New Video of Meehan Assaulting Weekly Standard Reporter
h/t Michael Graham
I guess John McCormack didn’t slip and fall after all. Of course, none of this is surprising, this is the modus operandi of the left and always has been. Just last year we saw Kenneth Gladney assaulted by SEIU members. Later, we found out that Gladney’s brother Keith was fired under suspicious circumstances after inquiring why his brother’s attackers weren’t charged.
What can we expect though, Meehan and the SEIU thugs were just following the advice of the thug who currently occupies the White House, you know, “argue with them, get in their faces“. This type of thing starts at the top.
Aaron B. Gardner
EADS = Corruption
Kansas’s next Senator, Todd Tiahrt (who I still think needs to buy an extra vowel for his last name from Vanna White) has a very interesting column at Human Events today. It’s well worth considering.
Washington is full of hyperbolism. We often talk about something being the best, the worst, or the most scandalous. Some of these statements are true; most are not. So when a government official told me that the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), also the parent company of Airbus, is “the most corrupt corporation in the world,” I was initially skeptical.
Given EADS’ growing role as a Pentagon supplier and a competitor for the Air Force’s $100 billion KC-X Next Generation Aerial Refueling tanker, I felt responsible to closely examine EADS’ dealings around the world. What we found was deeply concerning and confirmed what I had been told: EADS has a long history of corruption and bribery around the globe that has cost thousands of high-paying, high-quality American jobs.
The American people should not be forced to finance corrupt companies. Even more so, we should not be outsourcing our vital national security tools, such as the tanker, to corrupt foreign companies. But given our obscure corruption laws and outrageous government policy when it comes to foreign competitors, the United States not only gives EADS a pass on its corrupt practices, but extends special benefits not even American companies receive.
Health Care: “This fight ain’t over”
When Harry Reid passed a government-run health care bill two weeks ago, he believed the long battle was done. He was wrong. After months of speaking out against a government takeover of health care — via phone calls, letters, town halls, protests and online activism — the American people will not quietly accept this fate. Now, the roughly 2,000 page bill is being negotiated behind closed doors — even after the president promised at least eight times that this process would be televised.
C-SPAN has offered to broadcast the negotiations anytime, anywhere. This failure to respond to C-SPAN’s broadcast request is appalling. While transparency was once the “touchstone” of Obama’s campaign, it’s clear that promise was mere campaign rhetoric.
The health care bill is the business of the American people. They should be consulted in negotiations, as every citizen will be gravely affected by the outcome. Elected officials have rushed this massive government takeover of health care through Congress to accommodate a fear-filled political agenda. Democrats have disrespected and mislead the very people they were elected to represent.
House Republicans will fight for the public’s right to know until the very end. This isn’t about policy or politics. This is about preserving freedom and limited government. This health care bill violates the essence of the American system: democracy, transparency and accountability to the people. President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and a majority of Democrats, have turned a deaf ear to the people.
They are about to find out this fight ain’t over yet.
Martha Coakley: Terrible Prosecutor
It’s worth recalling, as the Massachusetts Senate election approaches, that Martha Coakley is not just some bland Democratic machine apparatchik. She’s a bland Democratic machine apparatchik with a long record as a prosecutor that includes some very ugly things.
Exhibit A is the notorious case, familiar to readers of the Wall Street Journal over the past three decades, of Gerald Amirault. The case, discussed in summary here, was a terrible miscarriage of justice involving fantastical accounts of sex abuse of children, exposed by Journal reporter Dorothy Rabinowitz; it was originally prosecuted by another politically ambitious Democrat, Scott Harshbarger. And then:
When Martha Coakley became district attorney of Middlesex County in 1999, the Amiraults were still in the news. But by this time hardly anyone believed they were guilty of the horrendous crimes they were alleged to have committed. In fact there was no evidence that anyone had abused any children in the Fells Acres Day Care.
But what did Martha Coakley do when the Parole Board voted unanimously (5-0) to pardon Gerald Amirault? She did everything in her power to see that he stayed in prison, including sending an assistant DA to oppose his release at the hearing. Coakley also went on talk shows to spout her views about his guilt. (Read about Martha Coakley’s involvement in Cheryl Amirault’s Plea Bargain also).
That alone should disqualify Coakley as a candidate for higher office. But there’s more.
Such overzealousness is why criminal-defense-minded writers like Radley Balko and Jeralyn Merritt – neither of them exactly a right-wing Republican – are opposed to Coakley. Both cite other examples as well (Balko notes that Coakley first came to prominence in the notorious “shaken-baby” case against British nanny Louise Woodward, in which Woodward’s murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter by the judge).
But overzealousness in questionable (or worse) cases isn’t Coakley’s problem. There’s also the opposite, her lenient treatment of a Somerville cop who raped his 23-month-old niece – yes, a toddler – with a hot curling iron. Coakley’s office let him out without bail pending trial; only under her successor was he convicted and sentenced to two life terms in jail.
It starts to be apparent that the persistent incompetence and tone-deafness of Coakley’s campaign may not be a new thing for her.
A Couple of Points
1. If Scott Brown pulls very close to Coakley or wins on Tuesday, does that not kill the stupid little argument Obama has been trotting out that the Democrats need to pass health care deform to rally the Democratic base? I mean, if health care hangs in the balance by this one campaign, you’d think of all the people in America, the Massachusetts voters would storm the polls to “git ‘er done.”
2. The Democrats have certainly realized that cameras are serious causes of intimidation. They do not want cameras to film the health care negotiations because they fear voter intimidation based on what happens. But they are outright desperate to get cameras into the courtroom in California to make sure all the faces of those who oppose gay marriage can be seen by the militant gay rights activists who threatened, bullied, attacked, and boycotted those who gave money to Prop. 8 donors. Intimidation at its finest.
Massachusetts DOOM WATCH Open Thread
h/t: Jim Geraghty
And if that parody ad didn’t bring a smile to your face, maybe this will. Coakley’s internal polling is showing her with only a 2 point lead, which, as Moe pointed out to me, means she is losing.
Good Times.
Aaron B. Gardner
How’s All That *Making History* Working Out For You Mr. President?
I just love waking up to headlines like these: ‘Majority Would Vote Against Obama’:
A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the ‘12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.
I know, I know…I shouldn’t be surprised by this. I AM entertained though.
Just 34% say the country is moving in the right direction, down 13 points since April, and 55% say it is off on the wrong track, up 13 points over the same period.
Of course we’re on the wrong track when the jobs situation goes from bad to worse, and when more and more of those without them are losing their homes. And why should anyone be surprised that retail sales are down all OVER the place, given that no one has any money to actually buy anything?
With no jobs, and in some cases no homes, and with no financial means amongst every-day American citizens to actually engage the economy (and contribute to the IRS coffers), what does this President decide to do to raise money for his out of control spending agenda? Why, levy a big fat-cat tax on those that DO!
Genius I say…pure unmitigated genius!
And the Left STILL seems to be in shock over people like Scott Brown, and a growing number of other Republicans they can’t push around anymore, that are starting to make Democrat constituencies re-think their position on all that Hope and Change they bought last year and paid for this year.
Union Leader Trumka Thinks Health Bill could Cause Repeat of 1994 in 2010
H/T America’s Blog, from Sam Stien at the Huffington Post:
“It could well be” a recipe for disaster in 2010, [AFL-CIO president Richard] Trumka told a group of reporters. “I just came back from southern California. I was in five or six places out there… it is amazing the number of people that come up to you unsolicited and say, ‘I’m really worried about this health care bill.’”
Asked if he thought union and non-union workers will stay at home if health care reform (as outlined by the Senate) is passed into law, Trumka replied: “That could very well happen. A bad bill could have that effect… an [election] where people sit home. It could suppress votes… Look at what happened in ‘94.”
I’m Afraid Sarah Palin Might Be Ruining Herself Unintentionally
I swore I was going to keep my mouth shut on this, but I keep getting emails from people along the lines of “if you don’t say it, who will?”
Yeah, I guess I have become that guy.
I am afraid Sarah Palin is going to harm herself unintentionally over this tea party convention in Nashville.
Full disclosure: I have asked several of the tea party organizations that, early on, I was supportive of to stop using my name and RedState’s logo. I think the tea party movement has largely descended into ego and quest for purpose for individuals at the expense of what the tea party movement started out to be.
That’s not to say it is in every case. I have much good to say about groups like Tea Party Patriots, but I think this national tea party convention smells scammy.
Let me be blunt: charging people $500.00 plus the costs of travel and lodging to go to a “National Tea Party Convention” run by a for profit group no one has ever heard of sounds as credible as an email from Nigeria promising me a million bucks if I fork over my bank account number.
I am led to believe a number of the sponsors who lent their names early on have grown wary of the event. That lines up with what I am hearing.
The tea party movement was always about the unorganized masses of concerned, passionate Americans uniting together with a common voice to protest the direction of the country. From that passion, others have sought to make money off the tea party movement. Some have done it for good. Many have not. And more and more we are seeing some people rise up to claim the mantle of “leader” of the tea party movement. Many of us who have been around for a while just want to know who the heck these so called leaders are.
The tea party “leaders”, if there are any, are actively at work in their home towns changing things one letter to the editor, one contribution to a candidate, and one protest at a time. They are not on bus tours profiting off the hard work and sometimes the names of others (some also on the bus with no pay) headed to Nashville licking their lips at the $500.00 per person payments coming in to their for profit company.
Sarah Palin is certainly giving the National Tea Party Convention legitimacy. But at what cost? I am fearful this thing will blow up and harm her. I am more fearful that a bunch of well meaning people from across the nation are going to show up, expect more, and then grow disaffected or burn out when the deliverables they expect do not come in.
I hope I am wrong about all of this. I could be. But something tells me I am right. And because no one else will say it, I will — I think Sarah Palin got some bad advice and probably should have done more due diligence. Your mileage may vary.
Scott Brown (R, MA-SEN candidate) moneybomb today.
