1.) President Hosni Mubarak is a goner. The only question is: does he leave on a private jet to enjoy the American aid money he undoubtedly squirreled away overseas for his private use—or does he try to hang on and thus leave in a body bag?

2.) Who and what comes next? Do the radicals—i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood—use this opportunity to seize power in the next national elections? (And, if they do gain power, do they then cancel/rig future elections so as to keep power?)

3.) Will Jimmy Carter and other like-minded types come into Egypt to certify that the next national elections are “honest”?

4.) Does the post-Mubarak Egyptian government honor the 30-year old Camp David Accords and thus continue to collect billions in aid from DC?

5.) Does this anti-government fervor spread to Jordan? To Saudi Arabia? To Syria? To Yemen? And what of the ongoing revolt in Tunisia?

6.) What does this portend for Israel? Are they militarily prepared to once again be surrounded by hostile Arab neighbors—with the militant Tehran regime fueling the fires of anti-Israel sentiment?

7.) In DC, does the Obama Administration have a handle of the Arab and Muslim world possibly crumbling in front of our eyes? Does Obama have a clear-cut American strategy? Does anyone believe that Obama and Hillary really know what they are doing in foreign policy?

8.) Can this anti-establishment fervor in the Arab world possibly topple the nuclear-armed government of Pakistan? Or is this a country-by-country phenomenon?

9.) What does this ongoing ferment do to the terrorist element inside Islam? Does it embolden them? Does it unleash more acts of terror?

10.) Or is this primarily a middle class revolt over horrid economic conditions and poverty for so many Arab youth?

11.) What can new Egyptian leaders do to alleviate the rotten economic conditions in the world’s biggest Arab nation? Yes, they can eliminate official corruption which is tolerated when the economy works reasonably well but is blamed when the economy falters. But what to do to get millions of Egyptians back to work? (What a task facing the next government!)

12.) A year from now what will the Arab world look like? More—or less—peaceful? Are we about to see a more secular, economics-driven Arab ruling mentality? Or are we going to see them retreat from modernity into Islamic fundamentalism, which doesn’t pay the bills but surely causes a lot of trouble?

The Obama Administration is on the verge of allowing Vietnam to enrich uranium to make nuclear weapons while denying the same right to Jordan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. And, of course, it is this enrichment scenario that is at the heart of our problem with Iran.

Former Congressman John LeBoutillier is the most outspoken opponent of this insane Obama Administration policy.

A nuclear-armed Vietnam? No Way!!!

We MUST stop this insanity!

"Two former U.S. Congressmen oppose part of U.S.-Vietnam nuclear deal"

reprinted from english.news.cn, October 16, 2010, 10:10:34

by Matthew Rusling

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- Two former U.S. congressmen are opposing part of a nuclear deal being negotiated between the United States and Vietnam, which could be finalized by next month.

The arrangement would allow more cooperation between the two countries on nuclear technology. But former Congressmen William Hendon, R-N.C. and John LeBoutillier, R-N.Y., voiced their concerns over part of the deal, as it does not include restrictions on enriching uranium, the process by which nuclear weapons can be made.

The former congressmen argued that the move could heighten the risk of nuclear proliferation; could increase the possibility of nuclear materials falling into extremists' hands; and contended that the deal ran counter to the U.S. policy.

"We're going to give the Vietnamese nuclear enrichment authority, which could lead to nuclear weapons or, more frightening, loose nuclear material in terrorist hands," Hendon told a news conference in Washington.

The Vietnamese government has claimed that it plans to use the technology for peaceful means.

U.S. President Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize in part because of his nuclear non-proliferation stance, but critics blasted the Vietnam deal as contradicting the president's stated nuclear goals.

Obama vowed in a speech from Prague in April 2009 that the United States would take the lead in pushing for a world devoid of nuclear weapons.

In spring he hosted a major nuclear summit in Washington in which participants agreed to secure vulnerable nuclear materials within their borders within four years—the goal he outlined in the Prague speech. They also agreed on what Obama called the responsibility of nations to maintain effective security of the nuclear materials and facilities under their control.

