Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Trump, Clinton, The American Republic & The Ides Of March


Caesar: Who is it in the press that calls on me? I hear a tongue shriller than all the music cry "Caesar!" Speak, Caesar is turn'd to hear.

Soothsayer: Beware the ides of March.

Caesar: What man is that?

Brutus: A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.

Julius Caesar Act 1, scene 2, 15–19

On the 15th of March, 44 B.C., the Roman Republic signed its death warrant when the Senators conspired to kill Julius Caesar. It was perhaps the most famous political assassination in history. It certainly was an inflection point in world history, marking the demise of the Roman Republic and its degeneration into rule by emperors. Somehow, I think we are seeing a variant on that history play out today on both the left and the right. The election of Trump could well spell the end our Republic. The plot to steal the nomination from him at a contested convention would surely be the end of the Republican Party. And the refusal to indict Hillary would be a de facto end to our nation as a nation of laws existing under the Constitution.

The nation has just suffered through nearly eight years seeing what rule by a progressive left ideologue looks like -- a combination of extra-constitutional rule, cronyism, and identity politics reaching to its ludicrous conclusions. We have an economy that is failing a declining middle class and has been propped up -- barely and only -- by a Fed running the printing presses non-stop and now considering negative interest rates. And Obama will leave the White House in 2017 with America in a much more precarious position in terms of national security -- his insane deal to give Iran a glide path to a nuclear arsenal being the suicidal cherry on top.

Much of what the Obama and the progressive left have accomplished has been enabled by a Court system whose progressive members consider themselves a politburo not bound by the Constitution or democracy, by closed public sector unions that pump incredible sums of laundered taxpayer money back into politics on behalf of progressives, an education system that indoctrinates for progressivism, a system of crony capitalism that operates to disadvantage the middle class and crush entrepreneurship, and by a progressive regulatory bureaucracy that operates outside of the Constitution, passing rules - none voted on by Congress yet still with the force of law -- that are working fundamental change to our nation.

I will admit to high hopes coming into the 2016 election. If you look hard at most of these issues, you will see that they are systemic problems that can only be solved by affirmative political action. Reining in the court system requires action by Congress, as does ending closed sector public unions and putting the regulatory bureaucracy wholly under Congressional control. And I had high hopes that this year, the pendulum would swing far enough to the right that we could elect a conservative for President who would address these systemic issues. Cruz, I thought and still think, understood all of these issues and would be most likely to address them. That said, we had 17 candidates on the Republican side at the start this year and almost all of them would have made decent presidents, if not as effective as Cruz. Rubio understood the national security picture best of all of them. Fiorina understood the problems with cronyism, regulation and Congressional accounting. Carson was an honorable man whose heart was in the right place. Even the weakest of the lot, Kasich and Bush, could have been expected to govern at least as milquetoast centrists, addressing none of the systemic problems but at least making none of them worse.

Instead we get Donald Trump, a narcissist megalomaniac and snake oil salesman extraordinaire. He is a progressive crony capitalist wearing the coat of a Republican because it suits his needs of the moment. He is Obama's mirror image in white face. He is the ultimate black swan. I do not expect a Trump, if elected, to address any of the systemic issues facing our nation. Indeed, his understanding of the issues seems about on par with a modern high school student, so what he will do in any particular situation is an unknown though his knee jerk seems to be to the progressive left. Nor do I expect him in any case to be any more of an effective leader than was Schwarzennager in California or Ventura in Minnesota. Victor Davis Hanson makes the point in a recent article that Trump is, at least, no more debased or worse than any other of the Democrats who have held the Presidency since 1961 and the ascension of JFK. True enough, and 20 years ago I would have broken out the popcorn for a Trump candidacy. But this comes at a time when the progressive left is pushing hard to take a permanent position of dominance and we are in a very precarious position on all fronts. I agree with Thomas Sowell (see here and here) that our nation no longer has the luxury of time to absorb another national leadership / political disaster:

The "Super Tuesday" primaries may be a turning point for America — and quite possibly a turn for the worse. After seven long years of domestic disasters and increasing international dangers, the next President of the United States will need extraordinary wisdom, maturity, depth of knowledge and personal character to rescue America.

Instead, if the polls are an indication, what we may get is someone with the opposite of all these things, a glib egomaniac with a checkered record in business and no track record at all in government — Donald Trump.

If so, the downward trajectory of America over the past seven years may well continue on into the future, to the point of no return. . . .

My fear is not that Trump will be an existential disaster as a President -- though I think he would be disaster. My real fear is that he will be ineffective, address none of the systemic problems, and yet be painted as the embodiment of all things conservative by a progressive media. After four years of Trump, I am afraid that it would be the death knell for the conservative movement and assure our national suicide with the ascendancy of the progressive left.

Having said all of that, there are various people talking about denying Trump the nomination at a contested convention. Indeed, Gov. Kasich, with all of a total of I believe it's 88 or so delegates at the moment, is justifying staying in the race under precisely that scenario. He is living in a dangerous fantasy land.

Perhaps if we arrive in July at a close delegate count without anyone having won the nomination outright with a 50% + 1 delegate count, then a contested convention might be justified. But if Trump is significantly ahead in the delegate count as seems likely and the Republican leadership denies him the nomination, that would be the end for a Republican Party already seen as being completely out of touch with its voting base. Indeed, the rise of Trump can largely be tied to the fact that Republicans in Congress have been completely ineffective in carrying out -- or even trying to carry out -- the wishes of the voters who elected them to office in wave elections. As much as I see Trump as being very likely the end for the conservative movement, shenanigans by the Republican leadership to deny him the nomination at the convention should he prove the clear favorite would absolutely spell the end for the Republican Party. It truly would be the equivalent of Rome's political class assassinating Julius Caesar.

A last note on Trump. The progressive left seems to believe that they have the freedom to shut down all speech with which they disagree. They have been able to get away with this most notably on progressive college campuses because the administrations agree with their positions. They are now seeking to export their tactics into society at large and shut down Trump -- with grandiose plans for much bigger disruption in the future. They succeeded in Chicago, with Trump cancelling his appearance there because of security concerns. And to the extent that there has been some violence involving protestors at Trump rallies, some have sought to blame Trump for this. That is utter horse manure. Trump is not responsible for progressives who believe that they are entitled to disrupt his speech, nor for the response of Americans who refuse to acquiesce to these progressive tactics. As David French wrote recently in National Review:

It will be impossible, over the long term, to maintain peace and even national unity if elite media and the Democratic party continue to condone and even encourage political violence and the systematic violation of individual rights by its radical progressive base. From Occupy to Ferguson to Baltimore to the unrest on campus, Americans have watched the liberal establishment trip over itself to express solidarity and sympathy with protesters who’ve burned, looted, shut down roads and parks, and violated the fundamental rights of American citizens.

