Sorry, no witty parables or poetry this morning (I know you’re all disappointed). With the 2010 elections so far away (Yes, I know VA and NJ have elections sooner, and they look to be pretty exciting and are potential pickups for the GOP), the best I can do is post some random thoughts:
As always, the floor is yours.
A note to the reader: Please read the entire post before you formulate a response. This article is meant to be an extended reflection on the issue of torture. I hope you afford me the same courtesy in the comments section.
I must admit that I was among the wishful bunch that believed that the painful history of the Bush Administration’s interrogation policies could be swept under the rug with the inauguration of Barack Obama. I was gravely mistaken.
I was 12 years old on 9/11 – mature enough to recognize the day’s horror, but too young to comprehend the evil that rushed ashore and brutally murdered nearly 3,000 Americans. There is no doubt that the men who hijacked commercial airplanes and turned them into suicide weapons were sick and disturbed creatures. Their followers, loosely led by the ever-elusive Osama Bin Laden, subscribe to a twisted ideology, one that endorses the wanton killing of innocents and perverts a respectable religion in hopes of some sort of glorified afterlife. The evil of these select men is pure and undying; it requires constant vigilance and a rigorous application of our diplomatic, humanitarian and military power in the particular nations where this evil persists. Causes such as the empowerment of women, the freedom of expression and economic equality hang in the balance for the millions of tolerant Muslims who seek a shared future with the West.
With that said, I believe that the United States cannot make significant progress in the Arab and Muslim worlds if we do not first acknowledge the importance of the court of public opinion. Fair or not, the success of American initiatives in the region will rest on the strength of our image among the greater populace. It will not come, as we have presumed for decades, by currying favor with often corrupt political elites. Putting aside your feelings on his progress thus far, Obama has wisely reached out to two of the Muslim world’s most open and democratic regimes in Jordan and Turkey (Let us separate Obama’s engagements with Iran for the sake of this argument). His decision to make high-profile addresses in the heart of the Middle East is reassuring, refreshing and completely necessary.
After great thought and deliberation, I have a few insights about the recent release of the torture memos from the Bush Justice Department. First, I must get the following off my chest: I remain a registered Republican. I voted for John McCain. Despite costly errors and heartbreaking losses, I did and still do support our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The haunting images of 9/11 remain in my head to this day. And, nearly eight years later, I still come to tears re-watching a defiant President Bush, in his greatest unscripted moment, speaking to grieving New York City firefighters atop a mound of rubble at the World Trade Center several days after the attack: “I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” Maybe it was foolish nationalism, but those emotions were alive in many Americans at the time.
(more…)
America must not participate in, sanction, or turn a blind eye to torture.
Even if it allows our intelligence agencies to solicit critical national security information, we do not torture. Even if it prevents a terrorist attack and the deaths of Americans, we do not torture. Even if it can lead to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, we do not torture.
We are not just supposed to strive be better then nations that practice torture, we are supposed to lead the world in opposing and defeating this immorality.
Some Republicans used to argue that torture was a necessary tactic in the war on terrorism. They lost that argument, so now their argument is the torture we practice(d), is not really torture. Some say that only when limbs are severed or blood is drawn, that the definition of torture it met. They will lose this argument as well and in the mean time, they will continue to damage the reputation of the Republican party, our political establishment and the reputation of the United States around the world, as our friends and enemies watch this debate unfold.
America the good, has always triumphed over the threats of evil because we stood on the moral high ground. We have always rallied the free world to fight these evils, because we represented decency, honesty and the respect for human life. This philosophy was part of the Judeo-Christian principles that our nation was founded upon.
Upon reflecting on these Christian principles, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
I have ever deemed it more honorable and more profitable, too, to set a good example than to follow a bad one.
and
I never believed there was one code of morality for a public and another for a private man.
To defeat our enemies we must not continue to take what we perceive as the easy path to victory, by emulating their hatred of freedom and basic human rights, but instead we must overcome those temptations and defeat them with our virtues and our love of liberty.
I once read the following, in a very old book:
God commands those who rule over men to do so with justice and righteousness.
It was certainly an idea we practiced and believed in when we defeated King George III, slavery, Hitler and Communism. As we close in on the 8th year since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, with Bin Laden roaming freely and his network of terrorists planning attacks on our country and allies, maybe it is time our government practices these principles and defeats this tiny, yet lethal enemy, once and for all?
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
The Alaska Fund Trust is the official legal fund created to defend the integrity of the Alaska Governor’s Office from an onslaught of political attacks launched against current Governor Sarah Palin, the First Family, and state-employed colleagues. These baseless accusations have cost Alaska more than $1 million in public monies to defend, and Governor Palin has incurred more than half a million dollars in personal debt defending her official actions as Governor. You can help by donating to the Alaska Fund Trust today!
“Over the past months it became increasingly clear that supporters of Governor Palin needed to help defend against the onslaught of frivolous attacks against her. These baseless accusations are designed to inhibit her ability to focus on the issues Alaskans truly care about and force massive personal debt on her and her family. I joined with fellow Alaskans in forming the Alaska Fund Trust to help alleviate the Governor’s legal debt incurred while performing her job as well as eliminate the incentive for future attacks by her opponents. In doing so, we have created one of the most restrictive and transparent legal funds in history.”
Thank you for your support!
Or, follow up addenda to previous DeVine examinations and Gamecock rooster crowings on law, politics and announcements of dawns…
Only one day to celebrate Mother Earth when there are 12 days of Christmas?
Before our re-examinations, consider one of our favorite Democrat Examiner’s take in her “Bars and oh my stars, Confederate Heritage Month MONTH, is upon us”, as Dolly Purvis writes:
…I’ve kept April 27—that special day when we mark the Cawse on Confederate Memorial Day—on my calendar for the past 15 years. My heart jumps when I recall that Southern memorializing is a state holiday in Georgia. Even so, until the Georgia General Assembly gave us an official Confederate month, finding like-minded souls was about as hard as predicting whether Tom Glavine will be healthy enough to get through five innings. All we need to do now is look for Confederate Heritage Month banners, sponsored by Bud Light, across the front of the Racetrac down the street.
Indeed, it is good to be one of us…
There are those among us who have a ravenous appetite for Civil War history. These are the guys we see at the re-enactments, who strive for historical accuracy in every detail. This, I applaud. Yet, the other 99.7 percent of Confederate Heritage Month revelers (with a cold beer in their hands) will probably give a hearty Rebel Yell and try to reconcile Shelby Foote’s Southerness with theirs.
A month each year to celebrate a five-year war may be excessive, while a mere 12 days per year to celebrate God being made flesh is certainly inadequate, but what are we to make of liberal pagans and their celebration of man as God despite the felling of the Berlin Wall and all that 20th Century slaughter at the hands of their champions?