Aside from critics who charge that the Vietnam deal contradicts Obama's proposal of a nuclear-free world, others argue the arrangement represents a double standard. The United States goes to great lengths to prevent certain countries from acquiring nuclear technology but fails to apply the same rigid policies to others, critics said.

As such, a U.S. government debate over whether to press for the inclusion of a clause restricting Vietnam from enriching uranium is currently under way in Washington, according to the U.S. media reports.

The Obama administration set the so-called "gold standard" in a deal with the United Arab Emirates, when it prohibited that country from producing nuclear fuel on its soil, but did not insist on the same standard for Vietnam.

Observers here believe the arrangement with Vietnam is part of a broader U.S. strategic effort to focus more on Asia.

Editor: Deng Shasha

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-10/16/c_13560086.htm

We can never win a war in Afghanistan. Not in the sense of V-E Day or JAPAN SURRENDERS!

Can you imagine a headline: RADICAL ISLAMICISTS SURRENDER?

No way!

Instead, they just produce more suicide fighters and dispatch them off to kill “infidels.”

So, we cannot—and will not—win in the traditional sense.

But we can accomplish our original reason for invading Afghanistan back on October 8th, 2001: prevent another 9/11 attack.

This should be our sole goal from now on. To prevent another 9/11 does not mean to re-build a nation that does not want us there, or to build a centralized government that they do not want. This whole COIN (counter-insurgency) style of fighting a war is a total sham. Not killing people while we throw billions of dollars at them is a fruitless endeavor.

Instead we need to do just enough to prevent Afghanistan from being used—again—as a training ground for future massive attacks on the US and our allies.

Disruption is a much easier goal than occupation and nation-building.

President Obama has made this war his war by doubling the troop contingent and massively spending to double the size of our three already-enormous bases there. Clearly there is a larger strategy at work: these three bases are meant to be permanent American hubs from which to project American military force throughout the region into Iran and Syria and anywhere else we so choose. The problem is that the American people have not been told of this plan—nor have they voted for it.

General Petreus’ ascension to be the Allied Commander in Afghanistan (actually a demotion of sorts for him which he accepted to save the mission) will only deepen American involvement in Afghanistan. Why? Because in one year—the summer of 2011–when Obama and Biden have said they want to start removing the recently surged US troops–if Petreus asks for more troops, which he did in Iraq and which the Pentagon has already indicated, then who will deny him? Who will dare oppose our only heroic general? Just look at the out-poring if support for his appointment on both sides of the aisle.

Conclusion: we are in an ill-chosen fight against an un-defined enemy (Taliban or Al-Qaeda, Afghans or Pakistanis?) with an un-focused Commander-in-Chief following an un-clear objective using a certain-to-fail strategy.

And that is a prescription for a disaster.

(One long prediction - and then a series of quick ones):

1) Iran—and the combined two stories of their nuclear program and their ongoing new revolution—will be the dominant news story of the year.

1a) There is a strong likelihood that the Islamic Republic itself will fall in 2010. That is what is now at stake. Not regime change—the switching of one office-holder for another within the same system—but total governmental change.

The young have decided the aging and corrupt and obscenely-rich mullahs—and the rigged governmental system which sustains them—can no longer stand. That is why these brave young people are willing to risk their lives on the streets each day facing the thug Basij militia and the VEVAK security forces, both of which—on direct orders from Ayatollah Khamenei—specialize in using terror to quash dissent.

The development of the Iranian nuclear program is a key factor driving the fomenting revolution. As the West draws a line for Tehran not to cross, the Iranian people—already disaffected by last June’s rigged elections—see their government pursuing a policy that will isolate Iran from the West and cause terrible economic dislocation for the Iranian people for years to come.

Yet the Ahmadinejad Government insists on racing to join the Nuclear Club, figuring that once they’re in the club the other club members will treat them differently. Tehran reads history this way: if Saddam had had nukes, no 2003 American invasion of Iraq. Thus, if Iran has ’em, no US or Israel aggression against Iran. Plus, they can bully the Saudis and other rich Arabs with their superior military power once they acquire these weapons.

So Iran is the flash-point for many stories in 2010.

Look for violence, hatred, ugliness—a passive President Obama refusing to side with these brave people fighting for their freedom—and ultimately for the Hand of God. “What,” you ask?

