Federal Farmer

MY DAILY ROAST!

2010-03-17T12:22:00.000-07:00

It is finally official. After months of waiting and yearning, My Daily Roast is finally up and running! I am sorry to have to leave the Federal Farmer. It has been a fun ride, and I hope to see some of my followers "follow" me to MyDailyRoast.

Anyway, cheers!

You can find me at http://www.mydailyroast.com

Marc

ANNOUNCING MY DAILY ROAST

2010-01-27T11:49:00.000-08:00

OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF "MY DAILY ROAST"

Today I am officially announcing the release of a new blog, "My Daily Roast." This blog will be dedicated to social and political commentary from a variety of authors including myself, Federal Farmer. The new site will have podcasts, video blogs, written posts, and other fresh features. Be sure to check it out, the official launch of the new site will be on Valentine's Day.

Remember, "My Daily Roast" is your daily dose of roast.

Some Things Never Change

2010-01-24T20:37:00.000-08:00

Some things never change, even when it comes to addressing a classroom of 6th graders with the help of a trusty teleprompter. But hey, let's give the president a break, 6th graders can be a tough crowd.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/24/obama_uses_teleprompters_during_speech_to_6th_graders.html

Ice Fishing is Fun

2010-01-24T20:28:00.000-08:00

Yes, political commentary isn't the only thing that interests FedFarmer.

Being a political junkie gets tiring. Therefore, in order to clear my mind and forget the cares of the world, I attempt to catch fish in sub-zero temperatures.

Ice Fishing is fun.

Obama's Speech in Elyria, Ohio

2010-01-22T11:51:00.000-08:00

I'm currently watching President Obama's speech in Elyria, Ohio. Here are some brief thoughts on the speech and the following question/answer period.

1. Unsurprisingly, much of the President's speech consists of reminding the audience of the horrors of the past decade and focuses on the failures of the past administration. While the President is smart to divert the attention of the American people to a universal scapegoat like President Bush, it's irresponsible. The policies which have most enraged voters have been policies similar to those enacted by the previous administration, namely sweeping economic policies and a continuation of wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. The President's solution to our economic woes is obviously an increase in government control over the economy. Obama's speech ranges from government interference with the most basic business practices to grand overhauls of entire sectors of the American economy. It seems that the answer to everything these days is more government control. I am amazed to see that the belief in free markets has become a very rare thing today, and instead, an overwhelming number of intellectuals and politicians support an unprecedented level of centralized planning.

3. The questions are pretty "soft," so far, and it makes me wonder if anyone in this audience is genuine. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these "questions" were fabricated beforehand.

4. READ THE KID'S POEM, BARRY!

5. Interestingly enough, the industries that the President proposes more government control are industries which are already, heavily regulated (healthcare, banking, education). If medicare and medicaid are so unacceptable (according to the President's own admission), why is he so confident that he can successfully overhaul the entire US healthcare industry?

Indefinite Detention for 50 Gitmo Detainees?

2010-01-22T09:38:00.000-08:00

Hopefully everyone on both the Right and Left has noticed how the President has strayed from his campaign promises. Unfortunately, many of the President's supporters still fail to take notice of his shortcomings in office, demonstrating that they are more attracted by Obama's star-power than the issues themselves.

This particular story may start to convince some of the true believers in the "Hopenchange" crowd that President Obama and campaign-trail Obama are two different individuals.

From WaPo: "Justice Task Force Recommends About 50 Detainees Be Held Indefinitely"

A Justice Department-led task force has concluded that nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war, according to Obama administration officials.

...

The task force's findings represent the first time that the administration has clarified how many detainees it considers too dangerous to release but unprosecutable because officials fear trials could compromise intelligence-gathering and because detainees could challenge evidence obtained through coercion.

Administration officials argue that detaining terrorism suspects under Congress's authorization of the use of force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban is legal and that each detainee has the right to challenge his incarceration in habeas corpus proceedings in federal court.

In a May speech, Obama said detention policies "cannot be unbounded" and promised to reshape standards. "We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified," he said.

The group of at least 110 detainees cleared for release includes two categories. The task force deemed approximately 80 detainees, including about 30 Yemenis, eligible for immediate repatriation or resettlement in a third country. About 30 other Yemenis were placed in a category of their own, with their release contingent upon dramatically stabilized conditions in their home country, where the government has been battling a branch of al-Qaeda and fighting a civil war.

Obama suspended the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay detainees to Yemen in the wake of an attempted Christmas Day airliner attack, a plot that officials said originated in Yemen. Effectively, all Yemenis now held at Guantanamo have little prospect of being released anytime soon.

It seems that despite all the anti-Bush rhetoric still coming from the White House, the President continues to honor Bush's legacy by advancing some of Bush's more controversial policies. It is also ironic that these particular Gitmo detainees are recommended to remain indefinitely detained without trial because of the danger they pose, but KSM, the master-mind of 9/11, is given access to US courts (is he not dangerous as well?) Anyone else see a double-standard here?

President Obama insists on taking an impossible position on just about everything, alienating his constituents on both sides of the political spectrum. As much as some would like to stubbornly refuse to see the political repercussions of such policies, for those of us who remain entrenched in reason, Obama may risk losing his reelection come 2012.

Obama and Afghanistan

2009-12-11T00:55:00.000-08:00

Here is a recent post from the KVNU "For the People" Blog.

I was excited to hear that FTP would be discussing Obama's decision to approve a troop increase to Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency happens to be my area of study, and this pivotal moment greatly interested me. Therefore, I'd like to share a few thoughts and hear some feedback.

First, I think we should recognize a few realities. This decision had to be a very difficult one for the President to make, and will most certainly define his presidency. Committing troops to Afghanistan symbolizes a presidential sanction of our efforts in that region. And as much as I hate agreeing with Michael Moore, sending more troops will make Obama the "new war president," meaning, he will own this war. Honestly, I believe that the President painted himself into a corner. On the campaign trail, Obama made sure to draw a moral distinction between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan. President Obama joined many by declaring Afghanistan to be the "good war," opposed to the country's misguided efforts in Iraq.

Nevertheless, while public opinion is entitled to shift without any real accountability demanded, politicians are held to their words. Obama approved of the war in Afghanistan on the campaign trail, and naturally, as the President of the United States of America, Obama was compelled to reaffirm that approval despite the rapid deterioration of support from his most ardent constituents.
With this in mind, we should ask ourselves if the President's commitment to the war in Afghanistan is truly sincere. And with no disrespect to the Commander-in-Chief, I am forced to determine that the answer is 'no.' Along with the 30,000 troop increase comes a measure to begin scaling back our forces after 18 months. To anyone with a shred of understanding, such a timetable seems incredibly narrow, especially when considering the objectives which we are attempting to accomplish there.

And that leads me to acknowledge some grim realities about our involvement in Afghanistan. What exactly do we hope to achieve? We are trying to prove the exception to a long tradition of failures. It is also important to remember that we are finding ourselves more isolated in Afghanistan, as support from our NATO allies is at an all-time low. Despite the previous president's past condemnation of nation-building, nation-building is exactly what we have chained ourselves to in Afghanistan. By attempting to instill the rule-of-law to a traditionally lawless country, by promoting democratic values and establishing liberal institutions, and through our unyielding support of a centralized government, we are in fact nation-building. And while the President claims to have only one objective in Afghanistan: disrupting and dismantling Al Qaeda, nation-building is going to continue, regardless. As much as we would like to see ourselves respecting the local culture and ethnic identities of Afghans, we are deliberately seeking to inject a new culture into Afghanistan, and construct a new narrative for Afghans to refer to, one in which the United States is central.

As Stephen Tanner points out in his fabulous military history of Afghanistan (Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the War Against the Taliban):

"In the end, battles for Afghanistan are not about politics or economics, but about culture."

We need to determine what our priorities in the region are, and furthermore, decide to either commit to or refrain from an active counterinsurgency effort. Sure enough, we have a reason to be in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda still has a presence in the AfPak region, and continues to operate through insurgent groups such as the Taliban. Not to mention, the idea of a neighboring failed state (Pakistan) with caches of nuclear weapons should remain a serious concern for the United States as well as the rest of the free world. Nevertheless, we need to either decisively secure the countryside gradually through engagement of local mullahs and tribal leaders, conduct special operations against terrorist threats, and mount a well-organized counterinsurgency effort to fend off the Taliban- a decision which will most certainly keep us in the region for decades to come- or we should more or less, abandon Afghanistan and rely upon our counter-terrorist capabilities to check Al Qaeda the best we can. From my vantage point, there really isn't much of an "in-between."

President Obama's meager commitment of 30,000 troops with an 18 month timetable doesn't mean much without a clearly defined plan of action and a reassessment of our objectives. After all, Obama has revealed that most of the 30,000 troops will secure "key population centers," which really doesn't make much sense at all. More than twenty years ago, the Soviets felt that they had succeeded in Afghanistan by controlling larger cities and roads. Yet much to their chagrin, the real threat came not from the cities (which have always been easily conquered), but from the volatile countryside, where currently, the Taliban has great influence. While I have faith that the President and his generals can achieve success in the region, I have my doubts that the current initiative will yield the kind of results we are all hoping for. From a counterinsurgency perspective, a troop increase doesn't necessarily lead to overall success. A truly successful effort will require a lot of time, plenty of local engagement, and "soft-power" strength.

Bottom-line: We need to either decide to stay and mount a substantive counterinsurgency effort, replete with more troops, government reforms, and lots of "soft-power," or we need to simply abandon the region entirely and resort to counter-terrorism efforts. Either way, I have a feeling that President Obama has a tiger by the tail, and unless he can truly commit himself to a distinct direction in Afghanistan, he will suffer greatly because of it.

- Marc Neilsen

Some News...

2009-12-10T22:59:00.000-08:00

If anyone actually reads this blog anymore, I will be shocked...

I have taken a long hiatus from blogging for a number of reasons. Some employment opportunities have limited the content of my posts (for this same reason, I reluctantly quit my co-host position at KVNU), not to mention, I am close to graduating from Utah State University, and my workload has become nearly unbearable.

Nevertheless, now that finals week is almost over, I will have a little more time to write. Also, I am proud to announce that my brother, Stephen, and I are currently working on another blog which will eventually replace the Federal Farmer. I am really excited to unveil the new site, as it will include a number of new features, including videos, podcasts, advertising, and some merchandise.

Keep in touch. I will continue to write here from time to time until the new site is fully launched...

Tchau!

Einstein and Socialism

2009-10-16T22:07:00.001-07:00

I was sent this article via Twitter by a self-proclaimed socialist. The article, "Why Socialism?", was written by the world-famous physicist, Albert Einstein in 1949 for the Monthly Review.

Apparently the sender was under the impression that my views on capitalism would be swayed by Einstein's unapologetic argument for centralized planning. After all, Albert Einstein was one of the most brilliant physicists the world has ever known, surely such scientific brilliance translates over to the realm of politics... right?

Does Einstein make a strong case for socialism? I'll let you decided for yourselves. As for me, I tend to think that Einstein's brilliance was mostly confined to physics and not political science or economics. Nevertheless, it is apparent that Einstein's feelings about capitalism and socialism are appropriate for his time period. Einstein, like so many of his peers after World War II, believed the turmoils of the past to be the product of failed-capitalism. In order to protect the world from another terrible world conflict, wouldn't a large and powerful government with sweeping control over economic and social issues be the best protector?

Again, I strongly disagree with Albert Einstein here. What are your feelings?

READ THE ARTICLE HERE.

- Marc

California's Plan for Cutting Energy Costs

2009-10-16T14:26:00.000-07:00

It has come to this? Quite honestly, as I monitor California politics, I find myself repeatedly asking myself this question. In an effort to cut energy costs, Governor Schwarzenegger has joined with the State Energy Commission in an effort to ban large televisions.

From the Daily Telegraph:

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state's governor, has supported controversial proposals by the California's energy commission to impose strict energy consumption limits on TVs with screens that are more than 40 inches wide.

The commission claims that California's estimated 35 million televisions and related gadgets account for about 10 per cent of household energy consumption in the state.

Experts say that the large LCD or plasma screen sets can use three times as much power as traditional models.

Some TV manufacturers are fighting the plan but have reportedly said little to sway the commission, which could vote on it within weeks.

The new law, the first of its kind in America, would set maximum energy consumption standards for TVs that would be implemented over two years from January 2011.

Similar energy requirements have applied for decades to electrical appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners.

Well, good luck to you governor. As you attempt to save some money cutting energy costs, you continue to undermine the state's economy.

Utah State University's Climate Change Minor?

2009-10-13T12:51:00.000-07:00

Utah State University's Board of Trustees just approved a new Climate Change and Energy minor for students in the College of Science.

From the Herald Journal:

Utah State University plans to offer a new minor in Climate Change and Energy to help students “become familiar with the science and objective knowledge underlying these issues.”

USU’s Board of Trustees unanimously approved the program on Friday; it will go before the state’s Board of Regents in a future meeting. USU hopes to have the minor in place for spring semester.

If it is approved, the minor will be unique in Utah. Requiring a total of 15 credit hours, it will seek to integrate scientific and socioeconomic issues through courses like Energy in the 21st Century, Sustainable Development and Challenges in Climate and Energy.

...

The minor will appeal to Aggies who hope to work with “green” industries or in government agencies that work with energy issues, the proposal says.

“Student interest already exists, but should increase as climate issues become more visible,” the proposal states. “Climate change is projected to have profound effects on ecosystems and human activities including socioeconomic problems.”

Another motivation for offering the minor is adherence to a “Climate Commitment” signed by a number of university presidents in 2007. USU President Stan Albrecht was the first in Utah to participate. The document states that participating schools will try to eliminate its carbon dioxide output in order to reduce global warming.

The commitment also requires each school to “make climate neutrality and sustainabilty a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students.”

Objective knowledge? For some reason, I have a hard time trusting those words when in the context of Climate Change.

Temporarily Closed

2009-10-02T17:27:00.000-07:00

Some Words of Wisdom From Larry Boothe

2009-09-22T15:00:00.001-07:00

When it comes to foreign policy, the blogosphere seems to desperately cling to the words of other bloggers, instead of experts in the field.

I know Larry Boothe from my time at Utah State University, and when it comes to Afghanistan, I consider him to be an "expert." According to Boothe, pulling out of Afghanistan would be a major mistake.

From CacheValleyDaily.com:

Retired CIA Senior Officer Larry Boothe was the Executive Officer in Afghanistan during the war with Russia and he has real concern about what is happening in that country right now.

Boothe says if President Barack Obama decides to pull out of Afghanistan it will damage his relationships with many foreign governments. Boothe says if he were president, he would send more troops in and clean up the mess which he says would take three to five years.

Boothe says it would be bloody but it's the way to do the job the right way. He says we should not expect to see a Democratic or Republican government in Afghanistan but the tribes need to be restored.

When Politics and Climate Change Meet

2009-09-21T17:29:00.000-07:00

While I do believe all human beings should act responsibly when it comes to the environment, I have a hard time taking the current climate change paranoia seriously. Secondly, aside from my general skepticism of the "science" itself, I have deeper concerns with the political implications of the climate change movement.

Too often the public has a difficult time discerning hype from fact thanks to the incompetence of politicians, pundits, and the media in general. Many people, on both sides of the issue, are incredibly polarized and seem to zealously hold onto their opinion over climate change, as if it were a dogma instead of a scientific concept. And isn't it telling that something as broad and potentially complicated as "climate change," has quickly become a single issue, limited to either the "yes" or "no" crowd. My father was a chemist, and from my perspective, science is one of those fields where skepticism and critical thinking is continually encouraged, not rejected in favor of some hard-line ideology. Yet today, this is where we find ourselves when it comes to the climate change debate.

Therefore, as I don't consider myself to be one of the "true believers," I can't help but roll my eyes when I see politicians and bureaucrats attempt to implement an already misguided environmental agenda. And as it usually turns out, most of these attempts are nothing more than publicity stunts which end up costing tax-payers billions of dollars.

Like many other projects designated by the President's stimulus bill, many of his green energy initiatives are guilty of waste and mismanagement.

From WaPo:

The four drafty buildings had been fixtures of the Energy Department complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn., for more than half a century. They burned energy like 1950s sedans.

The buildings seemed like perfect candidates for a federal conservation retrofit program that relies on private contractors that receive a percentage of the money they save. A deal was struck in 2001. The contractors reworked lighting and heating systems, among other things, and began collecting payments.

The project was counted among the department's "green" successes -- until auditors discovered that the buildings had been torn down several years ago, and the government had paid $850,000 for energy savings at facilities that no longer existed.

The audit findings show the potential for waste and abuse at a time when the department is poised to launch billions of dollars more in stimulus spending on an unprecedented welter of green projects across the country.

The initiatives are hallmarks of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act approved by Congress in February. The stimulus law directed almost $17 billion to the department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, including $3.2 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants and $3.1 billion for state energy programs.

The outsourcing arrangements such as those at Oak Ridge, known as "energy savings performance contracts," or ESPCs, will probably be an integral part of those efforts, according to government and industry officials.

In December, the department issued 16 deals called Super ESPCs that may be worth as much as $80 billion over the next quarter-century.

The explosion in green spending is occurring despite well-documented weaknesses at the core of the strategy: A chronic lack of government officials assigned and properly trained to oversee the financially and technically complex projects.

The problems are not exclusive to Oak Ridge. The auditors, from the department's inspector general's office, also determined that $565,000 had been paid over six years under the same arrangement to a contractor in Texas for a high-efficiency laundry that was no longer in use. The department also paid out $3.4 million on another project without checking whether the conservation measures worked -- and $160,000 for measurements that were never taken.

At the same time, the auditors found, some contractors appeared to use inflated energy cost estimates in their savings calculations, increasing their fees.

I'll tell you what this shows me. This President and his administration should NOT be driving billions of dollars towards programs such as these, which obviously lack proper oversight. Billions of dollars are being recklessly spent and in many cases, such funds are being lost on account of dishonest companies and the irresponsibility of bureaucrats. How is this mess supposed to "stimulate" our economy? And furthermore, how will wasted billions save our planet?

Indeed, the climate change agenda seems more like a religion than a legitimate movement. If the agenda had any substance at one time, it has been compromised by our ridiculous politicians and bureaucrats, who would rather appear to be saving the planet, opposed to actually accomplishing anything. Much like a "pure religion" which has been corrupted by evil men and institutions, this environmental phenomenon is losing credibility as the public sees what it has become under the management of incompetent elected officials.

- FedFarmer

Stimulus Used for Congratulatory Signage

2009-09-18T16:43:00.000-07:00

Did you know that stimulus funds are being used to erect signs all over the United States, praising the work of lawmakers in passing the stimulus package? Well, thanks to a 52-45 vote this week, federal funds will be directed towards a public-display of political congratulations. The price tag? Oh, just tens of millions of dollars.

After all, shouldn't our hardworking policymakers get some recognition for exploding our national debt and creating millions of jobs across the country?

Or perhaps, should we all be looking at the ethical side of the issue. This highly partisan issue has clear divides along party lines. By touting the stimulus through these signs, Democrats are essentially using stimulus money to "stimulate" their re-election campaigns. Think about it, you are driving down the road and see a sign that hails the stimulus as a major success because it funded construction on the very road on which you are driving. Reading in-between-the-lines, you are reading a sign which states: REMEMBER TO VOTE FOR YOUR DUTIFUL DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE NEXT ELECTION. It's really quite obvious, and I think aside from being a total waste of money, this poses an important ethical question.

Sarkozy Warns of Iranian Bomb

2009-09-17T21:47:00.000-07:00

The same day we heard that the Vice-President wasn't too concerned about Iran, President Sarkozy of France warned the world that the Iranians were secretly continuing a nuclear weapons program.

From the Jerusalem Post:

After Paris warned that new sanctions against Teheran remained an option despite the likelihood of negotiations with Iran, French President Nicolas Sarkozy maintained that the Islamic republic was still working on a nuclear weapons program.

"It is a certainty to all of our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear [weapons] program," Sarkozy told lawmakers from his UMP party on Tuesday, according to Press TV.
"We cannot let Iran acquire nuclear" weapons because it would also be a threat to Israel, he added.
French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero had warned that Iran must make "concrete gestures" at the long-awaited discussions. He said the sanctions option remained on the table in case Teheran makes "an error of choice."

Hmmm. It should embarrass us that the French have to warn the United States. Is anyone else concerned about Iran, or should we be "less concerned" like Joe Biden.

