This week's truth-telling idiot? Howard Dean.
Last October, I penned “When idiots speak truths”, in which I lambasted Joe Biden for saying that, if Obama were to be elected, America’s enemies would test the administration with an international crisis within six months. I had no doubt he was right (and we’ve already seen the Obama administration fail a number of tests); I thought the statement was stupid on various other levels. But it was also amusing because it was such a great example of Joe gaffe-a-minute Biden at his best.
We now have a replay of that moment, but it’s former DNC Chair Howard Dean whose mouth “doth runneth over”. And I’m not attacking Dean for lying or obfuscating (his usual tactics), but rather using Dean’s momentary clarity against the Dems push for the “health reform” bill.
In a series of interviews with Vermont Public Radio and MSNBC, Dean has attacked the health reform bill that is nearing completion in the Senate. On VPR, Dean said “Honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."
Hey, I like that advice. For once, Dems, listen to Dean.
But what is really astonishing is what else he had to say about the bill.
Dean said that the current bill will force citizens to pay for healthcare and fine them if they don’t. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.” “IF” the bill works? Do I detect a hint of doubt?
So, did Dean just reveal that Democrats, for all their pompous statements of confidence, honestly have NO IDEA if the changes they are proposing to 1/6th of the US economy will work? Is that a gamble that YOU, Dear American Citizen, are willing to let them take with your health?
“The bill does more harm than good,” he stated.
He stated on VPR: “You have the vast majority of Americans want the choices, they want real choices. They don't have them in this bill. This is not health care reform and it's not close to health care reform."
You are right, Americans want “reform”. What we don’t want is socialized medicine. And this bill is not “reform”, but rather a path to socialized medicine. Thank you for that moment of clarity.
Mr. Dean has, in the past, uttered absurdities that solidly confirmed his status as either an idiot or a liar. For whatever reason, this idiot has finally started to tell the truth—a truth, by the way, which happens to agree with the criticisms coming from Conservatives.
One problem Dean has with the bill is that the “pre-existing conditions piece” (which would have prohibited insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for their coverage, forcing the companies to either absorb the loss—which is not likely—or spread that out to everyone else—which the companies have said they will do) has been stripped from the bill, enabling the companies to charge more to the elderly (who have a higher rate of illness than the young) and sick. Well, no kidding, Mr. Dean! So his solution is to force insurance companies to charge the same to everyone, no matter what conditions they have and how much they have neglected their health up to that point. Under his idiotic plan, the rest of us will see our rates skyrocket as a result of that insanity.
MSNBC Interviewer and liberal-apologist George Stephanopoulos tried to counter Dean’s arguments by stating all the things the bill allegedly does to “control cost:” 1) A tax on the “Cadillac health care plans”, 2) New incentives for doctors and hospitals to focus on quality, 3) and two new Medicare panels to try to control cost.
Dean replies: “George, you just named a whole bunch of bureaucracies and a lot of promises, I don’t see cost control in this bill; I really don’t.” Now, isn’t this one of the things Conservatives have been saying? Isn’t this one of the so-called “lies” for which Democrats have attacked Conservatives? Dean has again revealed that the Dems KNOW that their plan will NOT control costs!
I’d like to say that Mr. Dean might be on the road to recovery of his senses, but other comments clearly reveal that he is not. He’s still an idiot, but for political reasons alone he has finally let the truth slip. It sounds very much like the Conservatives were right all along.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Democrats & Victory: Never the twain shall meet
Current events are perpetually confusing and confounding to those who lack a sense of historical perspective. To the citizen with a reasonable education and a bit of curiosity, to he who is willing to dig and research, current events become a fascinating subject of contemplation.
I am astonished by the events surrounding the Obama administration’s handling of the war in Afghanistan. The Obama team ran their 2008 campaign not so much against the Republican presidential candidate, Senator McCain, as much as against former President George Bush, and tirelessly reiterated that the war in Afghanistan had been the “good war”, while the war in Iraq had been a disastrous misadventure and a “distraction” from the real “war on terror” (or “International Contingency Plan”, or whatever the phrase may be now).
That argument seemed somewhat reasonable and even many independents and moderate Republicans might have agreed. When Obama took office, he immediately risked alienating himself from his base when he decided to send 20,000 troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our small forces already in place. He then decided to form a “better strategy” that considered the “end game”—a swell phrase actually meaning: “how do we get the hell out of there”.
He appointed General McChrystal to head up the forces, and in March announced they had a new strategy. When General McChrystal wrote his report and requested around 40,000 additional troops in September to add to the 68,000 that were currently deployed, Obama seemed to stumble. He dithered around until December, excusing his pathetic inaction on the need “for a new strategy”—perhaps we should dub it “Obama War Strategy 2.0”.
He finally committed himself to a plan in December. Obama has decided to send—not the 40,000 troops requested—an additional 30,000. I can imagine that this must have been a tough decision on his part, since it is sure to alienate him from his far left base, which is already on the attack against him. So I feel it is fair to praise his “courage” for deciding to send additional troops and to shore up the forces.
Obama’s decision to send troops was also announced with a planned time-table for departure—or should I say, “retreat”: Summer 2011 and end in 2013.
Curiously, in his article in the Guardian UK, Ewen MacAskill, titled “Obama’s War: the final push in Afghanistan”, MacAskill wrote that “US officials said Obama wants almost all the US troops out before the end of his first term in office in January 2013, leaving behind a small contingency force. Gibbs said the president did not want to leave the problem to his successor.”
For a team that crowed that the GOP is in decline and will be out of power for the next forty years, the year 2013 should be not be considered the first year in office for “his successor”. What happened to all that confidence that Obama was “The One”? It almost appears that the Obama team has come to the conclusion that the battle can’t be won. No, not in Afghanistan: I’m talking about Obama’s re-election!
So, in one article, we find three amazing blunders by the Obama team.
First, it seems somewhat foolish to take the political risk of sending troops, an action that will irritate the left, but to send a smaller number than requested and which may not be enough—a decision that leaves him open to harsh criticism if he has to send more later on, or if he decides to abandon the effort as “futile”, since he can be accused of having provided insufficient support in order to win. His inability to make up his mind made him look weak, indecisive, and perhaps—dare I say it—cowardly. He has exposed himself thusly on both political flanks.
Second, by announcing a time-table for departure, he has not only signaled to our enemy what our plans are and the limits of our resolve, he has also boxed himself in. What if we are losing and need new troops? He won’t be able to send more without appearing foolish. What if things have stabilized but we need a little more time? He will be out of time, and will have to back-pedal in an election year. His only way of coming out ahead is if we suddenly win the war, the Taliban pack their tents and give up, and Al Qaeda is destroyed. What are the odds of that happening?
Third, it appears that, like Obama inadvertently signaling weakness and lack of confidence to our enemy, Whitehouse spokesman Robert Gibbs seems to have signaled a loss of confidence within the Whitehouse about the possibility of re-election.
There are even more bizarre statements being made by the left. When MSNBC’s analyst Chris Matthews discussed the speech, he actually called the West Point venue “the enemy camp”.
"They start with a lot of excitement. I remember the scene in ‘Gone with the Wind' where the rebels are so excited about going to war with the North, a country they can't beat because of its industrial advantage and population advantage. They are going to lose that war eventually. I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble-rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."
What is strange is that our “elite” journalists actually think that West Point is enemy territory. They must be fantastically out of touch with reality, to be surprised to not see “much excitement” among the young cadets who are facing being sent to war. Does he honestly think those kids should look forward to risking life and limb in a very dangerous engagement? Is Matthews really stating that the limit of his understanding of the military mindset was formed by his viewing of “Gone with the Wind”? He says he didn’t see much “warmth” from the older officers…well golly, Chris, when your president has left their troops without sufficient reinforcements for nine months after the initial request for troops came in, what do you expect to see? When they hear the Commander in Chief alert the enemy about the limits of our commitment, when that commander sets new and dangerous precedent by forcing troops to “Mirandize” enemy combatants and places enormous new burdens on those troops that puts their lives at danger, do you actually expect them to “get a shiver up their legs” to hear your beloved Ditherer in Chief speak?
There was another phrase in Matthew’s idiotic statement that made me raise an eyebrow. When he says that the Southern Rebels were enthusiastic to go to war against the North, “a country they can’t beat because of economic and population advantage”, he again reveals a profound ignorance and contradicts the very argument about the war that he and other liberals are making.
“Ignorance”, I say, because the “under-populated” and “economically disadvantaged” South damn near beat the North. If Matthews would read more history, he might find out that the North, which had anticipated a swift and decisive victory, was greatly surprised by the tenacity, determination and military prowess of the Southern army. The mood in the North turned decisively against the war, and President Lincoln was beset by the “Copperheads”, AKA “Peace Democrats” who petitioned him to negotiate an end to the war—without victory (I guess then, as now, “victory” was never the objective in war for Democrats).
What’s truly amazing is that Democrats have been saying that victory is “impossible” against these “insurgent forces”—even though the Afghan insurgents are challenged by a much smaller population and economic disadvantages when compared to the might of the USA. So, which is it? If the defeat of the South in the Civil War was inevitable due to these limitations, then isn’t the defeat of the Taliban also inevitable for the same reasons?
Of course not. What defeated the South, and what will defeat the Taliban, is something that none of these effete and arrogant “Peace Democrats” have to offer: true grit. That is something George Bush had in Spades, and which Obama appears to aspire to, but has no experience with.
Is it any wonder the older officers were visibly skeptical?
I am astonished by the events surrounding the Obama administration’s handling of the war in Afghanistan. The Obama team ran their 2008 campaign not so much against the Republican presidential candidate, Senator McCain, as much as against former President George Bush, and tirelessly reiterated that the war in Afghanistan had been the “good war”, while the war in Iraq had been a disastrous misadventure and a “distraction” from the real “war on terror” (or “International Contingency Plan”, or whatever the phrase may be now).
That argument seemed somewhat reasonable and even many independents and moderate Republicans might have agreed. When Obama took office, he immediately risked alienating himself from his base when he decided to send 20,000 troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our small forces already in place. He then decided to form a “better strategy” that considered the “end game”—a swell phrase actually meaning: “how do we get the hell out of there”.
He appointed General McChrystal to head up the forces, and in March announced they had a new strategy. When General McChrystal wrote his report and requested around 40,000 additional troops in September to add to the 68,000 that were currently deployed, Obama seemed to stumble. He dithered around until December, excusing his pathetic inaction on the need “for a new strategy”—perhaps we should dub it “Obama War Strategy 2.0”.
He finally committed himself to a plan in December. Obama has decided to send—not the 40,000 troops requested—an additional 30,000. I can imagine that this must have been a tough decision on his part, since it is sure to alienate him from his far left base, which is already on the attack against him. So I feel it is fair to praise his “courage” for deciding to send additional troops and to shore up the forces.
Obama’s decision to send troops was also announced with a planned time-table for departure—or should I say, “retreat”: Summer 2011 and end in 2013.
Curiously, in his article in the Guardian UK, Ewen MacAskill, titled “Obama’s War: the final push in Afghanistan”, MacAskill wrote that “US officials said Obama wants almost all the US troops out before the end of his first term in office in January 2013, leaving behind a small contingency force. Gibbs said the president did not want to leave the problem to his successor.”
For a team that crowed that the GOP is in decline and will be out of power for the next forty years, the year 2013 should be not be considered the first year in office for “his successor”. What happened to all that confidence that Obama was “The One”? It almost appears that the Obama team has come to the conclusion that the battle can’t be won. No, not in Afghanistan: I’m talking about Obama’s re-election!
So, in one article, we find three amazing blunders by the Obama team.
First, it seems somewhat foolish to take the political risk of sending troops, an action that will irritate the left, but to send a smaller number than requested and which may not be enough—a decision that leaves him open to harsh criticism if he has to send more later on, or if he decides to abandon the effort as “futile”, since he can be accused of having provided insufficient support in order to win. His inability to make up his mind made him look weak, indecisive, and perhaps—dare I say it—cowardly. He has exposed himself thusly on both political flanks.
Second, by announcing a time-table for departure, he has not only signaled to our enemy what our plans are and the limits of our resolve, he has also boxed himself in. What if we are losing and need new troops? He won’t be able to send more without appearing foolish. What if things have stabilized but we need a little more time? He will be out of time, and will have to back-pedal in an election year. His only way of coming out ahead is if we suddenly win the war, the Taliban pack their tents and give up, and Al Qaeda is destroyed. What are the odds of that happening?
Third, it appears that, like Obama inadvertently signaling weakness and lack of confidence to our enemy, Whitehouse spokesman Robert Gibbs seems to have signaled a loss of confidence within the Whitehouse about the possibility of re-election.
There are even more bizarre statements being made by the left. When MSNBC’s analyst Chris Matthews discussed the speech, he actually called the West Point venue “the enemy camp”.
"They start with a lot of excitement. I remember the scene in ‘Gone with the Wind' where the rebels are so excited about going to war with the North, a country they can't beat because of its industrial advantage and population advantage. They are going to lose that war eventually. I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble-rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."
What is strange is that our “elite” journalists actually think that West Point is enemy territory. They must be fantastically out of touch with reality, to be surprised to not see “much excitement” among the young cadets who are facing being sent to war. Does he honestly think those kids should look forward to risking life and limb in a very dangerous engagement? Is Matthews really stating that the limit of his understanding of the military mindset was formed by his viewing of “Gone with the Wind”? He says he didn’t see much “warmth” from the older officers…well golly, Chris, when your president has left their troops without sufficient reinforcements for nine months after the initial request for troops came in, what do you expect to see? When they hear the Commander in Chief alert the enemy about the limits of our commitment, when that commander sets new and dangerous precedent by forcing troops to “Mirandize” enemy combatants and places enormous new burdens on those troops that puts their lives at danger, do you actually expect them to “get a shiver up their legs” to hear your beloved Ditherer in Chief speak?
There was another phrase in Matthew’s idiotic statement that made me raise an eyebrow. When he says that the Southern Rebels were enthusiastic to go to war against the North, “a country they can’t beat because of economic and population advantage”, he again reveals a profound ignorance and contradicts the very argument about the war that he and other liberals are making.
“Ignorance”, I say, because the “under-populated” and “economically disadvantaged” South damn near beat the North. If Matthews would read more history, he might find out that the North, which had anticipated a swift and decisive victory, was greatly surprised by the tenacity, determination and military prowess of the Southern army. The mood in the North turned decisively against the war, and President Lincoln was beset by the “Copperheads”, AKA “Peace Democrats” who petitioned him to negotiate an end to the war—without victory (I guess then, as now, “victory” was never the objective in war for Democrats).
