Friday, September 24, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesCain can't deter Iran after Wofford College/Spartanburg, S.C. debate

Cain can’t deter Iran after Wofford College/Spartanburg, S.C. debate

[A post-Florida Gator-devouring USC gamecock’s Stone Mountain of Georgia roost-view of his undergrad alma mater, Wofford College and Spartanburg hometown’s hosting of the South Carolina, CBS/National Journal, Republican Party presidential debate]

Let the Big Dog eat!

The motto of Wofford Terriers’ (pictured) sports teams is “Let the Big Dog eat!”, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich looked like the Big Dog eating away at GOP presidential nomination opponents’ leads last Saturday night.

The Speaker’s mastery of foreign policy was equaled only by Former Massachusett’s Governor Mitt Romney, both of whom made clear that they would be willing to take unilateral military action to prevent the Islamist mullahs ruling the terrorist state of Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately for those, like me, that consider it imperative that any President of the United States maintain a credible deterrent and that we have a nominee with a bold jobs plan (like 9-9-9) fit for the depths of the present economic crisis, Herman Cain turns out to be with Ron Paul in publicly and dovishly taking the military option off the table over the issue that could drastically change life on Planet Earth one minute after Iran demonstrates its enty into the world’s Nuclear Club.

The critical exchange:

Major Garrett: This week, a U.N. nuclear watchdog agency provided additional credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. If you were president right now, what would you do specifically that this administration is not doing to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?

Herman Cain: The first thing that I would do is to assist the opposition movement in Iran, that’s tryin’ to overthrow the regime. Our enemies are not the people of Iran, it’s the regime. And a regime change is what they are trying to achieve. Secondly, we need to put economic pressure on Iran, by way of our own energy independence strategy. By having our own energy independence strategy, we will impact the price of oil in the world markets, because Iran uses oil not only as a– means of currency, but they use it as a weapon.

One of the reasons that they are able to afford that nuclear weapons program, is because of oil. Secondly, we would then work to increase sanctions on Iran, along with our friends and our allies. So whereas we will not be– so that’s why I do believe that they have a nuclear weapons program and they are closer to having nuclear weapon, stopping them– the only we can stop them is through economic means.

Major Garrett: A quick follow up, Mr. Cain. You say assisting the opposition, would you entertain military assistance and opposition?

Herman CainI would not entertain– military opposition. I’m talkin’ about to help the opposition movement within the country. And then there’s one other thing that we could do. We could deploy our ballistic missile defense capable (UNINTEL) war ships strategically in that part of the world. We have the biggest fleet of those warships in the world. And we could use them strategically in the event that they were able to fire a ballistic missile.

Cain’s, not quite the Spartan-like fighting stance

Spartanburg is named for the Pelopennisian War/Sparta 300-like fighting spirit and skill of General Daniel Morgan’s (whose statute stands in his eponymously-named Downtown Square of the debate’s host city) “Spartan Rifles” that defeated the British in the pivotal nearby Revolutionary War Battles of Cowpens and Kings Mountain.

Aside: The late great Smokin’ Joe Frazier was born and reared by a Low Country Sharecropper in Beaufort. Later, he would be treated like an “Uncle Tom” by Nation of Islam’s Muhammed Ali and the press like the Leftist Drive-by Media has treated Herman Cain, but I digress.

President Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been to appease Iran between the killings of high-profile terrorists like Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-awlaki and Libya’s Gadaffy. Mitt made it clear that he would consider using pre-emptive military action against Iran to prevent their development of nuclear weapons. Newt made clear that Iran is and has been at war with the United States since their 1979 Islamist revolution was hastened by an Ayatollah-appeasing Democratic Party President Jimmy Carter. Michelle Bachmann bemoaned the betrayal of our victory in Iraq, thus further emboldening Iran.

Sadly for this proud neo-con rooster, our most recent, pre-debate champion, Herman Cain made clear that Iran need not worry about the armed forces of the United States if he is elected to replace Barack Obama.

If a President won’t defend us, we won’t be defended. Congress can’t force a Commander-in-Chief to fire one shot at an enemy, no matter how many antiquated “declarations” of war they pass. The United States is The Target of would-be despots. Iran is and has long been the  greatest world sponsor of terror that has killed Americans in numbers that only al Qaeda has exceeded.

