YouTube – Our Judeo-Christian Nation

YouTube – Our Judeo-Christian Nation.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Demands Apology From Obama – washingtonpost.com

Iranian Warns Against Further Criticism

Gallery

Iran Election Clashes Escalate

After a hotly contested election pitting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against leading challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi, the government declared Ahmadinejad the winner on June 13. Mousavi’s supporters took to the streets to protest the results.

» LAUNCH PHOTO GALLERY

By Thomas Erdbrink and William Branigin

Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, June 26, 2009

TEHRAN, June 25 — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out at President Obama on Thursday, warning him against “interfering” in Iranian affairs and demanding an apology for criticism of a government crackdown on demonstrators protesting alleged electoral fraud.

This Story

• Ahmadinejad Demands Apology From Obama
• Iranian Americans Hold Vigil
• Iranian Cleric Calls for Harsh Punishment for Riot Leaders
• The View From Egypt: Arab Activists Watch Iran And Wonder: ‘Why Not Us?’
• Israel Doubts Unrest Will Transform Iran
• Oil Markets Stay Calm Despite Political Unrest in Iran
• Iran Election Clashes Escalate
• Blog: Latest Developments
• // Q&A, Transcript: Iran: Ahmadinejad Warns Obama. 70 Academics Arrested Overnight
• Full Coverage: Iran Protests

View All Items in This Story

View Only Top Items in This Story

// <![CDATA[

var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );
document.write('') ;
//
]]>

Despite an increasingly harsh response to the protests, opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi pledged to continue challenging official results that showed a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad in Iran’s June 12 presidential election. He vowed to resist growing pressure to end his campaign and said he remains determined to prove that those who rigged the election are also responsible for the violence unleashed on opposition protesters.

The two rivals issued their dueling statements — neither mentioning the other by name — a day after security forces broke up the latest demonstrations, then temporarily detained university professors who had met with Mousavi.

Two grand ayatollahs, leading figures in Iran’s predominant Shiite Muslim faith, also waded into the fray, as did European foreign ministers from the Group of Eight world powers at a meeting in Italy.

In a speech at a petrochemical plant in southern Iran, Ahmadinejad said Obama was behaving like his predecessor, George W. Bush, and suggested that talks with the United States on Iran’s nuclear program would be pointless if Obama kept up his criticism. Obama, who has expressed interest in talking to the Iranian leadership about the nuclear issue, said at a news conference Tuesday that he was “appalled and outraged” by recent violence against demonstrators, and he accused the Iranian government of trying to “distract people” by blaming the unrest on the United States and other Western nations.

“Do you want to speak with this tone?” Ahmadinejad responded Thursday, addressing Obama. “If that is your stance, then what is left to talk about?”

He added: “I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it.” He asked why Obama “has fallen into this trap and repeated the comments that Bush used to make” and told the U.S. president that such an attitude “will only make you another Bush in the eyes of the people.”

Ahmadinejad also praised Iran’s election as demonstrating “the great capabilities and grandeur of the Iranian nation” and declared that his country is practicing true “freedom,” as opposed to “this unpopular democracy which is governing America and Europe.” Americans and Europeans “have no right to choose and are restricted to . . . two or three parties” in voting for their leaders, he said.

In Washington, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed Ahmadinejad’s criticism. Obama has said “that there are people in Iran who want to make this not about a debate among Iranians in Iran, but about the West and the United States,” Gibbs said. “And I would add President Ahmadinejad to that list of people trying to make this about the United States.”

Iran’s government has declared that Ahmadinejad decisively won the election with nearly 63 percent of the vote, while Mousavi received less than 34 percent and two other candidates trailed far behind. Mousavi immediately challenged the results, charging that massive fraud “reversed” the outcome and cheated him of victory.

The 67-year-old former prime minister posted a statement on his Web site Thursday saying he was being pressed to withdraw his challenge and had been severely restricted in his ability to communicate with supporters.

“However, I am not prepared to give up under the pressure of threats or personal interest,” he said.

Obama’s Conflicting Signals by Eric Cantor on National Review Online

Obama’s Conflicting Signals by Eric Cantor on National Review Online.

With Iran and North Korea testing missiles, why is Obama cutting missile defense?

By Eric Cantor

Do we as a nation take seriously enough the threat posed by rogue regimes — such as those in North Korea and Iran — that brazenly develop, test, and proliferate their ballistic-missile programs? Is it a high-priority threat to the homeland that must be met with resolve and determination? Or is it a secondary concern? Given the administration’s conflicting signals on the matter, it’s tough to tell. Consider the two very different tracks the administration is pursuing simultaneously as North Korea threatens to test-fire a long-range — and potentially nuclear — missile in the direction of Hawaii around the July 4 holiday. President Obama has appropriately described North Korea as “a grave threat” to the world. With Pyongyang eager to build on its test of a long-range missile in April, the administration has activated our missile-defense system and moved additional radars and shoot-down systems closer to Hawaii. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated that our ground-based interceptor missiles in Alaska and California are “clearly in a position to take action.” Meanwhile, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was 90 percent certain we could interdict a North Korean missile.

