For whatever reason, Blogger locked up on me this morning and I wasn’t able to post, until now, because my Day Job got, again, in the way. Dammit Jim!!

I am now safely ensconced within my Sierra Nevada Mountain aerie, some candles burning, a nice fire in the stove well-stoked. Mose the Cat is sleeping on his fleece-lined chair.

Since then, I’ve changed topics and would like you to examine the conversation between Karl Rove and Hugh Hewitt, later played on Hewitt’s radio show this afternoon.

This exchange involves the current border problems and Hewitt goes to the core:

HH: Last question, a political one, a time bomb, really, for the Republican Party concerns the border. The House of Representatives passed an act at the end of last year. It hasn’t yet come up in the Senate. What is your advice to the Senate about the House’s decision to crack down on the border and build the fence?

KR: Well, we support the border security initiative. We are a little bit concerned about the fence. I mean, look. There are now parts of the border, particularly in urban areas, where a fence is necessary and helpful. Frankly, building a fence along a 400 mile part of the Texas border that is high cliffs along the Rio Grande River is probably not the best expenditure of our money. We like to think of the concept of a virtual fence, where we use a combination of fences, barriers at critical points, sensors and technology to in essence strengthen the border. And I’m confident that the Senate is going to take this up. I know this is a strong concern to Senator Frist, the Senate Republican leader. I think the Senate is likely to tackle the issue in a more comprehensive fashion, and not only look at border security, but also look at the issue of a guest worker program as a way to relieve the pressure on our border, so that whatever technology and manpower and resources we’ve got on the border are concentrated on the border, with fewer people trying to come across because we have got a program to match willing worker with willing employer for jobs that Americans won’t do. But we’ll see. They’re going to try and take this up, I think, in March. We’re doing a lot more on the border.

HH: When people say guest worker means amnesty, what’s your response.

KR: That it doesn’t, because what we do is require people to come here to the United States, if they want to come here to the United States, they’ve got to apply. They’ve got to be matched up with a job. They can stay here for a certain number of years to work, three years or four years. They might be able to renew that for one time. Look, most people who come here, every bit of evidence that we’ve got, is that most people who come here don’t come here with the expectation that they’re going to spend the rest of their life in the United States. They come here in order to get together a grub steak, and go home and support their family. For example, the average capitalization of a business in Mexico is $5,000. Most, particularly younger workers who come here, they’re hope and expectation is I’m going to be able to put together a couple of thousand dollars, and maybe go back and buy some land, or buy a tractor that we can use on the land my family owns, or I’ll buy the little gas station at the corner, or I’ll open up a shop, or I’ll gain a skill to make it in life. But we are so good at once they get here, making it difficult for them to go home, that they lose all connections with their home community or home nation. And after ten years of being here in the underground economy, they wake up and way you know what? It doesn’t matter to me anymore. I have no connection. What we need to do is have a program where we have rigorous defense of the borders, but workers who come here are allowed to travel back and forth across the border freely, so they can keep those connections, build that little nest egg, and go home. And you know, our economy depends upon immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants. We’re an economy that benefits when smart people and bright people and energetic people come here. And we’ve got to find the right mix in order to keep that balance.

__________________________________________________

In my opinion these are Nice Words.

But they still don’t cut it.

__________________________________________________

I don’t usually go Dark Side.

But my dark side is out now.

People need to be shot. Not Americans. Mexicans. Whether they are drug smugglers or Mexican Federales or Mexican soldiers, I care not. They just need to be shot.

And let’s throw in some deaths for good measure. There need to be some Mexican deaths.

Any Mexican nationals, civilian or military, dealing in drugs or smuggling, who place the first few molecules of a philange over the border onto sovereign American soil need to be shot. And oh. If they get killed in the process, tough sh**.

In my opinion, the gloves are off. Let’s go bare knuckles and see who wins.

La Raza and Aztlan: bite me.

Harry Belafonte is so yesterday’s news. He’s an Alzheimer’s victim gone bad, so placing him in the gunsights of my Moonbat rifle is child’s play. Let’s go for someone new, shall we?

And the award goes to:

The stunningly gorgeous and sensible Cindy Sheehan!

CARACAS (AFP) – Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq, joined more than 10,000 anti-globalization activists in Caracas, where she hailed Venezuela’s leftist President Hugo Chavez.

“I admire him for his resolve against my government and its meddling,” said Sheehan, who gained notoriety when she camped outside US President George W. Bush‘s ranch last year to protest the Iraq war. She said she hoped to meet Chavez later in the week.