. . . For the better part of two years, millions of Americans have watched as violence and disruption actually work. At college campuses, radical students and allied professors and administrators will shout down dissenters, intimidate fellow students, disrupt the educational process, and win. In the streets of American cities, protesters will riot, vandalize, block traffic, and invade shops and restaurants, and they win. When the narratives (“Hands up, don’t shoot,” or “It’s open season” on black males) are debunked by facts, protesters still prevail. Police tactics change even as the national murder rate seems set for its largest spike in 25 years. In the nation’s 50 largest cities, 770 more people were murdered in 2015 than in the previous year. Yet with the exception of a few courageous progressives, the Left largely hails this unrest. Even riots are excused or minimized by leading figures in the liberal intelligentsia, and mob actions that violate the free-speech rights of fellow citizens — by shouting down or shutting down events the Left doesn’t like — are whitewashed as “peaceful protest.” . . .

To try to paint violence at Trump rallies as Trump's fault is one hundred eighty degrees of wrong. One of two things must happen. Either the police must act to arrest these individuals and they be held accountable under the law or they need, in fact to be subject to real violence. The nonviolence of Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. only worked because they were appealing to a moral people on the other side. There is no morality on the progressive left beyond a desire for power and control. If they are to be given free reign to act without legal consequence, than they must be made to pay a physical consequence. That or we must bow down to progressives who are willing to use quasi-violent tactics to achieve their goals. It is as simple as that.

And that is the perfect lead-in to the other layer in this crap sandwich, Hildabeast, the likely nominee of the left. This is a woman who should be indicted and facing a lifetime in jail for her utter disregard of our national security. I have held a security clearance. I have worked with classified material. I am quite familiar with the need to safeguard such material, the lengths to which all people who hold such clearances are required to go, and the seriousness with which it is treated. This is an issue that transcends politics. Those on the left who are willing to give her a pass on this are both an utter disgrace and traitors to our Constitutional system, predicated as it is on the foundation that no one is above the law.

There is enough information in the public domain now to say categorically that Hillary Clinton has violated multiple laws regarding the handling of classified materials and should be facing indictment. ANYONE else who had done what she has done would be, at best, out on bail and awaiting trial. That the FBI appears to be slow walking this investigation at the moment is doing a tremendous disservice to our nation. That the media is letting her off the hook by allowing her to continue to make the claim that, because the information on her server was not marked classified, that has the slightest thing to do with her criminal negligence is doing a tremendous disservice to our nation. If she is not indicted, then we are no longer a nation of laws and it is time for blood in the streets.

This year should have been an inflection point spelling the end of the progressive toxins built into our system of government over the past century. Instead, we are reliving 44 BC, when the Republic hung in the balance and Rome went down the path to its dissolution. God help us and our nation.





Read More...

Monday, April 13, 2015

Charles Krauthammer Interview (Updated)

Several days ago, Bill Kristol interviewed today's preeminent conservative pundit, Charles Krauthammer. It is a fascinating look at both Krauthammer's personal journey from left to right as well his opinions on American politics of this day:



0:00 - Discussing his political journey to the right over the issues of national defense and foreign policy. He mentions his time as a writer at TNR and as a speech writer for Walter Mondale.

2:52 - Krauthammer found that he agreed with Reagan "from the start."

4:42 - Democrats lost all touch with of reality after they lost power in 1980. They agitated against taking any actions to counter the Soviets. "On every strategic issue," the left completely lost the plot. Krauthammer has some nice things to say about Pres. Carter.

10:00 - Krauthammer did not foresee the fall of the Soviet Union. It was a complete surprise. He describes it as "biblical." Their system was illogical, inhuman and overstretched. In hindsight, it's fall was inevitable. Pat Moynihan and Reagan are the only two who foresaw it.

13:55 - Describing Reagan. Krauthammer coined the phrase "the Reagan doctrine" in one of his columns as a way to clarify it for the Reagan administration itself, so that they could pursue it with coherence.

18:00 - Meets with Reagan for lunch. It took him years to realize that Reagan was a brilliant man who preferred to present himself as a simple man.

22:30 - George Bush was a man of tremendous courage. He was a man of convictions who was always willing to listen. In the end, he achieved his objectives in Iraq.

24:45 - A unipolar world emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We were the sole power left in the world, a situation not seen since the days of ancient Rome. The issue now is how to deal with challenges that are asymmetric. We tried to do it with the nuclear non-proliferation treaties, but that is now shredded.

31:00 - Nuclear proliferation among states is the great threat of our time. And we do not have an adequate answer yet. The Obama administration is hastening our step down from the top position in a unipolar world, inviting foreign adventurism and aggression.

32:50 - 9-11 marked the end of our "holiday from history" that began after the fall of the Soviet Union. For a time, during that period, we imagined that peace and prosperity are part of the air we breath, but every period of peace is in reality the result of a great nation imposing its will on the world.

36:58 - Bush responded effectively to jihadism, creating our response from scratch. Then we elected in Obama a President who believes that America is not exceptional and has no moral authority to act as the world's arbiter - a very dangerous proposition in a unipolar world. Iraq was won by Bush. It fell apart under Obama and the absence of any American influence.

40:20 - Decline as a nation is a choice. Clinton was wobbly about American power. Obama is ideologically opposed to American power. We are, in his eyes, a nation intrinsically flawed. Obama wanted an America diminished. We are not diminished in Krauthammer's eyes, though we are on that trajectory. We can come back. It is why the 2016 election is so important.

45:56 - Krauthammer doesn't know whether Hillary will continue the Obama "path of decline" should she become President. He doesn't know where she stands on any of the issues. Americans, other than the hard left, do not like America on this path. America has liberated more people, on more continents, than any other nation in the history of the world. We are seeing now, in 2015, the effects of the Obama's decision to retreat and withdrawal from our position of power beginning in 2008.

51:00 - Our nation can survive Obama domestically. We are stronger than our domestic problems make us seem. It only takes a strong leader to reverse the narrative. We get the leaders we deserve. Americans are rejecting Obama's European social model for our economy. 2016 election may well be a pivotal one in American history.

55:00 - Discussing his life growing up in Quebec. It was a European political culture. He was cleansed of political romanticism in a radicalized university and learned to love John Stuart Mills at Oxford. He discovered the history and politics of America through self study. There a reason America is still with its original Founding documents while France is on its Fifth Republic. Our Founders were practical and pragmatic men.

1:12:50 - Discussing his time in medical school and his practice of medicine. Seven years practicing in medicine gave him real world experience with humanity and human suffering. Marxism and Freudianism are the two great intellectual derangements of the 20th century. Both are completely discredited. The only place Marx is regularly taught today is in college English departments.