What’s truly amazing is that Democrats have been saying that victory is “impossible” against these “insurgent forces”—even though the Afghan insurgents are challenged by a much smaller population and economic disadvantages when compared to the might of the USA. So, which is it? If the defeat of the South in the Civil War was inevitable due to these limitations, then isn’t the defeat of the Taliban also inevitable for the same reasons?
Of course not. What defeated the South, and what will defeat the Taliban, is something that none of these effete and arrogant “Peace Democrats” have to offer: true grit. That is something George Bush had in Spades, and which Obama appears to aspire to, but has no experience with.
Is it any wonder the older officers were visibly skeptical?
Monday, November 30, 2009
A stormy 2010 forecast for Honduras
To recap: The Honduran President, Mel Zelaya of the Honduran Liberal Party, was deposed this year when he attempted to illegally and unconstitutionally propose a change in the term limits on presidents in order to open the possibility of re-election to himself. This created a rift in the country, but ws "resolved" when the Supreme Court determined that the referendum Zelaya had proposed was unconstitutional. Zelaya disobeyed the court orders and chose to thumb his nose at the Judiciary. The court then ordered his arrest, which occured and Zelaya was sent packing. The Honduran congress, ruled by a majority of Zelaya's own Honduran Liberal Party, agreed with the decision.
In his place, an interim president took the office. Roberto Michelleti, also of the Honduran Liberal Party, repeatedly and stubbornly claimed that the deposition of Zelaya was perfectly constitutional, and he resisted all the intense pressure that was put on the government by such Democratic giants as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and our Glorious Leader, Barack Obama.
Zelaya intensified the conflict by calling for insurrection, trying to re-enter the country and taunting the authorities, and finally sneaking into the country and taking up surprise residence in the Brazilian embassy. He encouraged his supporters to keep the pressure up, resulting in violence in the streets. An attempt to resolve the crisis was thwarted by Zelaya when he backed out of the agreement, which required the Congress to vote on whether or not to reinstate him. Michelletti, in an attempt to resolve the conflict, had agreed to the condition.
But Michelletti refused to cancel the elections that had already been scheduled, and even temporarily "stepped down" as President during the election in order to avoid the appearance of unduly influencing them.
Zelaya's one and only term was to end this year anyway, and elections had already been scheduled for Sunday, November 29th.
The elections took place, as planned, yesterday, and the Conservative Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, won. The congress plans to vote on whether or not to reinstate Zelaya this week.
Not surprisingly, a few nations still will not recognize the elections results. Argentina, Spain, and Brazil claim that the elections took place under the control of a "defacto" government and refuse to recognize the new government. For those who do not know, all three governments are run by socialists who are allies of Hugo Chavez.
The next few weeks will be vitally important for Honduras. If the Congress decides to reinstate Zelaya, it will put him in a position of power and, given his track record of abusing his authority, who knows what he will try. If they refuse to reinstate him, he will likely attempt to disrupt the government and the transition of power. Either way, Zelaya will receive help from his leftist allies from Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, and Spain.
At that point, strong and consistent leadership from Washington DC will be crucial to restoring the peace in the nation.
Sadly, "strong and consistent leadership" is exactly what is missing from the Obama administration. So it's a safe forecast for stormy weather in Honduras through 2010 at least.
In his place, an interim president took the office. Roberto Michelleti, also of the Honduran Liberal Party, repeatedly and stubbornly claimed that the deposition of Zelaya was perfectly constitutional, and he resisted all the intense pressure that was put on the government by such Democratic giants as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and our Glorious Leader, Barack Obama.
Zelaya intensified the conflict by calling for insurrection, trying to re-enter the country and taunting the authorities, and finally sneaking into the country and taking up surprise residence in the Brazilian embassy. He encouraged his supporters to keep the pressure up, resulting in violence in the streets. An attempt to resolve the crisis was thwarted by Zelaya when he backed out of the agreement, which required the Congress to vote on whether or not to reinstate him. Michelletti, in an attempt to resolve the conflict, had agreed to the condition.
But Michelletti refused to cancel the elections that had already been scheduled, and even temporarily "stepped down" as President during the election in order to avoid the appearance of unduly influencing them.
Zelaya's one and only term was to end this year anyway, and elections had already been scheduled for Sunday, November 29th.
The elections took place, as planned, yesterday, and the Conservative Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, won. The congress plans to vote on whether or not to reinstate Zelaya this week.
Not surprisingly, a few nations still will not recognize the elections results. Argentina, Spain, and Brazil claim that the elections took place under the control of a "defacto" government and refuse to recognize the new government. For those who do not know, all three governments are run by socialists who are allies of Hugo Chavez.
The next few weeks will be vitally important for Honduras. If the Congress decides to reinstate Zelaya, it will put him in a position of power and, given his track record of abusing his authority, who knows what he will try. If they refuse to reinstate him, he will likely attempt to disrupt the government and the transition of power. Either way, Zelaya will receive help from his leftist allies from Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, and Spain.
At that point, strong and consistent leadership from Washington DC will be crucial to restoring the peace in the nation.
Sadly, "strong and consistent leadership" is exactly what is missing from the Obama administration. So it's a safe forecast for stormy weather in Honduras through 2010 at least.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Eric Holder: most imcompetent AG in history
The “SMARTEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY” can’t make a decision and gets too confused to run a war. "Victory"? Please don't use that word.
Obama gets nervous when we talk about "victory".
Here, listen to him as he wiggles and wobbles and waffles all over the place. Please, "victory" is too scary a word to use.
So what about Obama's decision to bring al Qaida terrorists caught on the battlefield to civilian trials? You'd think they would be able to defend their position on this. But did you see the exchange between Lindsey Graham and history's most incompetent Attorney General, Eric Holder?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.
...
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
They don’t understand the implications of criminalizing a war or politicizing the judicial process. DAMN but Democrats should be PROUD.
Holder got his ASS handed to him by Graham!
Obama gets nervous when we talk about "victory".
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy
agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United
States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
"I'm always worried about
using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor
Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC
News.
The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he
explained.
Here, listen to him as he wiggles and wobbles and waffles all over the place. Please, "victory" is too scary a word to use.
So what about Obama's decision to bring al Qaida terrorists caught on the battlefield to civilian trials? You'd think they would be able to defend their position on this. But did you see the exchange between Lindsey Graham and history's most incompetent Attorney General, Eric Holder?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.
...
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
They don’t understand the implications of criminalizing a war or politicizing the judicial process. DAMN but Democrats should be PROUD.
Holder got his ASS handed to him by Graham!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
As much as I love FOX, there is at least one guy there that I can't stand and I wish they'd lose: Geraldo Rivera.
Tonight I heard (and verified) that Senator Lieberman "an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a 'self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist' who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress."
In response, FOX's idiot-at-large Rivera argued that Lierberman is wrong about the statement, that Hasan is just a nut, and that--in Rivera's own words--"the word terrorist implies that {Hasan} was part of a conspiracy, and there is no evidence of that."
Someone at FOX needs to sit Rivera down with a dictionary. There are many variants of the definition of a "terrorist", but really it's quite simple: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities" NOTE: a terrorist usually organizes with other terrorists, but not always.
What is certain about terrorists is that they use extreme violence, or a threat of violence, to affect policy or counter an enemy they oppose. They almost always engage unarmed individuals in a location and a time where they usually feel they are safe; the point is not just to kill some individuals, but for the act of terror to undermine the feeling of safety of the survivors and their families and to inflict a painful psychological wound on society.
I should clarify that Lieberman did not say that Hasan IS a terrorist, he was more nuanced than that. Here is the rest of his quote:
"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."
Senator Lieberman, I have to agree.
Tonight I heard (and verified) that Senator Lieberman "an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a 'self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist' who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress."
In response, FOX's idiot-at-large Rivera argued that Lierberman is wrong about the statement, that Hasan is just a nut, and that--in Rivera's own words--"the word terrorist implies that {Hasan} was part of a conspiracy, and there is no evidence of that."
Someone at FOX needs to sit Rivera down with a dictionary. There are many variants of the definition of a "terrorist", but really it's quite simple: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities" NOTE: a terrorist usually organizes with other terrorists, but not always.
What is certain about terrorists is that they use extreme violence, or a threat of violence, to affect policy or counter an enemy they oppose. They almost always engage unarmed individuals in a location and a time where they usually feel they are safe; the point is not just to kill some individuals, but for the act of terror to undermine the feeling of safety of the survivors and their families and to inflict a painful psychological wound on society.
I should clarify that Lieberman did not say that Hasan IS a terrorist, he was more nuanced than that. Here is the rest of his quote:
"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."
Senator Lieberman, I have to agree.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Press and President cover for Muslim murderers and terrorists
As details surrounding yesterday’s mass murder at Ft. Hood, TX are rapidly revealed, a pattern is already being exposed—not only in the behavior and speculated motivations behind the attack, but also in the treatment of the story by the mass media.
What we know:
1. The shooter is Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan
2. Hasan is a US born Muslim
3. Hasan received his Psychiatric training through the army, and treated US vets returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most recently at the Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood after being transferred from Walter Reed Medical Center
4. Hasan had been disciplined for a number of incidents in which he proselytized the Islamic faith to his patients
5. Eye witnesses have reported that Hasan had made a number of statements about the wars, stating that “we have no business over there” (referring to Iraq and Afghanistan). After the Muslim attack on the Army recruiting station in Arkansas last June (perpetrated by an American convert to Islam, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad), was overheard saying that “maybe this is what more Muslims need to do, stand up and attack the enemy” (implying that the “enemy” in his view was the United States Armed Forces in which he was serving)
6. Hasan had complained that he was being “harassed” for his Islamic beliefs and had contracted a military lawyer
7. Hasan got into frequent arguments with other soldiers who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and apparently had hoped that President Obama would remove our troops from those countries
8. Hasan had just received orders to deploy to one of the war zones (there are conflicting reports that it was Iraq, others say Afghanistan), and had “been mortified” about that deployment and was trying to fight it to avoid service in the Middle East
9. Hasan had come to the attention of federal law enforcement officials six months ago because of “Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings. The officials said they are still trying to confirm that he was the author…One of the Web postings…equates a suicide bomber to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.”
10. The day before the attacks, Hasan had emptied his apartment, giving away many of his possessions including Qu’rans
11. Hasan had been seen on video surveillance tapes entering a nearby convenience store in “full Muslim attire” the morning of the attack (to their credit, CNN did provide the video of Hasan in Muslim garb in the convenience store, the day after the attack)
12. Hasan yelled “God is Great” in Arabic as he began the attacks
13. He used to side arms in the attack and killed 12, wounded 31 (mostly) unarmed soldiers
From this information, we can begin the dangerous job of speculating about Hasan’s motive: he was a disenchanted Muslim who disagreed with US foreign policy, sympathized with the Muslim enemy in the war zones, apologized for Muslim acts of terror and verbalized his support for the murder of US troops in the United States, prepared himself for the attack as if he knew he would not survive, and chose to attack soldiers in a setting in which there would be many unarmed targets.
In short, it is a classic example of Islamic terrorism against US soldiers by a Muslim extremist.
But that is not the information you will get from many of the mainstream media who are feverishly attempting to be politically correct and cover for his actions.
On a National Public Radio broadcast yesterday, about six hours after the attack, I heard the host (I don’t recall his name) discuss the issue and carefully pronounce the Major’s Arabic name, but then he and a female reporter specifically pointed out that “Hasan is a United States soldier and a US citizen, he’s not a foreigner”. They appeared to take pains to avoid mention of Hasan’s Muslim faith or outrageous statements against the United States that were already being reported by the AP, FOX, and other sources. Later, reporters for NPR actually changed the pronunciation of his name, anglicizing it and they further sterilized the reporting to avoid any mention of his Muslim identity.
Similarly, NBC reporter Brian Williams and a reporter at the scene discussed the issue in detail—except they never mentioned that he was Muslim, nor did they touch on one single relevant detail about his outrageous and traitorous comments, instead focusing on the speculation that, because he had dealt with soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorders, he may have suffered from stress. What’s more, CNN reporters were overheard mentioning his “harassment” complaints, but studiously avoided mentioning the complaints against him for his comments.
After being advised about the brutal killings, the White House announced that they would speak out about the situation, and President Obama—fully aware that a deadly attack against unarmed military personnel had killed 13 people—went live with a light-hearted commentary in which, instead of somberly speaking about the events, he focused instead on cheerful praise of Native American leaders at the Tribal Nations Conference. His behavior was appalling, and should be considered Obama’s “Katrina moment”.
Obama’s inconsiderate and dispassionate response must be considered in conjunction with his total inability to formulate a strategy for the conflict in Afghanistan, and his shameful disrespect for the requests for additional troops that were formally submitted months ago. He called the terrorist attack a “horrific outburst of violence”, yet another attempt to downplay domestic acts of terror perpetrated by Muslims against our citizens.
So what is it with the media that appears to actively attempt to downplay violent acts by Muslims in this country in an effort to make them look like random acts of violence, or aberrations by imbalanced individuals, instead of what they are: terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims who live in this country while considering the nation and its people as their mortal enemies? They are complicit in an insidious cover-up, a form of news sanitization, and are not only covering for an inept, incompetent and unpatriotic President, but for the enemy that is killing our citizens.
Keep in mind that these are the same media and politicians who labeled Tea Party protestors "extremists", "terrorists", "Nazis", and who warned America to be vigilant for "home-grown terrorists" and new "Timothy McVeighs" (implying that we should be suspicious of conservatives and returning military). A Democrat even called conservatives "Taliban" this past week. All of this was picked up and gleefully covered by the same out-of-touch media who now bend over backward to hide Hasan's Muslim identity and his Jihadist motives.
***Update 1***
I just remembered another recent controversy that seems relevant to this issue. Remember how the Democrats were so keen to pass hate-crime bills that protect homosexuals and others with bizarre sexual proclivities, but refused to provide similar protection for military members?
"In a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, Democrats voted against excluding pedophiles from hate crime protection in a new crime bill. At the same hearing, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) lambasted Republicans for trying to add protections for veterans in the same bill. No such outrage was voiced against the protection for pedophiles. " It also brings to mind the history surrounding the "Beltway Sniper", Liberal media rounded up panels of "experts" who promoted the notion that the sniper was most likely a white conservative acting alone and then buried the facts surrounding the real killer, John Muhammed, when it was learned that he was an American convert to Islam who murdered innocent people as a form of Jihad.