Sadly, this kind of forthrightness from President Obama on the threat is the exception rather than the rule. On the legislative front, the administration has gutted $1.2 billion from missile-defense funding. This, even as its exorbitant $3.6 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget request cranks up spending for seemingly everything else.

Yesterday the wisdom of these cuts was debated on the House floor during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. I joined Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Pete Sessions, Rep. Paul Broun, and Rep. Peter Roskam to offer an amendment to restore full funding to missile defense, because we believe the president’s cuts will leave us more vulnerable in an ever-more-dangerous world. The amendment was defeated, largely along party lines.

The president’s timing couldn’t be worse. Iran — its brutality on full display for the world to see — is ramping up its ballistic-missile development. Tehran’s test last month of a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 2,000 km should be a red flag. And should North Korea’s forthcoming test prove successful, the regime would feel emboldened to produce more missiles. The prospect of these countries attaching nuclear payloads to their missiles grows with each passing month.

Obama has also cut funding for the research and development of critical programs that could pay major national-security dividends down the road. Two particularly bad decisions, for example, were to eliminate funding for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and to reduce funding for the Airborne Laser program by 53 percent. KEI and ABL offer the potential to bring down an Iranian or North Korean missile in its earliest stages of flight.

President Obama and his allies in both chambers of Congress argue that these programs are nonessential because they will not be operational in the immediate future. This is a remarkably short-sighted refrain that only delays the date when we will be able to safeguard against emerging threats. The same arguments were made years ago against the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), an Army system designed to take out missiles in their final stage of flight. Today, THAAD has one of the highest performance rates in anti-missile tests. And as we prepare for the upcoming North Korean launch, the military has rushed an additional THAAD unit to Hawaii as insurance.

Near-term defenses are not immune either. The administration will cut 89 percent of funding from the planned “Third Site” in Europe, which would host long-range interceptors to guard against missile attacks from Iran. Even the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Program — which includes the interceptors in Alaska and California — will see a 35 percent reduction.

These decisions have severe consequences for national security. If President Obama grasps the importance of taking the North Korean missile threat seriously, it shouldn’t be hard for him to see the folly in reducing our financial commitment to a robust missile defense.

— Rep. Eric Cantor, of Virginia, is the Republican whip in the House of Representatives.

Cap and Trade: Greenhouse Gas Regulations and the Impact on Texas

Cap and Trade: Greenhouse Gas Regulations and the Impact on Texas.

Global warming has a price. So does turning down the world’s thermostat. The question is, who pays for reducing greenhouse gases? And is the burden shared — or shifted unfairly?

U.S. Congress is acting now on regulatory legislation that would enlarge the federal budget, eliminate jobs and increase food and energy prices. This cap and trade proposal also would create a commodities market for Wall Street to help companies buy and sell pollution rights.

The legislation would penalize Texas because it is the nation’s energy capital and a manufacturing center.

Texas could lose 135,000 to 277,000 jobs in 2012, the first year of the proposed cap-and-trade regulation. The average Texas household could pay up to an extra $1,136 on household goods and services over a year with a total potential cost to Texas families of 6.9 billion.

Is this the best approach? How can we fully mitigate the impact? Will Congress have the money to stimulate a green economy to replace lost jobs?

Join the Conversation

1. Learn more about cap and trade, the proposed federal legislation and what it could mean.
2. Track steps Texas is already taking to address energy efficiencies and reduce greenhouse gases.
3. Stay informed on this important issue: join our cap and trade e-mail list and share this information with others who care about the future of Texas.
4. See how you can do your part to be efficient to help Texas reduce its energy consumption.

• Texas Online
• Statewide Search from the Texas State Library
• State Link Policy
• Texas Homeland Security

UN Admits Cap and Trade is Harmful: Congress Should Discuss Border Tax Adjustments » The Foundry

UN Admits Cap and Trade is Harmful: Congress Should Discuss Border Tax Adjustments » The Foundry.

Posted June 26th, 2009 at 1.39pm in Ongoing Priorities.

A paper released today by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Trade Organization acknowledged that cap and trade legislation would be expected to have significantly harmful economic consequences, likely including a serious loss of international competitiveness. In response, governments considering such a policy would likely want to consider a border tax adjustment (BTA) system to mitigate the loss of competitiveness. The report goes on to say that such a BTA system would be permissible under the world trading system.

While it’s shocking in and of itself that a group like the UN Environmental Program is admitting that cap and trade is economically harmful, the report raises a good point concerning the BTA system that should be addressed by Congress.