In the aftermath of my Earth Day celebration of liberal pagan sacrifice of children to their global warming idol, I was waxing nostalgic of past days traversing Gaia and ran across Pilgrim’s (The Minority Report) Post-Modern Baalism (Baal, God of Thunder, pictured) missive penned on the Ninth Day of Christmas, 2008, where he presciently writes:
A new Congress with a larger number of Ds will convene in the first week of January, and a new President, Barack Hussein Obama (D) will be sworn into office on January 20th, 2009. This new Congress wants to move quickly with new legislation ready for the new President to sign on day one. Let me list the issues and their Baalist counterpart.
1. planned parenthood reproductive freedom=Baalist fertility worship
2. providing funding and clinics for abortions=Baalist child sacrifice via burnt offering
3. gay rights and comprehensive sex education=Baalist ritualistic promotion, practice, and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity
4. radical environmentalism for controlling climate change=Baalist pantheistic worship of “mother earth” (reverence of creation over the Creator).
New reports indicate that a new plan is circulating within the RNC to attempt to rebrand the Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party”:
Republican National Committee member James Bopp Jr. wants the national committee to “rename the opposition the ‘Democrat Socialist Party’” and shame the three Republican senators who supported the stimulus bill. He has 16 co-sponsors.
We should generally shy away from attaching labels indicating heavy, highly-charged ideologies — fascism, Nazism, Communism, socialism — to those undeserving of it. First, because the terms have actual definitions: the plans that President Obama supports are statist, certainly, but not socialist: socialism has an actual definition — state ownership of the means of production. “Socialism” doesn’t mean “policies that we don’t like.” But more importantly, using them out of their proper context diminishes the evil truly contained within, creating a Cry Wolf scenario. Is this socialism? Well, as it turns out, a lot of Americans are socialists, then. We mustn’t ascribe evil terms to a set of policies that most of the American people support. This is socialism?, the American people will ask. And they will answer their own question: socialism ain’t so radical. And then when real socialism arrives, we’ll be powerless to stop it.
A better idea? Brand Democrats as the Party of Washington. The party of bureaucrats. Those who want to take power out of the hands of the people and into the hands of politicians.
An even better idea than that? Look for a positive label for the Republican Party. What do we stand for? Now there’s a radical strain of thought.
I think Anthony Dalke hit on a good discussion in talking about potential running mate’s for Huckabee if he were to win the nomination. In addition to being a fun time-waster/party game, this is also a good way to look at balance, marketability, and the comparative strengths and weaknesses of our candidates. So, how about we kick the game up a notch.
Let’s run all of the scenarios at once: Please suggest four tickets – one headed by Mitt Romney, one by Sarah Palin, one by Mike Huckabee, and one by a fourth candidate of your choice.
I’ll start – these aren’t firm choices, but they’re workable and can start discussion.
Mike Huckabee – Former Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA)
Sarah Palin – Sen. Judd Gregg (NH)
Mitt Romney – Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter (ID)
Wild Card: Mark Sanford – Rep. Mike Pence (IN)
A thought exercise for those who oppose the practice of waterboarding: would you waterboard a jihadist if it meant that your mother would escape an otherwise-certain death?
For many, that question may as well have been a reality. News reports have emerged signaling that the use of waterboarding may have helped prevent a 9/11-style attack in Los Angeles. An attack that could have led to the deaths of thousands of American mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters. Ones who may just as well have been the loved ones of those who would otherwise have refused to waterboard. This is as close to the ticking time-bomb scenario as America will ever face.
The dilemma now facing us is clear: now that we have solid evidence that waterboarding has indeed led to valuable information, should the tactic be administered? Or, to phrase it in a more appropriate light: should the physical security of a terrorist hellbent on inflicting harm upon American cities and citizens take precedence over the lives of innocents?
Waterboarding is hellish. That’s the point. For no matter how hellish, the terrorist, in a controlled environment, will escape with his life and family. It’s more than we can say for those whom he would have otherwise made his victims.
Should we as a nation condemn Americans to death because some can’t bear the thought of a terrorist being made to feel pain? Should we sacrifice the lives of our citizens to the perverse morality of defeatists?
We will soon know where the left stakes its claim.
Before I start this, I ask that commenters please keep the discussion respectful and substantive.
If Huckabee hypothetically wins the 2012 nomination, who should he pick as his VP? I would say Romney, but I worry that Huck’s personal dislike for Mitt would prevent him from going that route (please, Romney fans, do not take this as an opportunity to slam Mike’s “vindictiveness” or “hatred”).
With that said, Sanford seems like a great alternative (loved by FiCons, anti-bailout, business background), save for the lack of regional balance he would bring to the ticket. However, recent elections have provided some evidence against the regional balance argument (Clinton picked Gore in 1992 to reinforce the ticket’s message and youthful appeal and still won, Edwards didn’t help Kerry much in the South in 2004). If anti-Washington sentiment swells in the time leading up to the 2012 election season, a Huckabee-Sanford combination appears pretty attractive.
Pawlenty seems like another good option for Huck, with his Midwestern roots and pragmatist credentials. On the downside, he doesn’t exactly thrill FiCons, and his style – the softspoken bridge builder more concerned with getting things done than extracting as much as possible from the other side – doesn’t fit well with the attack dog role typically associated with the VP. All in all, a solid, yet unexceptional, pick.
Thune may offer an enticing alternative to Pawlenty. While he lacks T-Paw’s executive experience, he shares the Midwestern background, appeals to all three legs of the party (including a 100 percent rating from the ACU in 2006), worked in the Small Business Administration under Reagan and managed to stake out a place as one of the GOP’s strongest leaders in the Senate. Thune’s viability as VP candidate probably falls as Obama’s approval ratings (and the public’s satisfaction with Washington) fall. Nonethless, another great option.
I would have suggested a Republican with a military or foreign policy background, but with Petraeus up to this point ruling out any 2012 activity, we seem to have slim pickings in that department. Do people agree? Got different ideas? Let’s hear ‘em!
From a local Louisiana media outlet:
For months, Louisiana residents have heard about the difficult budget choices facing lawmakers.
In the days following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisiana found itself relishing a bit of a boon. Oil prices were up and, due in large part to the recovery effort, construction projects were plentiful. Three years later, consumers are breathing easier at the gas pump, but Louisiana’s coffers are taking the brunt of the punishment.
Beginning Monday, legislators must cut approximately $2 billion in spending for Gov. Bobby Jindal’s proposed state budget. With most budgetary items dedicated, the usual victims – education and health care – are likely to take another big hit.
