Nutroots Declares War on Everyone

Everyone that they have any disagreement with that is. Hey, as long as you tow the line they won't go after you: Bush is evil, we must not confront Iran, Israel is evil, warrantless wiretaps are evil, Gitmo is evil, the Patriot Act is evil, The ACLU will protect us all, have I missed anything. These are a lot of things to tow the line on.

Of course, their hatred for Bush is long and distinguished and needs to links or further exposition. Their first Democratic target was of Senator Joseph Lieberman. Their first television network was FoxNews, and their first foreign ally was Israel. Now, they have set their their sites on some segments of the Democratic that they don't see eye to eye with.

While for now, they have only given mild criticism of the Democratic leadership, I think that will change if in September the troop surge is ACTUALLY given more time. In the meantime, though we have some delicious political theater right now.

The wrath of the netroots right now is the Blue Dog Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Conference. Now, as much as I love watching political theater, this is even better because there is nothing like watching the other party in an all out civil war. Harold Ford Jr. did something sacreligious last night, at least according to the netroots. He showed up on FoxNews. To make it worse he criticized Daily Kos.

“I would have gone to DailyKos (mispronouncing the name and getting the
name of the YearlyKos conference wrong, too) and told them, ‘I think you’re
wrong the way you go about practicing your politics. If you’re serious about
winning the war and bringing the country together, get another message and
another set of tactics.”

To me this is frankly mild criticism, but maybe as the old saying goes, "you can dish it out but you can't take it"

On another front, the Daily Kos is now in all out hissy fit over the Blue Dogs supporting the warrantless wiretapping program. They are ready for an all out war come the primaries in 2008,

Some are already talking about primary challenges for Democrats whom they
consider enablers of Mr. Bush, like moderate Blue Dogs who formed the core of
Democratic support for the eavesdropping proposal in the House. On the Web site
Open Left, the blogger Matt Stoller accused the Blue Dogs of one of their
“standard betrayals.”

Right now, this is all just political theater in my estimation, however it will take on extra significance if the surge continues beyond September. I predict Kos et al to go into full out scorched Earth upon anyone that they consider to enable the surge. Let's remember that all but Joe Biden came to the Yearly Kos convention and no one went to the annual convention of the DLC. Thus, we know where the people running for President are in the fight.

Can the supposed disciplined, pragmatic, and intelligent, Hillary Clinton really be so politically blind. Yeah, it sure makes sense to kow tow to Daily Kos during the primary season but it is literal political suicide during the general election. Does Hillary really think that a group that hates Israel, hates the war on terror, hates any measure that protects us, hates everyone but themselves...does she really think that getting into bed with this group will win in the general election.

Bill O'Reilly has already declared war against Daily Kos et al, and in war he is, I am betting on him. Here is what he said recently

All the Democratic candidates failed to show up at a moderate Democratic
meeting in Tennessee, yet they kiss the feet of the hateful radicals.
Come
election time, independent voters will remember that if the far left ever comes
to power in this country, you can kiss the USA as you know it good bye.
Now
it's interesting to note that Congress just passed a law giving the National
Security Agency more latitude to monitor calls from the USA to suspected
terrorists overseas. Obviously, that's the major terror fighting tool.
But it
is vehemently opposed by the far left. Read the lead editorial in Tuesday's New
York Times if you want their point of view.
Senator Clinton voted against
that new law, as did Barack Obama -- another mistake. Again, come election time,
pandering to the far left will be a factor in how independent Americans
vote.
The reason the Democratic candidates are making these foolish decisions
is that they see the mainstream press actively rooting for the far left to
succeed in America. Talking Points could not find one media account of the Kos
convention that even criticized their vile postings, grossly insulting people
like Senator Joseph Lieberman. The bias is disgusting.
On CNN, Howard Kurtz,
again, loaded up his discussion of the convention with anti-O'Reilly guests. Not
one supported exposition of the hate site -- not one. Now Kurtz knows this is
unfair, but he continues to do it.
This entire thing is simply out of
control. Just because you run a Web site doesn't mean you can't defame and
injure people. Every Jewish person in the world should be marching against the
Kos for all the hate Israel stuff posted on it.
Senator Clinton and the
others may think that the far left approval will help them, but it will not. You
just wait and see.

