“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 180º. 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.

“Those who are ignorant of their history…

…are condemned to repeat it.” No truer words have ever been uttered.

In researching the situation with Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, I came across a little footnote in American history about which I was previously ignorant, and that I found astonishing and alarming. If you do not know the history behind the phrase “The switch in time that saved nine”, you might want to read this article.

It should be obvious to any thinking individual that History does not truly “repeat” itself, not exactly. But like musical phrases from a symphony, certain themes do reappear and build upon themselves. Our current economic crisis, coming at the end of a roaring period of growth in the 1990’s and 2000’s, is reminiscent of what historians now call the “Roaring Twenties”. America at that time was truly entering modernity. Our “manifest destiny” was being realized, our nation was beginning to jell. We no longer had a “Wild West” suffering frequent Indian wars, industrialization was at its peak, we had recovered from the expensive (both socially and economically) disaster of the Civil War, and our participation in World War I had resulted in America sitting as the preeminent and wealthiest nation on Earth. Deep ethnic divisions were festering and would eventually result in the explosive Civil Rights Movement which, gratefully, would be resolved “peacefully” thanks to the wise Christian leadership of Martin Luther King forty years later.

But in the meantime, the bloodiness of WWI mixed with a heady sense of relief, pride, optimism, and a healthy dose of disenchantment: after all, millions had died during the war, and intellectuals began to question the traditional values that had led the world to that “war to end all wars”. The cynicism felt by many found expression in the nihilist art form known as “Dada,” which was “anti-art” (if Art had the intention of appealing to the sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend them. Simultaneously, the relief of the end of the war resulted in an exuberance that created the “Flapper” movement, redefining the woman’s role in society, and openly disdained popular perception of what was “proper” behavior for women. The Jazz Age was born, and it should be noted that at that time Jazz was looked upon with the same disdain that Rap is now: it was hedonistic party music associated with drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, and open sexuality.

So, while Europe was rebuilding after the war, America was prospering, and “experimenting” with new and “progressive” ideals. This hedonistic attitude would eventually spread to Europe and alter their cultures as well.

But it was not all “wine and roses”: the end of the war meant an end to government spending and a deep recession, perhaps even a depression. Unemployment reached 20%. Runaway inflation was destroying the economy. Three consecutive Republican Presidents combated this trend with debt reduction, tax cuts, reduced spending, and a close relationship between government and industry. “Consumerism” was born, and while some benefitted, large portions of the population saw no real increase in their overall wealth. To use today’s Progressive jargon: The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Or remained equally poor, to be fair. The normalcy of the economic boom in the 1920s resulted in an explosive growth of government and spending that would eventually come to haunt the country. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover, real per capita federal spending increased by 88%.

The Republican policies worked. For most of the decade, the economy not only recovered, but also began to boom. Overconfidence resulted in a speculative bubble that sparked the stock market crash and the Great Depression. The Republicans tried to maintain a government role as “arbiter” and avoid direct intervention.

But when the stock markets crashed, and banks collapsed, the mood in the country understandably shifted, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programs (there were actually two) are the historic inspiration for President Obama’s contemporary Reinvestment Act. The first New Deal was aimed at helping the Banks and the railroads, the key industry at that time. He abandoned the gold standard, and enacted “work relief” programs, in which the government would provide jobs to millions of Americans. The second act included labor union support, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid the agricultural sector, particularly tenant farmers and migrant workers.

Take a moment to reflect upon that history, comparing what you know about the period in US history from WWII, through Viet Nam, to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the sweeping reforms he enacted, to the two decades of prosperity of the ‘90s through 2007. An historical theme runs through both periods, to be punctuated poignantly by the current economic collapse and election of President Obama. From exuberance and economic glory, to excess, moral decline, a willingness to redefine the nation's values based upon whimsical fancy, to the heady and uncontrolled expanse of government, while the investors drunkenly and greedily set aside better judgement for a quick profit.

Returning to the New Deal; Roosevelt’s plans ran afoul of the Supreme Court. That court repeatedly shot down Roosevelt’s plans for perceived constitutional violations, because the reach of government was expanding far beyond the limitations to Federal Government powers stated within the constitution.

Infuriated, Roosevelt devised a plan. The US Constitution does not expressly limit the number of justices on the court to nine justices. So Roosevelt created the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, also known popularly as “The Court-Packing Plan.” He would expand the court to 15 judges and appoint six new, liberal judges to swing the court in his favor and allow him control the Supreme Court.