The media would neither want to consider this type of violence against our military citizens as neither an act of terror, nor a hate crime. It's just a little tragedy, folks. No need to be outraged.
Maybe we have to ask ourselves, as the Liberals did after 9/11: "What did we do to deserve this"?!
***Update 2***
Obama has issued a request that we "urged people not to jump to conclusions while law enforcement officers investigate the shootings. " What?! So now analyzing the evidence for Hasan's activities, of which there is there is more than enough, is "jumping to conclusions"?
We have just learned that Hasan filled out a form for his mosque that he claimed "Palestinian" nationality, even though he was a US citizen! (Who is surprised?)
AND Newsweek has now published an article in which the author, Andrew Bast, attempts to make the claim that Hasan was a victim of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) even though he has never seen combat. "Hasan's perspective is unknown. He had yet to fight abroad. But the accusations against him can't help but bring to mind the violence scarring military bases all over the country after the duration of two long, brutal wars." To the contrary, you brainless twit, his perspective is already widely known. This may be the clearest example yet of how some Liberal journalists, instead of acting as "investigators", finding and following evidence to a logical conclusion, come to their own biased conclusions without regard to the evidence and instead pervert the evidence in order to support their own political agendas.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The threats against conservatives
CNN’s Lou Dobbs has reported recently that a gunman fired a shot at his home while his wife was outside the home and entering her automobile. Dobbs stated that the mass media and pro-immigration groups such as LULAC and the National Council of La Raza have “created an atmosphere and they’ve been unrelenting in their propaganda” against him, a statement that appears to connect their activities and the life-threatening attack against his family. The shot was not an isolated event; it “followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls.”
As pointed out by NewsBusters author Jeff Poor, the Obama administration has been alerting the nation to their perceived threat that conservative rhetoric could lead to violence. But the attack on the Dobbs family reveals a very real threat that Liberal rhetoric also may instigate violence against individuals speaking out against the Obama administration policies.
Given these facts, one would assume that Dobbs’ assertion would be headline news—at the very least at CNN. Yet a visit to CNN.com homepage found no references to the events. What’s more, a search within the CNN pages returned not a single article on the attack. Think about that: one of CNN’s premier anchors and managing editors received death threats and even had a shot fired at his home, yet CNN did not apparently find that noteworthy!
While the attack on Dobbs is both concerning and shocking, CNN’s silence on the issue is stunning. One cannot imagine that CNN would remain silent if a right-wing nut threatened the life of, and fired shots at, CNN minority reporters such as Soledad O’Brien. So why the silence about the threat to Dobbs? Is it because Dobbs has taken a stance that is contrary to the clearly Liberal political stance that CNN now espouses? Could the network that has tasked O’Brien with “Black in America” and “Hispanic in America” find Dobbs’ anti-illegal-immigration stance so distasteful that they think he brought it upon himself or somehow deserves assassination?
During his October 28th radio program, talk show host and FOX commentator Glenn Beck discussed the constant threats against him, and went so far as to inform his audience that he actually considers the possibility that “something might happen” to him, that “they” might even try to shoot him, but then clarified that he believes that if something were to happen to him, “they would probably be more subtle about it”. Hinting at what he meant, he reassured his audience that he is “not suicidal, and my brakes work just fine.” In other words; if he turns up dead due to “suicide” or “brake failure”, you, loyal listeners, should suspect foul play.
Has America really reached this point? Can it be that the hyperbolic propaganda and hatred by the left toward conservatives and independents has reached such a fevered pitch that they can actually rationalize the assassinations of “dangerous” influential news anchors and talk show hosts?
As pointed out by NewsBusters author Jeff Poor, the Obama administration has been alerting the nation to their perceived threat that conservative rhetoric could lead to violence. But the attack on the Dobbs family reveals a very real threat that Liberal rhetoric also may instigate violence against individuals speaking out against the Obama administration policies.
Given these facts, one would assume that Dobbs’ assertion would be headline news—at the very least at CNN. Yet a visit to CNN.com homepage found no references to the events. What’s more, a search within the CNN pages returned not a single article on the attack. Think about that: one of CNN’s premier anchors and managing editors received death threats and even had a shot fired at his home, yet CNN did not apparently find that noteworthy!
While the attack on Dobbs is both concerning and shocking, CNN’s silence on the issue is stunning. One cannot imagine that CNN would remain silent if a right-wing nut threatened the life of, and fired shots at, CNN minority reporters such as Soledad O’Brien. So why the silence about the threat to Dobbs? Is it because Dobbs has taken a stance that is contrary to the clearly Liberal political stance that CNN now espouses? Could the network that has tasked O’Brien with “Black in America” and “Hispanic in America” find Dobbs’ anti-illegal-immigration stance so distasteful that they think he brought it upon himself or somehow deserves assassination?
During his October 28th radio program, talk show host and FOX commentator Glenn Beck discussed the constant threats against him, and went so far as to inform his audience that he actually considers the possibility that “something might happen” to him, that “they” might even try to shoot him, but then clarified that he believes that if something were to happen to him, “they would probably be more subtle about it”. Hinting at what he meant, he reassured his audience that he is “not suicidal, and my brakes work just fine.” In other words; if he turns up dead due to “suicide” or “brake failure”, you, loyal listeners, should suspect foul play.
Has America really reached this point? Can it be that the hyperbolic propaganda and hatred by the left toward conservatives and independents has reached such a fevered pitch that they can actually rationalize the assassinations of “dangerous” influential news anchors and talk show hosts?
An analysis of Resignation Letter by Matthew Hoh
The resignation letter of Matthew Hoh, the U.S.’s Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan, represented the highest civilian official resignation over the war and has been received with some fanfare by the left, as well as trepidation by the Obama administration, who has reached out to him and tried to coax him to reconsider or, alternatively, to rejoin them by taking a domestic post where he can influence U.S. policy there.
But what has been glaringly absent is a real analysis of the absurd statements made by this young man. While we should be respectful of his service, the fact that he served honorably in both a military and civilian position for the nation should not excuse his resignation letter from scrutiny. And once the veneer of his letter is peeled back, a number of blatantly idiotic opinions become revealed.
For starters, Hoh states that “…the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries.”
This single phrase is the heart of Hoh’s ridiculous opinion. It is true that al-Qaeda agents, working in European and American cities, planned and executed the attacks, and it’s also true that these were primarily Saudi citizens. But his statement grossly overlooks the fact that it was Afghanistan where the al-Qaeda terrorists received most of their training, and served as the enclave from which their highest officers organized, funded, and ordered attacks. The Taliban were not only complicit, but were directly responsible because they provided material and moral support for the al-Qaeda terror organization. After the attack, they brazenly protected the perpetrators and responded to the world—not just the United States—with arrogant threats and challenges, instead of helping the world to get its hands on these bloodied murderers.
Hoh then continues: “The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified.”
Revealing a perverse form of the Stockholm syndrome, Hoh displays more sympathy for the Pashtun tribesmen who resent U.S. presence than he does the U.S. cause. If it was primarily the Pashtun who form the Taliban, and if it was the Taliban who supported al-Qaeda—which by its nature was primarily composed of foreign mercenary terrorists including Saudi, Georgian, Pakistanis and other nationalities—then it is fair to say that the Pashtun were not overly concerned about the presence of foreign fighters when they were initially in their midst, and it was their complicity with their actions that brought the full wrath of the United States to their lands. To say that their insurgency is “justified” is an attempt to obviate the fact that the invasion of Afghanistan was also justified, a rhetorical action that appears to undermine U.S. interests and a just response to a horrendous act of war.
Hoh says that “…this is not the European or Pacific theaters of World War II, but rather is a war for which our leaders, uniformed, civilian and elected, have inadequately prepared and resourced our men and women.”
No, indeed it is not. But like the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was al-Qaeda and its close allies in the Taliban who launched the preemptive strike on the United States. The U.S. response to the Japanese was focused, furious, and justified. Hoh’s illogical argument would have rendered the American bellicose response on Japan inutile and would have justified any Japanese response as “justified”.
What’s more, for an individual who claims to know U.S. military history, he is either staggeringly ignorant of the facts surrounding World War II, or purposely overlooks the harsh realities of that war. It is false to pretend that U.S. troops in WWII were somehow better equipped than today’s soldiers. Their equipment was far more primitive and sparse than what our troops enjoy today. Leadership vacuums existed then, as now, and many horrific mistakes were made that cost our troops thousands of lives. In a single example, known as Exercise Tiger, which was a practice drill in preparation for the Normandy invasion, lack of preparation, leadership mistakes, and a surprise U-Boat attack killed nearly as many men in one day as what the U.S. has lost in Afghanistan over the course of eight years. What’s more, that exercise alone killed nearly three times as many men as what died on Utah Beach during the actual invasion. Many mistakes were made throughout the war included troops ordered to attack non-existant artillery emplacements, paratroopers accidentally dropped far from intended targets, troops killed by friendly fire and bombed by allied planes.
War is hell, they say. It always has been and always will be. Our troops have found themselves ill-equipped since the Revolutionary War, and have suffered horrendous losses to friendly fire and other mistakes, including the incident that killed Confederate General Longstreet in the Civil War. By comparison, our troops today are far better equipped, trained, and supported than at any other time in history.
Hoh’s most egregious comments are when he begins to question the entire strategy for the war. For example, he points out that the corruption and incompetence of the new Afghan government “reminds me of our involvement in South Vietnam.” He never bothers to consider that this new, incompetent government is a vast improvement over the brutality, inhumanity, cruelty and stone-age incompetence of the Taliban government, if we dare to even call it a “government”. The problems he highlights regarding fraud and corruption can be overcome with time, and are not unique to the Afghan government. What’s more, Vietnam did not attack the United States, but the previous Afghan government was complicit in the attacks on the United States which—by the way—killed more US citizens than the number who died at Pearl Harbor.
Hoh then says: “I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc….to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan…”
To suggest that we should “occupy western Pakistan” reveals yet another foolish opinion. Pakistan is not an enemy state; they have allied themselves with the United States to combat the Taliban terrorists and have lost more soldiers and civilians in this effort than we have (some estimates claim there have been thousands of deaths in Pakistan due to their assistance, including the assassinated Benazir Bhutto). While they have been neither as effective nor as cooperative as we would like, the Pakistanis have made great sacrifices and have risked their own internal peace in the effort to stamp out Taliban radicalism. And I must again remind Hoh that, while Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen were not involved in the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan was. Yet despite that fact, the United States is in fact struggling to contain the terrorist threats that emanate from those nations. Hoh’s illogical conclusion appears to suggest that because the war in Afghanistan is difficult and costly, and because there are other threats also, if we don’t invade all the nations that threaten us, we should not invade any.
To refer back to WWII, it would be as if Hoh suggested that we should not have attacked Germany, Italy and Japan because we did not attack Spain, which had been a Nazi ally (even if Franco did remain neutral in the war). The Soviet Union, like Pakistan, was both a threat and an ally, but we did not invade Russia. So Hoh’s analysis reveals an infantile misunderstanding of strategy: if you can’t attack everywhere at once, then you should refrain from attacking anywhere at all.
Even a chess novice could see that this “strategy” is no strategy at all, but is instead an excuse for cowardice.
Hoh further reveals his ignorance when he says that “if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.”
Is Hoh unaware of our nation’s deep involvement in Mexico (not to mention Colombia)? Has he never heard of our efforts to strengthen their democracy, of our investment of time, resources and manpower in the counter-narcotic struggle?
Hoh summarizes his discontent by stating that our effort in Afghanistan “has become a cavalier, politically expedient and Pollyannaish misadventure.” To my knowledge, none of our civilian and military leaders have provided naรฏve positive statements about the war that could be described accurately as “Pollyannaish”.
Every assessment I have heard has been frank, forthright, worrisome, but has not promoted a hopeless and cynical call for retreat and surrender, which is what Hoh appears to promote.
But what has been glaringly absent is a real analysis of the absurd statements made by this young man. While we should be respectful of his service, the fact that he served honorably in both a military and civilian position for the nation should not excuse his resignation letter from scrutiny. And once the veneer of his letter is peeled back, a number of blatantly idiotic opinions become revealed.
For starters, Hoh states that “…the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries.”
This single phrase is the heart of Hoh’s ridiculous opinion. It is true that al-Qaeda agents, working in European and American cities, planned and executed the attacks, and it’s also true that these were primarily Saudi citizens. But his statement grossly overlooks the fact that it was Afghanistan where the al-Qaeda terrorists received most of their training, and served as the enclave from which their highest officers organized, funded, and ordered attacks. The Taliban were not only complicit, but were directly responsible because they provided material and moral support for the al-Qaeda terror organization. After the attack, they brazenly protected the perpetrators and responded to the world—not just the United States—with arrogant threats and challenges, instead of helping the world to get its hands on these bloodied murderers.
Hoh then continues: “The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified.”
Revealing a perverse form of the Stockholm syndrome, Hoh displays more sympathy for the Pashtun tribesmen who resent U.S. presence than he does the U.S. cause. If it was primarily the Pashtun who form the Taliban, and if it was the Taliban who supported al-Qaeda—which by its nature was primarily composed of foreign mercenary terrorists including Saudi, Georgian, Pakistanis and other nationalities—then it is fair to say that the Pashtun were not overly concerned about the presence of foreign fighters when they were initially in their midst, and it was their complicity with their actions that brought the full wrath of the United States to their lands. To say that their insurgency is “justified” is an attempt to obviate the fact that the invasion of Afghanistan was also justified, a rhetorical action that appears to undermine U.S. interests and a just response to a horrendous act of war.
Hoh says that “…this is not the European or Pacific theaters of World War II, but rather is a war for which our leaders, uniformed, civilian and elected, have inadequately prepared and resourced our men and women.”
No, indeed it is not. But like the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was al-Qaeda and its close allies in the Taliban who launched the preemptive strike on the United States. The U.S. response to the Japanese was focused, furious, and justified. Hoh’s illogical argument would have rendered the American bellicose response on Japan inutile and would have justified any Japanese response as “justified”.