Yes, the Hand of God is at work here. Go back to 1989—the fall of the Berlin Wall followed by the almost-totally-peaceful end of the Soviet Union, the “focus of Evil in the modern world,” as President Reagan called it. How could the dreaded, all-powerful Soviet Empire crumble—without a shot being fired—if it weren’t for God’s intervention, perhaps beginning with the mysterious selection of Pope John Paul II followed by the creation of the Solidarity Movement in Poland?

Indeed, God triumphed over pure man-made evil in that situation.

And perhaps it will repeat itself in Iran—only this time there is already more bloodshed. There are also reports that some Iranian police are refusing to fire on demonstrators—always a sign of the regime’s imminent loss of power.

Pray for the creation of a Persian democracy.

So—in sum—Iran is the nation to keep our eye on in 2010.

2) Obama: is going to decline even more in the polls. The jobs situation will continue to rot away any good feeling about his Administration. There will be more and more Americans who see him as a political fluke, in-over-his-head, incompetent, too liberal and without a clue about how to get the economy back on track. His approval rate will drop to 42%.

3) The Health Care Bill—whatever version ends up passing—will grow even more unpopular as time goes on. Why? Because from the day the bill becomes law, every medical billing or prescription problem or denied service will be blamed on “ObamaCare.” We all have these medical glitches—but now they will be “Obama’s fault.”

4) The Democrats are going to get creamed in the November mid-term elections. Some big names may go down. Chris Dodd in Connecticut is on the Endangered Species list; so, too, is Harry Reid. One or both will lose. Former GOP Congressman Rob Simmons in Connecticut will defeat Dodd.

In the House, there will be a strong anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi push back in November. The GOP might not quite take back control, but they will narrow the gap and force the House back toward the political center.

5) In New York, Andrew Cuomo will be elected Governor. But the Republicans will recapture control of the State Senate.

6) In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist will lose to Marco Rubio in their GOP Senate primary.

7) John McCain will sweat all through the year about his August Arizona GOP primary. Former Representative J.D. Hayworth will run a tough race against McCain. If the immigration issue is pushed in DC by Obama—as he has said he would—then McCain will lose his primary by either flip-flopping on the issue or sticking with his pro-amnesty position. (McCain losing his own party’s primary less than two years after being that party’s presidential nominee would be a huge story. It will happen if the illegal immigration issue is back on the front page.)

8) In California, it will be former Governor—and former every-other-job-in-the-state—Jerry Brown versus GOP newcomer and former EBAY Boss Meg Whitman for Governor. She has tons of money; he is known throughout the state from his four decades in public life. It is a Democratic state reeling under financial collapse—with a GOP Governator who hasn’t gotten the job done.

Brown can be testy and nasty; Meg is nice—and a bit boring and stiff.

He has been around a long time; she hasn’t even voted in most elections—a shocking revelation for someone who wants to run the biggest state after never holding a governmental position before. You can bet Brown will make a big deal out of this. It hurt Caroline Kennedy here in NY a lot. Not voting is inexplicable.

He can argue that he knows every nook and cranny of state government; she can argue that she will make Sacramento run like a business.

He is Mr. Inside; she is Mrs. Outside.

Who wins?

Meg Whitman—by 3 points.

And right away you will hear talk of her for Veep on the 2012 GOP ticket. After all, California is 55 Electoral votes - one fifth of the total you need to win.

9) The economy will grow in 2010—but notquickly—and not enough to reverse the horrendous 17.5% underemployment picture. The perception of the bad economy will not change in 2010—or 2011—and thus Obama and incumbent Democrats will suffer greatly for it. He better pray that this perception changes by 2012, or he is a goner.

10) Al Qaeda will soon implant bombs right into the abdominal cavity of suicide bombers—and equip cell phones as detonators. Can our airport screening machines look into someone—like an X-Ray machine—to see these objects? (Hey, if drug cartels use people as mules with swallowed condoms filled with heroin and cocaine, why won’t their terrorist cousins do the same thing?)

11) On The Right: Sarah Palin will continue to dominate the scene in 2010—and suck all the oxygen away from other potential 2012 GOP candidates. Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Barbour and any others just get no coverage whatsoever compared to her.