1:21:45 - Discussing Judaism, the Talmud and American law. The Talmud, commentaries on the Torah, shows majority rule and respect for dissenting opinions.

1:30:03 - Discussing Israel and Zionism. Jews have always been in Israel. The creation of Israel was not an act of colonization. It is a return. Jews are the only people who did not disappear from history after their exile. Hebrew is the only dead language restored. Zionism predated WWII by a hundred years. Krauthammer "doesn't believe in God but fears Him greatly." He rejects atheism as a religion, and a false one.





Read More...

Monday, October 28, 2013

Sixty Minutes On Behghazi

Sixty Minutes has done an expose on Benghazi - interviewing one of the participants on the ground that night. It might lead one to think that there might be something more to the Benghazi "scandal" than simple partisanship:



There are three legs to the Benghazi scandal - the Sixty Minutes episode dwells on the first and only alludes to the other two. Just as a reminder, those three legs are:

1) The refusal over months to provide increased security in the face of an open and obvious threat, was criminally reckless. There is some evidence that this was part of a deliberate policy to go forward with a light footprint in Libya for political reasons - though the author of that policy has never been identified. Moreover, this failure to provide adequate security shows an administration that completely misunderstands the threat we face from radical Wahhabi Islamists, and indeed, whitewashes Wahabbi Islam to the point of portraying it as benign.

2) The Obama administration refused to send any military assets to rescue our people once the attack started. Our people were left to die - my suspicion, because of domestic political considerations. No assets were scrambled, irrespective of whether they would have been there in time.

3) The complete whitewash and cover-up in the wake of Benghazi. One element of this was Obama and Clinton blaming the attack on a rogue movie review. A second element was an "official investigation" that did not include any interviews of high ranking State Dept. officials, including Clinton herself. The third element is that no one has been held accountable for any of this. Even the four mid-level staffers at the State Dept. who were identified anonymously as the people who had made the security decisions that led to the Benghazi slaughter still have their jobs at the State Dept.

Bastards.





Read More...

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Hilarious - The Hillary-Obama Ad

Say what you will, Leno is a superb comedian. His take on the 60 Minutes interview of Obama and Clinton was that it was more of a love fest. And indeed:



From Hot Air's Greenroom





Read More...

Friday, September 21, 2012

A Mo' Cartoon A Day

How to solve the problem of pretextual Islamic hyper-rage? A brilliant suggestion from Daniel Pipes in an op-ed at Fox News - use fire to put out the fire:

. . . What would happen if publishers and managers of major media outlets reached a consensus -- “Enough of this intimidation, we will publish the most famous Danish Muhammad cartoon every day, until the Islamists tire out and no longer riot”? What would happen if Korans were recurrently burned?

Would repetition inspire institutionalization, generate ever-more outraged responses, and offer a vehicle for Islamists to ride to greater power? Or would it lead to routinization, to a wearing out of Islamists, and a realization that violence is counter-productive to their cause?

I predict the latter. A Muhammad cartoon published each day, or Koranic desecrations on a quasi-regular basis, would make it harder for Islamists to mobilize Muslim mobs. Westerners could then once again treat Islam as they do other religions – freely, to criticize without fear. That would demonstrate to Islamists that Westerners will not capitulate, that they reject Islamic law, that they are ready to stand up for their values.

So, this is my plea to all Western editors and producers: Display the Muhammad cartoon daily, until the Islamists become accustomed to the fact that we turn sacred cows into hamburger.

Actually, it sounds a lot more likely to work than the Obama / Clinton apology for U.S. freedom of speech ad now playing in Pakistan. Here is my part, reprinting from Charlie Hebdo's edition this week:





(H/T Crusader Rabbit)

Yes, I know, they are over the top. Here is hoping U.S. cartoonists grow some testicles and come up with something more tasteful and critical. I still like Mo' with the bomb for a turban. It is certainly apropos.









Read More...

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Libya - the Aftermath

Our Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was murdered by Salafists in Libya, at some point during what amounted to a full scale military style raid. Ambassador Stevens apparently had no U.S. security assigned to him personally, and he was visiting a consulate in Behngazi with either a minimal or no U.S. security detail. Obama and Clinton need to explain how this could be allowed to happen, in particular on 9-11, in an area without a functioning government and known to be infested with Salafists. This is inexcusable.

Actually, the Ambassador's murder appears even more mysterious as more facts are learned. Fox has a timeline of the Salafist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. It is not clear when or how the Ambassador was murdered, only that he was.

Libya has an interim government at the moment, and I don't even know if they have anything approaching a functioning military or security system. The Libyan interim government has issued statements of apology and sorrow over these events and seem to be cooperating with U.S. authorities. Apparently, they have already made four arrests of suspects involved in the attack. The Atlantic is carrying a photo essay of pro-American rallies in Libya.

There are some calls in Congress today to strip aid from Libya. Rep. Peter King pushed back against that suggestion, stating that "that the government is fragile there -- and still forming after the downfall of Qaddafi -- and that Libyan security personnel did try to protect Americans during the Benghazi attack Tuesday night." I agree with Rep. King on this one. The actions of the Libyan government stand in stark contrast to the acts of the Egyptian government as regards the 9-11 attack on our embassy in Cairo and the two should not be similarly punished.





Read More...

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Islam, U.S. Free Speech, & No Room For Concessions

For years, the "Islamic" governments of OIC have been pushing through the UN a declaration that criticism of Islam should be outlawed by all nations as defamation. Even leaving aside issues of free speech, the only proper response to such a request from the U.S. should have been a one-finger salute - both for the good of the U.S. and for the good of every Muslim in this world. Yet it turns out today that the Hildabeast is in a three day closed door session with the OIC to discuss the issue. This from the Daily Beast:

The more realistic explanation for the three-day event, Lafferty said, is that administration officials, progressives and OIC officials are tacitly cooperating to gradually stigmatize speech that is critical of Islam.

Lafferty pointed to a July statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which she said that free speech will be protected, but the U.S. government will “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Clinton’s statement was issued at Istanbul, where the United States and the OIC launched the joint project to combat “religious intolerance.”

I've previously written at length why the OIC's efforts should be rejected out of hand, not merely for defense of the West, but for the good of Islam itself. As I wrote over four years ago:

The reason we face the problem of radical Islam today is that, in its entire history, Islam has seen no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Period of Enlightenment. These titanic events in Western history led to the development of secular values that came out of, but were separate from, the Judeo-Christian religion that birthed them. And these events gradually took religion from the sphere of a government imposition and moved it into the realm of the individual and local community.

