News Headlines

Time is definitely beginning to slip away.  According to a new report from Israeli military intelligence, Iran has sped up its nuclear development and may have enough nuclear fuel to produce a bomb by the end of this year.

Iran already has a delivery system The Seji-2 missile, a two-stage missile, with a 2,000-kilometer range missile which is powered by solid fuel:

President Obama has said that he wants to give his "out reach" to the Iranian despot at least until the end of the year. It looks as if Ahmadinejad is racing ahead to make that deadline moot:

 Military Intelligence: Countdown to Iranian Nuke Bomb

by Hana Levi Julian

(IsraelNN.com) The head of the IDF Military Intelligence Research Division informed the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Monday that Iran is only one year away from obtaining enough material for a nuclear weapon..

"By the end of the year, Iran may have enough fissile material for their first nuclear bomb," Brigadier-General Yossi Beiditz told the committee during the briefing. He added that Iran is developing its nuclear weaponry at a faster pace than before and that negotiations are unable to halt the process.

"Iran is extremely troubling due to its speed," he said. "It has missiles which can reach Israel. The Iranian clock precedes the international diplomacy clock." He added that for the time being, "The United States is determined to pursue diplomacy" with the Islamic Republic.

The information was not news to IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who had already warned the same committee a week earlier that he was preparing for any possibility.

"Iran continues with its plans," he told the MKs. "Its possession of nuclear weapons could destablize the entire Middle East. There is dialogue between the U.S. and Iran, with the prospects for success doubtful. For us as well, [diplomacy] would be the preferred way to stop [Iran's nuclear development] project. But as the chief of staff, I have to be prepared for any eventuality, and so this is what we are doing,"

While Western military and intelligence officials debated whether Iran has the capability to produce a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile, the Islamic Republic surprised the world last month by launching precisely such a weapon.

The Seji-2 missile, a two-stage missile, reached its intended target, according to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The 2,000-kilometer range missile is powered by solid fuel, and is reported to be a more advanced weapon than the country?"s previous Shihab missile series.

Beiditz told the committee that Hamas is continuing to successfully smuggle arms into Gaza, adding that Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is expecting U.S. President Barack Obama to pressure Israel into making more security concessions.

He also warned that the Hizbullah terrorist group remains a threat to Israel's north as well. "Hizbullah has deployed north and south of the Litani with missiles that can reach deep into Israel," he said.

Its deployment is a direct violation of United Nations Resolution 1701, the ceasefire agreement which ended the 2006 Second Lebanon War.The Litani River, located 12 miles from the Israel's northern border, was to be a marker point below which Hizbullah terrorists were not allowed to re-group.

The U.N. Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) were deployed in a buffer zone that was to be free of "any armed personnel" -- both Hizbullah terrorists and IDF soldiers -- between the river and the U.N.-drawn Blue Line in the southern sector of the country. The agreement also calls for "no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its governPlease email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.

Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

Howard Kurtz previews a two-part prime-time series -- Inside the Obama White House -- airing on NBC tomorrow and Wednesday "that so far has produced 150 hours of tape.

Said host Brian Williams: "There's stuff we've never seen of how the White House operates. We were pretty stunned at how much we were able to record and how natural events seemed to be."

Personal income increased $58.2 billion, or 0.5 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI)

increased $121.8 billion, or 1.1 percent, in�April, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) decreased $5.4 billion, or 0.1 percent. In March,

personal income decreased $25.9 billion, or 0.2 percent, DPI increased $8.2 billion, or 0.1

percent, and PCE decreased $33.0 billion, or 0.3 percent, based on revised estimates. The pattern of

changes in income reflect, in part, the pattern of reduced personal current taxes and increased

government social benefit payments associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

A presidential proclamation marking Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month.

Available in full after the jump.

"If anyone has an urge to kill someone at an abortion clinic, they should shoot me. ... It's madness. It discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It's madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing." - John Cardinal O'Connor.