About the time the Court-Packing Plan was about to be enacted, Justice Owen Roberts, who had consistently voted against most of the New Deal provisions, changed his votes and started approving the plans. This is the source of the phrase, “a switch in time saved nine”: by changing his vote, acquiescing to the dominating mood at the time, Roberts avoided a major overhaul of the Supreme Court.

The implications for today’s America are not trivial. The level of disenchantment caused by the economic collapse following on two decades of economic prosperity is deep and radical. The common mantra that “we must act to avoid disaster” has allowed politicians to leverage off the people’s fears, and guide the nation onto an unprecedented path. The Obama administration, enjoying an almost cult-like following, has been given free rein to spend more money in less than 100 days than previous administrations combined. The government has interfered with the contract obligations of investors and given unwarranted ownership to unions in today’s auto-making industry.

But the Obama administrations goals are far grander than this. The Progressives want to force the nation to redefine marriage, remove limits on even the most reprehensible forms of abortion, radically alter the medical industry, and force through “transformational” policies based upon hysterical fears about global catastrophe that would fundamentally alter American society in every respect. They have repeatedly suggested their interest in controlling access to guns, and nominated as a Supreme Court Justice a woman who believes that gun ownership is not a “Fundamental Right”. They want to grant amnesty to tens of millions of people who entered the country illegally and oppose local and state police forces from working with the federal government to enforce immigration policy.

Annoyed that Americans would dare to defy them and instead rally around popular media spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh, they float the idea of imposing a “Fairness Doctrine” that would force radio stations to essentially subsidize unpopular beliefs and create “popular commissions” to monitor and report on compliance. And at a time in which our national security is threatened by a cabal of rogue states and radical terrorist organizations, they are gutting the national defense, hamstringing our intelligence organizations, and persecute the previous administration’s officials for the tactics they used to keep us safe.

So, if the wheels continue to come off the cart, what’s to say that the proposals will not become increasingly radical? This administration has already admitted that their philosophy is to use “crisis” as an “opportunity”. As the Obama administration looks back at the radically populist policies of the Roosevelt administration, who is to say that Obama could not “resuscitate” the Court-Packing Plan in order to lock in control over the Supreme Court?

When the effects of Obama’s massive spending results in inflation, when the dollar has collapsed due to their uncontrolled printing of worthless money, as fuel prices rise and the cost of basic necessities such as food, energy, and transportation necessarily rise and result in greater unemployment, hunger, desperation, a natural outcome will be for the administration to use the next crisis as an opportunity to enact even more desperate “temporary” measures.

Everything I’m describing is exactly what happened in Venezuela over the past ten years. Step by step, President Chavez took control of the Congress, then declared a crisis and took control of the court, then expanded the court from nine to thirteen judges. He decreed price controls that forced private industries to deliver “basic goods” at below cost. When they could not do that, he nationalized them, giving them to his friends and supportive interest groups, such as unions. He closed down the largest opposition television network by refusing to renew their “broadcast concession,” and has now threatened the last major free network with the same. He funded community activist groups that performed acts intimidation, as well as electoral fraud. All the while, he maintained popular support by saying that he was doing this in the interests of the poor, the unemployed, the ethnic minority victims of capitalism, even “to save the world” because capitalism is destroying the environment. His next step was to attempt to alter the constitution to give himself perpetual re-election.

So, tell me: is what I described about Chavez, and Roosevelt, all that different from what we know about Obama?

Obama failure at America's Summit

I listened to some of the America’s Summit speeches, in particular the statements by Nicaragua’s Ortega. No one has picked up on a very important omission by the “drive by media”. While some—including Fox and the AP—mentioned that Ortega sarcastically insulted the Summit by criticizing Cuba’s absence from the summit, what they missed was another statement he made at the same time.

Ortega stated that he didn’t support the summit because two countries were conspicuously absent. He went on to talk about Cuba, which was being punished for doing “nothing more” than stand up to the imperialist United States. That got reported, although no one challenged him on Cuba’s human rights violations.

Worse, Ortega also stated that the other nation absent was Puerto Rico, which is still “under the yoke” of the Americans, and that he “is confident” that someday PR will be freed of the imperialists and join the other free nations.

That is a clear violation of American sovereignty and was an intolerable slap to our faces, as well as an offensive distortion the fact that PR can simply vote for its independence but has chosen to remain a US territory repeatedly.

Is Obama unaware of this? Or just unconcerned?

None of those socialist leaders have tolerated even the mildest US statements about their internal issues, nor about conflicts with neighboring countries. A perfect example is the territorial disputes between Nicaragua and Colombia over several islands, or access to fishing grounds and petroleum fields. Yet when they violated US sovereignty and insulted our country, Obama remained naively quiet.

