Thursday, May 14, 2009
Media Elitists Conspire to Topple Palin
The dirty little secret that the media elite keeps denying … or perhaps ignoring because it’s difficult to deny it … is finally being told by one of their own. Mika Brzezinski, who is co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” has “outed” his peers at the New York Times and other mainstream media sources by accusing them of conspiring to bring Sarah Palin “down” … without even knowing who she was or what she stood for. In other words, they’re not reporting the news … they’re spinning their stories to support the left.
Brzezinski recently stated that “They did not know her. They didn’t know anything about her. But they wanted to bring her down ... this is what they knew about her: She was a woman, she was pro-life, and she had some very, very conservative views on other issues …”
And Brzezinski should know. “Let me make this clear, because this is my world and these are the people I’ve worked with for twenty years.”
But, he’s not the only one to finally confirm what many have known all along. Host Joe Scarborough supported Brzezinski by saying that, as a citizen who happens to be employed by the media, it might be permissible to support a politician, but you can’t do it publicly if you “pretend to be a journalist. You have to be dispassionate about what you do. You have to be disconnected. Sadly, many in the media cannot do that because they have fallen so deeply in love with Obama.”
The truly frightening thing about this is that it confirms that the mainstream media isn’t objective. They don’t report the news. They create it … by ignoring various newsworthy items … by spinning other incidents … and by framing their stories in such a way that they support liberal positions and deprecate conservative stances. And, by doing so, they construct a societal framework that is both out of touch with many of the principles and concepts on which this country was founded and that manipulatively steers the country in directions that it should not pursue. And, at the same time, they call themselves journalists.
They are, in actuality, writers of science fiction.
Brzezinski recently stated that “They did not know her. They didn’t know anything about her. But they wanted to bring her down ... this is what they knew about her: She was a woman, she was pro-life, and she had some very, very conservative views on other issues …”
And Brzezinski should know. “Let me make this clear, because this is my world and these are the people I’ve worked with for twenty years.”
But, he’s not the only one to finally confirm what many have known all along. Host Joe Scarborough supported Brzezinski by saying that, as a citizen who happens to be employed by the media, it might be permissible to support a politician, but you can’t do it publicly if you “pretend to be a journalist. You have to be dispassionate about what you do. You have to be disconnected. Sadly, many in the media cannot do that because they have fallen so deeply in love with Obama.”
The truly frightening thing about this is that it confirms that the mainstream media isn’t objective. They don’t report the news. They create it … by ignoring various newsworthy items … by spinning other incidents … and by framing their stories in such a way that they support liberal positions and deprecate conservative stances. And, by doing so, they construct a societal framework that is both out of touch with many of the principles and concepts on which this country was founded and that manipulatively steers the country in directions that it should not pursue. And, at the same time, they call themselves journalists.
They are, in actuality, writers of science fiction.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Obama Appointees Defending Terrorists
For all that George W. Bush has been derided for by Barack Obama, at least he and others in his administration wanted to defend American citizens. Obama, on the other hand, appears to be more interested in defending terrorists.
In a recent interview, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, “When you look at the Obama administration, (a) number of attorneys they have appointed … were defending alleged terrorists. Holder’s (the US Attorney General) firm has 17 alleged terrorists that they’re representing on a pro bono basis, for no fee. It’s the largest single thing they were doing for free … defending Yemenis. I think there are five different attorneys in … the Justice Department appointed by Obama who … were defending alleged terrorists.”
Nothing like putting the patients in charge of the asylum.
What has Bush done in response? Absolutely nothing. He has politely … if perhaps naively … kept his opinions to himself and let Obama be President. He has taken a noble stance, quite unlike Obama who took every opportunity to skewer former Vice-President Dick Cheney at last Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
“Dick Cheney was supposed to be here but he is very busy working on his memoirs, tentatively titled ‘How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People.”
Real funny, Mr. President. Glad you and your mainstream media cronies get a kick out of acting so unprofessionally. Where I come from, that behavior is unacceptable. But, then again, I didn’t come from the Chicago political machine.
Can you imagine what the uproar would have been from the media and the left, had a conservative impaled Mr. Obama or Bill Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid in such a manner?
“Nancy Pelosi was supposed to be here, but when she forgot about being thoroughly briefed on enhanced interrogation methods being used on captured enemy combatants, she also forgot where this dinner was being held.”
The howls of protest would have been heard from the ACLU office in New York all the way to ACORN’s San Francisco bureau.
So, we have a President who, on one hand, has taken people who have been involved in defending accused terrorists and appointed them to positions of authority in the Justice Department … and who, on the other, gives himself permission to act in a very un-Presidential way toward a former Vice-President who was very much engaged in defending American citizens from terrorist attacks. The duplicity is astounding.
Obama commented during his inauguration speech that we should “put aside childish things.” Apparently Pelosi isn’t the only one with memory problems.
In a recent interview, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, “When you look at the Obama administration, (a) number of attorneys they have appointed … were defending alleged terrorists. Holder’s (the US Attorney General) firm has 17 alleged terrorists that they’re representing on a pro bono basis, for no fee. It’s the largest single thing they were doing for free … defending Yemenis. I think there are five different attorneys in … the Justice Department appointed by Obama who … were defending alleged terrorists.”
Nothing like putting the patients in charge of the asylum.
What has Bush done in response? Absolutely nothing. He has politely … if perhaps naively … kept his opinions to himself and let Obama be President. He has taken a noble stance, quite unlike Obama who took every opportunity to skewer former Vice-President Dick Cheney at last Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
“Dick Cheney was supposed to be here but he is very busy working on his memoirs, tentatively titled ‘How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People.”
Real funny, Mr. President. Glad you and your mainstream media cronies get a kick out of acting so unprofessionally. Where I come from, that behavior is unacceptable. But, then again, I didn’t come from the Chicago political machine.
Can you imagine what the uproar would have been from the media and the left, had a conservative impaled Mr. Obama or Bill Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid in such a manner?
“Nancy Pelosi was supposed to be here, but when she forgot about being thoroughly briefed on enhanced interrogation methods being used on captured enemy combatants, she also forgot where this dinner was being held.”
The howls of protest would have been heard from the ACLU office in New York all the way to ACORN’s San Francisco bureau.
So, we have a President who, on one hand, has taken people who have been involved in defending accused terrorists and appointed them to positions of authority in the Justice Department … and who, on the other, gives himself permission to act in a very un-Presidential way toward a former Vice-President who was very much engaged in defending American citizens from terrorist attacks. The duplicity is astounding.
Obama commented during his inauguration speech that we should “put aside childish things.” Apparently Pelosi isn’t the only one with memory problems.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Is Obama Pursuing Appeasement?
Mr. Obama’s recent forages into international diplomacy have rightly raised some eyebrows. From bowing to Saudi leadership to having a good-natured, back-slapping conversation with socialist and avowed America hater Hugo Chavez to “reaching out” to the dictatorship in Cuba, Obama has caused many to wonder publicly whether he’s pursuing a strategy of appeasement. The question is appropriate considering Obama’s rookie senator status, his lack of experience in and knowledge of international affairs and his blatant leftist leanings.
The problem is that appeasement has never and will never work. Look no further than the classic example of Neville Chamberlain.
A more current illustration is the situation in Pakistan where the government sought to placate the resurgent Taliban by allowing them to implement the extremist Sharia Islamic law in the Swat Valley. Once again … an attempt at appeasement gone horribly wrong.
Recently, a day after moving into a village saying that they had come to bring peace, a group of Taliban pulled a policeman out of a truck and tried to slit his throat. Villagers interceded, risking their own lives in successfully rescuing the policeman. But the incident only further reinforced what they had known about the Taliban all along. And now, a witness of the incident said, “The people (are) filled with great rage, and great fear.”
Apparently the Taliban’s methods for “bringing peace” also include locking women in their homes, setting donkeys on fire, publicly flogging women without trials, burning houses and fields and using villagers as human shields against government forces.
Villagers, fleeing the valley in huge numbers – some 500,000 by last count – are increasingly frustrated with the government response to the Taliban. They see a vacillating effort to both mollify and fight the terrorists and wonder why a more aggressive stance hasn’t been taken. One villager wondered out loud why Pakistan’s powerful army hadn’t been used to defeat the terrorists before they consumed the entire valley. “People in Swat are angry and confused, because the government is reaching out to the Taliban and fighting them at the same time.”
The pursuit of peace should never be forsaken. But common-sense and the lessons of history should never be sacrificed in that pursuit. It is a cold and harsh fact that the forces of darkness cannot be reasoned with or trusted. They must be stood against … quarantined … and eliminated.
Read your history books, Mr. Obama.
The problem is that appeasement has never and will never work. Look no further than the classic example of Neville Chamberlain.
A more current illustration is the situation in Pakistan where the government sought to placate the resurgent Taliban by allowing them to implement the extremist Sharia Islamic law in the Swat Valley. Once again … an attempt at appeasement gone horribly wrong.
