Monday, November 28, 2011

Judicial gerrymandering‏ in Texas

A very interesting post from http://www.empowertexans.com/   about the new congressional districts in Texas being redrawn so that the new seats favor the Democratic party in a Republican state. This follows this post about forced unionism. This follows this previous article about encouraging American energy independence. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran  and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

Judicial gerrymandering‏



We just thought the battle over Texas’ legislative lines was finished!


Attorney General Greg Abbott has asked the US Supreme Court for an emergency stay on the arbitrary maps handed down by a three-judge federal panel in San Antonio right before Thanksgiving.
 BLOGGER'S NOTE: CONTACT GREG ABBOTT HERE: greg.abbott@oag.state.tx.us





EmpowerTexans.com “Around Texas” writer Michele Samuelson noted last night that it will be US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reviewing Mr. Abbott’s request.



As you know, the responsibility for the drawing of representational maps rests with the legislatures of the several states, not federal judges. The federal courts, when only absolutely necessary, should make only the bare minimum of changes to rectify clear violations of law.



Instead, the court re-drew the maps for the Texas House, Texas Senate and US House. One judge dissented from his colleagues' version of the Texas House map, describing as going beyond what is “legal, practical, or fair.”



That's putting it mildly. The maps they ordered are a lesson in judicially-mandated gerrymandering; the radical changes they are imposing on the state’s political landscape is nothing short of shocking.



(Practically, the judicial activism exhibited by these federal district judges has plunged all of us into a new world of election law. Remember, filing for office has already been delayed. When ordering the new maps right before Thanksgiving, they set tomorrow -- Monday, the 28th -- as the new opening for filing. If a stay is granted by the Supreme Court, filing would necessarily be delayed further as yet new maps are prepared.)




State Rep. Larry Taylor, who serves as chairman of the Texas House Republican Caucus, this past week sent a strongly worded letter to the A.G. saying he and other lawmakers are fully supportive” of fighting the “dramatic overreach” of the federal judges. Taylor described the wholesale re-write as thwarting “the will of Texas voters” and representing a “significant blow” to our “democratic form of government.”



In Michele Samuelson’s words, we today must count on the Supreme Court to force back this “egregious case of judicial activism.”



It's the responsibility of the courts, Attorney General Abbott noted in his request for a stay, "to apply the law, not to make policy."



What liberals have been unsuccessful in achieving at the ballot box in Texas, they have managed to find a federal court willing to force upon us. Using these court-imposed lines without a fight would be a farce and a disgrace, essentially disenfranchising every Texan while altering the state’s policy outcomes for a decade or longer.



Mr. Abbott’s decision to vigorously fight the imposition of the federal judges’ maps is the correct one.



For Texas,

Michael Quinn Sullivan

& the http://www.empowertexans.com/ team!

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Thanksgiving: What's Really Behind the Turkey and Stuffing?

An interesting article from www.ucg.org about the U.S. Thanksgiving. This follows this post about the Super Committee's failure. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.


Thanksgiving: What's Really Behind the Turkey and Stuffing?


A commentary by Randy D'Alessandro




Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving proclamation during the depths of the Civil War gives fresh insights into the real meaning of Thanksgiving.



When you think of Thanksgiving, what thoughts come to mind? Perhaps you envision the enjoyment of your family around the dinner table and all that accompanies that scene: the laughter and love, the delicious meal with all the trimmings and, perhaps, a football game or two on TV.



America is the most affluent nation that the world has ever seen. Consider just one fact to illustrate this point: America's gross domestic product accounts for close to a quarter of the world total!



Source of blessings?

Question: Can we Americans really take credit for all of the blessings that we have come to enjoy? Are these blessings simply a result of our hard work, our risk taking, our ingenuity? Are we Americans the architect of this greatness? Could there be another power behind the scenes that we truly should give thanks to for the lifestyles that we enjoy today?



During one of the greatest conflicts that the United States has ever faced, the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln was moved to proclaim a day of Thanksgiving. Please note where his emphasis lay in making that proclamation:



"The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God...



"No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens" (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 6, edited by Roy P. Basler, emphasis added).



Abraham Lincoln's comment bears repeating: "No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God…"



Challenging questions

During this season of giving thanks, let's ask challenging questions about why America has been so blessed. Questions such as:



•Why has this nation been so favorably blessed over the nations that have preceded us in history?