I think he's right. We will see but I will take bets in the meantime.

Larry Lindsey Gets it Right

I have been disappointed if not surprised by the media coverage of the sub prime crisis. It has been filled with political correctness, condescending nebulus terms that even mortgage brokers don't understand, and very short on any analysis that let's the people know what happened. That's why I was surprised by this article by Lawrence Lindsey. Before I talk about the article, I think it is time once and for all to lay out the mortgage crisis as an insider sees it.

The root of the crisis started with the refinancing boom from 2000-2003. At that time, mortgage brokers, like myself, were making money hand over fist lowering rates of people in the prime market. sub prime banks were being squeezed out. In order to get our collective attention, they began to loosen their restrictions. It worked. Suddenly, borrowers that we all thought couldn't get qualified were now being qualified.

I have long believed that for the most part my industry is filled with sociopaths. The reason that this is important is that while prime loans were plentiful during the refinancing boom, the margins were razor thin. In sub prime, the borrower is dumber and more desperate and thus the mortgage broker can and will take advantage of that knowledge by driving up the rate in ways they would never do with a prime borrower. Thus, with the restrictions loosening, mortgage brokers were perfectly happy to focus more and more on sub prime since they knew they could charge a heck of a lot more in that arena.

Everything was fine and dandy. Wall Street loved the sub prime loans and with property values going up these loans were profitable for them. With renewed vigor in the sub prime market so came new competition. In order to compete, banks each tried to one up each other in offering more and more aggressive loans. Lower and lower credit scores were allowed to buy property with no money down, and then with no money down and stating income (something I will explain and go into further later), and then overlooking bankruptcies, collections, charge offs, mortgage lates, and just about any negative one can find on a credit report.

At some point these loans went from being aggressive to being loans given to deadbeats. Let's say that again. The reason that we have a sub prime crisis is because a bunch of dead beats bought homes they couldn't afford from banks that should have never lent them money. The role of the mortgage broker in securing these loans shouldn't be understated and frankly I will never miss any opportunity to take a pot shot at my industry, however blaming this crisis on us frankly gives us too much credit. We have always been a collective group of sociopaths. That didn't start two years ago. That was always so. Thus, there was a new dynamic in play in the last few years.

The biggest problem loans are three interest only, no money down, and stated loans, and of course the biggest problems are those that combine several of those together. Basically what happened was that people with marginal credit scores, in other words a credit score of someone I would refer to as a dead beat, were able to not only buy a home, but buy one with no money down, by stating their income, and to lower their payment they got an interest only loans.

Now, the mainstream media would have you believe that evil mortgage brokers committed fraud on unsuspecting banks while innocent poor people stood by helplessly and put themselves in an untennable position that they had no control over. (This is a position that Hillary Clinton holds and one I will address later). Stated loans are those loans in which an income is stated but no proof is provided to verify it. They were initially created for self employed people who have great accountants, but they filtered to other borrowers, and even borrowers who have a simple salary. Why do you ask would someone need to go stated if they simply make a salary? Couldn't they simply provide their taxes? They could but then they wouldn't qualify for the house they want.

The banks are not without blame here either. Stated loans were excepted regularly with janitors supposedly making 60k per year and more, teachers making as much as a hundred thousand, secretaries north of 50k per year. These were common place. Now, if a bank is willing to believe that a janitor makes 60k per year in order to approve a loan, whose fault is it if that loan goes bad? To use a crude metaphor, this is like a girl getting naked jumping into my bed and then wondering why I tried to f$&k her. If a bank doesn't want to take on fraudulent loans maybe they shouldn't be so quick to believe janitors make 60k a year, maybe they should not allow for stated loans for salaried borrowers altogether.

The borrower is not without fault by a long shot. While the bank may think the janitor makes sixty thousand a year, the janitor knows what he makes. He knows if the mortgage payment is eating up to sixty percent of his monthly income. If this person goes ahead and accepts the loan anyway, is it really the fault of the mortgage broker when they go bad on it.

