Ahmadinejad's favorite hits

"Ring of Fire", from Ahmadinejad's favorite hits

Verse 1:
War -it's a lovely thing,
and it makes a fiery ring.
I can start one, watch me try.
Then, watch my enemies cry.

Refrain:
I will set the mid-East on fire.
My enemies will burn while I climb higher.
And Iran will rule from amidst the pyre,
Amidst the pyre.

Verse 2:
The race for nukes is sweet
With centrifuges beneath my feet.
Lots of uranium I've refined
For the holy war I have in mind.

Verse 3:
The Zionists will soon be gone,
Just as I've promised all along.
America will not defend,
and both will come to a fiery end.

Final Refrain:
I will set the whole world on fire.
The mushroom clouds will go high, high, higher.
And soon you'll know I ain't no liar,
I ain't no liar.

(-thanks to Johnny Cash)

Kim Jong-il ...a saber-rattlin' man

Refrain:
I was born a saber-rattlin' man.
Tryin' to be a tyrant and doin' the best I can.
When it comes to diplomacy I hope you'll understand
I was born a saber-rattlin' man.

Verse 1:
My daddy was a commie down in Chŏnju.
He traded in his Bible for a gun.
And I was born in the backseat of a Pyongyang bus
rollin' down Highway Mao Tse-Tung.

Verse 2:
I've purged the country of my adversaries,
all troublemakers and their friends and sons.
My only enemy is every country in the world,
my hobby is provokin' them for fun.

Verse 3:
I've rockets I can launch when I get angry,
I've nukes in case they make me really mad.
My people might be starvin' but they love me.
I'm sure they'd let me know if times were bad.

Verse 4:
My Taepodongs have better range than ever.
I aimed one over Japan and let it fly.
Their knees down south were knocking when they saw it overhead,
I laughed so hard I swear it made me cry!

Verse 5:
I'm itchin' for a war, there's no mistakin',
Four million hungry troops at my command.
The imperialists have lots to lose, I'm thinkin',
and bad boys always get what they demand.

Ramblin' Man, Allman Brothers Band

WHO raises pandemic Swine Flu alert level to PHASE 5

WHO raises pandemic flu alert level to PHASE 5

"GENEVA – The World Health Organization has raised its pandemic alert for swine flu to the second highest level, meaning that it believes a global outbreak of the disease is imminent.

WHO says the phase 5 alert means there is sustained human to human spread in at least two countries. It also signals that efforts to produce a vaccine will be ramped up.

WHO has confirmed human cases of swine flu in Mexico, the United States, Canada, Britain, Israel, New Zealand and Spain. Mexico and the U.S. have reported deaths."

Do You think that the U.S. federal government now might consider doing more than asking travelers from Mexico if they feel OK? If not, how many more people need to be infected, how many more need to die, before the federal government takes up its responsibility for securing our border against the clear and present danger of pandemic infection?

Would it be unreasonable to quarantine all individuals crossing from Mexico into the U.S. for a period of 24 hours, and to deny entry to all who exhibit suspicious symptoms?

U.S. officials want 'swine' out of flu name

U.S. officials want 'swine' out of flu name - Reuters AlertNet


So the feds are bristling at the name, "Swine Flu"? Well, what alternatives do we have?

"Swine Flu" -that's what it's been called for years. Why do the feds have a problem with it now? Afraid of offending swine?

"N1H1 virus" -doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, now, does it? And why would we use this naming method when many other viral diseases are not known by the technical names of the viruses? ..."Common cold", "Stomach flu", "Warts", etc.

"Mexico Flu" -that would be appropriate, since it clearly appears that Mexico is its source. We'll see if that gets the nod from the Defenders of Political Correctness.


Well, how about the "Napolitano Flu", named after the head of the federal department who should have but failed to combat the outbreak at its ports of entry by instituting careful screening of all travelers entering the U.S. from Mexico, and by heightening border control efforts at the Mexican border?

But it's understandable that Janet Napolitano hasn't acted more decisively to protect the U.S. against the Swine Flu. She's been very busy protecting the nation against a more ominous threat: returning military veterans and pro-life soccer moms.

Janet Napolitano blames Canada as source of 9/11 terrorists

Border comments spark diplomatic kerfuffle - CTV.ca

What? After the Department of Homeland Security issued its recent memo regarding right-wing extremists, I assumed that the 9/11 terrorists were all American, home-schooling, pro-life, Christian soccer moms. I guess this means that these home-schooling soccer moms actually were Canadian.