•If, as President Lincoln states, our blessings have come from the hand of "the Most High God," does the Bible have anything to say about the United States in prophecy?

•Does it make any sense that the Bible would discuss, in detail, smaller nations with limited international impact and not discuss the mightiest nation that has ever been?

•If the Bible does discuss the United States of America, what does it have to say regarding our future?





People are continually seeking "inside information" regarding the future. God's Word, the Bible, does discuss in great detail the future of the United States. These prophecies will have a tremendous impact on your life and the life of your loved ones.



Shouldn't you take the time to investigate what God says about your future? This investigation will not cost you much—just some of your time. The rewards of this investigation will produce great benefits for you and your family.



The United Church of God, an International Association has a booklet that is available to you free of charge titled The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy. This booklet will give you the reason this nation has risen to greatness and why it is that we can truly give "thanks" on Thanksgiving Day.



Just as important, this booklet will give you valuable insights into what the future holds for you and your family. Shouldn't you take the opportunity to investigate what God says He has in mind for your future?

.

Gingrich 'compassion' for illegal aliens based on non-enforcement he helped create‏

An urgent post from http://www.numbersusa.com/  about Newt Gingrich's weak position on immigration enforcement. This follows this previous post about it. This follows this post about the Presidential Candidate strongest on immigration.  This follows this post  about Louisiana suing about the appropriations of House Seats and the Electoral College(think about redistricting in your state)!   This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants such as the 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

And Remember when contacting public officials to please be firm but respectful. Any over the top messages could result in law enforcement action against you. Just let these politicians know that you are aware of what they have done and that you intend to remove them from office in the 2012 elections.


Gingrich 'compassion' for illegal aliens based on non-enforcement he helped create‏


WHAT DID GINGRICH BOMBSHELL


IN LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE MEAN?



Gingrich's Leadership in 1996 Helped Ensure that Illegal Aliens Could Sink Deeper Roots in the U.S.



----------------

(You can join the discussion about this analysis at:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/november-23-2011/gingrich-shows-compassion-illegal-aliens-he-helped-stay-rooted-us.ht  )

----------------



The mainstream news media is filled with awe that Newt Gingrich showed some "compassion" for illegal aliens in last night's GOP presidential debate. A look at his record while in Congress shows this is nothing new.



In fact, Gingrich's leadership in Congress is one of the reasons we have so many illegal aliens today who have been able to stay in this country for 25 years.



That's the supreme irony of Gingrich's pro-amnesty remarks in last night's debate. The man who helped ensure that illegal aliens from the 1980s and 1990s are still here in 2011 asked voters last night to consider the inhumanity of making illegal aliens leave this country after they have sunk such long roots here.



If, while Speaker of the House in the 1990s, Gingrich had shown any leadership in stopping illegal immigration, there would be very few illegal aliens still here from the 1980s and 1990s because they wouldn't have been able to hold payroll jobs.



Nobody pushed him last night to take a pro-amnesty stand. He volunteered it! By focusing on long-term illegal aliens, he took a big risk that the media spotlight (or at least the internet and talk radio spotlight) would shine on his long-term record with those illegal aliens.



What the spotlight will find is that Gingrich worked with Big Business lobbyists to make sure that employers could continue to hire illegal workers, and thus sink roots that would be used by pro-amnesty politicians to justify legalizing them today.



We hear the same arguments from the National Council of La Raza, from the ACLU, from the National Immigration Forum -- all of them cite the lack of past enforcement (which they impeded at every turn) as having allowed illegal aliens to sink such long roots that it would be unjust to make them go home now.



Gingrich reaffirmed his support for some legalizations several times last night. Here is his first comment:



"If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out."

-- Newt Gingrich



He went on to indicate that he would give them permanent legal residency and permanent work permits, but not U.S. citizenship. He and his supporters in the media say it isn't amnesty if the illegal aliens don't get citizenship. I suppose that is supposed to make the unemployed American who is left without a job feel better.



ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WOULD NOT BE A TOPIC IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES IF SPEAKER GINGRICH IN 1996 HAD TAKEN DIFFERENT IMMIGRATION POSITIONS



The political stars were in alignment in 1995-96 when the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (appointed by the Senate and the House, and chaired by Barbara Jordan) issued its recommendations to protect vulnerable American workers. The immigration subcommittees of both House and Senate quickly presented legislation to carry out the recommendations to cut legal immigration in half and to stop illegal immigration, primarily by removing the jobs magnet.