Recently, a day after moving into a village saying that they had come to bring peace, a group of Taliban pulled a policeman out of a truck and tried to slit his throat. Villagers interceded, risking their own lives in successfully rescuing the policeman. But the incident only further reinforced what they had known about the Taliban all along. And now, a witness of the incident said, “The people (are) filled with great rage, and great fear.”
Apparently the Taliban’s methods for “bringing peace” also include locking women in their homes, setting donkeys on fire, publicly flogging women without trials, burning houses and fields and using villagers as human shields against government forces.
Villagers, fleeing the valley in huge numbers – some 500,000 by last count – are increasingly frustrated with the government response to the Taliban. They see a vacillating effort to both mollify and fight the terrorists and wonder why a more aggressive stance hasn’t been taken. One villager wondered out loud why Pakistan’s powerful army hadn’t been used to defeat the terrorists before they consumed the entire valley. “People in Swat are angry and confused, because the government is reaching out to the Taliban and fighting them at the same time.”
The pursuit of peace should never be forsaken. But common-sense and the lessons of history should never be sacrificed in that pursuit. It is a cold and harsh fact that the forces of darkness cannot be reasoned with or trusted. They must be stood against … quarantined … and eliminated.
Read your history books, Mr. Obama.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Nancy Pelosi's Lies
The chickens may have come home to roost for Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi has long maintained that she knew nothing of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by Bush administration officials for extracting valuable information from captured enemy combatants such as Abu Zubaydah. As you recall, President Obama refers to these techniques, including waterboarding, as “torture” even though they have saved countless thousands of innocent American lives (which is another story in itself).
The farthest Pelosi has gone is to assert that she was told only that the administration had legal opinions that could support the use of the techniques. That’s pretty selective and convenient memory, but probably understandable considering her bosses vehement (and misplaced) disapproval of the techniques. Her exact words, in fact, are as follows. “In that or any other briefing … we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions that they could be used, but not that they would.”
Unfortunately for her, it appears that a Washington Post story published way back in 2007 refuting Pelosi’s position is now supported by a report prepared by the office of the Director of National Intelligence. The 2007 Post story quoted two officials who said Pelosi and three other lawmakers were thoroughly briefed on the tactics and they raised no objections.
The new 10-page Office of National Intelligence report, delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday supports the Post’s story and completely refutes Pelosi’s position that she knew nothing about the use of the techniques. And, even more damaging for Democrats, the report further describes 40 meetings with Senate and Congressional members that detailed the use of the tactics. These members included Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who had then become the top ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
You may recall that Pelosi is (or should we now say was) helping lead the charge to put an independent commission in place to investigate officials and lawyers who were complicit in the process of either tacitly or blatantly supporting the techniques. That might become problematic for her now that she herself has been implicated.
Of course, Pelosi has been “unavailable” for comment on the issue.
It is very likely that the Obama administration knew about Pelosi’s duplicity all along … which is why they’ve had to walk a tightrope on the issue … hoping against hope that the truth would never come out. At first, there was no talk of prosecution for officials involved in drafting the legal opinions on the techniques. But, having already taken the strong stand against the tactics by calling them “torture”, Obama found himself in a bind. How could he so rail against these tactics and not follow through on his position and take action against those who recommended and implemented them? So, talk about potential prosecutions began to surface. But, wait! How could they prosecute those individuals when members of Obama’s own party, including Pelosi, knew about their use and raised no objections? No, that wouldn’t do. So, now the strategy is to pressure the state bar associations to take disciplinary action against two of the three attorneys involved in the drafting of the legal briefings.
So, there you have it. Once again, the liberals have gotten caught in their own trap - trying to demonize conservatives on issues that they themselves were involved in. Americans should be outraged at the duplicity and disingenuous behavior on the part of Pelosi and other Democrats who are trying to pawn off their own responsibilities onto conservatives.
But, then again, most Americans may never know enough to make the connections. I don’t expect to hear much about Pelosi’s cover-up from Charlie Gibson or George Stephanopoulus on the mainstream media’s evening news.
Pelosi has long maintained that she knew nothing of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by Bush administration officials for extracting valuable information from captured enemy combatants such as Abu Zubaydah. As you recall, President Obama refers to these techniques, including waterboarding, as “torture” even though they have saved countless thousands of innocent American lives (which is another story in itself).
The farthest Pelosi has gone is to assert that she was told only that the administration had legal opinions that could support the use of the techniques. That’s pretty selective and convenient memory, but probably understandable considering her bosses vehement (and misplaced) disapproval of the techniques. Her exact words, in fact, are as follows. “In that or any other briefing … we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions that they could be used, but not that they would.”
Unfortunately for her, it appears that a Washington Post story published way back in 2007 refuting Pelosi’s position is now supported by a report prepared by the office of the Director of National Intelligence. The 2007 Post story quoted two officials who said Pelosi and three other lawmakers were thoroughly briefed on the tactics and they raised no objections.
The new 10-page Office of National Intelligence report, delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday supports the Post’s story and completely refutes Pelosi’s position that she knew nothing about the use of the techniques. And, even more damaging for Democrats, the report further describes 40 meetings with Senate and Congressional members that detailed the use of the tactics. These members included Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who had then become the top ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
You may recall that Pelosi is (or should we now say was) helping lead the charge to put an independent commission in place to investigate officials and lawyers who were complicit in the process of either tacitly or blatantly supporting the techniques. That might become problematic for her now that she herself has been implicated.
Of course, Pelosi has been “unavailable” for comment on the issue.
It is very likely that the Obama administration knew about Pelosi’s duplicity all along … which is why they’ve had to walk a tightrope on the issue … hoping against hope that the truth would never come out. At first, there was no talk of prosecution for officials involved in drafting the legal opinions on the techniques. But, having already taken the strong stand against the tactics by calling them “torture”, Obama found himself in a bind. How could he so rail against these tactics and not follow through on his position and take action against those who recommended and implemented them? So, talk about potential prosecutions began to surface. But, wait! How could they prosecute those individuals when members of Obama’s own party, including Pelosi, knew about their use and raised no objections? No, that wouldn’t do. So, now the strategy is to pressure the state bar associations to take disciplinary action against two of the three attorneys involved in the drafting of the legal briefings.
So, there you have it. Once again, the liberals have gotten caught in their own trap - trying to demonize conservatives on issues that they themselves were involved in. Americans should be outraged at the duplicity and disingenuous behavior on the part of Pelosi and other Democrats who are trying to pawn off their own responsibilities onto conservatives.
But, then again, most Americans may never know enough to make the connections. I don’t expect to hear much about Pelosi’s cover-up from Charlie Gibson or George Stephanopoulus on the mainstream media’s evening news.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Obama's Supreme Court Nominee
Please excuse the bits of spittle spraying out of the corners of my mouth and the blood squirting out of my eyes as I write this entry on Obama’s possible nomination of a woman who has practical political experience to the United States Supreme Court.
Oh yes, you heard me right. People like Democratic Senators Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy are leading the push for someone who they apparently want to have more political experience than judicial background.
God help us.
They want a politician on the Supreme Court … another activist judge who can legislate from the bench rather than a constructionist who can accurately and reliably interpret Constitutional law and apply it to, as Readers Digest puts it, “life here in the United States.”
Reid commented recently that “I personally would like to see us get away from (the idea that) you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice. It would be good if we could get a governor, (if) we could get a senator or a former senator. People with some real-life experiences for a while, rather than people who walk around in these black robes all the time.”
As if people with judicial backgrounds don’t live real lives and are completely disconnected from the world as we know it. What a back-handed elitist comment and a slap in the face to judges of every ilk.
Of course, Leahy, who is tied to Reid’s political hip, followed up with, “I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience.”
Do these guys read from the same teleprompter or what?!
By their definition, why don’t we just get a plumber … or an electrician … or a taxi-driver … or a baker … or a musician … or a biology teacher for the position. These folks have real-life experience. They’re down in the trenches every day, working for a living, buying groceries with coupons, helping their kids with homework, making car payments, saving for college, fretting about retirement and struggling to write checks for mortgages, utility bills and taxes. They worry about their kid’s grades ... and drugs in the schools ... and illegal immigration. They’re “sandwiched” between care for their children and care for their parents. They’re concerned about crime creeping into their neighborhoods. And, by the way, they don’t have the sweet compensation, benefit and retirement deals that fat cat governors and senators have. They don’t “walk around in black robes all the time.” They haven’t been in the “judicial monastery.”
I can tell you why. It’s because Reid and Leahy don’t want someone to interpret the law in a reliable fashion. They want someone who can legislate from the bench. And who best to do that than a politician cut from their cloth. Judicial credentials don’t matter. Let’s just get someone in there who can do their bidding. The hell with Constitutional integrity. It’s more important to them to advance their own political agendas.