The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment were each developed through the process of critical thought - the questioning and challenging of religious ideals and dogma. It was this critical thought that allowed the West to seperate the wheat -- the belief in God and universal concepts of moral behavior -- from the chaff of religion – dogma that restricted development in all aspects of society: political, artistic, scientific, philosophical. Thus, today do our universities turn out the finest scientists, the finest writers, the finest mathematicians and astronomers, while the universities in Saudi Arabia primarily turn out Wahhabi clerics. And it is why the West leads the world in science and the arts while the morals police in Saudi Arabia hunt down sorcerers and the Saudi courts apply Wahhabi Sharia law to order the flogging of victims of gang rape.

There are seeds from which a Muslim Enlightenment could yet occur. They would require criticism and debate to take root. Yet these seeds are under mortal threat today from the growth of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam. . . .

Ultimately, in the world of ideas, it is only through questioning and critical reasoning that advancements occur. To put an Islamic face on that, it is only through the embrace of ijtihad and the concepts of Islam discussed earlier that there is any chance that Islam will finally see a great historical change to moderate and modernize from Wahhab’s vision of 7th century Islam into a form of Islam that can coexist with the rest of the world in the 21st century. And Western society has an obligation not to be coerced into silence, but to openly criticize what we find dangerous and wrong in Islam. If our voice is cowed, how can we expect the voice of would be moderates in the world of Islam to stand up - and withstand the inevitable Wahhabi onslaught to their existence. The cost to humanity and the world if Islam does not have its Reformation and Enlightenment will almost assuredly be apocalyptic. . . .

You can find the entire essay here. If you are not aware of the history of Islam and why any restriction of free speech rights would practically doom the West, do please take the time to read it.

Read More...

Friday, January 28, 2011

A 3 A.M. Phone Call From Egypt


The Middle East is on fire. The Tunisian dictatorship fell to revolution days ago, and that has rippled throughout the Middle East, with the most immediate concern being the ripples in Egypt. There, Honsi Mubarak's regime is facing riots of sufficient seriousness that his family has fled the nation.

Egypt has been ruled as a dictatorship by Mubarak since the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar al-Sadat in 1981. And like all nations ruled by a dictatorship, Egypt has suffered. According to the CIA World Factbook, per capita GDP is just over $6,000, 20% of the nation lives below the poverty line, inflation is in double digits, and corruption pervades the nation. This from the Washington Post:

[F]or many [of the people rioting], it came down to this: a pervasive sense that the world has passed Egypt by, that money and power have become hopelessly entrenched in the hands of the few and that if the country is ever going to change, it has to do it now.

"There's a suffocating atmosphere in Egypt, and I'm tired of it," said Dandarwi, a lawyer dressed impeccably in a dark blue pinstriped suit, who quietly sipped coffee Thursday afternoon as he waited for the next protest to begin. "The elections are fraudulent. The people in power monopolize all the resources. There are no jobs. There's no health care. And I can't afford good schools for my children."

Like in Tunisia, the riots in Egypt are a grass roots phenomena and are motivated by bread and butter issues - jobs, inflation, corruption, and democracy. - not religion. The rioters are leaderless, though the April 6 Youth Movement, a facebook organization, appears to have been an important element in initiating the riots, as may have been coverage of the Tunisian riots by Al Jazeera.

The Bush Administration pushed for democratic reforms in Egypt, with the most famous call being made by Sec. of State Rice in her 2005 speech in Cairo. Bush significantly expanded programs to promote democracy in Egypt. But Obama, in his 2009 Cairo speech, completely backed off the effort to promote democracy in the Middle East, stating that he "would not presume to know what is best" for each nation. Further, while Obama continued financial support for the Mubarak regime, he "dramatically cut funds to promote democracy in Egypt."

Between the dictatorial bent of Mubarak and Obama's determination not to promote democratic reforms, the Muslim Brotherhood has emerged as the most organized and largest opposition group in Egypt. The Brotherhood is the progenitor of virtually all radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda. And the Brotherhood now sees a golden opportunity to co-op these riots and attempt to ride them to power. They will officially join the riots tomorrow, according to the NYT. If the Brotherhood succeeds, it will create a second Iran, Egyptians would have traded a dictatorship for an even more repressive theocracy, and the Western world will have to face a second enemy dedicated to its overthrow.

This nascent revolution in Egypt has caught Obama completely flat-footed. On Tuesday, with the riots on-going, Sec. of State Clinton stated that "Egypt's government is stable." By Thursday, it was clear that Clinton was clueless and that has left Obama struggling to find a policy:

Obama and his aides are performing a delicate balancing act as political upheaval rocks the Middle East, from Egypt to Tunisia to Lebanon to Yemen, catching his administration off-guard and showing the limits of U.S. influence.

While making a point of describing Mubarak as "very helpful on a range of tough issues," Obama sent him a blunt message to heed the demands of anti-government protesters for broader democratic rights after decades of authoritarian rule. . . .

The State Department expressed concern over reports that access to Internet and social networking websites was being blocked in Egypt.

"We are concerned that communication services, including the Internet, social media and even this #tweet, are being blocked in #Egypt," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley tweeted late on Thursday.

Facebook and Twitter have been key means of communication for protesters in Egypt. Twitter said on Wednesday the government had been blocking its service for the second consecutive day and had "greatly diminished traffic."

Obama urged the government and protesters to show restraint, saying violence was not the answer. "It is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances," he said, citing freedom of expression and access to social networking websites.

. . . the Obama administration is now pursuing a "dual-track" approach, with U.S. diplomats reaching out to government officials and democracy activists to encourage peaceful dialogue for reform, a senior U.S. official said. . . .

Most U.S.-based analysts believe Mubarak is likely to weather the storm, if for no other reason than his government and military seem prepared to use whatever force is needed.

But if Mubarak does lose his 30-year grip on power, the greatest U.S. fear would be the rise of a government with strong Islamist ties and the risk of Egypt aligning itself with Iran, a bitter foe of the United States and its ally Israel.

This is widely seen as something the powerful Egyptian military would never permit. Washington has poured billions of dollars of military and other aid into Egypt since it became the first of only two Arab states to make peace with Israel.

Unfortunately for Obama, the protesters are in no mood for half measures. They want real change, not hope and change. This from Reuters today:

Web activists called for mass protests across Egypt on Friday to end President Hosni Mubarak's three-decade rule after protesters clashed with security forces late into the night in the eastern city of Suez. . . .

All that it will take to turn the riots into a revolution is for some in the military to decide to switch sides as a critical moment. But as a leaderless revolution, it would create a vacuum that the Brotherhood would be quick to exploit unless something is done to head off such an outcome.