As Speaker of the House, Gingrich was in the pivotal position to help Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith push through the 1996 comprehensive bill that set up the verification program that eventually was named "E-Verify."



The Commission had found that illegal immigration was booming in the 10 years since the 1986 blanket amnesty because illegal aliens had found it was still easy to obtain and keep U.S. jobs.



What did Speaker Gingrich do?



Those of us involved in that fight know that we were constantly and desperately seeking support from Gingrich which didn't come.



Instead, Gingrich tried to kill the new job verification system entirely. Fortunately, the killer amendment he supported failed. No thanks to Gingrich, we have an E-Verify system today.



But the E-Verify system is entirely VOLUNTARY today because of another House vote which Gingrich won. That vote was to make sure that the verification system would NOT be MANDATORY for employers.



The nation's Big Business lobbies deemed it essential that employers maintain the ability to cheat the paper verification system and hire illegal workers. Speaker Gingrich saw to it that the ability continued.



I am heartsick every time I think of that lost opportunity in 1996. If Speaker Gingrich had thrown his considerable talents and power behind the bi-partisan recommendations and supported Lamar Smith, most of the illegal aliens who arrived since then would not have bothered. And most of the illegal aliens who arrived before 1996 -- with less than 10 years of roots in this country -- would have gone back home.



Illegal immigration would not be topic of the 2012 Presidential debates.



And we would not be in a nationwide fight right now to support Rep. Lamar Smith once again (this time as chair of the Judiciary Committee) in yet another attempt to pass a mandatory verification bill (H.R. 2885). Nor would we see states across the country passing their own immigration enforcement laws -- because the number of illegal aliens would be so small.



PREFERENCE FOR FOREIGN WORKERS OVER AMERICAN WORKERS NOTHING NEW -- GINGRICH EARNED IMMIGRATION GRADE OF 'D' WHILE IN CONGRESS



NumbersUSA is the nation's top source on records of Members of Congress on immigration since 1989.



Here's the link to our report card on Gingrich's activities on 10 areas of immigration issues:



http://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/217/reportcard



You will see that he got excellent grades on Border issues and on denying taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens.



But he was terrible on everything else.



On the issue of amnesty, Gingrich acknowledged last night that he voted for the 1986 blanket amnesty which he says was a failure.



But during the 1990s, he showed no signs of learning from the 1986 amnesty failure. Congress passed several more smaller amnesties during the 1990s, primarily hiding them in other bills. Although we find only one instance of Gingrich casting a vote on those amnesties (in favor), we find no sign of Gingrich ever working against them or using his Speakership to stop them.



Despite that record, NumbersUSA earlier upgraded Gingrich's Presidential Grade Card rating on amnesty from "Bad" to "Unhelpful" based on public statements this year. We have been prepared to improve his ratings further if he makes more specific promises.



Our Presidential ratings are not tied totally to past records. What we are most interested in are public promises made during the campaign. Hardly any candidates have totally clean hands on the immigration issue in the past. Nearly all of them have favored corporate lobbyists and foreign workers over American workers and taxpayers at some time. But some have made dramatic improvements in their stances.



GINGRICH LEGALIZATION EXAMPLE WAS VERY NARROW --

WHY DID HE BRING IT UP?



Gingrich appeared to taunt Primary voters with the idea that they would lack compassion if they didn't agree with giving some kind of legalization to long-term illegal aliens. It was a bold move on his part, given than he is well aware that Texas Gov. Rick Perry plummeted in the polls after a debate comment that people have no compassion if they don't agree with in-state tuition for young illegal aliens.



Perhaps Gingrich will retreat under attack and note that he was talking about a tiny sliver of the population. After all, how many illegal aliens with families have been here 25 years or more? Not many. Does this mean he wouldn't give his legalization to illegal aliens who have been here 15 years? Or 24 years? Where's the cut-off?



I hope Gingrich does retreat. But his reference to a Krieble Foundation proposal suggests that he is thinking about far more than just 25-year illegal aliens.



"The Krieble Foundation has a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone."