Yet, this is not the narrative you will hear. You will hear about evil, evil mortgage brokers praying on helpless poor people and unsuspecting banks. The reality is in six years in the business, 99 times out 100, whenever I tell someone how big a mortgage they can afford, they wind up bidding on house with a mortgage at least ten percent higher. Is that suddenly my fault?

Now to Mr. Lindsey, who does get what happened. He takes to task a proposal by Chuck Schumer known as Senate Bill 1299,

One leading proposal is a bill called S. 1299, offered by Sen. Chuck
Schumer of New York. Mr. Schumer is a senior Democrat on the Banking Committee
and the third-ranking member of his party in the entire Senate, so any proposal
he makes should be taken seriously. His proposal represents a regulatory and
litigious approach to mortgage-market reform.
The bill requires that each
mortgage originator act with "reasonable skill, care, and diligence" and in
"good faith and fair dealing." It also requires that all loans are "reasonably
advantageous to the consumer." Surely these are noble sentiments. But they are
also vague and ill-defined legal requirements that open up the mortgage industry
to endless litigation in an environment where juries comprised of homeowners
must decide between families in the process of losing their homes and mortgage
brokers, investment bankers and other financial intermediaries.
The key to
getting America out of its current housing and mortgage market mess is to do
everything possible to maximize the availability of credit.
Mr. Schumer's
bill makes the ultimate lenders legally responsible for "acts, omissions, and
representations made by the mortgage broker." Remember that in the modern
mortgage market, the mortgage broker is unlikely to be under the employ or
control of the lender. The mortgage may be "owned" by someone who has never seen
the borrower or the originator. So, anyone supplying money to the mortgage
market may well be taking on uncontrollable and unquantifiable risk in the
process.
The legislation also prescribes some regulatory tightening that will
block access to mortgages for some key segments of the population, or at least
make those mortgages more expensive and less appropriate. The bill would require
that all borrowers qualify for a mortgage at the fully indexed long-term rate
that would apply when a variable-rate mortgage converts to its long-term
level.

he continues,

Locking in a long-term fixed rate is risky for the lender, and so he must charge
more. Borrowers can obtain a mortgage with a lower monthly payment or qualify
for a larger home if they choose a variable-rate loan. Equally important, in a
country where the average household moves every seven years, it seems foolish
for everyone to pay for "interest rate protection" they may not need. The
Schumer bill requires that they do.
One other factor needs be considered:
Incomes rise over time, particularly for people in the prime home buying ages of
25 to 40. The typical family will see its income rise in excess of 5% a year as
inflation, promotions and real wage gains take effect. Why should a family be
forced to qualify for a monthly mortgage payment today that it won't have to
face for another two to five years, when its income is likely to be
substantially higher?

he is absolutely right on all counts. Anyone who is veteran of my work knows my favorite quote and is probably sick of it but with respect to Ronald Reagan, "the nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Let's take things one at a time. First, "mortgage originator act with "reasonable skill, care, and diligence" and in "good faith and fair dealing." It also requires that all loans are "reasonably advantageous to the consumer". Talk about nebulus and vague. This is either a throw away line or even worse the beginning of a new government bureaucracy to enforce something that no one can define. Will HUD or some other group now oversee to make sure that originators (a fancy word for mortgage broker and an example of the condescending term I was talking about)
mortgage originator act with "reasonable skill, care, and diligence" and in "good faith and fair dealing." It also requires that all loans are "reasonably advantageous to the consumer. Is this what we want, another government bureaucracy overseeing another industry to enforce nebulus rules and regulations.

Furthermore, Lindsey is right. This crisis is not merely a crisis of economics, but a crisis of culture. We are going to be dangerously close at the end of this crisis of being like most nations, where only the elite own. If Schmur et al have their way, the middle class will never own their own property because they won't ever qualify for a loan. The answer isn't to reduce the number of loan products but to do everything we can to keep as many as possible. We have the biggest most sophisticated loan market in the world, and this crisis may end all that. Gone will be days when someone can buy a home with no money down. That is a bad thing not a good thing. Just because dead beats were able to do it, doesn't mean the answer is to disqualify everyone from doing it.

Finally, Lindsey says this...