She said Venezuela’s foreign ministry sponsored her visit.

Ah, so the Venezuelan foreign ministry sponsored her visit, eh? What a wondrously ugly little dupe for Hugo Chavez! Likely bringing her biker wallet on a chain and a weeks’ supply of Pendletons, Sheehan has lost any sympathy whatsoever for her latest stunt. It’s time to say what I’ll wager no one else has:

Cindy Sheehan will stoop so low that now her son, her very own flesh and blood, now plays little if any significance in her war against, first, George W. Bush and second, the United States of America. The DEM, even right-wing media, have given Sheehan a bit of a break because, after all, she did in fact lose her son in Iraq. Her son is now nothing more than a tool she is using in her toolbelt of Publicity War against America; read: GWB.

As far as I’m concerned now, the gloves should be off and this traitoress should renounce her citizenship and find another country in which to inhabit.

Runner-Up for Moonbat of the Week:

Yes! My first ever Runner Up! And the RU is:

Los Angeles Times 30-something columnist Joel Stein for his 01-24 piece entitled “Warriors and Wusses.” Stein writes in part:

I DON’T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I’m not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn’t be celebrating people for doing something we don’t think was a good idea. All I’m asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

Particularly smarmy and condescending, I’d say. But WEIN?

Last night Hugh Hewitt interviewed Joel Stein on-air. Some of the interview:

HH: “And at the end, I’m not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after Vietnam.” That’s big of you. “But we shouldn’t be celebrating people for doing something we don’t think was a good idea.” What I’m trying to figure out is what do you think is a good idea for the military to do?

JS: Well, again, that’s not what my column was about, and that’s something that people talk about constantly, and people give opinions on. There’s a lot of Americans who are against this war and still think we should have a military.

HH: Now wait. This is the last…well, let me give you the two last paragraphs of your column. “I’m not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War. But we shouldn’t be celebrating people for doing something we don’t think was a good idea. All I’m asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health, and a safe and immediate return. But please no parades. Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.” So you obviously do not honor their service?

JS: I don’t honor their service? The people serving in Iraq right now?

HH: Yeah.

JS: I honor them as human beings, and I want them home safe.

HH: But you don’t honor their service?

JS: And honestly, I think that all these…for people who don’t believe in the war and are putting up these stickers saying they support the troops anyway, my fear is that it’s prolonging the war and putting them in further danger they don’t need to be in.

HH: But Joel, I’m talking about you. I’m talking about what you honor, and you obviously don’t honor military service.

JS: I honor police service. I honor military service. Any…I just think that…

HH: You do honor military service?

JS: Yeah. No, I’m grateful for people that serve in the military.

HH: But you don’t support our troops?

JS: I don’t…I don’t believe in supporting the troops in an action that you don’t believe in.

At least Stein is honest insofar as he has the guts to make his stupidity public, whereas many Left Wing people refuse. But simply another reason the DEM and MSM are plummeting like a 1959 Nash Metropolitan pushed out the back of a C-130.

So there it is folks, there’s the crux of the biscuit: once again it’s about Iraq but, reading carefully between the lines, it’s about George W. Bush.

Rebecca from Revka’s Take had a good question in the comment section of my last post:

“Why do you think he (Iran’s President Ahmadinejad) is saying all this crazy stuff in the media if he has ‘just begun’ his uranium enrichment? I would think he would have kept his mouth shut about his intentions until he was real close to getting a nuke, or has already had one from another source. I tend to think based on his actions, that he already has the plan in place and had other nations in bed with him on it. What do you think?”

Excellent question! I have an inquiring mind, so I began to inquire.

The Jewish Virtual Library has this to say about Iran, sourced from a CIA report published in November of 2004:

Iran continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Iran is also working to improve delivery systems as well as ACW. To this end, Iran continued to seek foreign materials, training, equipment, and know-how. During the reporting period, Iran still focused particularly on entities in Russia, China, North Korea, and Europe. Iran’s nuclear program received significant assistance in the past from the proliferation network headed by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

Nuclear. The United States remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, in contradiction to its obligations as a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). During 2003, Iran continued to pursue an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle ostensibly for civilian purposes but with clear weapons potential. International scrutiny and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and safeguards will most likely prevent Tehran from using facilities declared to the IAEA directly for its weapons program as long as Tehran remains a party to the NPT. However, Iran could use the same technology at other, covert locations for military applications.