11a) The next Conservative Leader will emerge onto the national scene in 2010. He is not prominent as of today.

11b) The Tea Party will be more popular than the Republican Party.

11c) If this new Conservative Leader can harness the passion of the Tea Parties and the built-in structure of the GOP, he can sweep the nation in 2012.

12) A controversial new book will emerge in 2010 that will reveal the truth about Obama’s past. The publisher will be under pressure to quash the book. The so-called Mainstream Media will attack this book. But when it finally comes out, it will sell over a million copies hard-cover and several million in paperback—and the truth about many of the controversies in Obama’s past will finally be revealed.

Happy 2010 to you all!!!

Iran has been accelerating their secret program to build operational nuclear weapons for one reason—and one reason alone: once a country has nukes, no one messes with that country ever again!

No one pre-emptively attacks and invades you—as the USA did to Iraq in 2003.

Iran saw what the Bush-led invasion did to their next-door-neighbor, Iraq—the dreaded term for dictators—regime change—and they wanted no part of the same possibility aimed their way. Thus they immediately went pedal-to-the-metal—in secret, or so they thought—to build nuclear weapons.

Possessing nuclear bombs deters aggression against you—and it allows you to intimidate your neighbors, i.e. Arab states with which Iran has never had particularly good relations since the 1979 Iranian Revolution brought the radical mullahs to power in Tehran. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has had frosty relations with the arrogant—and rich—leaders of Iran. And the Saudi Government recently told Israel in secret that they would allow Israel to fly over Saudi air space on their way to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israel, while never officially acknowledging that they have several dozen nuclear weapons, is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. (Am not including Pakistan in the Middlea East; they are considered South West Asian.) That is yet another reason they have survived. Those weapons have indeed deterred the Arab nations from trying—yet again—some sort of coordinated massive invasion of Israel. The message has been clearly sent: you mess with us at your own peril.

Now Iran wants to be a nuclear power—and they brag and boast and bluster about “wiping Israel off the map” and seeing a “giant dark cloud” over Israel. What do they think Israel and the United States of America are going to do in the face of that rhetoric and the intelligence that shows them building thousands of underground centrifuges to extract fissionable material to make nuclear weapons?

Of course Iran has multiple problems. Their June 12 election fraud unleashed a long-simmering discontent by the Iranian people against a corrupt and brutal anti-modern regime. There is massive instability even a the highest level of that regime. “Regime change” was voted for by the Iranian people—and corruption and a rigged vote counting process kept it from happening. Do not be surprised in the coming months if that regime indeed falls. Their economy is wobbly; it is reported that even at the upper levels of leadership there is talk of replacing both the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, a mere political thug by the way who revels in the use of terror to keep the people in line, and his hand-picked President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an awful “face of the Iranian people,” who was one of the so-called “students” who captured and brutalized the American hostages back in 1979-1980.

This Thursday—October 1—will be the first official talks between the US and Tehran since that seizure of the US Embassy back on November 4, 1979. The time has come to settle this issue—and in the process re-arrange the Iranian Government.

The word has seen the brutality of this corrupt regime. And the world—including the USA, Britain, France, Russia and even China—along with Israel—is not going to let this regime join the Nuclear Club.

It has taken ten days of lies, tear gas, baton-beatings—and finally cold-blooded murder by the corrupt, filthy-rich, fraudulent hypocritical Iranian mullahs and their marauding militias to get our new President to even seem outraged.

He finally read a statement—after all, he reads everything that comes out of his mouth—at his Press Conference Tuesday afternoon that came close to echoing the feelings of most Americans that we stand with the protestors who have the right to an open and honest election.

Having the President of the United States make a statement like this is not provocative or “Bush-the-Bully-like”—something Obama is clearly afraid of seeming.

Go back to the early days of Solidarity. Lech Walensa was thrown in jail by Soviet-backed General Jaralelski. What did our then-new President Ronald Reagan do? He had Solidarity candles burning in the White House windows at night.

That image flew ‘round the world—and let everyone know just where America stood.

Why doesn’t our new President wear a green arm band—an image that would say more than any TelePromptered-statement read at a Press Conference?

Richard Wolff in his new campaign book about the 2008 Obama-Clinton race, reveals that back in 2000 when Obama ran for the House in a Democrat primary against Congressman Bobby Rush, Michelle Obama saw her husband as “cold and distant.”