The legislation also prescribes some regulatory tightening that will block
access to mortgages for some key segments of the population, or at least make
those mortgages more expensive and less appropriate. The bill would require that
all borrowers qualify for a mortgage at the fully indexed long-term rate that
would apply when a variable-rate mortgage converts to its long-term level.

Whatever the merits of the idea in the long run, this is precisely the
wrong time to add this requirement. Three-quarters of the subprime mortgages
issued in 2006, along with other variable rate mortgages, will reset in 2008.
Borrowers who had planned on refinancing then may be stopped by the requirements
in S. 1299. Unable to pay the new reset rate and barred by law and regulation
from easy access to refinancing, many or most of these borrowers could have
little choice but to give up their homes. This in turn would put further
downward pressure on all home prices.

This is absolutely right. To add to the crisis, variable rates are adjusting. If you think people couldn't afford their mortgages wait till the mortgage are two, three and four hundred dollars higher. Some of these people can get into a new lower mortgage and some can't, but Senator Schumer will ride on his white horse and insure none of them can by disqualifying all of them from qualifying for a new loan. Since Schumer's proposal hasn't been flushed out, we can only infer. The maximum on a variable rate can be up to six percentage points higher than the original rate. If that is the case, and new qualification rules would have to be at the maximum rate, that would for all intense and purposes eliminate variable rate loans as any sort of viable product. Thus, even if you only planned to live in a house for three, five, seven or ten years, you would go ahead and be forced to take a fixed rate.

Now, let's examine some things Senator Clinton said.

"Today we have a clear choice: We can look at the statistics, wring our hands and continue to do nothing, or we can do what America has done in times of difficulty, acknowledge we have a real challenge and confront it head-on with real solutions," Clinton said. "I think we need to act now with smart, practical solutions to strengthen our housing and mortgage markets"

Yes, that's right, Senator Clinton will be riding on her own white horse right behind her counterpart from New York.

The New York senator's proposal includes a $1 billion federal fund to help
homeowners avoid foreclosure, an end to prepayment penalties and more affordable
housing options.

Let's examine this. First, let's remember the overwhelming majority of people about to go into foreclosure are dead beats, and the Senator wants to use public funds to extend even more credit to these dead beats. Yes, this certainly sounds like a good populist proposal, but let me tell you how it will work in the real world.

Here is an example of a dead beat I ran across. This couple was struggling to pay their mortgage, and they should have, since it was eating up almost 70% of their total income. The only thing they weren't paying was the taxes on the home. In the middle of the loan, they went and bought a car. Yes, that's right. They couldn't afford to pay their taxes, their mortgage ate up 70% of their budget, and they saw fit to buy a car. You think this is out of the ordinary, not that much, and Senator Clinton proposes that we extend one billion dollars in public money to exactly these types of dead beats.

She goes on,

It's a combination now, of economic conditions that are not working for the
majority of Americans, and unsavory practices that are undermining the dream of
home ownership," Clinton said.
When Congress returns from its summer recess,
Clinton said she will introduce legislation targeting "fly-by-night mortgage
lenders" who make "really seductive offers."

Now, again, Senator Clinton will ride in on her white horse and save the world from unscrupulous mortgage brokers. It is exactly these sorts of nebulus promises that Ronald Reagan warned us against, when he said what he said.

She continues,

Clinton also proposed banning contracts that trap borrowers in "unworkable"
mortgage scenarios in which nothing is budgeted for taxes and insurance

There are no such contracts. There is no bank in the world that ignores taxes when figuring out ratios. What Senator Clinton is talking about is of course stated loans. Again, she puts the blame squarely on people like me. Think about the story I told. Do you think that couple is just an innocent victim in devious plot of some sociopathic mortgage broker? How exactly, folks, was a borrower forced into an unworkable contract? They weren't. What forced them into it was the irresistable urge to buy a house that they couldn't afford.

The article finishes like this,

In March, Clinton called on a crackdown on predatory lending practices in the subprime market. On Tuesday, she said those loans were only the start.
"I think the subprime market, that was like the canary in the mine. It was telling us loudly and clearly, there are problems here," she said.
Rival John Edwards also has proposed cracking down on predatory lenders in a market he compared in June to "the wild West."

