Iran: Nazi Germany of the 21st Century?

According to Ed Morrisy of Captain's Quarters, this could indeed be true.

It's been said time and again that those who learn not from history are doomed to repeat it. The horrors of what happened under the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's could indeed be shaping up again in Iran, as the case has been made (Mike Wallace's interview with Ahmadinejad not withstanding - of which I am currently subjecting myself to) that President Ahmadinejad is akin to a "21st Century Hitler".

Someone who:

- Denies the Holocaust ever happened, saying that the Europeans invented a myth

- Doesn't "give a damn" about UN Sanctions against his country for continuing to proliferate nuclear technology for a purpose other than power and electricity

- Equates an Islamofacist Martyr to be the same as an American solider defending the liberty of his country, not only that he says that this is a "beautiful" thing.

- Desires to wipe Israel "off the map" and "imagines a world without America"

Having just finished the first part of the interview I realize that Ahmadinejad is very good at sidestepping questions, not answering them, amd making himself look good. He never answered the question about the Holocaust and he never answered the question about "wiping Israel off the map", rather he made the whole segment a referendum on American policy and American and British control of the United Nations Security Council. Furthermore, instead of pressing harder on these things Mike Wallace backed down and let the Iranian Leader control the interview.

It must be understood that behind those black eyes, the Iranian President is saying, "Mike Wallace, you stupid old American, I want to use this to blind and decieve the people of your country, and if I could kill them all I would."

In this the second part of the interview, Ahmadinejad has called Israel a "muderous regime" - and called Mike Wallace a "representitive of the Zionist Regime" and says that President Bush wants to solve everything with "the bomb" - specifically Nuclear.

In this third section of the interview Ahmadinejad states that in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict Lebanon is just defending itself and fighting for its independence. In addition he says that Iran has not attacked another country in 200+ years, but then what about Israel right now being attacked by Iran's proxy Hezbollah? What about the attack in 1983 against the Marines in Beruit Lebanon? What about possible connections between Iran and the 9/11 attacks?

Best Quote from Mike Wallace to Ahmadinejad - "Are you ever wrong?"

This much is clear - Ahmadinejad dispises the United States, he is proud and arrogant, and sought to use this interview as a chance to decieve the American people.

The big question - Did he suceed? Not against me.

Catching up with Janet Parshall

Last night I had the chance to listen to some recent segments of Janet Parshall's America. Who is Janet Parshall you ask? She is a great God-fearing and Christian woman who does a radio talk show here in the DC area. Her husband, Craig Parshall, is a DC area lawyer and an author who has written a number of fiction novels that I highly reccomend - novels that blend Christianity, Politics, and Law.

All of that said I stumbled across two segments of her show that I found very interesting:

The first of these segments deals with the Israel/Hezbollah (that is to say Iran's terrorist proxy that is fighting a war for it) Conflict. In this segment she talks with one Carolyn Glick, a writer for the Jerusalem Post, about the current situation - a.k.a. the failure of the recent United Nations Security Council Resolution ("cease-fire") to cause Hezbollah to disarm. In truth this "resolution" does not call for them to disarm, but for them to "talk and discuss".

While all of this diplomacy is going on, Hezbollah is being refurbished and rearmed, ready for what some call Round II. Who won Round I then? The terrorists and Iran - which only embolden's them against the West/Israel/The USA.

So, what happens now? How might this effect the outlook for Israel? Politically, I would imagine that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Administration is not in good standing with their countrymen. They have been shown as impotent and unable to conduct an effective war. Add to this the idea that a number of the Administration, including Olmert and his wife, are being investigated for corruption or sexual misconduct (in the case of the Minister of Justice).

In light of that, I hope that, provided that Olmert's government falls, Benjamin Netanyahu once again comes to power and wipes the walls, and the floor, with these Iranian proxy fighters. Netanyahu believes as the late Ronald Regan did - that peace comes through strength.

Secondly, I caught a segment that had to do with the recent ruling by a judge in Detroit (a judge that was shopped around for) that ruled that the NSA program to monitor terrorist activities (no it is NOT a domestic spying program) has been deemed unconstitutional. This decision has been appealed by the government, and there is a STAY in place (meaning that the NSA program is still in place and being used until the decision comes down).

The Plaintiff here is the ACLU and some of it's clients (thus this should be one's first clue that something is fishy). The Judge herself describes this program accruately when she said that this program "monitors international calls" - thus busting the myth that this is a "domestic spying program" - it isn't.

One of the biggest issues in this case, as in any case is that of standing, or a solid and valid reason as to why one would bring this case forward in the first place - in other words what is the damage that is being done, what is the injury to the plaintiff(s). In a nutshell the "standing" is as follows - that clients of the ACLU are afraid to call the ACLU because they believe that the government might listen in on those calls! I am not making this up, and I am glad I'm not.

Personally I think that this is great, that people are afraid to support it, as the ACLU has been one of the main proponents of "upholding the Wall of Seperation of Church and State" that they tout as the high idea in America, when in fact, thanks to the court, they have warped, broken down, and rebuilt - and inso doing have perverted the original intent of the First Ammendment - that is to say that there was never intended to be a seperation between religion and the public square (which according to the actual document at the National Archives is actually the third ammendment [or Article]).

This however is a discussion for another post...

For Democrat "Generals" the board is being set...

It's popped up on Drudge that the Democratic National Committe has devised a new calander for presidential nomination (adding two new locations in addition to Iowa and New Hampsire) and has threatened to thwart any democratic canidate that goes against that calander.