To lessen the blow, the governor is proposing a constitutional amendment that would allow him to cut dedicated funds by 5 to 10 percent. The move would be a significant change for how Louisiana’s budget is allocated. For years, our two most essential services – schools and medicine – have withstood cuts while “pork” projects sailed through unscathed.
Early indications are the proposal stands a good chance locally. Several Tri-parish lawmakers are endorsing Jindal’s amendment proposal, reasoning that across-the-board cuts would be fairer.
At a time when Louisiana is reinvesting in its reputation – tailoring education to ensure graduates have the skill set to find good paying jobs, readdressing ethics in government and rebuilding the state’s hurricane-battered coastal region – there should be no sacred cows.
We urge voters to stay abreast of the issues facing the Legislature over the coming weeks.
Jindal and state lawmakers made serious inroads during last year’s series of sessions, passing a plethora of bills aimed at growing Louisiana’s economy, restoring its reputation and attracting business and residents. This year, like most of America, our state has some tough choices to make. As taxpayers – and voters – we do have a say in those choices.
Jindal continues to show promise and garner his fiscal conservative credentials. Thoughts?
President Obama and Secretary Gates have decided to cancel the F/A-22 Raptor program. This will leave the USAF with an unsustainable and ineffective inventory of 187 (1 crash) Raptors. The decision to cancel the Raptor program has been met with opposition from within the DOD and the aerospace industry.
However, it isn’t clear the rank and file of the U.S. Air Force is entirely agreeable. Some officers exchanged skeptical looks during Gates’s presentation addressing the F-22 decision.
During the 1990′s, the high development costs of the F/A-22 Raptor ($65 billion) were justified by the planned purchase of 650 units. Lockheed and the DOD believed that as production increased to at least 36 units per year, the unit cost would be significantly reduced. Unfortunately for the program, political interferrance and funding reductions meant that the Raptor never reached full-scale production. This resulted in a 2008 unit cost of $140 million, not including armorments, support and service contracts.
The high production costs have given the Obama administration the green light to cancel the program, even when faced with bipartisan lobbying from Democratic and Republican politicians. Gates and Obama have decided that unmanned reconnaissance aircraft are to be built in place of the Raptor. The cancellation is part of a larger shift in defense acquisition spending by Secretary Gates. His goal is to cut funding to high-tech, high-performance weaponry and adopt the Parisian model of re-allocating funding to the development of more practical and low-cost solutions.
Last week he unveiled a $534 billion budget proposal for 2010 that calls for killing some of the military’s most cherished weapons in favor of less high-tech gear better suited for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the most likely future conflicts. “You don’t need,” he said, “a $5 billion ship to go after pirates.”
Gates may have been accurate with this statement on pirates and Afghanistan, but with the Chinese doubling defense spending over the last decade (directed towards increasing the technological capabilities of their Air force and Navy) and the Russians funneling increased energy revenue towards arms development, the thought of allowing these two nations to match out combat capabilities, is frightening.
With this massive redirection of defense procurement dollars, President Obama and Secretary Gates are surrendering our technology advantage and our national security interests. The current administration is making the same mistake made by previous administrations, by focusing on the infrastructure and equipment needs of existing conflicts, instead of preparing for future ones. The most recent example of a poorly developed spending blueprint is the 1990 defense budget designed by former Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney. The Armed Services Committee endorsed Cheney’s plan to redirect funding to new, unproven weapons systems, such as the F/A-18E/F and V-22 Osprey. Cheney’s cancellation of the Tomcat fighter program not only destroyed Northop’s fighter division, which led to tens of thousands of job losses, but it resulted in a United States Navy being without a superior jet interceptor to protect carrier groups and strike aircraft. Secretary Cheney’s gamble was that the F/A-18E/F would fill a dual role as a strike aircraft and interceptor, but as the Navy would discover years later, the re-designed Hornet was an inferior interceptor to the Tomcat. It will not be until at least 2014 with the first deliveries of the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35), that the Navy will have a fighter capable of matching the performance of our potential adversaries.
Bringing further concern to the Navy is that the Joint Strike Fighter is an untested platform and production targets are already far behind schedule. According to NPR, of the 2,500 planned F-35′s that were to be operational by 2015, only 2 have been assembled. This delay in the production of the F-35 is also placing the lives of our US Air Force combat pilots at risk. Nearly four months ago the Air force grounded 450 early model F-15′s, as the airframes on these aircraft were beginning to disintegrate while in flight. More recently, speed and performance restrictions have been placed on F-15 aircraft for fear of further aircraft and pilot losses. The F-35 was not designed to be the air superiority fighter to replace the early model F-15′s of the US Air Force, as that was to be the role of the F/A-22 Raptor.
In terms of production and capability, Obama and Gates are waging the same bet on the F-35, as Cheney did with the F/A-18E/F. Although the DOD is confident that the F-35 will surpass the air-to-ground capabilities of other existing fifth generation land-based fighter aircraft, such as the EF-2000, JAS-39, Rafale (the only other fighter capable of flight from carriers) and Su-37, in terms of a head-to-head interceptor match-up, the performance of this aircraft remains unknown. The Raptor is the only air combat system in production that offers the US Air Force a performance superior to that of any other fighter in production or development.
Even more worrisome, is the strategic shift this program cancellation will bring to our global dominance in the skies. In past conflicts the United States Air force has relied on superior aircraft and pilot performance rather than on a numerical advantage. In air combat missions over Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, this strategy has proven successful against the combination of poorly trained pilots and the crude and mass produced MIG and Sukhoifighter jets they faced. The best example of this successful strategy has been seen withthe IAF. The IAF has inventoried and deployed the F-15 for the past 30 years. It remains the premier interceptor in the middle east with a successful kill ratio of 60-0 against Russian built, Arab piloted fighter aircraft.
Three years ago, British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency analyzed the combat effectiveness of NATO’s 4th and 5th generation fighter aircraft, against the most modern Russian combat fighter in production, the Su-35/37. The simulated results for the F/A-22 Raptor should have been motivating enough for the DOD to extend the production line beyond 2010;
The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio. The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved an outstanding 10 to 1 ratio. We won’t mention the dismal results of the Navy’s F-18 and the Air Forces F-16.
It will be a few years until a similar study will include the performance of the F-35, but some aerospace experts believe that the air combat performance of the F-35 will fall somewhere in between that of the Rafale and the EF-2000. This belief leads to more questions about the DOD’s cost benefit analysis of the F-35 and F/A-22. It is true that the F-35 unit cost is $40 million dollars cheaper than the F/A-22, but many experts fail to understand the strategic and long-term budgetary advantages of not producing an aircraft that provides our military more than double the performance capabilities of the F-35 at only 40% more cost. For every squadron of 20 F/A-22 Raptors (cost of $2.8 billion), it will take 50 F-35′s (cost of $5.0 billion) to match its capabilities.