I will finish with this, "the nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help''

Amen.

A Victory for All Americans

This was the phrase uttered by Barack Obama in response to a court ruling against the town of Hazelton, Pennsylvania. This ruling said that the town's new ordinance called the Illegal Immigration Relief Act

To understand this, we need to go back further in time. In the last several years, illegal immigrants have multiplied in Hazelton, and in the last mayoral election, Louis Barletta ran on a tough anti illegal immigration platform. He began to put this platform into practice with this act, which barred landlords from renting to illegals. The logic of course is if they have nowhere to stay they won't migrate to Hazelton.

Keeping in mind that Barletta ran on a tough anti illegal immigration platform, and he was elected on this platform overwhelmingly, we can all say that he was doing the will of the people.
Now, in order to fully understand the situation, we must now go back to the seventeen hundreds. Let us refresh ourselves with the Constitution, and namely, the Tenth Amendment It goes as follows, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now, we all know that the federal government has ceded its duty to enforce the laws of the land when it comes to illegal immigration, and thus we can only assume that the federal government has ceded this duty to states and municipalities like Hazelton.

Hazelton, Pennsylvania is not a large community, a population of just over 23,000 as of the last census. They don't have the resources to absorb an influx of illegals who will then drain the economy. The residents had had enough and they elected a mayor that promised to stop this.
He started with this simple act. No illegal shall be allowed to rent any property in Hazelton. Since illegals aren't even allowed to be in the Country, it seems to me that the Constitutionality of such a law is really rather logical.

Not to James Munley and Senator Obama. Here is what the Judge wrote, "Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not," Now, last I checked a person here illegally has no rights. If they aren't allowed to be here, what rights can they have. Even the judge admitted that there is no federal law that this violates. Talk about judicial fiat.
I assume anyone that is serious about tackling the problems of illegal immigration would be outraged by such a ruling. Not Senator Obama though, but then again, he is NOT serious about tackling the problems of illegal immigration.

In the last Senate debate he voted on two amendments in a manner that I find inexcusable The first one would bar any criminals, gang members, and terrorists from entering the country. Senator Obama voted against this. The second simply called for all current laws to be enforced, and he even voted against this. (Both times voting on the same side as Hillary Clinton). Of course, this is par for the course. Senator Obama stood in front of open borders group, La Raza and proclaimed this about the Senate immigration debate, "both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights" he continued, "Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year," he said. "Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk – because I walked. "I didn't run away from the issue, and I didn't just talk about it in front of Latino audiences." That's right folks, Senator Obama stood side by side with illegals, law breakers, marching for rights they do not have and want to usurp after violating our sovereignty and breaking our law every single day. He stood side by side with them, people that I assume he considers Americans, and to the people of Hazelton, Pennsylvania, legal Americans, I can only assume he gives them the middle finger. "A victory for all Americans". Not all, Senator, certainly not the ones living in Hazelton, Pennsylvania

Authoritarianism, The Ultimate Equalizer

I have had several diary entries lately in which I have laid out a plan in which Iran can be confronted peacefully and brought down from with in.

Since then newsmax has published a story about Kurds organizing for an armed uprising.

Rahman Haj Ahmadi, president of the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), told
NewsMax in an exclusive interview that he hoped to meet with senior
administration officials to discuss the situation inside Iran and how the U.S.
could help the opposition.
"PJAK has thousands of fighters in the mountains
of Iran and deep inside Iranian cities," he said. "With U.S. help, we will lead
the Kurdish people in an uprising that could spread to the whole of Iran."
PJAK fighters seized government buildings in Marivan briefly in the summer
of 2005, in armed clashes with regime security forces that spread to major
cities and towns through the Kurdish region. The clashes were sparked by the
brutal murder of a Kurdish human rights activist.
Ahmadi and his group have
been accused by the Tehran regime of being lackeys of the U.S. government. The
July-August 2005 clashes occurred after PJAK officials met with U.S. military
leaders in northern Iraq, Tehran alleged.
Such accusations make Ahmadi
smile. "Actually, this is the first time we have had contacts here in
Washington," he told NewsMax. "We would love to have received U.S. help, but
until now we have had no direct contacts with the U.S. government."
"We, the
12 to 14 million Kurds in Iran, will be the dependable and loyal allies of the
USA and the democratic world," he added.

