Can Iran Be Free?
The Heritage Foundation is the standard for conservative think-tanks. Heritage is involved in everything from Foreign Policy to Health Care Reform to Economic Freedom. Today Heritage posted "Ten Steps to a Free Iran", an abbreviated list of ten things the US and Europe can (and should) be doing to help the millions of freedom-loving citizens of the Sharia-dominated nation.
Here are three of the ten:
1. Impose and enforce the strongest sanctions. The U.S. should push other concerned countries to enforce targeted sanctions on the Iranian regime and its internal security organs; ban all foreign investment, loans and credits, subsidized trade, and refined petroleum exports to Iran; and deny visas to its officials.
2. Drop opposition to U.S. gasoline sanctions. Both houses of Congress voted by large bipartisan majorities to impose sanctions against firms that export refined petroleum products to Iran. Yet the White House is dragging its feet, arguing such sanctions will impede diplomatic efforts at the U.N., even though the U.N. is unlikely to approve crippling sanctions.
3. Target public diplomacy to expose the regime's human rights abuses. Such a campaign should document the abuses and aid victims, step up broadcasting and support for independent Iranian broadcasters outside the country to expose corruption of officials and the regime's aid to terrorists, and educate Iranians about genuine representative democracy.
Cadet to Obama: I’d Rather Be Killing Bin Laden
A picture, in this case, truly is worth a thousand words.
From Reuters:
A U.S. Army cadet reads a book entitled "Kill Bin Laden" as he waits with other cadets for U.S. President Barack Obama to deliver an address on U.S. policy and the war in Afghanistan at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York December 1, 2009.
Apparently the Germans don't think too highly of The One's speech either:
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
Iran Update
President Obama turned his back on the Iranian protesters who tried to rally the world's support against a corrupt regime's "election" this past summer.
That was then, this was from last Wednesday's New York Times:
The contrasts were vivid: Pro-government supporters chanted ''Death to America'' and stomped on U.S. flags Wednesday while not far away, hundreds of opposition protesters denounced Iran's leaders and appealed to America's president to choose sides.
''Obama, Obama, you are either with them, or with us,'' the anti-government protesters chanted in Farsi, in an amateur video clip widely circulated on the Internet.
And what was President Obama's reponse this time?
Knowing the opposition was planning to march, Mr. Obama issued his own statement the night before that instead chose to reach out to the regime. America, he said, "seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. We do not interfere in Iran's internal affairs." He went on to list the Administration's various efforts to appease the regime. So far and on all counts, the mullahs have rebuffed these entreaties.
The President made no mention of democracy or reference to the opposition directly, though in the last paragraph he did allow that "the world continues to bear witness to [Iranian peoples'] powerful calls for justice."
The Wall Street Journal asks Barack Obama the question on all freedom-loving peoples' lips:
Is this what he meant when he talked, at the start of his Presidency, about "restoring U.S. moral leadership"?
Nagin in Castroland
You just can't make this stuff up. Mayor Ray Nagin, who you might remember from such ineptness as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and from such delightful racially-bizarre soundbites as "New Orleans is a chocolate city", went to Cuba to learn how to better prepare the government for a natural disaster.
When Cuba is your standard of excellence, it's time to find a new line of work.
"We understand we may have a lot to learn from the Cubans in terms of disaster preparedness and how they have dealt with hurricanes," spokeswoman Ceeon Quiett said.
Cuba is internationally applauded for exceptional disaster management, according to a news release from Nagin's office.
So according to the "office" of the worst mayor in America, the same one mayor who is looking for some reason to justify a trip to the Communist Caribbean nation, Cuba is "internationally recognized" as being the best in the biz as far as hurricane preparedness is concerned? Don't even bother showing me where that claim can be substantiated at - you had me at "chocolate city".
This one's for you, Fidel:
We need decisions on Afghanistan
President Obama has a lot on his plate right now, but his first and most important job is not community organizing, but nation protecting. He needs to make some decisions on what he plans to do in Afghanistan, the war that he said we "ignored" in favor of Iraq during the last administration's time in office.