Cain’s deterrent? Help dissidents and prepare for a Cold War with SDI as our only protection? We don’t know if the Fifth Imam-seeking apocolyptic Shiites can be deterred like the Soviets. We do know that Islamists like those in Iran killed 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001 without weapons of mass destruction save for hijacked planes.

And now we know that Herman Cain’s boldness ends with tax reform at the water’s edge. This rooster still crows for a 9-9-9 Reagan-like recovery, but we can no longer lean to Cain for the nomination when he rules out preemptive action against Iran that we favored when despotic-regime changer and Muslim-Liberator  President George W. Bush had Iranian Quds and Republican Guard forces and their whole Persian country surrounded on three sides.

Leading up to the debate, it seemed that Cain had survived the faux outrageous sexual harassment accusations, as the Penn State scandal reminded that there are work-reporting requirements of the truly outrageous, as opposed to the lawyer-created victimization of hurt feelings 12 years after sweet nothings or scoldings assaulted and battered serial accusers’ feminine ears.

We were happy to hear the only female on the Wofford debate stage, devoid of any identification save for a giant “CBS” logo (Could have been a movie set near the La Brea Tar Pits…We think Wofford’s Old Main logo, pictured, would have looked better…) , defended the waterboarding of captured terrorists and that the same Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann disabused David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press the following morning of any notion that the federal government get involved in the continued demonization of Coach Joe Paterno, who, incidentally, followed all reporting laws.

You see, liberals imagine that with just the right laws, humans can change human nature and prevent any crime from happening in the first instance. So that, any occasion of the violation of current laws is also an occasion for passing new and improved laws. Bachmann rejected that notion as well as Gregory’s insistence that only the federal government could properly investigate child rape in the Keystone State.

We were thrilled to hear Newt voice our many crowings on the critical need to rebuild the United States Navy and maintain it as the superior and ubiquitous force across the seven seas.

We wish that the occasion of a stoppage of the Great Republican Debate Marathon 2011-2012 could have also addressed how occupier leftist Democrat-types continually demonize free market capitalists like Roger Milliken of Spartanburg who helped build the modern-day GOP and who was instrumental in  the integration of Wofford College. Never properly celebrated by the Civil Rights Industry solely-owned subsidiary of the modern day Democratic Party because he kept destructive labor unions out of his largest private textile company in the nation.

Ironically, the number three Democrat in Congress, James Clyburn, representing a congressional district in South Carolina mostly devoid of organized labor, lobbies for labor laws that would end the secret ballot and thus help to keep his constituents unemployed by emboldening the foes of Boeing’s expansion to North Charleston. It seems that union money in his party’s campaign coffers matters more than jobs, while he gives only lip service for Boeing as having “broken no laws”. Not a word against Obama’s NLRB.

So, from the home of President Harry Truman’s Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes and Henry Kissinger’s former Army base at nearby Camp Croft we see the emergence of an Army brat turned Speaker as the next challenger to an establishment-ordained nominee whose ills no RomneyCare can cure.

Meanwhile, a certain University of South Carolina Fighting Gamecock and Wofford College matriculator roosted atop Stone Mountain of Georgia is reminded of an album by Spartanburg’s own Marshall Tucker Band, Searching for a Rainbow, that will lead us to a Tea partier promised land of Bachmann, Gingrich or even another Texas Governor?

As of now this rooster announces dawns leaning to no one but never forgetting that only the Party of Lincoln elephant can defeat the jack asses that have this country unexceptionally on its knees.

[Hugh Hewitt echoes gamecock on seriousness of Cain’s renouncement of military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.]

Mike DeVine

Editor – Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor – Political Daily

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeUnified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Mike gamecock DeVine
A trial lawyer for two decades in South Carolina; owner of Ati Vista LLC since 2002 now associated with Lupa Law Firm; VP & Counsel for Buddy Allen Roofing & Construction Inc. since 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia; and a freelance writer, DeVine was the conservative voice of the Charlotte Observer from 2006-8 and has been the owner of HillbillyPolitics.com since 2009. www.devinelawvista.com

11 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

11 COMMENTS

  1. As usual an enlightening take, GC, but I personally remain in the doldrums. Reality check on where the Republican Party is: yes it’s early, but if things proceed on current trajectory, we shall end up with either the Eastern Republican or the Inside the Beltway Guy, and at that point the LibDems and RINOs would be rubbing their hands with glee, “our work is done!”. And Obama is going on a month now, off headlines and free to destroy. The only non destructive, non self immolating move that any of them have done was Perry’s breakaway to Letterman and, that’s kind of sad in a way Yes Gingrich will mop the floor with Obama in a debate, but wait til we see the imbroglios the MSM is holding in reserve, should he get the nomination. He does have some real baggage.