All of this is great news, however, the thing about authoritarianism is that the regime will they whatever they have to in order to maintain power. Just this past week 230 youths were arrested for going to a rock concert

Iran arrested more than 200 music fans at an underground rock concert that one
official called a "satanic" gathering and authorities accused the youths of
breaking Islamic law.
A witness said Sunday that police raided
the concert as it was ending late Wednesday near the town of Karaj, some 30
miles west of the capital.
"Police detained the young people who had gathered
to enjoy music in a private orchard," said the witness, who requested anonymity
for fear of government retaliation.
The arrests come during a recent crack
down on "immoral behavior" in Iran, where holding mixed parties or concerts without
permission has been forbidden since the 1979 Revolution that brought hardline
Shiite Muslim clerics to power.
Calls to authorities were not immediately
returned on Sunday. But the public prosecutor in Karaj, Ali Farhadi, said
Saturday about 230 people were arrested during the concert.
"Most of them
were wealthy young people who were not aware of the satanic nature of the
concert," Farhadi told state television. "A female singer, who was performing,
and some rock and rap music bands were among the detained

Now, The Wall Street Journal Published a piece by Amer Taheri. The reign of terror in Iran has been ratched up since the regime is feeling more pressure from with in.

The latest wave of executions is the biggest Iran has suffered in the same time
span since 1984, when thousands of opposition prisoners were shot on orders from
Ayatollah Khomeini.
Not all executions take place in public. In the
provinces of Kurdistan and Khuzestan, where ethnic Kurdish and Arab minorities
are demanding greater rights, several activists have been put to death in
secret, their families informed only days after the event

it continues...

The campaign of terror also includes targeted "disappearances" designed to
neutralize trade union leaders, student activists, journalists and even mullahs
opposed to the regime. According to the latest tally, more than 30 people have
"disappeared" since the start of the new Iranian year on March 21. To intimidate
the population, the authorities also have carried out mass arrests on spurious
grounds.
According to Gen. Ismail Muqaddam, commander of the Islamic Police,
a total of 430,000 men and women have been arrested on charges related to drug
use since April. A further 4,209 men and women, mostly aged between 15 and 30,
have been arrested for "hooliganism" in Tehran alone. The largest number of
arrests, totaling almost a million men and women according to Mr. Muqaddam, were
related to the enforcement of the new Islamic Dress Code, passed by the Islamic
Majlis (parliament) in May 2006.
Most of those arrested, he says, spent a
few hours, or at most a few days, in custody as "a warning." By last week,
40,000 were still in prison. Of these, 20,363 men and women are held on charges
related to violating the Islamic Dress Code. According to the Deputy Chief of
Police Gen. Hussein Zulfiqari, an additional 6,204 men and women are in prison
on charges of "sexual proximity" without being married.
The wave of arrests
has increased pressure on the nation's inadequate prison facilities. At a recent
press conference in Tehran, the head of the National Prisons Service, Ali-Akbar
Yassaqi, appealed for a moratorium on arrests. He said Iran's official prisons
could not house more than 50,000 prisoners simultaneously while the actual
number of prisoners at any given time was above 150,000. Mr. Yassaqi also
revealed that each year on average some 600,000 Iranians spend some time in one
of the 130 official prisons.
Since Mr. Ahmadinejad ordered the crackdown,
work

Yes, it seems, anything and everything is a crime in Iran. Holding hands in public is a crime. Not wearing the right amount of clothes is a crime. Opposing the government is a crime. Organizing a union is a crime. Make no mistake. This regime is not going to roll over. They will respond to pressure from within and without with cruel, evil, and vicious and violent desperation, and the ones that suffer will be the people of Iran most of all. Just like the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere use their tactics to break the will of their enemies: real and perceived, so to does the regime of Iran, at least the ones they can terrorize. While they instill terror in the minds of Israelis by threatening to wipe them off the map, and the UN, and its limp sanctions, by threatening counter attacks, they instill fear in their own citizenry, by arrests, imprisonment, and even public executions. They will make sure that everyone knows that any challenge to the regime will be met with swift reprisal. They will break the will of the opposition.