This is especially disturbing in light of the fact that Hugo Chavez has helped to organize and even fund the Separatist movement in PR through the Circulos Bolivarianos. I have Puerto Rican contacts who have attended their rallies and found Venezuelans trying to actively promote Puerto Rican independence. Obama’s silence on the issue amounts to tacit approval, and should be condemned.

Sobering thoughts for Nelson Bocaranda.

I wanted to read to OpEds in Venezuela to see what is being said about Obama’s victory. Think for a moment of the perspective of Latin Americans, especially those under regimes such as Hugo Chavez, where the communist propaganda has been constantly to insult and attack the American system. While the elite there—whether that be the old guard “oligarchy” or the “new rich” communists that are pilfering the state—has offered no hope for improvement or for a better future, the election of Obama has undermined their argument about the evils of the American system, contradicted the accusations that America is a racist nation in which people of color have no hope or future.

There is a bright side to this, and I thought it might be worth sharing. Many in Latin America felt ignored by the United States over the past eight years, and blame American indifference to their plight for the rise of authoritarians such as Chavez, and the spread socialism across the continent.

A well known and highly respected journalist, Nelson Bocaranda Sardi, writes {my translation}:

"Example: Once again the United States has given a lesson of Democracy to the entire world, with special emphasis given to those countries where it is the military jackboot that reigns, and where the disdain for justice and law, as well as the shameless and cynical enjoyment of corruption with state monies, is the daily rule. John McCain’s capitulation speech, in which he recognizes his defeat and offers his support to the winner, and that of Barack Obama, curing old wounds, promising inclusion and a better future for new generations that turned out en masse to vote as they did for J. Kennedy in 1960 or G. McGovern in 1972, are the demonstration of the institutional quality of the nation that will once again be the beacon of democracy that Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin visualized. Another American dream is realized. "

Hence, Bocaranda is quite clearly suggesting that Venezuelan's will again see the contrast between their own plight, their own "Democracy", and the true democratic principals displayed by "the Empire", and that difference made plain should tarnish the popularity of Chavez. And, Obama represents a new hope that America will stop ignoring them and will help them throw off the yoke of tyrrany.

This is all well and good, but the same author continues:

"Promise?: The past June 5th we wrote here about the visit of Democratic governor Bill Richardson to President Chavez, in order to discuss the three North American hostages held by the FARC, and where the American elections were discussed. At that time, the governor informed Chavez of the interest by the Democrats in improving relations with Venezuela {Chavez}. Among the promises, that during the electoral process they would limit criticism of Chavez, and they would guarantee a meeting of Obama and Chavez, being either an informal meeting before Obama takes office, or immediately afterward. In return, Chavez would “lower his anti-Yankee flag”, tone down his anti-imperialist discourse, and increase the possibility of commercial exchange. "

It should also be noted that, the day after the election, once it became clear that Obama had won, the infamous Piedad Cordoba, Colombian congressional member and supporter of the FARC terrorist group, declared that Obama’s victory was a victory for “everyone who has fought for decades for equality”, and immediately requested that Obama work with her to “reach a humanitarian solution” to the ongoing conflict with the FARC.

Allow me a moment to put these events in context. It has been a long-standing goal for Hugo Chavez to spread his influence around Latin America, by any means necessary. This has led him to covertly and illegally pump millions upon millions of dollars into the election campaigns of friendly leftists throughout Latin America, from Argentina (where Chavez’s agents were caught smuggling suitcases full of money to the Kirchner campaign), to Mexico. Chavez stated years ago that he planned to have a “Bolivarian” president elected. And a constant stream of Democrats and another radical leaders has made its way to Venezuela, including film directors (Oliver Stone), actors (Sean Penn, Danny Glover), activists and community organizers (such as ACORN members), and of course, liberal politicians such as Bill Richardson, among others.

Meanwhile, another of Chavez’s strategies appeared to be to position himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. While his loyal followers submitted him for consideration, Chavez unilaterally intervened in the internal affairs of Colombia as they battled the FARC terrorists. It was alleged that Oliver Stone’s frequent visits to Venezuela during this time were intended to document Chavez’s glorious efforts to broker a humanitarian effort to release the hundreds of hostages held by the FARC. Chavez did in fact manage to obtain the release of several low-level hostages, including a political aide to Ingrid Betancourt—the Colombian presidential candidate who was kidnapped by the FARC in the middle of her political campaign. But Chavez could not obtain the release of the four most important hostages held by the FARC: Three American contractors working for Plan Colombia who were captured when their plane was shot down, and Betancourt.