The Scott Brown campaign is aiming for $500K: they’ve gotten $488,724.25 $493,754.84 $499,219 (stop that!) as of 3:56 PM EST. No cavalry’s coming for this one, folks: we’re it.
…OK, they blew through over ten grand raised to hit over $500K in the five minutes that it took me to port this over from my personal site. So let’s just say that they’re aiming for $750K, all right?
Moe Lane
PS: It means enough that I put some cash up myself; the amount won’t take food off of my kids’ plates, but it’s important that I contribute something.
links for 2010-01-11
-
A very good and accurate point.
Patrick Hughes v. Mark Kirk: Illinois May be a Test Case for the Effectiveness of Tea Parties
February 2, 2010 is the Illinois Republican Primary. Less than one month away. Patrick Hughes is running an upstart campaign against the would be Republican nominee, Mark Kirk. Patrick Hughes is as far right as Kirk is as far left.
Patrick Hughes aims to harness the conservatives and tea party activists in Illinois who feel marginalized by Kirk and the Democrats further to the left of him. On Friday, Mark Levin endorsed Patrick Hughes and urged conservatives to rally to Patrick Hughes in this last month before the primary.
It makes a compelling case to see just how rapid a response the tea party activists and conservatives can make in a Republican Primary. Should Patrick Hughes win the GOP primary, it would send shock waves across the nation and severely shake the foundations of the GOP establishment.
Mark Kirk has gotten a lot of bad press in Illinois for his cap-and-trade vote. Illinois is a transportation hub with oil and coal reserves. Cap and trade would harm Illinois’s industrial base at a time the state has 11% unemployment.
Patrick Hughes has been making that case across the state — taking a national issue and making it very local. People are registering their impact.
The race right now comes down to name ID. Kirk has it. Patrick Hughes doesn’t. But polling shows when Republican voters know Patrick Hughes and Kirk, they go with Patrick Hughes overwhelmingly. In fact, polling also shows 60% of primary voters are undecided — something that suggests a one month blitz by Patrick Hughes could dramatically improve his numbers.
Patrick Hughes was born on the northwest side of Chicago in a small apartment. His parents told him if he believed in God and worked hard, he could do whatever he wanted. He went to law school, became a lawyer, then became a small businessman.
Now he wants to represent Illinois in the United States Senate. If conservatives and tea party activists rally to him, he has a shot. But the hourglass is almost out of sand.
Pelosi’s Problems Propogate, Probably Propelling Paralysis
Problems, or P to the sixth power, is what Speaker Pelosi faces.
She tells her caucus on a conference call not to believe reports that she has decided that the House will OK all the major positions of the Senate (read: cave to the Senate) — but in order to defeat the Senate position, she needs to show the White House and the Senate leadership, she does not have the votes in the House.
And she has no Dem Member of Congress who has corralled the votes with which she can point to as being the one who has them, while she does not. The Progressives are suffering from the fact they will not threaten to kill the bill if they do not get what they want. They have no Stupak, no DeMint, no Coburn.
Right now, the progressives or liberals are rolling over on all these issues, not issuing we will vote no demands, on each of the following issues they say they really care about, as the Washington Post reports:
“Members also brought up the public option, abortion funding, immigration and employer mandates, as well as the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies.”
The tax on high value health plans — opposed by unions — also was a big issue on the call.
“On immigration, the Hispanic Caucus made it clear that they want the House language, which allows illegal immigrants to purchase insurance from the exchange, to be in the final product”
But really, who takes the Hispanic Caucus seriously? They know they are not going to get immigration reform any time soon and they are widely expected to cave to the Speaker on this issue.
With Representative Cantor’s recent memo determining that just on the issues of spending, abortion and Medicare Advantage, he believes there are 37 no votes — even accounting for Blue Dogs who may switch to yes, Speaker Pelosi has little maneuvering room in the House. A very slim margin of error. There only needs to be but a handful of Progressives who are serious about their principles.
This is how Politico reports Pelosi’s problems this morning:
“To win this skirmish – or any other – she needs to convince Obama her math is tougher than Harry Reid’s.
“In other words, that it’s harder to corral 218 “yes” votes in the House than it is for Reid to get 60. And the House does not like the Cadillac tax, which hits the Democrats’ labor allies hard, because many unions have bargained for the high-end insurance policies over the years.
“Pelosi wades into the fight with the overwhelming support of her caucus; 190 Democrats have signed a letter opposing the tax, and organized labor is making a fevered last-minute push to shield its members, including a meeting with Obama Monday.
“Two-hundred eighteen is a pretty big number to get to,” said Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), a lead critic of the so-called Cadillac tax who authored the letter. “I’m not claiming that the 190 people on my letter are monolithic in their opposition…but it doesn’t take much to go from 220 to 217.”
This future of the bill comes down to the following question: will the liberals roll over and play dead for Speaker Pelosi and abandon every one of their principles so she can cave to the Senate? (If you answer yes to this question, the bill passes, if you answer no, the bill does not. My answer is no.)
Labor is predicting this morning there will be a deal, and they will end up with some kind of tax. This tax will be increased over time, so labor can lose this fight slowly.
On the other hand, liberals are having to defend their vote in the Senate for the bill, as the Hill reports this morning:
”Most of the criticism of liberals has come from left-wing advocacy groups angry at the bill’s lack of a public option. Such a component was dropped from the measure earlier in December.
“To that end, Brown and Sanders, along with fellow liberals Al Franken of Minnesota and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, are on the receiving end of a three-pronged push by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC). The liberal group is airing ads on the Internet that target all four, plus robocalls aimed at Sanders and Feingold, as well as a TV ad in Wisconsin also aimed at Feingold.
“PCCC co-founder Adam Green says the so-called “We Need A Hero” campaign is not intended harshly but strategically focuses on the liberals because only one of them is needed before the final Senate vote.
“At this point, the only thing that will change the bill is if one bold senator drew a line in the sand and said they wouldn’t vote for it without a public option,” Green said. “This is the time for that to have an effect. So far, we’ve seen progressives draw a line in the sand and then walk away from it. So we’re not questioning their motives, but we’re pushing them.”
Ironically, for Speaker Pelosi to deliver, she needs a Stupak of the tax issue or a Stupak of the public option to force her to force the White House and the Senate to cave to her. But it appears she and the liberals and the progressives are being rolled on all fronts.
The liberal’s main problem is they do not have a Hero. They do not have a Member who will credibly stand up and yell STOP. They have no House or Senate member or collective of Members who will simply state if my or our demands are not met, we will vote no, and if that means the bill dies so be it — but you had better comply with my requests.
But I think some enterprising progressive member of the Democratic Caucus will seize the leadership mantle of the left and lead a revolt, but only once the outlines of the fix on caving to the Senate on points raised by Dems on their conference call are apparent.
It is up to the progressives to deliver. If the Progressive do not deliver enough No votes, they will not be taken seriously again — apply pressure and the Progressives cave.
Harry Reid Among The Race Hypocrites
By now most of you have seen Harry Reid’s reported remarks, from a book on the 2008 election, enthusing that Barack Obama could be a successful presidential candidate because he was “light-skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” The real story here is the Left’s hypocrisy: Reid has committed a sin that would be unpardonable by anyone but a Democratic politician.
Much of the “Negro-gate” flap over Reid’s comments has focused on whether, parsing them closely, they can or can’t be compared to the 2002 comments by Trent Lott that got Lott ousted as Senate Majority Leader. As a matter of pure politics, that seems unlikely to happen to Reid – where Lott came under early and intense fire from bloggers and pundits on the Right, eventually making him radioactive to fellow GOP politicians, the Left (with only a few exceptions) has circled the wagons around Reid. On the other hand, Reid faces his own doom, as this adds to an already uphill battle Reid faces for re-election. But in any event, the better analogy is to George Allen, Jimmy the Greek, Al Campanis, James Watt, and others who lost their jobs due to comments that were not so much racist per se, but rather racially insensitive. That’s what Reid’s comments were – he was basically giving Obama a stamp of approval for not being one of those black people, with their “Negro dialect” and black skin – and even if he meant it more as an insult aimed at the tolerance of white voters, it’s still not something you or I would be crass enough to say in a forum where it could ever be repeated to African-American friends. (Perhaps more damning to Obama is Reid’s implication that Obama would put on a “Negro dialect” when it suited his purposes).
Reid’s not the only one even this week – the same book quotes Bill Clinton saying that a few years ago, Obama would have been getting him coffee, while Rod Blagojevich, the twice-Obama-endorsed gift that keeps on giving, tells Esquire Magazine:
I’m blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived.
He’s black because he shined shoes?
Nor is this Reid’s first offense. Among Reid’s long laundry list of petty personal insults aimed at distinguished public servants – notably excluding former KKK member Robert Byrd, whom Reid called an “unusually brilliant man” – Reid said of Clarence Thomas:
I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.
Reid contrasted Justice Thomas to Justice Scalia: “I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy.” But what made Reid assume that Thomas was a lesser intellect or a bad writer? He was never able to identify any Thomas opinions he’d read that gave him that idea. It was just a stereotype.
Racial insensitivity, intended or not, has become a frequent firing offense for government officials and other public figures at the insistence of the Left, aided and actively encouraged time and again by the leading lights of the Democratic Party. It is not Republicans or conservatives who frequently bathe themselves in sanctimony on this issue or treat it as an unforgivable offense. When a Republican is caught in a sex scandal, pretty much regardless of his actual record, the air is filled with calls for him to be held to a higher standard than Democrats because of conservatives’ belief (not universally shared) that marital infidelity and other sexual misconduct is a bad thing. Yet, when a Democrat is caught making racially insensitive remarks, the very same pundits on the Left argue that rather than hold their side to the higher standard they demand of others, there should be a lower standard for Democrats precisely because of their public positions. Heads we win, tails you lose!