Democrats are Losing Independents

2009-09-16T22:20:00.000-07:00

The Republican party isn't the only party to lose its appeal among independent voters. Charlie Cook is warning Democrats that they are rapidly alienating Independents across the country. How will that affect upcoming elections? Stay tuned.

From the Cook Report:

Independent voters -- fired up by the war in Iraq and Republican scandals -- gave Democrats control of both chambers of Congress in 2006. Two years later, independents upset with President Bush and eager to give his party another kick expanded the Democratic majorities on the Hill. Late in the campaign, the economic downturn, together with an influx of young people and minorities enthusiastic about Obama, created a wave that left the GOP in ruins.

That was then; this is now. For the seven weeks from mid-April through the first week of June, Obama's weekly Gallup Poll approval rating among independents ran in the 60-to-70 percent range. But in four of the past five weeks, it has been only in the mid-to-high 40s. Meanwhile, Democrats and liberals seem lethargic even though Republicans and conservatives are spitting nails and can't wait to vote.
...

Many conservatives predictably fear -- and some downright oppose -- any expansion of government. But late last year many moderates and independents who were already frightened about the economy began to fret that Washington was taking irreversible actions that would drive mountainous deficits higher. They worried that government was taking on far more than it could competently handle and far more than the country could afford. Against this backdrop, Obama's agenda fanned fears that government was expanding too far, too fast. Before long, his strategy of letting Congress take the lead in formulating legislative proposals and thus prodding lawmakers to take ownership in their outcome caused his poll numbers on "strength" and "leadership" to plummet.

...

Even in the best of times, Congress is unpopular. And now voters see Obama as having sent suggestions rather than proposals to the Hill, staking his future and reputation on a body that they hold in low regard. (On foreign-policy matters, where Congress plays a small role, Obama's job-approval ratings remain quite good. It's on the domestic side that his numbers are dismal.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Defense of Senator Bennett

2009-09-16T21:18:00.001-07:00

I respect Mark Shurtleff for being an effective attorney general for the State of Utah. Yet my overall opinion of the man has suffered since he decided to run for Sen. Bennett's senate seat.

First, it seems to me that Mr. Shurtleff is a political novice. While he has a great deal of experience in the courtroom and limited experience in state and local politics, he lacks national perspective and polish.

I follow Mr. Shurtleff on Twitter, and I notice how often he conjures up the words of Ronald Reagan and other pillars of the conservative movement. He has no problem calling himself a "real conservative," all the while casting doubt upon the incumbent's conservative credentials. While such rhetoric is commonly found among most GOP candidates these days, Shurtleff isn't displaying any substantive promise as a candidate for the Senate. Instead, like too many Republicans today, Shurtleff appears to be a political opportunist. He is comfortably riding the tide of populist outrage which is burning throughout the state, offering little more to Utahns than the generic TEA party dialogue which is becoming tiresome.

Of course, he is trying to harness the anger of the masses against Utah's own, Senator Bennett, who represents an older, and much more refined brand of Republican. Indeed, Bennett comes off to me as an "old-school" Republican, someone who "came of age" during the days of President Nixon and other Republican moderates. And while Bennett should be identified as a conservative, his version of the movement is much more pragmatic than idealistic; an indiscreet contrast to all the disorganized hoopla of today.

To be honest, pragmatic and principled are two words which I think best describe Utah's junior senator. In fact, I worked for the man last summer and became very familiar with his personality and political style. As for his pragmatism, Senator Bennett works arduously to achieve compromise with members of both parties. Some Americans find such cooperation to be a sign of weakness (a display of their political ignorance), yet this senator is able to enact positive changes because of this spirit of compromise; something which the Founding Fathers respected as they envisioned the American system of government. His pragmatism is also apparent in the way in which he votes. While he undeniably values the desires of his constituents, Bennett also understands that he has been entrusted with the confidence of the people to make decisions wisely, even if such decisions are occasionally unpopular. As he once told our group of interns, while he was elected to represent the general will of his constituents, he is constantly expected to use his experience and judgment as a rational human being. Perhaps this serves as an example of both his pragmatism and principle.

As mentioned before, the Senator is man of principle. From experience, I can say that he is tirelessly devoted to researching each issue which he votes on. While most Members of Congress rely upon the expertise of their staff, Senator Bennett always writes his own words and develops his own points. This is extremely impressive from a staffer's point-of-view. He also has a kindly demeanor towards friends and foes, which may at times, impair his effectiveness as a campaigner. While he enjoys vigorous debate, I have never witnessed this Senator demean or humiliate a political opponent as so many politicians do these days. And finally, Bennett has a profound knowledge of the Constitution and the history of this country. Anyone who has listened to him speak about the Founders and/or the background of a particular piece of legislation immediately knows that he is a deep thinker and studies out issues extensively.

Of course I have my own disagreements with the Senator on certain issues. And yet, from my personal time with Bennett, I realize that he is a valuable asset to the State and represents Utahns well at the national level. As I have said many times before, Senator Bennett is not just a politician, he is a statesman.

For these reasons, I cannot join forces with the angry crowds of "wanna-be-conservatives," who have little else to offer than rehashed talking-points from the Goldwater and Reagan era. For while the slogans and platitudes also stir my inner-conservative to action, they don't compel me to sign onto the directionless griping and fear-mongering of the populists. And again, while I respect Mark Shurtleff as an attorney general and hope he will enjoy national prominence at a later date, I cannot join him in his repudiation of Senator Bennett for not being a "true conservative," for if anyone is to keep "true" conservatism alive as a substantive political force, it's Senator Bennett.

I should also add, when the Senator stood and applauded the President for denouncing the death-panel scare tactics, he was affirming his support for the intellectual side of the conservative movement- a characteristic which is consistently being ignored by both friends and foes on the Left and the Right; conservatives can develop plenty of intellectual arguments against Obamacare without delving into dishonest portrayals and assumptions. We should all be glad that we have intellectual firepower to combat the President's rapid expansion of government, and not just convenient slogans and rehashed talking-points.

The Naturally Emerging Order

2009-09-15T22:45:00.000-07:00

This week for the Koch Scholars program, we have been directed to read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which presents a number of truly revolutionary ideas. First, Smith rejects the predominate Mercantillist philosophies of his day. And second, he argues that mankind creates a natural social order, regardless of interference from the state. While such an idea may not seem particularly groundbreaking, in reality it is.

But first, here is my post from Utah State University's Koch Scholars Blog:

In the past, Adam Smith’s economic theories have proven to be truly revolutionary, not to mention they are particularly relevant today.

Smith’s Wealth of Nations challenged the overbearing Mercantillist philosophy of that day, and going even further, completely diminished the role of government in a healthy economy. According to Smith, human beings naturally develop social orders and markets independent of government (quite a foreign concept considering the historical context). Such a system, argued Smith, was a “naturally emerging order,” one which was allowed to grow and develop without the interference of a third-party.

Smith is correct in his observation that human beings are prone to form and nurture economic relationships with one another regardless of outside direction; such relationships are common and natural. Man’s industry and self-interest compels him to not only compete, but to also form cooperative relationships with his peers. Such relationships contribute to a general social order, where the interests of the individuals and the interests of the collective enjoy a balance.

The naturally emerging order is most certainly preferable to the directed order, which relies upon the authority of a central body to ensure the happiness and well-being of the community. It should be mentioned that not all directed orders are created equal, with some being preferable to others. Nevertheless, I would argue that the most preferable directed orders are those which respect the natural, social relationships of individuals.

A naturally emerging order honors the interests of both the community and the individual. In a naturally emerging order, society is allowed to mature and develop organically, with competition encouraging progress individually and collectively, and cooperation fostering peace and securing the best interests of the community. Finally, with a natural tolerance of economic liberty, true political freedoms are more likely to be present in such a society.

Of course, my post consists of a few presented ideas, and doesn't do much to explain Smith's theories in any depth. Nevertheless, I think it's important to compare the naturally emerging order to that of the directed.

Just think how dependent human beings are upon the state, whether here or abroad. How much of this dependency is the result of a perception that the state is better suited to ensure the well-being of both the individual and the collective?

So often, we see a social problem and automatically, we call upon the powers of a central authority to solve that problem. And frequently, we become satisfied with the government merely addressing the issue, regardless of the outcome.

Perhaps we all should consider how things would turn out without the reliance on a central authority. Mankind naturally interacts with one another, forming relationships laden with expectations and conditions. Without the involvement of a third-party, a community shaped by such relationships, has the ability to regulate and govern itself through a balance between self-interest and cooperation. A modern example of such a state can be seen on the internet, which largely enjoys an absence of a major, central authority. Yet through human relationships, the internet is able to regulate itself and develop according to the needs, wants, and desires of individuals and groups.

In no way do I advocate anarchy, yet I vocally question our reliance on a government which is too often incapable of serving our interests as individuals and a society.

Great Photo from TEA Party Protest

2009-09-14T15:17:00.000-07:00

You know that Democrats are exhausting their political momentum when they start accusing the opposition of racism at every turn.

No matter how civil the TEA party protesters may be, their cause will always be overshadowed by allegations of racism.

BREAKING: Actual Analysis of Obama's Healthcare Speech

2009-09-10T21:08:00.000-07:00

I still can't believe how the much of the Mainstream Media has shamelessly avoided the content of Obama's speech last night, and instead, has poured over Rep. Wilson's (R-SC) outburst.

To be honest, I think Rep. Wilson was completely out-of-line and should feel embarrassed for his lack of control. Nevertheless, Obama's speech should remain the focus of our attention as a nation. After all, how often are we reminded to "stick to the issues" by sanctimonious politicians and pundits? Well, MSM, why don't you "STICK TO THE ISSUES" by providing an in-depth analysis of Obama's remarks last night. I for one noticed a number of errors and discrepancies during the President's speech, yet these are being almost entirely ignored. While Wilson's breech of protocol was wrong, it's far worse that so many journalists are turning a blind eye to inconsistency in the President's speech.

Well, because much of the Mainstream Media appears to be incapable of providing any real analysis of the speech, I have chosen to provide a third-party analysis which is unaffiliated with either the Republican or Democratic parties. Of course Reason magazine is opposed to Obamacare, but aside from the libertarian slant, the points brought up by the article are compelling. And like Rep. Wilson, the author of this article accuses the President of lying.

Here are some exerpts from the article.

From Max Welch at Reason Online:

It is telling that so many people who claim to be speaking on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Journalism have consistently focused their outrage-o-meters at individual townhall attendees, political broadcast entertainers, and the lesser lights of a lame (if resurgent-by-default) opposition party, while letting walk nearly fact-check-free the non-irrelevant occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If calling out lies and misrepresentations about a significant policy proposal is such pressing journalistic business—and it should be!—you'd think the watchdogs might start with the guy doing the proposing.

The lies last night began in Obama's opening paragraph. "When I spoke here last winter," he began, "credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse." In fact, Obama spoke on Feb. 24, at least six weeks after credit markets began to thaw, and one week after he proclaimed that the passage of his $787 billion stimulus marked "the beginning of the end, the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans." Obama's speech that day wasn't about staving off a collapse, it was about cleaning up the mess and tackling long-ignored issues. Such as health care.

It's never encouraging when a politician who desperately needs to convince skeptical Americans of his fiscal sobriety starts off by slurring his words. As you might then infer, Obama was just warming up. "Insurance companies," the president announced, "will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies," in part because such prevention "saves money." Looks like someone forgot to tell the Congressional Budget Office, or other non-White House sources that have analyzed the cost-benefit of prevention.

Again and again last night, the president's numbers didn't add up. "There may be those—particularly the young and healthy—who still want to take the risk and go without coverage," he warned, in a passage defending compulsory insurance. "The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits." No, it means that, on balance, the healthy young don't pay for the unhealthy old. The whole point of forcing vigorous youth to buy insurance is using their cash and good actuarials to bring down the costs of covering the less fortunate.

Such fudges reveal a politician who, for whatever reason, feels like he can't be honest about the real-world costs of expanding health care. "Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years," he said, trying hard to sound like those numbers weren't pulled out of Joe Biden's pants, and won't be dwarfed by actual costs within a year or two. "We've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system–a system that is currently full of waste and abuse," he said, making him at least the eighth consecutive president to vaguely promise cutting Medicare "waste" (a promise, it should be added, that could theoretically be fulfilled without drastically overhauling the health care system). Any government-run "public option," he claimed, somehow "won't be" subsidized by taxpayers, but instead would "be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects."

....

There was one line in the speech last night that pointed to an alternative, more promising future: "My guiding principle," Obama said, "is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition." Unfortunately, the president evinces zero understanding of how increased regulation can reduce consumer choice, even or especially when the government joins the competition.

Thank goodness someone out there actually cares about the substance of Obama's speech and not just the indignation caused by an emotional Congressman from South Carolina.

UPDATE: THE MSM DIGS DEEP IN ORDER TO SMEAR REP. JOE WILSON

Thomas Friedman Calls for a New Kind of Government

2009-09-09T21:25:00.000-07:00

I have always been intrigued by the many theories and philosophies which influenced our Founding Fathers during the formative years of the Republic. During this Fall Semester, I've decided to study a number of these philosophical works more extensively, namely the writings of Hobbes, Montesquieu, Locke, and Rousseau. It has been fascinating to investigate how such ideas impacted Founders like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and how these same ideas continue to be relevant today.

On the issue of governance, for example, the words of our Founders are highly appropriate for the modern American nation.

From Federalist No. 39, "Publius" explains federalism:

"The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and theser will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are existing in Congress. So far the government is federal not national."

While such ideas may not seem novel, they were most definitely exceptional for the time. Not to mention, they directly established a framework for the American Constitution.

With all of that in mind, I read something which shocked me. From today's New York Times was an op-ed piece authored by Thomas Friedman. It starts out like this:

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

Hopefully you see why Friedman's words are alarming.

First, however, we should point out a few political realities Friedman fails to grasp. It's too convenient to blame the Republican party for failing to draft meaningful healthcare reform and environmental policy.

Mr. Friedman should remember that Democrats have control over all three branches of government, giving them an undeniable edge against a broken and disorganized minority party. After all, what happened to all that talk about how pathetic and weak the GOP was after the 2008 Presidential Election? Have Republicans suddenly become a formidable force within Congress? In the end, Friedman's analysis of the political divides seem more like a chastisement than an explanation.

Friedman also seems to misunderstand the benefit of having a factious Congress, and how no legislation can emerge out of either the House or Senate without some degree of compromise being reached. While it frustrates the idealogues, it is more than satisfactory to us pragmatists who see the value of collaboration and compromise.

Most importantly, Thomas Friedman elevates a highly oppressive country while demeaning a free one. The People's Republic of China earns Friedman's praise as a place in which a "reasonably enlightened group of people" lead. While China may seem "enlightened" to Friedman, victims of the regime's cruelty and heavy-handedness would most certainly disagree.

Friedman seems to believe that China's progressive environmental industry justifies its totalitarianism; he is willing to accept a complete absence of an elected-government as long as his environmental desires are appeased. Free speech, property rights, religious tolerance... all of these are of a lesser value in Friedman's estimation; we all know how much better it is when a government can simply "impose" something, rather than seek the consent of the governed.

Friedman then points out all of the good things an authoritarian regime like China has accomplished without the direct involvment of the people. Yet he fails to also document the countless crimes, atrocities, outrages, and injustices which have been committed by a "reasonably enlightened" group of rulers. The slightest amount of research on the facist and/or communist regimes of the 20th Century will inevitably render a vastly different list of "accomplishments," yet no less important.

Then Friedman assails the system of government of the United States:

Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.

The author attacks our system of government precisely because he and the President can't get their way. As infantile as it may sound, that is pretty much the extent of the argument here. And again, Friedman exudes a very limited understanding of why our system of government is so invaluable. While any legislation risks being altered and transformed into something else, the process itself is invaluable because it incorporates the will and consent of the governed.

The truth is, in a divided political system, all sides are always playing... and because of this set-up, ultimate power is dilluted and separated between different branches, parties and factions, and individuals.

While this system tolerates extremists, it prevents them from taking complete control. This is, in essence, the wisdom behind the system of government which we have. Power is separated, factions are tolerated and pitted against one-another, and the people have a direct effect on what decisions are made.

Perhaps Friedman's piece is tongue-in-cheek. Yet even so, it would not justify the blaring foolishness of this Pulitzer-prize winning columnist's op-ed. How can anyone who values individual freedom elevate a country like China and argue for its highly oppressive and backwards system of government?

I worry that Friedman actually believes this hogwash. He may actually advocate an authoritarian regime who acts out of compulsion, as long as it is the "right" thing. Of course, what is "right" for Friedman's imaginary society has yet to be determined by him. But most of us know, that in the real world, what is "right" is not only relative, but it can be forced by a regime at gun-point. And that is a scary thought.

I fear that too many modern liberals, like Friedman, are too comfortable with limiting individual liberties as long as the "right thing" is accomplished. Even if China's advances are as glorious and beneficial as Friedman argues, without the freedoms protected by a "one-party Democracy," what does it really matter?

Utah State Koch Scholars

2009-09-09T03:13:00.000-07:00

While I was attending Sky View High School, back in the day, I thought I was a pretty smart kid. In fact, I was really just a chubby sophomore with a low self-esteem who felt compelled to overcompensate with a falsely-inflated ego. I thought I was too intellectual for high school. So instead of doing homework, I decided that I would try reading philosophy as to reach some kind of enlightenment which would help me not to be so miserable.

Well, the misery remained and truth-be-told, I couldn't understand a lot of what I attempted to read. Nevertheless, I developed an interest in some of the theorists of the Scottish Enlightenment (Adam Smith, David Hume, etc.). They really seemed to connect to my pragmatic, self-reliance-indoctrinated upbringing, and the basic ideas of their economic philosophies seemed to make sense (make sense to a chubby, 15-year-old, that is).

Today I'm not much smarter than I was when I was 15. And despite a three-year period of being physically fit, I continue to be a big guy (that's a nicer, adult way of saying that I'm still fat). What has changed, however, is my maturity. I am not so miserable (thank goodness for my wife and religion), and I feel I have a greater desire to learn. This has been an invaluable asset while attending Utah State University, and it has made reading philosophy a little more enjoyable.

Currently, I am participating as a Koch Scholar at Utah State University's Huntsman School of Business. As Koch Scholars, we meet weekly and discuss a series of assigned readings ranging from Aristotle to Adam Smith.

It has been a blast so far, and I am excited to participate until the end of the year. Aside from readings and the discussion group, we are also required to post on the USU Koch Scholar's blog.

Here's the link: http://kochscholars.coasecoloredglasses.com/

Again, it has been a lot of fun, and in the future I may link to some of my posts on the Koch Scholar's blog.

What Can We Learn From Michigan?

2009-09-03T22:03:00.000-07:00

I came across a really interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning about government investment in Michigan and how it has failed to generate job growth. As we all know, Michigan is a state which has been facing serious economic decline for years now and has the highest unemployment rate in the United States.

From the Wall Street Journal:

A central belief in Washington and most state capitals nowadays is that government should "invest" in certain businesses—"clean tech," say, or manufacturing—to drive job creation. We hope it all turns out better than it has in Michigan.

For the past 14 years, Lansing politicians have offered $3.3 billion in tax credits through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and spent another $1.6 billion in outlays to create and retain jobs. The subsidies have ranged from tax breaks for Hollywood, to money for new industrial plants, to millions for TV ads starring Jeff Daniels and Tim Allen talking about business and tourism in the state.

It's one of the largest experiments in smokestack chasing in American history, but one thing it hasn't done is create jobs. An exhaustive new 100-page study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan think tank, has reviewed where all the money has gone and what came of it. The study finds that for every 100 jobs that were promised with these tax credits over 14 years, only 29 arrived. Dare we call this cash for clunkers?

Economist Michael Hicks, a business school professor at Ball State, calculated the rate of return on the corporate tax credits. He found that for every $1 million in tax credits awarded, there were 95 lost manufacturing jobs in the counties where the companies were located—a result that is "strongly statistically significant." There was no gain in personal income in these counties. Perhaps more jobs would have been lost without the credits, but what is undeniably clear is that the businesses that got the government loot were not magnets for other employers.

The statistics intrigued me, and so I decided to look further into the Mackinac Center's findings. It appears that the "study" mentioned in the article was an analysis of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) and to an extent, the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA), and how they have failed to encourage job creation through their economic programs.