It is more than worth winning the war in Afghanistan. We need to find the right levels of spending to make our military work. The Heritage Foundation put this chart together to track defense spending over the past 40 years:

Again, I completely understand the immense pressure and responsibilities President Obama has to deal with, but this is what presidents are expected to do: make tough decisions. They don't just give flowery speeches trying to sell public option health care to union workers in Ohio, or grant soft-ball interviews to ABC and Telemundo.
Is there a difference between Libya and America?
Mark Steyn thinks so.
President Obama said this during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last week:
"I have been in office for just nine months – though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences."
Steyn's response?
Forget the first part: That's just his usual narcissistic "But enough about me, let's talk about what the world thinks of me" shtick. But the second is dangerous in its cowardly evasiveness: For better or worse, we are defined by our differences – and, if Barack Obama doesn't understand that when he's at the podium addressing a room filled with representatives of Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Venezuela and other unlovely polities, the TV audience certainly did when Col. Gadhafi took to the podium immediately afterward. They're both heads of state of sovereign nations. But, if you're on an Indian Ocean island when the next tsunami hits, try calling Libya instead of the United States and see where it gets you.
This isn't a quirk of fate. The global reach that enables America and a handful of others to get to a devastated backwater on the other side of the planet and save lives and restore the water supply isn't a happy accident but something that derives explicitly from our political systems, economic liberty, traditions of scientific and cultural innovation and a general understanding that societies advance when their people are able to fulfill their potential in freedom. In other words, America and Libya are defined by their differences.
Jonah Goldberg calls President Obama out
The speech Barack Obama gave this week to the United Nations was, in the opinion of conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg, bad.
"The time," Obama assured us again, "has come for those walls to come down."
Walls often exist for a good reason. They mark clear lines between peoples and nations. The Berlin Wall was not built by us, but by those who could not tolerate liberty. It is good that it came down with our victory in the Cold War. But it would have been better to keep it up than lose that struggle.
Of course, Obama's objection isn't to physical walls but figurative ones. His real point is that the cult of unity that marked the worst excesses of his presidential campaign should go global. "Old arguments are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people," he says. Rather, "the interests of nations and peoples are shared."
The problem with this notion of shared interests is not that it's untrue, but that it's a half-truth. Some interests are shared, others not. It was in Poland's interest for us to honor our commitment on missile defense. Obama concluded that it was better for us to appease Russia's interests.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Read the rest of his biting analysis here.
Jonah is also the author of the second best book in the last 10 years (the first being America Alone by Mark Steyn): Liberal Fascism. Here's a clip of the author himself discussing his best-selling book...
Obama abandons missile defense in Eastern Europe
It was 70 years ago today that Poland was invaded by the Soviets, and our president just so happened to pick that day to announce his abandoning of our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic in regards to the missile defense systems we promised them.
The Heritage Foundation explains:
Today, President Obama reneged on a long-standing agreement with America's allies and formally abandoned the "third site" missile defense plan. The U.S. will no longer be deploying 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, a plan formerly regarded as necessary for defending America's friends and allies as well as the homeland from intercontinental and intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
Perhaps the president has made this deal with the Russians in exchange for their cooperation in negotiations with the Iranians. Let us hope that is the case.
One thing is for sure...the Poles, our allies, are not happy.




A View From The Left
As one of my intellectual mentors Dennis Prager likes to say, "Clarity over unity." In other words, we don't have to all agree...but we would do well to know what it is we disagree about, and why. I've made it a goal to frequently post the columns of thinkers and writers on the Left here at AVITW.
She's not too happy with Dick Cheney going on different Sunday Morning Talk Shows to point out the current president's less-than-inspiring policies when it comes to terrorism, and has created a fictional, hypothetical dialogue between Obama, Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, and Cheney to vent out her frustrations.
It continues on from there, which you can read here, but I suppose you get the gist of it. Bush was/is dumb; Cheney is insensitive and "batty"; Obama is patient and non-ideological in his pragmatic benevolence. (Note: If you just threw up a little bit in your mouth, don't worry...me too.)
Just like Howard Dean claiming after Scott Brown's election in MA last month that it was really a signal from the electorate to get socialized medicine passed even quicker, liberal columnists like Dowd seem incapable of accepting the fact that this is still a Center-Right nation.
This last quote from her piece sums up the mantra we will continue to hear for decades after Barack Obama fails to win re-election in 2012.