What’s more, for an individual who claims to know U.S. military history, he is either staggeringly ignorant of the facts surrounding World War II, or purposely overlooks the harsh realities of that war. It is false to pretend that U.S. troops in WWII were somehow better equipped than today’s soldiers. Their equipment was far more primitive and sparse than what our troops enjoy today. Leadership vacuums existed then, as now, and many horrific mistakes were made that cost our troops thousands of lives. In a single example, known as Exercise Tiger, which was a practice drill in preparation for the Normandy invasion, lack of preparation, leadership mistakes, and a surprise U-Boat attack killed nearly as many men in one day as what the U.S. has lost in Afghanistan over the course of eight years. What’s more, that exercise alone killed nearly three times as many men as what died on Utah Beach during the actual invasion. Many mistakes were made throughout the war included troops ordered to attack non-existant artillery emplacements, paratroopers accidentally dropped far from intended targets, troops killed by friendly fire and bombed by allied planes.
War is hell, they say. It always has been and always will be. Our troops have found themselves ill-equipped since the Revolutionary War, and have suffered horrendous losses to friendly fire and other mistakes, including the incident that killed Confederate General Longstreet in the Civil War. By comparison, our troops today are far better equipped, trained, and supported than at any other time in history.
Hoh’s most egregious comments are when he begins to question the entire strategy for the war. For example, he points out that the corruption and incompetence of the new Afghan government “reminds me of our involvement in South Vietnam.” He never bothers to consider that this new, incompetent government is a vast improvement over the brutality, inhumanity, cruelty and stone-age incompetence of the Taliban government, if we dare to even call it a “government”. The problems he highlights regarding fraud and corruption can be overcome with time, and are not unique to the Afghan government. What’s more, Vietnam did not attack the United States, but the previous Afghan government was complicit in the attacks on the United States which—by the way—killed more US citizens than the number who died at Pearl Harbor.
Hoh then says: “I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc….to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan…”
To suggest that we should “occupy western Pakistan” reveals yet another foolish opinion. Pakistan is not an enemy state; they have allied themselves with the United States to combat the Taliban terrorists and have lost more soldiers and civilians in this effort than we have (some estimates claim there have been thousands of deaths in Pakistan due to their assistance, including the assassinated Benazir Bhutto). While they have been neither as effective nor as cooperative as we would like, the Pakistanis have made great sacrifices and have risked their own internal peace in the effort to stamp out Taliban radicalism. And I must again remind Hoh that, while Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen were not involved in the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan was. Yet despite that fact, the United States is in fact struggling to contain the terrorist threats that emanate from those nations. Hoh’s illogical conclusion appears to suggest that because the war in Afghanistan is difficult and costly, and because there are other threats also, if we don’t invade all the nations that threaten us, we should not invade any.
To refer back to WWII, it would be as if Hoh suggested that we should not have attacked Germany, Italy and Japan because we did not attack Spain, which had been a Nazi ally (even if Franco did remain neutral in the war). The Soviet Union, like Pakistan, was both a threat and an ally, but we did not invade Russia. So Hoh’s analysis reveals an infantile misunderstanding of strategy: if you can’t attack everywhere at once, then you should refrain from attacking anywhere at all.
Even a chess novice could see that this “strategy” is no strategy at all, but is instead an excuse for cowardice.
Hoh further reveals his ignorance when he says that “if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.”
Is Hoh unaware of our nation’s deep involvement in Mexico (not to mention Colombia)? Has he never heard of our efforts to strengthen their democracy, of our investment of time, resources and manpower in the counter-narcotic struggle?
Hoh summarizes his discontent by stating that our effort in Afghanistan “has become a cavalier, politically expedient and Pollyannaish misadventure.” To my knowledge, none of our civilian and military leaders have provided naรฏve positive statements about the war that could be described accurately as “Pollyannaish”.
Every assessment I have heard has been frank, forthright, worrisome, but has not promoted a hopeless and cynical call for retreat and surrender, which is what Hoh appears to promote.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The fashionable urban protester
Hey, I saw an article about the protesters at the G-20 summit, and they were talking about the police using LRAD against them, and I saw this stylish young cat… it’s almost something you’d read about in the J. Peterman Catalog:
Dress tastefully for the action at Progressive protests! Our protester model sports a German wool beret ($50) that advertises his practical yet idealistic artistic worldviews. Soft yet practical white cotton gloves protect his most delicate appendages ($15) and can be used to protect sensitve ears from the damaging effecting of LRAD noise employed by the fascist police. A veteran, lightly-used East-European ammo bag ($35) provides a macho “man-purse” counterbalance for the metro-sexual street protester, while the Crimson and Gold Gryffindor scarf ($75) over a sober black all-silk T ($55) shows that even the most dedicated urban activist can mix a whimsical flair for fantasy with a dedicated passion for mayhem!
Dress tastefully for the action at Progressive protests! Our protester model sports a German wool beret ($50) that advertises his practical yet idealistic artistic worldviews. Soft yet practical white cotton gloves protect his most delicate appendages ($15) and can be used to protect sensitve ears from the damaging effecting of LRAD noise employed by the fascist police. A veteran, lightly-used East-European ammo bag ($35) provides a macho “man-purse” counterbalance for the metro-sexual street protester, while the Crimson and Gold Gryffindor scarf ($75) over a sober black all-silk T ($55) shows that even the most dedicated urban activist can mix a whimsical flair for fantasy with a dedicated passion for mayhem!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Zelaya, Chavez, and Lula: Socialist intervention in Honduras
What should be one of the most important stories in the Western Hemisphere is going virtually unreported.
By now, only the profoundly and permanently ignorant can deny that former president Manuel (Mel) Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution when he called for reform of the constitution in order to give himself the option of re-election.
In a video-taped recording of a speech Zelaya gave to his followers four days before his destitution, he stated:
“Here the judges are re-elected, the fiscales (prosecuting attorneys) are re-elected, the mayors are re-elected, the Legislators (Diputados) are re-elected…the only one who is not re-elected is the President, but the Re-election is the theme of the next constitutional assembly.”
Constitutional Assemblies are organized efforts to re-write constitutions under Latin American democratic rules. The problem with this is that the Honduran constitution explicitly prohibits Presidents from requesting or even suggesting their own re-election, and he who violates this norm, according to the Honduran Supreme Court, automatically loses his mandate and is to be removed from power. This is what happened to Zelaya.
Yesterday, 21 of September 2009, Zelaya somehow slipped through the border and arrived in Honduras. The most common report states that he arrived secretly overland, while at least one other report suggests he was flown into Honduras aboard a Venezuelan military plane. He then managed to seek refuge in the Brazilian embassy.
In response, the interim president, Roberto Micheletti, stated: “I can’t help but think that he’s here to try to put up obstacles to our presidential election” that is scheduled to occur in November. Micheletti, in agreement with the Honduran constitution, cannot and will not postulate himself as a candidate, now or ever again, since he served as President, even if it was for only a few months.
The most important factor in this story is that Zelaya apparently left Nicaragua with the help of the socialist Nicaraguan government of Manuel Ortega and was given protection in the Brazilian embassy. It appears that the leftist governments of Nicaragua, Venezuela and Brazil are colluding to intervene in the internal affairs of Honduras, in order to overthrow the “de facto” government there and restore Zelaya to power, in opposition to what appear to be the legal and constitutional orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, the Honduran congress (or parliament), and the standing president.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to waffle and wobble, speaking out of both sides of its diplomatic mouth. Publicly they have called for the return of Zelaya, but then in the past written letters acknowledging that it was Zelaya’s own actions that caused his removal.
It is shocking to see the UN, OAS, and United States behave in such an inept and unhelpful manner. The moral confusion that appears to run these organizations and our State Department will eventually contribute to a violent upheaval in Honduras and could result in the ultimate destruction of the Honduran democracy.
UPDATE:
Interested parties should listen to this blistering critique of the Obama policy on Honduras by none other than the great Newt Gengrich.
Selected quote:
"I think this administration may rapidly parallel Carter, in that Carter had this deep almost psychologically driven compulsion to attack America's allies and apologise for our enemies, and this administration has a very similar pattern..."{he then reviews the situation in Honduras I have outlined in my posts}..."The Obama administration has already announced they will not honor (the upcoming November elections). In fact, they went further and just withdrew the visas of the 15 Supreme Court Justices (who ordered Zelaya deposed for constitutional violations). This is waging war on Democracy."
By now, only the profoundly and permanently ignorant can deny that former president Manuel (Mel) Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution when he called for reform of the constitution in order to give himself the option of re-election.
In a video-taped recording of a speech Zelaya gave to his followers four days before his destitution, he stated:
“Here the judges are re-elected, the fiscales (prosecuting attorneys) are re-elected, the mayors are re-elected, the Legislators (Diputados) are re-elected…the only one who is not re-elected is the President, but the Re-election is the theme of the next constitutional assembly.”
Constitutional Assemblies are organized efforts to re-write constitutions under Latin American democratic rules. The problem with this is that the Honduran constitution explicitly prohibits Presidents from requesting or even suggesting their own re-election, and he who violates this norm, according to the Honduran Supreme Court, automatically loses his mandate and is to be removed from power. This is what happened to Zelaya.
Yesterday, 21 of September 2009, Zelaya somehow slipped through the border and arrived in Honduras. The most common report states that he arrived secretly overland, while at least one other report suggests he was flown into Honduras aboard a Venezuelan military plane. He then managed to seek refuge in the Brazilian embassy.
In response, the interim president, Roberto Micheletti, stated: “I can’t help but think that he’s here to try to put up obstacles to our presidential election” that is scheduled to occur in November. Micheletti, in agreement with the Honduran constitution, cannot and will not postulate himself as a candidate, now or ever again, since he served as President, even if it was for only a few months.
The most important factor in this story is that Zelaya apparently left Nicaragua with the help of the socialist Nicaraguan government of Manuel Ortega and was given protection in the Brazilian embassy. It appears that the leftist governments of Nicaragua, Venezuela and Brazil are colluding to intervene in the internal affairs of Honduras, in order to overthrow the “de facto” government there and restore Zelaya to power, in opposition to what appear to be the legal and constitutional orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, the Honduran congress (or parliament), and the standing president.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to waffle and wobble, speaking out of both sides of its diplomatic mouth. Publicly they have called for the return of Zelaya, but then in the past written letters acknowledging that it was Zelaya’s own actions that caused his removal.
It is shocking to see the UN, OAS, and United States behave in such an inept and unhelpful manner. The moral confusion that appears to run these organizations and our State Department will eventually contribute to a violent upheaval in Honduras and could result in the ultimate destruction of the Honduran democracy.
UPDATE:
Interested parties should listen to this blistering critique of the Obama policy on Honduras by none other than the great Newt Gengrich.
Selected quote:
"I think this administration may rapidly parallel Carter, in that Carter had this deep almost psychologically driven compulsion to attack America's allies and apologise for our enemies, and this administration has a very similar pattern..."{he then reviews the situation in Honduras I have outlined in my posts}..."The Obama administration has already announced they will not honor (the upcoming November elections). In fact, they went further and just withdrew the visas of the 15 Supreme Court Justices (who ordered Zelaya deposed for constitutional violations). This is waging war on Democracy."
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Obama plan to buy votes through healthcare
President Obama has just revealed his darkest intentions to the country.
If you will recall, over the past couple of months, a great deal of controversy has brewed between the Democrats in power and the Republican opposition about whether or not the Democrats intended to give Health Care coverage to the 12 million illegal aliens.
The Democrats furiously denounced the Republican criticism of the plan as “disinformation”—implying that the Republicans were lying, thus (not so subtly) labeling them as “LIARS”—because there was a provision in the bill that said that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the government plan coverage. But they continued to talk about “46 million” uninsured in the country, a figure which, according to independent sources such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, included illegal immigrants in the count.
Republicans countered that there was not a provision in the bill to verify eligibility and prevent the illegal aliens from receiving coverage. They pointed to the fact that they had attempted to amend House Bill 3200 to include a provision that did just that. It was rejected by House Democrats.
Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being liars and racists every time the issue was brought up. During the President’s speech before congress (Sept 9, 2009), Obama used a new figure for the number of uninsured: 30 million. This change appeared to signal that they had recalculated the number of uninsured and subtracted the illegal immigrants. My interpretation was that this was a veiled acknowledgement that they had indeed known that the 46-million figure cited repeatedly included illegal aliens, and they knew it. But the obfuscation continued, because during the speech Obama reiterated that any accusation that the House Plan would cover undocumented immigrants was “false”.
That was when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) lost control of his emotions and—in a unique breach of House rules of conduct—he yelled "You lie!" to the President! He might have been wrong in his form of expression, but he was right—morally and factually. Despite the expressed outrage from the Democrats, they responded by amending the bill to include a verification provision—proving that the Republicans had been right all along!
Now President Obama has made another outlandish statement. In a speech he gave Wednesday, Sept 16th to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said:
"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."
In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats are guilty of LYING to the American people AND the Congress repeatedly.
If you will recall, over the past couple of months, a great deal of controversy has brewed between the Democrats in power and the Republican opposition about whether or not the Democrats intended to give Health Care coverage to the 12 million illegal aliens.
The Democrats furiously denounced the Republican criticism of the plan as “disinformation”—implying that the Republicans were lying, thus (not so subtly) labeling them as “LIARS”—because there was a provision in the bill that said that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the government plan coverage. But they continued to talk about “46 million” uninsured in the country, a figure which, according to independent sources such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, included illegal immigrants in the count.
Republicans countered that there was not a provision in the bill to verify eligibility and prevent the illegal aliens from receiving coverage. They pointed to the fact that they had attempted to amend House Bill 3200 to include a provision that did just that. It was rejected by House Democrats.
Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being liars and racists every time the issue was brought up. During the President’s speech before congress (Sept 9, 2009), Obama used a new figure for the number of uninsured: 30 million. This change appeared to signal that they had recalculated the number of uninsured and subtracted the illegal immigrants. My interpretation was that this was a veiled acknowledgement that they had indeed known that the 46-million figure cited repeatedly included illegal aliens, and they knew it. But the obfuscation continued, because during the speech Obama reiterated that any accusation that the House Plan would cover undocumented immigrants was “false”.
That was when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) lost control of his emotions and—in a unique breach of House rules of conduct—he yelled "You lie!" to the President! He might have been wrong in his form of expression, but he was right—morally and factually. Despite the expressed outrage from the Democrats, they responded by amending the bill to include a verification provision—proving that the Republicans had been right all along!
Now President Obama has made another outlandish statement. In a speech he gave Wednesday, Sept 16th to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said:
"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."
In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats are guilty of LYING to the American people AND the Congress repeatedly.