Unfortunately, Obama seems confused and out of his depth. His message of support for Mubarak and a message to the rioters that "violence isn't the answer" must seem craven and unrealistic advice indeed to people who have suffered under an iron-fisted dictatorship for decades. If the riots fail displace Mubarak, it won't be because of Obama's intercession on behalf of non-violence.

This is a critical challenge for the Obama administration. The moral highground here is clearly with the rioters. If Obama continues to side with Mubarak while mouthing meaningless suggestions that Mubarak institute democratic changes, whatever good will we have in Egypt may be squandered. That said, if he outright abandons Mubarak, he would be repeating the fatal mistakes of Jimmy Carter vis-a-vis Iran. Carter refused to back the Shah at a critical point in the 1979 revolution, thus opening up the country for takeover by Ayatollah Khomeini and the imposition of his repressive theocracy. Obama must also consider that Mubarak, given his age, ill health and tenuous hold on power, will not long retain power in Egypt in any event.

What Obama could do is act decisively. Obama should very publicly demand that Mubarak take specific steps to institute real democracy - freedom of speech, fair elections, a war on corruption - over a specific time frame or that he step down and turn over the government to a caretaker who will see to the reforms. At the same time, Obama should be using our contacts with Egypt's military to assist them in stepping in to take control of the country and institute a caretaker government should it become necessary. At all costs, Obama should be focused on buying the time and space to allow a secular opposition movement to coalesce in Egypt that can act as a counter-weight to the Brotherhood.

So now its 3:01 A.M. What will Obama do?

Updates:
- Egypt's El Baradei Not An Option

- Egypt Update I

Read More...

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Rush Responds To The Left's Attempt To Silence Criticism

Rush Limbaugh has written an exceptional essay in the WSJ: Liberals and the Violence Card - Conservative protest is motivated by a love of what America stands for. In it, he deconstructs the left's charges that covservatives are suborning violence. This from Rush:

. . . Now the liberals run the government and they're using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, "transformational" changes to our society. In just 16 months they've added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn't have garnered 30% of the popular vote.

Like the millions of citizens who've peacefully risen up and attended thousands of rallies in protest, I seek nothing more than the preservation of the social contract that undergirds our society. I do not hate the government, as the left does when it is not running it. I love this country. And because I do, I insist that the temporary inhabitants of high political office comply with the Constitution, honor our God-given unalienable rights, and respect our hard-earned private property. For this I am called seditious, among other things, by some of the very people who've condemned this society?

I reject the notion that America is in a well-deserved decline, that she and her citizens are unexceptional. I do not believe America is the problem in the world. I believe America is the solution to the world's problems. I reject a foreign policy that treats our allies like our enemies and our enemies like our allies. I condemn the president traveling the world apologizing for America's great contributions to mankind. And I condemn his soft-peddling the dangers we face from terrorism. For this I am inciting violence?

Few presidents have sunk so low as Mr. Clinton did with his accusations about Oklahoma City. Last week—on the very day I was contributing to and raising more than $3 million to fight leukemia and lymphoma on my radio program—Mr. Clinton used the 15th anniversary of that horrific day to regurgitate his claims about talk radio. . . .

Rush is an articulate man indeed. Do read the whole article.

Read More...

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Clinton & A The Long History Of Intolerance

Mark Tapscott looks at Clinton's efforts to silence Obama's critics by claiming their complaints to be demonization (boy is that projection) and that they are inviting domestic terrorism. Tapscott notes that Clinton is doing little more than those in power have been trying to do for millennia. It is a superb article. This from Mr. Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

. . . Take England's King Edward I, aka "the Longshanks" of "Braveheart" cinematic fame. It wasn't just William Wallace and the Scots who made Longshanks uncomfortable; he also took very unkindly to criticism from his own subjects. So much so, in fact, that he manipulated what in 1275 passed for the English Parliament to approve Westminster I, a re-codification of basic English law.

Westminster I made it a crime to sow “tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander may grow between the king and his people or the great men of the realm.” That law put a stop to criticism of Longshanks and his best buddies among the nobles.

Other English monarchs made the argument, too. Henry VIII had his six wives, but he also had a law regulating the then-new printing-press industry. Henry's law left no doubt about it in 1542: “Nothing shall be taught or maintained contrary to the King’s instructions.”

Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I, not only made the same argument Clinton is tutoring us with today, she upgraded its administration with the Star Chamber, a secret tribunal used to prosecute anybody writing or distributing books that were critical of the Queen or nobles.

Today, we call such government entities "administrative law panels." These are used to enforce bureaucratic regulations like the "Fairness Doctrine" of the FCC.

Henry and Elizabeth had to make the "criticism-of-government-causes-violence-against-government argument often because the English Puritans were such a strong force at the time.

Being Protestant Reformation zealots, they not only insisted that every man had the right to read the Bible in his native tongue and to decide for himself the meaning of Holy Scripture, they also preached that every man had the right to speak and publish his opinions about government.

That is why for decades prior to the English Civil War, a succession of English monarchs beheaded, drew and quartered, burned at the stake, and otherwise executed a long succession of Puritan "heretics" who were indeed "demonizing" government.

Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans didn't do such a good job of it once they had sent the head of Charles I bouncing down the steps of Parliament, however, and soon enough the Royalists were back in power.

At the insistence of Charles II, the Royalist-dominated Parliament passed a new law providing that “evil disposed persons” would no longer be allowed to write or sell “heretical, schismatical, blasphemous, seditious and treasonable books, pamphlets and papers” that endanger “the peace of these kingdoms and raising a disaffection to his Most Excellent Majesty and his government.”

It was largely against this historical backdrop of people in government prosecuting people outside of government for saying unkind things about them that led to the American Founders including in the First Amendment a guarantee of a free press, the right to assemble and petition for redress, and freedom of religion.

But within a decade of the Constitution's adoption, John Adams, one of our most esteemed Founders and our second president, was so worried about his critics - led by Thomas Jefferson - demonizing him and his friends that he got Congress to pass the Alien & Sedition Acts.

One of those laws made it illegal to “write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them.”

Then in the Civil War, there was Abe Lincoln saving the Union by suspending Habeus Corpus and jailing hundreds of political opponents and journalists for the duration of the war. Lincoln also put U.S. troops in newsrooms, took over daily newspapers, and destroyed printing presses. Obviously, demonizing government can't be tolerated during a war, right? Check out Harry J. Maihafer's "War of Words: Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War press" for the full story here.

Nothing much had changed by the time Woodrow Wilson was in the White House. Wilson and A. Mitchell Palmer, his attorney general, backed the Sedition Act of 1917 that made it a crime to "utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution..." Wilson and Palmer put hundreds of people, many of them anti-war Socialists, in jail for violating the Sedition Act, which was repealed in 1920.