My own oft-stated view on Republicans and sex scandals, see here, here, here and here, is that the problem with hypocrtical Republicans is not their public defenses of virtue but their private sins, which may reflect badly enough on them in some cases (e.g., Mark Sanford) to doom them politically, but don’t necessarily detract from their advocacy of what is right and good. But by giving Reid a pass, as with giving Clinton a pass for sexual harrassment, Democrats are showing that they believe the opposite: that they are willing to forgive violations of their own supposed principles in order to hold on to political power because those principles were never really that important to them in the first place – just a handy club to beat opponents.
Who’s the real hypocrite in that picture?
The Man Who Would Keep Us Safe From Terrorists Would Rather Focus on Baptists Than Islamic Terrorists
Had Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) not put a hold on the nomination of Erroll Southers to be the head of TSA, he might have been confirmed by the Senate without any serious digging into his background.
We know, for example, that the White House now admits it did not vet Mr. Southers. In fact, were you to pass through a TSA checkpoint at the airport, you will have been more heavily vetted that Mr. Southers.
But now there is new and far more troubling information about Mr. Southers caught on video. According to Erroll Southers, pro-life Christians and our support of Jews is a bigger threat to national security than Al Qaeda.
Mr. Southers, in 2008, said he was more worried about “Christian identity” terrorist groups inside the U.S. than islamic terrorists. What are “Christian identity” terrorist groups? White-supremacists naturally. The KKK. And the Southern Baptist Convention.
Southers identifies pro-life groups and anti-government activists as particular problems.
Yes, you read that right. Mr. Southers is worried more about tea party activists than Islamic terrorists.
Mr. Southers also thinks that America itself is to blame for the terrorist attacks. Had we not sided with Israel and France, which he says is an anti-Islamic nation, we would not be attacked by Islamic extremists.
“Some people might argue that U.S. foreign policy exacerbates terrorism.”
Mr. Southers seems to at least understand the basics — we are being attacked by Islamic extremists. Surely he would, as head of the Transportation Safety Administration, institute some sort of profiling to stop Islamic extremists.
Not so fast. Erroll Southers says the thought that terrorists are all Middle-Eastern and Islamic is a misconception. According to Erroll Southers, we’ve overrated the threat posed by Islamic radicals and we need to focus on pro-lifers and Christians instead.
Lastly, never mind the guy setting off the Geiger counter. Southers wants us all to know the nuclear terrorism threat is quite small.
Our Friend Paula Nowakowski
We in the conservative movement are not shy to criticize members of Republican leadership – and by implication (or occasionally, directly) their staff. But those of us who have worked on Capitol Hill know precisely how hard it is to find good staff, how hard those good staff members work, and how important they can be – not just to the members – but to the conservative cause.
We lost one of the best of those staff members this weekend – our friend, Paula Nowakowski. Paula was a long time adviser to Leader Boehner, having started with him back in 1995, and was most recently his Chief of Staff.
This loss is personal to Boehner, and he issued a statement, saying in part:
“We will remember Paula as she would want to be remembered — as a tireless worker, faithful friend, rabid Detroit sports fan, whip-smart strategist, warrior for freedom and devoted Catholic who counted President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II among her greatest heroes. She will never be replaced or forgotten,” Boehner said.
In addition, former Speaker New Gingrich said “Paula brought a passion for freedom, a warrior’s courage, a seasoned professional intellect and an enormous devotion both as a Catholic and as a Republican activist.”
Indeed, Paula was “of the revolution” and never lost her fervor for the battle. She was a friend to conservatives and did her best in the face of the Washington Republican establishment to keep the Republican Conference on the right track.
I had the pleasure of working with Paula and she was as delightful as she was smart and hard-working. She will be missed – and our hearts and well wishes go out to her family and friends.
I noticed when I looked for some updates online that one of the typically classy loony left posted a posthumous rant about Paula – which I know she would take as a badge of honor. I won’t link to it, but it read, in part, “…she pushed the most stringent anti-abortion crap along the political highway, and for years, she has been the chief of staff of one J. Boehner… This woman has been pushing Reagan and newt’s ultra-conservatism for decades…”
Yep. And I suspect the conversation with St. Pete is going quite well.
God Bless you, Paula. We’ll miss you.
RIP.
Obama, the Weak Horse
Jed Babbin has the top story at Human Events today.
Soon upon us will be the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s inauguration. It’s time to ask, are we safer or in more danger than we were a year ago?
By every objective measure — what we know about Islamic terrorism, its intentions and capabilities — the answer is no. We are far less safe now than we were then.
To ask how much danger are we in is fatuous. You may as well ask, “[H]ow much danger is there”? The president has taken actions that — again objectively — have increased our vulnerability tremendously. Two of the actions he took immediately after taking office prove the point. And the actions he and Attorney General Eric Holder have since taken only increase the danger.
What Hath Barack Obama Wrought?
I know I am not the only one who has said we’re playing with idiocy in Barack Obama’s efforts to try terrorists in civilian courts.
A federal judge has tossed out most of the government’s evidence against a terrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.
In a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also said the government failed to establish that 23 statements the detainee made to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay were untainted by the earlier coerced statements made while he was held under harsh conditions in Afghanistan.
Poof. The judicial system just shut down one avenue of the government’s case. How many more avenues will get shut down?
Now we are sending to New York the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to go through the same system of justice. And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, unlike the terrorist detainee in the article reference above, was water-boarded.
How many Americans will die because of Barack Obama’s amateur notions of terror, war, and justice?
Morning Briefing for January 11, 2010
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
1. Where are they now?
2. Democrats To African Americans: Your Degree Of *Blackness* Determines Our Fortune
3. New York Democrats: Trying KSM in NYC is Kind of Risky
4. Unemployment still at 10%.
5. Dem Scheme: Seat Brown Late if he Wins, Until After Health Care Gets to Senate
6. Why is Barbara Boxer Screwing California?
7. The Daily Caller is Up
1. Where are they now?
News broke this weekend that a forthcoming book on the 2008 election will report Harry Reid making some incendiary remarks about Barack Obama. Specifically, Harry Reid said Obama has “no Negro dialect, unless he wants to have one.”
Let’s take the Wayback Machine to 2002, shall we? We’ll take a look at the Democrats’ responses to Trent Lott’s statements (and subsequent apology) about Strom Thurmond, which were widely condemned as “racist.” Lott had said “we wouldn’t be in the mess we were in today” had Thurmond won the Presidency way back when Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat.
- ‘His apology does not take away the sting of his divisive words…‘ – Barbara Boxer
- ‘I can tell you if a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position,’ – Mary Landrieu
- ‘What he said was insensitive as hell; it’s very offensive,’ … ‘Race is serious stuff. It’s not something you kid about.’ – Joe Biden
- ‘…the GOP must decide whether Lott ‘represents the views of the majority of Republicans in the Senate and in our country.‘ – Hillary Clinton
- ‘We need political leaders who are healers, not dividers,’ … ‘I hope that Senator Lott’s apology will translate into action and that he will advance policies that bring us together as a nation rather than pull us apart.‘ – Dick Durbin
- ‘When connected to past comments and votes, this statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott’s ability to be a credible party leader‘ – Diane Feinstein
- ‘Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat, described Lott’s comments as ‘outrageous’ and ‘completely inexcusable.’ ‘Those kinds of comments have no place in our society and should be repudiated by every American,’ Stabenow said in a statement. ‘At this point, the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate needs to think long and hard about the kind of values they want their leadership to represent.‘ – Debbie Stabenow
- “The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.” – Barack Obama
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. Democrats To African Americans: Your Degree Of *Blackness* Determines Our Fortune
When Trent Lott suggested that “we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today” back in 2002 had Thurmond been elected President 54 years earlier, the Democrats were quick to tie the segregationist element of Thurmond around Lott’s neck (rather than the State’s rights element) and summarily had Lott tarred, feathered, effigied, and FIRED from his leadership position in the US Senate. Note to class-NEVER did Lott affirm his support of segregation, and NEVER were we asked to consider Thurmond’s embrace of the 10th amendment. We were just told Thurmond’s segregationist ideology HAD to be what Lott was talking about and that he must, therefore, be run outta Dodge.
How, then, does Harry Reid get to keep his job when he sees the quality of African Americans according to their skin tone and linguistic prowess? The answer shouldn’t be looked for in Michael Steele’s paid-to-be-mad rants, nor in Republican wails against double standards. The answer needs to found in the opinion of the people he represents where it should be…not with the media, the elites and the professional pundits. It’s not hard to see that Reid, just as with Bill Clinton, sees African Americans as political tools and foregone voting bloc conclusions. Let THEM express themselves in the voting booths. Let the rest of us just sit back and watch.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. New York Democrats: Trying KSM in NYC is Kind of Risky
Remember back when Charlie Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, and the rest of the New York Democrats thought that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City posed no significant security risk? Remember how they said we could easily guarantee the safety of New Yorkers whose memories of 9/11 remained fresh? Well, apparently they’re suddenly worried, because now they’re concerned enough about costs that they’re demanding the federal government pay billions for it.
You can sign our petition to protest the KSM civilian trial by going here.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. Unemployment still at 10%.
I was hoping for a drop down into single digits, even if it was a high one. But hope is not a plan, as the current ruling party seems determined to prove. Short version: we lost 85K jobs last month – they were expecting a gain – and the number is only holding still because a lot of people gave up looking for work. If you count that number, we’re at 17.3% and that’s up from 17.2% in November. The report then goes into a lot of detail to avoid coming out and saying that the economy’s currently in neutral, we’re on a slight downward slope, and the administration’s turned on the windshield wipers and called it setting the parking brake.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
5. Dem Scheme: Seat Brown Late if he Wins, Until After Health Care Gets to Senate
In a clear demonstration of the Speaker’s comment that we will do “almost anything” to pass health care, the Democrats have said they will delay seating Scott Brown, the GOP candidate for Senate in Massachusetts if he wins the race for former Senator Kennedy’s Senate seat on January 19th.