But, then again, why should any of this surprise us. David Yalof, Supreme Court scholar and the author of “Pursuit of Justices” notes that “Personal acquaintanceship or friendship was perhaps the dominant consideration in the selection of justices by Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson and it was an important consideration for both FDR and Kennedy. By contrast, recent presidents … (Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush) have been willing to abandon friendship as a criteria in favor of ideological criteria.”
Translated that means that Democratic Presidents have looked at friendship as being the important criteria for eligibility while Republican Presidents have relied on ideology, i.e., principles, for their criteria. One side wants to legislate from the bench to advance their particular brand of politics while the other would prefer to have someone on the bench who can dependably interpret constitutionally based precedent as it applies to cases that come before them.
Frankly, it shouldn’t matter if a person is male or female, black, white, brown, purple, green or yellow. All that counts is their ability to dependably interpret Constitutional law.
You have to admit, though, their strategy is well developed. What they can’t pass in terms of legislation through Congress and the Senate – both of which they now control – they can cram down our throats by way of activist judges.
But America will be cheapened and weakened by their actions … and they should be ashamed.
Oh yes, you heard me right. People like Democratic Senators Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy are leading the push for someone who they apparently want to have more political experience than judicial background.
God help us.
They want a politician on the Supreme Court … another activist judge who can legislate from the bench rather than a constructionist who can accurately and reliably interpret Constitutional law and apply it to, as Readers Digest puts it, “life here in the United States.”
Reid commented recently that “I personally would like to see us get away from (the idea that) you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice. It would be good if we could get a governor, (if) we could get a senator or a former senator. People with some real-life experiences for a while, rather than people who walk around in these black robes all the time.”
As if people with judicial backgrounds don’t live real lives and are completely disconnected from the world as we know it. What a back-handed elitist comment and a slap in the face to judges of every ilk.
Of course, Leahy, who is tied to Reid’s political hip, followed up with, “I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience.”
Do these guys read from the same teleprompter or what?!
By their definition, why don’t we just get a plumber … or an electrician … or a taxi-driver … or a baker … or a musician … or a biology teacher for the position. These folks have real-life experience. They’re down in the trenches every day, working for a living, buying groceries with coupons, helping their kids with homework, making car payments, saving for college, fretting about retirement and struggling to write checks for mortgages, utility bills and taxes. They worry about their kid’s grades ... and drugs in the schools ... and illegal immigration. They’re “sandwiched” between care for their children and care for their parents. They’re concerned about crime creeping into their neighborhoods. And, by the way, they don’t have the sweet compensation, benefit and retirement deals that fat cat governors and senators have. They don’t “walk around in black robes all the time.” They haven’t been in the “judicial monastery.”
I can tell you why. It’s because Reid and Leahy don’t want someone to interpret the law in a reliable fashion. They want someone who can legislate from the bench. And who best to do that than a politician cut from their cloth. Judicial credentials don’t matter. Let’s just get someone in there who can do their bidding. The hell with Constitutional integrity. It’s more important to them to advance their own political agendas.
But, then again, why should any of this surprise us. David Yalof, Supreme Court scholar and the author of “Pursuit of Justices” notes that “Personal acquaintanceship or friendship was perhaps the dominant consideration in the selection of justices by Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson and it was an important consideration for both FDR and Kennedy. By contrast, recent presidents … (Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush) have been willing to abandon friendship as a criteria in favor of ideological criteria.”
Translated that means that Democratic Presidents have looked at friendship as being the important criteria for eligibility while Republican Presidents have relied on ideology, i.e., principles, for their criteria. One side wants to legislate from the bench to advance their particular brand of politics while the other would prefer to have someone on the bench who can dependably interpret constitutionally based precedent as it applies to cases that come before them.
Frankly, it shouldn’t matter if a person is male or female, black, white, brown, purple, green or yellow. All that counts is their ability to dependably interpret Constitutional law.
You have to admit, though, their strategy is well developed. What they can’t pass in terms of legislation through Congress and the Senate – both of which they now control – they can cram down our throats by way of activist judges.
But America will be cheapened and weakened by their actions … and they should be ashamed.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Liberal U.S. States are Least Free
A recent study by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center has confirmed what many of us have always known … the most liberal US states offer the lowest levels of personal freedom.
This will hit many people as counterintuitive because the mainstream media has, for years, painted liberals as the champions of freedom and personal rights of all kinds. In reality, however, that was just a sales job. The fact is that the liberal philosophy is much more closely aligned to socialism and all the regulation, elitism and centralized governmental control entailed therein.
That is why the authors correctly explain that the problem with liberalism “is that the cultural values of liberal governments … require more regulation of individual behavior than do the cultural values of conservative governments.”
According to the report, the freest states have low taxes, controlled government spending and minimal levels of regulatory oversight and paternalism. Sadly, the least free states “make up a substantial portion of the total American population” because states such as California and New York are included on that list.
Interestingly, the authors note that “We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual’s ability to do the same.”
Sounds remarkably like Constitutional verbage.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Illinois is one of the nastiest states to live in if you belief in personal freedoms. And we now have a son of that state in the White House.
The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/free_states_study/2009/05/06/211385.html
This will hit many people as counterintuitive because the mainstream media has, for years, painted liberals as the champions of freedom and personal rights of all kinds. In reality, however, that was just a sales job. The fact is that the liberal philosophy is much more closely aligned to socialism and all the regulation, elitism and centralized governmental control entailed therein.
That is why the authors correctly explain that the problem with liberalism “is that the cultural values of liberal governments … require more regulation of individual behavior than do the cultural values of conservative governments.”
According to the report, the freest states have low taxes, controlled government spending and minimal levels of regulatory oversight and paternalism. Sadly, the least free states “make up a substantial portion of the total American population” because states such as California and New York are included on that list.
Interestingly, the authors note that “We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual’s ability to do the same.”
Sounds remarkably like Constitutional verbage.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Illinois is one of the nastiest states to live in if you belief in personal freedoms. And we now have a son of that state in the White House.
The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/free_states_study/2009/05/06/211385.html
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Discrimination Against Tea Party Organizer
It seems that the city council in Quincy, Illinois is taking a page right out of the book on Chicago politics.
Steve McQueen, an organizer of the Quincy Tea Party held on April 15th, made a written request to speak at the city’s recently approved $31.2 million budget and on their new water and sewer rate increases.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, all seven Democrats on the council denied McQueen’s request. By the way, all six Republicans voted to allow him to speak. The majority, however, prevailed and McQueen was effectively silenced.
Dumbfounded, McQueen commented that “Freedom of speech was not the issue I came to talk about, but it is the issue I left with.”
After the roll call vote, Mike Farha (R-4th Ward) said publicly that he had never seen anybody denied the right to speak to the council and he had been on the council for ten years. He concluded by calling the vote “outrageous.”
But Democratic Alderman Steve Duesterhaus (D-2nd Ward) tried to justify the majority’s actions by stating, “A point of order here. This is an incidental motion and is not subject to debate.”
Which is just what the Democrats on the council wanted – no debate on their actions and certainly no free speech comments on the tax increases by someone who – GASP – participated in the April 15th Tea Parties. As if questioning the tax increases was somehow unpatriotic … when, in reality, it is the core of patriotism.
And now these same Chicago politics are in the White House.
Steve McQueen, an organizer of the Quincy Tea Party held on April 15th, made a written request to speak at the city’s recently approved $31.2 million budget and on their new water and sewer rate increases.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, all seven Democrats on the council denied McQueen’s request. By the way, all six Republicans voted to allow him to speak. The majority, however, prevailed and McQueen was effectively silenced.
Dumbfounded, McQueen commented that “Freedom of speech was not the issue I came to talk about, but it is the issue I left with.”
After the roll call vote, Mike Farha (R-4th Ward) said publicly that he had never seen anybody denied the right to speak to the council and he had been on the council for ten years. He concluded by calling the vote “outrageous.”
But Democratic Alderman Steve Duesterhaus (D-2nd Ward) tried to justify the majority’s actions by stating, “A point of order here. This is an incidental motion and is not subject to debate.”
Which is just what the Democrats on the council wanted – no debate on their actions and certainly no free speech comments on the tax increases by someone who – GASP – participated in the April 15th Tea Parties. As if questioning the tax increases was somehow unpatriotic … when, in reality, it is the core of patriotism.
And now these same Chicago politics are in the White House.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Excuse me, Justice Stephens … what is it that you don’t understand about the founding fathers intent on the 2nd amendment?
Supreme Court Dissent on the 2nd Amendment
In June, 2008, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of Americans – outlined under the 2nd Amendment – to own guns for self-defense and hunting. The 5-4 vote, however, meant that victory for people who are concerned about their safety and the safety of their families was a very narrow one, indeed.