Here are a couple of gems from the review...

"Are [politicians] really trying to attract new business development or are they engaging in maneuvers designed to please current state business interests and voters? The need for such questioning becomes even more acute when we find that, while these policies are often introduced to the chorus line of 'jobs, jobs, jobs,' there is little evidence to show that these direct financial incentives actually have any impact on state employment levels."

[Michael Mintrom & Lucinda Ramsey, MSU]

Mackinac then reports a few statistics indicative of the overall failure of MEDC...

Michigan was ranked 16th among the 50 states in per-capita state GDP in 1999, the year the MEDC was formed. The state has since tumbled to 41st.
From 1999 through 2008, Michigan was the only state in the union with a negative state GDP growth rate.
Michigan's per-capita personal income ranking has tumbled from 16th to 34th since 1999 and is now 11.2 percent below the national average, the lowest point it has reached since the start of the Great Depression, when such record-keeping began.

If government spending is the solution to a state or nation's economic woes, then why isn't Michigan finding relief?

Michigan is a model for the future, and should serve as a warning to not only other states, but the federal government. For one, Michigan's example is time-tested. The state has been working to spend itself out of an economic recession for more than a decade and has tried just about everything to combat rising unemployment. Second, in Michigan politics most often block true economic growth; Michigan's progressive politics circumvent the economic policies of MEDC, for example.

Instead of looking at central planning in grandiose terms, all of us should be willing to dissect the economic realities in specific locations.

As for me, I agree with Friedrich Hayek that "there will always be a possible maximum of employment in the short run which can be achieved by giving all people employment where they happen to be and which can be achieved by monetary expansion. But not only can this maximum be maintained solely by progressive inflationary expansion and with the effect of holding up those redistributions of labor between industries made necessary by the changed circumstances... to aim always at the maximum of employment achievable by monetary means is a policy which is certain in the end to defeat its own purposes. It tends to lower the productivity of labor and thereby constantly increases the proportion of the working population which can be kept employed at present wages only by artificial means." [Road to Serfdom]

Good luck, Michigan.

S 773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009

2009-09-01T15:10:00.000-07:00

[I originally posted this on the "For the People Blog."]

Despite the overwhelming attention given to healthcare right now, there is another issue which is gaining notoriety, particularly on the web.

From CNET News:

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said
Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

In an earlier post I discussed the potential hazards of cybersecurity threats from abroad, namely from North Korea, China, and Russia. According to proponents of this bill, it is the responsibility of the government to insure the stability of the web in a time of crisis.

Yet as we have learned over the years, the government is incredibly incompetent in responding to cybersecurity threats; in fact, the DHS recently scored an 'F' in an "annual computer security report card." What makes members of Congress suppose that the government can adequately regulate and secure the web in a time of crisis when it continuously proves to be incapable of doing so normally?

Michael Masnick, founder of Techdirt, sums up this criticism in a recent blog post:

But the bigger issue is why the government should be taking control over private networks. This is the same gov't that doesn't let people in the State Department use Firefox and which thinks that RealPlayer is the state of the art in online video streaming. Even if there were a "cybersecurity emergency," I would think the last people I'd want to take charge would be the federal government.

Aside from the federal government's overall ineptitude, the most important question concerns the President's "emergency powers." Presidential prerogative has always been a controversial issue, and this debate is no exception. When dealing with limits of power, it is best to be clear and concise in explaining the boundaries. Yet S 773 fails to provide the information clearly. Instead, it remains incredibly vague and subject to a great deal of interpretation. This makes "emergency powers" of the President that much more alarming.

From Bruce Henderson at CBS:

S773 makes no attempt to outline and describe what form of emergency would trigger the use of these broad new powers to limit communication, nor any means by which it could be reviewed by anyone outside the executive branch. The bill also proscribes that the executive branch will perform periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government.

Translation: the U.S. government bureaucracy will be spending your tax dollars to figure out private networks, find choke points and places where they can control the flow of communication. Furthermore, companies (such as your ISP) are going to be required, by law, to supply the federal bureaucrats with whatever network, account, usage and history information they deem appropriate. All in the name of cyber safety, you see.

There are plenty of other controversial parts of this bill which should be discussed, particularly the government certification of "security professionals," which greatly restricts the private sector and adds a whole new level of bureaucracy to the equation.

It's strange to see the federal government attempt to reign in an already successful private sector in an arena where the government has repeatedly failed in the past. The internet is a "place" where few real regulations exist (compared to the "real world") and has proven time and time again, to be able to effectively regulate itself through principles of liberalism (the classical kind).

Bottom Line: First, it is unwise for the feds to attempt to over-regulate the private sector in this way, mainly because it will only prove to be costly and ineffective. Second, this bill gives too much power to the President; power which isn't clearly defined and would be easily abused.

- Marc

READ ENTIRE BILL HERE

Logan and Distracted Driving Laws

2009-08-31T15:34:00.000-07:00

Logan, Utah found itself on the front-page of the New York Times, last week. The article was obviously a response to the sobering number of distracted-driving cases this year; one such case involving my late step-brother, Jacob Hawkes.

From the New York Times:

In most states, if somebody is texting behind the wheel and causes a crash that injures or kills someone, the penalty can be as light as a fine.

Utah is much tougher.

After a crash here that killed two scientists — and prompted a dogged investigation by a police officer and local victim’s advocate — Utah passed the nation’s toughest law to crack down on texting behind the wheel. Offenders now face up to 15 years in prison.

The new law, which took effect in May, penalizes a texting driver who causes a fatality as harshly as a drunken driver who kills someone. In effect, a crash caused by such a multitasking motorist is no longer considered an “accident” like one caused by a driver who, say, runs into another car because he nodded off at the wheel. Instead, such a crash would now be considered inherently reckless.

“It’s a willful act,” said Lyle Hillyard, a Republican state senator and a big supporter of the new measure. “If you choose to drink and drive or if you choose to text and drive, you’re assuming the same risk.”

The Utah law represents a concrete new response in an evolving debate among legislators around the country about how to reduce the widespread practice of multitasking behind the wheel — a topic to be discussed at a national conference about the dangers of distracted driving that is being organized by the Transportation Department for this fall.

It is tragic how many distracted-driving incidents have rocked this community in recent months. I am glad to see that more attention is being given to this issue. We all should learn from these horrible events and refrain from texting or any other form of distracted-driving.

Welcome to the Cesspool

2009-08-31T15:25:00.000-07:00

Tyler Riggs and I have consistently referred to the Herald Journal's comments section to be a "cesspool" because of the churlish nature of the commentary there.

Well, not even a day after Jacob Hawkes' funeral, the cesspool began a-bubbling.

http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/2009/08/30/news/news02-08-30-09.txt

Here's a comment that I took particular offense to.

From "boredguy"

"Driving while a teenager, not wearing a seat belt, and texting while driving: three strikes, you're out!

There's a reason why seat belts are placed in your automobile: use them, particularly if you're going to go stupidly texting while driving.

I'm glad the victim in this criminal act survived without major injuries. This could easily have been a two-fatality "accident."

Interestingly enough for a community with a majority of non-drinkers, most Cache Valley drivers drive as if drunk.

Extremely defensive driving is the remedy. Yesterday, while driving three times between two locations about 20 blocks away, between 11 am and 3 pm, in the Northern side of Logan, my car almost got creamed by five different stupid Cache Valley drivers, mostly young people.

Defensive driving allowed me to come out of those incidents unscathed, but this is ridiculous: Use your brains while driving, you idiots. "

Here's my response:

" Driving while a teenager, not wearing a seat belt, and texting while driving: three strikes, you're out!

There's a reason why seat belts are placed in your automobile: use them, particularly if you're going to go stupidly texting while driving.

I'm glad the victim in this criminal act survived without major injuries. This could easily have been a two-fatality "accident."

Interestingly enough for a community with a majority of non-drinkers, most Cache Valley drivers drive as if drunk.

Extremely defensive driving is the remedy. Yesterday, while driving three times between two locations about 20 blocks away, between 11 am and 3 pm, in the Northern side of Logan, my car almost got creamed by five different stupid Cache Valley drivers, mostly young people.

Defensive driving allowed me to come out of those incidents unscathed, but this is ridiculous: Use your brains while driving, you idiots. "

I am well aware of the insensitive nature of comments which are often made online, but when such comments are directed against a loved-one of mine, I have a hard time keeping quiet.

Sure my words won't change anything. But I believe that I would feel ashamed if I didn't at least let this jerk know that he had gone too far.

Tribute to Jacob Brent Hawkes

2009-08-28T00:26:00.000-07:00

I have to include this personal note. Earlier this week my step-brother was killed in a terrible car accident. This episode has been extremely difficult for me to deal with, as I was very close to Jake in the past. Here is my tribute to him.

This isn't a political note, this is a tribute to my step-brother who was killed in an accident earlier this week. Jake, this one is for you.

Jake, I remember when I first met you. You were this warm and friendly ten-year-old without a care in the world. You shared your feelings openly, and you always had something nice to say to someone else. You accepted us into your family immediately, and I could feel your love even then.

As I remember it, you were the "Huckleberry Finn" of the neighborhood. You didn't like school, you didn't like to work, and you certainly didn't let anyone tell you what you could or could not do. When weekend chores approached, you were nowhere to be found; always having an adventure somewhere else while the rest of us were busy cleaning! Indeed, you were always the perfect embodiment of Shakespeare's "Puck": wild, mischievous, and laughing; all of this beneath a thick layer of youthful charm.

Jake, you could be a very moody boy. Yet this wasn't a product of some form of resentment or bitterness. Instead, you were simply honest with those around you. When you were suffering or confused, you reached out to the people closest to you... you needed someone to bear the burden alongside you. So many times you reached out to me, in that simple boyish way of yours. And yet so often I retreated, leaving you alone with your hand outstretched. How I wish I had been a better brother to you, how I wish I had been brave enough to bear your burdens! Nevertheless, the times which I did respond will always be remembered. During such moments, I remember feeling such a strong bond to you, a genuine sense of brotherhood. You were forever reaching out, sometimes desperately, and now that you are gone I realize how much you needed my strength. Too often I played the role of a coward and vacillated.

Many people who knew you only saw that one side. The part of you which you used to conceal the softer, more sensitive areas of your personality. Naturally you were an amazing athlete with stunning looks and a magnetic charisma. Girls fawned over you, boys your age wanted to be like you. And the rest of us just looked on with complete envy! Underneath these exterior qualities, however, was that innocent boy we all knew so well. No matter how many achievements you earned during your short lifetime (and there were many), the most important part of your being was your heart.

Jake, I could write on and on about our friendship and our adventures. I enjoyed laughing with you and swapping hilarious stories; your laugh was indeed contagious, and could brighten the most gloomy of days. As silly as it may sound, some of my fondest memories with you were made while driving around in that old, blue, Mitsubishi truck... listening to reggae and 2Tone, eating junk food and drinking soda, and occasionally discussing our hopes and dreams.

During such trips you would tell me how badly you wanted to succeed in school and soccer. You would ask me if I thought it was possible for you to become a professional soccer player... and of course, I would say "yes." You told me many times that you wanted to go on a mission, that you wanted to be an example to your brothers, that you wanted to go on a mission and share your testimony. Most of all, you wanted to see your mother again. And we would talk about that for some time... I would talk about my father, and you, your mother Shari. (As I write this, I cannot help but sob... for I would give just about anything to have one of those conversations with you)

Jake, I miss you terribly. I hate to say it, but I have too many regrets and I hope you'll forgive me for being weak. Too often I abandoned you when you needed me most. Too often I couldn't bear to let you see me for what I was: a vulnerable coward who was also searching for some shred of guidance.

Panetta's Letter to CIA Staff

2009-08-26T23:47:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Fox News, here is the letter from CIA Director, Leon Panetta, to CIA staff concerning the interrogations probe by the Department of Justice.

Today, as part of a number of Freedom of Information Act cases, the government is responding to court orders to release more documents related to the Agency's past detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists. The CIA materials include the 2004 report from our Office of Inspector General and two papers-one from 2004 and the other from 2005-that discuss the value of intelligence acquired from high-level detainees. The complete package is hundreds of pages long. The declassification process, a mandatory part of the proceedings, was conducted in accord with established FOIA guidelines.

This is in many ways an old story. The outlines of prior interrogation practices, and many of the details, are public already. The use of enhanced interrogation techniques, begun when our country was responding to the horrors of September 11th, ended in January. For the CIA now, the challenge is not the battles of yesterday, but those of today and tomorrow. It is there that we must work to enhance the safety of our country. That is the job the American people want us to do, and that is my responsibility as the current Director of the CIA.

My emphasis on the future comes with a clear recognition that our Agency takes seriously proper accountability for the past. As the intelligence service of a democracy, that's an important part of who we are. When it comes to past detention and interrogation practices, here are some facts to bear in mind on that point:

· The CIA itself commissioned the Inspector General's review. The report, prepared five years ago, noted both the effectiveness of the interrogation program and concerns about how it had been run early on. Several Agency components, including the Office of General Counsel and the Directorate of Operations, disagreed with some of the findings and conclusions.

· The CIA referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution. This Agency made no excuses for behavior, however rare, that went beyond the formal guidelines on counterterrorism. The Department of Justice has had the complete IG report since 2004. Its career prosecutors have examined that document-and other incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan-for legal accountability. They worked carefully and thoroughly, sometimes taking years to decide if prosecution was warranted or not. In one case, the Department obtained a criminal conviction of a CIA contractor. In other instances, after Justice chose not to pursue action in court, the Agency took disciplinary steps of its own.

· The CIA provided the complete, unredacted IG report to the Congress. It was made available to the leadership of the Congressional intelligence committees in 2004 and to the full committees in 2006. All of the material in the document has been subject to Congressional oversight and reviewed for legal accountability.

As Director in 2009, my primary interest-when it comes to a program that no longer exists-is to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the President's position, too. The CIA was aggressive over the years in seeking new opinions from the Department of Justice as the legal landscape changed. The Agency sought and received multiple written assurances that its methods were lawful. The CIA has a strong record in terms of following legal guidance and informing the Department of Justice of potentially illegal conduct.

I make no judgments on the accuracy of the 2004 IG report or the various views expressed about it. Nor am I eager to enter the debate, already politicized, over the ultimate utility of the Agency's past detention and interrogation effort. But this much is clear: The CIA obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qa'ida was in short supply. Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute, with Americans holding a range of views on the methods used. The CIA requested and received legal guidance and referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice. President Obama has established new policies for interrogation.

The CIA must also keep its focus on the primary responsibility of protecting the country. America is a nation at war. This Agency plays a decisive role in helping the United States meet the full range of security threats and opportunities overseas. That starts with the continuing fight against al-Qa'ida and its sympathizers. There, alongside all its other contributions, the CIA is helping our government chart a new way forward on interrogation, one in keeping with the President's Executive Order of January 22nd. You, the men and women of this great institution, do the hard work and take the tough risks that intelligence and espionage demand.

I am very proud of what you do, here and abroad, to protect the United States. Your skill, courage, commitment, and focus on mission make the CIA indispensable to the nation. It is a privilege to serve with you.

Leon E. Panetta

Democrats Sabotaging Democrats

2009-08-26T23:02:00.000-07:00

Much of the supposed racism and extremism coming from these town halls are literally being fabricated by Democratic activists. Remember that shocking attack on the DNC headquarters in Denver, Colorado? Well, the purpetrator was not one of those pesky "political terrorists"
from the Right. Instead, it was an angry liberal activist attempting to direct blame against the local GOP.

From AboveTopSecret:

A suspect in a vandalism at the Colorado Democratic headquarters was once a paid campaign worker for a Democratic candidate for the Legislature, according to public records.

Maurice Schwenkler, 24, was arrested in Denver Tuesday on a charge of criminal mischief after windows were smashed at Democratic offices. Many of the windows displayed posters supporting health care reform, and party officials had called it political vandalism.

But the Denver Post reported Wednesday that Schwenkler was paid $500 in November 2008 to walk door to door in support of Democrat Mollie Cullom, a candidate for the state House from Centennial.

Republican David Balmer, who beat Cullom, said he suspects the vandalism might have been intended to make the Republican Party look bad.

"This sounds like the type of Democratic tactic from the left fringe trying to make Republicans look mean-spirited," Balmer said. "In this case, it blew up in their face."

Campaign records show Schwenkler was among dozens of canvassers paid by a political committee called the Colorado Citizens' Coalition.

The Democratic Party estimates the damage at $10,000. A second suspect was still at large.

Schwenkler was also arrested in St. Paul, Minn., on the last day of the 2008 Republican convention on a charge of unlawful assembly.

No details of that arrest or Schwenkler's activities at the time were immediately available.

There was no phone number listed for Schwenkler and it wasn't immediately clear if he had an attorney.

Denver Police said they don't know what motivated the suspects. The headquarters was unoccupied at the time and no injuries were reported.

Isn't it interesting how far people will go in order to deceive others? I've doubted most of the allegations of "racism" and "extremism" from Democrats precisely because of incidents like this one. The media is desperate to find stories which appear to prove that conservatives are nothing better than racist, homophobic, rednecks who would do just about anything to ruin the world we live in. This attitude is clearly demonstrated when hardly any major newspapers or broadcasters air the story revealing that the individual responsible for the vandalism was a Left-wing activist.

Gunning for the CIA

2009-08-26T13:09:00.000-07:00

Because of some unfortunate events over the past week, I have been unable to post on the CIA-DOJ controversy which erupted earlier this week. With a moment to spare today, however, I'd like to express my feelings on the CIA abuse probe.

First, I view members of the intelligence community (IC) in nearly the same way that I see members of our armed forces. These very capable men and women have decided to commit their lives to ensuring the security and interests of the American people abroad. This job can be incredibly complicated and requires sound judgement and a great deal of courage. For these reasons, life at the CIA is perhaps better understood from inside than outside. And like the armed forces, the CIA naturally makes blunders which are costly both in terms of economics and human life. These mistakes are more easily noticed by the public than the successes; triumphs are rarely trumpeted by the Agency.

Taking these things into consideration, I am passionately opposed to the way in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating the Agency.

First, the work which the CIA does is largely misunderstood and unappreciated by professional lawyers and the public, not to mention, professionals at the DOJ are looking for legal discrepancies because it is a part of their job. This places a number of individuals within the Agency at risk, and can effectively undermine the work being done there. It is also important to note that the information acquired through the probe may seriously risk the safety of individuals within the IC and the security of the nation as a whole.

Second, it holds members of the IC accountable for offenses which were once condoned by the Executive; the President intimated on numerous occasion that he would not prosecute these individuals, but has since gone back on his word. This is bad for morale (which is an essential component of a successful CIA), and it can deteriorate the effectiveness of intelligence professionals by instilling them with a fear and distrust of the Executive.

Third, like the closing of Gitmo, these measures are more political than practical. President Obama is clearly appeasing the more radical components of his party who are still calling for blood after the departure of the Bush Administration. Such matters would be more effectively handled within the Agency (like the military), and not paraded about by a merciless pack of professional lawyers. Changes can be made within the CIA and if needed, punishments can be dealt at a similar level without brining the DOJ and the American public into it. Transparency is a great thing, but when it concerns national security and the livelihood of thousands of IC employees, transparency should be restricted to an appropriate level.

Politicizing Ted Kennedy's Death

2009-08-26T12:11:00.000-07:00

I think it's entirely inappropriate to politicize death. First of all, it is disrespectful to the deceased. Second, it overshadows the actual person themselves and stirs irrational passions in the hearts of the masses. Most of all, it's a cheap political trick used to cut-off all discussion of the political issue itself by creating a fear among opponents of being perceived as "insensitive."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) died last night, and of course even before the man's body has been properly buried, Democrats are already falling all over themselves to link the Kennedy legacy to their healthcare cause. It's true that Kennedy was a proponent of healthcare reform (aka, Universal Health Care), but again, for Democrats to chain Kennedy's persona to their unpopular healthcare bill is obviously an attempt to seal off all debate and demonize the opposition. Just wait. Those who vocally oppose the new healthcare reform bill will be chastised and shunned for defaming the "Lion of the Senate."

It's funny that conservatives are being asked (and forced) to "keep it clean" (which has been honored by a number of conservative organizations) when discussing the late Senator. Yet Democrats and Left-wing pundits are enthusiastically making this into an impervious political issue. Double-standard?