Talk about lighting a torch while standing is in a field of gasoline! The Dems would be really putting on their crazy train if they tried this.
This plan is rank with corruption. Not only would they be denying the will of the people of Massachusetts, but they would be corrupting our process even further to do it — I mean, besides buying off Senators Nelson and Landrieu — you know.
For the Dems to be planning in this level of detail for a loss is revealing, and puts an explanation point on the great anger at ObamaCare in the nation — and the Dems desperation in even considering this CHEAT.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
6. Why is Barbara Boxer Screwing California?
Just this week, California’s liberal Governor took aim at the Reid-Pelosi health care overhaul. His strong language must have stung the Californians who played such a large part in crafting the bill: Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, and others. Even Governor Schwarzenegger had the good sense to leave his ideology at the door when he realized the bill would bankrupt the state; not so with Boxer. Even when her antidiluvian liberalism obviously conflicts with the state’s interests, she’d rather tell the voters of her state to pound sand than give up on a government takeover of health care.
If you’re wondering why Barbara Boxer cannot break 50% in polls of her Senate race, it’s likely because even the voters of deep-blue California recognize that Boxer is too extreme.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
7. The Daily Caller is Up
Many of us on the right have been eagerly awaiting Tucker Carlson’s new project, the Daily Caller. It’s finally live. Check it out here.
Welcome to the fight, guys.
The Daily Caller is Up
Many of us on the right have been eagerly awaiting Tucker Carlson’s new project, the Daily Caller. It’s finally live. Check it out here.
Welcome to the fight, guys.
Consider this an open thread.
Obama: That wacky Harry Reid.
I’m stuck writing this on a borrowed Mac laptop running Safari, of all things – and yes, this qualifies as ’stuck’ – so let me let haystack do the actual analysis of Harry Reid’s some-of-my-best-friends-have-Negro-voices attitudes. I just want to note this: the President’s immediate acceptance of Reid’s sorry-for-offending ‘apology’ just goes to show. The President is very magnanimous and forgiving about personal attacks made on him… as long as you’ve got 60 votes for health care rationing, of course.
Because, really: could the President actually dare to be publicly upset by this?
Moe Lane
Democrats To African Americans: Your Degree Of *Blackness* Determines Our Fortune
Strom Thurmond was an unapologetic segregationist. He unsuccessfully ran for President once, but for some reason South Carolina saw his talents as a Politician to be sufficiently satisfactory to put him in office as their Governor for 4 years, and in the US Senate for 48 years (both as a Democrat AND a Republican)…this, DESPITE his views on race. He never withdrew those positions, nor did he apologize for them, although he is said to have ‘moderated his tone over time.’
Strom Thurmond, segregationist or not, was also a staunch believer in the 10th amendment to the US Constitution (my personal favorite): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” and it was his stand on State’s rights that gained him much favor in South Carolina and around the political world.
“[We] want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states.”
Racist or not, he was who he had always been-open, honest, and forthright… and most importantly… these traits never cost him his job.
So when Trent Lott suggested that “we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today” back in 2002 had Thurmond been elected President 54 years earlier, the Democrats were quick to tie the segregationist element of Thurmond around Lott’s neck (rather than the State’s rights element) and summarily had Lott tarred, feathered, effigied, and FIRED from his leadership position in the US Senate. Note to class-NEVER did Lott affirm his support of segregation, and NEVER were we asked to consider Thurmond’s embrace of the 10th amendment. We were just told Thurmond’s segregationist ideology HAD to be what Lott was talking about and that he must, therefore, be run outta Dodge.
How, then, does Harry Reid get to keep his job when he sees the quality of African Americans according to their skin tone and linguistic prowess? The answer shouldn’t be looked for in Michael Steele’s paid-to-be-mad rants, nor in Republican wails against double standards. The answer needs to found in the opinion of the people he represents where it should be…not with the media, the elites and the professional pundits. It’s not hard to see that Reid, just as with Bill Clinton, sees African Americans as political tools and foregone voting bloc conclusions. Let THEM express themselves in the voting booths. Let the rest of us just sit back and watch.
Democrats clearly see African Americans as coffee-fetching errand boys and linguistically challenged “children” that need to be ‘taken care of’…and only so black as the color of their skin as opposed to the content of their character. Reid needs to keep his job long enough to be fired by those very same people…the ones we care most about-the AMERICAN Voter (African and otherwise).
Apologies notwithstanding, however many of them the Democrats make…Americans have a much longer memory than does our media cycle and the Politicians’ lives that desperately cling to it.
Obamacare Ping Pong
The left is discussing the breaking news that the Democrat leadership in the House and Senate plan on using a “Ping Pong” strategy to pass Obamacare. This strategy avoids a conference committee and allows the liberal leaders to put themselves behind closed doors, in secret, to write an update to Obamacare. Yet again, the elites in Washington exclude the American public and all members of the minority party from this secret sausage making process.
Sam Stein wrote in Huffington Post
The goal, in the end, is to expedite the congressional process by keeping it removed from Republican procedural shenanigans. By skipping a formal conference committee, for example, Democrats can avoid dealing with motions to recommit on contentious issues (whether they be Medicare cuts, late-life consultation, abortion or anything else). This, in turn, provides a narrower window for the GOP to turn the bill into a series of wedge issues and means that there is less of a potential for moderate and conservative Democrats to grow skittish about supporting the legislation.
The real goal of this process is to further disallow any dissent by Republicans and moderate Democrats, shut the American people out of the process, and further curtail opportunities for members to force votes on elements of Obamacare. Stein further reports that there will be a meeting of the whole House Democrat Caucus, with some members calling into the meeting if they can’t attend in person, to discuss the outlines of a deal. No Republicans are allowed to participate in this one sided conference, nor will the American people be allowed to even watch this official meeting to negotiate the future of American health care.
What is a Ping Pong? The Ping Pong is an amendment between the House and Senate. (Thanks to Open CRS) The Congressional Research Service (CRS) describes the procedures as follows in the report “Amendments between the Houses.”
When the House or Senate passes a measure, it is sent to the other chamber for further consideration. If the second chamber passes the measure with one or more amendments, it is then sent back to the originating chamber. In modern practice, the second chamber typically substitutes its version of a measure as a single amendment to the measure as passed by the first chamber. The first chamber then may accept the amendment or propose its own further amendment. In this way, the measure may be messaged back and forth between the House and Senate in the hope that both houses will eventually agree to the same version of a measure.
How this works in practice is that the House passed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) version of Obamacare, but the Senate refused to take that bill up. The Senate moved to proceed to a House passed tax bill (for the purposes of avoiding violating the constitutional mandate that all revenue measures originate in the House) because they wanted to keep their options open to use a Ping Pong strategy. The Senate gutted the House passed tax measure and inserted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) version of Obamacare. Leader Reid inserted a few earmarks, dumped the public option and passed his bill with a managers package of amendments that bought just enough votes to overcome a Republican filibuster.
Now this bill goes to the House where the House has the option of passing this bill intact, then sending it to the President. They may choose to pass the bill, then work on a technical corrections bill to take another run at the pubic option, reform the tax provisions and further modify the abortion provisions. More likely, the House takes up the Senate bill and inserts a complete substitute including measures they think can pass the Senate with a 60 vote majority. Remember, unless if they somehow use a Reconciliation strategy, they need 60 votes to pass this measure again in the Senate. Then the Senate can either pass the new bill or continue the Ping Pong process until one chamber can pass the bill intact. Bottom line is that this process will cut out any significant participation by the public, the press and all federally elected Republicans. So much for transparency and broadcasting the negotiations on C-Span.
Morning Briefing for January 5, 2009
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
I’ll be on Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel tonight at 9:30 p.m. ET.
1. 9/11 Didn’t Happen: The Obama Administration Tries to Prove George Bush Was Wrong
2. Barack Obama: A President That Wasn’t
3. Asia one more area Obama has failed to engage
4. If Conservatives Are Serious About Their Resurgence, They Will Defeat Bob Bennett (R-UT)
5. The Republican Unicorns and Reality
1. 9/11 Didn’t Happen: The Obama Administration Tries to Prove George Bush Was Wrong
It would be one thing if our lives were not at stake.
Barack Obama has decided he is going to show the world that George Bush was wrong in how he conducted the war on terror. Bush decided to send foreign terrorist enemies to GTMO for questioning by the military and, in a few cases, to be water boarded to get answers.
Obama is above that He is better than that. Barack Obama is going to prove to the world and to the 55-60% of Americans who prefer to kill lest we be killed that he is better than them all.
Unfortunately for us, our lives are at stake.
According to the Washington Post, because Obama decided to treat the terrorist who wanted to blow up Delta 253 over Detroit as a criminal instead of a terrorist, the terrorist now has a defense attorney who has advised the terrorist that he does not have to cooperate or talk.
So how as the Obama administration decided to respond?
They are going to give the terrorist a plea bargain.
A plea bargain. For a terrorist. This isn’t prosecuting a war. This is playing Law & Order. We have a President who really does believe all the world is a stage and he is a Screen Actors Guild member.
How many Americans will die because Barack Obama decided to lawyer up instead of soldier up?
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. Barack Obama: A President That Wasn’t
Hillary Clinton once said, during her run for President against her current boss, that the Presidency was no place for on the job training. She said she would be ready to lead from day one and that she would know what to do when that 3 am call came to the White House. Whether or not true of Hillary, we have learned these last 12 months that it is certainly not true of Barack Obama; Obama was NOT ready to lead from day one and he has failed to lead ever since. His own 3 am calls are going straight to voice mail (he’s out shooting hoops you see, or working on that birdie putt on Maui) and his on the job training continues with very little acquired knowledge to actually show for the troubles he has caused Americans.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. Asia one more area Obama has failed to engage
So you have to ask yourself if you trust Obama to engage on this critical issue. Domestically he has been busy – when not golfing – twisting every possible arm to pass health care reform against the wishes of the American people. He spent precious time and resources on Copenhagen and seems intent on passing a devastating Cap and Trade system (if vulnerable Democratic senators don’t convince him to hold off).