- Democrats and Obama LIED with straight faces that there were 46 million uninsured Americans, but that this figure did NOT include undocumented (illegal) aliens--because we know that figure DID include them!
- Obama LIED when he told Congress that HB 3200 would NOT allow illegal aliens to receive the new government entitlement, because they KNEW there was no provision in the bill to prevent them from receiving it. (BTW, isn't lying to Congress a Crime?)
- Democrats and Obama were then caught in their lies, publicly shamed, and were forced to change the bill to prevent illegal aliens from receiving the government entitlement.
- So NOW Obama wants to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens so they can go ahead and receive the entitlement he had wanted them to receive in the first place.
The most outrageous aspect of this is that if they grant citizenship to those 12 million people who entered the country illegally and include with it a promise of a massive government entitlement, they will be radically changing the electoral map, and buying votes at the same time.
And, as my good friend Kent pointed out to me: "Perhaps since ACORN is now out of the picture for “assisting” with next year’s census, this was the only possible way to re-draw congressional districts to ensure Democratic hegemony."
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Bite your forked tongue, Speaker Pelosi
Indeed, Madam Speaker, there may yet be violence. Let us hope there is not, but it is about time you take note of the rage simmering in the nation. Meanwhile, your pathetic speeches do not absolve you and your cohorts of blame.
I heard the little chat you gave to the press today, Speaker Pelosi. I heard your voice quiver with emotion, and I was glad of it. You said:
“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … uh…I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume. But again, our country is great because people can say what they think and what they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”
I’m pleased to hear you recognize this very real possibility. I hope you understand that citizens across the country have been warning the government for some time: you are out of control, and have strayed too far from the constitution, infringing on our rights and liberties, at the individual and state levels.
The recent dramatic increase in firearms purchases in the USA was not because the ultra-leftist statements made by you, President Obama and your ilk kindled a new interest in deer hunting. No. Rather, a significant portion of the citizenry is concerned about social deterioration, increased crime, and what appears to be an unrestrained government whose actions are becoming increasingly tyrannical.
The fact that twenty states have made moves to reiterate their sovereignty is no insignificant fact. Contemplate that for a moment.
It should be understood that we are in dangerous waters. The ever-expanding federal government, which habitually hefts unfunded programs upon the states and refuses them the right to nullify the policies, is an unacceptable violation of states’ rights, is creating an untenable burden upon the citizenry, and is considered by millions of Americans to be a real, and not rhetorical, cause for revolt.
So yes, you had reason to speak with emotion, Madam Speaker: there is a very real possibility of violence. For the first time in my life, I’m hearing red-blooded America-loving citizens speak of civil war.
You and your Liberal friends cannot grasp the sentiment that has been stirred, but clearly you are aware of it. But get this through your head: the people making these statements are not a bunch of “imbalanced” crazies. The people I know saying this are not like David Koresh or Tim McVeigh...or Bill Ayers, for that matter.
These are highly intelligent, highly educated individuals; some are doctors, others professors, while many are ordinary corporate workers whose patience with government intrusion is running out.
So before you point fingers and accuse everyone else of irresponsible behavior, reflect on your own! Who it is that has appointed radical Marxists to the highest echelons of our government?
Who has appointed dozens of “czars” who are unaccountable to the people? Some of these have openly suspected President Bush of conspiring to destroy the Twin Towers, sympathized with the terrorists, while others wrote books proposing forced abortions and sterilization.
Whose administration is promoting doomsday predictions about global warming and imposing incredible tax hikes on our energy, while simultaneously promoting a radical restructuring of the entire national healthcare system?
Whose administration is it that condemned the previous president for running up the debt and deficit, and then quadrupled said debt and deficit by 400% in less than one year? Who is it that has doggedly accused good American citizens of being racists, Nazis, hypocrites, and liars for opposing the radical agenda?
Was that what you meant when you promoted “change” in America? Was that what President Obama meant when he promised “fundamental transformation of America”?
I’ve seen all of this before. It is what has been happening in my wife’s country of birth, Venezuela (she's now a US citizen), ever since they elected another “progressive” named Hugo Chavez. Watching you and your minions at work, I have been struck by the similarities in your policies and outlandish behavior. Chavez was able to trash the 40 year old Venezuelan constitution after only a few years in office, implant a neo-Marxist totalitarian regime, all without any real violent resistance.
But this is not Venezuela. Americans are not pacifists. We are, by nature, tolerant and peaceful when possible, but bellicose when necessary. We love our Constitution as much as others love their god. Patrick Henry’s demand, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death”, still reverberates in our hearts. We understand that sentiment and value those same values. We are still ready to fight and die so that our children may live free.
You seem to be living under the delusion that your intentions are good, so therefore the results of your actions must also be good. But your good intentions are paving a road to Hell, and your stubborn determination to take us on that journey with you clashes with our determination to preserve this, the most perfect of imperfect nations.
Let me make clear that I am not inciting violence, so bite your forked tongue before you accuse me of that crime. To the contrary, I am hopeful that the Democrat super-majority in control today will tame its hubris, restrain its giddy arrogance, and that reason will prevail. But meanwhile, heed my warning; the People who recently assembled peacefully in Tea Parties , town halls and marches were not a “mob”. No, when the “mob” comes knocking, you will instantly recognize the difference!
I heard the little chat you gave to the press today, Speaker Pelosi. I heard your voice quiver with emotion, and I was glad of it. You said:
“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … uh…I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume. But again, our country is great because people can say what they think and what they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”
I’m pleased to hear you recognize this very real possibility. I hope you understand that citizens across the country have been warning the government for some time: you are out of control, and have strayed too far from the constitution, infringing on our rights and liberties, at the individual and state levels.
The recent dramatic increase in firearms purchases in the USA was not because the ultra-leftist statements made by you, President Obama and your ilk kindled a new interest in deer hunting. No. Rather, a significant portion of the citizenry is concerned about social deterioration, increased crime, and what appears to be an unrestrained government whose actions are becoming increasingly tyrannical.
The fact that twenty states have made moves to reiterate their sovereignty is no insignificant fact. Contemplate that for a moment.
It should be understood that we are in dangerous waters. The ever-expanding federal government, which habitually hefts unfunded programs upon the states and refuses them the right to nullify the policies, is an unacceptable violation of states’ rights, is creating an untenable burden upon the citizenry, and is considered by millions of Americans to be a real, and not rhetorical, cause for revolt.
So yes, you had reason to speak with emotion, Madam Speaker: there is a very real possibility of violence. For the first time in my life, I’m hearing red-blooded America-loving citizens speak of civil war.
You and your Liberal friends cannot grasp the sentiment that has been stirred, but clearly you are aware of it. But get this through your head: the people making these statements are not a bunch of “imbalanced” crazies. The people I know saying this are not like David Koresh or Tim McVeigh...or Bill Ayers, for that matter.
These are highly intelligent, highly educated individuals; some are doctors, others professors, while many are ordinary corporate workers whose patience with government intrusion is running out.
So before you point fingers and accuse everyone else of irresponsible behavior, reflect on your own! Who it is that has appointed radical Marxists to the highest echelons of our government?
Who has appointed dozens of “czars” who are unaccountable to the people? Some of these have openly suspected President Bush of conspiring to destroy the Twin Towers, sympathized with the terrorists, while others wrote books proposing forced abortions and sterilization.
Whose administration is promoting doomsday predictions about global warming and imposing incredible tax hikes on our energy, while simultaneously promoting a radical restructuring of the entire national healthcare system?
Whose administration is it that condemned the previous president for running up the debt and deficit, and then quadrupled said debt and deficit by 400% in less than one year? Who is it that has doggedly accused good American citizens of being racists, Nazis, hypocrites, and liars for opposing the radical agenda?
Was that what you meant when you promoted “change” in America? Was that what President Obama meant when he promised “fundamental transformation of America”?
I’ve seen all of this before. It is what has been happening in my wife’s country of birth, Venezuela (she's now a US citizen), ever since they elected another “progressive” named Hugo Chavez. Watching you and your minions at work, I have been struck by the similarities in your policies and outlandish behavior. Chavez was able to trash the 40 year old Venezuelan constitution after only a few years in office, implant a neo-Marxist totalitarian regime, all without any real violent resistance.
But this is not Venezuela. Americans are not pacifists. We are, by nature, tolerant and peaceful when possible, but bellicose when necessary. We love our Constitution as much as others love their god. Patrick Henry’s demand, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death”, still reverberates in our hearts. We understand that sentiment and value those same values. We are still ready to fight and die so that our children may live free.
You seem to be living under the delusion that your intentions are good, so therefore the results of your actions must also be good. But your good intentions are paving a road to Hell, and your stubborn determination to take us on that journey with you clashes with our determination to preserve this, the most perfect of imperfect nations.
Let me make clear that I am not inciting violence, so bite your forked tongue before you accuse me of that crime. To the contrary, I am hopeful that the Democrat super-majority in control today will tame its hubris, restrain its giddy arrogance, and that reason will prevail. But meanwhile, heed my warning; the People who recently assembled peacefully in Tea Parties , town halls and marches were not a “mob”. No, when the “mob” comes knocking, you will instantly recognize the difference!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
More Obama Stupidity
More stupidity in the Obama speech Let’s talk a moment about the $3800 fine that penalizes people who choose to NOT carry health insurance.
According to the Obama plan, it would now be “illegal” to NOT have health insurance, punishable with up to $3800 fine. So a 22 year old, healthy male straight out of college will have no right to choose to go for a couple of years without insurance while he pays off his bills, because—in Obama’s words—“those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.”
“Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.
There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.
The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved. That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”
In response, let me remind anyone who reads this, that auto insurance is NOT required for anyone who does NOT drive a vehicle! In other words, driving is a privilege, and those who choose to drive are required to carry insurance—LIABILITY INSURANCE—in case the cause an accident and injure a third party.
But unlike health insurance, auto insurance is much less regulated, is portable, can be sold across all fifty states, and no one who chooses to NOT drive is penalized for not paying for someone else’s choice to drive!
This issue of forcing individuals to carry health insurance is the most obscene violation of individual liberty I can think of. Everyone should have the right to make his or her own decisions and then DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.
Otherwise, where does it stop?
I guess next year the government will declare that riding motorcycles is a "risky behavior" and make it illegal, because motorcycle accidents cause more severe injuries, at the expense of society.
Alcohol causes disease and accidents, so clearly we must either issue yearly fines on alcohol users, or ban it entirely.
And of course, the cause cรฉlรจbre of the Liberals: marijuana legalization! How can you talk about a $3800 fine on people who choose NOT to carry health insurance because it causes a harm to society, but then want to legalize the use of marijuana and other drugs, since we KNOW that these substances cause harm?!
I tell you what: I'll agree to government health care when they include mandatory drug tests for all government healthcare participants, also ban those recipients from engaging in dangerous activities such as 1) unprotected sex, 2) driving motocycles 3) skydiving, 4) hang-gliding, 5) trail-riding on mountain bikes, 6) skiing and snowboarding, 7) whitewater sports, 8) alcohol use, 9) tobacco use, 10) excessive masturbation (because too much masturbation by young males can increase prostate cancer risks later in life) 11) long distance running (causes damage to knees resulting in inevitable government funded knee replacements) 12) tennis (causes tennis elbow) 13) mandate computerized vehicular speed controls so that no vehicle can go faster than 55 MPH (speed kills), 14) mandate a minimum weekly exercise regimen for every citizen.
Yes, I KNOW those are absurd and silly suggestions. They are as silly (but no more so) as the Democrat plan to FORCE every individual to carry insurance.
Truly, the word "LIBERTY" means nothing anymore.
According to the Obama plan, it would now be “illegal” to NOT have health insurance, punishable with up to $3800 fine. So a 22 year old, healthy male straight out of college will have no right to choose to go for a couple of years without insurance while he pays off his bills, because—in Obama’s words—“those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.”
“Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.
There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.
The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved. That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”
In response, let me remind anyone who reads this, that auto insurance is NOT required for anyone who does NOT drive a vehicle! In other words, driving is a privilege, and those who choose to drive are required to carry insurance—LIABILITY INSURANCE—in case the cause an accident and injure a third party.
But unlike health insurance, auto insurance is much less regulated, is portable, can be sold across all fifty states, and no one who chooses to NOT drive is penalized for not paying for someone else’s choice to drive!
This issue of forcing individuals to carry health insurance is the most obscene violation of individual liberty I can think of. Everyone should have the right to make his or her own decisions and then DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.
Otherwise, where does it stop?
I guess next year the government will declare that riding motorcycles is a "risky behavior" and make it illegal, because motorcycle accidents cause more severe injuries, at the expense of society.
Alcohol causes disease and accidents, so clearly we must either issue yearly fines on alcohol users, or ban it entirely.
And of course, the cause cรฉlรจbre of the Liberals: marijuana legalization! How can you talk about a $3800 fine on people who choose NOT to carry health insurance because it causes a harm to society, but then want to legalize the use of marijuana and other drugs, since we KNOW that these substances cause harm?!
I tell you what: I'll agree to government health care when they include mandatory drug tests for all government healthcare participants, also ban those recipients from engaging in dangerous activities such as 1) unprotected sex, 2) driving motocycles 3) skydiving, 4) hang-gliding, 5) trail-riding on mountain bikes, 6) skiing and snowboarding, 7) whitewater sports, 8) alcohol use, 9) tobacco use, 10) excessive masturbation (because too much masturbation by young males can increase prostate cancer risks later in life) 11) long distance running (causes damage to knees resulting in inevitable government funded knee replacements) 12) tennis (causes tennis elbow) 13) mandate computerized vehicular speed controls so that no vehicle can go faster than 55 MPH (speed kills), 14) mandate a minimum weekly exercise regimen for every citizen.
Yes, I KNOW those are absurd and silly suggestions. They are as silly (but no more so) as the Democrat plan to FORCE every individual to carry insurance.
Truly, the word "LIBERTY" means nothing anymore.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Obama’s ongoing lies about illegals and health care
A keen listener to Obama’s health care propaganda plug before Congress should have noticed something important: he lamented that there are “30 million” people uninsured in the country.
According to the Washington Examiner, Obama was quoted back in July as saying "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all…"
Ain’t that a curious thing?