However, when FARC leader Raul Reyes was killed in a military operation, and his laptop recovered, intelligence from that laptop revealed that Chavez had given around 300 million dollars to the FARC to arrange the “humanitarian” release of the three previous hostages. It was Piedad Cordoba who repeatedly kissed Chavez’s boots and praised him for his brilliant and neutral role, even though her own government repeatedly protested to world bodies that Chavez was violating their sovereign affairs. In short, in order to gain political glory and try to achieve world renown by winning a Nobel Prize, Chavez violated Colombian sovereignty and paid a ransom to the kidnappers.

It was in this context that Richardson visited Chavez. Yet another brilliant military intervention by the Colombians rescued Betancourt and the three American contractors without a shot being fired—and simultaneously deflated Chavez’s hopes of being the great liberator.

So, with this context provided, now one must re-examine the declarations by Piedad Cordoba, and the reports from Caracas, that these two very dangerous actors are pleased with Obama’s election, and already planning to meet with Obama.

And we must remember Obama’s statements that he would (and then would not) meet with Chavez without pre-conditions. If Obama does in fact meet with Chavez between now and his inauguration—or even afterward, for that matter, then he would be violating yet another of his campaign promises and revealing that he is the ideologue and naïve politician we thought he would be.

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan immigrants who fled the Chavez regime to find safety in the United States, those who supported John McCain because they recognized in Obama this waffling liberal inability to properly assess the danger in characters such as Chavez, now must find themselves in the peculiar position of being members of opposition in two countries. But fear not: with the conservative Cubans by our side, we are all in very good company, and the fight will continue.

Sadly, however, if Obama provees himself to be the idiot I suspect him to be, it is the Venezuelans and others in Latin America who will suffer yet another great disappointment. Not only will America not save them from Leftist tyrrany, but an Obama administration just might help those authoritarians to gain international prestige and consolidate their power.

These are my sobering thoughts for Mr. Bocaranda.

Proof that democrats blocked reform

PROOF that the Republicans were trying to reform Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac as far back as 2004, when they still had a majority, before they lost the elections and could not proceed. The Democrats resisted, clearly trying to cover for F. Mae and F. Mac.

President Clinton saying that the Democrats blocked reform when the Republicans tried to reform FMae and FMac.

Here is the video evidence:
Republicans trying to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2004, blocked by the Democrats. Hear it for yourself.

Here are the Players:
Barney Frank –D Jewish liberal, New York (In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home.)  While Frank was on the committee that was supposed to be investigating corruption, and while he was resisting the investigation and instead attacking the people trying to reform Fannie, we now know that Frank was involved in a homosexual relationship with a Fannie Mae executive, Herb Moses!  

Now we know why Frank was protecting Fannie: he was "gaily" investigating a completely different "fanny" of there! 

Maxine Waters –D Black liberal, Los Angeles

Waters asked whether "U.S.-government paid or organized operatives smuggled, transported and sold {crack cocaine} to American citizens."

Also: In May 2008, Waters told Shell Oil President John Hofmeister at the House Judiciary Committee's Task Force on Competition Policy and Antitrust Laws, that if he didn't guarantee reduced gasoline prices if Congress let the oil industry drill where it wanted, she would be in favor of the government nationalizing American petroleum companies, her specific words were, "Guess what this liberal will be all about, this liberal will be all about socializing...."

Corruption: Waters was named in 2005[10] and 2006[11] as one of the "most corrupt" members of congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They said, "Her ethics issues arise from her exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son."[12] Citizens for Ethics says this violates House ethics rules for family members' financial gains.

On the LA Riots: Waters has been criticized for her comments regarding the Los Angeles riots of 1992.[13] In defense of the people that looted stores and damaged property, Waters said:

"If you call it a riot it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion."[14] She also said it was "a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice" and "The anger in my district is righteous. I'm just as angry as they are." She responded to the mass looting of Korean-owned stores by saying: "There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. They are not crooks. Everybody in the street was not a thug or a hood."

Gregory Meeks –D Black liberal, New York
Letter to FARC Leader Tirofijo: On December 20, 2007 along with 2 other US representatives (Bill Delahunt, James McGovern) Gregory W. Meeks wrote a letter thanking the head of the leftist Colombian guerilla FARC (Revolutionary army of Colombia, in Spanish) for the release of evidence that confirms the survival of several of the 45 hostages that the terrorist groups holds captive (including 3 US citizens), some of them for over a decade. The group is considered a terrorist organization by the US government and the European Union. These same Democratic members of the Democratic Black Caucus repeatedly endorsed and supported Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, especially when Chavez was befriending the FARC and involving himself in the internal Colombian affairs by trying to force himself into the negotiations for the release of the hostages. It was later discovered that Chavez had given hundreds of millions of dollars to ransom some of the hostages, and he was attempting to manipulate the political situation for his own personal glory. The Colombian military later performed a brilliant raid that set the hostages free, ending Chavez's attempt to be the gallant hero.