In the 1960s, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson didn't need specific laws to suppress critics, they simply used the the Fairness Doctrine to silence critics who they deemed to be demonizing government and public officials. You can read about that in "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment" by former CBS News president Fred Friendly.

President Reagan did away with the Fairness Doctrine, which led to the explosion of Talk Radio and the flowering of hundreds of independent opinion-makers. But more recently, liberals like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Diane Feinstein are talking about reviving it or some form of it.

So Clinton's argument that criticism of government by peaceful citizens participating in Tea Party demonstrations leads to domestic terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing really is nothing new. Monarchs and others in government have been using that line to silence their critics for hundreds of years. . . .

Read More...

Monday, January 4, 2010

Iran & The Next Demonstrations


Iran awaits its next major holiday - and thus likely its next major demonstration - in February. A former intelligence offer who worked directly for Supreme Guide Khameini tells why he thinks Iran's theocracy will soon fall. Time weighs in with their own analysis. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton loudly condemns Iran. But first, writing at the NY Daily News, Amir Fakhravar tells us why the demonstrations in Iran are, in fact, a revolution in progress:

. . . What we are witnessing on the streets of Tehran and other cities is nothing short of a revolution - a carefully orchestrated, years-in-the-making attempt to overthrow a corrupt and repressive regime and replace it with something fundamentally more free, democratic and secular.

Watching the events unfold, I am taken back 15 years, when I was a student activist in medical school. In my first speech on campus, on Jan. 7, 1994, I simply said that in our country we don't have freedom the way the Supreme Leader says we do.

For saying this, I was sentenced to three years in prison. None of my schoolmates dared talk to me anymore; a combination of fear and religious beliefs had made even thinking ill of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a taboo.

Today, when I see Iranians fearlessly shouting "Death to Khamenei" and "Khamenei is a murderer" with police and members of the Basij militia present, I know that the Green revolution has found its correct course.

I know it is strong enough not only to survive, but to succeed.

Iranians have come a long way to arrive at this moment. More than 70% of the population is younger than 30; young people's disappointment with previous empty promises of reform led to the student uprising of July 9, 1999 - beginning to transform appeals for reform into more profound calls for democracy. . .

The only question now is how long it will take. Three elements can affect this time line. The first is Iranians inside Iran, who are already doing their part. The second is a coalition including different Iranian opposition groups to synchronize future protests and help shape the foundations of a new democratic and secular government upon the downfall of the Islamic Republic. The third is Western governments, who must impose hard sanctions on the regime to dramatically reduce the inflow of money, thus freeing the region and the world of a tyrannical and dangerous government.

Time Magazine offers there analysis, noting that the theocracy appears to be preparing for a massive crackdown, using Tianamen Square as a model. However, as Time notes, the difference between Iran in 2010 and China circa 1989 are greater than the similarities.

. . . China's 1989 democracy movement and the current Iranian uprising share some common threads. Both were youth-driven popular movements demanding change, led by loose coalitions of disparate factions that lacked strong leadership. And in both cases, the protesters' demands grew as the regimes clamped down.

But there are important differences between the two that may result in different outcomes. In Iran, the catalyst was the charge that the authorities had stolen an election that the opposition believes Mousavi won; the Chinese protestors had no history of voting in competitive elections and were mobilized by the death of Hu Yaobang, a reformist member of the communist leadership. China used maximum force relatively early; it contained the challenge within seven weeks. Iran's regime is losing momentum after seven months; demonstrations late last month spread to at least 10 major cities. China banned the foreign press and tightly controlled state media; Iran has been unable to prevent eyewitness accounts of citizen journalists from reaching the Internet, Facebook and Twitter.

The biggest difference may be that Iran is historically more democratic than China, where public participation in politics has been restricted for centuries. Iranians have had a growing role in politics since the 1905-11 Constitutional Revolution produced Asia's first parliament; they've voted for decades under both a monarchy and a theocracy. Also, China has long been a closed society; Iran's Indo-European population has long had exposure to Western ideas and education.

Rather than Tiananmen, Iran's opposition is hoping to repeat a different event from 1989 — the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Eastern Europe's communist regimes. Despite the regime's growing threats, opposition leaders remain defiant. Mousavi warned over the weekend that the crackdown will not succeed. "I say openly that orders to execute, kill or imprison Karroubi and Mousavi will not solve the problem," said a statement on his website. Mousavi's nephew was among those killed during the Ashura protests; opposition accounts claim he was assassinated.

Iran's uprising appears to have entered a new phase after the Dec. 19 death of dissident cleric Grand Ayatullah Hossein Ali Montazeri, and the Ashura protests a week later. The so-called Green Movement has proven both resolute and resilient, and appears to be gaining wider support from traditional and religious sectors of society once loyal to the regime.

The next key test for both sides will be the so-called 11 Days of Dawn commemoration of the 1979 revolution that begins on Feb. 1, marking the day revolutionary leader Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran from 14 years in exile. The public celebrations, the most important political holiday of the year, end on the anniversary of the fall of the government installed by the monarchy, which paved the way for creation of the world's only modern theocracy.

At the Bangkok Post, Mohammad Reza Madhi, a former officer in IRGC's intelligence service, gives his opinion that Ahmedinejad is "crazy" and that the theocracy will soon fall:

[Ahmedinejad] has already destroyed international relationships with many countries and made them enemies of Iran,'' said Mr Madhi, who was forced to flee Iran in 2008 . . .

Iran's opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi said on Friday he was ready to sacrifice his life in defence of the people's right to protest peacefully against the government after the worst unrest since the disputed June presidential election.

Mr Madhi, who says he was once the right-hand man of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and passed on information to respected cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who died last month, has been in regular contact with the opposition Green Path of Hope group since he left Iran.

He said while his country should remain the Islamic Republic of Iran, religion and politics must be separated. ''The good clerics should help the people and the government, while the bad ones should be ousted from government,'' he said.

Mr Madhi said a motivation for Iran improving international relations was the poor economic situation in the country and the need for it to be part of a globalised world economy.

. . . On Israel, he said: ''It is the Iranian government which doesn't recognise its right to exist, but the Iranian people might think differently.

''Israel's internal problems are its own affairs, not ours. We shouldn't get involved. It shouldn't concern us. My view is that Israel has the right to exist. We should recognise it.''

Mr Madhi was highly critical of Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, a spiritual adviser to a group of hard-line fundamentalists closely connected to senior leaders in the current Iranian government.

''He is a very crazy man who hates Israel and the United States especially. Unfortunately, President Ahmadinejad is one of his big fans as well.''

The former intelligence officer said that instead of imposing sanctions, western nations should look to supporting opposition groups and not recognise the Ahmadinejad government.