I just received this following email from a woman that I cannot figure out if she is for real or she was trying to be funny! You decide. I guess Ms Harrison got the latest copy of the Globe while standing in line at the checkout line!

From: Carol Harrison
To: minnman0926@aol.com
Subject: your 'blog'
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 5:46 pm

What President Obama 'did' when he was younger or didn't do, is irrelevant. If the White House knew what you were doing, trying to put out speculation about him being 'gay' and the spin the WH is putting out on him, you'd be hung, drawn & quartered and I'd be right there helping someone do it. 'Bloggers' like yourself, Larry Sinclair, are a dime a dozen and unlike some, I chose not to ignore your absurdities regarding President Obama's sexuality, rather....what's in this for you, except your 15 minutes of "Net"/'blogger' fame!!

Copyright 2009 by Larry Sinclair/larrysinclair.org/larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/LarrySinclair0926.com and Larry SinclairBarackObama.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Just last week, Denver Post and Reason.com columnist David Harsanyi asked, "Is The Abortion Debate Changing?" Based on a recent Gallup Poll, which found that a majority of Americans considered themselves "pro-life" for the first time since the question started being asked in 1995, Harsanyi suggested "that Americans are getting past the politics and into the morality of the issue" after decades of legalized abortion. And, he argued, the morality of abortion is a lot more complicated than most pro- or anti-abortion slogans let on.

Earlier today, in response to killing of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, Jacob Sullum asked why anti-abortion activists rushed to condemn the death of a man who by their own accounts was slaughtering innocents. Jacob understands why the activists might say that, but argues that it's really a tactical response: That they need to distance themselves from murderous extremists.

So what do Reason readers think? Will the killing of George Tiller push more Americans to identify as pro-life? Or will it push voters in the other direction? Does it matter that Tiller was known for doing late-term abortions, which are statistically rare but gruesome?

You go back to that Gallup Poll and one thing sticks out on the basic question of whether abortion should be legal under some circumstances: Since 1976, the percentage answering yes has been around 50 percent or higher (there are a few years where it dipped into the high 40s). That is, it's been pretty stable at or around a majority number.

And the percentage of people saying abortion should be illegal under all circumstances has rarely cracked the 20 percent figure (though it has again in recent years). Similarly, the percentage saying abortion should be legal under all circumstances, which peaked at 34 percent in the early 1990s, has always been a minority position (which currently stands at 22 percent and has been dropping lately).

I suspect that as abortion becomes rarer (as Reason's Ron Bailey pointed out in 2006, abortion has been getting rarer since the 1990s and also occurs earlier in pregnancies than before), it's quite possible that the either/or positions might change, but that their movement will have little effect on the middle position of abortion staying legal under some circumstances. Even those, such as Harsanyi, who is plainly troubled by the logic of abortion, generally concede that prohibition would cause more problems than it would fix ("I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the number of abortions.").

Back in 2003, on the occasion of Roe v. Wade's 30th anniversary, I argued that regarding abortion the country had reached a consensus that

has little to do with morality per se, much less with enforcing a single standard of morality. It's about a workable, pragmatic compromise that allows people to live their lives on their own terms and peaceably argue for their point of view....

This isn't to say that the debate about abortion is "over"-or that laws governing the specifics of abortion won't continue to change over time in ways that bother ardent pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. But taking a longer view, it does seem as if the extremes of the abortion debate - extremes that included incendiary language (including calls for the murder of abortion providers) - have largely subsided in the wake of a widely accepted consensus. Part of this is surely due to the massive increases in reproduction technologies that allow women far more control over all aspects of their bodies (even as some of those technologies challenge conventional definitions of human life).

That isn't an outcome that is particularly satisfying to activists on either side of the issue or to people who want something approaching rational analysis in public policy. But it's still where we're at and it's unlikely the Tiller case will do much to move things one way or the other. The one thing that would likely change it would be if there was a massive shift toward later-term abortions, which seems unlikely based on long-term trendlines and technological innovations.