As if we actually thought election in Iran, where Ahmadinejad-backed candidates lost thoroughly because of the president's lack of focus on domestic issues, would stop the apocalyptic madman who runs the country. Today, Ahmadinejad called President Bush "the most hated person" in the entire world.

Moderate conservatives won the elections handily last week, and most of them were opposed to Ahmadinejad. Reformists also made somewhat of a comeback, winning several seats after being virtually driven from government in the last several years. Ahmadinejad said that Iran will continue uranium enrichment activities even under the "impending" threat of UN sanctions against them.

I'd also like to talk a little bit about the elections in Iran, because they are important. Ahmadinejad lost the election clearly, in much the same way Bush lost his. He is still in power, but the other side gained majorities in congress, or the Iranian equivalent. Ahmadinejad supporters also lost in the elections for the Assembly of Experts, 86 senior clerics who oversee the supreme Islamic leader.

These candidates are considered "moderate conservatives" and "reformists" by the media. Now they are certainly better than Ahmadinejad - though Attila the Hun would be a better choice than Ahmadinejad - but how "moderate" are they? I haven't been following the elections closely, but have any of them disavowed Iran's nuclear program? Have any of them promised to stop it? Have any of them spoken of Iranian sponsored terror? How do these candidates feel about the Jewish people? Do they agree with Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth? My suspicion is that they agree with Ahmadinejad, but for political reasons (much like the Fatah party in Palestine) don't make it known until they are actually in charge of policy.

Mohammed Khatami was considered a reformist candidate as well, but his Iran held terror conferences, sponsored Hezbollah and Hamas as they expanded, and helped perpetrate attacks against the United States, Israel, and other nations. If this next crop of "moderates" turn out to be anything like Khatami, then I fear Iran isn't really in much better shape than it was before the elections.

Though to their credit, the Reformist candidates (to be distinguished from the moderates) have claimed they are for opening relations with the United States, and invoking a better working relationship between the two nations. If they are being realistic, than these elections may turn out better than I am predicting. Yet the Reformists, though winning more seats than Ahmadinejad supporters, are still a minority in the ruling parliament. As a result they will not make policy.

It is the "moderates" that I'm really afraid of.

This really isn't a surprise. The five permanent members of the US Security Council, plus Germany, have been in discussions lately over Iranian sanctions. Some, like the US and Great Britain want to impose sanctions on Iran to halt the development of their nuclear weapons programs, and punish them for defying UN resolutions to cease and desist.

Other nations, like China and Russia who get some degree of economic gain by continuing ties with Iran, are less willing to support sanctions because they feel that it is in their national self interest not to do so. The vote was supposed to be scheduled for today, but it has been pushed back until Saturday, presumably so more details can be worked out of the draft.

The sanctions would prevent any UN member nation from sending any materials relating to nuclear technology to the rogue state. Here is what Russian envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin had to say. "I don't think there is going to be a vote tomorrow. Maybe Saturday, yes. But clearly we will need tomorrow for further thinking and maybe further decisions."

I've spoken about my problems with Russia and China frequently on this blog, and there is no need to delve deeper into my dislike of the two nations here. Suffice to say that if sanctions are not implemented on Iran in the near future, tough and "meaningful" sanctions that cripple the entire country, Iran will develop a nuclear bomb, and they will use it against Israel or the United States.

It is extremely important that the politicians get this through their thick skulls, or they will have to face a nuclear Iran in the next couple of years. The problem is, Iran won't remain nuclear for very long. They will USE their nuclear arsenal against somebody, causing another holocaust and another world war.

Is this really what we want? Tough and meaningful sanctions - even if they must be imposed unilaterally - could go a long way to preventing another global conflict, this one with nuclear weapons.

Federal officials raided meatpacking plants in six states this week that ended up discovering 1200 illegal aliens in this country, and was the largest crackdown on illegal immigration in history. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that the investigation uncovered "a disturbing front" in the war on illegal immigration. It was discovered that many of the illegal immigrants were using stolen identities of U.S. citizens to obtain their jobs.

The raids were at Swift & Co. plants all over the country, and brought 1282 people under arrest, 1217 for immigration charges, and 65 for identity theft and other criminal charges. Investigation is also continuing into several groups that may have sold false identities to illegal immigrants looking to enter this country and find a job. The raid took place after a 10 month investigation into the meatpacking plant.

Here's the interesting part of the story. The feds informed Swift & Co. that they would be raiding their plants for "unauthorized workers" on December 4th, but the company appealed, complaining that there would be "substantial and irreparable injury" to its business. Furthermore, the company estimated that a raid would remove 40% of its 13,000 workers.