Most expensive tax-paid car lease in Congress: Meeks utilizes the option to use tax dollars to lease a car, for use as a member of Congress. This option does not exist for Senate members. The lease is forgone by many members of Congress, but Meeks presently holds the most expensive lease among all members. Despite having one of the most compact districts in the entire Congress, with access to public transportation, he currently uses tax dollars to lease a 2007 Lexus LS 460, at $998 per month. Meeks was unwilling to provide further comment when questioned by the New York Times, on the lease arrangement, saying "These are never lighthearted stories."

Lacy Clay –D Black Liberal, Missouri
Guilty of racial discrimination: Clay made news in early 2007 when, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (cofounded by his father), he objected to the possible inclusion of white congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee, who represents a majority black district and had made a campaign promise to attempt to become the first white member of the CBC. Although it is not part of the CBC's bylaws that members must be black, all members so far have been black.[2] He said, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept — there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.'”

Shakedown Crews Analysis

We can now conclude the following:

1. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had abandoned previous home-ownership policy and were endorsing programs to encourage home ownership by minorities, even when they were probably financially unqualified otherwise to be given a mortgage.
2. As early as 2004 (and probably earlier), the Congress was made aware of the corrupt, illegal practices of Raynes--the black gentleman who destroyed Fannie Mae and declared that the sale of homes was so risk free that they should continue to give home ownership with as little as 2% down! Note that they even were forced to use WELFARE PAYMENTS in their calculation of income to qualify for home ownership!
3. Waters, Meeks, and Clay--all Black Democrats--were fighting hard to defend Raynes and to stifle the investigations into corruption in F. Mae and F. Mac.
4. The use of the term "political lynching" to defend Raynes was a racially loaded term, used to shut down the white Republicans and end the discussion.
5. Maxine Waters, noted for her own corruption, and noted for having defended the looting of Los Angeles by Blacks as "righteous", KNEW that the regulations had been changed to lower qualification standards so that Blacks could get mortgages, almost certainly KNEW that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being looted by Raynes (a Black executive), but must have felt that this looting was "righteous", since it benefitted her Black constituents.
6. Representative Clay was almost certainly aware of this as well. But why would he do anything to stop it? Just as how Representative Waters felt that riots and looting were justifiable and "righteous" because Blacks were angry about injustice, Clay had arrogantly declared before that there is now a "new club", to which one must be BLACK to belong. It is reasonable to conclude that this same Black outrage was used to justify the looting and pillaging of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
7. Barack Obama, longtime friend of Black Liberation Theologist Reverend Wright, and longtime friend of known anti-American terrorist William Ayers, and close friend to all of these previously described villains, almost certainly shares in their sentiment that it is justifiable to loot the American economy if it benefits Blacks.
8. The origins of this problem does not lie entirely with the Democrats: Home ownership for minorities was a huge platform for Bush and the Republicans, and it is certainly to be blamed for contributing to the current crisis. Read startling details about it here.
9. These facts help to explain why Subprime Lenders appeared to target minorities.
10. But when Republicans started to see problems, and tried to investigate the fraud and suggest regulations, the Democrats blocked them--and not just any Democrats. As we've seen, their resistance was spear-headed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
11. Exactly WHEN are these representatives and executives going to get it through their heads that Social Engineering through legislation inevitably results in disasters?
12. This model is not new. It is IDENTICAL to the process put in place by President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela--another longtime friend of the Congressional Black Caucus.
13. If you want to know what awaits America, all you have to do is study what the Bolivarian Revolution did to Venezuela. It's coming to a theater near you!

Forget the Bush Doctrine. We need to look forward.

Coffee break talk last Friday centered on Sarah Palin’s first interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. In general, she received good marks for her adroit responses to Gibson’s questions, with the one exception being Gibson’s alleged “gotcha” moment when he asked her: "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?''

Palin paused, looking a bit perplexed, and tried to get some clarification by asking: “In what regard?”

When Gibson finally—and rather pedantically—revealed that he was referring to the Bush policy of pre-emptive strikes, Palin responded by reaffirming that the US has the right to respond to what it perceives as an imminent threat.

Liberals tried to point to this moment as an example of how Palin is weak on her comprehension of international policies and is ignorant about the “Bush Doctrine”. All which is powerfully contradicted by the brilliant commentator, Charles Krauthammer, in his article “Gibson’s Gaffe”.