  2. I give the candidates in this foreign policy debate 99’s to 97’s, except for Ron Paul who always gets a zero. Waterboarding is not torture, as no legal forum has yet said it is. He says very much more about himself than he does about waterboarding when he says that, just as he says both Iraq and Afghanistan were “invasions” when Congress specifically enabled the president to do those things. Bad policy? Your call. Illegal? wrong-o, Space Captain.

    Nor is the United States an imperialist power. Every American should be offended when Paul says that.

    As for Iran, every candidate up there, except for the aforementioned Paul, would do far more than Barack Obama has done in three years, up to and including military (probably air) action should the situation on the ground dictate it at the time. But that time is not now, and while he lost your vote GC, Cain was right to withhold announcing a predisposition to military action from the pulpit of a candidate. Actually, both Romney and Gingrich were wrong to show their cards that fast, in my view. They were hustling votes.

    Sadly, as to whether preemptive military action is justified or not is usually for the Monday morning quarterbacks anyway, as I personally regret GW BUsh allowing this Iran issue even to be an issue. He should never have passed it off to Obama, once again proving he’s a miserable judge of horseflesh at times. Cheney wanted to bomb their facilities before Bush left office. He would have been wise to take Dock’s advice.

    Any complaint I have against any of these candidates inaction will be withheld until after they don’t do it, for if they do do it, we will have the same usual suspects in the streets demanding impeachment. I’d rather save up my lather for them.

  3. Cain gratuitously took the military option off the table v Iran, much like Obama has with his apology tours, bowing, and appeasement of Iran after their yutes’ uprising and in abandoning Iraq. Cain didn’t merely not threaten to have military option on the table. The US President must be feared to deter. We can’t kill all the evil enemies of Liberty. Bush was wrong to leave us vulnerable to fanatics with nukes. Cain wants to pretend they are like the Soviets.

      • Hewitt echoes DeVine re Cain/Paul etc
        https://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/obamas-best-act-could-be-striking-iran

        I’m an issues guy that in the presidency must have be paramount those Commander in Chief duties for which no other branch can substitute. As I often say, if a president won’t defend us, then we won’t be defended. The deterrent of the US is evaluated based on capability, will and policy, with the latter two factors being embodied in the person of the President. Cain unilaterally takes off the table the only real solution and with no reason not to leave the option, at least, on the table. Just a major blunder, or his dovish position, from the standpoint of telegraphing weakness to the enemy.

        I love him, still favor 9-9-9, but this matter of keeping preemptive military action on the table at least, in this and other possible situations, is paramount. No reason to invite enemies to miscalculate the consequences of attacking the US or Israel.

    • I’m not sure Mike. The “Over the Mountain” Boys didn’t want anything to do with the war either. Till the Redcoats came a little too close. Colonel Sievier and the boys from Sycamore Shoals and your own boys from Spartanburg disabused them of the notion of taking the war too close to the mountains.

      A truly effective sanction, cutting off the vast majority of Iran’s oil money might actually work. Not a UN conducted scheme like Oil For Food, just cut their carotid artery by drilling our own oil. Sounds like a win win to me. We can always cross the mountains later, if we have to.

      • Yes, I favor doing everything short of war to try and change the regime, slow their development of nuclear weapons or even destroy same via sabotage from within if we can. But Cain ruled out US military force for the purpose of preventing Iran from developing same. That is the news from the debate and it is unacceptable to me for a CINC as Congress can’t make a President defend us properly. Cain need not have done that. Yes, WE could put it back on the table, but with that statement un-changed, Iran would be more likely to challenge the US than if Cain had not made his statement, should he get the nomination and be elected.

  4. I think by the time we get a new president, it will be a moot point. We’re 14 months away from that, at a minimum. I don’t discount the possibility that Obama will cheat his way into a second term.