On the national security front, he seems incapable of recognizing the war on terror as anything more than a law enforcement or public relations battle; and avoids making the necessary commitments and hard choices. He has damaged relationships with the CIA and our allies around the world and blamed former President Bush at every possible opportunity.
On top of all of this, the President’s leftist base is full of anti-free trade unions intent on preventing critical trade agreements from moving forward despite their obvious benefit to the American economy and the important role they play strategically.
Do you think President Obama has the capability and inclination to ignore the shrieks from the unions and diligently pursue free trade in Asia as a counter-weight to the growing strength of China and the Islamic world? Does having Hillary Clinton at the State Department make you feel any better?
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. If Conservatives Are Serious About Their Resurgence, They Will Defeat Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Poor wittle conservatives. Nobody wistens to the poor wittle conservatives.
The Senate Minority Leader talks like a conservative, but behind closed doors he does everything he can to shut down conservative small government agenda items and pro-life measures so he doesn’t have to vote for them.
House guys are little better. Remember Dede Scozzafava and the House GOP support for her?
Everyone likes to flirt with the conservatives and get their money, but they all get the joke — at the end of the day, conservatives will perform any act the Republican establishment asks to be performed, including acts Monica Lewinsky would blush at and run from.
Everybody gets the joke.
It is no wonder the tea party movement polls better than the GOP.
To the Republican establishment, NY-23 was just a temper tantrum. In fact, I know of more than one allegedly conservative elected Republican who loved the results of NY-23 because they think it finally put conservatives in their place.
That’s the reality of it. Conservatives are and have been perfectly willing for far too long to accept Republican establishment leaders who either actively hate conservatives or are wholly indifferent to them.
Trust me, the people who treat pro-lifers with the most distain are not pro-choice leftists, but leadership Republicans who want their money and vote, but otherwise wish they’d shut the heck up.
And that situation is going to continue until conservatives decide to take a Republican scalp in a GOP primary.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
5. The Republican Unicorns and Reality
Remember 2000? Bush spent a good bit more in resources in California than any sane person thought prudent. He lost California.
Republicans have, for a long time, been losing California. Ahnuld (writing it this way so I don’t have to look up the proper spelling of his last name) has largely been a fluke. He came to power in 2003 during the Gray Davis debacle and won re-election largely by becoming a Democrat.
Nonetheless, Republicans keep spending money to win statewide in California. Look at the NRSC’s commitment to Carly Fiorina.
Compare California to Massachusetts. That state is probably as tough as California, but it has elected a string of Republican governors from Bill Weld to Mitt Romney — it has had Republican governors who have behaved more Republican than Ahnuld and have won within the last decade.
But while the GOP has been standing behind Carly Fiorina in California in pursuit of the mythical GOP win there, the same cannot be said of the GOP helping Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
I think we should take a serious look at Scott Brown.
Overnight Open Thread
I was ambivalent on my Colbert Report performance, but that the left has gone insane over it suggests it went well.
One leftist twittered that being in HD gave her a better view of where to put the bullet in my head.
Ah, feel the love.
Consider this an open thread.
9/11 Didn’t Happen: The Obama Administration Tries to Prove George Bush Was Wrong
There was no terrorist attack on 9/11. It was the fruition of a criminal enterprise. That, at least, is Barack Obama’s working theory on what happened that day.
It would be one thing if our lives were not at stake.
Barack Obama has decided he is going to show the world that George Bush was wrong in how he conducted the war on terror. Bush decided to send foreign terrorist enemies to GTMO for questioning by the military and, in a few cases, to be water boarded to get answers.
Obama is above that He is better than that. Barack Obama is going to prove to the world and to the 55-60% of Americans who prefer to kill lest we be killed that he is better than them all.
Unfortunately for us, our lives are at stake.
According to the Washington Post, because Obama decided to treat the terrorist who wanted to blow up Delta 253 over Detroit as a criminal instead of a terrorist, the terrorist now has a defense attorney who has advised the terrorist that he does not have to cooperate or talk. In fact:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian charged with the failed attempt on the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight, was initially “talking to people who detained him” but now has a public defender and “doesn’t have to,” John O. Brennan said on “Fox News Sunday.”
So how as the Obama administration decided to respond?
They are going to give the terrorist a plea bargain.
A plea bargain. For a terrorist. This isn’t prosecuting a war. This is playing Law & Order. We have a President who really does believe all the world is a stage and he is a Screen Actors Guild member.
How many Americans will die because Barack Obama decided to lawyer up instead of soldier up?
Hey, what do these twelve legislators have in common?
This is via That’s My Congress, which is about to become very confused about why it’s getting traffic from a VRWC site. Here’s the list:
Lois Capps
Michael Capuano
Ben Cardin
Diana DeGette
Eliot Engel
Barney Frank
Alan Grayson
Carolyn McCarthy
Bill Pascrell
Adam Schiff
Allyson Schwartz
Heath Shuler
…and they have two things in common. First, they’re all Democrats. Second, they all have email addresses with Erickson & Company. And what is Erickson & Company? As That’s My Congress puts it:
Erickson & Company is not a lobbying firm. Instead, it helps set up events like the Heath Shuler’s BBQ, at which lobbyists and other people seeking special favors can come, check in hand, to pay for access to elected officials and their aides.
In other words, it’s a legal [and Democratic-aligned] money-laundering facility for lobbyists. Need to toss Heath Shuler some cash, but you’re a dirty lobbyist? Well, go to Shuler’s little BBQ (run by a go-between), drop a grand for a plate of food, and say hi! No fuss, no muss, no need for disclosure. Shuler’s happy: he’s getting his cut of your entry fee. The go-between is happy: it’s getting its cut of your entry fee. And you’re happy: this is a lot cheaper than a maximum campaign contribution would be.
So remember this, the next time anybody on that list – or, honestly, any Democrat – talks about the evil of lobbying: the sound you hear isn’t scorn towards those who would try to pay for influence. Nope. It’s scorn towards the rubes who don’t know how to tell when a Democrat is gaming the system.
Moe Lane
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Asia one more area Obama has failed to engage
I have been working with Joshua Treviño as an editor at Malaysia Matters (a site dedicated to tracking news and events in Malaysia from an American perspective). In this role, I have learned a great deal about the importance of Asia economically and strategically. Building on that, I have an article at the Huffington Post highlighting an issue that you might not be aware of but should be: the Free-Trade Area (FTA) between China and the ASEAN nations.
Erick has been diligent in pointing out how President Obama’s inexperience and amateurishness has threatened America in numerous ways (intelligence and terrorism just to name two). I hate to continue the spate of bad news, but this is yet another area where his lack of engagement threatens to undermine America’s standing in the world and her strategic position for the long term.
For more on this important issue keep reading.
First, here are the basics on the free trade area:
The China-ASEAN FTA comes into effect in two stages: six ASEAN nations and China eliminate tariff barriers in this new year, and the other four (Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam) plus China eliminate tariffs in 2015. By the middle of the new decade, then, the ASEAN bloc will add to itself a Chinese economy with its own impressive accomplishments. At approximately 1.3 billion persons, China is the world’s most populous state, and at a GDP of nearly $8 trillion, its economy is just over half the size of America’s. Like ASEAN, China’s GDP growth exceeded the world average, and that of the United States, in 2007 and 2008, with 11.4% and 9.6% growth respectively.
What does the combined China-ASEAN Free Trade Area look like together? In a word, huge. The unified trade area is just a few years away from two billion people and a $10 trillion GDP. And it will keep growing. Trade between China and the ASEAN nations more than tripled in the five years ending in 2008, when it stood at just under $200 billion. With free trade, expect that number to skyrocket. The China-ASEAN FTA will be smaller than the NAFTA and the European Union, but it’s not unreasonable to assume it will surpass the EU within the decade if present growth rates continue.
And a note on the significance:
That’s the key to the deeper significance of the China-ASEAN FTA. It doesn’t just link China to the nations that are adjacent to it anyway. It also further solidifies the deepening link between China and the Islamic world. Malaysia is surely at the center of this link, not simply geographically, but also as an east-Asian state at the center of the emerging Islamic-finance sector. Expect its own diplomatic stature to dramatically increase as an intermediary in the Chinese-Islamic connection.
What was in centuries past expressed by the Silk Road is now reemerging as a mostly maritime trade-and-energy link with a worrying overtone of historical resentments and vague anti-Western antagonism. It’s not an inevitably bad development for America, nor even for Europe — but it directly involves neither, and it’s perhaps the biggest geo-strategic development of our young century. If the central strategic fact of the 19th and 20th centuries was the centrality of the West, the strategic surprise of the 21st may be its dispensability.
Jumping off this piece my colleague Josh adds some further analysis at the New Ledger:
The political dimension of this convergence is a bit more worrying to the United States. Where, after all, do the political interests of Chinese and most Islamic states coincide? It’s a bad list: in the suppression of democracy, in the denial of minority rights, and in the rejection of Western dominance. The ASEAN nations themselves aren’t quite so uniformly malign, though they do have their bad actors in Burma, Vietnam, and Laos – but neither will they have much interest in countering the Chinese-Islamic concurrence on these points. We already see it in effect in international fora, most recently in the failed Copenhagen talks, when Sudan served as a Chinese proxy for the disruption of the proposed treaty. (This may actually be the first and only time Americans can applaud this partnership.) Expect more of this, and expect it to spill into war-and-peace matters in decades to come. If the Islamic world perceives China as a counterweight to Western influence – and if Chinese nationalism desires to be perceived as that counterweight – that’s a series of difficult choices for American policymakers in the years ahead.
Josh hits on two US strategic options:
- restart the stalled discussions for the Malaysia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(the US is also pursuing a regional free trade agreement).
- court the powers left out of the China-ASEAN-Islamic bloc (India in particular).
