Iran not a threat
The Lance Haynie Blog
Written by Lance R. Haynie   
Friday, 18 September 2009 05:24
Iran is not a threat, or that is what VP Joe Biden is saying. We have now learned that Obama has decided against the missile-defense system in eastern europe. Why do you ask? Because "Iran isn't much of a threat." 

Vice President Joe Biden earlier refused to confirm to CNN that the George W. Bush-era plan was being shelved.

But he did explain the logic of doing so, saying Iran — a key concern for the United States — was not a threat.

“I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat,” he told CNN’s Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip.

“The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned — much less concerned — about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America,” he said.

Of course this is what Obama had to say about Iran in April of 2008:

 
Since when are nuclear weapons in the hands of rouge nations not a threat? Tehran want's to eliminate and utterly destroy a key ally, Israel, and yet there is no threat. I guess maybe I can see Obama's point of view. We all know that we should not risk annoying Russia because they will use their influence on Iran to stop them from building the bomb right?

Imposing swift additional sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme would be a “serious mistake,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.

“Today there is a real chance to conclude talks whose results should be an agreement restoring trust in the purely peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme,” Lavrov said in televised remarks.

“Disrupting this chance by demanding swift imposition of sanctions would be a serious mistake,” he added. 

Oh, damn never-mind; I guess I was wrong. This must be this smart power Obama is brining to the table. Not to worry, he has a plan right? I sure hope so! Maybe he will write Putin a "strongly worded letter" urging him in this matter, because that will do the trick.

Either way it is all irrelevant because Iran does not have the capabilities to make a bomb yet right? This is all speculation on the assumption that they could possibly make it.

Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press…The Bomb

The document says Iran has “sufficient information” to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to “overcome problems” on developing a delivery system. 

Damn, wrong again. Would you look at that? It is not clear what that exactly means, but it sounds like Iran's is in almost the same situation Japan is. They have figured out how to enrich weapons grade uranium, and have the necessary centrifuge technology to do the job when needed. However, the better question at hand is just how many centrifuges are in their arsenal.

On to that minor detail about a missile delivery system. Obama assured us that our crack in Iran intelligence thinks Tehran will be focused on short and medium range missiles in the near future. Therefore, there is no immediate need for a robust missile shield. There is no reason to distrust this assessment is there? It is not like Iranian intelligence has been wrong in the past right?

In a remarkable feat of doublespeak, Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have tried to portray the move as an embrace of missile defense that will enhance our security. Rather than focusing on long-range threats from Iran, they say, the United States now will concentrate on short-range threats.

That’s an example of short-range thinking. A robust system of missile defense never has demanded such trade-offs. Instead, it calls for a sophisticated architecture that counters threats in different forms. Intelligence estimates have forecast that Iran could develop intercontinental rockets by 2015. This morning, Obama and Gates insisted that these estimates are mistaken. If Iran has in fact slowed down its work in this area — a claim that national-security experts have questioned — it may have been in response to American determination to construct a NATO-approved system in Eastern Europe. Today’s announcement may persuade Tehran to reconsider and look for ways to exploit a new vulnerability. As Donald Rumsfeld once warned, weakness is provocative.

Even still, it is not like we have any ally's close to Iran correct? As for the Russian response to all of this, you will be certainly pleased to know that in return for not interfering with the Kremlin in eastern europe, Russia's foreign ministered decided to release this statement:

“American has always cared only about its own interests, and those of others only serve the US. Now we have another example of this,” he said in a television interview. “I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing towards this part of Europe. We should reconsider our approach to the United States.”
 
Did the Russians just give us the middle finger? See, smart power from Barack Obama.
 
Being A Libertarian Christian In A Secular World
Opinion - Moderate & Independent
Written by Brandon Burks   
Friday, 18 September 2009 03:45
Article Index
Being A Libertarian Christian In A Secular World
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
All Pages

Christians living among the secular world has been problematic since the Old Testament times. It was not unusual for God in the Old Testament to send His people to war in order to wipe out pagan cultures (Numbers 33:51-53; Deuteronomy 2:33-35). When Christians live among non-Christians peace is only attained when total freedom, via laissez faire capitalism, is present. Without total freedom secular ideas are indoctrinated into the Christian worldview, which compromises Biblical truths.