    By that time, Iran will still be what Iran is.

    And frankly, I don’t believe any sort of intervention will prevent it, military or otherwise. Iran is what Iran is and has been since Carter.

    We have intervened militarily, recently, in a couple of places now for regime change. The results were worse than what those countries had. As bad as Ahmedijedad is, I can conceive of worse. That worse breeds and thrives in atmospheres like that of Iran.

    Iran will not challenge a strong nation. Just as any other “school yard” bully, it will prey on the weak and steer clear of any capable of defending themselves.

    Our best defense against Iran is to be atrong, just as it was out best defense against a belligerent Russia. I’m willing to reserve judgment on Cain or any other candidate on this issue until we know what we’re facing.

    We really don’t, with this administration,the media filters, and international politics.

    • Iraq was at war with us and sponsoring terrorists. Iraqis rejected al Qaeda in Iraq and their forces w/ours defeated al Qaeda in Iraq. Terrorists in Iraq now have only uin-safe havens. Tens of thousands of al Qaeda, Baathists, etc have been killed. Four elections later they have not given any radical religious party any power in Iraq.

      Afghanistan is no longer the al Qaeda/Taliban terror nation state. I do think we should have reduced troops years ago.

      Ahmedinijad is irrelevant. He is a meer stooge for a faction of Mullahs. The Mullahs main disagreements are on econ/domestic policy. They all agree on their apocalyptic foreign policy and terror. Regime change would mean removing all Mullahs, not merely MembersOnlyJacket-ijad.

      Military action short of occupation could disable Iran’s nuclear development for many years while we work on regime change. But half the nation is radicalized….I don’t see enough evidence that Iran could be deterred like the Soviets for me to favor merely a MAD policy re Iran. I want to bomb the hell out of them yesterday.

      • Regime change would mean removing all Mullahs, not merely MembersOnlyJacket-ijad.

        Not necessarily. Nor can you quarantee that the change would be a positive, even if the mullahs are removed, too.

        We’ve had our own “change for change’s sake” here and how’s that working out for us?

        Military action short of occupation could disable Iran’s nuclear development for many years while we work on regime change. But half the nation is radicalized….I don’t see enough evidence that Iran could be deterred like the Soviets for me to favor merely a MAD policy re Iran. I want to bomb the hell out of them yesterday.

        For military action to work in any favorable to us way, it would have to be occupation rather than short of it. Given our track record on regime changing, I’m loath to do it.

        However, I’m with you on “bomb the hell out of them yesterday” though I may be looking at it from a different perspective. I’d just as soon do that, if we’re going to have any military action at all.

        ****
        The biggest problem I see right now is asking any kind of foreign policy questions in sound byte formats; and making judgments on those sound bytes. WE don’t know the half of it. Nor do any candidates, including barack who can’t seem to find time in his busy schedule to learn anything about it after 3 years in office.

        Right now, it’s a matter of trust. Things have a way of changing once the elected one gets the real scoop. What’s said during campaigns or interviews more often gets thrown in the trash when reality bites… hard. I trust Cain’s common sense more than any sound byte. I trust Gingrich’s brain and studiousness, but in the common sense area, he’s lacking. Remember the old saying: “Book smart but not a lick of sense”? That fits Gingrich to a tee.

        As it stands right now, we’re worrying about things that may be a moot point, by the time anybody but the present administration can do anything.

        • The Mullahs have all the power in Iran and have since 1979. The particular flunky that their majority make the face of the regime is irrelevant and meant to be used as a way to get westerners lulled to sleep gazing at their frontman while they sponsor and execute terror and war on us and the free World.

          Given their pronouncements on the Fifth Imam, and their actions waging war against Israel and the west by proxy and against us, directly in Iraq and worldwide and indirectly, makes preventing them from having the tool of nuclear weapons paramount.

          I am willing that the bombing not be followed by occupation this time! Yes, eventually, things could be worse. They are dire now. We should have acted long ago.

          But the bombing should be done, whether there be regime change or not.

          Yes, there is a structural problem involving voters, candidates and the media. There are also structural problems in some of our candidate’s ideas. But the main structural problem facing us are the massive numbers of liberal Democrat adults among us. Very scary….truly.