-- Newt Gingrich



Krieble has been peddling this idea for years. You may remember conservative darling Rep. Mike Pence from Indiana who a few years ago proposed a type of amnesty that knocked him off his pedestal. That proposal came from Krieble.



Basically, Krieble believes the country has huge labor shortage issues and that the reason we have so many illegal aliens is that we don't provide enough legal ways for foreign workers to get here.



Krieble would allow most illegal aliens to get work visas with various rules, but not citizenship that would allow them to vote for Democrats.



Here's the promotional page for the red cards:



http://www.krieble.org/frequently-asked-questions





Michelle Bachmann in the debate kept calling Gingrich's proposal an amnesty for most of the 11 million illegal aliens. Gingrich kept protesting that he wasn't talking about everybody. But his reference to Krieble raises big doubts.



The CNN moderator pressed Mitt Romney more than once to acknowledge that Gingrich was right to show compassion to his narrowly defined group of church-going illegal aliens.



Romney maintained a consistency he has shown through all the debates of rejecting any talk of amnesty now.



"Look, amnesty is a magnet. What when we have had in the past, programs that have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that's going to only encourage more people to come here illegally."

-- Mitt Romney



Pressed further if he was saying that Gingrich's compassion is really about amnesty, Romney responded:



"There's no question. But to say that we're going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you're all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing. People respond to incentives. And if you can become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you'll do so."

-- Romney



But wouldn't you let the family-loving, church-going illegal aliens who have been here 25 years stay, Romney was asked again.



"I'm not going to start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who gets to go. The principle is that we are not going to have an amnesty system that says that people who come here illegally get to stay for the rest of their life in this country legally."

-- Romney



Romney went on to say that it was inappropriate in a debate to be sending signals to illegal aliens that certain of them should be rewarded for breaking the law.



Nonetheless, Romney and all the rest of the candidates failed to make the point that the reason illegal immigration must be reversed is to protect American workers and taxpayers.



That void led to a bunch of careless comments by Romney, Santorum and Gingrich about the country's need for highly-skilled immigrants -- indicating that they haven't looked at the unemployment rates for under-30 college grads, or that they don't care.



And that leads to the worst part of Gingrich's attempt to distinguish himself from the other candidates last night. He has rarely acknowledged that immigration policy has any effect on American workers.



To be fair, Gingrich has a mixed record on illegal immigration (despite the terrible blot on his E-Verify record described above). Dr. James Edwards, who wrote a book on the 1996 legislative battle, agrees with my assessment of Gingrich on matters of workplace verification. However, Edwards says that in the Conference Committee where Gingrich was wrestling with the White House, he stood his ground and kept the Clinton Administration from stripping out a number of non-workplace-related enforcement measures against illegal immigration.



In fact, Gingrich earlier this year came out in support of mandatory E-Verify. We have changed his Presidential E-Verify rating from "Abysmal" to "Excellent."



But if Gingrich is going to use some Krieble-type legalization to give most current illegal aliens work permits -- and if he is going to greatly expand guestworker programs for even more foreign workers -- mandatory E-Verify would not end up protecting many jobs for Americans.



During the 1990s on immigration issues, Gingrich represented the interests of the national Republican Establishment. That Establishment was fully behind the Bush amnesty attempts in 2006 and 2007. And that Republican Establishment is advising Republican congressional leaders and candidates today to stay away from anything that would like the bi-partisan immigration legislation of 1996 that would make immigration policy serve the needs and interests of Americans -- especially the most vulnerable of Americans.



Gingrich's salvo last night looks like an appeal for the Republican Establishment's support with hopes that the grassroots won't punish him.

Echo Your Support for the Keystone XL Pipeline: Secure, North American Energy

A very interesting post from http://www.redstate.com/ about al-Jazeera and Green Peace opposing domestic energy independence. This follows this post about al-Jazeera and Green Peace opposing domestic energy independence. This follows this previous article about encouraging American energy independence. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran  and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book  HERE!

You can also write your two Senators about the Keystone XL pipeline HERE!

Echo Your Support for the Keystone XL Pipeline: Secure, North American Energy






In the face of high prices at the fuel pump and global events that threaten oil supply, the United States has the opportunity to actually do something about it. The Keystone XL pipeline, which will carry 700,000 barrels of oil per day from our ally, Canada, as well as from the Dakotas, Montana, and Oklahoma to Gulf Coast refineries, will mean greater national security, a stable fuel supply, and economic growth in the US.







