Pakistan is disintegrating. There the Taliban is rapidly gaining territory and power, and it may not be long before it has its hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. And that would mean al-Qaeda will own The Bomb. 

The US under the Obama presidency will do nothing to prevent this happening. And it would be against India taking action to destroy Pakistan’s  nuclear installations.

Likewise, it will do nothing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed power. And it is against Israel taking action to destroy Iran’s nuclear development sites.

Caroline Glick warns:

The situation in Pakistan of course is similar to the situation in Iran. There, as Iran moves swiftly towards the nuclear club, the US on the one hand refuses – as it does with Pakistan – to make the hard but essential decision to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. And on the other hand, it warns Israel daily that it opposes any independent Israeli operation to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. That is, the Obama administration is forcing Israel to weigh the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran against the threat of an abrogation of its strategic alliance with the US in the event that it prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power on its own.

In both Pakistan and Iran, the clock is ticking. The US’s reluctance to face up to the ugliness of the options at its disposal will not make them any prettier. Indeed, with each passing day the stark choice placed before America and its allies becomes ever more apparent. In both Pakistan and Iran, the choice is and will remain seeing the US and its allies taking swift and decisive action to neutralize nuclear programs that threaten global security, or seeing the world’s worst actors successfully arm themselves with the world’s most dangerous weapons. 

 Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal, believes that the TEA PARTY movement is significant. We hope he is right, and that it continues and grows. 

An extract (read it all here):  

Yesterday was Tax Day, and it was marked by large numbers of Americans turning out for an estimated 2,000 tea parties across the country. This movement is significant.

In 1978, California voters enacted Prop. 13 in reaction to steep property taxes. That marked the start of a tax-cutting movement that culminated in Ronald Reagan slashing high national income taxes in the 1980s. Now Americans are reacting to runaway government spending that they were not told about before last year’s election, and which Americans are growing to resent.

Derided by elitists as phony, the tea-party movement is spontaneous, decentralized … If it has a father it is CNBC’s Rick Santelli, who called for holding a tea party in Chicago on July 4. Yesterday’s gatherings were made up of people who may never meet again (there’s no central collection point for email addresses). But the concerns driving people to tea parties are real, growing and powerful. Politicians ignore them at their peril.

One concern is the rise of state and local taxes. New York and California passed multibillion-dollar tax increases this year. Other states are considering significant tax hikes or have enacted tax increases in recent years. The many tax and fee increases enacted or under consideration is angering voters.

If that anger persists, it may give Republicans a leg up in the 38 gubernatorial elections over the next two years, as well as in key state legislative races that will determine which party redraws congressional and state legislative districts after the 2010 census. Expect voters to hear a lot about jobs being created in low-tax states in the coming years.

But the center of the debate is in Washington, not the states. The fear of future federal tax hikes is fueling the tea-party movement.

 … of Islam? Well, that’s the reference but …  Obama has five pillars on which to rebuild the US economy. 

In yet another ‘major speech’ – he likes to make them as often as possible among flags and cameras, becoming ever more like all the other dear leaders of the peoples who have centrally-planned economies –  he declared yesterday (in small but central part): 

We must build our house upon a rock.  We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity – a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.

It’s a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century:  new rules for Wall Street that will reward drive and innovation; new investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive; new investments in renewable energy and technology that will create new jobs and industries; new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and new savings in our federal budget that will bring down the debt for future generations.  That is the new foundation we must build.  That must be our future – and my Administration’s policies are designed to achieve that future. 

So the First Pillar is a continuing interference in, and tighter control of the economy by the federal government 

The Second Pillar is reinforced leftist indoctrination in the schools under stricter federal government authority 

The Third Pillar is the provision of insecure and very expensive energy, its uses ever more regulated by the government so that lives become poorer and harder

The Fourth Pillar is the establishment of nationalized healthcare, being a huge extension of the welfare state and the augmentation of  governmental power of decision over the life and death of every individual  

The Fifth Pillar is a fantasy, a pretense, a fairy story that future federal budgets will get smaller and the monstrous deficits  will be ‘halved’ in a blink of the dear leader’s eye.  

 The great essayist Theodore Dalrymple writes in Front Page on the Rosenberg traitors and liberal attitudes towards Communism:  

A recent story in the Guardian confirmed my suspicion of a lingering liberal indulgence toward the former Soviet Union. Headlined ORPHANED BY THE STATE, it consisted of an interview with Robert Rosenberg, the younger son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed by electric chair in 1953 for spying on behalf of the Soviet Union…

Robert and his older brother Michael were eventually adopted by a childless couple, whose name—Meeropol—they now bear. Their childhood was happy; paradoxically, it might have been less happy, or more emotionally confused, had their real parents been imprisoned for a long time instead of executed, for then their adoption might have proven less whole-hearted.

It is hardly surprising that Robert Meeropol, now a lawyer, should have mounted a campaign against the death penalty; you wouldn’t have to be Sigmund Freud to understand why. And again, not surprisingly, Meeropol does not accept that his real parents betrayed him by involving themselves in such activities in the first place, or by refusing to inform on others once arrested. On the contrary, he was proud of them for having stuck up for what they believed in, even going to their deaths for it.

At the end of the interview he says that his parents gave him and his brother Michael “a life in which we can stand up and be ourselves and do the things we believe in.” Earlier, he had drawn a parallel between what his parents did and other people who, even today, commit acts of civil disobedience to further a cause they believe in.