  1. As usual an enlightening take, GC, but I personally remain in the doldrums. Reality check on where the Republican Party is: yes it’s early, but if things proceed on current trajectory, we shall end up with either the Eastern Republican or the Inside the Beltway Guy, and at that point the LibDems and RINOs would be rubbing their hands with glee, “our work is done!”. And Obama is going on a month now, off headlines and free to destroy. The only non destructive, non self immolating move that any of them have done was Perry’s breakaway to Letterman and, that’s kind of sad in a way Yes Gingrich will mop the floor with Obama in a debate, but wait til we see the imbroglios the MSM is holding in reserve, should he get the nomination. He does have some real baggage.

  2. I give the candidates in this foreign policy debate 99’s to 97’s, except for Ron Paul who always gets a zero. Waterboarding is not torture, as no legal forum has yet said it is. He says very much more about himself than he does about waterboarding when he says that, just as he says both Iraq and Afghanistan were “invasions” when Congress specifically enabled the president to do those things. Bad policy? Your call. Illegal? wrong-o, Space Captain.

    Nor is the United States an imperialist power. Every American should be offended when Paul says that.

    As for Iran, every candidate up there, except for the aforementioned Paul, would do far more than Barack Obama has done in three years, up to and including military (probably air) action should the situation on the ground dictate it at the time. But that time is not now, and while he lost your vote GC, Cain was right to withhold announcing a predisposition to military action from the pulpit of a candidate. Actually, both Romney and Gingrich were wrong to show their cards that fast, in my view. They were hustling votes.

    Sadly, as to whether preemptive military action is justified or not is usually for the Monday morning quarterbacks anyway, as I personally regret GW BUsh allowing this Iran issue even to be an issue. He should never have passed it off to Obama, once again proving he’s a miserable judge of horseflesh at times. Cheney wanted to bomb their facilities before Bush left office. He would have been wise to take Dock’s advice.

    Any complaint I have against any of these candidates inaction will be withheld until after they don’t do it, for if they do do it, we will have the same usual suspects in the streets demanding impeachment. I’d rather save up my lather for them.

  3. Cain gratuitously took the military option off the table v Iran, much like Obama has with his apology tours, bowing, and appeasement of Iran after their yutes’ uprising and in abandoning Iraq. Cain didn’t merely not threaten to have military option on the table. The US President must be feared to deter. We can’t kill all the evil enemies of Liberty. Bush was wrong to leave us vulnerable to fanatics with nukes. Cain wants to pretend they are like the Soviets.

      • Hewitt echoes DeVine re Cain/Paul etc
        https://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/obamas-best-act-could-be-striking-iran

        I’m an issues guy that in the presidency must have be paramount those Commander in Chief duties for which no other branch can substitute. As I often say, if a president won’t defend us, then we won’t be defended. The deterrent of the US is evaluated based on capability, will and policy, with the latter two factors being embodied in the person of the President. Cain unilaterally takes off the table the only real solution and with no reason not to leave the option, at least, on the table. Just a major blunder, or his dovish position, from the standpoint of telegraphing weakness to the enemy.

        I love him, still favor 9-9-9, but this matter of keeping preemptive military action on the table at least, in this and other possible situations, is paramount. No reason to invite enemies to miscalculate the consequences of attacking the US or Israel.

    • I’m not sure Mike. The “Over the Mountain” Boys didn’t want anything to do with the war either. Till the Redcoats came a little too close. Colonel Sievier and the boys from Sycamore Shoals and your own boys from Spartanburg disabused them of the notion of taking the war too close to the mountains.

      A truly effective sanction, cutting off the vast majority of Iran’s oil money might actually work. Not a UN conducted scheme like Oil For Food, just cut their carotid artery by drilling our own oil. Sounds like a win win to me. We can always cross the mountains later, if we have to.

      • Yes, I favor doing everything short of war to try and change the regime, slow their development of nuclear weapons or even destroy same via sabotage from within if we can. But Cain ruled out US military force for the purpose of preventing Iran from developing same. That is the news from the debate and it is unacceptable to me for a CINC as Congress can’t make a President defend us properly. Cain need not have done that. Yes, WE could put it back on the table, but with that statement un-changed, Iran would be more likely to challenge the US than if Cain had not made his statement, should he get the nomination and be elected.

  4. I think by the time we get a new president, it will be a moot point. We’re 14 months away from that, at a minimum. I don’t discount the possibility that Obama will cheat his way into a second term.