Krauthammer makes the point that there is not one “Bush Doctrine”, but rather a total of four. The one to which Gibson referred is the third in the series, and technically was incorrect, because it is Bush’s fourth policy statement that will probably be remembered as his “doctrine”:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of
liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of
freedom in all the world."

Liberals have remained fixated on Bush’s third policy statement, the one stating that the US has the right to preemptively strike against nations that harbor terrorists or support them and pose a threat to US security. They cling to this argument because they believe they will gain political points—and political office—by reminding America of how we got into the war in Iraq.

This may be an interesting discussion, but discussions of "presidential doctrine" is table fare for historians and will do nothing for America's future. So Charlie Gibson's question was not only misleading and probably wrong, but really was totally irrelevant!

I’d like to use this moment as an example of how these so-called “leaders” are not leading at all. It was not Bush’s third policy statement that is now heating the current and riskiest global crisis, but his fourth and most far-reaching that needs deeper examination.

The “Bush Doctrine” quoted by Krauthammer is potentially the more controversial of the two. After all, it this part of the Bush policies that has inspired the administration to take such an aggressively supportive role of Eastern European democracies such as Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic, and Georgia. Bush’s determination to defend the former Soviet bloc countries is making Moscow feel threatened. In response to the ‘missile shield’ that the United States is offering to put into Poland and the Czech republic is at the source of the conflict with Georgia/Russia. We must remember that it was shortly after the Bush administration worked out deals to locate the missiles in Poland that Moscow responded, threatening that their response could be a military one.

Russian President Medvedev was quoted in NOVOSTI, Russian news source:

“These missiles are close to our borders and constitute a threat to us,"
Medvedev said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television on Tuesday. "This will
create additional tension and we will have to respond to it in some way,
naturally using military means." … The Russian president said that offering NATO
membership to Georgia and Ukraine, two former Soviet republics, would only
aggravate the situation.

Shortly afterward, the Russians apparently manufactured a political crisis in Georgia by encouraging Georgian rebels of Russian descent to ramp up their activities. The Georgians responded militarily in an attempt to restore control of the breakaway region, giving Moscow the excuse it wanted to invade the territory in the role of “peace keepers.”

While the US and Europe wrung their hands over the issue, it became clear that the US was not willing to confront Russia militarily. But the Bush administration did respond diplomatically, and began to press to speed the inclusion of the other Soviet bloc nations in NATO, thus providing them with a promise of multilateral military defense, if needed.

Predictably, this action again provoked Russia. But watch this time, it appears that the Russians are looking to expand their influence in our hemisphere.

Weeks after the Georgian conflict, as tensions between the United States and Russia continue to escalate, Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez declared that Venezuela sided with the Russians in the Georgian affair, and bragged that the Russians and Venezuelans were planning war games in the Caribbean region.

The Russians then flew two Tu-160 long distance strategic bombers into Venezuela. Chavez declared that the presence of the bombers was a warning to Washington that “Venezuela is no longer poor and alone.”

Other reports indicated that Chavez had been courting Russia for a long time in the hope of convincing Moscow to establish a Navy port there and install an aircraft carrier in the Caribbean.
Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she was not concerned about the presence of the Russian bombers in Venezuela: “I don’t think Russia would launch attacks on the United States.” By contrast, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) said that “There is a continuing pattern over the last several months of Russian intimidation…and they are using the same old bullying intimidation tactics that go back to Brezhnev and Stalin.”

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, stated clear concern.

“What you are suggesting doesn’t surprise me, and yes it concerns me,” said Murkowski. “If it is clearly a flexing of muscle and effort to display force, it makes you wonder what the objective is and what the appropriate response should be.”

What is the objective?

Today’s leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—may be missing the point entirely. The threat is not that Russia might launch a military attack against the United States. It is that the Russians might act as a shield to protect Chavez’s socialist regime, giving him the ability to increase his interventionist policies in regional countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and others.

This past weekend, violence erupted in some of the Bolivian ‘departments’ (the equivalent of states) between supporters of socialist president Evo Morales and his conservative, capitalist opponents. The Bolivians expelled the American diplomat, claiming that he was promoting violent protests. Chavez stepped in and expelled the American diplomat in Caracas, causing a quid pro quo expulsion of the Venezuelan ambassador from Washington. Chavez then demanded that the Bolivian government respond with force to the “imperialist aggression” and that if Morales was overthrown, he—President Chavez—would send Venezuelan troops to Boliva. “I am prepared to die for Boliva,” he professed.