The explanation for this is quite simple: the numbers cited previously (46 to 47 million) corresponds to the numbers provided by think tanks such as the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because Democrats insisted—in fact, they damn near screamed—that they were not including illegal immigrants when they quoted the 47 million estimate, I contacted Kaiser to ask them about it. One of their research assistants responded:
“Our uninsured figures includes {sic} legal and illegal immigrants, including those with green cards, student visas, and people waiting for citizenship papers to be processed. We do not have a breakout of illegal and legal immigrants at this time, though you might find Jeffrey Passel's report on unauthorized immigrants in the United States useful.”
This is proof positive that, during the majority of the discussion on the Health Care reform efforts, the Democrats were inflating the numbers of “uninsured Americans” by including illegal immigrants, and were lying through their teeth about how they arrived at that number. Obama’s sudden change to quoting only “30 million” reflects an un-spoken admission of this fact on his part.
Representative Wilson’s impromptu challenge of Obama’s honesty, while impolite, was warranted. Obama has been lying about the number of uninsured and the composition of that group for many months. He is still lying when he asserts that illegals will not receive health care benefits, because while the bill does explicitly say that they should not receive coverage, there is a glaring absence of provisions to verify eligibility. Until the Democrats solve that problem, we are forced to assume that they had an intent to lie about the issue until they were caught, and still intend to provide care for illegal immigrants by leaving loopholes in the law.
According to the Washington Examiner, Obama was quoted back in July as saying "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all…"
Ain’t that a curious thing?
The explanation for this is quite simple: the numbers cited previously (46 to 47 million) corresponds to the numbers provided by think tanks such as the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because Democrats insisted—in fact, they damn near screamed—that they were not including illegal immigrants when they quoted the 47 million estimate, I contacted Kaiser to ask them about it. One of their research assistants responded:
“Our uninsured figures includes {sic} legal and illegal immigrants, including those with green cards, student visas, and people waiting for citizenship papers to be processed. We do not have a breakout of illegal and legal immigrants at this time, though you might find Jeffrey Passel's report on unauthorized immigrants in the United States useful.”
This is proof positive that, during the majority of the discussion on the Health Care reform efforts, the Democrats were inflating the numbers of “uninsured Americans” by including illegal immigrants, and were lying through their teeth about how they arrived at that number. Obama’s sudden change to quoting only “30 million” reflects an un-spoken admission of this fact on his part.
Representative Wilson’s impromptu challenge of Obama’s honesty, while impolite, was warranted. Obama has been lying about the number of uninsured and the composition of that group for many months. He is still lying when he asserts that illegals will not receive health care benefits, because while the bill does explicitly say that they should not receive coverage, there is a glaring absence of provisions to verify eligibility. Until the Democrats solve that problem, we are forced to assume that they had an intent to lie about the issue until they were caught, and still intend to provide care for illegal immigrants by leaving loopholes in the law.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Healthcare and Universities
Just a quick thought on that Obama speech.
First of all, Representative Wilson was right to call Obama a liar, because an omission of truth is still a lie. What Obama said is technically correct, in that HB 3200 does specifically state that undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive care under the government option. The problem is that HR 3200 contains to method of preventing it from happening anyway. Republicans tried to amend the bill in order to apply the same safeguards currently used for social security and other benefits, but the Democrats struck it down—and Obama knows it. So, in my opinion, although Wilson’s behavior was a bit out of the ordinary, he was right. And why should he apologize? Democrats booed President Bush in his 2005 State of the Union address.
On another note, I’d like to draw attention to a little detail of Obama’s misleading and silly speech, taken from the full transcript.
“… The insurance companies and their allies …argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.”
Mr. President, I’m so glad you brought up public colleges and Universities. Because in the context of your speech, you claim that government interference in the marketplace is going to reduce costs. And you point to state run universities…well have you looked at tuition costs lately?
According to a Money Central article on the rising costs of education, “the price tag for a college education rose again last year. Tuition and fees increased 14.1% for public four-year institutions and 6% for private schools, according to the College Board. The retail cost of a college degree has more than doubled in the past two decades, far outstripping the regular rate of inflation.” The average annual increase has been between 5% and 8%.
The author points to the work of Cornell economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, who “describes a kind of arms race among the nation’s top schools to have the best of everything: the best facilities, the best faculty and strong sports teams to engender loyalty among alumni donors.”
But what is the main cause for the increase? Financial Aid. Why? Because “most people dont pay the sticker price for college. Scholarships, grants and loans reduce the out-of-pocket cost for the majority of students. …As we’ve seen with the health-care system, if people aren’t feeling the real cost of their purchases, they have less incentive to change their behavior.”
Now what do you think will happen when you have government paid healthcare? If government-run universities can’t keep down their costs, and they continue to rise at rates far above the national rate of inflation, what do you think will happen with medical care under your plan?
First of all, Representative Wilson was right to call Obama a liar, because an omission of truth is still a lie. What Obama said is technically correct, in that HB 3200 does specifically state that undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive care under the government option. The problem is that HR 3200 contains to method of preventing it from happening anyway. Republicans tried to amend the bill in order to apply the same safeguards currently used for social security and other benefits, but the Democrats struck it down—and Obama knows it. So, in my opinion, although Wilson’s behavior was a bit out of the ordinary, he was right. And why should he apologize? Democrats booed President Bush in his 2005 State of the Union address.
On another note, I’d like to draw attention to a little detail of Obama’s misleading and silly speech, taken from the full transcript.
“… The insurance companies and their allies …argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.”
Mr. President, I’m so glad you brought up public colleges and Universities. Because in the context of your speech, you claim that government interference in the marketplace is going to reduce costs. And you point to state run universities…well have you looked at tuition costs lately?
According to a Money Central article on the rising costs of education, “the price tag for a college education rose again last year. Tuition and fees increased 14.1% for public four-year institutions and 6% for private schools, according to the College Board. The retail cost of a college degree has more than doubled in the past two decades, far outstripping the regular rate of inflation.” The average annual increase has been between 5% and 8%.
The author points to the work of Cornell economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, who “describes a kind of arms race among the nation’s top schools to have the best of everything: the best facilities, the best faculty and strong sports teams to engender loyalty among alumni donors.”
But what is the main cause for the increase? Financial Aid. Why? Because “most people dont pay the sticker price for college. Scholarships, grants and loans reduce the out-of-pocket cost for the majority of students. …As we’ve seen with the health-care system, if people aren’t feeling the real cost of their purchases, they have less incentive to change their behavior.”
Now what do you think will happen when you have government paid healthcare? If government-run universities can’t keep down their costs, and they continue to rise at rates far above the national rate of inflation, what do you think will happen with medical care under your plan?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Obama Propaganda Machine
In his article entitled “The Artist Formerly Known as Dissent”, Patrick Courrielche wrote of his growing discomfort with the role that artists are playing under the Obama administration. He warns: “the art community is not meeting its duty of always questioning those in power. And I say duty because the art community, as a counterpart of the press, has been given special rights written into the Bill of Rights, known broadly as freedom of the press, for the explicit purpose of keeping power in check.”
He continues: “Throughout modern history, art typically enters politics on a mass scale in two fashions: first, as a check on power; second, as a tool used by those in power.”
Courrielche then examines the hysterical and furious response to the only artistic challenge laid against the Obama administration—the infamous image of Obama as the Joker from the Batman series—and responds to the attacks on the anonymous creator. “Can you blame the artist for wanting to remain anonymous given the irrational and racially-charged criticism the poster has received?”
He ends his article with a brilliant admonition to the artists who continue to produce art celebrating Obama, rather than applying their talent to question “the ruling class”:
“It's time for the art community to return to its historical role in political affairs, which means speaking to power, not on behalf of it. Which leads me to the second case where art enters politics on a mass scale. The power of art, in combination with the suppression of free speech or a free press, has been used as a tool by authoritarian governments to control their citizens. From Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, art has been used to deify leaders while preserving the position of the ruling class. Most artists would not want to be referred to as tools of the state, but in the case of Obama's administration, that's exactly what they've been so far.”
Courrielche’s article, it turns out, was both timely and insightful, for reasons I shall explore in a moment. But before I do, and because Courrielche mentioned him in his article, I’d like to quote der Furer’s philosophy on propaganda, as stated in Mein Kampf.
"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.”
Courrielche has initiated what I hope will become a national dialog among American artists about their roles either as a “counterpart of the press” in defending democracy and our Liberty. But I fear that today’s artists—just like most of their counterparts in the mass media—have gleefully surrendered their independence from the current administration. The situation is growing so dire I dare say that it appears that McCarthy was right; Hollywood truly has become a socialist propaganda machine!
Consider the new film by Michael Moore, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, in which Moore “sums up his disgust with corporate America and its devastating effect on the lives of ordinary people…Ending on the notes of the ‘Internationale’ as Moore theatrically encircles New York banks with crime scene tape, the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise.”
In keeping with Hitler’s advice for creating quality propaganda, Moore does not try to simply show a number of failures in order to fix capitalism. No, he creates a one-sided, emotionally charged piece intended to encourage the abandonment of capitalism and implementation of socialism, employing a nearly cartoonish montage of images to drive home his propagandistic point:
“Simplifications are Moore's stock-in-trade, and his documentaries are not known for their impeccable research and objectivity. But here his talent is evident in creating two hours of engrossing cinema by contrasting a fast-moving montage of 50s archive images extolling free enterprise with the economic disaster of the present.” And as you might expect of a Nazi propaganda piece, it would not be acceptable to criticize the Fรผhrer: “Though it blames all political parties, including the Democrats, for caving in with the bailout, the film is careful to spare President Barack Obama, who remains a symbol of hope for justice.”
Lest you think this is an isolated case, Moore is not the only Hollywood film-maker producing socialist propaganda: Now we find out that Oliver Stone has just completed his new film (“South of the Border”) that glorifies Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Like all the great socialists before him, Chavez is a student of history and has always directed a well-oiled propaganda machine employing the best liberal artists he can find in Venezuela. This propaganda machine has had two major intents: 1) to create the appearance within Venezuela that he is a man of the people waging a tireless struggle against the evil forces of capitalism and “the Empire” (AKA: the USA), and 2) to counter growing international concern that he has supplanted Venezuelan democracy with totalitarian rule.
To this end, Chavez has carefully orchestrated a number of events to present himself to the world as a great champion of human rights, defender of the environment, and a soldier for the people. His ultimate goal has been to win the Nobel Peace Prize, for which his loyal followers have nominated him. Stone has apparently bought into this hook, line and sinker. “If you look now, there are seven presidents, eight countries with Chile, that are really moving away from the Washington consensus control. But in America, they don't get that story." When asked if he had tried to portray a realistic view of events in Venezuela, including Chavez’s “dark side”, Stone responded: "A dark side? There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? …He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect. But he is doing tremendous things for Venezuela and the region… He's not a dictator."
One must wonder why Stone failed to mention that the Chavez regime recently shut down over 40 radio stations that broadcast opposition perspectives to his policies, and this week his ministers warned they were about to close another thirty. Would Stone have overlooked similar excesses from the Bush administration?
Film-makers are not the only artists who are openly propagandizing for socialism. And in a new and deeply disturbing revelation, the Obama administration may actually be conspiring to convert the National Endowment for the Arts into an unofficial propaganda bureau.
For our good friend Patrick Courrielche has written another article in which he warns that the NEA is reaching out to the art community to create art that supports the Obama agenda. Courrielche reports:
“I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries ‘to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.’”
“Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were ‘health care’ and ‘energy and environment.’ The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans. “
Courrielche intuitively and quite accurately senses the moral (and probably legal) conflict of interest: “In my view, power tends to overreach whenever given the opportunity. It’s a law of human nature that has very few exceptions. …Could the National Endowment for the Arts be looking to the art community to create an environment amenable to the administration’s positions?”
He reports that during the call, there was much talk about “‘leveraging federal dollars’ to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.”
If this is true, then the Obama administration appears to be secretly re-writing the NEA’s mission statement, redirecting its purpose from supporting the arts to instead supporting his personal political agenda! What’s more, it’s a covert method of directing federal dollars into a propaganda effort without asking for or receiving permission from the Congress.
We must issue a Clarion Call to the citizens.
Not only did the socialist threat not die off with the collapse of the Berlin Wall; it is back, in a more dangerous and insidious form than ever. Our national media and our art community are conspiring with socialist politicians to destroy America’s capitalist economy and undermine the constitution. They are using our own tax dollars against us as they unleash new weapons to beguile and confound us. And just as Oliver Stone said, why should we consider the “dark side” to their methods, when they intend to “do good things”?
The ends justify the means.
Wake up, America!
***UPDATE***
Blogger Ben Smith reports that the NEA communications director has had to resign after issuing the communication that the NEA would help redirect federal dollars to artists so they would "work to further President Obama's legislative agenda."
Smith adds that "Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported that Sergant had been "asked to resign," and played it as another scalp -- like Van Jones' -- for Glenn Beck." Additionally, "Senator John Cornyn had also pressed the White House on the issue in a letter Tuesday."
He continues: “Throughout modern history, art typically enters politics on a mass scale in two fashions: first, as a check on power; second, as a tool used by those in power.”
Courrielche then examines the hysterical and furious response to the only artistic challenge laid against the Obama administration—the infamous image of Obama as the Joker from the Batman series—and responds to the attacks on the anonymous creator. “Can you blame the artist for wanting to remain anonymous given the irrational and racially-charged criticism the poster has received?”
He ends his article with a brilliant admonition to the artists who continue to produce art celebrating Obama, rather than applying their talent to question “the ruling class”:
“It's time for the art community to return to its historical role in political affairs, which means speaking to power, not on behalf of it. Which leads me to the second case where art enters politics on a mass scale. The power of art, in combination with the suppression of free speech or a free press, has been used as a tool by authoritarian governments to control their citizens. From Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, art has been used to deify leaders while preserving the position of the ruling class. Most artists would not want to be referred to as tools of the state, but in the case of Obama's administration, that's exactly what they've been so far.”
Courrielche’s article, it turns out, was both timely and insightful, for reasons I shall explore in a moment. But before I do, and because Courrielche mentioned him in his article, I’d like to quote der Furer’s philosophy on propaganda, as stated in Mein Kampf.
"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.”
Courrielche has initiated what I hope will become a national dialog among American artists about their roles either as a “counterpart of the press” in defending democracy and our Liberty. But I fear that today’s artists—just like most of their counterparts in the mass media—have gleefully surrendered their independence from the current administration. The situation is growing so dire I dare say that it appears that McCarthy was right; Hollywood truly has become a socialist propaganda machine!