Wow, what to say to this? Well apparently it is being done because certian demographic and monority groups have complained of late that their voice is non-existent in the primary selection process. While this could be true, the truth of the matter is simple, so let's cut through the bull: Democrats see this next presidential decision as their best shot to put a stranglehold on the government of the United States (following a hopeful off-year chance for victory in a few months). That said they know that they need to bolster their chances as much as they can to capture 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and this is how they apparently plan to do so.

Regardless though, this seems to be creating a rift in the democratic party, just as Joe Lieberman's run as an Independent will continue to do. To that, I say, more power to you folks, for a house divided agaist itself cannot stand.

Have we forgotten what we're up against?

Last night I went to see World Trade Center. Granted I didn't "like it" as much as I "liked" United 93 (you can't really like such films). Part of this is because Oliver Stone directed it - even though I will give him points for being "Nuetral" when it comes to his typical liberal filth.

That said I know the question arises that "Hey is it too early for movies like this, because the memory is so fresh?" On one hand I would say that maybe yes, it is too soon, certianly for those that found themselves in the middle of the events that transpired on 9/11. Yet on the other hand I wonder if we as a nation have forgotten what we're dealing with here when it comes to fighting the GWOT and against radical/militant islamists that, yes, want to kill us because we are Americans, because they see us as inferior infidels - and this war is fought on several fronts.

Cal Thomas has an excellent article that once again adresses what we are dealing with, what we are up against.

I ask such questions in light of recent attempts (foiled, thank God) be terrorists to kill more innocent people, the veiled threats made by Iran alluding to August 22, 2006, the August 31, 2006 date for Iran to end uranium enrichement - as stated by the impotent United Nations Security Council, and most importantly, the failed chance by Mike Wallace of CBS news to hit the President of Iran with some hard questions in a sit down interview in Tehran.

This interview frightens me. It does so because as the blog Regime Change Iran pointed out with it's link to another excellent article, the key to understanding the motivation for President Ahmadinejad's policy is to understand his apocolyptic brand of Islamic faith; something that Mike Wallace didn't do at all! Instead he leads the American public to believing that the Iranian President isn't an Anti-Semite, but yet the media subliminally propigates the idea that Mel Gibson is.

Joel Rosenberg recently wrote an article that is a must read for anyone concerned about this Mike Wallace screw-up. Rosenberg deals with what Ahmadinejad should have been asked so that America would get the correct picture instead of one that paints this messianic physcopath as "a good guy" - as Mike Wallace commented on Sean Hannity's radio show, and this said about someone who wants to "wipe Israel off the map"?

These are the type of people that we deal with, threats foreign and domestic, and yes I think that such a cavilear attitude by certian members of the media is indeed a threat.

This, among other reasons, is why we can't forget what happened almost five years ago (and how it changed everything) because once we begin to forget, we become lax, and it is then that the terrorist enemy begins to gain a victory (and we a loss) that to us, largely remains invisible.

The Middle East Conflict's Third Party - Mr. Mel Gibson

Now I like Mel Gibson, I really do. I give him total props for going out on a limb and making The Passion of the Christ - one of the most moving films I've ever seen, probably the most moving actually. However I have a problem - if you'd have watched FOX News today, well you'd have thought that his arrest, DUI, and comments reguarding the Jewish population were as important as the conflict itself that is happening over there.

Why do I say this, because at certian parts of the afternoon, that's all they talked about. Now I am not knocking Fox's coverage of the conflict itself, I think they've done a decent job, but to talk about Mel Gibson as often as they did while people are dying in this conflict - shame on them.

In other news, tensions are high in the region with some leaders saying that this is a nightmare that is hurtling towards a clash of civilizations, while Sec. of State Rice signals a possible solution - although I think that coming closer to the stand of certian countries in Europe isn't the answer.

Let Israel finish the job...

After my evening with the Copper Scroll...

Last night I was up till 2 am reading the new novel by Joel Rosenberg, The Copper Scroll. The book was excellent, as I expected it to be. This novel is the 4th in a series that has gotten a lot of press in recent years, and in recent days. The escolotogical undertones aside, the novel was wonderful on the political thriller side of things. I highly reccomend it.

That said, there has been some intense interest as of late in the media about the "end times" undertones in these books. As an example, see the recent segment on CNN.

The interesting thing about these books is that they have a "tendency" to actually happen in one way or another, in that events that the books describe end up happening in real life either before or after the publishing of the books. The best place to go to see what I am referring to is Rosenberg's own blog.

I must admit that things like this do give one pause and reason to think and evaluate - that is where I will leave it...

As the Struggle in the Middle East continues...

There seems to be events constantly happening in the world that vie for our attention.

A few years back (2002) the big issue was North Korea and the nuclear ambitions of a backwards country that is one of the last (but strongest) vapors of an evil ideal gone by. (NK is still an issue, certianly because of their failed missle tests as of late, having fallen into the Sea of Japan - that and Dear Leader is just jealous of all the attention that others are getting that he wants).

Then came the ever present conflict in Iraq to liberate said country and the putting down of the tenacious insurgency (which continues even now).

Recently, (as this blog has shown in the last 6-8 months) it's been about Iran. Ultimately it is still about Iran, but the recent conflict with Israel and Hezbollah, seems to have shifted the world's focus from Iran to Israel - something that Iran loves. Why, because the world is no longer breathing down her neck about nukes...for now. Said conflict though, we must not forget, is not only Israel's but ours as well. (While PM Olmert says Israel is winning, with unprecedented air strikes and troop deployments, others disagree.)

Now comes word that Fidel Castro is in poor health and has had to relinquish his duties as President to his brother Raul. Will he bite the dust, one can only hope - even if his death is "very far away"

All of these things of course, to take our focus off of Iran, a transparent problem that we just can't seem to tackle correctly - this article reminds me of "Iran's Bragging Rights" - which (to me) is a facet of the case as to why the US Senate needs to confirm John Bolton.