the rate is already 10 percent. The numbers are even worse for teenagers (24 percent), African-Americans (14.7 percent) and Hispanics (12.2 percent). The most alarming subset, however, is made up of the long-term unemployed. Of the 14.7 million jobless workers, 4.4 million - nearly 30 percent - have been out of work for 27 weeks or more." Naturally, the NYT is calling for another extension of unemployment benefits. But puhleeze tell me that we're not extending unemployment benefits to teenagers?? Please?!? How in the heck and why are we tracking the employment statistics of teenagers?

Not to appear too one-sided, the NYT advised Obama to address a deeper anxiety... and this is where I have to just laugh at these people because they make no sense whatsoever. After telling him to start pushing yet another stimulus, they tell him to address the deeper anxiety of "how will the economy be rebuilt so that growth is not dependent on excessive borrowing, by the government or by households?" They want him to have "a vision - and an agenda - for creating good jobs with good pay." 

And for that, I have to circle back to the beginning of this particular piece of writing -- the answer is CAPITALISM. 

Government Healthcare = Healthy Economy?

Joseph Goebbels was born in 1897 and was "Reich Minister of Propaganda" in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He was an immoral, abhorrent creature who did his job well. He understood how people think. "It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success," he said. Like I said, immoral - abhorrent -- but good at his job.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." -Joseph Goebbels

Hmmm... propaganda, lies... kind of makes me think of the "national debate on healthcare." Fascinating, really, in a sick and twisted sort of way. 

Barack Obama took his message to Virginia yesterday, in a "town hall" meeting. He again repeated the obvious lie that a government health care program will save money rather than cost money. But he's now taking things a step further and saying that the national economy isn't going to come back unless we reverse "the crushing cost of health care." Talk about taking a cue from good old German Joe! 

But what to do with those pesky little mosquito-like people who keep buzzing the truth in the public's ear?? What do we do with them? EASY! Barack Obama simply says, "So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth." OH!!! So they're not telling the truth -- you are. I suppose the easiest way to deflect attention away from your lie is to accuse your accuser of lying himself. This puts people into a complete fuddle, not knowing which direction is up anymore... and accomplishes one thing: they no longer care to pay attention. And the propagandist can do whatever he pleases.

Obama's "town hall" meeting was hardly a town hall meeting... it was a propaganda moment set up to appear as a town hall meeting. Do you think that I'm being hard on him? Am I going over the top with this one? In your mind, do I now belong with the black helicopter crowd? I suppose it's possible... but it doesn't take a mental giant to spot out a bit of propaganda, and there's nothing wrong with seeing black helicopters in the sky if they're really there.

Obama, in this meeting, took seven questions, all of which were fairly friendly to his cause and only one from a Republican (who asked about medical malpractice).

Then we have Debbie - who was "spontaneously" allowed to ask a question. According to the New York Times, this was when "the policy and politics was interrupted." 

"Good afternoon, Mr. President... I'll try not to cry. I'm trying to figure out what I can do currently - um - my situation is - um - I had renal cell carcinoma in '98 that was radiated because my dad was dying of colon cancer at the time and I was his (unintelligible). So I could not be tied up having my kidney removed. So they did radiation procedures to kill the tumor then. And I had insurance and everything was paid for that. But basically, because of the damage that the radiation did and things, I'm no longer able to work, and I have no health insurance. Now I have a new tumor. I have no way to pay for it. Doctors will not see you without paying $100 or $150 to come to their office. I can, um, get checked into a hospital and with their (unintelligible) program they will run tests and release me, but that costs a lot of money. So currently, I basically... social security will not give me disability because renal failure is no longer a qualifying (unintelligible) for social security, currently. Um, I cannot get medicaid from the state of Virginia because you have to be considered disabled through Social Security to qualify for Medicaid in the state of Virginia because I have no dependent children at home - it's just me. I get food stamps, but that's it. And I'm just trying to figure out how I'm going to make it nine years until I'm qualified to get my regular Social Security. Now that I have a new tumor, I have nowhere to turn."