Before this vital project can proceed, the Department of State must issue a Presidential Permit to allow the pipeline to cross from Canada into the United States. After years of environment review, the Department of State concluded that no significant issues exist that should prohibit this project from moving forward. Now, the Department needs to hear why this project is in the nation’s best interest – the final step in the permit’s review process.







Take Action: Please write Secretary Clinton and tell her that increased energy security and economic growth are clearly good things for this country. The Administration must grant the President Permit as expeditiously as possible so Americans can realize these tremendous benefits.







More information on how Keystone XL will fuel the American economic recovery and bolster American energy security while safeguarding our environment can be found here.

Egypt: Tens of thousands throng to Tahrir Square as Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacist groups rally

A very interesting post from http://www.jihadwatch.org/ about Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. This follows this post about Iran becoming the dominant power in the Middle East. This follows this post about Mexico's cartels meddling in Central America on their Southern border, as the government of Mexico meddles in the country on their Northern border.This follows this article about  American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book

HERE!

Egypt: Tens of thousands throng to Tahrir Square as Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacist groups rally


This is the "Arab Spring" uprising that Barack Obama so enthusiastically endorsed. There will be no flowering of freedom and democracy; there will be an Islamic state.



I tried to tell you. More on this story. "Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist groups rally in Egypt's Tahrir Square," by Kristen Chick for The Christian Science Monitor, November 18:



Tens of thousands of Egyptians returned to Tahrir Square today to demand a quick transition to civilian rule. In a show of strength against the military junta's attempt to hold on to power, they challenged the military's ground rules for the new constitution and called for presidential elections by April 2012 – nearly a year earlier than the military's timeline.

The protest was called by the Muslim Brotherhood and other conservative Islamist groups, and the majority of the protesters appeared to be from Islamist groups. But enough Egyptians of all persuasions showed up that the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) will find it hard to ignore or dismiss their demands....



Many protesters held signs that read “One demand: the transfer of power.” But in a reminder of the deep divisions that could complicate the transition, followers of a conservative strain of Islam, known as salafis, also waved religious banners and shouted, “the Quran is our constitution.” Some protesters complained that salafis had jeopardized the united front against military rule by introducing a religious agenda off-putting to liberals and secularists....



The Muslim Brotherhood, confident that it will gain a strong position in parliament through elections scheduled to start Nov. 28, and eager to play a large role in writing the next constitution, rejected the document and called for the protest in a showdown with the military council.



Liberals, secularists face choice: Military or Islamists?



Many liberal and secular parties also rejected the military’s grasp at power. But they are also wary of Islamist groups, and worry that those groups will restrict freedoms if they have a large role in writing the constitution....





No kidding, really?



Some liberal and leftist party leaders and candidates say they are willing to put up with a larger-than-desirable role for the military in politics rather than rule by Islamists. Others refuse.

“I, as a Muslim, am afraid of the salafis. But I can’t say that the alternative is to approve of military rule,” said Hadeel Khater as she held signs against the military rule in Tahrir. “If a salafi comes to power through democracy, we can vote him out in the next election. But if a military dictator comes, there is no way to get him out."





Good luck getting the salafis out, Hadeel.

Posted by Robert

Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East

A very interesting post from http://www.stratfor.com/ about Iran becoming the dominant power in the Middle East. This follows this post about Mexico's cartels meddling in Central America on their Southern border, as the government of Mexico meddles in the country on their Northern border.This follows this article about  American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE


Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East


By George Friedman



U.S. troops are in the process of completing their withdrawal from Iraq by the end-of-2011 deadline. We are now moving toward a reckoning with the consequences. The reckoning concerns the potential for a massive shift in the balance of power in the region, with Iran moving from a fairly marginal power to potentially a dominant power. As the process unfolds, the United States and Israel are making countermoves. We have discussed all of this extensively. Questions remain whether these countermoves will stabilize the region and whether or how far Iran will go in its response.



Iran has been preparing for the U.S. withdrawal. While it is unreasonable simply to say that Iran will dominate Iraq, it is fair to say Tehran will have tremendous influence in Baghdad to the point of being able to block Iraqi initiatives Iran opposes. This influence will increase as the U.S. withdrawal concludes and it becomes clear there will be no sudden reversal in the withdrawal policy. Iraqi politicians’ calculus must account for the nearness of Iranian power and the increasing distance and irrelevance of American power.