In addition to the performance vs. cost framework of the two aircraft, the US aerospace sector stands to suffer from this change in procurement strategy. Nearly 100% of the parts and technology in the Raptor are produced in the United States, but this is not the case for the F-35. Nearly a dozen nations asissted with the funding of the develop program, in exchange for industrial benefits during the production phase. This will result in tens of billions of US tax dollars and thousands of manufacturing jobs going to western Europe, Canada, Australia and Turkey. The decision to redirect funding from an American made aircraft to a partially outsourced aircraft even further perverts the logic behind the Obama administrations economic strategy. On the one hand they cancel funding for an aircraft that creates tens of thousands of American jobs, while at the same time they borrow hundreds of billion of dollars from foreign sources to fund a job creation (stimulus) bill.
Here’s hoping our media, manufacturing lobby, union leadership join together to fight Secretary Gates and President Obama on this poorly designed procurement blueprint. Although those in the Pentagon privy to the details of the plan have been sworn to secrecy, we must remain concerned over what other advanced weapons projects are to be cancelled?
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
For that matter, was Dick Cheney worth the bother?
Interesting opinion piece in WaPo on doing away with the vice-presidency. The basis of the argument is that the people selected for VP are, for the most part, people who could never achieve the presidency on their own (e.g., Joe Biden), but are put in a position to achieve it via succession, or through next-in-lineism.
The list of former veeps who reached the presidency starts off well, with Adams and Jefferson, but that was when the person who ran second for the presidency became vice-president. After that it goes downhill quickly – Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson …
Of the twelve second bananas who became first bananas since the founding fathers, only two (Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman) generally make the lists of the best presidents. This is hardly surprising, since the veep is not chosen with presidential qualifications as the primary consideration.
The veep only has two responsibilities – breaking ties in the senate and calling the White House each morning and inquiring into the health of the president (as someone once put it). Breaking ties is easy enough to deal with, as the article did – ties mean the proposal is rejected.
So that leaves succession. How do we fill a presidential vacancy? Herewith a few proposals:
Overall, I think I lean to the designated successor. It really is much the same as the current system, except that the successor is not tied to a meaningless office, and can be doing something productive while waiting. I think we’d be more likely to have people of achievement as successors.
I’m sure there are lots of other options. Have at it.
And you thought five years of the “Bushlied” lie was bad?
Would Usama bin Laden and KSM (pictured, who gave up intel that saved US from follow up 911 attacks, thanks to waterboarding), Iran’s Mullahs and MembersOnlyJacket-ijad, and Kim Jung Il prefer that CIA agents fear prosecution by succeeding administrations for the carrying out of lawfully given interrogation orders? That CIA lawyers fear such prosecutions for confidential legal opinions?
The answer is obvious, yet President Obama is criminalizing politics and the fighting of wars much like a new junta taking over after a coup:
Senior members of the Bush administration who approved the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation measures could face prosecution, President Obama disclosed today. He said the use of torture reflected America “losing our moral bearings”.
He said his attorney general, Eric Holder, was conducting an investigation and the decision rested with him. Obama last week ruled out prosecution of CIA agents who carried out the interrogation of suspected al-Qaida members at Guantánamo and secret prisons around the world.
Obama, taking questions from the press during a visit by King Abdullah of Jordan, reiterated he did not believe in prosecution of those CIA agents who carried out the interrogations within the guidelines set down for them. But “with respect to those who formulated” the policies, “that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws”. He added: “I don’t want to prejudge that.”
Ewen MacAskill on Obama’s reluctance to prosecute torturers Link to this audio He also opened the way for a Congressional inquiry into the issue.
Meanwhile the former US vice-president Dick Cheney has called for the disclosure of CIA memos which reveal the “success” of torture techniques, including waterboarding, used on al-Qaida suspects under the Bush administration.
Before the New York Times became the de facto agent of our enemies a few years ago, adversaries from the old USSR (now Russia), Red China (still pretty red), Saddam Hussein (now dead), Iran (surrounded), North Korea and al-Qaida (now decimated) spent millions on espionage to secure classified information that would give them an advantage in their wars and competitions against us.
They are saving millions now, as it seems the only classified information these days are current legal memos of the Obama Administration. All information gathered by that inferior version of the United States of America known as the Ante-Obam-ellum Era is more available for inspection than the paintings on the walls of the White House seen during public tours.
All in the name of feeling better that we have the “moral high ground”? Or was it that we have removed a “recruiting tool” after 911? No matter that al Qaida’s recruited enough converts before 911 to carry out numerous attacks against America for a decade before and on 911, all before the enhanced interrogation days launched after said 911.
Who needs spies or even a Manchurian candidate when Americans elect a man tutored on “G-D America” sermons with political allies that regret they hadn’t bombed police stations and the Pentagon more?
And by the way Dear Communist Leader of our “equal” Nicaraguan partner, don’t blame me for President Kennedy’s attempt to save Cuba from a 50-year old Island-wide gulag.
After all Barry was only a baby? No word yet on whether James Earl Ray and Sirhan Sirhan should be pardoned since B. Hussein Obama had not reached puberty when their crimes were committed.
But this penchant (see passion) for leftist Democrats to do the bidding (see aiding and abetting) for our enemies, albeit without “adhering”, as in:
1) John Kerry’s trip to Paris to conspire with the Communist North Vietnamese;
2) The Church Commission’s decimation of the CIA and the Democratic Party majority’s abandonment of the then victorious South Vietnamese;
3) Sen. Ted Kennedy’s then secret attempted sabotage with the KGB of President Reagan’s strategies to defeat the Soviet Union;
4) Kerry and other Democrats’ public support for the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua while President Reagan was supporting the freedom fighting Contras; and, most recently
5) The aggression-inviting weakness of the 2003-2009 Bushlied Democrats that prolonged the Iraq War and cost more American lives by emboldening our enemies to fight on ’till their party took control of the Executive branch.
The Democrats cost the United States victory in the Vietnam War and are responsible for millions of lives slaughtered after we denied support for the champions of freedom in Southeast Asia, but thankfully, we eventually won the Cold War despite the above and President Carter’s indictment of a supposed “inordinate fear” of Communism.
And President Bush, the GOP and a remnant of JFK Dems won the Iraq War, for all intents and purposes that even Obama seems content to let stand so far.
But that same Obama is gutting the Defense budget including Strategic Missile Defense while Il ballistic missiles fly over Japan for potential Iranian customers to view; Poland, Ukraine and the Czech Republic see Obama and Medvedev look into each other’s non-souls after our President saw moral equivalence between Russian invaders and Georgians’ occupied; all while touring the world with Mr. and Mrs. Mea Culpa getting top billing on the itinerary.