Laissez faire capitalism has never existed before, though the Unites States has come the closest. The US has always been a mixed economy, and mixed economies only go one way: either more capitalist, or more statist. Capitalism is not only Biblical, but it is vital to Christian longevity. Kelly Boggs, a columnist with the Baptist Press, recently ran an article discussing capitalisms Biblical principle. In the article he concluded that capitalism was more Christian than socialism.


In today’s modern society we two major political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Being that capitalism is more Biblical, we should ask ourselves which party represents capitalism? The answer is neither of them. Both represent statism. While the Democrats are more statist, the Republicans are right behind them. The two political parties that represent capitalism and the vision of our Founding Fathers are the Libertarian and Constitution Parties.


I think it’s always helpful to remind ourselves that God warned us about having kings (today we have presidents and prime ministers). God warned us we would be drafted into an army, taxed, become slaves, and that the king (government) would be corrupt, by giving handouts to special friends and supporting extensive bureaucracy (1 Samuel 8:6-18 MSG). If we had only listened to God then we wouldn’t be in the shape we’re in today. Nonetheless, we can get back to sound Christian principles by following the Constitution our founders wrote, and live by the philosophy of libertarianism.


Our Constitution is riddled with the religious beliefs that our founding fathers held. “In God We Trust” is engraved and written on our currency and our government buildings. Even with their beliefs our founders wanted religious freedom (which is part of the Southern Baptist belief as well). This, however, brings us to the Christian contradiction #1. Many Christians espouse freedom from religion, yet ask the government to squash the freedoms of non-Christians on things that we deem a sin (i.e. pornography, drugs, prostitution, working on Sundays, etc). We need to remember two things here: 1) it’s not a capitalist governments job to control non-violent social behaviors, and 2) We have the freedom from non-religion. In other words, if we are to be tolerant of other people’s religion (or lack there of) we can’t get mad when they don’t follow Christian doctrine.


We will be discussing eight characteristics of libertarianism. The first is drugs. In a laissez faire capitalistic society all drugs would be legal. Government can never suppress the free market. When they try it turns black (i.e. the black market). The failed alcohol prohibition should be an example of how our drug prohibition will turn out. When alcohol was legalized again all the gangsters went out of business. Likewise, when drugs are legalized all the drug dealers will be out of business. Jeffery Miron shows in his book Drug War Crimes that if drugs were legalized the homicide rate would drop as mush as 75%. Most of inner city gang violence revolves around drug trafficking. Also, countries with legalized drugs have less of a problem than we do, because a drug dealer will sell to an infant, while the businessman has more to loose. This is the reason that most high school kids say it’s easier to get marijuana than alcohol. Not only would there be less deaths, we would also save $33 billion a year currently used to fight the failed drug war, and our healthcare cost would go down, because you wouldn’t have to see a doctor just to get your prescription filled. Congressman Ron Paul stated, “When government tries to protect people from themselves it becomes a tyrannical state.” Dr. Paul reaffirms to us that the War on Drugs is not compatible with laissez faire capitalism, which brings us to Christian contradiction #2. Most Christians admit that it’s not a sin to drink, just get drunk. Why not other substances beside alcohol? Marijuana is less intoxicating than alcohol, and even has medical properties (i.e. helps with radiation in cancer patients, eye illnesses, and hunger issues in AIDS patients). If someone wants to smoke marijuana in peaceful privacy, then that should be acceptable. However, like any good Christian we should ask what does the Bible say about this? The Bible says:

Forget about deciding what's right for each other. Here's what you need to be concerned about: that you don't get in the way of someone else, making life more difficult than it already is. I'm convinced—Jesus convinced me!—that everything as it is in itself is holy. We, of course, by the way we treat it or talk about it, can contaminate it. – Romans 14:13-14 MSG


It’s not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart…For from within, out of a person’s heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you. – Mark 7:15, 21-23 NLT

 



 
«StartPrev12NextEnd»

Page 1 of 2
Full Site
© 2008-2009 The Lance Haynie Show
An OnMark Group Company
All Rights Reserved