Resisting Iran under these conditions likely would prove ineffective and dangerous. Some, like the Kurds, believe they have guarantees from the Americans and that substantial investment in Kurdish oil by American companies means those commitments will be honored. A look at the map, however, shows how difficult it would be for the United States to do so. The Baghdad regime has arrested Sunni leaders while the Shia, not all of whom are pro-Iranian by any means, know the price of overenthusiastic resistance.





Syria and Iran



The situation in Syria complicates all of this. The minority Alawite sect has dominated the Syrian government since 1970, when the current president’s father — who headed the Syrian air force — staged a coup. The Alawites are a heterodox Muslim sect related to a Shiite offshoot and make up about 7 percent of the country’s population, which is mostly Sunni. The new Alawite government was Nasserite in nature, meaning it was secular, socialist and built around the military. When Islam rose as a political force in the Arab world, the Syrians — alienated from the Sadat regime in Egypt — saw Iran as a bulwark. The Iranian Islamist regime gave the Syrian secular regime immunity against Shiite fundamentalists in Lebanon. The Iranians also gave Syria support in its external adventures in Lebanon, and more important, in its suppression of Syria’s Sunni majority.



Syria and Iran were particularly aligned in Lebanon. In the early 1980s, after the Khomeini revolution, the Iranians sought to increase their influence in the Islamic world by supporting radical Shiite forces. Hezbollah was one of these. Syria had invaded Lebanon in 1975 on behalf of the Christians and opposed the Palestine Liberation Organization, to give you a sense of the complexity. Syria regarded Lebanon as historically part of Syria, and sought to assert its influence over it. Via Iran, Hezbollah became an instrument of Syrian power in Lebanon.



Iran and Syria, therefore, entered a long-term if not altogether stable alliance that has lasted to this day. In the current unrest in Syria, the Saudis and Turks in addition to the Americans all have been hostile to the regime of President Bashar al Assad. Iran is the one country that on the whole has remained supportive of the current Syrian government.



There is good reason for this. Prior to the uprising, the precise relationship between Syria and Iran was variable. Syria was able to act autonomously in its dealings with Iran and Iran’s proxies in Lebanon. While an important backer of groups like Hezbollah, the al Assad regime in many ways checked Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon, with the Syrians playing the dominant role there. The Syrian uprising has put the al Assad regime on the defensive, however, making it more interested in a firm, stable relationship with Iran. Damascus finds itself isolated in the Sunni world, with Turkey and the Arab League against it. Iran — and intriguingly, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — have constituted al Assad’s exterior support.



Thus far al Assad has resisted his enemies. Though some mid- to low-ranking Sunnis have defected, his military remains largely intact; this is because the Alawites control key units. Events in Libya drove home to an embattled Syrian leadership — and even to some of its adversaries within the military — the consequences of losing. The military has held together, and an unarmed or poorly armed populace, no matter how large, cannot defeat an intact military force. The key for those who would see al Assad fall is to divide the military.



If al Assad survives — and at the moment, wishful thinking by outsiders aside, he is surviving — Iran will be the big winner. If Iraq falls under substantial Iranian influence, and the al Assad regime — isolated from most countries but supported by Tehran — survives in Syria, then Iran could emerge with a sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean (the latter via Hezbollah). Achieving this would not require deploying Iranian conventional forces — al Assad’s survival alone would suffice. However, the prospect of a Syrian regime beholden to Iran would open up the possibility of the westward deployment of Iranian forces, and that possibility alone would have significant repercussions.







(click here to enlarge image)

Consider the map were this sphere of influence to exist. The northern borders of Saudi Arabia and Jordan would abut this sphere, as would Turkey’s southern border. It remains unclear, of course, just how well Iran could manage this sphere, e.g., what type of force it could project into it. Maps alone will not provide an understanding of the problem. But they do point to the problem. And the problem is the potential — not certain — creation of a block under Iranian influence that would cut through a huge swath of strategic territory.



It should be remembered that in addition to Iran’s covert network of militant proxies, Iran’s conventional forces are substantial. While they could not confront U.S. armored divisions and survive, there are no U.S. armored divisions on the ground between Iran and Lebanon. Iran’s ability to bring sufficient force to bear in such a sphere increases the risks to the Saudis in particular. Iran’s goal is to increase the risk such that Saudi Arabia would calculate that accommodation is more prudent than resistance. Changing the map can help achieve this.