We the People overcame past Democratic Party versions of “patriotism” to emerge as a City still Shining and still on top of the Hill.
I fear that after four years of Obama and these Dems, we may have to cross Delawares and enlist Old Hickorys in Nawlins in order to climb back up the Hill and restore our Liberty lighting luminescence.
Gamecock heard the fox guarding the hen house joke for years. It came true on Inauguration Day, but one good sign: The original Shining began with a Tea Party.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all for verification links may be accessed.
PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey
- Barack Obama 49%
- Mike Huckabee 42%
- Barack Obama 50%
- Mitt Romney 39%
- Barack Obama 53%
- Sarah Palin 41%
- Barack Obama 52%
- Newt Gingrich 39%
Obama Job Approval
- Approve 53%
- Disapprove 41%
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Mike Huckabee 42% / 34% (+8%)
- Mitt Romney 40% / 35% (+5%)
- Sarah Palin 42% / 49% (-7%)
- Newt Gingrich 36% / 44% (-8%)
Survey of 686 voters was conducted April 17-19. The margin of error is +/-3.7 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 40% (D), 33% (R), 27% (I).
Mitt Romney
- Very Favorable 22%
- Somewhat Favorable 33%
- Somewhat Unfavorable 23%
- Very Unfavorable 13%
Newt Gingrich
- Very Favorable 21%
- Somewhat Favorable 24%
- Somewhat Unfavorable 27%
- Very Unfavorable 21%
Eric Cantor
- Very Favorable 4%
- Somewhat Favorable 17%
- Somewhat Unfavorable 20%
- Very Unfavorable 12%
A few weeks ago, I posted on the needless de-chartering of the College Republicans at the University of California – and now it seems that another group of College Republicans is facing the same sort of attack by the same state committee. Luckily, the College Republicans at the University of the Pacific have documented the whole affair in a YouTube video with lots of documentation.
Due to embedding problems, I can’t post the video here, but it is available at my personal blog.
I said this before an I’ll say it again, this sort of Chicago-style politics has no place in any part of the Republican Party - and it is especially disturbing to see so many young activists being targeted. “They’re just college kids” is not an excuse to turn a blind eye – and I really wish that some of the bigger organs of our party would show these punks who’s boss.
I reported on this story back in January, but today is the day that the yogurt hits the fan. South Africans are voting in an election that, in my opinion, will define their future as a nation – and perhaps the future of the entire region. At the very least, this is the most pivotal election since the end of apartheid.
Not that the outcome is in doubt. Every one knows that that the African National Congress (ANC) party will win well over half the seats in parliament – just like they always do – allowing them to elect their leader, Jacob Zuma, as President of South Africa. There are, however, two big differences this time. The first is that Mr. Zuma is a corrupt barbarian who reminds me far more of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe than Nelson Mandela (read my January column for grisly details). The second is that, for the first time in years, there is the potential that the ANC could lose its two-thirds majority – which allows the party to change the constitution whenever it wants.
Here’s why I think this is important: The ANC was an important force in ending apartheid, but its post apartheid dominance has made South Africa essentially a one party state. Furthermore, Jacob Zuma and his supporters have moved the ANC closer to authoritarianism by moving to sideline the supporters of former President Thabo Mbeki – even forcing Mbeki himself to resign and hand the presidency to a Zuma supporter. Luckily, many Mbeki supporters were smart enough to leave the ANC and form their own party, the Congress of the People (COPE), which could pull 10% away from the ANC. This could push the non-ANC parties over the one-third mark.
I have come to think that South Africa will inevitably slide away from democracy unless the ANC’s hold on power can be replaced with a true multiparty system, and the emergence of COPE makes this possible. However, I would not be voting COPE today if I were South African, I would be supporting the other major opposition party – the Democratic Alliance (DA).
Despite the media focus on COPE, there are two reasons why I think that the DA is more important to South African democracy. First, the DA is liberal and market-friendly, whereas COPE shares the ANC’s socialist leanings. Second, the DA is the only major post-racial party in South Africa. The ANC grew out of the movement to empower the black community (a a good goal under apartheid), and it has remained a black party – and obviously COPE was part of the ANC until last year. The DA, on the other hand, grew out of the anti-apartheid movement among white South Africans. Its current leader, Cape Town Mayor Helen Zille, is a white woman and a former member Black Sash movement - a group of white women who stood against against apartheid and fought for black rights. Zille was also named World Mayor of the Year in 2008.
In any true multiparty democracy, Zille would likely be the runaway favorite to win the Presidency – after all, she’s literally the best mayor in the world and shes a former civil rights crusader to boot. Unfortunately, South Africa is a de-facto one-party state, and Zille’s DA is forced to fight COPE for a distant second. Meanwhile, the authoritarian Zuma is poised to take power – and the once-venerated ANC is starting to look more and more like the Zimbabwean ZANU-PF party of Robert Mugabe.
So, here’s hoping that South Africa takes the right step by denying the ANC its two-thirds majority and continues marching toward democracy. Furthermore, while I am grateful to COPE for taking a stand against Zuma, I fervently hope that the DA can remain the second biggest party.
South Africa has come a long way since the days of apartheid. However, the legacy of that dark time will not be fully eliminated until the country ceases to be dominated by a single party. Furthermore, if apartheid was really in the past, then a tolerant white woman like Helen Zille, who clearly has far more credibility than Zuma, would be able to win election despite the majority-black electorate. However, anyone with a bran knows that Zille will not be President-elect tomorrow morning – proving that apartheid is still alive and well.
To all of my friends in South Africa – the choice is yours. You can keep the ANC supermajority and march toward third-world oblivion, or you can take another tiny step toward a post-racial, democratic future. Take your pick.
Today, John Thune introduced a bill that would require the Treasury Secretary to direct TARP repayments from banks toward reducing the national debt:
“’Congress is responsible for allocating taxpayer dollars and this legislation will prevent the Obama Administration from attempting to turn this money into a revolving slush fund,’ said Thune. ‘TARP was designed for the President to report back to Congress and seek approval for additional funding. This legislation ensures the returned funds are not reallocated by the administration for other priorities. Instead, this bill would work to reduce the size of the national debt in this country, something that seems to be a forgotten idea with the current Democrat leadership.’
Although tens of billions would not make that much a dent in trillions of dollars’ worth of debt, every little bit counts. I commend Thune on this innovative proposal. He continues to stake out a position as a top VP candidate in 2012 (I think anti-Washington sentiment will prevent him from snatching the nomination from a governor).