Iran continues to use its civilian nuclear energy program to justify its efforts to establish domestically or otherwise acquire the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Iran claims that this fuel cycle would be used to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors, such as the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor that Russia is continuing to build at the southern port city of Bushehr. However, Iran does not need to produce its own fuel for this reactor because Russia has pledged to provide the fuel throughout the operating lifetime of the reactor and is negotiating with Iran to take back the irradiated spent fuel. An Iranian opposition group, beginning in August of 2002, revealed several previously undisclosed Iranian nuclear facilities, sparking numerous IAEA inspections since February 2003. Subsequent reports by the IAEA Director General revealed numerous failures by Iran to disclose facilities and activities, which run contrary to its IAEA safeguards obligations. Before the reporting period, the A. Q. Khan network provided Iran with designs for Pakistan’s older centrifuges, as well as designs for more advanced and efficient models, and components.

This report states further:

Chemical. Iran is a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Nevertheless, during the reporting period it continued to seek production technology, training, and expertise from foreign entities that could further Tehran’s efforts to achieve an indigenous capability to produce nerve agents. Iran may have already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and possibly nerve agents-and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them-which it previously had manufactured.

Biological. Even though Iran is part of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), Tehran probably maintained an offensive BW program. Iran continued to seek dual-use biotechnical materials, equipment, and expertise that could be used in Tehran’s BW program. Iran probably has the capability to produce at least small quantities of BW agents.

Advanced Conventional Weapons. Iran continued to seek and acquire conventional weapons and production technologies, primarily from Russia, China, and North Korea. Tehran also sought high-quality products, particularly weapons components and dual-use items, or products that proved difficult to acquire through normal governmental channels.

Question for my readers: if Russia, China and North Korea, all loving regimes, are supplying Iran with “conventional” weapons, can you do the logical extension?

Let’s look at other reports and articles. From the BBC:

But Iran does not have a significant and established nuclear reactor programme, and in economic and practical terms establishing an enrichment facility cannot be justified. That means the enrichment facility is almost certainly for a nuclear weapons programme.

The article asks: where did Iran get the know-how to build a nuclear industry? Another excellent question. Their answer:

So to establish the plants and factories required, Iran has had to undertake a clandestine programme of acquisition of the hardware and technical knowledge. The most obvious candidates for this are Russia and China.

However, Russia has agreed to confine its nuclear interests in Iran to the construction of nuclear power plants and recent agreements between Iran and China have fallen through. Another possibility is that a deal has been struck with a third nuclear developing state such as Pakistan or North Korea.

It is also possible that some of the equipment and specialised materials needed have been acquired under apparently legitimate contract with the West but which has dual-use capability.

Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan — I see some consistencies here.

From John Bolton’s speech to the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC on August 17, 2004:

Another potential source of plutonium for (Iranian) weapons is the Bushehr light-water power reactor, which is currently under construction. That reactor is under IAEA safeguards. Russia has agreed to provide all fresh fuel for that reactor, and Iran and Russia are discussing an agreement to return all spent fuel to Russia. However, if Iran should withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty (“NPT”) and renounce this agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor would produce enough plutonium each year for about 30 nuclear weapons.

It would also appear that nuclear parts shipped to other countries may miraculously have been “diverted” to Iran as well. From Regime Change Iran:

Critical components and specialized tools destined for Libya’s nuclear weapons program disappeared before arrival in 2003 and international investigators now suspect that they were diverted to another country, according to court records and investigators.

The seizure by the United States and Britain of a separate shipment of nuclear-related components from a freighter headed for Libya in October 2003 crippled the network and led to Khan’s admission that he had been selling know-how and technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

Since then, the biggest concerns for international inspectors and intelligence agencies examining Khan’s operation have been whether an unidentified customer is also pursuing a nuclear weapon or whether Iran might have received the missing technology and, potentially, designs for an atomic weapon.

A non-Western intelligence official said it was possible that the missing centrifuge components and other material was sold secretly to Iran by someone in the Khan network as the operation started to unravel after the seizure of the shipment in 2003.

Even back in 2003, Bloomberg.com wrote:

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) — Iran may develop usable nuclear weapons within two years using technology from countries including Russia, China and France, an Iranian opposition group said. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, founded in Tehran and now based in Paris, made the assertion two weeks before the expiration of a United Nations’ deadline for the country to prove it isn’t developing nuclear weapons.

“The Iranian regime is sparing no effort in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons,” Dowlat Nowrouzi, a council member, told reporters in London. Asked when the regime would succeed, she said: “Our prediction is 2005, 2006.”

Timely prediction, eh?