A BTA system allows a tax to be levied on imports and an export rebate to be given on exports to reflect the influence of a tax on the relative prices in the domestic economy. Most countries with Value-Added Taxes (VAT), such as those found in Europe, employ BTA systems to prevent the VAT from putting their countries at a competitive disadvantage at home or abroad. Page 22 of the report states:

 

A number of WTO rules may be relevant to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems and related border measures, including core trade disciplines, such as the non discrimination principle. The provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures SCM) may also be relevant to emission trading schemes for instance if allowances are allocated free of charge.

Moreover, detailed rules on border tax adjustments (BTAs) exist in the General Agreement on Tariff s and Trade (GATT) and the WTO SCM Agreement. These rules permit, under certain conditions, the use of BTAs on imported and exported products. Indeed, border adjustments on internal taxes are a commonly used measure with respect to domestic indirect taxes on the sale and consumption of goods, such as cigarettes or alcohol. The objective of a border tax adjustment is to level the playing field between taxed domestic industries and untaxed foreign competition by ensuring that internal taxes on products are trade neutral.”

The release of this report is a stunning development for two very important reasons:

1) It acknowledges de facto that cap and trade has harmful economic consequences. Again, this is co-written with the UN Environment Program, an adamant supporter of emission reduction targets, a firm believer in the IPCC report and that manmade emissions are significantly contributing to global warming and a firm believer that all nations, especially the developed ones should be “combating global warming.” If cap and trade is a jobs program, as President Obama and certain policymakers purport it to be, why are the harmful consequences on net so extensive that a country would need to offset their anti-competitive effects?

2) It raises a major new consideration that has previously escaped domestic debate. The House of Representatives is currently debating a massive, 1,200 page cap and trade bill on the floor. Whether one supports or opposes the bill, all participants in the debate have an interest in addressing this important new dimension of the debate. Before debating an incomplete bill, the House should consider whether a BTA regime is needed, and if so, task the appropriate Committees with its design. Legislators should seriously address this new development before debate concludes.

USA’s 56-Year Air Superiority At Risk » The Foundry

Somebody needs to stop this man before he destroys our country forever! One big mistake America!

USA’s 56-Year Air Superiority At Risk » The Foundry.

Posted June 25th, 2009 at 12.55pm in Protect America.

If President Obama is intent on listening to military commanders, as he promised during the campaign, why is he now ignoring the military’s own requirement for additional F-22s? Why would the President want to compromise America’s half-century dominance in the air that has led to one powerful result: There has not been a single soldier or Marine who lost his life in combat due to a threat from the air in over 56 years.

As legacy aircraft retire at ever-increasing rates, however, maintaining that superiority is not guaranteed. Sufficient numbers of F-22s must be purchased as the Joint Strike Fighter slowly ramps up production in order to keep this tremendous capability and technological edge for the next four decades.

The tremendous strain on America’s Air Force and Navy fighter forces due to a lack of quantity is undeniable. The fighter gap is essentially here now. The lack of available aircraft to provide air superiority, deter potential aggressors, defeat enemy air defenses, protect ground forces from threats, and provide critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance is not some problem for a future generation to fix. Even the safety of the skies above U.S. cities are at risk within the next few years due to a fighter shortfall in the Air National Guard negatively affecting its ability to complete America’s air sovereignty alert mission instituted after 9/11.

President Obama’s fiscal year 2010 defense budget only exacerbates the fighter strain, along with damage to the highly-skilled engineers and designers who build these world-class aircraft around the country. Indeed, before the budget is even approved by Congress, production work for third- and fourth-tier F-22 suppliers is already drying up. This affects America’s small businesses first.

The Air Force originally planned to purchase 700 F-22As to replace the fleet of 800 F-15A-Ds and the retired F-117 Nighthawk bomber, but the required number of F-22s was reduced over the past two decades due to budget constraints. More than 30 air campaign studies over the past 15 years have confirmed a minimum requirement for 260 F-22s. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz recently acknowledged the Air Force warfighting requirement is for 243 F-22s, but the service can only afford 187 because of a lack of funds.

With only 187 F-22s, the number of actual combat-coded fighters available at any given time is roughly 125, with the remaining fighters used for training, testing, backup, and reserve missions.

Although the F-22A is the world’s sole fifth-generation fighter, numerous studies have concluded that the quality of the platform can be stretched only so far in making up for a lack of quantity. A shortfall of aircraft would also prevent the Air Force from filling out the service’s ten Air Expeditionary Forces, undermining their stability by ensuring the need to rotate F-22s on an as-needed basis.

New Heritage Video: Cap & Tax Won’t Save the Earth » The Foundry

New Heritage Video: Cap & Tax Won’t Save the Earth » The Foundry.

Posted June 25th, 2009 at 9.24am in Energy and Environment.

For all the latest research and commentary from Heritage visit the Cap and Trade Rapid Response page