If the Russians had a naval base in Venezuela, Chavez would feel free to deliver on his repeated, hollow threats. The borderline-dictator and friend to the Colombia FARC terrorists, having bought the technology to build a Kalashnikov AK-47 and ammunition factory in Venezuela, would have the ability to arm hundreds of thousands of rebel forces throughout the continent, thus turning his dream of creating a continental revolutionary army into a reality. Russian protection would make US intervention in this plan much more difficult.

The objective that eludes our congressmen and women could be this: if the US continues to make threatening moves in the Russian neighborhood, they will respond with parallel maneuvers. If we are uncomfortable, we will have to back off our support for the Soviet bloc democracies to get the Russians out of our back yard.

I cannot reiterate strongly enough how potentially dangerous this is. Chavez has repeatedly insisted that the “non-aligned” nations, including Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. need to work together to create an “asymmetrical” attack on the United States, in his words, to create many “Viet Nams” which would simply be too much for the United States to handle.

The United States is already struggling with the entry of millions of illegal aliens, and this during a time of relative peace throughout Latin America. If Chavez manages to create a wave of socialist revolutions across the continent, the number of refugees could increase exponentially.

It is time for the representatives in Washington to get this through their heads: Hugo Chavez is a serious threat to Democracy in the hemisphere, and his alliance with Russia is potentially explosive.

What should be the American doctrine on the Eastern European democracies? Are we really ready to go to war to defend them when they are threatened by Russian imperialism? If so, are we willing to go to war to defend democracies in our own hemisphere that are threatened by local (Bolivarian) and European (Russian) imperialism? The two concurrent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have nearly broken our nation. Are we going to be drawn into the many "Viet Nams" in which Chavez and his cronies want to lure us, in order to lure us into our own doom?

The best thing that could happen right now would be for idiots like Charlie Gibson to stop playing "Gotcha" and instead start asking Presidential candidates Obama and McCain to address this issue now and clarify what they would do about the situation.

Watch out America: What happened in Venezuela can happen here.

If you had asked me ten years ago if I thought that the strange, unbelievable events that happened over the past decade in Venezuela could occur in the United States, I would have said it was crazy. But having watched the events in Venezuela very carefully, and watching current events in the USA, I’m becoming deeply alarmed. In particular, I’m talking about the alarming claims of rampant voter fraud that is being reported in primarily Democrat counties in Alabama.
Before I get to what’s happening in Alabama, I need to review what we know about Venezuelan President Chavez.

It is now well known that Lt. Colonel Hugo Chavez led an illegal coup attempt in 1992 that resulted in the deaths of numerous innocent, unarmed Venezuelan civilians. After his coup failed, he agreed to go on the air and call for his armed co-conspirators to stop the coup, saying “we have failed—for now”. He went to jail, and eventually the Venezuelan president pardoned him for his crimes, and he embarked on a political campaign to accomplish ‘democratically’ what he had failed to accomplish by force.

Chavez embarked on a world-wide tour to gather financial resources from Cuba, middle-eastern leaders (including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Syria’s Assad), and returned to Venezuela with millions of dollars for his campaign. He won the election, and immediately started to disassemble the Venezuelan government. Within a few years, he had replaced the federal judges with sympathetic followers, dissolved the bicameral congress and replaced with a temporary body that wrote a new constitution that favored him and his party and his “Bolivarian revolution”.

He then took complete control of the electoral council (Venezuela’s electoral system is completely centralized—a model that former US President Carter has said he’d like to emulate), and in every electoral process from that point forward, there were rampant charges of electoral fraud. Opposition candidates were harassed, beaten, arrested and threatened with impunity. Chavez supporters attacked opposition rallies en masse, resulting in many injuries and even deaths.

But what is very alarming is that entire electoral mechanism was undermined in a way that permanently disadvantaged the opposition parties. Millions of dollars of state funds found their way into pro-Chavez parties, rallies, and bought support around the country. People were paid to be bused to pro-Chavez rallies and show support for him, giving the impression to the world that his support was massive and popular. Voters were paid to cast votes for him, and there were many cases of intimidation against anyone who showed a proclivity to vote against him.
Chavez made it clear that he was willing to use the ever increasing petroleum revenue to fund his personal revolution, and that a top priority for Venezuela was to achieve the election—in the USA—of a “Bolivarian president”. This notion was mocked and laughed at as the ramblings of a Latin American madman.

However, over the next few years, a frightening pattern was revealed. Socialist parties across the Americas, from Mexico to Argentina and including many countries in between, were accused by their opponents of illegally and covertly receiving large sums of money from the Venezuelan government, in order to support the leftist causes and outspend their “neo-liberal” opponents. Chavez donated millions of dollars of petroleum to Sandinista candidates in Nicaragua, so that they could provide cheap fuel to their supporters—a way of demonstrating how supporting socialists would result in handouts for the poor. Chavez built housing in the districts of socialist candidates in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Bolivia, helping increase the popularity of the socialists. This pattern repeated itself in numerous countries, while the outcry of opposition leaders was ignored.