Sorry, but I say to you Democrats, "Poor form, poor form!"

From the Wall Street Journal:

The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy quickly became a rallying cry for Congress to pass health care overhaul legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office sent an email to reporters at around 2:30 a.m. today, just hours after his death, calling for the passage of health care overhaul. “Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration,” the statement read.

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, also issued a statement this morning calling for the passage of health care overhaul. “Let us continue his cause,” Stern said. “Let us take action this year to pass health care reform. And let us continue to build Kennedy’s vision of America.”

South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the House majority whip, said: “As we move forward with health reform legislation, his absence will be palpable. But let us use his inspirational words as our guide, to rise to our best ideals and finally provide decent quality health care to all Americans as a fundamental right, not a privilege.”

Kennedy, who spent the past year battling brain cancer, had frequently called health-care overhaul the “cause of my life.”

We Are Winning

2009-08-25T15:32:00.000-07:00

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/21/liberal-bloggers-admit-conservatives-have-upper-hand-on-twitter/

(h/t Mitch)

Totally Lame

2009-08-20T23:41:00.000-07:00

The guy only did hard time for about eight years.

And when he came home, he was greeted as a hero.

Kenny MacAskill, you're a d-bag.

From Reuters:

A former Libyan agent jailed for life for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing arrived home on Thursday after Scottish authorities released him on compassionate grounds because he is dying of cancer.

Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, believed to have less than three months to live, was released on the order of Scotland's justice minister despite strong opposition from the United States, which had campaigned to keep him in prison.

"He is a dying man, he is terminally ill," Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill told reporters in explanation. "My decision is that he returns home to die."

Hundreds of young Libyans gathered at the airport in Tripoli to welcome him, and cheered and waved national flags as his car sped out of the airport -- even though victims' relatives said they had understood there would be no hero's welcome.

Pan Am flight 103 was carrying 189 Americans when it left London for New York on December 21, 1988. In all, 259 people on board and 11 on the ground were killed when a bomb tore apart the aircraft and wreckage fell on the town of Lockerbie.

In a statement issued by his lawyer after his departure, Megrahi said he was innocent of the bombing, but also thanked the people of Scotland for setting him free.

"To those victims' relatives who can bear to hear me say this: They continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered," he said. "Those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.

"This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya. It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death."

These Aren't Just Republicans

2009-08-19T15:03:00.001-07:00

During the 2008 presidential election, Democrats delighted in chiding Republicans for losing independent voters.

But now with the healthcare debate polarizing the country, it seems that Independents are feeling somewhat soured by the Democratic party.

From Politico:

The percentage of Americans who hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party has slipped below 50 percent for the first time since President Barack Obama took office, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday.

Only 49 percent of Americans now hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party, down from 62 percent in the same poll shortly after Obama assumed office. Democratic favorable ratings hovered around 60 percent as recently as April, when 59 percent of those polled held a favorable view.

The national survey of 2,010 adults conducted Aug. 11-17 also found that 51 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s job performance with 37 percent disapproving. Independents split 45 percent-43 percent in approving of the president’s performance.

Both political parties love the approval Independents, and this should come as a serious disappointment for Democrats, who revel in their independent-appeal. Nevertheless, we Republicans shouldn't feel too comfortable, for our Grand Old Party isn't looking very appetizing to independents, either.

Again from Politico:

While Democratic numbers have plunged, the GOP has yet to see any uptick among voters. Only 40 percent of those polled held a favorable view of the Republican Party
, a number which Pew noted “has not changed all year.”

In addition, a growing number of Americans believe Obama and Republican leaders are not working together to address the problems facing the nation. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) think the two groups are not working together, compared to 50 percent in June.

Afghanistan Votes Today

2009-08-19T08:38:00.000-07:00

Today, 17 million Afghans will have the opportunity to vote for the next president of their nation. Unfortunately, countless acts of violence over the past week have threatened the stability of these elections, nevertheless, voting will take place across the country and even in locations where the Taliban has a lot of influence.

From Reuters:

Obama has withheld comment on U.S. ally and incumbent President Hamid Karzai and his nearest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, to avoid charges of U.S. interference. Obama has shifted focus from Iraq to Afghanistan as his top foreign policy priority. Obama this week called the eight-year-old conflict "fundamental to the defense of our people" because of the risk that a successful Taliban insurgency could enable al Qaeda to operate more freely to plot another attack akin to the one launched against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said the United States hoped the election would "reinvigorate, or invigorate if it's a different president, the leadership" of Afghanistan in tackling the country's many problems such as the opium trade, corruption and low economic development.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that Taliban threats to disrupt the vote created "adverse circumstances" for the election. But he said last week that there would be as many as 1,300 to 1,400 more polling places and several million more Afghans registered to vote than in the previous election in 2004, offering the potential for a "quite credible election" in all parts of the country.

Wow

2009-08-18T22:34:00.000-07:00

And now even more reason to suspect that Obamacare is on the ropes. Since the 1st of July, AARP has already lost 60,000 members. And let's be honest, typical members of the AARP represent a major segment of society who consistently vote in elections and remain relatively politically active. If there is any group to fear come election time, it should be the senior citizens of this country.

From USA Today:

About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.

The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn't unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens' lobby to shed members in droves when it's advocating on a controversial issue.

AARP is strongly backing a health care overhaul, running ads to support it and hosting President Obama at an online forum recently to promote his agenda to AARP members. However, the group has not endorsed a specific bill and says it won't support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits.

Apparently AARP doesn't officially endorse President Obama's plan, yet a quick glance at AARP's web site should convince anyone of AARP's support for Obamacare.

More Evidence of Obamacare's Decline

2009-08-18T22:06:00.000-07:00

If this doesn't convince you that Obamacare is on the ropes, I don't know what will.

From WaPo:

President Obama's advisers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unprepared for the intraparty rift that occurred over the fate of a proposed public health insurance program, a firestorm that has left the White House searching for a way to reclaim the initiative on the president's top legislative priority.

Administration officials insisted that they have not shied away from their support for a public option to compete with private insurance companies, an idea they said Obama still prefers to see in a final bill.

But at a time when the president had hoped to be selling middle-class voters on how insurance reforms would benefit them, the White House instead finds itself mired in a Democratic Party feud over an issue it never intended to spotlight.

"I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo," said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform."

"It's a mystifying thing," he added. "We're forgetting why we are in this."

Another top aide expressed chagrin that a single element in the president's sprawling health-care initiative has become a litmus test for whether the administration is serious about the issue.

"It took on a life of its own," he said.

In search of new momentum, Obama plans to discuss the matter Thursday with thousands of his most loyal supporters in a nationwide "strategy call" hosted by Organizing for America, a grass-roots arm of the Democratic National Committee.

President Obama is trying to swim upstream at this point. And it seems likely that the Administration's floundering will lead to the defection and a possible backlash by American liberals. Reality bites, doesn't it Progressives!

Environmental Relativism

2009-08-18T21:34:00.000-07:00

When Democrats like Nancy Pelosi say, "I'm trying to save the planet," they are really just referring to America's portion of the world.

Remember how heated the offshore drilling debate became last year? Well, it appears that the President is still opposed to drilling offshore American coastlines, but open to drilling elsewhere.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

Last time I checked, even Brazil was considered part of the planet, and therefore deserves saving too, right?

Hey, honestly I am happy for Petrobras (I am invested in the company, after all) and for the country of Brazil. But this is just another example of the "environmental relativism" which cheapens the "planet-saving" talk by Democrats. Of course we hear time and time again that environmental consequences affect all of us. Therefore, if what is bad for the environment here should also be just as dangerous abroad.

Some Thoughts on Nixonland

2009-08-18T20:36:00.000-07:00

I haven't had much time to read this summer, but when a spare moment creeps along, I break open Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. (Thanks for the referral, Mitch)

Nixonland clearly has a strong, liberal flavor, nevertheless, the political history is downright fascinating.

What appeals most to me is how Nixonland discusses the polarization of the sixties and how such tumultuous times influenced both Democrats and Republicans. Here Perlstein takes a particularly hard look at the divisions within the Republican party during that era, and how these divisions elevated and later defeated GOP candidates like Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater.

It's also interesting to read about the character of Richard Nixon, who literally ressurrected his political career after being soundly defeated by John F. Kennedy in 1960, and later within his own party. And thankfully, Perlstein doesn't focus too much on Nixon's psychological profile. Instead, he investigates Nixon politically, delving briefly into significant events which lead to the man's rise and fall.

Reading Nixonland unavoidably causes the reader to draw some parallels between the 1960's and today, and ultimately see how polarization is shaping today's politics like it has in the past. And similar to that era, American political parties today are in a period of transition.

Will the political polarization of today's world lead to a "fracturing of America," as in Nixonland? I argue that it already has. Contentious issues are driving politics to new realms, and both political parties are desperately trying to keep up with such changes. For example, the present Republican party is completely different from the Republican party of yesteryear, just as in the 1960's. In 2008, the GOP basically disavowed itself from its more moderate past, embracing a kind of conservative populism. After reading Nixonland, such changes appear to be merely a repeat of ancient history; an episode similar to the days in which the Barry Goldwaters captured a GOP previously dominated by characters like Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. While there are fundamental differences, it is important to acknowledge the powerful similarities and from there, try to discern the future for American politics.

The Beginning of the End

2009-08-17T01:37:00.000-07:00

Some big news happening over the weekend.

From the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama is willing to embrace insurance cooperatives over a government-run plan as the White House faces mounting opposition to its broad overhaul of the nation's health care system.

Bowing to Republican pressure and offering political cover to fiscally conservative Democrats, Obama's administration signaled on Sunday that it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance. The shift leaves open a chance for compromise with Republicans that probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority.

Officials from both political parties are looking for concessions while Congress is on an August recess. Facing tough audiences, lawmakers and the White House are looking for a way to cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured while maintaining political standing.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that a government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Dems are getting desperate now, and it seems that the President is willing to sacrifice some of his more notorious initiatives in order to secure some support. But like the article reads, Obama's "liberal supporters" may not be too keen on the decision to drop the public option.

And who better to embody this outrage than Michael Brenner of the Huffington Post:

Let's face the harsh reality -- Obama has blown health care reform, big time. The opportunity of a lifetime has been squandered. The most recent revelations about backroom deals with Pharma and the other vendors of medical services drops the curtain on any hope of serious change in our costly and inefficient non-system. This is a painful admission to make. Not only does the country remain handicapped by grossly sub-par arrangements for health delivery, we also are burdened with a president who has been discredited as a progressive dedicated to a betterment of how we conduct public business.

It is Barack Obama who is to blame for this. For months, he stayed aloof from the out-of-control Congressional maneuvering based on a strange belief in some kind of bipartisan collective will emerging by osmosis. He never leaned the weight of his person and his office to elements of reform that has been touting as candidate and then President. He deceived the country by pursuing secret talks with the very lobbies who are the heart of disgraceful national health care situation. He entered into deals that were weighted heavily in their selfish interest rather than the national interest. In short, we have gotten from him the antithesis of what we were promised and expected -- in the substance and process of policy both. We have instead a conventionally minded politician overly respectful of the status quo and deferential to those who control and profit from it, A man with no apparent fixed convictions.

Some pretty harsh words for the President. It will be interesting to see how this issue will be interpreted in the future by other "progressives" and later, by the American people in general.

Just Remember...

2009-08-15T23:06:00.000-07:00

Be careful.

Most Americans Prefer the Status Quo

2009-08-15T22:46:00.001-07:00

When most Americans prefer no action to the current healthcare bills, you know that you have a losing issue on your hands. But for some reason, I doubt the President realizes this.

From Rasmussen:

Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.

Somewhat sobering, eh? For the Dems, I mean.

Obama's Astroturfing

2009-08-13T21:05:00.000-07:00

It's absolutely ridiculous how the White House has dismissed the town hall protests as "manufactured anger" and "astroturfing."

(NOTE: "Astroturfing" is a tactic perfected by Democratic strategist, David Axelrod... so it's sort of funny that Dems are so vigorously throwing out such allegations)

Anyone who has seen these protesters and who have a shred of common sense can't accept this simplistic answer; obviously it's political spin.

Well, ironically enough, Obama has decided to engage in a little astroturfing of his own.

From the LA Times:

It seems that, despite all the media attention lavished on e-mail appeals to his supporters, not everyone pushing for President Obama's embattled healthcare reform plan these warm August days is an idealistic volunteer in it for the sake of helping move the country forward and gaining medical attention for millions of uninsured Americans.

The website's large-type headline announces: "Work to Pass Obama's Healthcare Plan and Get Paid to Do it! $10-15 hr!"

It's a web ad on Craigslist: "You can work for change. Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week."

So both sides appear to have paid lobbyists in this colossal summertime struggle for public opinion and control of the multi-billions flowing into the nation's burdened healthcare system.

The ad links to the Boston-based Fund for the Public Interest, an umbrella organization that rounds up people to round up support, money and signatures for all kinds of campaigns, including healthcare reform and the environment.

It's hiring and assigning canvassers to work in at least 28 states, including California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Jersey.

Can you say, "astroturf?"

Some Updates

2009-08-13T02:29:00.000-07:00

I'm totally sitting in my living room in my pajamas, unable to sleep and too tired to game.

Yeah, I've neglected the blog for some time now. Truth be told, I have been really busy this summer and have survived a terrible case of political-burnout. For a while, I was determined to center my posts around interesting international issues, but this whole healthcare debate has really tempted me to start confronting domestic issues once again.

There is so much spin out there, on both sides, I should add. But as far as one side is concerned, you can't equate the ignorance of thousands of Americans with political spin. All the talk about socialism and death panels isn't necessarily "spin" being generated by greedy insurance companies and Republican politicians. These concerns are being allowed to continue because Democrats have done an incompetent job convincing the American people that these House bills are feasible or even necessary. It appears that the average citizen is of the opinion that the status quo is in fact more desirable than Obama's healthcare "reform." That should be a warning sign to any serious Democratic politician supporting these ridiculous bills, especially when considering how many Americans would like to see the status quo change.

Is all this opposition really just the work of the evil special-interests in Washington? Come on, get real! Robert Gibbs is full of it when he makes such claims. The truth is, most Americans are fearful of these proposals because of the content of the bills themselves. Democrats should also be held accountable for the poor job they have done in selling the legislation.

-------

Okay, now that's out of my system :)

Vanessa and I are getting ready for school to start and trying to get all of our ducks-in-a-row. I am hoping to graduate by the end of Spring semester in '10, and by then, we will need to have made some important decisions.

I am still torn whether or not to attend Officer Candidate School next year. I was firmly committed about a month ago, but more and more I have been looking into attending graduate school in the Fall. Truth is, I am undecided, and that isn't good considering how close I am to graduating.

I hope that somehow, I get a revelation or something and hopefully will get some direction here. Not having my father around can be especially difficult for this reason. He was excellent at giving advice and offering instruction; it would be comforting if he were still here.

And so instead of trying to confront my impending doom, I have been turning to my Xbox 360 for solace, kind of like a junkie turns to crack. While I could be trying to get my school schedule somewhat finalized, I am busy trying to improve my kill/death ratio on Call of Duty: World at War and/or Halo 3. I really wish I wasn't so attached to slaughtering fake soldiers and space-commandos, but I am... And occasionally I revel in it.

More Spin From POTUS

2009-08-13T02:16:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration is doing what Democratic presidents do best: fabricating support and portraying it as something larger. (Oh, hey, is that also called ASTROTURF?)

Pundits were speechless after the President's town hall meeting went so well; they couldn't stop discussing the captivating power the President has over large audiences. Well, maybe that captivating power was nothing more than typical Democratic ASTROTURF.

You ever wonder why the questioners never really asked any tough questions, you know, the ones that most Americans are asking at real town halls?

Well, it appears that much of Obama's town hall was actually shipped in. Isn't it ironic that after devoting so much time identifying opponents of healthcare "reform" as minions of special-interest groups, this president has the audacity to do some astroturfing of his own? Well, that is irony few seem to appreciate, let alone notice.

Mark from AR15:

The second person "randomly" selected to ask a question was a young girl called Julia Hall from Malden MA (asks question at 29m:25s).

Julia read the following question off a piece of paper: "As I was walking in I saw a lot of signs outside saying mean things about reforming healthcare. How do kids know what is true and why do people want a new system that can help more of us".

This randomly asked question gave Obama the perfect opportunity to dismiss talk about "death panels that will pull the plug on Grandma" and to blame Republicans for everything.

Over on the town hall comments thread AtomicPunk09 discovered someone on facebook who might possibly be Julia's mother and had a photo of her with Obama.

Another "coincidence" is that Julia said she lives in Malden MA and Kathleen Manning Hall's campaign contributions list the occupation "Legal Asst, Looney and Grossman LLP" and a home address in Malden MA, via the Huffington Post donation's page.

Looks like she donated $636 to Obama in 2008.

But wait, there's more at City Data.

This lists donations to Obama of $230 on 6/15/07, $250 on 9/28/07, $500 on 9/30/07, $300 on 3/2/08.

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

Town Hall Outrage

2009-08-13T01:19:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I can no longer sit quiet about this whole healthcare mess, and I would like to throw my hat in the ring.

For some time now, I have wanted to comment on the raucous series of townhalls which have taken place across the nation. And instead of focusing on the issue itself, I would rather approach the phenomenon from a more political angle.

Many Democrats seem to be completely taken aback by the protester's passion and anger, which is not always centered around the issue of healthcare. And while media personalities, pundits, Members of Congress, and even the President himself, attempt to discount much of populist backlash against the healthcare bill, the fact of the matter is, there is fierce opposition to this proposal and a building consensus against much of the President's economic agenda.

The claim that these protests are simply, "astroturfing" (a term being employed now, ad nauseum) by special interest groups is hardly realistic (DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT CRAIG MILLER WAS PAID OFF?), considering the sheer numbers and diversity of protesters. Surely there are plenty of individuals defending their own "special-interests," but even so, isn't that why we all get involved in politics? Furthermore, considering the credentials of our current president as a community organizer, you would think that there would be a little more consideration towards a clearly disenfranchized body of American citizens (no, I won't call them a "mob").

The response from the Left to these episodes has been constant and arrogant, and as with the TEA-party demonstrations, these self-proclaimed elitists have had a hayday revealing how unsophisticated and "irrational" these Americans are. What Democrats don't realize is, by insensitively categorizing these citizens as "rabid right-wing extremists", "un-American", and likening them to "nazis", they are alienating a vast cross-section of society. And worse yet, they are completely dismissing serious concerns from their most politically active constituents.

Democrats are doing their cause a great disservice by refusing to acknowledge the legitimate points poised by millions of Americans, and instead, branding all opponents as racists, reactionaries, and lobbyists. Protesting is not "un-American," in fact, it is an integral part of being an American. And no matter how unsophisticated many of these protesters are, they have serious fears over the direction in which this administration is trying to lead the country on the issue of healthcare. The burden of proof is not the responsibility of average citizens, these politicians are obligated to sell this plan to the American people. And so far the President has done a poor job of doing so. While pundits and politicians continue to criticize and demean these objectors, millions of Americans will continue to have serious doubts about whether or not this "healthcare reform" is the right thing for them. Democrats will LOSE on this issue, not because of special-interests, not because of a mobilized group of neo-nazi conservatives... it will be because Democrats are failing to connect with millions of concerned Americans, it will be because Democrats refuse to even acknowledge the serious issues themselves.

Because of this inability to focus on the legitimate objections of millions of American citizens, Democrats are going to pay for it come election time, not to mention, they will risk the very passage of the legislation itself. Not all opponents to these bills are extremists, in fact, most are not.

All elected officials, yes even Democrats, should represent their constituents to the best of their ability. They should appreciate the impact of populist movements and address the true fears and concerns from their constituents. Failure to do so may be costly come election time.

Getting Ready for School to Start

2009-08-11T16:53:00.000-07:00

How to Compete with Chinese Foreign Policy?

2009-07-13T16:04:00.000-07:00

(h/t to Mitch)

How should the United States compete with Chinese foreign policy? From Economist.com, "The Monroe Doctrine is Dead."

Great question: "Whether you are Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez, would you rather deal with China's "no-questions-asked" foreign policy or an anti-corruption, pro-transparency, pro-labour, environmentally conscious, human-rights-pushing American government?"