That is how he now appears as President. He hides his emotions too well. He is too self-controlled, too self-disciplined in not allowing the people to feel his emotions.

A leader must connect viscerally. His approval up to now is more for the “change” we all wanted after G.W. Bush—not for anything Obama has done or fought for. In fact, he has never fought for anything—except his own political advancement. His election and the racial apect of it has made many people admire Obama-the-Symbol. But when you get past that and look at Obama-the-Man, he is hidden, cool and indeed distant.

Now we are beginning to see the polarizing of the American electorate—again. The new President’s honeymoon is coming to an end. The out-of-control spending is scaring Independents away from Obama. And he is beginning to suffer from a self-created over-exposure - a speech per day plus fawning media ‘availabilities’ like this ABC-from-the-White-House health show.

It is inevitable that people are going to grow weary of Barack Obama. And he is then going to learn that his—any President’s—coin of the realm are his appearances, his speeches, and access to him. By doing so many such appearances, speeches, YouTube weekend speeches, Town Hall Forums and Press Conferences, he is cheapening his power.

He needs to be seen a little less frequently.

And he needs to re-focus on one Big thing at a time.

As of now there are too many balls being juggled at once—and none of them are particularly popular.

As predicted here last year, by this coming October Obama will not be too popular. Yes, the Democrats will adore him and the conservatives will oppose him. But the middle—where the action in politics and government really is—is where Obama will lose support. These self-described Independent voters—many of them former GOP voters who split for Perot in 1992 and still searching for sane fiscal policies—will have abandoned Obama by the fall. But they will not be going back to the GOP either. They will sit—alone—unhappy—and wait to see if anyone speaks to their issues of responsible spending and budget practices.

The Republicans?

They have not even begun to figure out how to come back from the Bush Years.

Iran may crumble.

The government that was carried in by the mob thirty years ago may get carried out by that mob’s children.

This electrifying story can go in any direction—and already the past five days have seen things which indicate the closed, Mullah-run society is teetering on implosion:

1) Their Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has reversed himself in public—twice—on recounting the votes;

2) He is floundering over what to do as the streets erupt in violence and protest;

3) The government clampdown on foreign journalists, text messaging, cell calls, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and Twitter shows that Tehran is indeed worried about losing control of their people;

4) The people are increasingly unsatisfied by the government’s response—and thus the protests are spreading, not decreasing.

The point is: no one knows where this is headed. Is it headed toward a calm re-acceptance of the status quo? Or is it headed to either a new election or Ahmadinejad’s removal by the Mullahs as a way to calm the situation? (This could indeed happen.)

Ahmadinejad is a disgrace. He was—despite our CIAs ridiculous “research” and denials—one of the leaders of the 1979 hostage-takers in Iran. Many of our hostages to this day are adamant that he was one of the so-called students. Thus he is a criminal—and we have allowed him to get away with kidnapping and torturing 53 Americans for 444 days back in 1979-1980.

He hates America and thus rules that way as the President of Iran.

And, of course, he wants to nuke Israel off the map—or at least talk about it as a way to rally radical Jew-haters to his side and become the Number One Muslim Leader worldwide.

Apparently not all Iranians agree with his hate-filled strategies—and used last week’s election as an attempt to move Iran into the 21st Century. Unfortunately, they—and many others—naively thought a dictatorship would honestly count the votes! Duh.

Imagine counting 39 million paper ballots in two hours!

What dictatorship ever allows itself to be voted out of power?

Why does the world care so intensely about this fraudulent election and its aftermath? Because millions are praying that Ahmadinejad would be removed and Iran’s mad sprint to acquire nuclear weapons would cease. Because if it goes much farther, it is inevitable that Israel will strike—and heavily—all the key underground sites for centrifuges and other processes to develop their nuclear military capability. Israel’s hope is to retard the progress of that program.

The result of these strikes will be catastrophic: oil will zoom at once to over $200 per barrel; inflation will soar; the worldwide economy will head again back down; the Muslim world will polarize; America will be dragged into it—either on Israel’s side or, if not, the special American-Israeli relationship will be severely harmed.