As writer for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia rightly said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
As writer for the dissenting group, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
The crucial point that Scalia understands and Stevens doesn’t is that government can effectively strip Americans of their rights absent boneheaded Supreme Court decisions or the declaration of martial law. They simply over-regulate them out of existence. They wouldn’t have to ban free speech, for example. They could just make the “Fairness doctrine” or “Equal Time Rule” law. Or, if you want to organize a Pro-Life gathering in a public place, they could require an application process that is so complicated, involved and convoluted that it’s nearly impossible to comply with.
And that’s exactly Steven’s point. It was a liberal's attempt to end-run the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It might be politically difficult to completely upend the 2nd Amendment. But the dissenting justices were trying to make it so difficult to own a firearm for self-defense or hunting purposes that it would essentially equate to an overturning of the amendment itself. And that is the real danger of having activist judges on the bench. They legislate on social issues rather than making decisions based on established law.
The historical precedent for the 2nd amendment is clear. There is absolutely no doubt that the founding fathers clearly intended for ordinary citizens to have the right to possess firearms and have them readily available for service for the purpose of self-defense. Consider these few statements:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." Zachariah Johnson Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2, Article on the Bill of Rights.
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State."
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington, First President of the United States.
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry, American Patriot.
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States.
So, you have to ask yourself … what is it about the founding fathers intent that the dissenters on the Supreme Court don’t understand?
As writer for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia rightly said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
As writer for the dissenting group, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
The crucial point that Scalia understands and Stevens doesn’t is that government can effectively strip Americans of their rights absent boneheaded Supreme Court decisions or the declaration of martial law. They simply over-regulate them out of existence. They wouldn’t have to ban free speech, for example. They could just make the “Fairness doctrine” or “Equal Time Rule” law. Or, if you want to organize a Pro-Life gathering in a public place, they could require an application process that is so complicated, involved and convoluted that it’s nearly impossible to comply with.
And that’s exactly Steven’s point. It was a liberal's attempt to end-run the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It might be politically difficult to completely upend the 2nd Amendment. But the dissenting justices were trying to make it so difficult to own a firearm for self-defense or hunting purposes that it would essentially equate to an overturning of the amendment itself. And that is the real danger of having activist judges on the bench. They legislate on social issues rather than making decisions based on established law.
The historical precedent for the 2nd amendment is clear. There is absolutely no doubt that the founding fathers clearly intended for ordinary citizens to have the right to possess firearms and have them readily available for service for the purpose of self-defense. Consider these few statements:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." Zachariah Johnson Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2, Article on the Bill of Rights.
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State."
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington, First President of the United States.
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry, American Patriot.
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States.
So, you have to ask yourself … what is it about the founding fathers intent that the dissenters on the Supreme Court don’t understand?
Friday, May 1, 2009
It's our spending, stupid.
During the Clinton presidential campaign, one of his campaign advisors was fond of keeping things on point by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
And it still is.
Trouble is, I rarely see any economists inside or outside of the administration getting to the real nut of the problem. Even Jim Jubak, a regular contributor to MSN Money and a guy I really respect and trust, has missed the point in his recent column entitled, “Only 1 Way Out of Big Economic Hole.” http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/only-1-way-out-of-big-economic-hole.aspx
Jubak rightly notes that “Most of the world’s economies … have dug themselves very, very deep holes to end the economic and financial crisis. Strong economic growth, for a decade or so, offers the only comfortable way out of the hole.”
Correct … in as far as he goes.
He goes on to say, “In the U.S., the accumulated deficit is projected to climb to 77% in 2010 from 70% in 2008. How bad is it to carry (that kind of) an accumulated debt that’s 80% … of a country’s entire economy? If you’re the US and own the printing presses that create the world’s reserve currency, you keep your AAA credit rating because the world holds so much of your paper that a downgrade is simply too painful to contemplate. In the United Kingdom, to keep its credibility, the government will have to raise taxes. Already, the government has announced an increase in the top rate to 50% from 40%.”
Jim, Jim, Jim. I know that you’re talking about the short-term here. But let’s not get myopic. You’re missing the entire point.
The US dollar may not be the world’s reserve currency for long. China and other countries are already making rumbles about the fact that we can’t manage our economy – read that as spending – and are no longer willing to buy our long-term Treasuries.
And printing money isn’t the answer, either. Look no further than the Weimer Republic to see what happens when you depend on fiat currency. We’re not going to print our way out of this mess. In fact, as you’ve rightly inferred in your article, the fiat dollars flooding into our economy straight out of the government printing presses will result in runaway inflation down the road a piece.
And increasing taxes, as the Brits will do, isn’t the answer either. What happens when you can’t increase them anymore?
Face it. The market, economy and public are all emotional creatures to a great degree. We want to be reassured. We want to know that sanity prevails. We want to have some confidence that people in charge have some common sense.
And we aren’t and don’t.
So, here’s the three-fold answer that nobody is talking about. Cut taxes, cut spending and keep the government out of the private sector.
Study after study proves that tax revenues actually increase when taxes are cut because economic activity increases.
The root cause of our current mess is that our government spends more than it takes in. Deficits hurt the economy and are not sustainable. Spending can’t exceed income. That will require some hard choices, but Americans have to make those hard choices every day. Controlled spending will send a strong message to the world and to Americans and will restore confidence in the economy.
The government has an absurdly dismal record of program management. Pick any major governmental program and you will find it wasteful, inefficiently managed, bloated and overbudget. As Ronald Reagan said, “The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Do we really want them managing the private sector?
So, there you have it - a common-sense way out of the mess that doesn’t involve throwing money at it. And you have to wonder why nobody’s talking about it seriously.
And it still is.
Trouble is, I rarely see any economists inside or outside of the administration getting to the real nut of the problem. Even Jim Jubak, a regular contributor to MSN Money and a guy I really respect and trust, has missed the point in his recent column entitled, “Only 1 Way Out of Big Economic Hole.” http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/only-1-way-out-of-big-economic-hole.aspx
Jubak rightly notes that “Most of the world’s economies … have dug themselves very, very deep holes to end the economic and financial crisis. Strong economic growth, for a decade or so, offers the only comfortable way out of the hole.”
Correct … in as far as he goes.
He goes on to say, “In the U.S., the accumulated deficit is projected to climb to 77% in 2010 from 70% in 2008. How bad is it to carry (that kind of) an accumulated debt that’s 80% … of a country’s entire economy? If you’re the US and own the printing presses that create the world’s reserve currency, you keep your AAA credit rating because the world holds so much of your paper that a downgrade is simply too painful to contemplate. In the United Kingdom, to keep its credibility, the government will have to raise taxes. Already, the government has announced an increase in the top rate to 50% from 40%.”
Jim, Jim, Jim. I know that you’re talking about the short-term here. But let’s not get myopic. You’re missing the entire point.
The US dollar may not be the world’s reserve currency for long. China and other countries are already making rumbles about the fact that we can’t manage our economy – read that as spending – and are no longer willing to buy our long-term Treasuries.
And printing money isn’t the answer, either. Look no further than the Weimer Republic to see what happens when you depend on fiat currency. We’re not going to print our way out of this mess. In fact, as you’ve rightly inferred in your article, the fiat dollars flooding into our economy straight out of the government printing presses will result in runaway inflation down the road a piece.
And increasing taxes, as the Brits will do, isn’t the answer either. What happens when you can’t increase them anymore?
Face it. The market, economy and public are all emotional creatures to a great degree. We want to be reassured. We want to know that sanity prevails. We want to have some confidence that people in charge have some common sense.
And we aren’t and don’t.
So, here’s the three-fold answer that nobody is talking about. Cut taxes, cut spending and keep the government out of the private sector.
Study after study proves that tax revenues actually increase when taxes are cut because economic activity increases.
The root cause of our current mess is that our government spends more than it takes in. Deficits hurt the economy and are not sustainable. Spending can’t exceed income. That will require some hard choices, but Americans have to make those hard choices every day. Controlled spending will send a strong message to the world and to Americans and will restore confidence in the economy.
The government has an absurdly dismal record of program management. Pick any major governmental program and you will find it wasteful, inefficiently managed, bloated and overbudget. As Ronald Reagan said, “The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Do we really want them managing the private sector?
So, there you have it - a common-sense way out of the mess that doesn’t involve throwing money at it. And you have to wonder why nobody’s talking about it seriously.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Europe Balks at Taking In Cuddly Guantanamo Bay Detainees
The reluctance of European countries to take any of the apparently soon-to-be-released enemy combatants currently housed in the soon-to-be-closed Guantanamo Bay detention facility speaks volumes … both about them and about Obama’s decision to close the facility.
US Attorney General Eric Holder is making a public appeal for help in closing Guantanamo … an action long urged by European leaders. But it seems the same Europeans who have urged the closing have taken a “not in my backyard” position on accepting any of the released detainees into their own countries.
This sentiment is reflected in Czech Interior Minister, Ivan Langer’s statements recently when he said he believed that some European countries will take some of the detainees. But he was also quick to point out that his country would not.