It’s [the interviewer’s] neglecting to ask Meeropol what he thought of his parents’ cause that makes me suspect her of secret sympathy with the Soviet Union. For suppose that the subject of the interview had been the orphan of a couple executed for spying for the Nazis: would the interviewer then have let the question of what they believed in go without comment?… Julius and Ethel Rosenberg supported in theory and aided in practice an ideology and a state that they should have known was responsible for some of the worst oppression and mass murder in history.

In its print edition, the Guardian chose to highlight Robert’s statement, “my parents gave me and Michael a life in which we can stand up and be ourselves,” as a callout, thereby forging an unlikely alliance between Stalinism and psychobabble. Whether standing firm for one’s convictions is a good or bad thing depends on what those convictions are. A monstrous cause is not any the less monstrous because people are ready to die for it; if the history of the twentieth century should have taught us anything, it’s that.

Rather than risk the resentment of horrid little tyrannies, the US State Department will go on funding the development of Iran’s nuclear warfare capability!

Terry Jeffrey’s column about it (read it all here) begins with this startling  revelation:   

American taxpayers not only helped fund Iran’s nuclear program over the past decade, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, but the State Department now "strongly opposes" diminishing the flow of U.S. money to the international agency that funneled the aid to Iran because the department fears – among other things – that doing so would "anger states in the developing world."

 An absurd report has been issued by the Department of Homeland Security, according to which we conservatives are more dangerous than Islamic terrorists. Michelle Malkin comments

What and who exactly are President Obama’s homeland security officials afraid of these days? If you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion, favors strict immigration         enforcement, lobbies to protect Second Amendment rights, protests big government, advocates federalism or represents veterans who believe in any of the above, the answer is: You. 

Department of Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano has turned her attention away from acts of Islamic jihad on American soil (which she now refers to as "man-caused disasters"). Instead, her department is sounding the alarm over an unquantified "resurgence" in "right-wing extremism activity." On April 7, DHS sent a nine-page warning memo to law enforcement offices across the country titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

The report includes a sweeping definition of the threat:

"Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

You cannot ignore the context or the timing of this DHS report. It’s no small coincidence that Napolitano’s agency disseminated the assessment just a week before the nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Party protests. The grassroots events organized by fiscal conservatives, independents, Libertarians and, yes, even some Blue Dog Democrats were fueled by the "current economic and political climate" of bipartisan profligate spending and endless taxpayer-funded bailouts. The growing success of the loose-knit movement has invited scorn, ridicule and fear-mongering from Obama’s supporters. Liberal bloggers have likened the Tea Party movement to neo-Nazis, militias and even Weather Underground terrorists… The Obama DHS report is an overarching indictment of conservatives. "Right-wing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures," the assessment warns… 

The report relies on the work of the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center to stir anxiety over "disgruntled military veterans" – a citation that gives us valuable insight into how DHS will define "hate-oriented" groups. The SPLC, you see, has designated the venerable American Legion a "hate group" for its stance on immigration enforcement. The report offers zero data, but states with an almost resentful attitude toward protected free speech: "Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent."

"Potential to turn violent"? So did the hysterical fervor whipped up by Capitol Hill over the AIG bonuses, which prompted ugly death threats from across the country. No mention here, though. Not "right wing" enough. Nor will you see Obama DHS warnings to police and sheriff’s departments about … the mob activists of ACORN who have committed burglary, stormed corporate executives’ homes and vowed to conduct "civil disobedience" by "any means necessary" in response to the "current economic and political climate."

If you can redefine dissenting opinion as "hate," you can brand your political opponents as "extremists" – and you can marginalize electoral threats. "Antigovernment"? "Pro-enforcement"? "Disgruntled"? Feeling taxed enough already and "recruiting" and "radicalizing" your friends and neighbors through "chatter on the Internet"?

We are all right-wing extremists now. Welcome to the club.

 The most cheering story that has come out of poor old Britain for a very long time – read more about it here:

LONDON – The British Intelligence agency MI5 used a range of astonishing new weapons in its all-out war against al-Qaida in the north of England, a campaign that succeeded in defusing an alleged terror plot, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The Security Service operation – personally directed by its 50-year-old head, Jonathan Evans, from its newly opened regional headquarters in northwest England – tested for the first time a range of unusual weapons created by its A4 surveillance division.

Some women as old as 70 reportedly wore cameras in their hair, and young mothers with babies had recording equipment in prams.

Both groups underwent a crash course before they became members of the long investigation into the largest campaign plotted by al-Qaida since the London bombings…

(Lucky grannies to have enough hair!)

 From the Drudge Report, this encouraging news:

WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.” 

Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas." 

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government. 

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

 We share Mark Steyn’s admiration of the SEALs:

Amid all the relief for the rescue of Captain Phillips, we shouldn’t overlook the SEALs’skill and economy:

The snipers could see two pirates peering out from the back of the enclosed lifeboat and the third pointing his assault rifle at Phillips. President Barack Obama had cleared them to shoot if the captain faced imminent threat of death.

When the order came to shoot, former SEALs said, the hard part was not the distance – about 75 feet, an easy range for an experienced sniper.

The biggest risk came from the many moving parts: the bobbing lifeboat, the rolling ship, hitting three targets simultaneously in darkness.

With deadly accuracy, the snipers fired their rifles in unison. They killed the pirates with exactly three shots.

Amazing.

It’s easy to take the performance of a professional military for granted, as we do every week in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. But their technical skill has to improve almost in inverse proportion to the faintheartedness of offensive strategy from the political class. When you are, as with piracy and jihad and much else, essentially in permanent reactive mode, your reactions have to be brilliant, every time. Off the Somali coast, they were. But at some point we need a plan for the game.