Consider the new film by Michael Moore, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, in which Moore “sums up his disgust with corporate America and its devastating effect on the lives of ordinary people…Ending on the notes of the ‘Internationale’ as Moore theatrically encircles New York banks with crime scene tape, the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise.”
In keeping with Hitler’s advice for creating quality propaganda, Moore does not try to simply show a number of failures in order to fix capitalism. No, he creates a one-sided, emotionally charged piece intended to encourage the abandonment of capitalism and implementation of socialism, employing a nearly cartoonish montage of images to drive home his propagandistic point:
“Simplifications are Moore's stock-in-trade, and his documentaries are not known for their impeccable research and objectivity. But here his talent is evident in creating two hours of engrossing cinema by contrasting a fast-moving montage of 50s archive images extolling free enterprise with the economic disaster of the present.” And as you might expect of a Nazi propaganda piece, it would not be acceptable to criticize the Fรผhrer: “Though it blames all political parties, including the Democrats, for caving in with the bailout, the film is careful to spare President Barack Obama, who remains a symbol of hope for justice.”
Lest you think this is an isolated case, Moore is not the only Hollywood film-maker producing socialist propaganda: Now we find out that Oliver Stone has just completed his new film (“South of the Border”) that glorifies Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Like all the great socialists before him, Chavez is a student of history and has always directed a well-oiled propaganda machine employing the best liberal artists he can find in Venezuela. This propaganda machine has had two major intents: 1) to create the appearance within Venezuela that he is a man of the people waging a tireless struggle against the evil forces of capitalism and “the Empire” (AKA: the USA), and 2) to counter growing international concern that he has supplanted Venezuelan democracy with totalitarian rule.
To this end, Chavez has carefully orchestrated a number of events to present himself to the world as a great champion of human rights, defender of the environment, and a soldier for the people. His ultimate goal has been to win the Nobel Peace Prize, for which his loyal followers have nominated him. Stone has apparently bought into this hook, line and sinker. “If you look now, there are seven presidents, eight countries with Chile, that are really moving away from the Washington consensus control. But in America, they don't get that story." When asked if he had tried to portray a realistic view of events in Venezuela, including Chavez’s “dark side”, Stone responded: "A dark side? There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? …He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect. But he is doing tremendous things for Venezuela and the region… He's not a dictator."
One must wonder why Stone failed to mention that the Chavez regime recently shut down over 40 radio stations that broadcast opposition perspectives to his policies, and this week his ministers warned they were about to close another thirty. Would Stone have overlooked similar excesses from the Bush administration?
Film-makers are not the only artists who are openly propagandizing for socialism. And in a new and deeply disturbing revelation, the Obama administration may actually be conspiring to convert the National Endowment for the Arts into an unofficial propaganda bureau.
For our good friend Patrick Courrielche has written another article in which he warns that the NEA is reaching out to the art community to create art that supports the Obama agenda. Courrielche reports:
“I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries ‘to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.’”
“Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were ‘health care’ and ‘energy and environment.’ The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans. “
Courrielche intuitively and quite accurately senses the moral (and probably legal) conflict of interest: “In my view, power tends to overreach whenever given the opportunity. It’s a law of human nature that has very few exceptions. …Could the National Endowment for the Arts be looking to the art community to create an environment amenable to the administration’s positions?”
He reports that during the call, there was much talk about “‘leveraging federal dollars’ to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.”
If this is true, then the Obama administration appears to be secretly re-writing the NEA’s mission statement, redirecting its purpose from supporting the arts to instead supporting his personal political agenda! What’s more, it’s a covert method of directing federal dollars into a propaganda effort without asking for or receiving permission from the Congress.
We must issue a Clarion Call to the citizens.
Not only did the socialist threat not die off with the collapse of the Berlin Wall; it is back, in a more dangerous and insidious form than ever. Our national media and our art community are conspiring with socialist politicians to destroy America’s capitalist economy and undermine the constitution. They are using our own tax dollars against us as they unleash new weapons to beguile and confound us. And just as Oliver Stone said, why should we consider the “dark side” to their methods, when they intend to “do good things”?
The ends justify the means.
Wake up, America!
***UPDATE***
Blogger Ben Smith reports that the NEA communications director has had to resign after issuing the communication that the NEA would help redirect federal dollars to artists so they would "work to further President Obama's legislative agenda."
Smith adds that "Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported that Sergant had been "asked to resign," and played it as another scalp -- like Van Jones' -- for Glenn Beck." Additionally, "Senator John Cornyn had also pressed the White House on the issue in a letter Tuesday."
Friday, September 4, 2009
When homosexuals guard the gate
In one of the most bizarre and offensive twists to the war in Afghanistan, new photographs revealed embassy guards engaged in heavy drinking and lewd sexual acts, such as licking each other’s nipples, grabbing each other's testicles, apparently buggering each other anally, and pouring alcohol down the backs of other guards and drinking it from the buttocks of other guards.
ABC News reports:
“Private security guards at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul were pressured to participate in naked pool parties and perform sex acts to gain promotions or assignment to preferable shifts, according to one of 12 guards who have gone public with their complaints.”
Photos of the behavior have been released that show naked men engaging in sexual “play” with other men. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that “the alleged lewd behavior of guards at the US Embassy in Kabul is ‘offensive’ {and} inexcusable’.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has requested an investigation into the behavior.
Ironically, the one aspect of this issue that has gone unmentioned is that the offensive behavior was not just “lewd”; it was homosexual. At the same time the Liberals and the Obama administration have been talking about overturning the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military that would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, America has just suffered a tremendous disservice by men engaging in homosexual behavior while they were supposed to be guarding our Embassy.
Not only will this serve as a tremendous propaganda boon for the Islamist extremists who want to portray America as a sinful nation, it will also damage the reputation of the US military and civilian guards, even though apparently no US military were engaged in the acts. This type of orgiastic indulgence is not an exception to homosexuality: it is quite typical of it.
These incidents should serve as a warning to everyone. This is exactly why homosexuals should not be allowed to serve “openly” within the military.
Yet again, American values have been embarrassingly undermined by the Liberal tolerance of homosexuals.
ABC News reports:
“Private security guards at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul were pressured to participate in naked pool parties and perform sex acts to gain promotions or assignment to preferable shifts, according to one of 12 guards who have gone public with their complaints.”
Photos of the behavior have been released that show naked men engaging in sexual “play” with other men. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that “the alleged lewd behavior of guards at the US Embassy in Kabul is ‘offensive’ {and} inexcusable’.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has requested an investigation into the behavior.
Ironically, the one aspect of this issue that has gone unmentioned is that the offensive behavior was not just “lewd”; it was homosexual. At the same time the Liberals and the Obama administration have been talking about overturning the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military that would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, America has just suffered a tremendous disservice by men engaging in homosexual behavior while they were supposed to be guarding our Embassy.
Not only will this serve as a tremendous propaganda boon for the Islamist extremists who want to portray America as a sinful nation, it will also damage the reputation of the US military and civilian guards, even though apparently no US military were engaged in the acts. This type of orgiastic indulgence is not an exception to homosexuality: it is quite typical of it.
These incidents should serve as a warning to everyone. This is exactly why homosexuals should not be allowed to serve “openly” within the military.
Yet again, American values have been embarrassingly undermined by the Liberal tolerance of homosexuals.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Is health care a “right”?
Members of the left have repeatedly stated that “health care is a fundamental right”. When challenged on the constitutionality, I have seen several refer to the most-quoted phrase: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But this is erroneous and misleading. That phrase does not come from the constitution; it comes from the 1776 Declaration of Independence. That document was written as a declaration of American values and, more importantly, a laundry lists of grievances about the abuses by the autocratic British government under King George, and was essentially a “gentleman’s advisory” to the King and his minions that the frequent and unjust treatment of the colonies had violated the colonists’ perceived “inherent rights”.
By contrast, what we now know as “the Constitution,” was the agreed-upon limitations of powers for the newly-established government of the United States of America. As James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45).
Anyone who has attempted to read the current health care bill (HR 3200) will immediately be struck by the obtuse language and expertise required to read and comprehend it. It is a perfect example of the incredibly complex, opaque language used by lawyers to legislate and cover all the many facets of a program they wish to create, and is written in a style that is so difficult it requires a great deal of legal expertise to read. To wit; it is written by lawyers, for lawyers (and bureaucrats).
But upon reading the constitution, it will become apparent that nearly any person with a reasonable education can understand the enumerated rights, and although much ado is made by the elite that you must be a “constitutional scholar” to form a valued opinion on the issue, it was never intended that way: it was written by the people and for the people. It was not written in French, which was the international diplomatic standard in those times, nor was it written in Latin. It was written in common English, in a manner comprehensible by the average, educated citizen. Why? So that the everyday voting citizen could be empowered with knowledge of his rights and would remain vigilant for any attempt by the government to usurp rights and powers from the citizenry.
Concerned that, in the distant future, the government might interpret the rights stated within the Declaration of Independence and the early constitution to be the limits of individual rights and attempt to expand its “jurisdiction” and usurp powers they did not intend it to have, the framers added the “Bill of Rights” in the first ten amendments to the constitution (introduced by James Madison). The ninth amendment advised that the first ten amendments were not to be interpreted as the “universe” or entirety of “rights” of the citizens: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” And the tenth amendment specifically stated: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).”
The Bill of Rights is, essentially, a list of what are known as negative rights. In brief: “Positive Rights” are those which permit or oblige action. That is to say: the government has the right to levy taxes, and therefore may take action to that regard. A “Negative Right” informs the government that it has no right to take action in that area: The congress cannot establish a religion, nor can it infringe upon the individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, for example.
So what of this “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: Does it apply to the notion of a government option to health care?
Proponents of a government-controlled health care option claim that the word “life” meant that the government has the right to create bureaucracies to provide access to health care for all citizens.
The only place in the Bill of Rights where “life” appears is in the Fifth Amendment, regarding due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and eminent domain: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This amendment made no reference at all to providing goods or services to the people; it was instead another limitation on government powers to protect the individual from tyrannical abuse of powers. The phrase “deprived of life” simply meant that the government shall not execute an individual without due process of law.
The constitution itself never states that the government has either the power or the responsibility to provide all the needs to sustain a life. Let us consider the most basic needs to sustain a life: 1) Shelter, 2) Food, and 3) Water. It is not within the government’s mandate to provide any of these “needs”. It is left up to the society at large and the ingenuity of the individual to make do to the best of his needs to provide those things. It is not up to the government to provide houses for the citizens. Nor does the government have the powers to create nationalized farms and ranches. Nor does the government have the responsibility to guarantee water to all individuals, regardless of where they choose to live; if an individual chooses to build a house in the middle of Death Valley it is incumbent upon that individual to satisfy his need for water. *(See footnote)
Health care should be considered a similar “need”. If any citizen believes that he or she cannot live a life of quality without health insurance, then let that citizen work diligently to earn sufficient money to pay for the service.
The states, on the other hand, do retain the rights to provide these additional services, if the citizenry agrees to collectively carry that burden.
In my opinion, therefore, any attempt by the federal government to create a bureaucracy to provide “affordable” health care is a violation of the constitution, and an unacceptable expansion of federal powers. To allow the federal government this latest indulgence would open Pandora ’s Box to similar compassionate consideration to provide a never ending list of “needs”. Shall the government provide transportation to all citizens? Shall it also provide mechanical services on the individuals’ vehicles? Shall it guarantee “affordable” food, creating mammoth new bureaucracies to provide subsidized sustenance? Shall it fund those conveniences upon the backs of other, more industrious individuals?
The love of Liberty requires that the individual accept the burden of personal responsibility. To demand that others sacrifice their Liberty, or their prosperity, in order to provide for your conveniences and needs, is a selfish and unconstitutional violation of the rights of other citizens. It should not be encouraged, nor shall it be tolerated.
*Footnote: Proponents to the health care plan will argue that, although the government "does not have a mandate to provide public housing", it already does so, just as it does provide education, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. This does not contradict my point in the least. Just because the federal government has previously expanded its powers beyond its constitutional mandate does not suddenly mean that to do so again is NOT another constitutional violation, or that it is made less reprehensible. Imagine that the driver of an automobile was caught driving 5 miles per hour over the limit, but the police officer only gave him a warning. Then later he is caught driving 30 miles per hour over the limit, and argues that because he was let off for speeding once, he believes that he has been exempted from speed limits. It's like the government saying: "Hey, we violated the constitution and gave the citizenry a bunch of expensive services and the citizenry didn't complain much about them, so we have the right to expand even further now."
Just because the camel got its nose under the tent does not mean it can now come live under the tent!
But this is erroneous and misleading. That phrase does not come from the constitution; it comes from the 1776 Declaration of Independence. That document was written as a declaration of American values and, more importantly, a laundry lists of grievances about the abuses by the autocratic British government under King George, and was essentially a “gentleman’s advisory” to the King and his minions that the frequent and unjust treatment of the colonies had violated the colonists’ perceived “inherent rights”.
By contrast, what we now know as “the Constitution,” was the agreed-upon limitations of powers for the newly-established government of the United States of America. As James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45).
Anyone who has attempted to read the current health care bill (HR 3200) will immediately be struck by the obtuse language and expertise required to read and comprehend it. It is a perfect example of the incredibly complex, opaque language used by lawyers to legislate and cover all the many facets of a program they wish to create, and is written in a style that is so difficult it requires a great deal of legal expertise to read. To wit; it is written by lawyers, for lawyers (and bureaucrats).
But upon reading the constitution, it will become apparent that nearly any person with a reasonable education can understand the enumerated rights, and although much ado is made by the elite that you must be a “constitutional scholar” to form a valued opinion on the issue, it was never intended that way: it was written by the people and for the people. It was not written in French, which was the international diplomatic standard in those times, nor was it written in Latin. It was written in common English, in a manner comprehensible by the average, educated citizen. Why? So that the everyday voting citizen could be empowered with knowledge of his rights and would remain vigilant for any attempt by the government to usurp rights and powers from the citizenry.
Concerned that, in the distant future, the government might interpret the rights stated within the Declaration of Independence and the early constitution to be the limits of individual rights and attempt to expand its “jurisdiction” and usurp powers they did not intend it to have, the framers added the “Bill of Rights” in the first ten amendments to the constitution (introduced by James Madison). The ninth amendment advised that the first ten amendments were not to be interpreted as the “universe” or entirety of “rights” of the citizens: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” And the tenth amendment specifically stated: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).”