Is it just me, or does this look like a cover up by the company? If they estimated prior to the raid that 40% of its workforce would be removed if an illegal immigration raid were to take place, then doesn't this mean they knew 40% of its workforce was here illegally? And isn't knowingly aiding illegal immigrants, and knowingly hiring illegal aliens a federal offense?

I don't like to see businesses go under, but the need to secure the border is far more important because of the inherent security risk that open borders bring. If a few businesses that knowingly hire illegals have to go down, then they deserve it because there is no excuse for hiring illegal labor. If businesses stop hiring illegals, then there will be no incentive for the illegals to stay here or even come here in the first place.

The aftermath of the raid is not without protests. People holding signs that say "Don't Take My Parents At Christmas" began protesting outside one of the meatpacking plants almost immediately after the raid took place. Opponents of harsher immigration measures say the raids are heavy-handed and are breaking apart families.

The unions of course hate this measure, and are asking federal judges for injunctions to stop the raids. This is because unions are designed to keep workers poor. You'd think they'd be out for the AMERICAN worker's best interest, but seemingly they care about illegal labor too (which seems a bit counterintuitive to me).

These raids shouldn't take place once every 6 months to a year. These raids should be taking place on a weekly basis until all the illegal laborers are sent home packing. Factories across the south must be riddled with illegal labor (and increasingly, factories in the north - one of the raids was right here in Minnesota). Our government needs to make illegal aliens fear to come here - fear that they might be deported should they be caught, and the fear that they WILL be caught.

This is an extremely intersting political development because of the potential ramifications. Democrat Tim Johnson, a Senator from South Dakota fell ill today and was sent to the hospital after becoming disoriented. This comes just weeks before the Democrats are to take control of the House and the Senate - the Senate by a 51 - 49 majority.

It was initially presumed to be a stroke or a heart attack, but a spokesperson for Mr. Johnson has said that it was not a stroke or a heart attack. He currently has an "undiagnosed illness" which presumably will be diagnosed sometime in the future.

The political ramifications of this have the potential to be mindblowing. The Democrats are excited about their new majority in the Senate. However, if Tim Johnson is forced to leave office, then the Republican governor of South Dakota will get to appoint his replacement - presumably another Republican. This would make it a 50-50 split, giving Republicans back control of the important committees, as well as giving Vice President Dick Cheney the tie-breaking vote.

It is looking less and less likely that Johnson will be incapacitated, and I hope and pray for his speedy recovery. But if he does become incapacitated, and the Republicans DO regain control of the Senate, it would be one of the most interesting bits of politics in some time. Furthermore, it would really destroy the Democratic agenda to get all these amazing things done.

It would actually be kind of amusing.

The title of this post pretty much sums up my opinions on the ISG report. It is a list of 79 "ideas" many of which are either outrightly bad, or economically impossible to implement (much like the "ideas" of the 9/11 commission).

I've lost all hope in government commissions. They get nothing accomplished, from the Warren commission on. They never give recommendations that are useful, and they only blow with the political winds of the time. That, or they are woefully inaccurate, and next to worthless (the magic bullet anyone?).

That said, we should analyze this report for what it is worth - trash. It recommends diplomatic talks between the United States and her enemies, Syria and Iran. I can think of so many ways in which this is a bad idea, but apparently a bunch of politicians in Washington couldn't think of them. That they would even recommend discussions with our mortal enemies would be like a Soviet telling the Jews to trust Hitler. It just won't work.

"The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. The diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors [Iran and Syria]... Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively."

BRILLIANT!!!!!

Iran and Syria are behind much of the violence in Iraq. While it is true that appeasing them would secure Iraq, we must ask ourselves, what kind of security would that be? In order to get Iran to stop the violence in Iraq, we would have to pull out. If we pull out, the government will crumble, and the Iranians will come in to save the day - and be heroes to the Iraqi people. This will give them a strong sense of loyalty to the Iranians, and destroying their government in a future war will be much more difficult. Is this really the kind of security we desire?

"By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."

The other major recommendation by the ISG, is that all combat brigades of US soldiers be withdrawn from Iraq in 15 months. This is another bad idea, for the same reasons that talking with Iran is. It frustrates me to no end that these foolish politicians in Washington don't understand what seems to me to be basic... that Iran is behind most of the problems! Do they suddenly think that if we just discuss our differences, or better yet, leave, that Iran will become pacified? Of course they won't. They will become even larger, even more powerful, and - having secured one victory already against the Great Satan - will have even greater legitimacy in the Muslim world. Is this the kind of security America needs!?

