Women's Rights in Iran
Let's takes a real hard look at Islam in general and Iran in particular concerning womens rights. When the radical muslims took over Iran in 1979 they instituted the following:
*The country's progressive family laws were suspended,
*Disallowed female judges,
*Strongly enforced the wearing of the hijab,
*Lowered the marriage age to nine,
*Gave fathers the right to decide who their daughters could marry,
*Permitted unilateral divorce for men but not for women,
*And gave fathers sole custody of children in case of divorce.
Overall, Iran's theocracy has been a disaster on multiple fronts, including women's rights. And I cannot even speak about the ghastly deaths homosexuals face in Iran daily. And yet most leftist in America fear a Christian theocratic takeover of the government; an absurdity as most Christians just want to be left alone and not have left-wing viewpoints shoved down their throats. People need to wake up and realize how dangerous muslims really are. And if muslims are getting bad press, it's because they are causing it themselves. Hell, muslims cannot get along with any of their neighbors: they attack Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and Jews in every country they share them with. And it is not a modern occurrence; look up Arab muslims in northern Sudan attacking black Christians in southern Sudan in the 1970s for example.
Just so you know.....
The Idaho and Washington Spat: Real ID
States are rebelling against a new federal regulation that requires US citizens to have a federally approved ID card. The Real ID Act directs all states to recertify driver's license and identification card holders.
The compliance date is May 11, 2008. While the Act does not contain penalties for states that reuse to comply, citizens without an officially sanctioned ID will face bureaucratic snafus whenever they travel by plane, apply for government services, or open a bank account. The new cards store information digitally, including name, address, birth date, sex, ID number, and a digital photograph. Six states--Idaho, New Hampshire, Washington, Montana, Arkansas, and Maine--have informed the federal government that they will not comply with Real ID.
What surprised me is that both conservative Idaho and ultra-liberal Washington state are refusing compliance, and I know exactly why these two diametrically opposed states are doing it. Idaho has a long-term distrust of the federal government and too many times Idaho citizens have been killed by botched "operations" and reckless federal agents who shoot women with a baby in her arms (ie Randy Weaver). Idaho has opposed federal interference in its affairs due to federal Constitutional restraints that the federal government is ignoring (ie states rights). Washington state however is opposing Real ID for a totally different reason. One of the so-called "open secrets" in the West is that Washington state gives drivers licenses to any illegal immigrant that asks, without any background check whatsoever. Washington is just in it for the money, so if say, 30% of all its drivers licenses were found to be faulty, Olympia would have no recourse other than to revoke those licenses. Enormous numbers of illegal Mexicans briefly leave California and come to Washington state to get a drivers license, which California has to recognize due to the full faith clause in the Constitution (article 4).
I am personally not for a federal ID card. It's un-Constitutional (tramples on states rights) and un-American (you won't be able to travel or open a bank account without one). I do understand that the federal government is trying to crack down on false IDs that states unwittingly give to terrorists (10 of the 16 hijackers on 911 had legal drivers licenses) but the Real ID goes way too far, and scarily sounds like the Biblical 666 Mark of the Beast too boot (you cannot buy or sell without one). EEK!
US Unilaterally Eases Tensions with North Korea
Two weeks ago the MSM (now known as the Lamestream Media to us bloggers ;) made a big deal of the so-called spat between President Bush and the South Korean President during the APEC Summit in Indonesia. There was no news there, however the real news is the radical redeployment of US troops in South Korea away from the DMZ and far to the rear near Pusan and Taegu. For decades now US military forces were poised on the border with North Korea, mainly for use as a "trip-wire" defense, meaning that North Korean forces would have to attack US forces if they wanted to invade our democratic ally, South Korea. While this sort of defense posture is questionable at best (nearly 40,000 artillery pieces have been moved forward by NK forces and are within range of our troops) a massive change in strategy by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield is being put into practice. Three fundamental reasons were discussed before this change in military posture was implemented: it was critical to get the US troops out of range of North Korean artillery, moving the forces back provides a defense-in-depth and US forces wouldn't be overrun in the first few hours of a North Korean attack, and finally it had a similar goal of easing tension along the DMZ with the movement of tens of thousands of troops away from the front lines, signaling to the government in Pyongyang that the USA was not going to sneak attack North Korea anytime soon, especially with its main forces hundreds of miles to the rear. Overall, this is the best thing that has come out of Donald Rumsfield tour as SecDef, and will be a stabilizing move on the Korean Peninsula.