And lastly, Sec. of State Clinton has now spoken up on the demonstrations and repression. This from Breitbart:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday slammed what she called the "ruthless repression" of demonstrators against the Iranian regime.
"We have deep concerns about their behaviour, we have concerns about their intentions and we are deeply disturbed by the mounting signs of ruthless repression that they are exercising against those who assemble and express viewpoints that are at variance with what the leadership of Iran wants to hear," Clinton said.

It is good to hear her weighing in. But words alone, while important, are not near enough. As I spelled out here and here, Obama needs to fully support this revolution on all levels,

Read More...

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Impeachment - Honduran Style; Obama Acts As To Be Expected


Left wing Honduran President and Chavez ally Manuel Zelaya has been arrested by the military pursuant to a Court Order in a Constitutional crisis of his own making. The radical lefties - Chavez, Castro & the Obama administration - weigh in to support Zelaya.

President Zelya was, until today, in his second term as Honduran President. The Honduran Constitution provides a two term limit on the Presidency. Further, their Constitution provides a single method for amending the constitution - a 2/3rds vote of the legislative body in two consecutive regular annual sessions. Zelya had attempted to get around this by calling a country wide referendum. Honduras's highest Court ruled such a move illegal. Zelya continued ahead with the planned referendum, firing officials along the way who refused to take part in this extra-constitutional act. Accordingly, the Court ordered Zelya's arrest today and the military complied. At his own request, Zelya has been flown to Costa Rica. Fausta has the whole story.

This from the WSJ:

Honduras's Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as his successor until the end of Mr. Zelaya's term in January. Mr. Micheletti and others said they were the defenders, not opponents, of democratic rule.

"What was done here was a democratic act," Mr. Micheletti, who was sworn in as president Sunday afternoon, said to an ovation. "Our constitution continues to be relevant, our democracy continues to live."

It should be noted that Micheletti was also a member of Zelya's party. Although the Constitutional issue provided the impetus for this act by the Courts and military, underlying it was concern with the role of Venezuela's clown dictator, Hugo Chavez, in Honduran politics. The WSJ quotes retired Honduran Gen. Daniel López Carballo, who "justified the move against the president, telling CNN that if the military hadn't acted, Mr. Chávez would eventually be running Honduras by proxy." The WSJ further notes that this was "a common view Sunday."

All of the rabidly left wing governments are attacking this arrest and the installation of a new President. Chavez, for one, is threatening war. The Obama administration has, according to the WSJ, "called the removal of President Zelaya a coup and said it wouldn't recognize any other leader." And Sec. of State Clinton goes one further. This from the WP:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the action taken against Honduras' president should be condemned by everyone.

She says Honduras must embrace the principles of democracy and respect constitutional order. . . .

It certainly sounds like the Hondurans played by the Constitutional rule book. Yet the U.S. seems to want to favor the Chavista's unconstitutional acts. You know, honest to God, watching Obama foreign policy is like watching the Keystone Cops.








Read More...

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Hard Hitting New McCain Ad

More Democrats may want Obama to lead their party than anyone else, but several Democratic leaders do not believe he has the experience or judgment to lead. We know that list included Hillary and Biden, but now it includes Dodd . . . and Obama.

Read More...

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Is This An Effective Ad?



The ad attacks the grandiose and vacuous "hope" and "change" themes posited by Obama, exposing them to be what they are - calls from and to unadulterated narcissim. It does so by contrasting those calls with cold reality and the spirit of service and self-sacrifice. That is what seperates McCain's attack on Obama's vacuous themes from those of Hillary, who only attacked Obama's siren song without providing the stunning contrast.

Is the ad effective? Yes, but given the situation, more is required.

To add, Obama, the chameleon candidate, is infinitely flexible depending on the expediencies of the sitution. He changes principles at the same speed that a chameleon changes colors in response to the environment of the moment. A necessary characteristic to be able to pull this off is an amoral disdain for the truth. In an earlier century, Obama would have been the penultimate snake oil salesman.

McCain is insufficiently flexible - which is a blessing and a curse. He is highly principled and thus, when he makes a decision such as on the environment, he imbues that decision with the belief that it with moral and ethical meaning and an inclination therefore to stand with the decision through thick and thin. This does not foreclose reviewing the issue in response to changing facts, but it does slow his response down immensely. Thus, when the issues of energy and the economy have come into conflict, we have seen him slowly inch off of his position against off-shore drilling and the exploitation of our natural resources.

On a grand scale, to any student of leadership and human nature, this puts McCain light years ahead of Obama in terms of fitness for the Presidency. But given that many Americans do not view these two through that prism, it gives Obama the immediate tactical advantage. Thus, as blogged below, Obama has once again lied to the public - this time on his support for welfare reform - and we are still waiting for McCain to call him on it. McCain, intent on running an "honorable campaign," has not yet responded to the lie, instead coming out with the above ad.

McCain does not seem to grasp that part of running an honorable campaign is demanding the same degree of honor from your fellow candidate. He and his campaign need to demonstrate far more tactical flexibility while still maintaining his principled stands. This should be easily accomplished, but I don't see it yet. Thus as I view the above ad, while it is good, he is ceding to Obama the ground to rewrite history into a false and utopian fairy tale. Snake oil if you will. In a campaign with only four months remaining, this could be a fatal error.

(H/T Hot Air)

Read More...

Monday, May 19, 2008

McCain on SNL

He does comedy well.



(H/T Prime Time Politics)

Read More...

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Not Quite Yet With The Fat Lady

After a narrow victory in Indiana and a blow-out loss in North Carolina, both being below expectation performances for Hillary Clinton, one would think the fat lady is warming up. But Jules Crittenden has the full round-up, and as he notes, those writing Hillary's political obituary are just not looking close enough. He sifted through the remains of last night's primaries with rescue dogs and pronounces this morn that he found Hillary, she is alive, compos mentis and still eye gouging. The WSJ also provides a thorough analysis.


___________________________________________________________

This from Jules Crittenden today:

TIME, Drudge note the media willing to declare Hillary dead. So what? I’d say this is a more relevant film clip. The only way she dies soon is if the superdelegates organize themselves to club her. Maybe I’m missing something. Don’t these people know about the eye gouging?

. . . She fighting this to the end, and nothing that’s happened yet trumps her November argument. If anything, Obama’s poor showing with working white Americans bolsters it.

Read the whole post and his thoughts on the various other commentaries. Of particular note are JC's concluding remarks on a post by Don Surber:

Surber on whether white voters will go for Obama in November. No, he says, but it isn’t about race. Well, not entirely, though it is ironic that thanks to the black racism on Obama’s spiritual guide, the first viable black presidential candidate actually does have a race problem. Surber also thinks Obama’s the one and already misses Hillary. Oh ye of little faith … how can we miss her when she has no intention of going away?