    By that time, Iran will still be what Iran is.

    And frankly, I don’t believe any sort of intervention will prevent it, military or otherwise. Iran is what Iran is and has been since Carter.

    We have intervened militarily, recently, in a couple of places now for regime change. The results were worse than what those countries had. As bad as Ahmedijedad is, I can conceive of worse. That worse breeds and thrives in atmospheres like that of Iran.

    Iran will not challenge a strong nation. Just as any other “school yard” bully, it will prey on the weak and steer clear of any capable of defending themselves.

    Our best defense against Iran is to be atrong, just as it was out best defense against a belligerent Russia. I’m willing to reserve judgment on Cain or any other candidate on this issue until we know what we’re facing.

    We really don’t, with this administration,the media filters, and international politics.

    • Iraq was at war with us and sponsoring terrorists. Iraqis rejected al Qaeda in Iraq and their forces w/ours defeated al Qaeda in Iraq. Terrorists in Iraq now have only uin-safe havens. Tens of thousands of al Qaeda, Baathists, etc have been killed. Four elections later they have not given any radical religious party any power in Iraq.

      Afghanistan is no longer the al Qaeda/Taliban terror nation state. I do think we should have reduced troops years ago.

      Ahmedinijad is irrelevant. He is a meer stooge for a faction of Mullahs. The Mullahs main disagreements are on econ/domestic policy. They all agree on their apocalyptic foreign policy and terror. Regime change would mean removing all Mullahs, not merely MembersOnlyJacket-ijad.

      Military action short of occupation could disable Iran’s nuclear development for many years while we work on regime change. But half the nation is radicalized….I don’t see enough evidence that Iran could be deterred like the Soviets for me to favor merely a MAD policy re Iran. I want to bomb the hell out of them yesterday.

      • Regime change would mean removing all Mullahs, not merely MembersOnlyJacket-ijad.

        Not necessarily. Nor can you quarantee that the change would be a positive, even if the mullahs are removed, too.

        We’ve had our own “change for change’s sake” here and how’s that working out for us?

        Military action short of occupation could disable Iran’s nuclear development for many years while we work on regime change. But half the nation is radicalized….I don’t see enough evidence that Iran could be deterred like the Soviets for me to favor merely a MAD policy re Iran. I want to bomb the hell out of them yesterday.

        For military action to work in any favorable to us way, it would have to be occupation rather than short of it. Given our track record on regime changing, I’m loath to do it.

        However, I’m with you on “bomb the hell out of them yesterday” though I may be looking at it from a different perspective. I’d just as soon do that, if we’re going to have any military action at all.

        ****
        The biggest problem I see right now is asking any kind of foreign policy questions in sound byte formats; and making judgments on those sound bytes. WE don’t know the half of it. Nor do any candidates, including barack who can’t seem to find time in his busy schedule to learn anything about it after 3 years in office.

        Right now, it’s a matter of trust. Things have a way of changing once the elected one gets the real scoop. What’s said during campaigns or interviews more often gets thrown in the trash when reality bites… hard. I trust Cain’s common sense more than any sound byte. I trust Gingrich’s brain and studiousness, but in the common sense area, he’s lacking. Remember the old saying: “Book smart but not a lick of sense”? That fits Gingrich to a tee.

        As it stands right now, we’re worrying about things that may be a moot point, by the time anybody but the present administration can do anything.

        • The Mullahs have all the power in Iran and have since 1979. The particular flunky that their majority make the face of the regime is irrelevant and meant to be used as a way to get westerners lulled to sleep gazing at their frontman while they sponsor and execute terror and war on us and the free World.

          Given their pronouncements on the Fifth Imam, and their actions waging war against Israel and the west by proxy and against us, directly in Iraq and worldwide and indirectly, makes preventing them from having the tool of nuclear weapons paramount.

          I am willing that the bombing not be followed by occupation this time! Yes, eventually, things could be worse. They are dire now. We should have acted long ago.

          But the bombing should be done, whether there be regime change or not.

          Yes, there is a structural problem involving voters, candidates and the media. There are also structural problems in some of our candidate’s ideas. But the main structural problem facing us are the massive numbers of liberal Democrat adults among us. Very scary….truly.

Must Read