It follows that those frightened by this prospect — the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — would seek to stymie it. At present, the place to block it no longer is Iraq, where Iran already has the upper hand. Instead, it is Syria. And the key move in Syria is to do everything possible to bring about al Assad’s overthrow.



In the last week, the Syrian unrest appeared to take on a new dimension. Until recently, the most significant opposition activity appeared to be outside of Syria, with much of the resistance reported in the media coming from externally based opposition groups. The degree of effective opposition was never clear. Certainly, the Sunni majority opposes and hates the al Assad regime. But opposition and emotion do not bring down a regime consisting of men fighting for their lives. And it wasn’t clear that the resistance was as strong as the outside propaganda claimed.



Last week, however, the Free Syrian Army — a group of Sunni defectors operating out of Turkey and Lebanon — claimed defectors carried out organized attacks on government facilities, ranging from an air force intelligence facility (a particularly sensitive point given the history of the regime) to Baath Party buildings in the greater Damascus area. These were not the first attacks claimed by the FSA, but they were heavily propagandized in the past week. Most significant about the attacks is that, while small-scale and likely exaggerated, they revealed that at least some defectors were willing to fight instead of defecting and staying in Turkey or Lebanon.



It is interesting that an apparent increase in activity from armed activists — or the introduction of new forces — occurred at the same time relations between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other were deteriorating. The deterioration began with charges that an Iranian covert operation to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States had been uncovered, followed by allegations by the Bahraini government of Iranian operatives organizing attacks in Bahrain. It proceeded to an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s progress toward a nuclear device, followed by the Nov. 19 explosion at an Iranian missile facility that the Israelis have not-so-quietly hinted was their work. Whether any of these are true, the psychological pressure on Iran is building and appears to be orchestrated.



Of all the players in this game, Israel’s position is the most complex. Israel has had a decent, albeit covert, working relationship with the Syrians going back to their mutual hostility toward Yasser Arafat. For Israel, Syria has been the devil they know. The idea of a Sunni government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood on their northeastern frontier was frightening; they preferred al Assad. But given the shift in the regional balance of power, the Israeli view is also changing. The Sunni Islamist threat has weakened in the past decade relative to the Iranian Shiite threat. Playing things forward, the threat of a hostile Sunni force in Syria is less worrisome than an emboldened Iranian presence on Israel’s northern frontier. This explains why the architects of Israel’s foreign policy, such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, have been saying that we are seeing an “acceleration toward the end of the regime.” Regardless of its preferred outcome, Israel cannot influence events inside Syria. Instead, Israel is adjusting to a reality where the threat of Iran reshaping the politics of the region has become paramount.



Iran is, of course, used to psychological campaigns. We continue to believe that while Iran might be close to a nuclear device that could explode underground under carefully controlled conditions, its ability to create a stable, robust nuclear weapon that could function outside a laboratory setting (which is what an underground test is) is a ways off. This includes being able to load a fragile experimental system on a delivery vehicle and expecting it to explode. It might. It might not. It might even be intercepted and create a casus belli for a counterstrike.



The main Iranian threat is not nuclear. It might become so, but even without nuclear weapons, Iran remains a threat. The current escalation originated in the American decision to withdraw from Iraq and was intensified by events in Syria. If Iran abandoned its nuclear program tomorrow, the situation would remain as complex. Iran has the upper hand, and the United States, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia all are looking at how to turn the tables.



At this point, they appear to be following a two-pronged strategy: Increase pressure on Iran to make it recalculate its vulnerability, and bring down the Syrian government to limit the consequences of Iranian influence in Iraq. Whether the Syrian regime can be brought down is problematic. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi would have survived if NATO hadn’t intervened. NATO could intervene in Syria, but Syria is more complex than Libya. Moreover, a second NATO attack on an Arab state designed to change its government would have unintended consequences, no matter how much the Arabs fear the Iranians at the moment. Wars are unpredictable; they are not the first option.