Make no mistake bringing down the Iranians cannot happen with token effort, or half effort, or even 90%, but all the way. It will take each and every state disinvesting from each and every company that does business in Iran. Here is a list of the so called dirty dozen companies. These are the worst, most greedy offenders, who redefine greed as we know it. These companies are willing to foresake any hope of peace and prosperity for the sake of the all mighty dollar or whatever other currency they deal in.



Alcatel SA
BNP Paribas
ENI SPA
Hyundai
Lundin Petroleum
Oil & Natural Gas Corp.
PetroChina
Siemens AG
Statoil ASA
Stolt Nielsen
Technip Coflexip
Total SA

links to their web pages are provided and I encourage everyone to make their feelings known. Second, pressure must be put on each and every peace loving ally that embassies in Iran only go to further prop up these evil, murderous regimes. Iran must be further isolated not welcomed into the world community with an embassy in Tehran. The same is true for Iranian embassies in their home countries. Their diplomats must be expelled immediately.

Finally, we must all help the freedom loving peace groups fighting at risk of life and limb to bring these regimes down. I have spoken about it here...

Furthermore, this effort would need to be combined with an effort to support
those groups that are themselves working to bring freedom and Democracy in Iran.
A simple Google search of Iranian freedom finds many such groups, like this, and
this. Movements to bring freedom to Iran are everywhere however they are
weak and need help. The first thing they need is cash. I say this because I
believe that there are conservatives everywhere organized and ready for a cause,
and they all should be flushed with cash. I say this because there should be
Conservatives everywhere that just recently were part of an effort to defeat the
Senate Amnesty bill. Many of them swore that politicians and political parties
were no longer going to get their money. In other words, their money is in need
of a cause.

Finally, and most importantly, we must win in Iraq. Victory in Iraq secures momentum, huge momentum, for bringing down the Iranian regime, and a loss has the exact opposite effect. Thus, I also encourage everyone to visit http://www.win-the-war.com/ and see how you can help to secure victory in Iraq.


Update,

In what can only be described as a surreal usurpation of authoritarian power The American Israeli Patriot has the story of some teen agers arrested at a birthday party...

Tehran, 7 August (AKI) - Iran stepped up its moralisation campaign this
week with the arrest of 17 teenagers aged between 13 and 17 years of age at a
birthday party in Tehran. It is the latest arrest in a controversial campaign
ordered by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and enforced by the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.The United Nation's children's fund, UNICEF,
immediately expressed concern about the arrests of nine males and eight females
- all minors - who have been accused of "promiscuity", "alcohol use", and
"dressing indecently".The adolescents, being held at the court's discretion,
could be sentenced to three years' jail, a police spokesman said

In Honor of the Kos Convention

Which by the way is being held right here in Chicago, I bring you this from the RNC...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcKw9_4O4f8

Iran, Iraq, and the GWOT

Josh Levy has started a blog called http://www.win-the-war.com/. He believes, as I do, that winning in Iraq is not optional but mandatory. While he has most of his focus on Iraq, I have spent much time recently dealing with Iran. In reality, Iran and Iraq are intertwined and as goes one so goes the other.

To understand, let's take things back to the beginning. I believe that one of the main reasons that Iraq was chosen for invasion had to do with geography. This is something that the President doesn't talk about however it really makes sense. Take a look at any map of the region and you will see that Syria stands next to Iraq which stands next to Iran. That is three terrorist enabling states that stood next to each other. Besides all of the other reasons that everyone discussed at the time to take out Saddam, by taking him out, we would create a democracy on the border of each Syria and Iran. In other words, by being in the middle it was the most strategic geographically.

This is important because this same principle applies. In fact, the same reasons that made sense geographically then also have led to making the mission that much more difficult. Iraq is being attacked on each border by enemies that want to do anything and everything to stop its democracy from forming. This only makes sense. The last thing the despots in Damascus and Tehran need is a democracy on their border. They will do everything in their power to stop it. Furthermore, if it forms it will go a long giant way, especially combined with the ideas that I have, to bringing both of those regimes down.