Yesterday, Nate Silver offered an interesting interpretation of the tea parties:
Last week’s Tea Party protests had their origins in the libertarian movement. Although many conservative groups were eager to co-opt their purpose, the core of the message — anti-tax, anti-big government — was about as libertarian as it gets. Participation in the rallies was also proportionately quite high in areas like New Hampshire and the Interior West, which are traditionally more sympathetic toward libertarian concerns.
…The Republican alternative budget could be considered a somewhat radical experiment in libertarianism, dramatically slashing taxes while promising to balance budgets — an achievement that would only be possible if the size of the government were cut enormously. Meanwhile, the Republicans, with help from some Democrats, stuck into the budget debate an amendment to curb the estate tax, which will cost the government about $100 billion in revenue annually.
Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them. Reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court decision was surprisingly muted in conservative circles. Meanwhile, at least one prominent Republican presidential candidate, Utah’s John Huntsman, has come out in favor of civil unions (although not gay marriage itself).
…Maybe you see a pattern there and maybe you don’t. But of the roughly four different pathways the Republicans could take in the post-Obama universe — toward Ron Paulesque libertarianism, toward Sarah Palinesque cultural populism, toward Mike Huckabeesque big-government conservatism, or toward Olympia Snowesque moderation/ good-governmentism — the libertarian side would seem to have had the best go of things in the First 100 Days.
Lastly, Quinnipiac released a new poll today on Gov. Corzine’s approval ratings:
New Jersey voters disapprove 54 – 37 percent of the job Gov. Jon Corzine is doing, the highest disapproval ever measured for a New Jersey Governor, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
…Gov. Corzine’s disapproval is up from 50 – 40 percent in a March 12 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. He had a 52 – 38 percent disapproval June 11, 2008. Former Gov. James McGreevy also hit a 52 percent disapproval once.
In this latest survey, Democrats approve of Corzine 61 – 28 percent, but he gets negative scores of 83 – 13 percent from Republicans and 62 – 32 percent from independent voters.
Voters disapprove 58 – 32 percent of the way Corzine is handling the economy and 50 percent of voters say things in New Jersey are worse since he was elected Governor.
In his bid for a second term, Corzine trails Christie 45 – 38 percent, compared to Christie’s 46 – 37 percent lead March 12. Today, Democrats back Corzine 73 – 12 percent, while Christie leads 90 – 3 percent among Republicans and 50 – 31 percent among independent voters.
Lonegan ties Corzine 41 – 41 percent, leading 81 – 7 percent among Republicans and 45 – 32 percent among independent voters, while Corzine leads 77 – 10 percent among Democrats.
…By a 50 – 39 percent margin, New Jersey voters have an unfavorable opinion of Corzine.
Christie gets a 31 – 11 percent favorability, but 56 percent don’t know enough about him to form an opinion. For Lonegan, 72 percent don’t know enough to form an opinion.
In an attempt to understand the extent of cow flatulence on global warming, scientists in Argentina are strapping plastic bags to the backs of cows to capture their emissions.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/kris_lorelli.
Gamecock’s Earth Day wish? Subdue it and have dominion over it, as in Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”, but I digress…
When Moses descended from Mount Sinai 5000 years ago with the Ten Commandments, the pagans of Canaan were sacrificing virgins to Baal. The Hebrews and Christians civilized the Western World including founding most of the great universities, where, within several centuries, those behind the Ivory Towers indulged in making themselves God.
The 21st Century liberal pagans may be worse than their ancient ancestors however, given their sex education zealotry likely sacrifices many children’s virginity before the tots are themselves sacrificed to Gaia:
There’s a new bogeyman lurking in the closet, and this one isn’t imaginary. Us. One out of three children aged 6 to 11 fears that Ma Earth won’t exist when they grow up, while more than half—56 percent—worry that the planet will be a blasted heath (or at least a very unpleasant place to live), according to a new survey.
And this new bogeyman is brought to you by those that said the Bible’s Hell was too scary for kids? You know, the one occupied by the “imaginary” Devil aka Satan, Beelzebub and Lucifer.
At least the fear of eternal damnation scared many of us straight, whereas the fear of SUVs, Edison’s bulb (see pictured, invented by faux Earth warmer), coal, and nuclear power scares us into Smart death-trap Cars, mercury spills, wood burning stove smog and black death from rats feasting on horse street dung.
And I’m thinking that the use of wood as a last resort in a Green Obama World offsets the desired increase in bidet sales due to mandatory weaning from Charmin squeezing?
On a sliding scale of anxieties, minority kids have it worst; 75 percent of black children and 65 percent of Hispanic children believe that the planet will be irrevocably damaged by the time they reach adulthood.
Seems even liberal policies impact minorities and children worse too?
Interestingly enough, kids vex over the state of the planet, especially when it came to safe and clean air and water, regardless of any pro-environmental measures on the part of their parents. A staggering 95 percent of the children surveyed said their parents pitched in by recycling, using rechargeable batteries, and conserving water and electricity.
Well, at least the children’s inate common sense got this right, even if its 180 degrees out of phase. Yes, recycling is about making mommy and daddy feel good, and that’s all.
“We commissioned the survey as a result of my own childrens’ experiences with the recent fires in Australia as they expressed much concern for both their safety and the planet’s,” said Sharon Lowe, founder of Habitat Heroes, in a press release. “While it is upsetting to hear how many children in the United States have expressed similar concerns, I am more committed than ever to help educate children around the globe in a way that is not scary to them.”
That’s great to hear Ms. Lowe. Why not start with the truth instead of lies, like the lowdown on the cooling of the planet for the last ten years and the massive warming by Mother Nature (see The Sun, actual warmer of the solar system) 10,000s of years ago when half the east coast was under the Atlantic before the first Chevy rolled of the assembly line to be driven by puny Man.
Then comfort the little ones with the amazing fact that if The Sun (now suing Al Gore for defamation) were to get all spotty and flood Myrtle Beach, S.C., that they will have weeks to pack up and move to Conway (30 miles inland).
Then maybe we can get back to children worrying about reading, writing, arithmetic and character traits like honesty, chastity and courage.
The GOP can make great gains in this area by tying the scare tactics with the recession, especially as Obama-Dem generated higher energy prices kick in. They can also point to all the good jobs lost in the oil, coal and nuclear power industries as the only jobs created are for environmental lawyers.
Global warming is fast becoming a water cooler joke for those still employed where water coolers are located.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all for verification links may be accessed.
Some people may have already heard about this, but Chris Simcox, founder of the Minutemen, has announced a primary challenge to Sen. McCain’s seat. Simcox faces an uphill battle, with McCain having a huge fundraising advantage and favorable poll numbers (PPP puts Mac at 53/31).
In another campaign announcement, today San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom launched his bid for governor of California. With crowded fields on both sides, this should prove an interesting race to watch.