Therefore the likely solution is covert support for the Sunni opposition funneled through Lebanon and possibly Turkey and Jordan. It will be interesting to see if the Turks participate. Far more interesting will be seeing whether this works. Syrian intelligence has penetrated its Sunni opposition effectively for decades. Mounting a secret campaign against the regime would be difficult, and its success by no means assured. Still, that is the next move.



But it is not the last move. To put Iran back into its box, something must be done about the Iraqi political situation. Given the U.S. withdrawal, Washington has little influence there. All of the relationships the United States built were predicated on American power protecting the relationships. With the Americans gone, the foundation of those relationships dissolves. And even with Syria, the balance of power is shifting.



The United States has three choices. Accept the evolution and try to live with what emerges. Attempt to make a deal with Iran — a very painful and costly one. Or go to war. The first assumes Washington can live with what emerges. The second depends on whether Iran is interested in dealing with the United States. The third depends on having enough power to wage a war and to absorb Iran’s retaliatory strikes, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz. All are dubious, so toppling al Assad is critical. It changes the game and the momentum. But even that is enormously difficult and laden with risks.



We are now in the final act of Iraq, and it is even more painful than imagined. Laying this alongside the European crisis makes the idea of a systemic crisis in the global system very real.







Read more: Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East
STRATFOR
 

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR, at the beginning or end of the report.



"Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East is republished with permission of STRATFOR."







Read more: Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East
STRATFOR

Newt Sells Out in Debate!!!!!

An urgent post from http://www.vdare.com/ about Newt Gingrich's weak position on immigration enforcement. This follows this post about immigration enforcement at a local level. This follows this post about the Presidential Candidate strongest on immigration.  This follows this post  about Louisiana suing about the appropriations of House Seats and the Electoral College(think about redistricting in your state)!   This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants such as the 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

And Remember when contacting public officials to please be firm but respectful. Any over the top messages could result in law enforcement action against you. Just let these politicians know that you are aware of what they have done and that you intend to remove them from office in the 2012 elections.





GOP Debate: Gingrich Bids For Illegal Immigrant, Cheap Labor Vote

http://www.vdare.com/posts/gop-debate-gingrich-bids-for-illegal-immigrant-cheap-labor-vote

By Patrick Cleburne  on November 23, 2011

In the CNN GOP debate this evening Newt Gingrich stayed loyal to his paymasters, trying to camouflage with tear-jerking his acceptance of Amnesty and explicitly supporting large scale cheap labor importation via the “Red card” scam. He had kind words for “Dream Act” loopholing too.



"GINGRICH: If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.

The Creeble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone…in the DREAM Act, the one part that I like is the one which allows people who came here with their parents to join the U.S. military, which they could have done if they were back home, and if they serve on it with the U.S. military to acquire citizenship, which is something any foreigner can do.

And I don't see any reason to punish somebody who came here at three years of age, but who wants to serve the United States of America."





CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL PART IV: 21:30-22:00, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY DEBATE

(“Creeble is a mistranscription for Krieble.)

Behind the sob story tactic, Gingrich is clearly signaling his acceptance of the Obama Administrative Amnesty – and abandoning any pretence of intending to enforce the law. Both the life style and slave soldier test are of course capable of infinite expansion and susceptible to loose enforcement.

Helen Krieble’s scheme to import cheap labor has really caught (actually, bought) the fancy of the Republican Establishment. Kreible herself, as Peter Brimelow has noted, is willing to close the Birthright Citizenship loophole to get it. But Gingrich and his peers never mention this, enthusiastically Hispandering instead. VDARE.com conclusion: other big donors want a new  people



As initially with Perry, the bulk of the GOP electorate simply does not know how bad Gingrich is on this subject. Maybe they will catch on. Less closely policed than the US MSM, the U.K news service Reuters this evening thought so. Analysis: Gingrich's stumble on immigration? By Steve Holland Nov 22, 2011:



"The former speaker of the House of Representatives was sailing along confidently at a CNN-sponsored debate on Tuesday…But toward the end of the two-hour debate, Gingrich declared himself in favor of a comprehensive immigration overhaul that would include a guest-worker program for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States…to the conservatives who tend to vote in the Republican presidential primary races, the loquacious Gingrich may have talked himself into a corner….

"There is a professional cottage industry that exists within the conservative universe that is intensely focused on the details of this issue, and Newt for better or for worse walked squarely into a hornet's nest," said Republican strategist Phil Musser."



VDARE.com comment: BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!