All of this—and more—if this evil bastard in Tehran is allowed to continue his hate-filled, mad dash to the edge of a mid-east nuclear winter.

But perhaps all those prayers are being answered by the courageous people protesting the obviously-fraudulent election last Friday.

This is the single most compelling story of 2009. It affects us all.

Pray that—like the Berlin Wall coming down twenty years ago—God’s Hand is in this.

Most people seemed to have missed the point of North Korea’s kidnapping, trying, and sentencing-to-twelve-years-in-a-labor-camp of two young female journalists: it is totally and entirely to gain leverage over Washington with a brand new Administration in place.

Kim Jong Il learned from his father, Kim Il Song, who pioneered the technique, that the quickest way to get DC to pay attention to you is to hold Americans as prisoners. Why? Because we care!

And if the two are women—and journalists—well, that is just to good to pass up!

Look how much coverage this story is receiving. Plus, Al Gore is involved - and Pyongyang probably feels the Former Vice President can get into the Obama Oval Office and cut a deal.

What does this rogue regime want?

Duh. Money—and lots of it. In cash. In bags and suitcases.

Plus an admission of guilt by the two journalists—accused of spying—and who clearly were NOT spying. But the truth and reality are irrelevant when dealing with this crazed North Korean leadership.

Just two weeks ago we saw them launch a series of rockets—all aimed at attracting attention to themselves at a time when President Obama was focusing on Iran and the Muslim World. Kim Jong Il—like the petulant, spoiled child he has always been—is saying, “Hey, world, pay attention to me!!!

And, thanks to the news media aspect of this story, the White House has been forced to pay attention to it. Just yesterday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about it at a State Department public event. And when that happens, it forces an issue onto the political radar screen.

This story is almost identical to the Iranian-American woman tried and held recently in Iran. She was just released—whether for under-the-table money or concessions we will never know. Or perhaps it was Tehran trying to keep lines open with the new Obama Administration while talks are ongoing about their nuclear programs.

But that woman was seized for a reason—and released for a reason. And nothing any government official on either side says publicly is the truth.

The same for these two unfortunate female journalists - who may have not even been in North Korea at allwhen thy were kidnapped.

Pyongyang has regularly “stolen” people from South Korea, Japan—and, of course, in the most famous incident of them all, they kidnapped the crew of the USS Pueblo in early 1968 and held them in brutal conditions for ten months.

In the end, they forced President Johnson to admit that we violated their territorial waters (we didn’t)—and we also (secretly) paid $50million in cash. That has never been admitted to by any US Government official.

This present stand-off will result in a very similar solution. Figure it will happen within a month or so. There may be a trip—perhaps by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson who has had past success with that regime.

But rest assured: those two women will be home this summer.

And Uncle Sam is going to pay—big time—and off the books for their release.

The media isn’t asking some of the most important questions. Instead they focus on fluff - with no forethought about what is coming down the tracks. So let us - together - examine some upcoming events:

1) Pakistan is on the verge of collapse. And not since the fall of the Peacock Throne in Iran in 1978 and the return from Paris of the Ayatollah Khomeini in early 1979 have we seen a Muslim country spill into the streets in a chaotic mass of teaming people. But we may soon see this frightening scene - with one added complication:

What happens to the Pakistani nuclear arsenal?

Does it fall into the hands of the Taliban, who are the most likely cause of the fall of the Pak Government?

And does that mean that the single most popular figure in Pakistan - as measured by multiple polls - will have control of those nukes?

Oh, that would be Osama Bin Laden, by the way.

Or, as has been written years ago, is it true that there is a special “US military team in the region prepared to ‘secure’ these nuclear weapons”?

What does India - also a nuclear power - do if they see this chaos? Do they make a move on a distracted and confused rival? Do they try to re-seize Kashmir?

Remember, there are hardened and lingering feelings between these two countries. But India does not want the Taliban and its unpredictable craziness to run Islamabad.

2) Iran is rapidly moving toward producing their own nuclear weapons and Israel is prepping the world for a possible pre-emptive series of strikes to disable/set back/delay the Iranian entry into the Nuclear Club.

Will the Obama Administration help Israel? Will they ‘allow’ Israel to make these attacks which are certain to cause all sorts of nasty international repercussions?