Having experience with Latin America, and a fairly good understanding of Chinese foreign policy, this question is intriguing. Whether interacting with countries in Latin America or Africa, China has a peculiar foreign policy which stands in stark contrast to that of the US and other prominent countries of the West. While many Americans may look down on the way in which the Chinese conduct their affairs abroad, it's clear that China is succeeding in regions where other "big players" are failing. And it can be argued that China is actually making a positive difference in those regions.

How will China's success affect US foreign policy? What say you?

- Marc

How would you respond?

Obama and Company

2009-06-30T15:27:00.000-07:00

President Obama struggled to formulate a coherent response to the political crisis in Iran, yet he hasn't wasted any time in condemning the coup in Honduras. What happened to the President who said, when asked about the events in Iran:

It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, also defined the Administration's desire for neutrality on the subject of Iran by saying this:

We are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran.

Nevertheless, when Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted from power, Obama's sense of neutrality quickly dissipated.

From SFgate:

President Obama strongly condemned the ouster of Honduras' president as an illegal coup that set a "terrible precedent" for the region, as the country's new government defied international calls Monday to return the toppled president to power and clashed with thousands of protesters in the streets.

"We do not want to go back to a dark past," in which in which military coups override elections, Obama said. "We always want to stand with democracy."

I think that Sen. Mel Martinez makes an excellent argument against Obama's decision to condemn the coup:

“The crisis in Honduras stems from the failure of its leaders to live within constitutional boundaries and from the earlier silence of the United States and international community regarding the abuse of power by the Honduran executive. Any disruption of the constitutional order is unacceptable, regardless of who commits it.“In the current crisis, neither the U.S. nor other countries in the region or the international community should be taking sides in a constitutional dispute, but rather encouraging a resolution through dialogue among Hondurans and by helping Honduras maintain its currently scheduled presidential elections.”

What happened to neutrality, Barry?

Ready to Love the Pacific

2009-06-24T17:43:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I'm a little off topic now, but I am stoked for The Pacific.

Band of Brothers was absolutely phenomenal... and I expect good things from The Pacific.

I can hardly contain my excitement... too bad it comes out next year.

What is Kim Jong Il Thinking?

2009-06-24T16:17:00.000-07:00

What is Kim Jong Il thinking? More and more, this two-bit dictator is reminding me of the Saddam Hussein of yesteryear.

From the Associated Press:

North Korea threatened Wednesday to wipe the United States off the map as Washington and its allies watched for signs the regime will launch a series of missiles in the coming days.
"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," the official Korean Central News Agency said.

The warning came on the eve of the 59th anniversary of the start of the three-year Korean War, which ended in a truce in 1953, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula in state of war.

Jong Il, like Hussein, is overplaying his cards. And I wouldn't be surprised to see North Korea launch some form of attack on South Korea. Is Kim Jong Il crazy? Maybe, but the guy isn't stupid. For years, he has been known for baiting the international community and flagrantly defying international treaties and agreements. But should we shrug off a nation with nuclear capabilities?

Maybe Kim Jong Il has caught on that Obama is a pushover in the international arena, and is just playing along. Really, how would the international community respond to a nuclear attack from North Korea?

Whatever the case, this little video game from Germany is hilarious, and does an excellent job portraying the Korean dictator.

Let's Talk about Torture in Iran

2009-06-24T15:11:00.000-07:00

Unlike the portrayal provided by the MSM in the US, torture is not simply an American phenomenon. In fact, it is quite prevalent in places like Iran, where even women, children and young adults face everyday the possibility of being tortured.

From an editor at Salon.com:

Salon has obtained an e-mail, written in Farsi, circulating among Iranian American activists that tells the story of a 17-year-old boy who says he was tortured by government agents in Tehran. The e-mail, with attached photos of the victim, was sent by a friend of the boy's after his release. Though it's unclear exactly when the events in the story happened, the e-mail arrived in the U.S. late last week. The activist who forwarded it to Salon wanted it published to show what's happening as Iran is gripped by ongoing protests and a harsh government crackdown. The message was translated by a different Salon source, who raised some questions about a few specific details in the narrative -- the boy says he was moved around more than seems to make sense; at times he seems to confuse the police with the Basij paramilitaries; and, especially, his belief that non-Iranians were assisting in the abuse, a rampant but unsubstantiated rumor in Iran and among exiles. But the translator said some confusion is understandable for a scared teenager in his situation: "It is obvious that he was tortured."
To protect the people involved and their friends and family in Iran, Salon is not identifying those who sent or translated the message. The first paragraph below is the introduction circulating with the story, and the rest is from the boy.

READ THE STORY HERE.

Here is a part of the boy's story...

"One of them asked me if Mr. Khatami would come save us, while they were breaking my fingers and cutting the finger webs. Although I swore a thousand times that I had not voted and had never participated in any demonstration, they didn't care and just kept beating me hard. I fainted once or twice but there were some of us who fainted every time their bones were broken, and as soon as they gained their consciousness, the riot police started beating them again. I was trying to contract my muscles to avoid further bone fracture."

It's important to understand how torture is viewed in other parts of the world, and how it is implemented by totalitarian regimes. Again, torture is not simply an American phenomenon, and unlike the US, not mainly utilized against terrorists.

In Memory of Neda Agha Soltan

2009-06-23T15:57:00.000-07:00

The video of Neda's murder has circulated throughout the world, and everywhere, people are wanting to know more about this young martyr.

From the New York Times:

It was hot in the car, so the young woman and her singing instructor got out for a breath of fresh air on a quiet side street not far from the antigovernment protests they had ventured out to attend. A gunshot rang out, and the woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, fell to the ground. “It burned me,” she said before she died.
The bloody video of her death on Saturday, circulated in Iran and around the world, has made Ms. Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old who relatives said was not political, an instant symbol of the antigovernment movement.

Watch video here.

A Great Post on Iran

2009-06-23T14:49:00.000-07:00

I usually don't agree with Richard Warnick, from OneUtah.org, but I definitely appreciate his insight.

After coming home from a week-long vacation, I wanted to write some of my thoughts on the events taking place in Iran. Yet before I could do so, I read a great post by Warnick on the same subject, and thought I would provide a link on my blog instead.

As much as I would like to join with other conservatives in criticizing the President during this crisis, I agree with Warnick that how the President chooses to handle things now will greatly affect future relations with the region.

Read the post here.

While I think that Obama should be hesitant to commit himself completely to Mousavi's cause, he needs to at least show some more spine in supporting the majority of Iranians who are desiring change... and I must say, he has appeared weak on the issue.

Out of Context: Billy Crudup Should Play the Riddler

2009-06-10T17:28:00.001-07:00

I know that this is terribly out of context, but today Tyler Riggs and I were discussing who should play the "Riddler" in the next Batman movie, and I think it should be Watchmen star, Billy Crudup.

And no, please don't ever suggest that it should be Johnny Depp.

How to Kill an Insurgency

2009-06-05T14:45:00.000-07:00

As the great counterinsurgency theorist, David Galula, repeatedly argued, the most effective way to defeat an insurgency is to eliminate the support of the local population.

Unfortunately, the true importance of this tenet was little understood during the initial actions taken by the US in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Over the past few years, the Taliban has been able to regain much of its control and influence and now poses a serious threat to American forces and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nevertheless, the power of the Taliban is currently being challenged because of its violation of one of the most important principles of insurgency.

From the New York Times:

A year ago, the Pakistani public was deeply divided over what to do about its spreading insurgency. Some saw the Taliban militants as fellow Muslims and native sons who simply wanted Islamic law, and many opposed direct military action against them.

But history moves quickly in Pakistan, and after months of televised Taliban cruelties, broken promises and suicide attacks, there is a spreading sense — apparent in the news media, among politicians and the public — that many Pakistanis are finally turning against the Taliban.

The shift is still tentative and difficult to quantify. But it seems especially profound among the millions of Pakistanis directly threatened by the Taliban advance from the tribal areas into more settled parts of Pakistan, like the Swat Valley. Their anger at the Taliban now outweighs even their frustration with the military campaign that has crushed their houses and killed their relatives.

“It’s the Taliban that’s responsible for our misery,” said Fakir Muhammed, a refugee from Swat, who, like many who had experienced Taliban rule firsthand, welcomed the military campaign to push the insurgents out.

The growing support for the fight against the Taliban could be an important turning point for Pakistan, whose divisions about its Islamic militancy seemed at times to imperil the state itself.

Interesting stuff.

The Meaning of Bloody Omaha

2009-06-04T14:54:00.000-07:00

As June 6th approaches, the world should be reminded of the sacrifice made by thousands of American soldiers on faraway battlefields, such as D-Day's Omaha Beach.

If anything should symbolize the most noble aspects of what it means to be an American, it is the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. D-Day marked the day that the Allies took the war directly to the Nazis, and through tremendous loss of life, the Allies were able to gradually recapture Europe from the horror of fascism.

Occasionally I hear anti-Americans rail against the US, and I cannot help but cringe. Many of these critics have directly benefited from the sacrifices made by American soldiers fighting in foreign lands; WWII was not merely a war, it was a global liberation.

This article, therefore, perfectly sums up some of my feelings.

From Herbert London in the Wall Street Journal:

The skies over Normandy are invariably filled with dark rain clouds. But on one day in late April the sky was cloudless and the English Channel tranquil. Youngsters built sand castles on Omaha Beach and dogs romped in the surf. It was a vastly different scene from the bloodshed and violence that occurred on this same beach 65 years ago.

In an effort to understand what the GIs experienced on that fateful day of June 6, 1944, I climbed up a steep hill to the plain above the beach. Unlike the soldiers, I didn't carry an 80-pound pack on my back. And even though I observed German fortifications on my way, no one was firing at me.

These fortifications are a reminder that despite feints to Calais and bombing along the coast prior to the invasion, Nazi forces were well ensconced when the U.S. and its allies landed. Most of the bombs aimed at these German installations landed several kilometers inland -- a condition that distinguished Omaha Beach from Utah Beach. Omaha Beach was Bloody Omaha, a scene of so much death that it was unprecedented in American history. One soldier noted "there were body parts everywhere and the sea turned red with blood."
...

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE.

Anyone Watching This?

2009-06-02T16:34:00.000-07:00

US Special Forces are on a mission into Pakistan to find the "big three": Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Mohommad Omar.

From Indian Express.com:

The US Special Operations Forces have standing orders to enter Pakistan if they find any ‘conclusive’ evidence about the presence of the ‘big three’, which includes, Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar.

According to a ‘Washington Post’ report, the US Special Operation Forces have already established ground teams on the Pak-Afghanistan border, and would move into Pakistan if they receive any substantial information about the presence of any of the ‘big three’ in a particular area.

The US suspects that the top three extremists are hiding in Pakistan, the report says.
In 2008, the Bush administration authorized covert US ground raids inside Pakistan, but Pakistani outrage after a single attack led to their suspension, the Dawn reports.
So far, the Obama administration has not authorized any ground operations inside Pakistan.

Pakistan is becoming a batteground, and I expect to see the US remain in the region for at least another decade. It is impossible to properly deal with Al Qaeda and the Taliban without confronting Pakistan directly.

BOOM: Buchenwald and Barack

2009-05-29T16:51:00.000-07:00

This is just priceless! Journalists can't resist reporting on the President as if he was a Hollywood celebrity, guessing his every thought and feeling. Well, Barack's trip to Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany is no exception.

From the Times Online:

President Obama is preparing to follow in the footsteps of his great-uncle, Charlie, with a visit to the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany when he returns to Europe this summer.

The site is laden with historic and personal significance for the President. More than 50,000 people died at the camp before its liberation in April, 1945 by American soldiers, including Charlie Payne, the uncle of Mr Obama’s mother.

For the soldiers that stumbled over the corpses it was their first encounter with the Holocaust, and the horrors, relayed back home, helped to raise American consciousness of Nazi atrocities.
...
Thomas Steg, spokesman for the German Government, said that Mr Obama might visit “historical places that in the widest sense are related to the different aspects of World War Two — destruction and rebuilding, extermination and the breakdown of civilisation”, as well as places which have “biographical references” for his family.

During the election campaign Mr Obama sought regularly to deflect any suggestion that his exotic multinational background meant that he lacked patriotism by pointing out how his maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, had “marched with Patton’s army” after the Normandy landings.

However, a reference to Charlie Payne’s service in the 89th Infantry Division during the war, which showed that he was vague about some details of his family’s history, briefly threatened to embarrass him.

Mr Obama, speaking in May last year about the need to screen the US military for signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, said: “I had a uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps. And the story in my family is that when he came home, he went into the attic, and he didn’t leave the house for six months.

“Obviously something had affected him deeply but at the time there weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain.”

While the Times would love to paint a tapestry of "personal significance," Barack Obama's great-uncle, Charlie Payne, has a different perspective on the President's interest in family history.

From an interview on Spiegel Online:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Payne, early in June your great-nephew, President Barack Obama, will visit the former concentration camp Buchenwald, which you helped liberate at the end of the war. Will he be travelling in your footsteps?

Charles Payne: I don't buy that. I was quite surprised when the whole thing came up and Barack talked about my war experiences in Nazi Germany. We had never talked about that before. This is a trip that he chose, not because of me I'm sure, but for political reasons.

SPIEGEL: What do you think could be his motives for this trip?

Payne: First, I think he already had this trip in mind -- with Cairo on the one end and Normandy at the other, and time for Germany in between. Second, perhaps his visit also has something to do with improving his standing with Angela Merkel. She gave him a hard time during his campaign and also afterwards.

SPIEGEL: At first Mr. Obama claimed that one of his family members was involved in the liberation Auschwitz. How did this misunderstanding come about?

Payne: He couldn't have gotten it from me since we had never talked about this particular episode in the war. My sister and her husband were both great storytellers and sometimes made up the details to go along with it. They told him about my deployment with the 89th Infantry Division and apparently they mixed up a few details. Of course it came out immediately that he was wrong since there are enough people in America who know that Auschwitz is in the East and that the camp was liberated by the Red Army.

HAR HAR! Perhaps Charlie Payne didn't get the memo from Spiegel, but the purpose of the interview was to portray the exquisite "personal significance" of the trip for young Barack. Instead, Mr. Payne gave us a dose of reality.

BOOM: Mancow is a Fraud!

2009-05-29T15:17:00.000-07:00

Mancow Muller would be suspected of fraud in any other circumstance, considering the details. Nevertheless, with the support of the MSM, he will mostly likely continue to be a fascination for people like Keith Olbermann.

But it seems that Mancow's little publicity stunt was nothing more than a "hoax" (exact words used by his publicist).

Read about the controversy in the Chicago Tribune.

Should We Be Cutting Missile Defense?

2009-05-28T15:53:00.000-07:00

William Cohen, a former Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration, strongly argues that President Obama is wrong to cut our missile defense program, especially in light of North Korea's latest escapades.

From the Washington Times:

President Obama stood firm in his position that the North Korean launch was a violation of Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1695. Together with Japan and South Korea, his administration has pressed hard for a Security Council resolution imposing new sanctions on North Korea for its missile launch. Speaking in Prague after the North Korean launch, President Obama declared: "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." The president is right, of course, but unfortunately, China and Russia would agree only to a nonbinding "presidential statement."

Tough words, without tough action, means that Kim Jong-il can tell the world "tough luck" - which is precisely what he has done in recent weeks.

Since words have no impact upon North Korea's stratagems and actions, the U.S. should say little in response and give that country even less when it comes to economic assistance. Kim Jong-il has built a throne of swords; he should be made to sit on it.

It should be noted that the rationale for constructing a missile-defense system was not only to defend our homeland against the mad or messianic of limited means, but also to serve as a last resort against an accidental launch of an ICBM by a major power.

Reducing the funding commitment to our missile-defense system by $1.4 billion, as the Obama administration has done, sends the signal that we do not take the threats of rogue regimes seriously, and are willing to take the risk that current technologies are sufficient to prevent devastating accidents or miscalculations.

Given the disturbing geopolitical events that are now unfolding, it is imperative that we err on the side of safety. The consequences are too grave to allow our leadership to claim at some future time that they were taken by surprise.

Cutting missile-defense funding at this critical juncture sends the wrong signal to both our adversaries and our allies. It would embolden North Korea, Iran and other rogue states to pursue missiles of increasing range. It would also confuse our allies and undermine their trust in America's security guarantees. If the United States is vulnerable to the threat of a missile attack by a rogue state, allies could lose confidence in America's nuclear deterrent - which could lead nations such as Japan to pursue a nuclear deterrent of their own.

Some great stuff to ponder here. The United States, whether Americans like it or not, is essentially the "policeman of the world." For decades, world nations (especially European ones), have relied upon the military strength of the United States to protect them from both foreign and domestic threats. What happens when the power-paradigm dramatically shifts? Well, any student of international relations can answer that one. There is a disruption in the balance of power which forces other nations to attempt to fill the vacum. The result is almost always war. And in this day and age, without a strong global hegemon like the United States, nuclear war is an ever-growing possibility.

Scary: What About N. Korea?

2009-05-27T11:47:00.000-07:00

While the nation is torn over the latest Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, North Korea is acting out aggressively and issuing threats to both South Korea and the United States.

From the New York Times:

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea threatened Wednesday to launch military strikes against South Korea if any of its ships were stopped or searched as part of an American-led operation to intercept vessels suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction.

South Korea agreed to join the global interdiction program after North Korea tested a nuclear device on Monday — its second nuclear test in three years. The North had earlier warned the South not to participate in the effort, known as the Proliferation Security Initiative.

“We consider this a declaration of war against us,” an unidentified North Korean military spokesman said Wednesday in a statement carried by the North’s official news agency, KCNA. “Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels, including search and seizure, will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty and we will immediately respond with a powerful military strike.”

The North Koreans also said in the statement that they “no longer feel bound by the armistice” that ended the fighting in the 1950-53 Korean War. Technically, the two Koreas have remained at war for more than 50 years, because the 1953 armistice never gave way to a final peace treaty. North Korea has previously called the armistice a “useless piece of paper.”

The North’s strident rhetoric is not unusual in statements released to the outside world, but the latest broadsides are likely to worsen tensions created by Monday’s nuclear test, which drew swift, angry and widespread condemnation from the international community. The United Nations Security Council is in the process of crafting a response, which may include additional economic sanctions; the North has said it would consider such sanctions a declaration of war.

“If North Korea stages a provocation, we will respond resolutely,” the South Korean military said in a statement, reacting to the North’s threats. Citing a “strong” military alliance with the United States, it said, “We advise our people to trust our military’s solid readiness and feel safe.”

Since inter-Korean relations began deteriorating a year ago, analysts in government-run and private policy institutes in South Korea have often warned of a possible naval skirmish. In interviews in recent weeks, they have said that if South Korea joined the global interdiction program, it would increase the chances of a North Korean provocation. But, they said, any clash between the two Koreas would be limited in scale.

They said North Korea may attempt a limited armed provocation along the border, especially along the disputed western sea border between the Koreas. It is where the two navies met in bloody skirmishes in 1999 and 2002 during the busy crab-catching season of June.

I don't like to sound apocalyptical, ever. But I honestly doubt the assumptions made by this article. The realist in me would like to believe that a potential action between North and South Korea would be limited to a naval conflict, or an "armed provocation along the border." Yet I cannot help but consider the possibility of a nuclear attack coming from North Korea.

What exactly does North Korea fear from "the international community?" This nation has shown that not only can it grapple with UN sanctions, but it is willing to openly defy them.

And what we should all think about is this: what keeps North Korea from utilizing its nuclear weapons capabilities? It isn't economic retaliation from the "international community." Does North Korea fear a military intervention? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that most of the Western world is fatigued with wars and conflicts; Iraq and Afghanistan have obviously sapped any enthusiasm the "international community" might have had for war. And Kim Jong Il is an intelligent man and probably understands how disorganized and noncommittal the "international community" can be.

Would Western nations ever retaliate against a nuclear attack from North Korea with nukes of their own? Never. Then what is keeping North Korea from launching nukes? It is frightening idea.

Qingchuan: Gitmo is Barry's Problem

2009-05-26T15:09:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting point-of-view about Gitmo being "Obama's problem," by Yang Qingchuan of the Tehran Times.

Predictable: US Relies on Foreign Intel

2009-05-26T00:34:00.000-07:00

Mmmm. I smell some extraordinary renditions!

The great moral martinet (Obama) and champion of universal human rights apparently sees nothing wrong with depending on the highly immoral and abusive regimes friendly to the United States. In yet another ironic revelation, we learn from the New York Times that under the Obama Administration, the United States is relying heavily on foreign intel.