In an event that will anger many, many people:
A controversial doctor has claimed to have cloned human embryos and transferred them to four women prepared to give birth to the first cloned babies.
Fertility specialist Panayiotis Zavos sensationally broke the sacred taboo of human individuality by cloning 14 embryos and placing 11 of them into the wombs of four women, he told The Independent.
…The process, which is illegal in Britain and many other countries, was probably carried out in a secret laboratory in the Middle East, where cloning is not banned.
None of the embryo transfers led to a pregnancy but Dr Zavos, a naturalised American who runs fertility clinics in Kentucky and Cyprus, where he was born, said yesterday that this was just the ‘first chapter’ in his serious attempts at producing a baby cloned from the skin cells of its ‘parent’.
He said: ‘There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen.’
‘If we intensify our efforts we can have a cloned baby within a year or two, but I don’t know whether we can intensify our efforts to that extent.
We can only hope that that people will not “intensify…efforts to that extent”.
A recent poll has purported that a large majority of Cuban-Americans view Pres. Obama favorably, with 20 percent taking the unfavorable view. Furthermore:
Sixty-four percent of respondents to the Bendixen poll said they supported Obama’s softening of the 47-year-old embargo and 67 percent said they would support the lifting of restrictions so all Americans could travel to Cuba freely.
Perhaps someone more versed in polling can provide some commentary. This certainly surprised me.
Lastly, the CIA has confirmed reports that waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced intelligence that helped expose plans for a “Second Wave” terrorist plot to steer hijacked planes into a building in Los Angeles:
Before they were subjected to “enhanced techniques” of interrogation that included waterboarding, KSM and Zubaydah were not only uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves.
“In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah [another high-level al Qaeda member], without these enhanced techniques,” says the Justice Department memo. “Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general US population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience, and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.’ Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will know.’”
After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.
Sean Hannity made a great point on the radio today: how should the residents of Los Angeles feel when they see their president, who as commander-in-chief has the duty to keep us safe, publicly discount a tactic that very likely saved their lives?
History has proven that Republicans win the White House when their candidates are perceived as the ‘common man’, who voters can picture themselves having a beer with. When Republican candidates are perceived as aristocratic or possessing an overweening manner, the Democrats win the White House.
Nixon, Reagan and Bush (W) were viewed as honest and neighborly by swing voters and all three won consecutive Presidential elections. Irish Catholics in South Boston, Kensington PA and west side Chicago, considered Reagan to be a member of the extended working class, Irish Catholic family (even though he was Protestant and a Hollywood actor). Nixon was acclaimed as the man of the people through his focus on crime prevention, the creation of the DEA and his appeal to small town America. President W. Bush campaigned on a platform of compassionate conservatism and sold voters on an image of a western rancher and a likable, down to earth, plain spoken dude.
Over the course of the last six months, Governor Romney has improved his conservative message on economic and foreign policy. He has not wavered or changed policy positions based on public opinion polling, sticking to the core talking points of pro-growth capitalism and liberal internationalism. Governor Romney is an improved candidate from 2007-2008, but he still has one major obstacle to overcome.
How can he alter his image, from a beneficiary of the ruling business and political class, to a typical suburban ‘Joe’? How can Governor Romney relate to middle class swing voters, without allowing his hair style, his number of mansions or Aspen ski wear to be branded into the minds of voters by the liberal press and Democratic political machine?
Most Romney detractors will scoff at the idea of Mitt wearing earth-tone colors, cowboy boots and hair spray rather then hair gel, but it can work and it is a first step. Governor Romney must become the western, Utah Mitt, in place of the northeastern, German car driving, Ivy league Mitt. This re-modelling worked for George W. Bush, as his image as a belt buck wearing, southern talking, BBQ hosting, fly-over city living, father of two was embraced by enough voters to win him two Presidential elections. Voters completely ignored the reality that President Bush was a Yale graduating, aristocratic born, Rockefeller Republican.
Aside from the required changes to his wardrobe, Governor Romney must spend the next three years changing voters perception on his lifestyle and interests. Here are a few suggestions I have for Governor Romney;
The good news for Mitt Romney, is that he has three years to mold a new image for himself in the minds of voters, from Allentown to Albuquerque. The cost of the new image he can afford, but it will take hard work and dedication on his part. The first step for Mitt, take down the Harvard degree of the mantle and make room for the dodge ball trophy.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com on Facebook, or Twitter Race42012.
Strategic Vision (R) New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey
Republican Primary
- Chris Christie 40%
- Steve Lonegan 15%
General Election
- Chris Christie 47%
- Jon Corzine 36%
- Jon Corzine 44%
- Steve Lonegan 39%
Survey of 800 likely voters was conducted April 17-19. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points.
Remeber that DHS report from last week that warned of the growing threat from domestic right-wing extremism? It appears as if that report was not just political, but false in its assertions that the threat is from the right, not the left.
FBI’s newest ‘Most Wanted’ terrorist is an American and a leftist extremist.
For the first time, an accused domestic terrorist is being added to the FBI’s list of “Most Wanted” terror suspects. Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist from Berkeley, Calif., is wanted for the 2003 bombings of two corporate offices in California.
Authorities describe San Diego as an animal rights activist who turned to bomb attacks and say he has tattoo that proclaims, “It only takes a spark.” A law enforcement official said the FBI was to announce Tuesday that San Diego was being added to the “Most Wanted” terrorist list. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the announcement ahead of time.
The move to add a domestic, left-wing terrorist to the list comes only days after the Obama administration was criticized for internal reports suggesting some military veterans could be susceptible to right-wing extremist recruiters or commit lone acts of violence. That prompted angry reactions from some lawmakers and veterans groups.
So it appears as if the only threat from right-wing extremism comes from outside of our borders, in the form of Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda splinter groups.
Speaking of Al-Qaeda, is anyone else perplexed with President Obama’s decision to release the CIA’s ‘torture’ memos? Why would we advertise our tactics (no matter how wrong they were) to the enemy, without at least releasing the follow-up memos detailing if the torture was successful or not? Vice President Cheney is calling on the Obama administration to release additionals memos, that (according to Cheney) detail the success of the water-boarding and sleep deprivation methods.
Many conservatives oppose the use of non-violent torture and water-boarding, based on moral and ethical grounds, but if our government decides to release the details behind the tactics, including the frequency and names of the terrorists that the tactics were used on, should the Obama administration not at least tell us if they worked or not?
Maybe that is the problem? Maybe the Obama administration discovered (in memos not released) that in fact Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al Shibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did provide intelligence that saved the lives of U.S. citizens? This would lead many analysts to believe that the releasing of the CIA memos were in fact, a political move that now puts the safety of our nation and the lives of CIA operatives at risk. Ronald Kessler makes this argument.