But I want to address other problems with this report. There are so many that it could fill 30 separate posts, but I'm going to try to keep my list of objections reasonably short here. First, the authors and members of the commission. Not one of them is a military person, and never did the report contact any of the US generals, the people in charge of prosecuting this war. Their conclusions reflect that the commanders were never talked to.

Sandra Day O'Connor is on the committe. Now, she was a reasonable judge (a little too liberal at times for my taste though), and I'm sure she's a nice person. But she is not military strategian, and she does not know how to win a war. I don't either - though at least I have what I think are reasonable ideas - but the commanders on the ground do. That is their job, what they are paid to do. That they weren't interviewed is an important and foolish failing of this report.

I am further upset that this document isn't a military document. This report should have outlined the military strategy necessary for winning the war. Instead of career politicians and lawyers (or judges) deciding how to win, it should have been a panel of generals - serving and retired - who could come to strategic conclusions about the best way to achieve victory. Indeed, the opening paragraph explains my compliant admirably. "Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan aproach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war."

Meaning, the document is a political solution, not a military one. And any general will tell you - as will history - that when you try to win wars through politics, only the very worst of things can happen.

This document emphasizes "diplomacy" so many times it makes me sick. It angers me to think that out leaders are so unbelievably STUPID.

This next portion, is from a section near the middle of the report about dealing with Iran and Syria. We'll take a look and see how misguided these people are.

First, the recommendation. "RECOMMENDATION 8: The Support Group... should develop specific approaches to neighboring countries that take into account the interests perspectives, and potential contributions as suggested above."

What contributions does Iran have to make to international peace and stability? Oh, that's right. They kill people.

"Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial."

Really?

"Nevertheless, it is our view that in diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions."

.... There is nothing to say.

"Although Iran sees it in its interest to have the United States bogged down in Iraq, Iran's interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy in Iraq that led to chaos and the territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state."

Really? Because if this were to occur, Iran would simply step in and take over. And then, there would be an extremely powerful "Super-Iran" right in the center of the middle east. And this is somehow bad for Iran? How blind do you have to be not to understand this!

If we let Iran have Iraq, they will take it. And the result then will be as I stated above. Iran is a big enough problem as it is. Do we really want them to have more territory? We have to monitor it to make sure they don't build nukes remember? Do we really want them to have more manpower? If we go to war with them, we'll need them to lose all the manpower they can. Giving them Iraq would do anything BUT accomplish this task.

This is such an obviously bad idea, that it would be funny, if so many Democratic (and unfortunately, some Republican) senators and representatives - as well as much of the anti-war crowd - didn't take this at face value, and worship it as an idol.

This report - I've read the entire thing - is worthless trash. That sums it up nicely. It's trash.

This is an interesting story, because it reveals a new type of sanction, one that may be more effective than the general sanctions that the UN usually "enacts". The United States has banned the sale of luxury items to North Korea, specifically with the purpose of denying to Kim Jong Il and his ruling elite such luxury items as expensive wines, Plasma Screen TV's, Ipods, and other expensive electronic equipment.

This is because it is believed that the sanctions will personally upset Kim Jong Il and his ruling elite. If his ruling elite does not continue to be bribed, they will likely lose support for the dictator. While Kim Jong Il's elite isn't any better than he is, divide and conquer is a useful strategy in this case. The entire state of North Korea will be weaker (if it is at all possible) than it is now, especially when the high command starts feuding amongst itself.

I also think it is kind of amusing that we're enacting tough sanctions just to tick off one guy. The sanctions are undoubtedly worth it, and are extremely useful (on another note, why are we selling Ipods and Plasma TV's to North Korea anyway?), but just the thought that we're doing all this to make one man mad - it's kind of amusing.

The only problem, is that Ipods and Plasma TV's are relatively easy to come by on the black market, and so Kim Jong Il will only have to turn elsewhere to buy his goods. He can even use Ebay - though it seems kind of ironic for a communist to have an auction, doesn't it? - or just buy the goods from China. Even if he does this, the process by which he gets the goods will take longer, cost more, and may not end up being successful anyway.

It is definitely a creative approach to sanctions, and it will be interesting to follow them and see what develops. Obviously, the goal is to break up the North Korean government, so they do not persist to be such a danger to the world. Kim Jong Il controls a shaky alliance amongst the North Korean ruling elite - also ironic in a Communist society, one would think - and his failure to keep them happy could warrant their rebellion against his "leadership".