From the New York Times:

The United States is now relying heavily on foreign intelligence services to capture, interrogate and detain all but the highest-level terrorist suspects seized outside the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to current and former American government officials.

The change represents a significant loosening of the reins for the United States, which has worked closely with allies to combat violent extremism since the 9/11 attacks but is now pushing that cooperation to new limits.

In the past 10 months, for example, about a half-dozen midlevel financiers and logistics experts working with Al Qaeda have been captured and are being held by intelligence services in four Middle Eastern countries after the United States provided information that led to their arrests by local security services, a former American counterterrorism official said.

In addition, Pakistan’s intelligence and security services captured a Saudi suspect and a Yemeni suspect this year with the help of American intelligence and logistical support, Pakistani officials said. The two are the highest-ranking Qaeda operatives captured since President Obama took office, but they are still being held by Pakistan, which has shared information from their interrogations with the United States, the official said.

The current approach, which began in the last two years of the Bush administration and has gained momentum under Mr. Obama, is driven in part by court rulings and policy changes that have closed the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency, and all but ended the transfer of prisoners from outside Iraq and Afghanistan to American military prisons.

Human rights advocates say that relying on foreign governments to hold and question terrorist suspects could carry significant risks. It could increase the potential for abuse at the hands of foreign interrogators and could also yield bad intelligence, they say.

And has the Left paid any attention at all to the plight of those who suffer at the hands of Pakistani intelligence, for example? Of course not, for the "hopenchange" bug has left most liberals conveniently dismissive. Instead, these selective moralists would much rather continue to gripe about former president Bush and vice-president Cheney. After all, it is so much more constructive to focus on the sins of a previous administration than the one currently in power; that way we give future generations something to look forward to.

While the world continues to allow themselves to be carried away by their favorite Camelot-story, the rest of us will continue recognizing that Barack Obama, despite the rhetoric, is looking more and more like George W. Bush.

For the rabid, anti-torture crowd, it may be of some use to look into the British torture program in Pakistan. At the end of the day, what's the difference? It seems to me that the difference lies in the fact that torture is only torture when we ourselves conduct it. Yet when we pay someone else to do the deed, it no longer constitutes torture! I'm overjoyed that Barry and the Brits have made it so elementary for all of us.

Hey, can you pass me some of those enhanced interrogations, please?

Obama's Preventive Detention Plan?

2009-05-22T23:26:00.000-07:00

I can't believe the blaring hypocrisy of this administration! Not to mention, where is the outrage from the liberal Democrats over the President's increasingly Bushesque national security platform?

There was a lot of news to sift through on the 20th, but just today, I read this article from the New York Times about the President's plans for a "preventive detention" program which would essentially lay the legal foundation for detaining suspected terrorists. Sound familiar? Well it should, for it is the Obama Administration which has been considering investigating attorneys from the Bush Administration who attempted to do the same thing.

From the New York Times:

President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.

The discussion, in a 90-minute meeting in the Cabinet Room that included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and other top administration officials, came on the eve of a much-anticipated speech Mr. Obama is to give Thursday on a number of thorny national security matters, including his promise to close the detention center at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Human rights advocates are growing deeply uneasy with Mr. Obama’s stance on these issues, especially his recent move to block the release of photographs showing abuse of detainees, and his announcement that he is willing to try terrorism suspects in military commissions — a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.

The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.

They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about “the long game” — how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents. He raised the issue of preventive detention himself, but made clear that he had not made a decision on it. Several senior White House officials did not respond to requests for comment on the outsiders’ accounts.

“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. “The issue is,” the participant said, “What are the options left open to a future president?”

Again, this hypocrisy is blaringly obvious. I can barely stand watching the media tip-toe around the fact that this president is hardly different from his predecessor when it comes to national security policy, and every decision made in that arena takes him further away from the dominant elements of his political party.

The most comical aspect of it all is how pathetically dense his most avid supporters appear to be. This president has reaffirmed some of the most controversial decisions of the Bush Administration's national security policy, and yet hardly anyone in the Democratic party has the spine to call him out. It is clear that Democrats were simpy concerned with their own political ambitions when they trumpeted closing Gitmo and reexamining "torture"; just as they were motivated to undermine the war effort in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lucky for Barack Obama, this nation is experiencing an orgasmic love-affair with the 44th President and his family. It's no secret that the MSM is watching Obama' s back and defending him against all "non-believers." He also appears to weild a great deal of influence over the American people themselves... how else could Obama simultaneously attack the Bush Administration on the issue of Guantanamo Bay Prison, maintain Bagram air base, support military commissions, and provide for the use of detentions of suspected terrorists.

Hey Democrats, to most of us who are actually paying attention to this hypocritical show, there is egg all over the President's face. In order to avoid looking similarly stupid at some future date, you may want to actually trying saying something about it.

Detainee Rescidivism?

2009-05-22T14:36:00.000-07:00

While on the subject of Guantanamo Bay Prison and the detainees there, I think that this little article from the New York Times (of all sources), should shed some light onPresident's "Pandora's Box."

According to the New York Times, 1 in 7 freed detainees return to terrorism or "militant activity."

Holy smokes, Batman!

An unreleased Pentagon report concludes that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are engaged in terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials.
The conclusion could strengthen the arguments of critics who have warned against the transfer or release of any more detainees as part of President Obama’s plan to shut down the prison by January. Past Pentagon reports on Guantánamo recidivism have been met with skepticism from civil liberties groups and criticized for their lack of detail.
The Pentagon promised in January that the latest report would be released soon, but Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said this week that the findings were still “under review.”
Two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the report was being held up by Defense Department employees fearful of upsetting the White House, at a time when even Congressional Democrats have begun to show misgivings over Mr. Obama’s plan to close Guantánamo.

Isn't surprising that the report is still "under review;" I suspect it will remain that way for a while.

This report is just another indication that this Guantanamo mess is a major debacle for the President and his spineless Democratic minions in Congress. Democrats can try to argue that the reason for the rescidivism of the detainees is because of the poor treament/torture etc. of the Bush Administration, but anyone knows that no matter what, the President now owns this issue. If he fails now, it will be blamed on him.

If Democrats had some spine and some brains, they would side with Obama. The last thing that the President needs is to be standing alone with this hot potato.

BOOM: A "Pandora's Box" for Obama

2009-05-22T13:26:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden has to be the most daft Vice-President that this nation has ever seen. Before Biden, the country often assigned that title to the "potatoe-writing" Vice-President, Dan Quayle. Now everything is different, now we have Biden.

While Dan Quayle may have experienced difficulty spelling properly, Biden suffers from an infinitely worse malady- the guy can't shut his trap! If he isn't offending the handicapped (it appears both our President and Vice-President struggle with that one), he is either divulging state secrets, alienating world leaders, or severely angering the US travel industry. It's an understatement to call this guy the "Gaffe Machine," more appropriately, he is a mass-producer of gaffes complete with an assembly line. Day after day Joe Biden is making the President's job even harder because of his uncontrolled logorrhea.

Well here is Joe once again, saying it like it is. During his tour of the Balkans, Joe Biden, when asked about the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Prison, compared the decision to "opening Pandora's Box."

And as observed by the UK Telegraph, "he basically just confirmed his predecessor Dick Cheney's analysis that the decision was taken 'with little deliberation, and no plan'." Not even 24 hours after Cheney's little speech... nice one, Joe!

From Newsweek:

Speaking to reporters on the final day of his tour of the Balkans, Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged the administration still hasn’t figured out what to do with all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay but predicted that it will still meet its deadline of closing the prison within a year. “I think so,” Biden said, when asked about the January 2010 deadline. “But, look, what the president said is that this is going to be hard. It’s like opening Pandora’s Box. We don’t know what’s inside the box.”

President Obama took the time to publicly refute former Vice-President Dick Cheney's claim that the Obama Administration didn't have a concrete plan of action on the future of the Guantanamo detainees. And what took Obama months to build here, has been toppled by his dunce of a VP. Isn't it funny that conservatives were bothered by John McCain's public condemnation of waterboarding just after Cheney's speech, but within a mere few hours, Joe Biden would settle the score and eclipse McCain.

Come on Barry, we all love Joe Biden, he is like the White House parrot who tells us all what's really going on. Undoubtedly, every time that Joe Biden opens his mouth, it's as if a political Pandora's Box is being unleashed on President Obama. And what a comical spectacle it is!

If anyone had any doubts that Cheney was right about the President's lack of a plan for Gitmo, it should all be crystal-clear now.

Obama to Apologize in Dresden?

2009-05-21T22:18:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of speculation, but I am going to agree with a number of conservative bloggers and call it: Obama is going to apologize to the German people for the Dresden Bombings on the 65th Anniversary of the Allies' invasion of Normandy on D-Day.

A French blog, No Pasaran! has a nice little discussion of Obama's scheduled trip to Germany and the potential for his speech in Dresden:

The latest German reports suggest Obama’s principal German destination will be Dresden. …

The symbolic significance of a visit to Dresden by the American president — especially one undertaken in connection with a D-Day commemoration in France — may be missed by some Americans, but it is absolutely unmistakable for the German public. For Germans, Dresden is the symbol bar none of German suffering at the hands of the Allies. … The bombing of Dresden is commonly described as a “war crime” in German discussions.

Alleged crimes committed by the Allies against Germans and Germany have indeed become a sort of German literary obsession in recent years, with numerous books being devoted to the subject. … The rhetoric employed by [Jörg Friedrich] went so far as to suggest an equivalence between the Allied bombing of German cities and the genocidal conduct of Nazi Germany itself.

As a result of the passions provoked or released by Friedrich’s book, the expression “Bombing-Holocaust” has passed into the German lexicon. Although especially favored by so-called “extreme right” circles (i.e., more-or-less openly neo-Nazi ones), the term merely expresses what is implicit in ostensibly more mainstream discourse.

It is virtually unthinkable that Obama could give a speech in Dresden and not allude to the bombing of the city. … Moreover, for Obama to visit both Dresden and Buchenwald would suggest precisely the sort of outrageous parallels that have become commonplace in Germany at least since the publication of Friedrich’s The Fire.

…As bizarre as it may seem, President Obama’s impending trip to Dresden suggests that German revisionists [of “Roosevelt’s war”] have a friend in the White House.

Is Obama audacious enough to do it? I wouldn't put it past him. While no one should argue that the Dresden Bombings were "nice," but apologizing for them on the 65th Anniversary of the D-Day Invasion? INAPPROPRIATE!

To be honest, I don't think Obama has any reason to make any sort of apology at all. The Free World was at risk of being taken over by fascism and imperialism, and both the United States and the United Kingdom were struggling financially, which largely affected the war effort in both places. Without the crippling effects of the Dresden Bombings and the Atomic Bombings of Japan, I seriously suspect that thousands more American servicemen would have lost their lives, and that the war could have turned out differently. Altogether, I don't feel that we should juudge the Allies too harshly; we have never had to sacrifice the way they did, and we have never been forced to stand against the kind of dangers they faced.

Not only was World War II more than sixty years ago, but at the time, Germany was an uber-nationalistic, fascist state with a murderous tyrant as Fuhrer... Considering the horrible human rights violations at the time, the bombings of Dresden doesn't really stand out as much as other events of the period...

I think anyone with half a shred of decency and patriotism would be outraged by such a speech. And as I said before, the most appalling aspect would be its timing. I just think it would be better not to spit in the face of the Greatest Generation.

Who knows, maybe Obama won't so much as hint to the Bombing of Dresden... but then again, I don't trust him. As I understand it, Dresden is a symbol to the Germans of the aggression of the Allies... just as New York City is the symbol of terrorist fanaticism. Whatever the case, I predict that Obama is going to make an apology and the world will love him for it.

Steven Crowder on Pelosi and Waterboarding

2009-05-21T22:06:00.000-07:00

If you haven't already checked him out, Steven Crowder is quickly making a name for himself as quite possibly the funniest, conservative Canadian-American ever. I have been a subscriber to his YouTube channel for months now, and he never seems to get dull.

Well, his latest video is a pleasure to watch, especially the waterboarding of Nancy Pelosi (oops, I spoiled it)...

Check out Steven Crowder's latest here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr56_qxmejQ

SCARY: Plot to Bomb NY Synagogues

2009-05-21T15:29:00.000-07:00

I love how many Americans underestimate and even purposefully avoid the dangers posed by radical terrorists. But this story should concern any citizen who values his/her life and safety.

From NBC NewYork:

Four New York men were arrested Wednesday in connection with an alleged plot to blow up area Jewish centers and military targets. The plot, however, was foiled by undercover agents.

Raids by the FBI-NYPD Joint Terrorist Task Force in the Bronx captured the suspected ringleader and three followers in what law enforcement sources are calling a homegrown terrorist plot.
"The NYPD did exactly what they're trained to do and have prevented what could have been a terrible event in our city," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this morning.

Agents and police watched Wednesday night as the suspects allegedly planted what they thought were bombs outside two Jewish community centers in Riverdale, a Bronx, New York neighborhood. In one case the suspected terrorists planted a bomb inside a parked car. However, officials said the suspects were actually using fake explosives given to them in an earlier sting operation to make sure they didn't get their hands on real bombs.

"The bombs had been made by the FBI technicians, they were totally inert, no one was ever at risk," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.

The four suspects were identified as James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen, of Newburgh in upstate New York, where authorities were conducting raids at their homes, sources said.

Authorities said they had the plotters under surveillance since June of 2008 and there was "no chance" the alleged scheme could succeed. They credited the work of a long time informant with keeping tabs on the group.

The FBI said the Muslim suspects were angry and full of hate for America.

"Hatred of the West. The leader of the group, James Cromitie was concerned about deaths at the hands of the U.S. military in Afghanistan," and also expressed anti-Jewish sentiment, Joseph Demarest the head of the New York FBI said.
According to the criminal complaint, Cromitie said "I hate those f-ing Jewish bastards." He bragged that it would be a "piece of cake" to bomb a Jewish Center in Riverdale, according to the complaint.

He said his father lives in Afghanistan and he was upset about U.S. military presence there.

"The fact that this type of hatred exists means that we all have to be vigilant all of the time," city councilman Jeffrey Dinowitz said Thursday.

Cromitie was the first to approach the informant, authorities said. He told the informant he has ties to the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad. Authorities said Cromitie had 27 past arrests and had recently been working at a nation-wide discount retailer, authorities said.

Several of the suspects have previously been arrested on drug charges and may have converted to Islam in prison, authorities said.

While these guys were most certainly not of the same caliber as hardcore Al Qaeda terrorists, their radicalization, anti-Semitism, and hatred for the West should remind all of us that terrorism doesn't just pertain to the Middle East and/or foreigners. It affects all of us and the radical ideologies employed by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda can infect fellow Americans in the same way it does abroad.

What should also concern all Americans is the way in which some of these scumbags were radicalized. Like a lot of disaffected criminals in European countries, "several of the suspects" possibly converted to Islam in prison, and no doubt, could have accepted a more radical version of the faith while incarcerated. What should that tell the Obama Administration about trying and imprisoning the Guantanamo detainees in the US mainland?

Some of the most vulnerable members of our society are ethnically diverse and often have a criminal record. The possibility that they will be infected and radicalized by a hateful ideology should not be ignored.

There is another aspect that I think is important to discuss.

From CBS 2 HD:

[HEADLINE] NYPD Commissioner: The Men Were 'Criminals, Acting Alone'

And according to Raymond Kelly in the New York Times:

"They stated that they wanted to commit jihad. They were disturbed about what was happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that Muslims were being killed. They were making statements that Jews were killed in this attack and that would be all right — that sort of thing.”

SorryCommissioner, but these guys weren't just "criminals acting alone," regardless of their lack of sophistication. They were acting in league, albeit indirectly, with the toxic takfiri ideology which permeates from terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Why the reluctance to call them terrorists, these men aren't just criminals- a criminal is someone who jacks a car or deals drugs.

These men were motivated by a radical relgious ideology which compelled them to desire the death of Americans and the destruction of the entire country. Why not call a spade a spade and label these thugs as TERRORISTS? What is the difference between the motivation to destroy the World Trade Center on September 11th and the motivation to bomb a couple of synagogues and attack American aircraft? The major difference I see is that these guys were far less sophisticated and entrenched than the Al Qaeda operatives who attacked the Twin Towers. The hatred is the same, the ideology is the same- the difference here is the sophistication. I find it horribly ironic that in this country we are willing to federally prosecute Americans on behalf of a "hate crime," yet many officials, especially within the Obama Administration, seem incapable of referring to terrorists as such... again, they are not simply criminals, these men are terrorists.

EXTRA: SYNAGOGUE BOMBINGS IN ARGENTINA ON MONDAY

BOOM: Gallup's Take on Speaker Pelosi

2009-05-21T14:55:00.000-07:00

Recently Richard Warnick from OneUtah cited a Rasmussen poll which indicated that more Americans believed that the CIA may have misled the Speaker of the House than not.

Nevertheless, this morning I saw another poll (and I think Richard and I would both agree that this particular polling company is a little more credible), which clearly demonstrates that more Americans disapprove of Nancy Pelosi's handling of the interrogation matter, than the CIA's. While it is true that the Rasmussen poll was worded differently, it surely absorbes the controversy itself and indicates that more people believe that Pelosi is to blame here.

From Gallup.com:

More Americans disapprove than approve of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's handling of the matter concerning the government's use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects. Majorities approve of President Barack Obama's and the CIA's handling of the matter.

Sorry, but this deserves another BOOM from me.

Best Places to Stand in Northern Utah

2009-05-21T13:29:00.000-07:00

In response to a post at http://www.kvnuforthepeople.com, titled: "Where are the 'Best Places' to Stand in Northern Utah?"

Here are my three:

1. End of the Wind Caves Trail (Logan Canyon)
2. Top of the Kentucky Fried Penguin wall climb (Logan Canyon)
3. In Front of Beto's on a Late Night

1. Wind Caves

2. Top of the Kentucky Fried Penguin

3. Beto's (Nothing is so comforting as standing in front of Beto's on a late Saturday night, seeing the glorious structure illuminated, and experiencing the powerful odors of Mexican goodness wafting through the air)

(That's my best-friend, Mitch, on the right; check out his blog @ http://abriefnote.blogspot.com/... unfortunately he is of the "liberal persuasion," but we are working on that!)

SCARY: Iran Successfully Tests Sejil-2

2009-05-20T13:37:00.000-07:00

According to sources within Iran, the country has successfully tested surface-to-surface missiles. The missile is a Sejil-2, and apparently has a "range of 2,000 kilometers."

From VOA News:

Iran's state media says the country has successfully test launched a mid-range surface-to-surface missile that can reach Israel, southeastern Europe and U.S. bases in the Middle East.

Iranian government TV showed what it said was the test-firing of the Sejil-2, which it says has a range of 2,000 kilometers.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad also commented on the test-firing of the two-stage missile during a campaign speech in the northern town of Semnan.

The crowd of several thousand Ahmedinejad supporters cheered as the president described the launch.

He says that Iran's Defense Minister informed him of the launch, and he claims that the missile is able to go beyond the atmosphere before coming back to hit its target.

I try not to be too much of an alarmist when it comes to foreign threats (I was truly humbled by our experiences with Iraq), but Iran scares me, and I think anyone with a little bit of sense should feel the same way.

Even the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, just today warned members of Congress that Iran's nuclear capabilities are something to watch out for.

"A nuclear-armed Iran with a deliverable weapons system is going to spark an arms race in the Middle East and the greater region. That is not going to be in the interests of Iranian security and we believe that we have a very strong case to make for that."

"The president made it clear that he is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons with all of the consequences that that would entail. But at the same time we cannot wait on the Palestinian-Israeli efforts regarding peace. So we think they have to proceed simultaneously."

I agree wholeheartedly with Clinton, but for some reason, I have a difficult time trusting President Obama's "committment" to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. While it may seem like pure semantics, Clinton's choice of words, "obtaining nuclear weapons," seems misleading. The danger that Iran is posing the rest of the region and even the world is the capability to develop nuclear weapons.

The US cannot afford to keep tabs on another nuclear wild card; we already have to deal with a volatile Pakistan and the chance that nuclear material could end up in the hands of terrorists and/or insurgents.