Of course, Obama calls her over and she gets a hug. He will take her information and find out how they can help her, yada, yada... Then he launches into his spiel: "Debbie is a perfect example of somebody who we should, in a country this wealthy, be able to provide coverage for her health care problems. And what we don't want is a situation where Debbie gets worse and worse because she's not getting treatment, and then ends up having to go to the emergency room - as I said before - all of you will pay for it anyway, it's just you'll pay for it in terms of a hidden subsidy, and she's not getting the best care and we're actually paying more than we would have if Debbie right now was getting treated, uh, on a regular basis, by, uh, a physician who knew her history. Debbie, you are Exhibit A and we appreciate you sharing your story."

Spontaneous? I don't think so... after Obama is done making his speech, Debbie puts in a plug for some program for free medical care July 24th, 25th, and 26th... then talks about the good its doing, says that it would be a great place for Obama to "showcase why there's a need," then points to the governor and says how he can tell Obama the actual statistics, etc... this woman is politically active and is pushing for a government health care plan herself in an active way. Not only is this evident in her speaking, but reporters found out that she is active in "Organizing for America," which is a Democrat group that "grew out of the Obama campaign." When asked, the White House responded that Obama calling on Debbie was "coincidence." Yeah...

So... the big lies here? 

1. Obama is not for government-run health care. 

2. The townhall meeting "audience questions" were spontaneous.

3. Government health care will actually save the taxpayers money.

4. If we don't pass this - and quickly - the economy will never bounce back. 

4 pieces of propaganda being thrown to the public by the White House and aided by the press in order to take over yet another sector of the economy and our freedoms. 

I guess we'll have to see how effective the current administration is at Joseph Goebbel's job. Because, you know, your propaganda doesn't have to be intelligent. It just has to succeed.

What A Great Story!

Hollywood should do so well... the coup in Honduras has all the elements of a great story. Filled with intrigue, irreverent humor, and drama, the story has made headlines all over the world. For little Honduras!!

So picture this:

We have a leader who is looking at his Latin American neighbors and seeing that some of them have extended their stay in power (notably Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador). Power is good, power is fun -- it's always great to stay as long as you can, right? Add to that the fact that in the middle east, a certain country has made serious headlines by fixing the vote. This Honduran leader had wheels turning in his head, apparently, and decided that it's high time to put out a referendum to the people to extend his stay... no need for term limits here, no matter what the good constitution of Honduras might say! 

I guess the headlines everywhere and the current trend in Latin America spooked some folks, though... and an organized coup ensued. And what wicked scheme did these rebellious souls devise? Did they kill the leader in his sleep? Did they poison his coffee? NO. They took him out of bed in the middle of the night and, in his jammies, flew him to Costa Rica. This left the President of Honduras complaining to the press the next day in his nightclothes -- saying that he's the president, for goodness sake, and to return him to his office! (The only thing that could make this more hilarious would be if he had somehow been infused with helium right before his speech.)

Of course, our president has sided with the Honduran president (along with the dictators from Latin America). And the press goes wild... Obama is so smart! He's so wonderful! Chavez is trying to accuse the United States of being involved in this coup -- and Obama has completely diffused him! Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna... And diffused Chavez may be. I'm not discounting that... According to the NYT, "The Venezuelan president will not forget that the C.I.A. had knowledge of the coup that ousted him in 2002 yet did nothing to prevent it, and that Washington has a recent history of providing aid to groups that are critical of his government, opening the United States to charges of destabilization." They go on to say, "But for now, at least, Mr. Obama's non-confrontational diplomacy seems to have caught Mr. Chavez off balance. 'Chavez is beginning to understand that he's dealing with someone with a very different approach than his predecessor,' said Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American dialogue, a Washington policy research group."