Thus, it is nothing less than troubling that some in Washington talk about a pull out from Iraq. A loss means a victory not only for the forces of Al Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, but most especially for Iran. A victory for the coalition on the other hand has the opposite effect, and the despots in Tehran now know that not only is the U.S. capable of invading their nation but we have the will to stay and finish the job.

To hand Iraq to the hornet's nest of evil means first and foremost to strengthen the position of Iran. Iran, which is pursuing nuclear weapons, threatening to wipe Israel of the map, and taking hostages at will. To me Iran is no different than any bully on any playground. The only way to stop a bully is to stand up to them. We could stand up to the at the UN, in a utopia maybe, or maybe it could have happened last year in Lebanon, or even when they took British hostages. Now, we have one last chance to stand up to them in Iraq. We have one last chance to stand up to this bully, to show them that there are no IED's strong enough, no sneak attacks, no proxies, that will break our will. It is time to stand up to this bully once and for all. They have chosen this battlefield to flex their muscle, and if we don't stop them here they will move to new battlefields with increasing strength.

We have an opportunity ladies and gentlemen. Iran is the third largest producer of oil, and yet they import more then half their own supply. They have to ration the gasoline they provide their citizens. Their citizens have stated unequivacably that they are against the regime, for Democracy, and for peace. No matter how much bluster they show, this regime can fall. There are many things we can do to tip them over, but first and foremost we must stay and finish the job in Iraq.

Democrat's One/Two Cunundrum on Iraq

There are two things that are obvious and undeniable about Iraq. One the Democrats realize all to well and it drives their every action. The other they either don't realize, don't care about, or just simply ignore in their pursuit of the first.

The first undeniable thing about Iraq is that it will either way define Bush's legacy. If Iraq is a failure then so is Bush's legacy, and if on the other hand, Iraq becomes a stable democracy, at peace with itself and its neighbors, and an ally in the war on terror, then history will be very kind to him. That's why Harry Reid declared the war lost just as the surge began. It's why Representative Clyborn said that a positive report by General Petraeus would be bad for the Democrats. It's why John Murtha continues to insist that the violence will only stop when our troops pull out of Iraq. Even today Senator Obama insisted that the war in Iraq is taking us away from the real war.

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.
And worse -- he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we've seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.

While all these politicians continue to insist that the President is confusing the issue, to me it is them that are confused.

The second point, the one they won't admit, won't recognize or simply ignore, is that the fate of the war on terror rests with the fate of the war in Iraq. If Iraq does become a stable democracy, at peace with itself, it's neighbors, and an ally in the war on terror, then the whole direction of the war on terror drives in our favor. Iran's entire position is weakened. They no longer have the leverage to confront the world on nukes and every other issue they currently think is a winner. Al Qaeda loses all its leverage. They can no longer claim the we the United States are a paper tiger. All their bombs and terror wind up accomplishing nothing but killing fellow Muslims. Iran and Syria have a stable Democracy on their border.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the fate of the President they loathe and the country are tied up in the same conflict. If it wasn't they might actually do what is right for the country not what is wrong for the President, but alas we have the world of politics. Still, whether they choose to ignore reality or not leaving Iraq will leave a hornet's nest, a hornet's nest that won't only unleash in Iraq but the rest of the Middle East and then the world, and we, the United States, will have to come back there to an even bloodier fight.

Senator Obama makes a point that I am sure is great red meat for his primary audience but it is also irrelevant. Whether or not AQI was in Iraq prior to our arrival is totally irrelevant. The idea that they aren't completely tied to AQ in Pakistan completely ignores everything our enemy says. More than that AQI cuts off fingers for smoking. The rape and beat women if they put the wrong vegetables together in their bags, and they invite families to dinner only to serve their children's heads on a platter. Whatever they are, they are terrorists, the worst sort of evil, and our enemies in the war on terror. Removing ourselves from a battlefield in which our military is engaged with the exact enemy we are fighting in this war is well, no way to win the war.

What is obvious to any objective observer would be obvious to the Democrats. If that is it wasn't tied up so much in the success of a President they hate.