Whether or not the US does something concrete, if pressured to do so by extraneous circumstances, Israel with undoubtedly do the job. I don't believe all this talk that Israel would refrain from a preemptive strike if compelled to do so. I do agree, however, that if such actions were taken against Iran, it would most certainly mean "big trouble" in the Middle East.

I just hope this President can see that this is a disaster waiting to happen, and he cannot afford to soft pedal this issue.

Fred Malek: Romney to Lead in 2012

2009-05-20T10:45:00.000-07:00

Fred Malek, who is a longtime Republican fundraiser and member of the McCain campaign, has said that Mitt Romney is the best possible choice for a GOP bid in 2012; and can lead the Republican party towards recovery.

According to Malek:

Mitt Romney — The almost-nominee with the established organization, fundraising network, time, and talent to get the nomination this time. He does retain an image problem with some Republicans, who are not sold on his conservative credentials or upset with him for changing his emphasis of issues from his time as governor to presidential candidate. But he is self-aware and very smart. I believe he will start reintroducing himself early on, and possibly be in the best position when the serious campaigning begins in early 2011.

The rest of the list includes names like Gov. Mark Sanford, Gov. Haley Barbour, and even Vice-President Cheney!

I had previously left the Republican party and registered as an "Independent" when I heard Mitt Romney was considering the Republican ticket for president a few years ago. Romney's bid for president caused me to re-register as a Republican and get excited about the GOP again. I seriously hope that Romney runs in 2012, and despite the smug confidence of the Democratic herd, I feel that Romney has a better shot than anyone else.

BOOM: Harry Reid's Fabulous Contradiction

2009-05-20T04:34:00.000-07:00

While Democrats are marching off to slay financial dragons like "abusive" credit card companies and "big banks," they still can't seem to adequately articulate the fate of detainees at Guantanamo Bay Prison. Instead, like many other pressing national security concerns, Congressional Democrats would rather neglect the issue entirely, hoping that it may somehow disappear. After all, Senate Democrats have completely vacillated on Gitmo's funding (S

1054).

And what makes this episode even more enjoyable to watch is the ridiculous cast of players, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) taking centerstage.

Just yesterday when asked about the future for Gitmo detainees, Reid essentially said that not only is he strongly in favor of closing the prison down, but that he is firmly against "releasing" terrorists in the United States (throughout the interview, the Senator appeared to be terribly confused by the difference between the words "release" and "imprison," and used them interchangeably).

From CQ Politics:

Questions?

QUESTION: (inaudible)

REID: Change course on what?

QUESTION: On funding the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

REID: Well, the decision to close Guantanamo was a right one.

I agree with President Bush. I agree with John McCain . I agree with Barack Obama . Guantanamo makes us less save.

However, this is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this. Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

REID: No, I really don’t think so.

We have -- of course, coming in July, there’s going to be a study that will be put forth on detainees -- what should be done in that regard. The president knew that was coming.

REID: I think this is a very -- the thing that we did is waiting for the plan from the president. He didn’t hold us out to dry at all -- hang us out to dry, not at all.

QUESTION: If the United States -- if the United States thinks that these people should be held, why shouldn’t they be held in the United States? Why shouldn’t the U.S. take those risks, the attendant risk of holding them, since it’s the one that says they should be held?

REID: I think there’s a general feeling, as I’ve already said, that the American people, and certainly the Senate, overwhelmingly doesn’t want terrorists to be released in the United States. And I think we’re going to stick with that.

QUESTION: What about in imprisoned in the United States?

REID: If you’re...

(CROSSTALK)

REID: If people are -- if terrorists are released in the United States, part of what we don’t want is them be put in prisons in the United States. We don’t want them around the United States.

QUESTION: Senator Reid, what changed between today’s action and the position the committee had last week?

REID: Well, in looking at the position of the House, that was more logical.

We -- we have clearly said all along that we wanted a plan. We don’t have a plan. And based on that, there’s no -- this is not the bill to deal with this.

We have a lot of other pieces of legislation moving through here in the next couple of months and we can take care of it then. Or -- we’re only talking about four months. October 1st, that’s how long this bill has to go.

QUESTION: Senator Reid, I understand you...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... I understand you had a conversation with the White House today in which you informed them of this decision. Can you tell us what the reaction is? And then -- well, I’ll let you...

REID: Of course, I don’t discuss conversations I’ve had with the White House, and I’m not going to discuss this conversation.

QUESTION: Do they approve of this policy? Can you say that?

QUESTION: (inaudible) you said this before, you don’t want them to be -- you don’t want them around. The House position is -- the House position is to withhold -- not to have any money, but to set up a situation where they send a report (inaudible). If he sends a plan and they’re going to be around somewhere (inaudible).

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: (inaudible) say, “No.” Are you basically going further than say, “Send us a plan”?

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? I mean (OFF-MIKE).

REID: I can’t -- I can’t -- I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States. I think the majority -- I speak for the majority of the Senate.

QUESTION: But you don’t want to (OFF-MIKE).

REID: Only until we get the plan.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) of your position (OFF-MIKE)

REID: We’ll wait until we get the plan.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) mean that Guantanamo will remain open indefinitely (OFF-MIKE)

REID: I repeat: I agree with McCain, Bush and Obama: Guantanamo should be closed because it makes us less safe and it will be closed. We’re waiting for a plan from the president and (OFF- MIKE).

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

REID: Can’t say anything but what I’ve said, and re-said it three times. Can’t say it four times. That’s how I feel.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) because if a detainee -- if a detainee is adjudicated not to be a terrorist, could that detainee then enter the United States?

REID: Why don’t we wait for a plan from the president? All we’re doing now is nitpicking on language that I have given you. I’ve been as clear as I can. I think I’ve been pretty clear.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) what have you heard about (OFF-MIKE)

REID: What you want me to be is not very clear.

QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say -- would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?

REID: Not in the United States.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

REID: I think I’ve had about enough of this.

Senator Reid has most certainly experienced his finest moment explaining the Guatanamo Bay controversy. Isn't it obvious? Neither the Senator nor the President himself has any plan for the detainees being held at Guantanamo. Instead of formulating anything comprehensive beforehand, President Obama and the Democrat horde decided to rush into the thick of the problem headfirst. Guantanamo, unlike Bagram air base or other foreign detention facilities, was a major symbol to the Left. And it was only natural that Democrats enthusiastically rallied to shut the prison down after Obama won the presidency.

Yet without taking the necessary precautions, Democrats like Reid are finding themselves in their own little quagmire (sorry, couldn't resist). Sending the detainees to American prisons would be highly unpopular with the American public, and worse still, if a detainee were to be deemed "innocent" and released inside the country, the public backlash would be intensely felt.

Therefore, without a plan and without funding, Democrats are clutching a seriously hot potato. This is one issue which I believe Republicans can milk for all it is worth; the GOP should step away from the usual banter, and latch onto Gitmo and refuse to let go. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if the Majority Leader is feeling some heat from back home, where he faces a potentially difficult re-election.

Democrats are being tremendously shortsighted with their treatment of Guantanamo, and I don't think that most Americans are going to be fooled by Reid's foolish contradictions.

UPDATE: CLOSING GITMO "EASIER SAID THAN DONE"

BOOM: Princess, You Played and LOST!

2009-05-15T14:14:00.001-07:00

There is nothing more entertaining than watching a politician squirm when he or she has been cornered.

Throughout history, dishonesty has rightfully been the trademark of a successful politician. We all know that they lie through their teeth and are rarely held accountable, but when a slippery lawmaker actually does get caught, it fills most Americans with bitter satisfaction. Nevertheless, what makes it even more entertaining is the fact that most politicians will do almost anything to resist the full liability of their actions; from Nixon to Clinton, this tendency runs rampant in American politics. Yet eventually, the truth comes out. And the more maneuvering that the individual attempts, the more isolated and guilty they appear.

Much to the chagrin of Democrats, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has managed to not only look like a complete fool because of her outright lies, but her own media maneuvering has landed her in some hot water.

The drama all began when the public began learning about the Speaker's previous knowledge of enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding; some claim that Pelosi could have known about waterboarding as early as 2002. Particularly, as Pelosi tried to manage a controversy with Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the Speaker ultimately cast doubt upon herself.

Washington Times:

The CIA briefed top Democrats and Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees more than 30 times about enhanced interrogation techniques, according to intelligence sources who said the lawmakers tacitly approved the techniques that some Democrats in Congress now say should land Bush administration officials in jail.
Between 2002 and 2006, the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees "each got complete, benchmark briefings on the program," said one of the intelligence sources who is familiar with the briefings.
"If Congress wanted to kill this program, all it had to do was withhold funding," said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the closed-door briefings.
Those who were briefed included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Rep. Jane Harman of California, all Democrats, and Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, all Republicans.
The Democratic and Republican staff directors for both committees also were briefed, according to the intelligence source and to a declassified memo released Wednesday that detailed some of the Senate committee briefings.

The Speaker has been frantically trying to vindicate herself of all wrongdoing as Democrats in Congress and the White House ponder whether to try Bush Administration officials for alleged torture abuses. Yet the more she tries to weasel her way out of the controversy, the more guilty she looks.

Recently, Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein even had the audacity of accusing the CIA of lying about the briefings that certain Congressional members received. But unsurprisingly, Leon Panetta has refuted the Speaker's claims.

From USA Today:

CIA Director Leon Panetta has weighed in on the heated detainee debate, saying that the agency was truthful when it briefed lawmakers on interrogation tactics in 2002.

"Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened," Panetta said in a memo to agents, entitled "Turning Down the Volume."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set off a firestormThursday when she accused the agency of misleading Congress about the use of waterboarding.

The California Democrat has been under attack from Republicans, who have argued that congressional Democrats long knew about harsh interrogation tactics, such as waterboarding. Pelosi has condemned waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

Panetta said said it is not CIA "policy or practice to mislead Congress" and told agents to "ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission."

Panetta defended himself and the CIA further by sending this note to reporters:

"Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."

While one can't believe everything that comes from the intelligence community, I think that it's obvious who is lying here. Typical of a self-centered politician, Speaker Pelosi has placed her own political career ahead of the interests and security of the nation. And no matter how much she tries to resist, the public will come to the conclusion that the Speaker of the House is a hypocrite.

How ironic that in the midst of a torture witch-hunt, one of the most rabid instigators, the Speaker of the House herself, is guilty of knowing about enhanced interrogations for more than five years. Obviously Pelosi was playing a smart political game in 2003 by mirroring the mood of the American public and not standing in the way of interrogating suspected terrorists. Now that mood has changed, however she is most certainly regretting her past complacency (much like Hillary Clinton's Iraq War decision).

Finally, D. Ignatius has an exceptional piece on Pelosi's decision to compromise the welfare of this country for her own political gain:

It has been the nightmare scenario ever since the modern system of congressional oversight of intelligence was created in the late 1970s: When a scandal erupts, a member of congress will put his (or her) political interests above those of the intelligence agency whose secrets he (or she) has sworn to protect.

That’s what’s so troubling about the campaign for self-vindication that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been waging. To escape from the charge that she was briefed about -- and implicitly condoned -- interrogation methods that she now calls torture, Pelosi is accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of lying. And not just the Bush-era CIA, mind you, but the Obama CIA as well.

I predict that Nancy Pelosi is going to self-destruct. As Ignatius points out, she is not only waging a war against the former administration, but against Obama's CIA. It is a war she cannot win, and the more she struggles for her own vindication, the harder she will fall.

Give up, Princess... you played and you LOST!

UPDATE: READ PANETTA'S MEMO HERE.

Danger to America: Here We Go Again

2009-05-15T12:56:00.001-07:00

For some time now, I have been spouting off about the potential release of photos of detainees/prisoners being interrogated and tortured. And not long ago, I expressed my relief that the Obama Administration chose not to release the pictures, as it would inevitably fuel anti-Americanism and endanger American servicemen/women.

Yet as Richard Warnick pointed out, some of these photos are already being released.

I can't help but wonder if the President decided against releasing these photos at the last minute, precisely because he knew that they would surface anyway and somewhat satisfy the Left. And if some kind of response to the photos did actually take place, the President wouldn't risk being called out for endangering the lives of Americans. I really don't know whether or not the President knew, but it still worries me for the safety of Americans abroad. Thankfully Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has experienced a serious decline in power and influence, yet with the Taliban radicalizing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I continue to fear for Westerners; the last thing I want to see is another person beheaded by these types. And with the Taliban already exploding in the region, I see these photos as just another catalyst for a widespread insurgency. Just remember the pictures taken of prisoners in 2006.

But what can be done?

Check out the story on the photos here.

Hat tip to rmwarnick.

Annoyance to America: Brainless Reviews

2009-05-15T12:21:00.000-07:00

I will be adding another "Danger to America" post shortly, but before that, I feel inclined to mention something which has been bothering me for weeks. It isn't anything grandiose or shocking, but it's an annoyance which I frequently encounter when reading film reviews.

I love movies, and naturally, one of my favorite things to do is watch films with my wife and afterwards, compare notes; essentially, I attempt to articulate my own review. Well, our little film discussions often lead me to refer to review sites like IMBD and RottenTomatoes, where countless movie reviews are provided from the very best critics.

While scanning through the reviews, I frequently come across the word "brainless," which is used over and over again to describe a popular yet intellectually dull film. From Star Trek to Taken, from 16 Blocks to Bedtime Stories, film critics can't seem to get more creative than the term "brainless." Are they right about a particular film like 16 Blocks being brainless? Yeah, they often are. But seriously, where's the genius behind using an adjective like "brainless" over and over again? It's obnoxious, and I purposefully avoid reviews from haughty critics who have an obsessive addiction to the term. In fact, I think most of these critics who use "brainless" to describe each and every film, secretly enjoy the "brainless" action sequences or "brainless" love-stories... but hate feeling in-step with the "brainless" masses.

Come on critics, let's dig a little deeper for a more uncommon word! Whether a movie is "brainless," "mindless," or "heartless," it does display a little irony that you can't seem to conjure up a better term. Until then, we will endure every popular movie being branded as "brainless" by the film elites, which is truly, an annoyance to America.

Obama Plans to Remake Military Tribunals

2009-05-15T04:23:00.000-07:00

This just in from ABC News:

White House sources tell ABC News that President Obama will reinstate military commission trials for detainees, with more rights for defendants than the previous administration's commissions afforded.

Another option for the prosecution of detainees will be trials in the US justice system under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, as seen with the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who on April 30 pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.

The administration will formally announce the plan for prosecutions Friday. Other detainees could be placed in the custody of other countries.

The Obama administration will seek series of administrative changes tomorrow, which are subject to 60 days of congressional review The White House will also seek additional reforms through Congress -- though what those will be are not entirely clear yet. A Detention Policy Task Force – co-chaired by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder – was set up by executive order in January 2009 to review policy options on detention for future, and that task force will work on details, consulting with Congress

I am happy to hear that the President isn't against military tribunals, but his "plans" for the detainees are anything but coherant. As much as the Left enjoys to rail against the Bush Administration for alleged abuses of human rights, the current administration sure has struggled to map an alternative route.

According to many on the Left, detainments are inherantly immoral under any circumstance. Yet Obama's reluctance to truly define detainees as anything more is an indication that fighting globalized terrorist organizations and insurgencies requires a different approach than the conventional big-war paradigm. What do you do with terrorists? What are the legal rights that suspected terrorists and/or insurgents have? Once convicted, where do we put them? These are questions that the Bush Adminstration attempted to answer (and in most cases, did so poorly), and the Obama Administration is currently grappling with.

Obama Decides Against Photo Release

2009-05-13T16:33:00.001-07:00

I have been increasingly "alarmed" at the way in which the Obama Administration has been capitulating to the extreme Left on issues like torture and national security. But almost predictably, President Obama has decided against releasing photos of detainees and their interrogators; this decision joining a number of others which are reminiscent of Bush Administration policies.

From Reuters:

In a reversal, President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he would fight the release of dozens of photographs showing the abuse of terrorism suspects, over concern the images could ignite a backlash against U.S. troops.

The decision was a blow to some liberals in Obama's Democratic Party who see the photos as part of a broader effort to investigate Bush-era officials and cleanse America's image abroad.

Just last month the Obama administration had said it would comply with a court order to release the pictures by May 28, saying legal options for appealing the case had been limited.

But Obama shifted gears after senior military commanders and some members of Congress expressed misgivings about the potential for the photos to generate violence against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama defended his decision, saying publication of the photographs "would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

"In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," Obama told reporters. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

I was feeling incredibly anxious over the idea of releasing these photos, and so I can't say that I'm disappointed with the President.

As mentioned above, it marks yet another Obama decision that smacks of the former administration. Whether it's FISA, state secrets, extraordinary rendition, and detentions (Bagram Air Base), the Obama Administration appears to be reluctant to move too far from previous White House precedents.

Obama Goes After Tax Dodgers

2009-05-04T23:06:00.000-07:00

How ironic that President Obama is targeting "tax dodgers" when a number of high-ranking members of his cabinet have similar problems paying up. With Kathleen Sebelius admitting making some "unintentional errors," that makes more than a handful of tax cheats who are close to the President. Again, what irony!

From WaPo:

President Obama yesterday announced a major offensive against businesses and wealthy individuals who avoid U.S. taxes by parking cash overseas, a battle he said would be fought with new tax laws, new reporting requirements and an army of 800 new IRS agents.

During an event at the White House, Obama said his proposal would raise $210 billion over the next decade and make good on his campaign pledge to eliminate tax advantages for companies that ship jobs abroad.

"I want to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens," Obama said, flanked by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman.

The nation's largest business groups immediately assailed the proposal, arguing that it would subject them to far higher taxes than their foreign competitors must pay and ultimately endanger U.S. jobs. Key Democrats were cool to the plan, and said Obama's ideas should be considered as part of a broader effort to streamline the nation's complex corporate tax code.

"Further study is needed to assess the impact of this plan on U.S. businesses," Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over U.S. tax law, said in a written statement. "I want to make certain that our tax policies are fair and support the global competitiveness of U.S. businesses."

The Obama Administration is gradually tightening its stranglehold on international corporations, which means that it's more likely that competitive companies will leave the United States in order to find a more "business-friendly" environment; after all, such proposals indefinitely go hand-in-hand with corporate tax hikes.

Of course the Cato Institute couldn't stay silent on the "tax havens" issue:

Those who demand increased taxes on global capital often rail against financial privacy and bank secrecy — forgetting they are necessary for civil society. It is true that not all people are saintly. But it is also true that not all governments are free from tyranny and corruption, and not all people are fully protected against criminal elements, even within their own governments. Without some jurisdictions in the world enforcing reasonable rights of financial privacy, those living in un-free and corrupt jurisdictions would have no place to protect their financial assets from kidnappers, extortionists, blackmailers and assorted government and nongovernment thugs.

It is a fool's errand to pass ever more laws against things that are already illegal, or to pass laws against people trying to protect themselves from rapacious and corrupt governments. Despite the hundreds of local, state and federal laws against financial fraud, and financial regulatory authorities like the SEC, Bernie Madoff was able to conduct the biggest ever Ponzi scheme for decades.

If international corporations already don't have enough of a reason to do business elsewhere.

Michael Scheuer Takes Off the Gloves

2009-04-28T21:58:00.000-07:00

Michael Scheuer, a former CIA chief, just recently unleashed some rhetorical hellfire about the President's pursuance of the torture "memos farce."

Scheuer's intensity is surprising, even for him.

From WaPo:

Americans should be clear on what Obama has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their "moral compass," a compliment similar to Attorney General Eric Holder's identifying them as "moral cowards." Mulling Obama's claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens? Or, asked another way, is it moral for the president of the United States to abandon intelligence tools that have saved the lives and property of Americans and their allies in favor of his own ideological beliefs?

...
Next, the president used his personal popularity and the stature of his office to implicitly identify as liars those former senior U.S. officials who know -- not "argue" or "contend" or "assert" but know -- that the interrogation techniques have yielded intelligence essential to the nation's defense. The integrity, intellect and reputations of Judge Michael Mukasey, Gen. Michael V. Hayden and others have now been besmirched by Obama because their realistic worldview and firsthand experience do not mesh with the president's desire to install his personal "moral compass" as the core of U.S. foreign and defense policy. And after visiting CIA headquarters last week, the president made it clear that he rejected statements surely made by CIA officers who risked their careers to tell him how many successful covert operations against al-Qaeda have flowed from interrogation information. As with all Jacobins, Obama cannot allow a hard and often brutal reality -- call it an inconvenient truth -- to impinge on his view of how the world should and must be made to work.