The duplicity of the Europeans in this regard is aggravating. Although advocating for the closure of the facility … ostensibly on the grounds that either 1) the whole premise for the facility violated international law, 2) the detainees were mistreated or 3) that the detainees pose no danger … they refuse to back up their words with actions and accept these little teddy-bear-like detainees into their own countries when they are released.
Could it be that the detainees really do pose a threat? All you have to do to answer that question is to look at Said Ali al-Shihri – who immediately rejoined Al Qaeda upon his release and is now the terrorist group’s number 2 guy in Yemen.
On the one hand, Obama's administration is asking a lot of Europe to help clean up a mess that they themselves created. Guantanamo shouldn't have been closed in the first place. The detainees are dangerous. Now they're asking allies to help mop up the mess. So, I can’t really blame Europe for not wanting any of these guys. I wouldn’t either. But they set themselves up for criticism by urging Guantanamo’s closure out of one side of their mouth, then tacitly acknowledging the very real threat the detainees pose by refusing to embrace them when they are released.
US Attorney General Eric Holder is making a public appeal for help in closing Guantanamo … an action long urged by European leaders. But it seems the same Europeans who have urged the closing have taken a “not in my backyard” position on accepting any of the released detainees into their own countries.
This sentiment is reflected in Czech Interior Minister, Ivan Langer’s statements recently when he said he believed that some European countries will take some of the detainees. But he was also quick to point out that his country would not.
The duplicity of the Europeans in this regard is aggravating. Although advocating for the closure of the facility … ostensibly on the grounds that either 1) the whole premise for the facility violated international law, 2) the detainees were mistreated or 3) that the detainees pose no danger … they refuse to back up their words with actions and accept these little teddy-bear-like detainees into their own countries when they are released.
Could it be that the detainees really do pose a threat? All you have to do to answer that question is to look at Said Ali al-Shihri – who immediately rejoined Al Qaeda upon his release and is now the terrorist group’s number 2 guy in Yemen.
On the one hand, Obama's administration is asking a lot of Europe to help clean up a mess that they themselves created. Guantanamo shouldn't have been closed in the first place. The detainees are dangerous. Now they're asking allies to help mop up the mess. So, I can’t really blame Europe for not wanting any of these guys. I wouldn’t either. But they set themselves up for criticism by urging Guantanamo’s closure out of one side of their mouth, then tacitly acknowledging the very real threat the detainees pose by refusing to embrace them when they are released.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Obama and Political Expediency
The old axiom is “if you want to know a person, watch what they do and not what they say.” That’s not bad advice. And it’s particularly helpful when applied to Washington politics … especially, it seems, the Obama administration.
Let’s take just one example – Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo was fodder for both sides of the political aisle during the last presidential election and beyond. Rush Limbaugh referred to it as “Club Gitmo” … a place where enemy combatants could get their own Koran, prayer rugs and three square meals a day. Many on the other side of the aisle called it an inappropriate detention facility where illegally held, untried individuals were unjustly tortured.
Obama, aligning himself more closely with the latter, used his first executive order to shut down the facility. Or did he?
“ … read the fine print and you'll see that there will still be detainees who never make it into the U.S. justice system. And others who will never return to their home countries because they can't be tried and are too dangerous to release.
“What does this mean? These folks have to be housed somewhere by the U.S. government. It just won't be in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30460145
The painful irony in this issue is that Obama screwed up from every conceivable angle. At least one of those already released from the prison - Said Ali al-Shihri – has rejoined Al Qaeda and is now the terrorist group’s number 2 guy in Yemen. So, Obama has freed terrorists who are trying to kill innocent American lives and topple our government. Strike one.
He decries the conditions of the facility, the treatment of the combatants and questions the authority of the US government to detain and hold them. So, he orders it closed. But, wait … he issues the order to have it closed before, as his senior adviser Dennis McDonough inferred after the November election, “there is (a) process in place to make that decision ...” What McDonough was referring to is “what do we do with these guys once the facility is closed?!” Strike two.
And in telegraphing to the American people that he’s opposed to the concept and operation of the facility, he goes ahead and closes it … but not really. What we’re really talking about here is a reshuffling of the combatants to other facilities. Strike three.
In the movie Big Jake, John Wayne played an aging cowboy whose grandson is kidnapped by desperados who then demand a ransom. Wayne agrees to meet the bad guys to swap the boy for the money. And during the tense meeting, he says to the leader of the outlaws … "Anything goes wrong … anything at all … your fault … my fault … nobody's fault … I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off."
You see, it all boils down to credibility … which, in this administration, is slipping away quickly.
Let’s take just one example – Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo was fodder for both sides of the political aisle during the last presidential election and beyond. Rush Limbaugh referred to it as “Club Gitmo” … a place where enemy combatants could get their own Koran, prayer rugs and three square meals a day. Many on the other side of the aisle called it an inappropriate detention facility where illegally held, untried individuals were unjustly tortured.
Obama, aligning himself more closely with the latter, used his first executive order to shut down the facility. Or did he?
“ … read the fine print and you'll see that there will still be detainees who never make it into the U.S. justice system. And others who will never return to their home countries because they can't be tried and are too dangerous to release.
“What does this mean? These folks have to be housed somewhere by the U.S. government. It just won't be in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30460145
The painful irony in this issue is that Obama screwed up from every conceivable angle. At least one of those already released from the prison - Said Ali al-Shihri – has rejoined Al Qaeda and is now the terrorist group’s number 2 guy in Yemen. So, Obama has freed terrorists who are trying to kill innocent American lives and topple our government. Strike one.
He decries the conditions of the facility, the treatment of the combatants and questions the authority of the US government to detain and hold them. So, he orders it closed. But, wait … he issues the order to have it closed before, as his senior adviser Dennis McDonough inferred after the November election, “there is (a) process in place to make that decision ...” What McDonough was referring to is “what do we do with these guys once the facility is closed?!” Strike two.
And in telegraphing to the American people that he’s opposed to the concept and operation of the facility, he goes ahead and closes it … but not really. What we’re really talking about here is a reshuffling of the combatants to other facilities. Strike three.
In the movie Big Jake, John Wayne played an aging cowboy whose grandson is kidnapped by desperados who then demand a ransom. Wayne agrees to meet the bad guys to swap the boy for the money. And during the tense meeting, he says to the leader of the outlaws … "Anything goes wrong … anything at all … your fault … my fault … nobody's fault … I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off."
You see, it all boils down to credibility … which, in this administration, is slipping away quickly.
Monday, April 27, 2009
McCain Throws Cheney Under the Bus
On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” former Presidential contender John McCain publicly disagreed with Dick Cheney that classified memos supporting the fact that harsh interrogation methods since outlawed by President Obama produced high value information should be released. When asked whether those memos should be declassified and made available to the public, McCain responded, "No, I don't think it's necessary, to be honest with you."
And, my friends, that in a nutshell, is why the Republicans lost the Presidency last fall. Although the better choice between two evils, John McCain simply did not represent the common-sense, conservative core that characterized, say, the Reagan presidency.
For crying-out-loud, even the New York Times – America’s premier liberal news outlet – admitted last week that Dennis Blair, Obama’s national intelligence director, penned a private memo to his colleagues acknowledging that the Bush-era techniques produced "high-value information" that "provided a deeper understanding" of the al Qaeda organization.
Look, the bottom line is this –Obama has declassified documents regarding the interrogation methods and, in doing so, has let our enemies know exactly what our outer boundaries were for extracting information. Reading between the lines of Blair’s memo, it would seem that Obama has weakened the ability of the US to get vital intelligence information from captured enemy combatants. That means the country is more vulnerable to attack. Since he has declassified those documents, it only seems fair that other documents that support the fact that the interrogation methodologies were successful and helped prevent other attacks against the US should also be released. The entire story should be told. Not just the parts that Obama would like told.
And, on a related issue, Attorney General Holder is going to be hard-pressed making a decision to prosecute any Bush aligned individuals who recommended the now “illegal” interrogation methods so decried by President Obama. You see, Nancy Pelosi was one of the high-ranking Democrats who had been briefed on the techniques and who were fully aware that they were being used on captured combatants. If prosecutions do happen you have to wonder if what’s good for the goose will be good for the gander.
And, my friends, that in a nutshell, is why the Republicans lost the Presidency last fall. Although the better choice between two evils, John McCain simply did not represent the common-sense, conservative core that characterized, say, the Reagan presidency.
For crying-out-loud, even the New York Times – America’s premier liberal news outlet – admitted last week that Dennis Blair, Obama’s national intelligence director, penned a private memo to his colleagues acknowledging that the Bush-era techniques produced "high-value information" that "provided a deeper understanding" of the al Qaeda organization.
Look, the bottom line is this –Obama has declassified documents regarding the interrogation methods and, in doing so, has let our enemies know exactly what our outer boundaries were for extracting information. Reading between the lines of Blair’s memo, it would seem that Obama has weakened the ability of the US to get vital intelligence information from captured enemy combatants. That means the country is more vulnerable to attack. Since he has declassified those documents, it only seems fair that other documents that support the fact that the interrogation methodologies were successful and helped prevent other attacks against the US should also be released. The entire story should be told. Not just the parts that Obama would like told.