But Josh puts his finger on the problem we are facing:
Acceptance, integration and counterbalance: these are the broad strokes that ought to inform America’s response to the China-ASEAN FTA that was born at midnight on the new year. The questions are whether the Obama Administration will have the wisdom to pursue it – and whether it realizes a challenge exists at all.
So you have to ask yourself if you trust Obama to engage on this critical issue. Domestically he has been busy – when not golfing – twisting every possible arm to pass health care reform against the wishes of the American people. He spent precious time and resources on Copenhagen and seems intent on passing a devastating Cap and Trade system (if vulnerable Democratic senators don’t convince him to hold off).
On the national security front, he seems incapable of recognizing the war on terror as anything more than a law enforcement or public relations battle; and avoids making the necessary commitments and hard choices. He has damaged relationships with the CIA and our allies around the world and blamed former President Bush at every possible opportunity.
On top of all of this, the President’s leftist base is full of anti-free trade unions intent on preventing critical trade agreements from moving forward despite their obvious benefit to the American economy and the important role they play strategically.
Do you think President Obama has the capability and inclination to ignore the shrieks from the unions and diligently pursue free trade in Asia as a counter-weight to the growing strength of China and the Islamic world? Does having Hillary Clinton at the State Department make you feel any better?
This may not be a question you have been asking yourself with all of the controversies swirling around of late. But the China-ASEAN FTA has the potential to re-shape the world as we know it in the coming years and more disengagement and bungling from the Obama administration could be devastating.
As we have learned lately about terrorism, pretending something doesn’t exist won’t make it go away. Developments in Asia and the Islamic world require attention, skill and expertise. We should be worried that the Obama administration lacks what it takes to further America’s long term interest in this crucial part of the world. And we should be contemplating what can be done to change this situation in both the short and long term.
Barack Obama: A President That Wasn’t
Hillary Clinton once said, during her run for President against her current boss, that the Presidency was no place for on the job training. She said she would be ready to lead from day one and that she would know what to do when that 3 am call came to the White House. Whether or not true of Hillary, we have learned these last 12 months that it is certainly not true of Barack Obama; Obama was NOT ready to lead from day one and he has failed to lead ever since. His own 3 am calls are going straight to voice mail (he’s out shooting hoops you see, or working on that birdie putt on Maui) and his on the job training continues with very little acquired knowledge to actually show for the troubles he has caused Americans.
Today’s entry in the “Epic Fail Diaries of Barack Obama” leads us to consider Al Qaeda in Yemen. The Al Qaeda he is sending 30,000 American troops to fight against in Afghanistan is the very same Al Qaeda he promises to inflict justice on in Detroit and ALSO just happens to be the Al Qaeda he means to tuck tail and run from in Yemen. And, to give AQ the leg up they need in the propaganda war, he (along with a host of other countries that have vowed to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat” them) has now closed America’s shining beacon of freedom out of fear that some bad guys might do a bad thing to us there… the very same place he keeps insisting on sending GITMO terrorists to. Yes, Al Qaeda terrorists.
Not what I call Presidential.
With so many failures – be they derived from inaction or ambivalence – Obama is creating for himself the least “presidential” legacy of any President in recent memory. His won’t be borne of health care, or saving the planet, or bailing out (and taking over) the private sector. It won’t even be found in immigration reform or jobs “created or saved.”
It will be George Bush.
Most of his campaign promises, and much of his agenda since being elected, have been based on a commitment to being “un-Bush” whenever, wherever, and however possible. From economics to war, Obama has built a Presidency based on undermining and undoing as much of his predecessor’s work as possible and blaming all the world’s troubles on former President Bush under the auspices of bringing the American people hope and change (as if the 8 previous years in America were fraught with hopelessness and stagnation). In promising to end a war in Iraq because the enemy is (and always was) in Afghanistan, Obama assured us that the fight is with Al Qaeda, yet he has done nothing more than capitulate America’s strength and position around the world to those very same people who have worked diligently over the past 8 years to kill us.
Very un-Bush of him.
George W. Bush’s predecessor gave us the new and improved Somalia. Ronald Reagan’s predecessor gave us the new and improved Iran. And now, Obama means to give us some twisted new version of Yemen we can’t even fully comprehend yet. With any luck, Obama’s replacement will have the means and national will to undo Obama’s damage before it can’t be undone.
If nothing else, there will be no arguing that Barack Obama is NO George W. Bush.
Merge the ‘Terror’ Lists to Prevent the Next Attack
Great piece by Jed Babbin over at Human Events today.
It would be satisfying — and manifestly just — for President Obama to fire Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. She abjures the “politics of fear,” and prefers the term “man-caused disasters” to the word “terrorism.” And it was her risible reaction to the failed Christmas Day attack (“the system worked”) that redundantly proved her unfit for her job.
And it would be satisfying — and equally justified — for Obama to remove Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair from his bureaucratic aerie. Blair’s job — a layer of dysfunctional supervision over the entire intelligence community — is to ensure intelligence is gathered, analyzed and applied. Which is obviously not being done.
But the problem is not just Napolitano or Blair. It’s their boss, and the costly bureaucratic maze that’s been created around airline security. Obama wants to treat terrorists as civilian criminals. And we’ve burdened ourselves too much since 9-11. It’s time to shift the burden.
If Conservatives Are Serious About Their Resurgence, They Will Defeat Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Poor wittle conservatives. Nobody wistens to the poor wittle conservatives.
The Senate Minority Leader talks like a conservative, but behind closed doors he does everything he can to shut down conservative small government agenda items and pro-life measures so he doesn’t have to vote for them.
House guys are little better. Remember Dede Scozzafava and the House GOP support for her?
Everyone likes to flirt with the conservatives and get their money, but they all get the joke — at the end of the day, conservatives will perform any act the Republican establishment asks to be performed, including acts Monica Lewinsky would blush at and run from.
Everybody gets the joke.
It is no wonder the tea party movement polls better than the GOP.
To the Republican establishment, NY-23 was just a temper tantrum. In fact, I know of more than one allegedly conservative elected Republican who loved the results of NY-23 because they think it finally put conservatives in their place.
That’s the reality of it. Conservatives are and have been perfectly willing for far too long to accept Republican establishment leaders who either actively hate conservatives or are wholly indifferent to them.
Trust me, the people who treat pro-lifers with the most distain are not pro-choice leftists, but leadership Republicans who want their money and vote, but otherwise wish they’d shut the heck up.
And that situation is going to continue until conservatives decide to take a Republican scalp in a GOP primary.
Allow me to recommend Bob Bennett (R-UT). In fact, if conservatives really do want to be taken seriously by the GOP and not be seen as just puppets for leadership, defeating Bob Bennett should be the number one agenda item of every conservative in the United States of America, even surpassing the desire to see Marco Rubio beat Charlie Crist.1
-
Just a note to stop the hate mail flowing in for being a traitor to Marco Rubio: we can fight on two fronts at once, but the reason this should be our number one agenda item is because (for those of you who stopped here instead of going below the fold) the Utah GOP Convention is only a couple months away. It is a higher priority because it is much more pressing. I’m not nor would I ever suggest abandoning Marco. Only one of these have I called a ‘hill to die on.’ Better now?
↩
Bennett is the eighth most liberal Republican Senator and he is from the most conservative state in the nation. There is no reason for Bennett to still be in office.
Under Bennett’s health care alternative to Obamacare, the government would fund abortions and individuals would be forced to buy their own health care under pain of serious financial penalty. In fact, the present Senate health care plan is, in some instances, to the right of the Bob Bennett plan.
Bennett is also a champion of larger government. He has rarely met a government plan he did not approve of. Likewise, he is a huge porker, voting repeatedly to fund government expansions and line the pockets of big businesses wishing to shut out competitors and entrepreneurs.
Bob Bennett has made no secret of his disdain for conservatives. Though he is not in the Republican Senate leadership, his best friend forever Mitch McConnell has allowed him a seat at the table. Using that position and the ear of his bff, Bennett has sabotaged pro-life legislation, ethics reform, tax reform, and regulatory reform that would help entrepreneurial small businesses over the big businesses the GOP so often considers their friend because the word “business” appears in the phrase.
Defeating Bob Bennett is a no-brainer. There is little chance a Democrat could win the seat statewide in Utah. Likewise, the Bennett defeat would come in a convention, not a bloody and expensive primary. If 60% of Utah Republicans reject Bennett at their state convention, he’s toast without a primary. And that convention happens in just a few months — which is why I put a higher priority on this than the Rubio v. Crist race. The timeline is rapid and gives us time to get back to Florida.
Conservatives have a perfect opportunity to shift an existing Republican seat to the right. They should seize the opportunity and defeat Bob Bennett.
Oh, and if you have a Facebook account, you can see that Bob Bennett is having a “fireside chat” in Provo, UT this Tuesday night. The event will begin at 7:30 p.m. at the Provo Marriott. To RSVP, email RSVP@bennettforsenate.com or call 801-328-4889.
Revisiting Sifry and the OfA Withering.
Micah Sifry wrote a follow-up to his post on the withering of Obama Organizing for America, and it’s just as interesting as the first one was. More practically useful, in its way: anybody involved with building/maintaining a local Tea Party group, or other local conservative/libertarian/Republican grassroots organization should read it. But – again – there’s one particular passage that I want to address:
…[A]nd heck, doesn’t the Democratic party want more local chapters[?]…
Not in the sense that Micah means, no. They want their current local chapters filled with people who show up, swell the ranks, pay their dues, and perform whatever tasks the local chapter leadership expects of them. Which, for most local chapters, involves maintaining the status quo. Actually letting those wild-eyed activists do anything would give said local chapter leadership the galloping staggers.
Anyway, read the whole thing, particularly if you’re a Right-grassroots organizer. But if you’re a progressive: read this, and tell yourself that nothing’s wrong, really.