Read the entire article here.

Wow.

KSM was NOT Waterboarded 183 Times

2009-04-28T19:24:00.000-07:00

Apparently the New York Times somehow became confused about how many times Khalid Sheikh Mohommed was actually waterboarded by interrogators. As it turns out, what the New York Times was trying to say was that during a number of sessions, Khalid Sheikh Mohommed received 183 pours of water. As far as we know, the CIA has confirmed the waterboarding of three individuals: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and Abu Zubaydah.

Instead of checking their facts, New York Times and countless other media groups published that KSM was waterboarded 183 times. Fox News, however, revealed that the number was completely wrong, if not impossible. According to both a U.S. official and the Red Cross, KSM and Abu Zubaydah were waterboarded multiple times, but nowhere near the number the New York Times was reporting.

Instead, it was explained that KSM received "183 pours" of water while being waterboarded, some for merely a couple seconds.

From Fox News:

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."
"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."
The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times.
The confusion stems from language in the Justice Department legal memos that President Obama released on April 16. They contain the numbers, but they fail to explain exactly what they represent.

Why am I not surprised? Perhaps some on the Left got a little too excited during their Bush Administration witch-hunt, and offered something entirely false.

We shall see what comes of this. Already many on the Left are lining up to discredit the article If the numbers turn out to be bogus, it will be hilarious to see the New York Times scramble to protect itself. because of the "anonymous source" (I wonder if they would have objected to the anonymous sources in the Watergate scandal).

Obama to Release Abuse Photos?

2009-04-26T01:32:00.001-07:00

I remember well the day that the abuse photos from Abu Ghraib were released. Not only was I shocked and angry, but I felt deeply betrayed. How could American soldiers be so irresponsible and cruel? Throughout the world, those pictures inspired indignation similar to my own. And for many, the pictures fueled existing anti-Americanism and hatred for the West.

Later that year I would be living in Brazil's Nordeste region; a remote area far removed from the ever-changing world of the average American. While most people I talked to had little understanding of the war itself, they were very familiar with the tales of abuse coming from Iraq. Television is a fundamental component of any Brazilian household, and the pictures from Abu Ghraib were constantly being aired by the various broadcasting stations. Because of those pictures, many of my Brazilian friends and associates were convinced that American soldiers in Iraq were systematically abusing Iraqis in such a manner.

I am sure that these and similar revelations of abuse increased the level of anti-Americanism in South American countries like Brazil. In the space of two years I witnessed a number of protests and flag-burnings, and more than once I felt that I was in physical danger on account of my nationality. It is clear to me that the Abu Ghraib affair did much to inflame the already existing ire of millions of people around the world, even in the most remote locations of Brazil.

It is shocking to me, therefore, to see the President of the United States agree to release other photos of abuse taken in Iraq and Afghanistan.

L.A. Times:

The Obama administration agreed late Thursday to release dozens of photographs depicting alleged abuses at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush White House.

The decision will make public for the first time photos obtained in military investigations at facilities other than the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Forty-four photos that the American Civil Liberties Union was seeking in a court case, plus a "substantial number" of other images, will be released by May 28.

The photos, examined by Air Force and Army criminal investigators, are apparently not as shocking as those taken at Abu Ghraib, which became a symbol of U.S. mistakes in Iraq. But Defense Department officials nevertheless are concerned that the release could incite another backlash in the Middle East.

Some of the photos show U.S. service members intimidating or threatening detainees by pointing weapons at them, according to officials who have seen them. Military officers have been court-martialed for threatening detainees at gunpoint.

We must ask ourselves if the cure is more harmful than the disease. The issue at hand is not the abuse itself, but whether or not it is wise to release these photos. Surely there are many throughout the world seeking redress, but we must realize that these pictures are not essential to that campaign.

I fear that this decision made by the Obama Administration is yet another result of the President's amateurism. What good does the President expect to be accomplished by physically revealing the victims and perpetrators of the abuse? While the benefits are controversial, it is undeniable that such a decision will inevitably inflame anti-American sentiment and motivate extremists throughout the world, just as with Abu Ghraib.

I for one don't want to see more Americans beheaded as a retaliation for the US treatment of prisoners. And it appears that I am not alone.

ABC News:

But some experts say the move could have a chilling effect on the CIA even beyond President Obama's decision last week to release the so-called "torture memos."

Calling the ACLU push to release the photographs "prurient" and "reprehensible," Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, tells ABC News that the Obama administration should have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

"They should have fought it all the way; if they lost, they lost," said Lowenthal, who retired from the Agency in 2005. "There's nothing to be gained from it. There's no substantive reason why those photos have to be released."

Lowenthal said the president's moves in the last week have left many in the CIA dispirited, based on "the undercurrent I've been getting from colleagues still in the building, or colleagues who have left not that long ago."

"We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they've been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong," Lowenthal says. "They don't believe they have that cover anymore." Releasing the photographs "will make it much worse," he said.

The Administration's justification for the decision is most hypocritical. In the words of Amrit Singh, an ACLU attorney, "the fact that the Obama administration opted not to seek further review is a sign that it is committed to more transparency." If the President is seeking further transparency, why was it so difficult to fulfill his promise to ensure "Sunlight before Signing" with most of his fiscal policies?

Apparently in the eyes of the President, government transparency is not required when attempting to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Yet when the safety of American civilians and servicemen are threatened, Obama is more than willing to guarantee a dangerous level of transparency.

While many may doubt it, I had high hopes for Barack Obama as the Executive. Nevertheless, each day that goes by serves as a reminder of President's inexperience and risky idealism. The world is a truly frightening place right now, and I am quickly losing faith in Barack Obama's capacity to lead this country and the rest of the free world.

Anti-Americanism is extremely potent today. Why would the President of the United States of America directly contribute to such virulent attitudes?

Danger to America: Sean Penn

2009-04-24T22:01:00.000-07:00

Only in the United States would an actor have the audacity to be a self-proclaimed champion of human rights, and at the same time, snuggle up to a third-world dictator like Hugo Chavez.

If anyone really wants to know what's wrong with the world today, they have to look no further than Sean Penn. Aside from being a Hollywood actor, Sean Penn seems to believe that he is also an expert on US foreign policy (and just about any other political issue). Therefore, when any controversial issue arises in the world of American politics or international relations, the mighty Sean Penn is somewhere to be found, sharing his "enlightened" point-of-view with just about anyone who will listen. And rest assured, no matter what the issue is, Penn will somehow blame it on the United States and/or the country's leadership.

While Penn's Left-wing activism is nothing novel for the likes of Hollywood, his juvenile crusades are pretty shocking just about anywhere else, especially when he decides to befriend a chump like Hugo Chavez.

The hypocrisy that Penn exudes is just too much to bear. First, I will not attack his association with Chavez merely on account of the man's virulent anti-Americanism. It isn't that I somehow approve of Chavez's hostility towards the US (a quality I am sure Penn finds endearing), instead it seems to me that anti-Americanism isn't something that will sufficiently aggravate some Americans, particularly those on the Left.

Aside from his hatred for the United States, Hugo Chavez is an unapologetic nationalist and a corrupt dictator, energetically oppressive to free speech and a free press. He has persecuted political opponents in a ruthless manner, has been accused of torture, secret detentions, and serious human rights abuses (oh my! wasn't it none other than Sean Penn who leveled similar accusations against President Bush and Vice-President Cheney?)... Oh, and lest I forget, Chavez is xenophobic, an anti-Semite, and professes to be a "good friend" to Osama Bin Laden.

While it may be ironic, it isn't at all surprising that Sean Penn would find a man like Hugo Chavez appealing. Not long ago, many of America's pseudo-intellectuals found themselves drawn to totalitarian regimes like the USSR and even Nazi Germany. Penn seems to follow such a tradition, which is continually reaffirmed by his idiotic praise of Hugo Chavez and other oppressive world leaders.

It seems that Sean Penn, like many of his colleagues on the Left, doesn't see anything objectionable about intolerance, hatred, corruption, censorship, or human rights abuses as long as the perpetrator is a peer on the Left.

And of course, Penn shocked no one by his gushing praise of President Obama's visit to Venezuela to meet with Hugo Chavez.

According to Penn:

“The Cheneys, down to the O'Reillys and Hannitys and Limbaughs, effectively hate the principles upon which we were founded... They are among the greatest cowards in all of American history. I applaud an American President who's tough enough ... to smile."

Well, Sean Penn, unlike those nasty conservative pundits, you are the real patriot. And what a powerful demonstration of that patriotism: warming up to a "good friend" of Osama Bin Laden, Mr. Hugo Chavez. Of course, being the foreign policy expert that you are, you are well aware that smiling is the best solution to every problem. Afterall, if it weren't for that dumb smile we all enjoyed in Fast Times as Ridgemont High, would you be the man you are today?

Danger to America: Left-wing Censorship

2009-04-24T15:26:00.000-07:00

When it comes to the climate change debate, Congressional Democrats are desperately suspicious of any dissent.

Ealier this morning, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment held a hearing discussing the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. As is customary with Congressional hearings, a panel was invited by Democrats and Republicans to address the committee and discuss the issue of climate change.

Unsurprisingly, the grand-master of the climate change movement himself, Al Gore, was invited celebrity witness." Because both parties are given the opportunity to contribute to the panel, Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) invited his own witness to the hearing, Lord Christopher Monckton. Lord Monckton once served as a science advisor to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and has been a vocal critic of Al Gore's "alarmist" tone.

Interestingly enough, despite the fact that Monckton was formally scheduled to appear before the subcommittee, Democratic leadership "rescinded" Monckton's invitation at the last minute.

My Stateline:

by Democratic leadership to testify as the "

A former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says he has been uninvited to appear before a House Energy and Commerce hearing today on global warming.
Lord Christopher Monckton told "Climate Depot" that committee Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance with former Vice President Al Gore because, according to him, they don't want "Gore humiliated" over evidence or lack of evidence about global warming.
Monckton says committee member Texas Republican Joe Barton had invited him to go head to head with Gore in testimony at the hearing on Capitol Hill.
The British scientist says when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was told that the former Vice-President had, in his words, "chickened out" and there would be no joint appearance.

Rescinding Lord Monckton's invitation to testify before the subcommittee is ridiculous and only demonstrates that Congressional Democrats are fearful of dissent when it comes to their climate change agenda. While the Left can try to disparage Lord Monckton on behalf of his lack of "climate change credentials" they must concede Al Gore has a similarly weak background on the subject. Therefore, why not allow Lord Monckton to testify? Has the Left become so dogmatic with their apocalyptic view of global warming that they feel compelled to shun dissenters?

Call it what you will, but the hostility that Congressional Democrats have towards dissenters from their absurd environmental agenda is a danger to America.

UPDATE: THE GRAND CLIMATE WIZARD LIED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ABOUT HIS FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT WITH CAP-AND-TRADE... It's funny how Republicans are always being accused of "selling-out" to corporate interests... just wait until these policies get rolling and we'll see how many Democrats can't keep their hands off of "green" companies/programs

Danger to America

2009-04-24T12:25:00.001-07:00

Over the past few months, I have been feeling incredibly uneasy about some of the decisions (or lack thereof) coming from the Obama Administration and Congress. President Obama's weak responses to North Korea and Iran shocked me, to say the least. And watching the President and members of the Congressional Black Caucus embarrass this country by meeting with Hugo Chavez and the Castro Brothers was almost too much to bear. The president has proven himself an amateur on the international stage more than once, and such revelations only serve to further convince me that this country faces some serious threats.

Therefore, I have decided to procrastinate posting my commentary on counterinsurgency tactics, and instead, write a daily "danger to America."

At first the task seemed somewhat daunting, but after witnessing the baffling absurdity of the Left for the greater part of this year, it will probably be a piece-of-cake.

More Phony Outrage from Democrats

2009-04-24T09:34:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama is approaching his first one-hundred days in office, and already he has been on the front cover of TIME magazine over twenty times, revealed his "moobs" for the Washingtonian, appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and has been declared as the "first hip president" by Politico. Simply put, Barack Hussein Obama is a media sensation that has everybody talking about him.

Ironically enough, Obama maintains popularity by capitalizing on wide-spread frustration with the previous presidential administration. By redirecting the attention of the masses to convenient political issues like torture, Obama successfully overshadows real issues like Democratic corruption with TARP funds, rising unemployment and a ballooning deficit, a nuclear Iran, and the escalating conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It's no secret that the Left has been screaming for the blood of Bush Administration officials for years, and now that they have an ally in the White House, it appears that they will finally get their way.

Predictably, President Obama has again said one thing, and done another. Earlier, the Chief-of-staff and the press-secretary both intimated that the Administration had little interest in prosecuting officials from the previous presidency. Nevertheless, directly after such statements prosecuting Bush Administration attorneys who had contributed to the legal defense of the alleged torture of detainees.

Even the author of "hope and change" can't resist capitulating to the Left in order to score some political points with his favorite constituents. were made, the President himself stated that he was "open" to Prosecuting John Yoo, Jay ByBee, or any other Bush Administration attorney is nothing more than a political escapade. Much like the closing of Guantanamo Bay Prison, President Obama is demonstrating that we would rather profess change than actually enact it. Afterall, where is the Left's outrage over Bagram Air Base and the detainees there? Why aren't party members infuriated by their Speaker's former knowledge of "enhanced interrogations?" And why isn't anyone talking about Obama's pathetic shift on the "state secrets?" Yeah, the same defense which the Bush Administration is currently being lambasted for by "experts" among the media elite.

The infamous torture memos are hardly different. Democrats are dishonestly attempting to slime their political opposition on the Right by fabricating another sensational controversy over the alleged torture of detainees by members of the military and intelligence community. The truth is, for the past eight years Democrats have been languorous cowards, too afraid to actually legislate their discrepancies with the Bush Administration. Instead of standing for their supposed "principles," the Democratic leadership was more willing to secure elections and balance itself on fluctuating opinion polls. Was a real, substantive discussion of torture ever commenced by Democrats during the Bush presidency? No, similar to the War in Iraq, Democrats are declaring themselves to be unaccountable for the evils of Bush and his henchmen.

The truth is, Democrats knew of enhanced interrogations. Where was the outrage? It was conveniently tempered until the right moment when public opinion and political strength was secured. If Democrats were serious about their convictions, they would have mounted a real campaign against torture while President Bush was still in power. Instead, we are now left with a despicable exhibition of sanctimonious outrage from Democrats inside and outside Washington.

The torture memos are merely a fraction of the Obama Administration's overall campaign to redirect the focus of the public to the "sins" of the past eight years. And to anyone with a shred of common-sense, it is nothing more than phony political ostentation. President Obama would rather stir more phony outrage and secure the allegiance of his apologists on the Left than actually open a dialogue on "torture."

If Obama is willing to release the torture memos, why not also release memos which describe how "enhanced interrogations" were tested? Why go after attorneys like John Yoo, and instead identify where the law was broken in the first place? Furthermore, challenge the defense in a court of law! This "investigation" amounts to little more than a partisan witch-hunt, as the Adminstration searches for scapegoats to sacrifice to angry constituencies on the Left.

(NOTE: examine S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006)

The Defense Budget

2009-04-12T12:55:00.000-07:00

I have always had a lot of respect for Robert Gates, and I feel that he is doing a fantastic job as the US Secretary of Defense.

The latest defense budget has rallied his critics, but it has also garnered a lot of support from those with serious defense cred.

I have yet to write a post on my feelings on the subject, but I can say now that for the most part, I feel that the new defense budget is a step in the right direction. Those who proudly brand themselves as "fiscal conservatives" need top acknowledge that even defense has plenty of room to "trim the fat" and that government efficiency should be demanded from every sector of government.

Fareed Zakaria has written an enlightening article on the subject in Newsweek:

In recent decades, defense budgeting has existed in a dreamland, where ever-more-elaborate weapons are built without regard to enemies, costs or trade-offs. In 2008 the General Accounting Office said cost overruns for the Pentagon's 95 biggest weapons programs—just the overruns!—added up to $300 billion. The system has become so pervasive and entrenched that most people no longer bother to get outraged.

The endless flow of cash from the taxpayer has prevented strategic thought. Much of the Pentagon budget is based on wish lists from the services, often lists that were conceived during the Cold War. The Air Force developed such a strong attachment to its F-22 fighter-plane program that it failed to notice that the Soviet Union had collapsed and no great-power rival was around to get into dogfights with the U.S. military. We're fighting two wars right now, and not one of the 135 or so F-22s that we already have is being used in either theater. If you're wondering why the program is still around, here's one reason: its manufacture has been spread across 44 states.

In a time of economic hardship, we all need to recognize the need for increased accountability and reform in the government; no exceptions.

The Left's Impeccable Foreign Relations II

2009-04-10T05:23:00.001-07:00

President Obama hasn't embarrassed me because he gave Gordon Brown some DVDs, and to be honest, I think that the iPod was an excellent gift...

What has been humiliating to me is Obama's patronizing rhetoric towards our European counterparts. While I understand and advocate strong relations with Europe, Obama seems to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding and polish through his "engagement" of foreign leaders. Obama's proposals have been considered but politely rejected by much of Europe's leadership (fortunately not Gordon Brown). And in turn, Europe's demands are appreciated and even congratulated by President Obama; demands which do not affect the President's economic agenda.

And in a most disgraceful fashion, the President has abased himself and his country by apologizing repeatedly for the economic crisis and the "arrogance" of Americans towards Europe.

Ironically, Obama then sought to reassure Turkey of America's commitment (to what?) and established American support for Turkish membership in the European Union. Intervening in European affairs (something all Europeans appreciate *SARCASM*) was certainly inspired by the President's overwhelming humility. Indeed it is true that Turkey has been considered for future membership in the EU, but this topic inevitably causes severe divisions among Europeans and is highly contentious. And wasn't it convenient for our President to remind the world of American "arrogance" while purposefully refraining from any mention of the Armenian Genocide or injustices against women in Turkey? Oh, and what does President Obama think about the pervasive corruption and human rights abuses taking place within the Turkish government? Obama is silent here.

A nice description of Obama's visit to Istanbul is provided by Ralph Peters at ExileStreet.com:

Obama has no idea what’s going on in Turkey. By going to Ankara on his
knees, he gave his seal of approval to a pungently anti-American Islamist
government bent on overturning Mustapha Kemal’s legacy of the separation of mosque and state.

Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, the AKP, means headscarves, Korans, censorship and stacked elections. The country’s alarmed middle class opposes the effort to turn the country into an Islamic state. Obama’s gushing praise for the AKP’s bosses left them aghast.

What was Obama thinking? He wasn’t. He relied on advice from State
Department appeasement artists who understand neither Turkey, Islam nor the crises raging between the Bosporus and the Indus. State’s answer is always “More love, more humility, more aid.”

Well, I, for one, don’t think our country has anything to apologize for, either to Turkey or to Europe.

I agree with Peters, Obama may feel compelled to apologize to the rest of the world, but the United States of America has no reason to apologize to Europe or Turkey. What kind of foreign policy does Obama attempt to espouse?

In his regular rhetorical splendor, Obama lavished his European counterparts with adoration and promises. He even extended his praise to Russia's president, Dmitri Medvedev, for future negotiations on disarmament... reminding us of his earlier call to "reset" relations with Russia despite Russia's enthusiastic projects to arm Iran and provide advanced nuclear technologies and facilities. Again, here comes the irony. Obama unveils a new plan to disarm the world's most deadly missiles, with a newly launched missile from North Korea to pave his way.

He said:

"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."

Like most of his rhetoric, I don't expect Obama to actually act upon such language, nor do I expect any substantive changes from our energetic allies across the Atlantic. And if anyone believes me to be merely a pessimist, I challenge them to provide me a list of commitments guaranteed by our European counterparts. I challenge anyone to provide me a response somewhat deserving of the rhetoric. Speeches are marvelous, especially when given in front of the United Nations or NATO. Yet fantastic speeches are all too-common in such settings, commitment on the other hand, aren't.

President Obama has returned home with few commitments from abroad, but plenty of gusto. The trip turned out exactly as most Europeans leaders had hoped, lots of talk and few promises made on their part. Some are trumpeting Obama's splendid tour as a major success, and still others are a little more realistic.

What kind of foreign policy is Obama pushing? It looks to me like pure amateurism with a dash of the

same-old same-old.

*UPDATE: OTHER WORLD LEADERS DEMAND APOLOGIES FROM OBAMA