And, on a related issue, Attorney General Holder is going to be hard-pressed making a decision to prosecute any Bush aligned individuals who recommended the now “illegal” interrogation methods so decried by President Obama. You see, Nancy Pelosi was one of the high-ranking Democrats who had been briefed on the techniques and who were fully aware that they were being used on captured combatants. If prosecutions do happen you have to wonder if what’s good for the goose will be good for the gander.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Napolitano Should Step Down - Now
Juxtaposed against President Obama’s doctrine of “listening” is Janet Napolitano’s doctrine of apparent “incompetence.” Napolitano, Obama’s appointment to the position of Director of Homeland Security, has so alienated American’s and allies alike over the past week that many are calling for her resignation. And rightfully so.
Her recent report – so outrageous in its analysis that many people viewed it as an Internet fabrication – essentially branded pro-lifers, second amendment supporters, people who oppose illegal immigration and homecoming military veterans as potential domestic terrorist threats.
This past Monday, she committed a gaffe of international proportions when she alleged that “suspected or known terrorists” have come into the US from Canada – including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. Confronted with her error, she stuttered that she couldn’t talk to that.
On Sunday she told CNN’s John King that illegal immigration wasn’t a crime. Huh?! Even a person with no background in criminal law would wonder why, if it isn’t a crime, it would be called “illegal!” And, actually, Ms. Napolitano, it is a crime. Check the statutes.
Frustrated with the influx of illegals, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has himself begun enforcing immigration laws in his county. That has, of course, generated howls of protests from liberal groups like ACORN who has called for a federal civil rights investigation. As for Napolitano … she’s said, “Sheriff Joe … knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.” DUH … right, Janet. That’s because the federal government, under leadership like yours, hasn’t appropriately addressed illegal immigration for years and years and has let the situation get completely out of control. An example of that is your position that illegals aren’t the real bad guys … the real “evil-doers” are the businesses that employ them.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/napolitano_gaffes_gop/2009/04/23/206736.html
Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota hits the nail on the head. “An official document of the DHS lists right-wing extremists as ‘groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ and includes those ‘rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.’ So, apparently, according to the Homeland Security Department, the American idea of federalism is a threat to American ideals. To me, it looks like the extremists are those running the DHS. ”
House Republican leader John Beohner delivers the perfect follow-up to Bachmann’s statement. “When you look at this report on right-wing extremism, it includes … about two-thirds of Americans, who … might go to church, who may have served in the military, who may be involved in community activities.”
And Canada’s “National Post” isn’t hiding their disdain for Napolitano. “Ms. Napolitano’s brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we’re dealing with an irrational senior US official who can’t differentiate between a secure border linking the world’s largest trading partners and one that’s a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what’s been described as an ‘invasion’ of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north.”
I could see why our friends to the north would be justifiably upset with Napolitano’s comments when President Obama is making nice with people like Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro. As I’ve said in previous columns, it really does make you wonder who this administration views as the enemy.
It’s time for Napolitano to step down – now.
Her recent report – so outrageous in its analysis that many people viewed it as an Internet fabrication – essentially branded pro-lifers, second amendment supporters, people who oppose illegal immigration and homecoming military veterans as potential domestic terrorist threats.
This past Monday, she committed a gaffe of international proportions when she alleged that “suspected or known terrorists” have come into the US from Canada – including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. Confronted with her error, she stuttered that she couldn’t talk to that.
On Sunday she told CNN’s John King that illegal immigration wasn’t a crime. Huh?! Even a person with no background in criminal law would wonder why, if it isn’t a crime, it would be called “illegal!” And, actually, Ms. Napolitano, it is a crime. Check the statutes.
Frustrated with the influx of illegals, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has himself begun enforcing immigration laws in his county. That has, of course, generated howls of protests from liberal groups like ACORN who has called for a federal civil rights investigation. As for Napolitano … she’s said, “Sheriff Joe … knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.” DUH … right, Janet. That’s because the federal government, under leadership like yours, hasn’t appropriately addressed illegal immigration for years and years and has let the situation get completely out of control. An example of that is your position that illegals aren’t the real bad guys … the real “evil-doers” are the businesses that employ them.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/napolitano_gaffes_gop/2009/04/23/206736.html
Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota hits the nail on the head. “An official document of the DHS lists right-wing extremists as ‘groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ and includes those ‘rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.’ So, apparently, according to the Homeland Security Department, the American idea of federalism is a threat to American ideals. To me, it looks like the extremists are those running the DHS. ”
House Republican leader John Beohner delivers the perfect follow-up to Bachmann’s statement. “When you look at this report on right-wing extremism, it includes … about two-thirds of Americans, who … might go to church, who may have served in the military, who may be involved in community activities.”
And Canada’s “National Post” isn’t hiding their disdain for Napolitano. “Ms. Napolitano’s brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we’re dealing with an irrational senior US official who can’t differentiate between a secure border linking the world’s largest trading partners and one that’s a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what’s been described as an ‘invasion’ of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north.”
I could see why our friends to the north would be justifiably upset with Napolitano’s comments when President Obama is making nice with people like Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro. As I’ve said in previous columns, it really does make you wonder who this administration views as the enemy.
It’s time for Napolitano to step down – now.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Global Warming based on Faulty Science?
While I’m completely supportive of doing everything we can to curb pollution and preserve the integrity of our bio-sphere, I do think that the effort should be based on real science and not “political science.”
Because the Senate has, by wide margins, defeated every effort to implement a mandatory cap and trade or a greenhouse gas emissions tax, President Obama is now trying to bypass the legislative process and get what he wants by changing the Clean Air Act and increasing regulations.
The problem is that it increasingly looks like the premise that Co2 emissions contribute to global warming is based on faulty science. And, if the Obama proposed actions are implemented based on that faulty science, it will cost 800,000 US jobs and result in a $400 billion per year tax increase. Some authorities say that it will also increase energy costs by up to $3,000 for every American.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/inhofe_cap_and_trade/2009/04/22/206061.html
The truly sad fact is that, not only will the US lose 800,000 jobs, those jobs will go to countries like Mexico, China and India that have no emissions restrictions. So, by unilaterally imposing onerous burdens on the American public, the net effect is that we’ll have a worldwide increase in Co2 emissions.
Here are some facts about Co2 emissions and global warming that you won’t hear in the mainstream media:
The number of prominent scientists who are “skeptical” that Co2 emissions contribute to global warming has increased to 700 from 650 in December of 2008. Four influential scientists are added to that list every week.
These 700 dissenting scientists represent 13 times the number of UN scientists who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policy makers. And these dissenters are associated with esteemed institutions and hail from all over the world.
Prominent Japanese Geologist, Dr. Shigenori Maruyama notes that 90 percent of participants at a recent Japan Geoscience Union do not believe the IPCC report.
Noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros recently said, “I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues.”
Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert Austin is a bit more pointed in his comments. “Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science … It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.”
The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters casts perhaps the clearest light to date on the issue. The study reveals that “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift” Commenting on the study, Dr. Anastasio Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee states, “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural. I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing.” He added, “The (earth’s) temperature has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”
NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William Vaughan states, “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.”
Noted Climatologist and Paleoclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas notes that, “The recent ‘panic’ to control greenhouse gas emissions and (the) billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that (the) US and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.”
There are, of course, many other starting revelations by scientists and I would encourage you to access the following link and read the entire article.
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.JimsJournal&ContentRecord_id=1498C824-802A-23AD-4040-C8B74E7B9F2E
The point is that it appears the “global warming” phenomenon may be driven by a political agenda as opposed to a scientific agenda. Why a sitting US President would want to generate huge job losses and tax increases based on “science” that is, at best, questionable is a question we all should be asking. Perhaps, as Jerry McQuire suggested, we should “follow the money.”
Because the Senate has, by wide margins, defeated every effort to implement a mandatory cap and trade or a greenhouse gas emissions tax, President Obama is now trying to bypass the legislative process and get what he wants by changing the Clean Air Act and increasing regulations.
The problem is that it increasingly looks like the premise that Co2 emissions contribute to global warming is based on faulty science. And, if the Obama proposed actions are implemented based on that faulty science, it will cost 800,000 US jobs and result in a $400 billion per year tax increase. Some authorities say that it will also increase energy costs by up to $3,000 for every American.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/inhofe_cap_and_trade/2009/04/22/206061.html
The truly sad fact is that, not only will the US lose 800,000 jobs, those jobs will go to countries like Mexico, China and India that have no emissions restrictions. So, by unilaterally imposing onerous burdens on the American public, the net effect is that we’ll have a worldwide increase in Co2 emissions.