The Canadian news site, National Post, raises a very relevant question: "Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job?"

Be a patriot. Boycott Citgo.

Chavez's Citgo Is No Friend of America by Mac Johnson
President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela threatens to provide a South American foothold to nations hostile to the United States: nations who are happy to exploit a thuggish, Marxist dictator of an oppressed, unstable country. (Note Chavez's five-billion dollar regional oil drilling project with China, and his stated intent to destroy U.S. influence in the world.) Through his total control of the Venezuela-owned Citgo Corporation, Chavez intends to manipulate U.S. politics and buy political favors through his sale of discounted heating oil to "needy" American customers in congressional districts with pork-hungry representatives. Are there no laws barring foreign governments from manipulating our elected officials?

The obvious first step for Americans to resist this hostile foreign influence is to stop buying Citgo products. I'm boycotting Citgo, and hope You will too. Next, we should direct Congress and our president to find a way to repel this dangerous dictator.

Iran uses Hezbollah as a diversion, continues nuclear program.

WorldNetDaily: Iran missile transfer puts most Israelis in range
While the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah runs its course, Iran is gaining time to develop its nuclear capability.

The world's attention is focused on the more visible but purely secondary regional threat posed by Hezbollah's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and the Israeli response in Lebanon. How much longer will it be before the president of Iran is fully equipped to carry out the threats he has already openly expressed? Who doubts that once he possesses nuclear weapons he will hasten to use them?

Bush seeks to appease Hitler

Iran says Western proposal 'positive' - Yahoo! News

The President of Iran will not stop until he is stopped. Providing him "incentives" and nuclear technology will not contain his ambitions but rather accelerate his rush to war and a new holocaust.

Dubai Firm Cleared to Buy Military Supplier

Dubai Firm Cleared to Buy Military Supplier
Something may be rotten in Denmark, but the stench of an ill and hobbling democracy hovers over the United States.
There are indications that the United States is headed toward increasingly turbulent times with some Muslim and other third-world nations. So why is the Bush administration seemingly fixated on making us more vulnerable to these nations? OK, I suppose the administration doesn't actually want to make us more vulnerable. What alarms me is the administration's seemingly unrestrained promotion of big business to the detriment of national security.

Remember the Dubai ports deal? President Bush almost couldn't let go of that millstone even when it plunged into the harbor. Remember his recent committment of nuclear technology to India? Recall our ongoing massive trade deficit with China? How about our "open door" policy to ill-paid, easily exploited illegal immigrants? Or the massive domestic spending, to the point of debt-worship, on Medicare and other domestic programs.

But back to Dubai. They couldn't close the deal on the ports, so what does the administration negotiate behind the backs of the American public, and then spring upon us to remind us to stay in our place? The sole supplier of certain military turbine components is one of a group of manufacturers being sold to a Dubai government-owned company. Take that, America! "Who do You think You are to embarrass and oppose me before the world? I'm the President! No matter that Dubai supports terrorists (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200603010741.asp)".

Why can't we recognize the signs of the times and decide that on some issues it is time to circle the wagons. It's a good time to insist that we don't continue to outsource critical military components. It's a good time to protect our critical domestic infrastructure and military capabilities. It's a good time to take control of our own borders and moderate the flood of illegal immigration.

Patriots accused of xenophobia in stopping ports deal

Port Deal Backlash -- Joe Mariani -- GOPUSA

In "Port Deal Backlash" the American public is scolded for demanding loudly and insistently that Congress stop Dubya from doing the dubious Dubai deal. It's unfortunate that President Bush and some leading Republicans dug in their heals to defend the transaction without giving due consideration to the nature of the public's objections or their tsunamic force. As a result, the President suffered an embarassing spanking.

I'm tempted to criticize some of the more strident Democrats who loudly (and perhaps gleefully) pounded the President while the pounding was good. However, I can hardly blame them. The President, I'm convinced, was backing a deal that was bad for the United States, and much of the public believed this to be the case. Presumably the President and Congress had further information that might have been used to defend the deal, but the public evidently didn't see the President make a convincing case. They felt he just wasn't using common sense. And suddenly the public's trust was undermined when it realized that the mechanism for approving such deals appears to be inadequate and potentially dangerous.

It's too bad, because President Bush has done some great things that have bolstered the security of the U.S. I suppose we shouldn't expect him to be perfect, but we should expect him to be consistently strong where he has shown his greatest strenghts: in protecting the security of the country.