Following this pattern, the governments of Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Argentina and Nicaragua all turned to the left. There is a life and death struggle still going on in El Salvador and Panama.
The most telling turn of events occurred in Argentina, when it was discovered that high-level Venezuelan officials had funneled large sums of money into Argentina to covertly fund the election campaign of Kristina Fernandez de Kirchner—the wife of former socialist president Nestor Kirchner. The Kirchners were very vocal supporters of Chavez. Small wonder, when one considers how Chavez single-handedly (without the approval of the Venezuelan people) decided to buy Argentina’s multi-billion dollar debt to the World Bank. No one has yet been able to demonstrate how this purchase benefitted the Venezuelan people or economy, but it was clear that it supported Chavez: the Kirchners gained temporary popularity in Argentina and in turn showed him undying loyalty, defending his “revolution” in every forum of world government.

The way the money was funneled into the various countries is extremely important to understand. Chavez has always been savvy enough to maintain “plausible deniability”. That is to say, he might outwardly say that he wants to support the leftist parties in a country, but wouldn’t outwardly give the money to them. Instead, what has been learned is that the money often came directly from the coffers of the state-controlled Petroleum of Venezuela (Pdvsa), and was delivered secretly by private individuals contracted by government officials, who carried the money into the country under the guise of business discussions about oil leases and other convenient distractions. Unfortunately for Chavez, some of those suitcases of money were captured, and the whole plot was discovered.

At other times, the Circulos Bolivarianos, or “Bolivarian Circles”, were employed to this end. The Bolivarian Circles are a loosely organized system of community groups throughout the world, which claim to support underprivileged populations and provide a number of services. But they are alleged to be deeply involved in funneling money to opposition groups, to help organize and fund protest marches, even trigger riots.

In other cases, support was given as gifts of the Venezuelan government to its favored opposition leaders. This didn’t just happen in the backwaters of Latin American countries. Chavez gave cheap heating oil to the constituents of Democrat leaders in Boston and New York. He also tried to sway Native American populations in the USA with similar tactics, by donating gas or heating oil or other support.

Over the past few years, Chavez has received many visits from any number of American leaders, not to mention socialist Hollywood elite. Various members of the African National Congress have visited him, giving the impression that they not only support Chavez, but are expecting some return of favors.

Which brings me now to the events in Alabama.

According to the investigations of the Alabama Attorney General Troy King and the US Justice Department, a number of counties, whose local governments lean heavily Democrat, have been caught in a massive voter fraud scheme. The details that are being released are somewhat meager and unsatisfying. But in an interview on Fox news, AG King explained that they have discovered a pattern of vote-buying in these counties, the voters being offered between $50 and $100 to vote Democrat. What’s more, while his investigators attempted to gather information on the case, local officials in these counties actually arrested the Alabama state investigators for “harassment” of the voters who apparently accepted the bribes. King stated that he had to go to court to get his own investigators released from jail!

The method is extremely clear: the Democrat party has been encouraging its constituents to vote early via absentee ballots. This method was promoted heavily ever since the 2000 election, in which the vote was disputed in Florida, and the Democrats tried to claim that electronic voting machines were rigged by the Republicans to throw the election. So they have instead tried to get their constituents to vote by absentee ballots because—in their words—it would provide a paper trail in case of a future, contested election.

In Alabama, a number of these counties—which apparently are also predominantly black—have suddenly revealed some disturbing irregularities that suggest that something very odd is occurring. In Perry County, for example, the average number of absentee ballots cast in previous elections was close to one percent. Now, that has grown to nearly twenty five percent.
It is too early to tell exactly what is happening, but to me it’s very frightening. Where is this money coming from? Why are local officials trying to impede the investigations? Could the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who visited Chavez on private business, be at all related to the sudden appearance of money throughout mostly black precincts throughout the South?

And, since Chavez repeatedly stated that he trying to get a socialist elected in the United States, could his have anything to do with the presidential campaign of Senator Obama? Could there be a reason why Obama was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for his campaign, while none of the other candidates could come close? Could this be the reason why Obama refused to accept public financing--contracting his previous promise to do so?

It’s far from unprecedented for the Democrats to receive illegal funds from overseas—after all, this was exactly what President Clinton did when he accepted millions of dollars from the Chinese.

So, perhaps my speculations are not too hair-brained. Only time will tell.