Or will Obama - as most liberals do - try to “talk” his way out of this conundrum?

3) Will this Swine Flu story impact the debate over illegal immigration? Why aren’t we closing our southern border?

How long can an inept Janet Napolitano survive at Homeland Security? She is a blunderbuss and totally in over her head.

4) What ever happened to the South African nuclear arsenal?

The public explanation is that after the fall of the all-white government in 1990 or so, the S.A. military dis-assembled their nuclear weapons.

Do you believe that?

Is that realistic?

Did they sell them to someone else? Did the USA come in and ‘de-activate’ these weapons?

5) Arlen Specter’s defection isn’t that big a deal. He’ll still vote the same way on issues in the Senate.

The bigger issue is: when are the conservatives and Republicans going to sit down and work at stating what we stand for - not just what we oppose?

This is the key to our side some day re-attaining the trust of the American people.

Until we do this we will be consigned to the minority and just reacting to what Obama and the Democrats do.

Every week brings ominous new signs that Iran soon will possess operational nuclear weapons.

Just this week Israeli President Shimon Peres - their senior diplomat and wise man - issued an uncharacteristic warning: “If (President) Ahmadinejad doesn’t work with the Obama Administration and the international community to stop building nuclear weapons, of course we will then strike.”

This blunt threat is a startling development coming from President Peres, a normally calm, collected and reticent-to-bluster statesman.

The Israeli President - a ceremonial post not a policy-making one - then added that “we will not be able to move forward on this without the United States.”

And that is the rub. Willa President Obama ever go along with a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran? A strike which will roil the international world, cause oil prices to spike to perhaps anywhere from $100 - $200 per barrel virtually overnight? A strike which will earn him the condemnation of the Third World - and maybe our ‘banker’ China? A strike which may cause some sort of Iranian retaliation - either directly or from their surrogates in the international terror world?

Will Obama - under heavy pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby here at home - be able to withstand that pressure to stop Iran before they use the nukes on Israel while Ahmadinejad flaunts Iran’s imminent entry into the Nuclear Club?

This is a decision that Obama does not want to face. He hopes to talk, yak, delay, stall this mess in hopes that something else - a coup perhaps or Ahmadinejad’s removal or Russian intervention - will stop their nuclear weapons program. Just having nuclear reactors is not the problem; making weapons grade plutonium is a major problem for the world.

President Obama has made “negotiation,” dialogue and sharing with our partners/allies the cornerstone of his new foreign policy. This is a direct reversal of what was called G.W. Bush’s “Cowboy Diplomacy” - what was seen as a blustering, ill-conceived unilateralism that ticked off friend and foe alike.

This Iranian nuclear problem will be The Test of Obama’s diplomatic direction.

Can he “convince” Iran to abandon a program they are poring billions into?

Can he “convince” a nation - Iran - to do something they do not want to do - i.e. give up their dream to join Pakistan, India, France and - most importantly - Israel in the all-exclusive Nuclear Club? Entry into this club allows Iran to be the top dog among all Moslem nations - and sends shivers throughout the Arab world as they have never been comfortable with the inbred-superiority of the Persians.

Israel is obviously apoplectic over Iran’s behavior since the US invaded Iraq. That lifted the “block” on Iran and freed the way for Tehran to actively finance and run their surrogates in Hezbollah and Hamas and in effect surround Israel and infiltrate from both the north and south.

Once a nation is “in” the Nuclear Club they are immune to invasion or pre-emptive attack. No wonder Saddam tried to join - until the 1981 raid when Israel knocked out their Osirak reactor - and then tried to bluff his opponents into thinking he had nukes right up until our 2003 invasion. Because he knew that he would be immune to attack once he had possession of these weapons.

Iran is rushing to get nuclear weapons. Israel is worried that the Hitler-like Ahmadinejad will try to carry out his crazy, sick rhetoric. He has called Israel a “bacteria” that needs to be “eradicated.” He has predicted all sorts of dire scenarios that would see the “elimination” of Israel.

We are headed for something big on this issue - during the Obama presidency.

We need to worry that Obama is seen by our enemies as weak.

Will they try to exploit that perceived weakness?

And will Obama let them?