President Bush, we need to see more coherent and comprehensive efforts to secure our borders, defeat terrorist enemies of the U.S., improve the fairness of our international trade, and reduce our federal spending.

This bad deal isn't dead yet... Congress, don't lose Your nerve.

Senator: UAE firm to transfer port operations to U.S. 'entity' - CNN.com

It appears that Congress is not totally deaf to the public, at least when the public reacts with enough unity and outrage.

However, this deal doesn't really sound dead. Dubai Ports World is proposing giving control of the ports to an American "entity". Why does DPW have any say in the matter if the deal is dead?

Let's remain vigilant and work to regain American control of all our American ports. The days are gone when it was acceptable to have our key infrastructure owned or operated by entities aligned with nations whose friendliness toward the United States is dubious at best.

U.S.-India nuclear deal is a threat to world security

India nuclear deal pushed - Washington Times

It's hard to guess how many nations will bare their nuclear arms before this decade is done. Perhaps more disturbing than the number will be the identity of those nations. The world already has been threatened by the nuclear saber-rattling of an Iranian Hitler and a North Korean Stalin. For Iran and North Korea, leveling the playing field with the U.S. and its allies may be a dream close to fulfillment. Other nations in Asia in Africa certainly are dreaming the same powerful dream.

There must be several former Soviet republics which still possess Soviet-era nuclear weapons. How many of them have resisted the temptation to quietly convert uranium to gold: an alchemist's dream, one that requires no science? How can they be expected to resist the temptation when now even the U.S. is openly forging a deal openly to trade nuclear technology for ...for what? Increased access to Indian markets? The U.S. will be perceived as selling nuclear technology in disregard of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This will diminish the authority and value of the NPT. On what basis can the U.S. object to the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea when it rewards India, who has for decades thumbed its nose at the NPT while developing and then testing nuclear weapons? The Indian deal will damage our ability to contain nuclear techonology through diplomacy and law, and will encourage our adversaries to heap contempt upon American non-proliferation rhetoric.

As second- and third-world nations race to achieve military parity with their more menacing neighbors, it will be increasingly difficult or soon impossible for the western powers to contain the genie any longer. Envy and hatred toward the U.S. and its allies will be fueled by the selective and self-serving attitude displayed by the U.S., which apparently is ready to pontificate against nuclear proliferation when it suits American interests, but is ready to subordinate such principles to economic interests at the whim of the administration.

Congress needs to dissect and examine this deal very closely, and consider very carefully whether the percieved benefits of this deal outweigh the very dangerous effects this deal may cause.

Even Republicans can't back President Bush on the ports deal

Lawmaker vows to kill ports deal -The Washington Times

US House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter is on the right track, and I applaud him for courageously applying common sense to this dangerous situation. Our national security is jeopardized by deals to sell assets and technology, or outsource control of critical infrastructure to foreign states, especially states whose loyalties and interests are not those of the United States. Unfortunately in this matter our own President Bush appears to be on the wrong side of the fence. Why is that? I really don't understand, but I feel our national security is threatened by some of his recent actions.

President Bush rewards India with nuclear technology, slaps Pakistan and China

U.S., India reach agreement on nuclear deal -The Washington Times

Let me get this straight... India has always refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and so now we reward them for this by granting them increased access to American nuclear technology. And in exchange for what? This article doesn't really make this clear, but You can bet Your bottom dollar that the answer is measured in dollars.

Turning over nuclear technology to India is likely to destabilize an already unstable region. How will this be perceived by Pakistan and China? Not favorably, who will regard India as an increasing threat to their security.

And this deal is good for the U.S. because... we will gain increased access to Indian markets?

I don't think so. I want to know which companies are behind the lobbying that promoted this plan. The most obvious suspects are those who will directly sell nuclear equipment or know-how to India.

The United States is selling itself to foreign interests, piece by piece, and risking a destabilizing and accelerated nuclear arms race between adversarial nations in Asia.

I hope Congress has the sense to kill this plan.

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports - United Press International

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports - United Press International

Mr. President, why are You so strongly opposed to the 45 day congressional security review that so many in Congress and the general public believe to be the prudent course of action? Why the hurry to execute this potentially dangerous deal? What do You say to those who are asking for the reasons this deal should move forward?