Clearly, Obama has a different approach... to everything. But here's the bigger question: Why? It's fine to have someone come in with a better approach and a higher class of diplomacy. Frankly, I will freely admit that the Bush administration lacked diplomatic ease... to state it nicely. And, to put it bluntly, George W. Bush simply lacked communication skills. (He didn't even communicate effectively with his own people, much less people abroad.) However, Obama doesn't simply come in with a new skill - he comes in with a new set of beliefs. And, given the fact that he doesn't come down on the side of America even within America itself, it doesn't surprise me at all that he's lining himself up with dictators like Chavez in support of a president in Honduras who is trying to make himself into a dictator.

Boondoggles R Us

It's been a while now that I've considered the House, the Senate, and the Presidency to simply be three different ways to be crazy. 

                                                        

Pelosi, Reid and Obama are only the most recent examples of this lunacy, but as examples go they are prime. 

The most recent evidence of this pervasive insanity is the cap 'n' trade bill that was passed by the house on Friday. Granted, this bill needs to make it through the insanity that is the Senate and must be signed by the lunatic in the White House, but I'm almost certain it's a given that it will be done... and never mind what the pathetic people living in the United States think of it, either. The House of Representatives phone switchboard went down due to the pleas of the people... but what do the people know? Leave the governing to the "elite." They certainly know best, right? Representative Charles Gonzalez, a democrat from Texas, voted for the bill while telling CNN, "I can't begin to tell you how many calls we've received. And it's disproportionately 'vote no.'" 

It is a certainty that Obama will sign a bill put on his desk. On Thursday, he said, "Now is the time for us to lead. We cannot be afraid of the future. We cannot be prisoners to the past... Make no mistake, this is a jobs bill." REALLY! Don't you just love how everything the president wants can be translated into a "jobs bill?" Hefty stimulus for banks? JOBS. Out of this world taxes on energy? JOBS. Overhaul health care and nationalize it? JOBS. It's really amazing the power of this president, isn't it? Jobs, jobs, everywhere... 

But look at what Barack Obama said - before he was elected:

“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

“That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

“The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

‘It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

So... he's out to bankrupt the coal industry, he's out to create a new market that will generate billions of dollars for the government... albeit supposedly so that the government can invest in clean ways to produce energy. Past experience would dictate that the money will go elsewhere. But we're not going to go into the ponzi schemes of the past today, are we?

The bill goes further than simply raising the cost of energy, though. It's also another way to redistribute the wealth of the middle and upper classes. Somehow, the CBO has estimated that the average American household will pay an additional $175 per year in energy costs (which is probably a low estimate)... but the poorest households will receive rebates lowering their annual energy costs by $40. 

I hate to go off on a tangent (but apparently am going to quickly do it anyway). What is it about the liberals that makes them want to drag down the successful instead of raising up the poor? Do they really think that they're helping to improve the situation of the "working poor" by lowering their annual energy bill by forty bucks? My frustration with the mentality of the leadership in our country is mounting daily... and frankly, my frustration with the mentality of the American people is right up there as well. We still live in the land of opportunity. We still live in a country where a hard working, creative individual can rise up and make something of him or herself. Is it hard work? YES. But that's the whole point... to work hard for something. Are there people out there who work hard and don't make much from it? Sure. But if that's your situation, you need to do something different. Don't just keep digging the same hole and filling it back in... and then wait for a government check. That's stupid. 

But back to cap 'n' trade. The market created by this incredibly irresponsible bill is not to be worried about. Because it's going to be regulated... yes, regulated. Whew! We were all worried that there wouldn't be enough regulation of the regulating markets. Not only will it be regulated, but it will be regulated by three different federal agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Don't you feel better now?

The bill "devotes billions of dollars to new energy projects and subsidies for low-carbon agricultural practices," according to the New York Times. I'm almost afraid of what kind of research they are doing to reduce cow emissions. 