Trying to gain support for his presidential bid, Senator Joe Biden has begun the 2008 campaign season already with a stop in South Carolina, the first southern state to hold a presidential primary. He was scheduled to speak for a half-an-hour, but ended up speaking for an entire hour on a variety of issues.

Normally, I don't bring up what Joe Biden says, because he is just another bloviating politician with whom I generally disagree with. However, what he had to say on illegal immigration has piqued my curiosity because, astonishingly as it may seem, he's got the right idea. He said that he is in favor of tightening the border with fences, and punishing businesses that hire illegals.

"Mexico is a country that is an erstwhile democracy where they have the greatest disparity of wealth," he said, as he explained why illegal immigration from Mexico is such a problem.

"People are driving across that border with tons, tons - hear me - tons of everything from byproducts for methamphetamines, to cocaine, to heroine," he said, speaking about the illegal drug trafficking trade, something very popular along the southern border, and a continuing source of frustration for law enforcement.

I don't agree with Biden on most other issues, but even Democrats can get it right once in awhile. It's hard to tell whether he's pandering to moderates in an attempt to run for president, or whether he legitimately believes what he is saying - or perhaps, both. Even so, it is good to see some senators from the other side of the aisle coming and speaking out on the illegal immigration problem.

We do need a fence on the border, and we do need to punish business that hire illegals. Oddly enough, the Democrats also want to raise the minimum wage, something I am opposed to. Raising the minimum wage will only exacerbate the illegal immigration problem. The reason illegals are hired, is because businesses don't want to pay their employee's the minimum wage. If the minimum wage goes up 40%, this problem will only get worse.

One way to help stop the illegals from coming, is remove the business practices that make it beneficial for teh illegals to come here in the first place. This includes no social welfare for illegals, no health care, no education, and everything else that real US citizens get. But we also must make it so that it is no longer profitable for companies to hire illegals. Stiff penalties - $1,000,000 for every illegal laborer perhaps - and a strong fence on the southern border will quickly eliminate the profitability of illegal labor.

And if the labor isn't profitable, the businesses won't hire illegals. And if the businesses do not hire illegals, then there will be no reason for the aliens to come here and stay here. They will stay where they are - Mexico, and leave our border alone.

Whether Joe Biden understands this or not, I do not know. But he does seem to have it right about the fence, and that's a good first step.

According to the latest reports, Russia has began deliveries of its Tor-M1 air defense rocket system to Iran. This comes from a spokesperson for the Russian Military, which says the shipments began today. This comes of course, as the various world powers are working to try and curb Iran's nuclear enrichment activities. This also comes after the US pressed Russia to stop the deliveries - obviously to no avail.

According to the Russians, these actions are of no problem to the world, and no danger to anybody, because the rockets are purely defensive in purpose. While the rockets are intended to be for defensive purposes, the knowledge of how the rockets work will be beneficial to Iran for its offensive weapons program - particularly the development of a nuclear delivery device.

This is perfect proof that Russia will not be convinced to support sanctions on Iran. The sanctions against Iran - despite being good for the world - will hurt Russia, and we can't expect the self-satisfying Russian government - becoming increasingly tyrannical under Putin - to pursue actions that go against their national self-interest.

What the Russian's do not realize, is they are "westernized" enough by the jihadists to be considered enemies. They are not stopping the terrorists from targeting them, merely postponing the inevitable. This illustrates a resounding difference between the United States and Russia. Sanctions against Iran would hurt us too. Oil prices would go through the roof, and there would be a massive outcry by the American left wing if we pursued the type of harsh sanctions I support. But the United State is willing to pursue these sanctions because we realize two very important facts.

First, appeasing the jihadists will not pacify them. It will give them more power, and a new sense of strength. It will also just postpone the inevitable - full scale jihadist war against the United States.

Second, we realize that supporting harsh sanctions against Iran will benefit both the world, and by connection the United States. Having a nuclear armed Iran is in nobody's best interest, including the United States'. So, though the sanctions would hurt us economically in the short term, doing it in the long term would greatly benefit the United States, and particularly our national security.

That the Russian government is too stupid to understand what is in its security interest would not normally be a problem for me. I don't particularly care what kind of holes the Russians dig themselves in - just like I don't particularly care what kind of holes other nations dig themselves in - UNLESS those holes directly effect the national security of this country.

And by giving Iran weapons, they are acting counter to all US efforts to curb Iran and force them to abandon their nuclear weapons programs. Yet the Russian's don't care, because they are too d@mn dumb to understand what they need to do in order to stop the jihadists.

I hope the United States does not make the same mistake.