"if we were concerned about... the United States of America"

UAE Company Offers to Delay Port Deal - FOXNews.com

It's an understatement to say that sometimes President Bush doesn't seem to think about what he's saying. Consider the Dubai Ports deal, dubbed "Portgate" by talk radio host and author Michael Savage. President Bush attempts to reassure the American public, saying, "We wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America." My thoughts exactly. If we have any common sense left in this country, we will be very concerned about this deal, and will not go forward with it.

I voted for this man, twice. He's done some good things, but that's another discussion. This time, I think he must have lost his marbles. He seems not to be in touch with reality, or at least not in touch with what appears to be a growing tsunami of public opinion: that at this point in history to give control of American ports to an Arab company is to play Russian roulette. Perhaps we have some friends among Arab governments (please don't ask me to name a few), but we also have many enemies in the Arab world who would sieze any opportunity to deliver destruction to our doors.

It's not reassuring to tell us that the security of the ports is under the control of the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs officials. They may be good, but how tight can port security be when only 5% of incoming containers are actually inspected? The Treasury Department has approved of the deal. Is that a reason to feel assured of our safety? I think not.

Is President Bush prepared to absolutely guarantee the security of these ports will not be compromised in any way following such a transfer of ownership? On what basis can he offer such a guarantee, when four days ago he hadn't even heard of this proposed deal?

Will he publicly attach to the ports deal the condition that if an act of terrorism against the United States is ever linked to Dubai Ports World or the UAE, that the U.S. will retaliate with a devestating military attack upon the UAE's capital, Abu Dhabi, and recoup our financial losses through confiscated oil?

If -God forbid- a well orchestrated plot imports destruction through our eastern cities I expect the president's indignant chest-thumping and military response will provide little consolation.

Iran roars. France awakens. Germany dreams.

France says Iran has secret nuclear program - Reuters.com
Iran is working furiously to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible, knowing that the West may intervene militarily. President Ahmadinejad regards nuclear weapons as a necessary tool to export Islamic revolution and Iranian control first of the Middle East, then Europe and Asia, and then the Americas.
France, stung by recent uprisings of radical Islamists among its immigrants, has begun to awaken to the threat. Germany either dreams or is afraid to speak openly of the gravity of the threat.
While we wait for the mighty United Nations to restore world peace, Iran refines Uranium. Its true motives will become abundantly clear in due course.

Letting down our defenses... White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co.

White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co. - Breitbart.com
It's absolutely insane to turn over control of American ports to an Arab country when we are on the brink of a major conflict with the Arab world.
Suppose the United States uses military force to stop Iran from deploying nuclear weapons. Iran will retaliate with any and all means at its disposal, including destabilizing regional neighbors who do not come to its assitance in opposing the U.S. The United Arab Emirates certainly will feel the pressure of Iran and other radical Islamist forces to exploit the ports it controls in the U.S. for the purposes of terrorism and economic retaliation.
Something is seriously wrong with our federal government that this insane transaction can be permitted to take place. This outrage should be stopped!

Talking points for President Bush's State of the Union Address

President Bush, here are the points You need to make tonight:

The most basic function of a just government is the protection of basic human rights. Elective abortion denies these basic rights to our nation's posterity. Mr. President, deliver a bold, passionate moral argument to inspire and motivate the decent citizens of this country to bar elective abortions in all but the most extreme cases. C'mon, George, this is Your last term. Show us some guts.

Our national borders need to be protected. Terrorists are trying to destroy this country, and our borders are not secure. No more illegal immigration. Use the military if necessary to secure the borders. Revise immigration laws where needed. Enforce them aggressively.

End the war in Iraq by escalating the war. Escalate the intensity of military force to crush the terrorists in Iraq. Then declare victory and pull out.

Recover the passion for limited government. Drop harebrained, expensive, and unnecessary programs such as the manned mission to Mars. Cut taxes while slashing federal spending on notoriously wasteful programs such as welfare and education. Let the states and private charities fill the gap.

Kill Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons. With or without the cooperation of Euorpe. President Ahmadinejad appears to be a psycopath on par with Adolf Hitler. Stop him. If necessary, use force to prevent his creating international havoc, or else we will all pay dearly.

Contain North Korea. Neutralize its nuclear program. Isolate and neutralize its murderous dictator Kim Jong Il.

We are vulnerable to hostile foreign sources of energy. Open the Arctic National Wildlike Refuge and other natural resouces to resposible drilling for oil and gas. Encourage coal production and expand nuclear power generation.

Isolate and neutralize Hamas. Not a dime to the terrorists.

More to come, if I get a few minutes...