If Obama were really interested in promoting transparency, he would have released CIA reports detailing the valuable leads obtained through the very same coercive interrogation techniques, which potentially saved the lives of tens of thousands of Americans.
If Obama were genuinely interested in transparency, he also would have released the minutes of Bush White House meetings briefing Nancy Pelosi and other leaders of the House and Senate on the interrogation techniques as they were being implemented.
Instead, Obama referred to the interrogations as a “dark and painful chapter in our history.”
As former CIA Director Michael Hayden said in an April 17 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, the effect of the release “will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.”
As Hayden pointed out, releasing the memos discourages foreign intelligence services from cooperating with the CIA for fear that their cooperation and secrets will be exposed.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com on Facebook, or Twitter Race42012.
Mitt has written an op-ed for National Review Online, in which he calls Pres. Obama “a timid advocate of freedom”. The text:
At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.
In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.
The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.
Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.
Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.
Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.
Mitt doesn’t break any new ground here, but this rather neoconservative summary of some of Obama’s blunders abroad will probably please much of the base (some of which have questioned his hawk credentials) . What does everyone think about it?
I meant to have this post up in time for Tax Day, but, well, it just didn’t happen. The topic’s still relevant, though.
I’m not going to dig too deeply into the details. If you want to do that, fine, but please do a little research before you do. It’s very tiresome to debate the 23% versus 30% issue, whether this particular person will be better off, what about retirement savings, and a plethora of other issues if you haven’t at least looked at what the proposal will do. I’ll briefly state that it’s intended to replace ALL gov’t taxation (which currently makes up about 24% of the purchase price of goods today) with a sales tax. It’s intended to be revenue neutral, so it’s not intended to be a tax cut. It also includes a prebate of taxes on necessities every month, basically meaning a check to every household, and a de facto exemption of the poor from paying tax.
No, I want to focus on what this does for the economy. As you well know, we are taxed on all manner of things. Corporations are taxed on even more. The tax code is incredibly cumbersome, and there likely isn’t anyone alive who knows all there is to know about the tax code. It’s designed to be confusing, and it’s designed to get people and businesses to behave in specific ways. It promotes waste and inefficiency in business under the guise of whatever desired behavior is written into it. For example, did you know that Coke, despite having massive cash reserves, nonetheless issues bonds? It does so because the tax savings they have for doing so outweights the interest costs. What sense does that make?
What happens when business no longer has tax benefits from spending money in a particular manner? If it’s not efficient, they quit doing it, and they redirect the resources to something more efficient. They quit hiring lobbyists who are intended to create these loopholes, and they quit hiring tax accountants whose sole goal is to determine how best to exploit these loopholes. That money and effort gets redirected, either in reduction of the price of goods, or is invested into other areas that will increase revenues and/or reduce costs over the long term. The price of goods will fall. Depending on the business, the decrease may be very small, but especially in poor economic times, every little bit helps.
Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I am an accountant. I do not focus on taxes, but I do some related work on them. I will not claim to be an expert in the field.
In an interview with the CBC, Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano incorrectly stated that the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States across the Canadian border, not realizing they had entered through domestic airports, prior to receiving training in the United States.
Napolitano: Terrorists have entered our country across a border, it’s been across the Canadian border.
CBC: Are you talking about the 9/11 perpetrators?”
Napolitano: “Not just those but others as well.”
This lack of understand of the origins of the 9/11 attacks is beyond frightening.
Two of the visas were issued in Berlin, two were issued in the United Arab Emirates, with the rest
being issued in Saudi Arabia, with many of the terrorists leaving for the United States directly from their training sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The hijackers tasked with flying the passenger planes, entered the United States in 2000, in order to undertake flight training in San Diego and South Florida (Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Iarrah and Hani Hanjour) with the remainder (muscle hijackers) arriving in 2001. Prior to 9/11, many of the hijackers were know to INS and Customs officials as they had violated immigration laws, by overstaying their periods of admission or failing to change their visa statuses.
The Department of Homeland Security was formed as a reaction to the 9/11 attacks and is now being led by an individual who lacks the basic understanding of how the attacks were executed. How can we have confidence that this DHS Secretary will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Immigration and Customs officials if she is unaware of the deficiencies in their technology, training, processes and policies?
I will post the video as soon as it is available.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com on Facebook, or Twitter Race42012.
ALBANY, N.Y. — Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani headlined a GOP dinner in Albany. It was his second such fundraiser over the course of two weeks. This, as more polls suggest he would beat Governor David Paterson if Paterson were to run as the incumbent.
Giuliani says he’s not running for anything right now, but America’s mayor did take a shot at Paterson’s budget:
“You gotta squeeze that budget all the way down so you don’t have to raise taxes. So instead you can lower some taxes, that will encourage businesses to come to New York, that’ll encourage businesses to expand. I can’t emphasize how it is exactly the opposite approach from the budget that was passed, which I believe completely contradicts what Governor Paterson first said he was going to do,” said Giuliani.
The criticism of Paterson comes as a new poll released by Siena College shows Paterson’s ratings reach a new low.
Just when you though New York Governor David Paterson’s approval rating couldn’t get any lower, a new poll has come out. According to Siena College, just 27% of the people survey approve of Paterson. It says only 18% like the job he’s doing. But the most damaging part of the poll came in the form of a question, “which of the recent governors would you like to lead the state?” Paterson finished last behind Mario Cuomo, George Pataki, and even disgraced former governor Eliot Spitzer.
Rudy is on track to capture the governorship of New York, but he must make his mind up on the gay marriage issues. The former mayor is taking hits from the left and right on this issue, as he continues to explain his position.
The former mayor didn’t exactly sound like he was waging war on gay marriage, saying he thinks the GOP should let a grassroots movement in opposition to Paterson’s bill develop on its own. As to whether he would perform the marriage of Howard Koeppel and Mark Hsaio – the gay couple with whom he lived for six months in 2001 when his own (second) marriage was on the skids – Giuliani said:
“I have many friends and some are gay, some are lesbian, some are heterosexual. I don’t make determinations about friends that way, and I would not officiate at an illegal marriage because, because…Well, I certainly hope it doesn’t become legal.”
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com on Facebook, or Twitter Race42012.
One of the worst things about being forced into hiatus from blogging by the demands of real life is that you become out of touch with immediate and constant delivery of information that is, indeed, the lifeblood of the medium. The very idea that two days could have gone by without me reading that Spengler’s true identity has been revealed would have seemed absolutely absurd only a few months ago.
Allow me to offer my most sincere thanks to everyone who is doing such a terrific job of operating the site in my absence. I hope to be back within the fold soon.