Moe Lane
PS: What? No, the GOP has a different problem in that regard, which I have no intention at all of discussing in even a semi-public forum.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
The Republican Unicorns and Reality
Remember 2000? Bush spent a good bit more in resources in California than any sane person thought prudent. He lost California.
Republicans have, for a long time, been losing California. Ahnuld (writing it this way so I don’t have to look up the proper spelling of his last name) has largely been a fluke. He came to power in 2003 during the Gray Davis debacle and won re-election largely by becoming a Democrat.
Nonetheless, Republicans keep spending money to win statewide in California. Look at the NRSC’s commitment to Carly Fiorina.
Compare California to Massachusetts. That state is probably as tough as California, but it has elected a string of Republican governors from Bill Weld to Mitt Romney — it has had Republican governors who have behaved more Republican than Ahnuld and have won within the last decade.
But while the GOP has been standing behind Carly Fiorina in California in pursuit of the mythical GOP win there, the same cannot be said of the GOP helping Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
I think we should take a serious look at Scott Brown.
The odds are he won’t win. Let’s be realistic about it. But let’s also remember Joseph Cao could not win William Jefferson’s district in Louisiana — until he did. And unlike Cao, were Scott Brown elected to the United States Senate, he’d be the 41st vote against Obamacare.
The election in Massachusetts is a special election. Odd things can happen in special elections. Massachusetts has a high number of independent voters. There are a number of liberal voters so upset with Obama for ditching the public option they’re willing to support Scott Brown as a public rebuke to the President. Lastly, the state has a base of Republicans who still remember how to win statewide elections.
The odds are against Scott Brown, but only slightly. This race is winnable. Before you dismiss it or dismiss Scott Brown because he is a New England Republican, just remember — we still need 51 votes to control the Senate. Scott Brown gives us one. He may be like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins and hack us off frequently on domestic policy issues, but he’s right on health care and he seems more right than not on foreign affairs.
And Scott Brown’s victory would give Barack Obama a huge black eye.
Just sayin’.
Morning Briefing for January 4, 2009
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
I hope you had a happy new year. Just on a personal note, I’ll be on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central tonight at 11:30 p.m. ET. It should be interesting.
1. WH in full CYA/BDS mode over Christmas attack.
2. A Lack of Presidential Leadership
3. Something Wicked This Way Comes
4. Could this actually be the greatest and potentially the deadliest of Obama’s screw ups so far?
5. Barack Obama’s Vulnerabilities Will Get Us All Killed
6. The Trillion Dollar President’s War on the Word Terror
7. The Dozen Sacrifices Demanded by the Dems’ Pagan God of Health Care Reform
8. The Bottom Line on Wall St. and Bank Profits
9. Democrats resegregate DC school system.
1. WH in full CYA/BDS mode over Christmas attack.
A quick survey of priorities:
- In 2001, the American government’s response to a successful series of terrorist attacks was to look outwards to see who to hit for this*.
- In 2009, the American government’s response to an only-because-we-got-lucky unsuccessful terrorist attack was to look inwards to see who to blame for this. (H/T: Nice Deb)
I think that, all things considered, I prefer the first approach.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. A Lack of Presidential Leadership
You remember Tom Kean, don’t you? He’s the former chairman of the 9/11 Commission — that same commission whose policies in its massive report Barack Obama guaranteed to implement.
Obama has not. In fact, one of the chief priorities of the 9/11 commission was the ability to effectively cross reference people on terrorist watch lists with passenger manifests for airlines. Hasn’t fully happened.
Commission Chairman Kean was on State of the Union with John King earlier today. He made some real news.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. Something Wicked This Way Comes
In Little Rock, Arkansas, a muslim under investigation after returning from Yemen gunned down army recruiters.
On July 25, 2009, in Denver, CO, an Afghan-American went into a beauty supply store to beginsoldier building a bomb to blow up New York. Again.
In Ft. Hood, Texas, a solider gunned down his fellow soldiers after having had a stint in Yemen.
In New York City, an empty van sat for two days with forged law enforcement documents. We know very little else about the incident.
In the air over Detriot, MI, a Nigeria trained in Yemen tried to blow up the plane. He appears to have been helped get on the plane in Amsterdam without a passport. The passengers on the plane saw another man arrested when they landed in Detriot, but the authorities first denied it then said it was someone from a different flight. The passengers dispute this.
Then we had the attack on the CIA in Afghanistan by the soldier ranked highly enough to get to them without pre-screening.
Yemen warns of hundreds more.
This is all in the last six months or so. The frequency of the probing and testing has accelerated. What must they be planning?
As I have asked before and then again, let me ask another time: how many Americans will die because of Barack Obama’s weak leadership?
Something wicked this way comes and I have no faith these amateurs in office will be prepared for it.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. Could this actually be the greatest and potentially the deadliest of Obama’s screw ups so far?
I missed the implications of this up front and I bet you all did too, but I am hearing from members of the American intelligence community and some on the outside closely connected to those on the inside who are raising a huge red flag right now.
It appears Barack Obama inexperience and amateurishness has just started bonfires on the bridges connecting him to the American intelligence community and delivered a huge, HUGE psychological win to Al Qaeda.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
5. Barack Obama’s Vulnerabilities Will Get Us All Killed
234 days into George W. Bush’s first contentious year in office, four planes were hijacked and used as missiles to strike the United States. Shortly thereafter, Richard Reid tried to blow up another jet.
George Bush never tried to disown 9/11 or Richard Reid. He never tried to say, “hey, it was Clinton’s problem.” Sure, in fact, a lot of what led to 9/11 happened on Bill Clinton’s watch and he failed in most every measure to shut down Al Qaeda.
But after 9/11, George Bush didn’t spend his first day, second day, or third day blaming Clinton. He set out to destroy Al Qaeda. After Richard Reid, we’ve been pretty darn safe flying.
In fact, under George Bush leading scholars and pundits declared Al Qaeda marginalized. By 2003, the pontiffs of miasmatic beltway wisdom were near unanimous that Al Qaeda was near dismantled.
At the end of the first year of Barack Obama’s administration, there’s something moving in the shadows of Mount Doom. It wasn’t there while George Bush was in charge. But Barack Obama is no George Bush. And the strategy of blaming Bush for being weak on terror will not work after eight years of blaming Bush for being too bloodthirsty.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
6. The Trillion Dollar President’s War on the Word Terror
Does anyone believe that The Trillion Dollar Health Care President — as in, all he can do is spend and print a trillion dollars — cares one wit about the war on terror?
This is the same Trillion-Dollar-all-I-care-about-is-health-care-President who strains mightily to ever use the word terror, or the phrase war on terror.
His Homeland Secretary went a whole hearing with out using the word terror, but prefers the term a “man-caused disaster.”
This is the same President and White House who refused to term the Fort Hood attacks by a deranged Muslim terror — and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to any where near that point only because of an email trail by the shooter to radical clerics and websites.
I’ll bet the only reason that President Obama waited three days to make his statement about the system’s failure is that the White House took a poll which showed the Trillion Dollar Health Care President being pummeled.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
7. The Dozen Sacrifices Demanded by the Dems’ Pagan God of Health Care Reform
The reason that health care reform has previously never passed, is that the smart Democrats stopped themselves when the political costs of health care reform were weighed against their gains.
But Crusaders do not measure the costs. They fight until they and all around them die.
And the leaders of the Crusaders tell their own — ignore the costs! We must! We must! We must cram it down their throats! This is a moral battle.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
8. The Bottom Line on Wall St. and Bank Profits
2009 was one of the very best years in history for the financial industry, with over $50 billion in profits for the top half-dozen firms alone. Forget for a moment about the fact that this industry was literally saved from death with taxpayer dollars. The real question is, what are they there to do?
The short answer to that question is that the financial industry exists to make capital available, and to allocate it efficiently to productive uses in the real economy.
Instead, what did the financial industry do to make its money? The Wall St. firms ran proprietary trading programs as never before, and they raked in huge fees underwriting issues of debt by the largest corporations, who used the money to improve their balance sheets but not to invest in new productivity.
The old-fashioned banks spent the year lending Fed funds to the Treasury, profiting risk-free from the steep yield curve.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
9. Democrats resegregate DC school system.
Are you surprised? I’m not surprised.
You know, there’s a part of me that would almost prefer that this was evidence of some sort of long term payback – one that would have been in the works for about 150 years at this point – against African-Americans by the Democratic party. At least that would be a reason to wreck school choice. It would be a conscious decision. Instead, though, I’m faced with the tawdry reality that the Democratic Party simply just doesn’t care.
A Lack of Presidential Leadership
You remember Tom Kean, don’t you? He’s the former chairman of the 9/11 Commission — that same commission whose policies in its massive report Barack Obama guaranteed to implement.
Obama has not. In fact, one of the chief priorities of the 9/11 commission was the ability to effectively cross reference people on terrorist watch lists with passenger manifests for airlines. Hasn’t fully happened.
Commission Chairman Kean was on State of the Union with John King earlier today. He made some real news.
Keep in mind this guy is the guy Democrats and Republicans both trusted to lead the commission because he is one of those New England Republicans who eschews partisan politics.
According to Kean
“We had an administration which was not focused, as it should be, on terrorism and that’s understandable,” Kean said. “They were focused on health care and global warming and the economy. That’s very understandable. Secondly, we weren’t really focused on Yemen and the terrible things that are happening there. Now we are and that’s a good thing. And, thirdly, there were holes obviously and the [intelligence gathering] system wasn’t working well. We found out it wasn’t working well and the president understands it’s not working well and now we’re focused on fixing it.”
And that’s it precisely. And it is understandable. Obama has been focused on everything under the sun except keeping America safe. The Chairman of the 9/11 Commission recognizes this. The country no doubt recognizes this.
The question is: if Obama is too busy working on health care to take that 3 a.m. phone call, who is answering the phone?
Ah, former Governor Palin?