Also, here is an excellent capsulization of Iran’s nuclear chronology.

On this afternoon’s Michael Medved show, Senator John McCain said that, regarding Iraq, the only thing worse than sanctions or a military option is a nuclear-armed Iran disturbing the entire Middle East — but that nations must present a unified, solid front for Iran to take notice.

The clock continues to tick.

_____________________________

Also, in brief:

• The Senate Judiciary Committe votes to confirm Alito, precisely along party lines.
• The New York Times 4th quarter earnings have plunged 41%.
• Iran has pressed OPEC to reduce oil production by 1 million barrels per day.
• LA Times writer Joel Stein says he does not support our troops.

_____________________________

It just tickles me that the DEM continues, reliably, to implode.

A few things happened on Sunday; one I saw, the other I read about — neither event surprising.

While watching Fox News Sunday, I listened to Senator John McCain (R, Arizona) say that he believed Iran’s nuclear weapons program “is the most serious foreign policy crisis since the end of the Cold War. A nuclear capability in Iran is unacceptable.”

Senator McCain said he agreed with the Bush administration’s decision to press for sanctions against Iran before the United Nation’s Security Counsel, saying the move would force Moscow and Beijing to choose sides. “If China and Russia want to be on record as being supportive of Iran in their nuclear ambitions, then I think that obviously has consequences as well.”

McCain threw his hat into the energy independence ring as well: “We’ve got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil. And that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power.”

Israel Weighs In On Iran:

Despite Sharon’s absence, Israel’s defense minister hinted Saturday (01-21) that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

“Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing,” Shaul Mofaz said. His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

Sanctions and Oil:

McCain advocated energy independence (as should all logical Americans!) as oil and financial experts are quoted as saying: “Oil prices could soar past $100 a barrel, if the UN Security Council authorizes trade sanctions against Iran, which the West accuses of trying to make nuclear bombs, and Iran curbs oil exports in retaliation. A sharp global economic slowdown could follow.” Just this past week, the price per barrel almost reached $70 on the heels of global concern about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Oddly enough, this one time no one in the global community “buys” Iran’s bit about needing nukes for power.

But Iran would also pay a hefty price if the petro-dollars that now represent 80 percent of export revenues are reduced, potentially stirring civil unrest in a nation with a 14 percent unemployment rate.

”They would shoot themselves in the foot,” said Mustafa Alani, director of national security and terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. ”It’s one thing to test the market psychology, it’s another to take the actual step and stop oil exports.”

Bracing for sanctions, Iran’s central bank said on Friday that it is moving its foreign currency reserves out of European banks.

Iran, the second-largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, exports roughly 2.5 million barrels per day. It also controls the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping lane.

”Even if Iran pulled a small amount of its oil off the market, say it pulled a half million barrels a day, I could see oil prices literally jumping over the $100 per barrel mark,” said James Bartis, a senior researcher at Rand Corp.

John Kerry: Amazing Silent On Iran? Here’s Why:

Kerry went on another rant yesterday about President Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism, and his so-called inept handling of North Korea’s nuclear program. In retrospect, he didn’t have much to say about Iran. As NewsMax.com wrote:

Probably because, had Kerry’s previous advice on Iran been taken, the mullahs in Tehran would be even closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than they are now.

During his first debate against President Bush on Sept. 30, 2004, the Massachusetts Democrat actually said it would be a good idea for the U.S. to give Iran the fuel they needed to make a nuclear bomb.

The question from moderator Jim Lehrer: “Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran?” Kerry’s answer:

“With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.”

The top Democrat then urged:

“I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel. Test them. See whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren’t willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together.”

Another reason we are so very lucky one specific man currently occupies the White House.

_____________________________________________

The bottom line: a showdown with Iran is coming; the global community appears, at this point, to be behind the US stance — this week.

The best teams won, and rather handily. Yesterday, the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Denver Broncos 34 to 17 — and beat them like the proverbial drum. Jake Plummer did his best but the entire Denver team looked flat. Pittsburgh took charge and never looked back.

A short time later, a revved Seattle Seahawk team beat the Carolina Panthers 34 to 14 (how odd that the winning teams both scored 34 points, and the losing teams scored within 3 points of each other). Seattle just looked sharp and Carolina was flat. Neither losing team really got into their respective games.

The Pittsburgh Steelers will face the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl XL (40), in Detroit on Sunday, February 5th.

The Steelers will be the next Super Bowl champions. A beautiful and fitting way for Jerome Bettis to end his career.

Easy prediction.