The Bill of Rights is, essentially, a list of what are known as negative rights. In brief: “Positive Rights” are those which permit or oblige action. That is to say: the government has the right to levy taxes, and therefore may take action to that regard. A “Negative Right” informs the government that it has no right to take action in that area: The congress cannot establish a religion, nor can it infringe upon the individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, for example.
So what of this “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: Does it apply to the notion of a government option to health care?
Proponents of a government-controlled health care option claim that the word “life” meant that the government has the right to create bureaucracies to provide access to health care for all citizens.
The only place in the Bill of Rights where “life” appears is in the Fifth Amendment, regarding due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and eminent domain: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This amendment made no reference at all to providing goods or services to the people; it was instead another limitation on government powers to protect the individual from tyrannical abuse of powers. The phrase “deprived of life” simply meant that the government shall not execute an individual without due process of law.
The constitution itself never states that the government has either the power or the responsibility to provide all the needs to sustain a life. Let us consider the most basic needs to sustain a life: 1) Shelter, 2) Food, and 3) Water. It is not within the government’s mandate to provide any of these “needs”. It is left up to the society at large and the ingenuity of the individual to make do to the best of his needs to provide those things. It is not up to the government to provide houses for the citizens. Nor does the government have the powers to create nationalized farms and ranches. Nor does the government have the responsibility to guarantee water to all individuals, regardless of where they choose to live; if an individual chooses to build a house in the middle of Death Valley it is incumbent upon that individual to satisfy his need for water. *(See footnote)
Health care should be considered a similar “need”. If any citizen believes that he or she cannot live a life of quality without health insurance, then let that citizen work diligently to earn sufficient money to pay for the service.
The states, on the other hand, do retain the rights to provide these additional services, if the citizenry agrees to collectively carry that burden.
In my opinion, therefore, any attempt by the federal government to create a bureaucracy to provide “affordable” health care is a violation of the constitution, and an unacceptable expansion of federal powers. To allow the federal government this latest indulgence would open Pandora ’s Box to similar compassionate consideration to provide a never ending list of “needs”. Shall the government provide transportation to all citizens? Shall it also provide mechanical services on the individuals’ vehicles? Shall it guarantee “affordable” food, creating mammoth new bureaucracies to provide subsidized sustenance? Shall it fund those conveniences upon the backs of other, more industrious individuals?
The love of Liberty requires that the individual accept the burden of personal responsibility. To demand that others sacrifice their Liberty, or their prosperity, in order to provide for your conveniences and needs, is a selfish and unconstitutional violation of the rights of other citizens. It should not be encouraged, nor shall it be tolerated.
*Footnote: Proponents to the health care plan will argue that, although the government "does not have a mandate to provide public housing", it already does so, just as it does provide education, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. This does not contradict my point in the least. Just because the federal government has previously expanded its powers beyond its constitutional mandate does not suddenly mean that to do so again is NOT another constitutional violation, or that it is made less reprehensible. Imagine that the driver of an automobile was caught driving 5 miles per hour over the limit, but the police officer only gave him a warning. Then later he is caught driving 30 miles per hour over the limit, and argues that because he was let off for speeding once, he believes that he has been exempted from speed limits. It's like the government saying: "Hey, we violated the constitution and gave the citizenry a bunch of expensive services and the citizenry didn't complain much about them, so we have the right to expand even further now."
Just because the camel got its nose under the tent does not mean it can now come live under the tent!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Obama's State Dept. reverses itself AGAIN on Honduras
On August 17th, I published a blog entitled "Earth to Obama", in which I wrote:
The point of that article was that the Obama foreign policy seems to drift dangerously, illogically, and unpredictably. While Obama had first stated that the removal of Zelaya had been an "illegal coup", they then appeared to rethink that decision, and in an article published in McClatchy, the Obama administration wrote a letter to Republican Senator Lugar, which was reported to mark a change in the policy. According to McClatchy, "the Obama administration has backed away from its call to restore ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power and instead put the onus on him for taking "provocative actions" that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28. "
And now, Reuters reports "U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation...The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter although one was likely soon."
What in the name of God is going on in this Obama administration?
For a man whose intelligence has been praised as being “off the charts”,
Obama appears to be absolutely clueless. It is astonishing that the US President
missed a phenomenal opportunity to pressure the despotic regime in Iran, then
leapt blindly into Honduran politics, had to reverse himself, and has yet to
formulate any stated policy at all regarding Hugo Chavez, who is notorious for
his nefarious interference into the affairs of weaker nations throughout the
hemisphere...Under President Obama, American foreign policy is a rudderless ship, perilously adrift amid the bergs.
The point of that article was that the Obama foreign policy seems to drift dangerously, illogically, and unpredictably. While Obama had first stated that the removal of Zelaya had been an "illegal coup", they then appeared to rethink that decision, and in an article published in McClatchy, the Obama administration wrote a letter to Republican Senator Lugar, which was reported to mark a change in the policy. According to McClatchy, "the Obama administration has backed away from its call to restore ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power and instead put the onus on him for taking "provocative actions" that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28. "
And now, Reuters reports "U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation...The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter although one was likely soon."
What in the name of God is going on in this Obama administration?
Because Obama's too incompetent to be compared to Hitler
Apparently, It was too offensive to sensitive Liberals for protesters to use the Swastikas in order to suggest that the Liberal policies resembled National Socialist policies under Nazism.
So here is my own suggested alternative for posters...
So here is my own suggested alternative for posters...
Monday, August 17, 2009
“Earth to Obama…”
Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez criticized President Obama recently, and although it pains me personally to ever agree with Chavez, I have to admit he is right: “"President Obama is lost in the Andromeda Nebula, he has lost his bearings; he doesn't get it."
While Chavez’s comment could be applied generally to nearly every Obama policy, from a public option in his Health Care reform to his attempt to have citizens report each other via the infamous White House website, he was specifically criticizing Obama's position on the democratic crisis in Honduras.
Even Bill Maher has piled on, stating that “Obama needs to get a little George Bush in him, personality-wise.” Maher seemed to think that Obama was just being “too nice”, and needs to get tough in order to get his policies through. The silly thing about this is that, while Bush managed to get his way even during the last two years of his presidency when he had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obama can’t seem to get anything right despite the fact that his own party controls both houses and the presidency.
Could it be that executive experience does trump "coummunity organizing"?
The reason has nothing to do with Obama being “too bi-partisan”. No, it’s because he truly has lost his bearings, if he ever had any to start with.
The Honduran and Iranian cases prove the point.
When the presidential elections in Iran were allegedly stolen by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government, resulting in massive protests and extremely violent oppression of protestors, Obama wobbled on his feet indecisively. By the time Obama finally got his bearings and was convinced that a grave injustice was being perpetrated, it was too late. He looked like good-guy Bob Barber from the 1985 satirical film “Rustler’s Rhapsody”, bellying up to the tough-guy bar to order a warm-milk—except that Obama wasn’t even tough enough to threaten to shoot the guns out of the bad-guys’ hands.
Shortly after, when Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (who just happens to be one of Chavez’s great buddies) was ousted by the Honduran Supreme Court, congress and the attorney general for violating the constitution, the Obama administration didn’t hesitate to step knee deep in caca, by immediately condemning “the coup”.
This only helped the Latin American leaders who were eager to restore the leftist Zelaya, and put Obama squarely within the ranks of such esteemed leaders as Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega. As usual, the Democrats proved that they were so busy looking like “good guys”, they had lost all moral compass.
A few weeks later, we get a new headline: “US drops call to restore ousted Honduran leader”. Not only have they stopped calling for his return, they “instead put the onus on him for taking ‘provocative actions’ that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28.”
My experience with lobbying Washington regarding the dangerous influences of Hugo Chavez’s regime convinced me that the Republicans were far more pragmatic about the new crop of leftist leaders in Latin America led by Hugo Chavez than were the Democrats. All it took to pull the proverbial wool over the Dem’s heads was for a Latin president to claim that he was determined to help the poor and promote “social justice”. Our Democrat “leaders” gobbled up that populist swill without hesitation, and it was nearly impossible to get them to see past the socialist window-dressing.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were quick to notice those same leader’s attempts to overthrow their nations’ constitutions, create civilian paramilitary organizations, undermine elections, bribe the poor with promises of free money, free land, increased minimum wages, etc. It was as if the Republicans still remembered the horrific events in Panama under Noriega, while the Democrats had somehow forgotten them.
In keeping with this historical context, Republican Senator Richard Lugar R-Ind. and other Republicans protested the Obama position by threatening to hold up nomination of a number of key positions (Arturo Valenzuela for Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere affairs and other ambassador positions). Facing tough challenges, and probably more informed about the details of the events, the Obama administration has changed its position 180ยบ. They wrote a letter to Lugar that detailed the change in policy, and “also rejected calls by some of Zelaya's backers to impose harsh economic sanctions against Honduras… While condemning the coup, the letter pointedly failed to call for Zelaya's return.”
More importantly, the Obama administration has finally verbalized a criticism of President Zelaya’s actions: “We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal.”
How could Obama take any other position? Since his removal, Zelaya has threatened the interim government with violence, and Chavez threatened to take military action in Honduras, either through direct military conflict or by arming an insurrection. Zelaya supporters shut down the schools and a number of hospitals in protests that turned violent, forcing the Honduran police to seize school after 2nd day of violence. These protestors attacked local businesses such as Popeye’s Chicken, Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, and other local shops, smashing windows and even throwing firebombs at the offices of a local news station. All of these actions directly mirror the actions of Hugo Chavez’s “Bolivarian Circles”, and considering his threats, should generate suspicion that perhaps Chavez himself is helping to organize and fund the violence.
For a man whose intelligence has been praised as being “off the charts”, Obama appears to be absolutely clueless. It is astonishing that the US President missed a phenomenal opportunity to pressure the despotic regime in Iran, then leapt blindly into Honduran politics, had to reverse himself, and has yet to formulate any stated policy at all regarding Hugo Chavez, who is notorious for his nefarious interference into the affairs of weaker nations throughout the hemisphere.
Under President Obama, American foreign policy is a rudderless ship, perilously adrift amid the bergs.
While Chavez’s comment could be applied generally to nearly every Obama policy, from a public option in his Health Care reform to his attempt to have citizens report each other via the infamous White House website, he was specifically criticizing Obama's position on the democratic crisis in Honduras.
Even Bill Maher has piled on, stating that “Obama needs to get a little George Bush in him, personality-wise.” Maher seemed to think that Obama was just being “too nice”, and needs to get tough in order to get his policies through. The silly thing about this is that, while Bush managed to get his way even during the last two years of his presidency when he had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obama can’t seem to get anything right despite the fact that his own party controls both houses and the presidency.
Could it be that executive experience does trump "coummunity organizing"?
The reason has nothing to do with Obama being “too bi-partisan”. No, it’s because he truly has lost his bearings, if he ever had any to start with.
The Honduran and Iranian cases prove the point.
When the presidential elections in Iran were allegedly stolen by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government, resulting in massive protests and extremely violent oppression of protestors, Obama wobbled on his feet indecisively. By the time Obama finally got his bearings and was convinced that a grave injustice was being perpetrated, it was too late. He looked like good-guy Bob Barber from the 1985 satirical film “Rustler’s Rhapsody”, bellying up to the tough-guy bar to order a warm-milk—except that Obama wasn’t even tough enough to threaten to shoot the guns out of the bad-guys’ hands.
Shortly after, when Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (who just happens to be one of Chavez’s great buddies) was ousted by the Honduran Supreme Court, congress and the attorney general for violating the constitution, the Obama administration didn’t hesitate to step knee deep in caca, by immediately condemning “the coup”.
This only helped the Latin American leaders who were eager to restore the leftist Zelaya, and put Obama squarely within the ranks of such esteemed leaders as Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega. As usual, the Democrats proved that they were so busy looking like “good guys”, they had lost all moral compass.
A few weeks later, we get a new headline: “US drops call to restore ousted Honduran leader”. Not only have they stopped calling for his return, they “instead put the onus on him for taking ‘provocative actions’ that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28.”
My experience with lobbying Washington regarding the dangerous influences of Hugo Chavez’s regime convinced me that the Republicans were far more pragmatic about the new crop of leftist leaders in Latin America led by Hugo Chavez than were the Democrats. All it took to pull the proverbial wool over the Dem’s heads was for a Latin president to claim that he was determined to help the poor and promote “social justice”. Our Democrat “leaders” gobbled up that populist swill without hesitation, and it was nearly impossible to get them to see past the socialist window-dressing.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were quick to notice those same leader’s attempts to overthrow their nations’ constitutions, create civilian paramilitary organizations, undermine elections, bribe the poor with promises of free money, free land, increased minimum wages, etc. It was as if the Republicans still remembered the horrific events in Panama under Noriega, while the Democrats had somehow forgotten them.
In keeping with this historical context, Republican Senator Richard Lugar R-Ind. and other Republicans protested the Obama position by threatening to hold up nomination of a number of key positions (Arturo Valenzuela for Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere affairs and other ambassador positions). Facing tough challenges, and probably more informed about the details of the events, the Obama administration has changed its position 180ยบ. They wrote a letter to Lugar that detailed the change in policy, and “also rejected calls by some of Zelaya's backers to impose harsh economic sanctions against Honduras… While condemning the coup, the letter pointedly failed to call for Zelaya's return.”
More importantly, the Obama administration has finally verbalized a criticism of President Zelaya’s actions: “We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal.”
How could Obama take any other position? Since his removal, Zelaya has threatened the interim government with violence, and Chavez threatened to take military action in Honduras, either through direct military conflict or by arming an insurrection. Zelaya supporters shut down the schools and a number of hospitals in protests that turned violent, forcing the Honduran police to seize school after 2nd day of violence. These protestors attacked local businesses such as Popeye’s Chicken, Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, and other local shops, smashing windows and even throwing firebombs at the offices of a local news station. All of these actions directly mirror the actions of Hugo Chavez’s “Bolivarian Circles”, and considering his threats, should generate suspicion that perhaps Chavez himself is helping to organize and fund the violence.
For a man whose intelligence has been praised as being “off the charts”, Obama appears to be absolutely clueless. It is astonishing that the US President missed a phenomenal opportunity to pressure the despotic regime in Iran, then leapt blindly into Honduran politics, had to reverse himself, and has yet to formulate any stated policy at all regarding Hugo Chavez, who is notorious for his nefarious interference into the affairs of weaker nations throughout the hemisphere.
Under President Obama, American foreign policy is a rudderless ship, perilously adrift amid the bergs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