According to the Global Guru, Al Gore, "This bill doesn't solve every problem, but passage today means that we build momentum for the debate coming up in the Senate and negotiations for the treaty talks in December which will put in place a global solution to the climate crisis. There is no backup plan." Wow. How frightening is that? The fate of the world rests on Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama's energy plan - and there is no backup plan. I'm feeling chills up and down my spine right now.

Back in June of 2006, Gore gave us ten years... I guess the clock has been ticking down ever since. Only seven years left to live... what will you do? Huh... well, it looks like we'll pay more for our energy in our waning  years.

No Wieners For You!

I have to admit - I thought it was a little bit humorous that the Obama administration was extending their olive branch to the Iranian government via a celebration of our nation. But on June 24th, the president officially decided to rescind those invitations. Most likely because not a single Iranian official had RSVP'd. But who can blame them, really? Tough choices... I mean, clearly the 4th of July celebration is going to be a big weenie roast, and Muslims are prohibited from eating pork. The very best kosher hot dog is a Hebrew National, but Muslims are convinced that even the jews are pigs, so I'm sure they can't touch those, either. I'm pretty certain that the Muslims aren't too keen on partying it up with The Great Satan, either. 

The State Department sent out a memo to all embassies and consulates on Wednesday, ordering them to rescind all invites. In the interest of making sure the embassies got it right, the memo included: "For invitations which have been extended posts should make clear that Iranian participation is no longer appropriate in the current circumstance. For invitations which have not been extended, no further action is needed." Ah, yes... thus the word "rescind." It's kind of difficult to take back that which has not yet been offered. It's kind of fun to think about, though... a disinvitation saying, "Not only were you not invited, now you're sooooo not invited!"

CNN reported that Hillary Clinton made the decision and then informed Obama. I'll bet that went over well.

I, for one, am breathing a sigh of relief. I was really worried about the hot dog situation.

Partying with Iran

Major Garrett, reporter for FOX News, asked the president "What took you so long?" in condemning the actions of the Iranian government. If you want to see a miffed Obama, albeit controlled, watch that clip. It's a bit of a hoot. Obama, clever as always with words, answers that he has been consistent on this issue, supporting democracy but not wanting to give the Iranian government a reason to blame the CIA or America for the protests on the streets of Iran. 

Garrett then followed up his question with another, asking Obama if Iranian leaders would still be welcomed to the 4th of July celebration. Obama said, "Well, uh... I think as you're aware, Major, we don't have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. Uh... I think that we have said that if Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles that we are interested in healing some of the wounds of 30 years in terms of U.S./Iranian relations, but that is a choice the Iranians are going to have to make." Can we assume from this answer, Mr. President, that they are still invited but they have to choose whether or not to show up to party?

Obama's strong words (please detect a note of sarcasm here) have produced such a change in the Iranian regime's attitude towards its people... oh, wait. No, that's backwards. According to the NYT this morning, "Iranian officials stepped up efforts to crush the remaining resistance to a disputed presidential election on Wednesday, as security forces overwhelmed a small group of protesters with brutal beatings, tear gas, and gunshots in the air. Intelligence agents shut down an office of a defeated presidential candidate, saying it was a 'headquarters for a psychological war.' The nation's leadership cast anyone refusing to accept the results of the race as an an enemy of the state." So the opposition to President Imanutjob is officially accused of "illegal gatherings, the promotion of unrest, and efforts to undermine the country's security." Don't worry, though... they've all been arrested. 

Creating further speculation is the fact that the Iranian government is stepping up its efforts to block all independent news coverage throughout Iran. Also from the NYT, "The government banned foreign news media members from leaving their offices, suspended all press credentials for the foreign press, arrested a freelance writer for The Washington Times, continued to hold a reporter for Newsweek and forced other foreign journalists to leave the country.

According to official reports, about 240 people (102 of them political figures) are in jail. The Iranian government reports that it has arrested 627 more since the protests began. 

Given all this, I have one question. What would make any reasonable man think these leaders are people with whom one can negotiate? And if there is no reason to think this, why would our president be continuing his quest to make nice with the Iranian government?