Here are some facts about Co2 emissions and global warming that you won’t hear in the mainstream media:
The number of prominent scientists who are “skeptical” that Co2 emissions contribute to global warming has increased to 700 from 650 in December of 2008. Four influential scientists are added to that list every week.
These 700 dissenting scientists represent 13 times the number of UN scientists who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policy makers. And these dissenters are associated with esteemed institutions and hail from all over the world.
Prominent Japanese Geologist, Dr. Shigenori Maruyama notes that 90 percent of participants at a recent Japan Geoscience Union do not believe the IPCC report.
Noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros recently said, “I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues.”
Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert Austin is a bit more pointed in his comments. “Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science … It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.”
The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters casts perhaps the clearest light to date on the issue. The study reveals that “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift” Commenting on the study, Dr. Anastasio Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee states, “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural. I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing.” He added, “The (earth’s) temperature has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”
NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William Vaughan states, “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.”
Noted Climatologist and Paleoclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas notes that, “The recent ‘panic’ to control greenhouse gas emissions and (the) billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that (the) US and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.”
There are, of course, many other starting revelations by scientists and I would encourage you to access the following link and read the entire article.
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.JimsJournal&ContentRecord_id=1498C824-802A-23AD-4040-C8B74E7B9F2E
The point is that it appears the “global warming” phenomenon may be driven by a political agenda as opposed to a scientific agenda. Why a sitting US President would want to generate huge job losses and tax increases based on “science” that is, at best, questionable is a question we all should be asking. Perhaps, as Jerry McQuire suggested, we should “follow the money.”
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Extremist Appointed to Department of Defense Position
Just when you think the news can’t get any worse, something happens to convince you that it can. Rosa Brooks, a liberal newspaper columnist and former counsel to George Soros’ Open Societies Institute has won a Department of Defense post as a key adviser to Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has taken pains to distance himself from the appointment as evidenced by a staffer’s comment characterizing Brooks as an “extremist” and stating clearly that “Gate’s did not hire her.” http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rosa_brooks_pentagon/2009/04/21/205553.html
No wonder. Here’s a sampling of some of Brook’s published statements.
She commended President Obama’s actions in “end[ing] … the war on terror” “with just a few words and strokes of his pen.” Like just because he’s now referring to the war as an “overseas contingency operation” and to 9/11 as a “man-made catastrophe”, all the terrorists have magically disappeared along with the threats they pose to the US. The naivety is unbelievable.
Referred to the surge in Iraq as a “feckless plan” which had “no realistic likelihood (of) lead(ing) to an enduring solution in Iraq.” That, by the way, was also Obama’s assessment of the surge and the war against terrorism in Iraq … until, of course, he came into office. Then he was quick to praise the progress and anxious to shift troops from there into Afghanistan.
Compared the legal arguments made by the Bush administration on the war on terror with Adolf Hitler’s use of political propaganda to forward his own personal agenda. This is such a disjointed and lunatic comparison as to warrant no response whatsoever.
Sane people around the world, including many Brits, are shaking their heads at the selection of Brooks to such a strategically important position. How can a person with no military, planning or policy experience be appointed to a position where, as the UK’s Telegraph put it, “She will … be a central figure in shaping US – UK defense cooperation and Washington’s policy towards NATO.”?
“It is hard to think of a more inappropriate political appointment at a time when America needs a hard-headed approach to winning a global war instead of defeatist, far-left rhetoric. Let’s hope this isn’t the kind of advice the new administration takes on for the war in Afghanistan.”
Well said. But don’t hold your breath.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Has the CIA been "Outed?"
Spin: President Obama’s staff claims that his decision to release memos about CIA interrogation techniques was an effort to promote “transparency.”
Fact: If transparency were his real motive he would have, as Dick Cheney recommended, also released CIA reports detailing how these interrogation methods thwarted calamitous attacks on the US mainland saving tens of thousands of innocent American lives. He would also have detailed how the Bush administration briefed Nancy Pelosi and other leaders of the Senate on the techniques as they were being implemented.
Spin: The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets decried the CIA techniques as brutal and ineffective.
Fact: Such “brutal” techniques included putting an insect inside a terrorist’s enclosure, depriving them of sleep, slapping them and keeping them in cold cells. Poor babies. These are the guys who coldly killed over 3,000 American citizens in the 9/11 attack … which the administration now refers to as a “man-made disaster.” They are, as FBI Director Robert Meuller III has said, hoping to wipe out the US with nuclear weapons.
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_cia_release/2009/04/20/204916.html
Do I care whether they’ve been slapped up, whether they’re afraid of insects, if they lose a little sleep or they shiver a little? Hardly. The fact is that, after being waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah coughed up Ramzi bin al Shibh, a confidant of Osama bin Laden. And that resulted in the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the guy who planned 9/11. And that, in turn, resulted in the discovery of a plot to target the West Coast in a series of attacks. I’m hard-pressed to describe those results as inconsequential.
Spin: Obama officials essentially claim that he had to release the documents due to pressure and that their release won’t affect America’s intelligence gathering capabilities.
Fact: The President was under no such pressure. The Civil Liberties Union lawsuit demanding the release of the documents had no effective force. The documents were classified and untouchable. Not only will the release of the documents and today’s threats to prosecute Bush administration lawyers for their role in drawing up the guidelines undercut the ability of our intelligence gathering agencies to gather actionable intelligence, it will also increase the reluctance of foreign governments to work with our agents for fear of being drawn into the vortex. Our intelligence community has effectively had their legs cut out from under them.
Spin: President Obama has described these interrogations as a “dark and painful chapter in our history.”
Fact: Current CIA Director, Leon Panetta and four former CIA Directors … including two appointed by President Clinton … disagree and were opposed to the release of the documents.
Fact: If transparency were his real motive he would have, as Dick Cheney recommended, also released CIA reports detailing how these interrogation methods thwarted calamitous attacks on the US mainland saving tens of thousands of innocent American lives. He would also have detailed how the Bush administration briefed Nancy Pelosi and other leaders of the Senate on the techniques as they were being implemented.
Spin: The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets decried the CIA techniques as brutal and ineffective.
Fact: Such “brutal” techniques included putting an insect inside a terrorist’s enclosure, depriving them of sleep, slapping them and keeping them in cold cells. Poor babies. These are the guys who coldly killed over 3,000 American citizens in the 9/11 attack … which the administration now refers to as a “man-made disaster.” They are, as FBI Director Robert Meuller III has said, hoping to wipe out the US with nuclear weapons.
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_cia_release/2009/04/20/204916.html
Do I care whether they’ve been slapped up, whether they’re afraid of insects, if they lose a little sleep or they shiver a little? Hardly. The fact is that, after being waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah coughed up Ramzi bin al Shibh, a confidant of Osama bin Laden. And that resulted in the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the guy who planned 9/11. And that, in turn, resulted in the discovery of a plot to target the West Coast in a series of attacks. I’m hard-pressed to describe those results as inconsequential.
Spin: Obama officials essentially claim that he had to release the documents due to pressure and that their release won’t affect America’s intelligence gathering capabilities.
Fact: The President was under no such pressure. The Civil Liberties Union lawsuit demanding the release of the documents had no effective force. The documents were classified and untouchable. Not only will the release of the documents and today’s threats to prosecute Bush administration lawyers for their role in drawing up the guidelines undercut the ability of our intelligence gathering agencies to gather actionable intelligence, it will also increase the reluctance of foreign governments to work with our agents for fear of being drawn into the vortex. Our intelligence community has effectively had their legs cut out from under them.
Spin: President Obama has described these interrogations as a “dark and painful chapter in our history.”
Fact: Current CIA Director, Leon Panetta and four former CIA Directors … including two appointed by President Clinton … disagree and were opposed to the release of the documents.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Who Does the Administration Really See as the Enemy?
Michael Hayden, former CIA chief, has bluntly called President Obama’s actions in releasing “Top Secret” memos detailing interrogation techniques against Al-Qaeda operatives as “really dangerous.” Hayden says that the fact that those interrogation techniques saved American lives is an “inconvenient truth” that nobody in the administration speaks of.
Janet Napolitano, Obama's homeland security minister – and, incidentally, the same person who defended the recent Homeland Security report citing the “dangers” of homecoming veterans joining domestic terrorist groups - defended the decision.
"When you look at the great public need for accountability and responsibility and transparency here, and when you look at our desire to close the book on this regrettable chapter and move the country forward, it was imperative, really, that the reports be released," said Napolitano. http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/hayden_cia_memos/2009/04/19/204761.html
How a person can hide behind definitions of accountability, responsibility and transparency and defend actions that put our country in a disadvantageous position in regard to obtaining valuable intel from Al-Qaeda operatives that would save American lives is completely beyond me.
But, then again, this is the administration who now calls the war on terror “the overseas contingency operation” and the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers a “man-made disaster.” I suppose it’s to be expected. After all, illegal immigrants are now called undocumented aliens and the quadrupling of the federal deficit is referred to as the “stimulus.”