A few days ago Sissy Willis asked a very interesting question: Will Sarah Palin endorse Scott Brown? I’ve been thinking about it a bit; and while I can see the arguments both pro and con, I think that it’s time that Sarah Palin did. You have to speculate to accumulate, after all.
So let’s light this candle.
Moe Lane
PS: Scott Brown for US Senate.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Report AGW federal funding fraud! Win valuable prizes!
Take it away, James Delingpole:
…I am so glad to report that Michael Mann – creator of the incredible Hockey Stick curve and one of the scientists most heavily implicated in the Climategate scandal – is about to get a very nasty shock. When he turns up to work on Monday, he’ll find that all 27 of his colleagues at the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University have received a rather tempting email inviting them to blow the whistle on anyone they know who may have been fraudulently misusing federal grant funds for climate research.
Under US law, regardless of whether or not a prosecution results, the whistleblower stands to make very large sums of money: it is based on a percentage of the total government funds which have been misused, in this case perhaps as much as $50 million.
Who here is saddened by this news? I am saddened by this news: why, it’s enough to make me break down and cry. No, really: there’s not a chance that I can get a piece of this. Curse my liberal arts degree…
Moe Lane
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
The Obama Administration Gives INTERPOL More Favorable Immunities Than American Law Enforcement Agencies
Okay, okay. I know a lot of you know about this already.
For about a week I have been getting emails about Barack Obama surrendering American sovereignty to Interpol, the international criminal police force under the UN’s jurisdiction, but I honestly couldn’t believe even Obama would do that.
The people emailing me were, frankly, mostly of the black helicopter crowd variety so I dismissed it is as overhyped.
Then RedState regulars like Kenny Soloman and Veronica Estrada started taking it seriously. I had to pay attention.
Finally, I got an email with several links from a friend saying I needed to say something about this. He wanted to make sure it was on my radar screen.
This is an extremely serious issue.
The best and most reasonable take comes from Andy McCarthy. Let me put this in perspective for you.
American law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal level are bound by open records act laws. At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act applies.
Knowing that an intrepid reporter can, after establishing credible sources, file a judicially enforcible FOIA request to obtain information from a law enforcement agency is one of the chief deterrents to law enforcement agencies from abusing discretionary power.
Additionally, Interpol is a foreign power, but operates out of the U.S. Department of Justice inside the United States. While Interpol has some limited immunities given by Ronald Reagan in the early 1980’s, it does not — or at least did not until last week — have immunity from the 4th Amendment. Consequently, this international agency could, should it abuse its powers, have the federal government seize its assets, etc.
In other words, the international police organization Interpol was treated like every other law enforcement agency in America — it was subject to FOIA requests and could, like any arm of a municipal, county, state, or federal government agency, have its property taken by the federal government if it crossed the boundaries of criminal law protection for the accused.
For no discernible reason whatsoever, last Wednesday when no one was looking, Barack Obama signed an executive order giving all immunities of foreign powers to Interpol.
In other words, Interpol is now in a better position than any American law enforcement institution that operates on American soil. It cannot have its records searched or seized and it is not subject to the restraints of sunshine and transparency that FOIA requests can bring.
At a time when Obama is worried about ensuring the rights of terrorists against the abuses of the American government, he has no problem surrendering American rights to an arm of the United Nations.
This is extremely important because it comports with Barack Obama’s world view in ways harmful to American sovereignty. Obama has said repeatedly that he views no nation as greater than any other nation. He has said repeatedly that one nation should not be able to impose its will on another. He applies this even to the United States.
In Barack Obama’s world, the United States is no better and no worse than Iran, China, North Korea, or Kenya. In his world view, we are all players on an international stage with the United Nations as the leader. Therefore, while Obama will not give up American sovereignty to Peru, he is perfectly happy to give up sovereignty to the United Nations.
The man is not just an amateur. He is also a damnably naive fool.
This is also a backdoor to the International Criminal Court (”ICC”). The United States chose, before Obama took office, to avoid the ICC. Interpol has become the law enforcement arm of the ICC. By taking away the limits to Interpol’s immunity in the United States, Barack Obama has freed the organization up to conduct criminal investigations of individuals inside the United States on behalf of the ICC without any of us knowing about it.
And who does the ICC want to investigate? The lawyers, CIA operatives, and soldiers who have defended the United States in the War on Terror by setting up GTMO and prosecuting the war. These men and women now have yet another deterrent to keep them from being fully effective — the fear of an international criminal investigation that they don’t even know about.
How many Americans will get killed because of the policies Barack Obama is employing to undermine our safety and security in a dangerous world?
Google Hates BigGovernment
Earlier today while checking up on teh twitter, I saw this tweet from Caleb Howe at 10:49 am Eastern:
Naturally I clicked the link to see just what Caleb was sharing. Upon doing so, in my Chrome browser, I was met with this:
[Click image for larger view]
Why would Google be marking BigGovernment.com as a page that has malware on it? I have never before received this warning from Google when going to BigGovernment. I suppose it is possible that BigGovernment did have malicious code on it. Of course, I would then also have to believe that in the following two hours BigGovernment isolated the malicious code and removed the code. Why? Well, how else would Google Chrome now be allowing you to go to BigGovernment.com without a warning? Is their product malfunctioning? Also, Safari uses the same system as Chrome for detecting malicious sites, why didn’t Safari give the same warning when I attempted to use it?
I think the the real reason is that Google didn’t like the bad publicity BigGovernment was putting out on their internet.
See, the article that was being flagged by Google Chrome was about Net Neutrality and the duplicitous stance that Google has taken as a proponent of the same. I assume this was the offending text that caused Chrome to flag this article as malware:
Last week, in a post on the official Google blog, the company’s senior vice president for product management, Jonathan Rosenberg, wrote that while Google’s “goal is to keep the Internet open,” it opposes the concept of “openness” where it would apply to its own search and ad products.
Ironically, the rationale behind Google’s opposition to “open internet” policy of this sort sounds remarkably similar to the rationale expressed by ISPs—which Google and other “open internet” advocates have targeted as the enemy in the current fight regarding FCC rules—for opposing net neutrality. According to Rosenberg, opening up Google’s code “would actually hurt users” and result in “reduced quality” for those who rely on the service in question.
That is an end result that net neutrality opponents say could equally well be assured by instituting that specific policy, though they allege that a key difference is that net-only neutrality would help, not hurt, Google, from a financial perspective. Broader openness, by contrast, would strike a major blow to Google—and open internet advocates and major voices in the tech sphere are now calling the company out for dressing up a public policy stance that appears to driven by a pure profit motive as philosophically principled and heartfelt.[Emphasis Added]
OUCH!
Now, I am not well versed on Net Neutrality. I have read the diaries produced by Neil here on RedState and some other blogs on the subject though, and I believe I know enough to see the hypocrisy and pettiness shown by Google in this debate.
All that said, I really think that this is a shame. I love the products that Google has produced, I use them everyday, but if they are making their products bias against dissent from their political beliefs that practice will soon end.
Aaron B. Gardner
Colorado Political Analysis: 2010
From the diaries by Erick. This is MASTERFUL.
Colorado is a beautiful and diverse state with a rich and vibrant history. The landscape varies from the corn fields on the Eastern Plains to the Rocky Mountains which boast 50 fourteeners (mountains over 14,000 ft. elevation), to the lush green Western Slope. It was from the top of one of those fourteeners, Pike’s Peak (from the top of which on a clear day you can see twelve states), that Katharine Lee Bates wrote,
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
Colorado’s history dates back at least to the Anasazi of Mesa Verde. The Overland Trail went through Colorado. Just northwest of Fort Collins, wagon ruts can still be seen. This pioneering spirit still lives in many within the state. Colorado is rich with natural resources, including minerals, shale oil, and natural gas. Farming and ranching are still large industries here. Our ski resorts are famously known, possessing some of the best powder in the world. Colorado sits along the Continental Divide, and for this reason water is our most precious resource. The rivers that flow from Colorado provide water for a number of other states.
Colorado’s political landscape is unique, in that it is a microcosm of voting behavior of the nation as a whole, usually leading the national trends. When I moved here almost ten years ago, the Governor’s Mansion, both U.S. Senate seats, five of seven U.S. Congressional seats, and both State Senate and House chambers were controlled by Republicans. Today, the situation is completely reversed and the Democrats are in control. Fortunately, due to the Democrats’ mismanagement in Washington and Denver, we have the opportunity to turn the tide back in our favor. Colorado is a frequent battleground for political groups trying to sway the state one direction or the other.
Top News Stories- Imports slow Q2 growth as business spending surges 30/07/2010
- Floods kill more than 400 in Pakistan's northwest 30/07/2010
- House vote seen close on oil spill bill 30/07/2010
- BP to try well kill Tuesday 30/07/2010
- Canadian serial killer Pickton denied new trial 30/07/2010
- With one day to go, town braces for Clinton wedding 30/07/2010
- Afghan police fire shots to quell protest after accident 30/07/2010
- Fire prompts evacuation of 2,000 homes north of L.A 30/07/2010
- U.N. rights body tells Israel to end Gaza blockade 30/07/2010
- China overtakes Japan as No.2 economy: FX chief 30/07/2010
- Most Popular Videos — Reuters
- Breaking News
- J-Lo likely to replace Ellen as 'Idol' judge 30/07/2010
- Wildfire explodes in rural hills near Los Angeles 30/07/2010
- Economic growth likely slowed in 2nd quarter 30/07/2010
- July is deadliest month of Afghan war for U.S. 30/07/2010
- Dudley to outline BP plans to help Gulf recover 30/07/2010
- Russian Press Posts 'Spy' Mug Shots 30/07/2010
- Mothers Say U.S. Hikers' Yearlong Detention 'Outrageous' 30/07/2010
- Afghan Villagers Accuse NATO Troops Of Damaging Koran 30/07/2010
- Taliban Allegedly Threatens Tribal Elders In Southern Afghanistan 30/07/2010
- Iran's Wishful Thinking As Sanctions Take Hold 30/07/2010