The really galling thing, though, is that the person responsible for Homeland Security would besmirch homecoming veterans who have risked their lives and honorably served this county and tacitly referred to them as possible “terrorists” when she’s reluctant to use that term about our overseas enemies.
Kinda’ makes you wonder who the administration really sees as the enemy.
Janet Napolitano, Obama's homeland security minister – and, incidentally, the same person who defended the recent Homeland Security report citing the “dangers” of homecoming veterans joining domestic terrorist groups - defended the decision.
"When you look at the great public need for accountability and responsibility and transparency here, and when you look at our desire to close the book on this regrettable chapter and move the country forward, it was imperative, really, that the reports be released," said Napolitano. http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/hayden_cia_memos/2009/04/19/204761.html
How a person can hide behind definitions of accountability, responsibility and transparency and defend actions that put our country in a disadvantageous position in regard to obtaining valuable intel from Al-Qaeda operatives that would save American lives is completely beyond me.
But, then again, this is the administration who now calls the war on terror “the overseas contingency operation” and the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers a “man-made disaster.” I suppose it’s to be expected. After all, illegal immigrants are now called undocumented aliens and the quadrupling of the federal deficit is referred to as the “stimulus.”
The really galling thing, though, is that the person responsible for Homeland Security would besmirch homecoming veterans who have risked their lives and honorably served this county and tacitly referred to them as possible “terrorists” when she’s reluctant to use that term about our overseas enemies.
Kinda’ makes you wonder who the administration really sees as the enemy.
Obama's Apologetics
President Obama has been reaching out to old political enemies of the United States recently … essentially offering the hand of reconciliation to the totalitarian regimes of Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. His stance in effect is that old techniques have not worked and that dialogue may help bring them around to our point of view.
Good luck.
All you have to do is look at Pakistan to see what happens when you give an inch to these kinds of people. The Pakistani government, in an effort to stop violent Taliban intimidation of the population in Swat Valley, gave top Islamic militant leader Sufi Mohammed, permission to rule the area with harsh Islamic sharia law - effectively throwing the citizens of that area under the bus. Rifaat Hussain, a professor of security studies at Quaid-i-Azam university understands what happens when you give in. "The government made a big mistake to give these guys legal cover for their agenda. Now they are going to be battle-ready to struggle for the soul of Pakistan.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30299557
Even Richard C. Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to the region, warned that the decision by insurgents to keep fighting in spite of the peace deal should be a "wake-up call to everybody in Pakistan that you can't deal with these people by giving away territory as they creep closer and closer to the populated centers of the Punjab and Islamabad."
Swati leaders now report armed men in black turbins whipping suspected thieves on the spot, slicing off the ears and noses of opposing village elders and marketing videos of police beheadings.
Yet, apparently the lesson goes unheeded by Obama who continues to apologize, in front of foreign nations, for the behavior of the US and hopes to woo them over to our way of thinking by playing nice. Playing nice in this administration apparently extends even to not putting an insect inside of an enclosure in which a terrorist planner sits … because that’s deemed “torture.” Oh yes, it’s much better that the Obama administration respect the rights of terrorists than extract information that could potentially result in the saving of thousands of US lives. Like the terrorists are going to drop their plans just because the US plays nice during interrogations. The naivety is unbelievable.
No, Chavez and Castro are not Islamic militants. But they’re cut from the same cloth. They are enemies of the US … opponents of democracy … and they aren’t going to change their politics, techniques, plans or styles just because the US naively extends a hand of friendship. They’re liable to grasp it only long enough to cut it off.
Good luck.
All you have to do is look at Pakistan to see what happens when you give an inch to these kinds of people. The Pakistani government, in an effort to stop violent Taliban intimidation of the population in Swat Valley, gave top Islamic militant leader Sufi Mohammed, permission to rule the area with harsh Islamic sharia law - effectively throwing the citizens of that area under the bus. Rifaat Hussain, a professor of security studies at Quaid-i-Azam university understands what happens when you give in. "The government made a big mistake to give these guys legal cover for their agenda. Now they are going to be battle-ready to struggle for the soul of Pakistan.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30299557
Even Richard C. Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to the region, warned that the decision by insurgents to keep fighting in spite of the peace deal should be a "wake-up call to everybody in Pakistan that you can't deal with these people by giving away territory as they creep closer and closer to the populated centers of the Punjab and Islamabad."
Swati leaders now report armed men in black turbins whipping suspected thieves on the spot, slicing off the ears and noses of opposing village elders and marketing videos of police beheadings.
Yet, apparently the lesson goes unheeded by Obama who continues to apologize, in front of foreign nations, for the behavior of the US and hopes to woo them over to our way of thinking by playing nice. Playing nice in this administration apparently extends even to not putting an insect inside of an enclosure in which a terrorist planner sits … because that’s deemed “torture.” Oh yes, it’s much better that the Obama administration respect the rights of terrorists than extract information that could potentially result in the saving of thousands of US lives. Like the terrorists are going to drop their plans just because the US plays nice during interrogations. The naivety is unbelievable.
No, Chavez and Castro are not Islamic militants. But they’re cut from the same cloth. They are enemies of the US … opponents of democracy … and they aren’t going to change their politics, techniques, plans or styles just because the US naively extends a hand of friendship. They’re liable to grasp it only long enough to cut it off.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Anti-Tax Tea Parties and the Mainstream Media
It’s irritating but not surprising that the major media outlets … with the exception of FOX … seem to be boycotting the populist anti-tax “Tea Parties” that are being held across the nation to protest the unprecedented spending spree by President Obama since he’s come into office.
I have seen only one story about the protests on a major media outlet … MSN … and that story labeled the Parties as “hardly non-partisan” and warned that they could actually “back-fire.” If liberals and the media want to label them as “non-partisan”, so be it. The fact is that prior adminstrations budget deficits don’t hold a candle to Obama’s. It’s like comparing a bucket to the Grand Canyon.
Even James Rainey of the LA Times admitted that “some liberal media voices seem just as intent on squelching the protesters before they've shoveled a single bag of Lipton into a single pond. At MSNBC, commentators Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews wrote off the demonstrations as the work of nothing more than crackpots or political stooges.”
It’s not unexpected at all that the liberal-biased mainstream media would think this effort was supported by “crackpots.” The only thing that’s surprising is that someone from the LA Times would admit it.
But truth seems to be in the eye of the beholder. While mainstream media outlets fell all over themselves to proclaim the Million Man March a historic success even though considerably less than a million people attended the event, NBC’s political analyst Chuck Todd has already declared the Tea Parties DOA. In a recent commentary he said the “so-called Tea Parties” simply haven’t caught on.
Newsflash Mr. Todd, these Parties are being held all across the United States. Here’s a hint Chuck, “google” “Tea Party” and see how many hits you get. A little research would go a long way.
Perhaps more disturbing, however, is the fact that ABC correspondent Dan Harris said on Wednesday morning that President Obama is “unaware” that the Tea Parties are taking place.
Good God. I don’t know which is worse – the media misreporting and sending the message that the President doesn’t really know what’s going on if he really does ... or the possibility that the President really doesn’t know what’s going on … and doesn’t care to.
Who’s on first? And does anyone in the mainstream media care?
I have seen only one story about the protests on a major media outlet … MSN … and that story labeled the Parties as “hardly non-partisan” and warned that they could actually “back-fire.” If liberals and the media want to label them as “non-partisan”, so be it. The fact is that prior adminstrations budget deficits don’t hold a candle to Obama’s. It’s like comparing a bucket to the Grand Canyon.
Even James Rainey of the LA Times admitted that “some liberal media voices seem just as intent on squelching the protesters before they've shoveled a single bag of Lipton into a single pond. At MSNBC, commentators Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews wrote off the demonstrations as the work of nothing more than crackpots or political stooges.”
It’s not unexpected at all that the liberal-biased mainstream media would think this effort was supported by “crackpots.” The only thing that’s surprising is that someone from the LA Times would admit it.
But truth seems to be in the eye of the beholder. While mainstream media outlets fell all over themselves to proclaim the Million Man March a historic success even though considerably less than a million people attended the event, NBC’s political analyst Chuck Todd has already declared the Tea Parties DOA. In a recent commentary he said the “so-called Tea Parties” simply haven’t caught on.
Newsflash Mr. Todd, these Parties are being held all across the United States. Here’s a hint Chuck, “google” “Tea Party” and see how many hits you get. A little research would go a long way.
Perhaps more disturbing, however, is the fact that ABC correspondent Dan Harris said on Wednesday morning that President Obama is “unaware” that the Tea Parties are taking place.
Good God. I don’t know which is worse – the media misreporting and sending the message that the President doesn’t really know what’s going on if he really does ... or the possibility that the President really doesn’t know what’s going on … and doesn’t care to.
Who’s on first? And does anyone in the mainstream media care?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