The WSJ, which JC also sites, writes:

With his victory in North Carolina on Tuesday, Barack Obama took a giant step toward the Democratic presidential nomination. The irony is that he is doing this just when Hillary Clinton has finally exposed his potential weaknesses as a general election candidate.

The Illinois Senator can certainly breathe easier having dodged a loss in North Carolina, where he once held a big lead. As usual, he swept the under-30 crowd as well as the educated, upscale liberals in the central part of the Tar Heel State. . . .

But his victory in North Carolina depended heavily on his overwhelming (91%) share of the black vote, which made up about a third of the primary electorate. Mrs. Clinton won 61% of white Democrats in North Carolina, according to the exit polls, and 65% of white Democrats in Indiana. Mrs. Clinton also broke even among independents. Clearly Mr. Obama's early promise of a transracial, postpartisan coalition has dimmed as the campaign has progressed and voters have learned more about him.

The controversy over his 20-year association with his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, seems to have hurt in particular. About half of North Carolina Democrats said the Wright issue mattered to them, and they voted decisively for Senator Clinton. The former First Lady won easily among late deciders, which also suggests that Mr. Obama's rocky recent performance has cost him. And the Chicagoan continued his poor showing with rural voters, especially in white Democratic counties in Indiana. These are the voters John McCain will have a chance to get in November.

These are also the data points the Clinton campaign will now press with the superdelegates who will ultimately decide this contest. But the bitter political fact for the New York Senator is that her late-game rally may not matter. To nominate Mrs. Clinton now, party insiders would have to deny the nomination to the first African-American with a serious chance to be President, risking a revolt among their most loyal voting bloc.

The truth is that most Democratic pros are so confident of their November prospects that they believe either Senator will defeat John McCain. . . .

Judging by his victory speech last night, the Illinois rookie has already begun to pivot to a general election strategy. He tried to address his vulnerabilities on national security and cultural values. And he began to recast his personal story as an affirmation of the American dream – in contrast to the image presented by his much-delayed condemnation of Rev. Wright's anti-American conspiracy theories.

One habit of modern Democrats is that they tend to fall in love with candidates who are both unknown and untested. The superdelegates will now have to decide if Mr. Obama is more like the Jimmy Carter of 1976 – or Michael Dukakis.

Read the entire article. Hillary is not dead yet, but her wounds appear mortal to me. Her choice for the Kentuck Derby was incredibly metaphorical. She is coming in a clear second to Big Brown and the only way this will end is when she is euthanized on the track by her party once the race is finished.


Read More...

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

McCain On The Judiciary, Kelo, & Originalism

The greatest internal threat to our country lies in the third pillar of our government, the courts, where judicial activism to advance liberal social policies occurs daily and where Supreme Court justices positing the canard of the "living contstitution" feel free to dispense with the democratic methods written into the Constitution to make changes to our founding document and, instead, simply make the changes they want according to their own whim. It is the primary vehicle the far left has used to attack the very fabric of our society since the time of FDR. John McCain, speaking in NC alongside Fred Thompson, Ted Olson and Sam Brownback, laid out his bill of particulars condemning judicial activism and promising to appoint "strict constructionists."

__________________________________________________________

Given the ages of several members of the Supreme Court - John Paul Stevens, 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, Antonin Scalia, 72, Anthony Kennedy, 71 - it is quite likely that the next president will make multiple appointments to the Supreme Court. Those appointment will determine its bent as either an activist or originalist court for decades to come - and to understand the ramifications of such a situation, see Justice Scalia's discussion on originalism here. Indeed, besides national security, the power to nominate Supreme Court justices will be the most important function of our next president. With that in mind, this from the Washington Times:

The presumptive Republican presidential candidate said America's courts have strayed far from the edict of the Founding Fathers, who laid out "not just guidelines," but clear directives for the judiciary.

. . . Mr. McCain spoke in Wait Chapel at Wake Forest University, alongside former Solicitor General Ted Olsen, abortion foe Sen. Sam Brownback, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson — who dropped out of the GOP race and today made his first appearance with Mr. McCain.

The Arizona senator, who has made no bones about courting independent swing voters and moderate Democrats, ticked off several Supreme Court cases, including the case of Susette Kelo.

"Here was a woman whose home was taken from her because the local government and a few big corporations had designs of their own on the land, and she was getting in the way," he said. "And this power play actually got the constitutional 'thumbs-up' from five members of the Supreme Court."

He ridiculed the case of the California man who filed a suit against the entire U.S. States Congress — "which I guess made me a defendant, too — to remove the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"The Ninth Circuit court agreed, as it usually does when litigious people seek to rid our country of any trace of religious devotion. With an air of finality, the court declared that any further references to the Almighty in our Pledge were — and I quote — 'impermissible.' ….

"I have a feeling this fellow will get wind of my remarks today — and we're all in for trouble when he hears that we met in a chapel," Mr. McCain said, drawing laughter.

The senator said some controversial court decisions fall under the rubric of "judicial activism," and indicate that the balance of power designed by the Founding Fathers is out of whack.

"Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned. Only their favorite precedents are to be considered "settled law," and everything else is fair game," he said.

The move away from the strict interpretation of the Constitution has doubled back on Congress, where contentious confirmation hearings for judicial nominees is now the norm.

"We've seen and heard the shabby treatment accorded to nominees, the caricature and code words shouted or whispered, the twenty-minute questions and two-minute answers," he said. "No tactic of abuse or delay is out of bounds, until the nominee is declared 'in trouble' and the spouse is in tears," Mr. McCain said, referring to the latest Supreme Court appointee Samuel Alito, whose wife broke down during the congressional hearing.

But the breakdown stretches much farther, the senator said.

"Presidential nominees to the lower courts are now lucky if they get a hearing at all. … At this moment there are 31 nominations pending, including several for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that serves North Carolina," he said, noting that a third of the Fourth Circuit seats are vacant.

"But the alarm has yet to sound for the Senate majority leadership. Their idea of a judicial emergency is the possible confirmation of any judge who doesn't meet their own narrow tests of party and ideology. They want federal judges who will push the limits of constitutional law, and, to this end, they have pushed the limits of Senate rules and simple courtesy," he said.

Mr. McCain pointed out his role in the so-called "Gang of 14," a bipartisan group of senators that "got together and agreed we would not filibuster unless there were 'extraordinary circumstances.'

"This parliamentary truce was brief, but it lasted long enough to allow the confirmation of Justices [John] Roberts, Alito, and many other judges. And it showed that serious differences can be handled in a serious way, without allowing Senate business to unravel in a chaos of partisan anger," he said.

Mr. McCain took aim at his Democratic opponents, criticizing them for their opposition of Chief Justice Roberts. He lambasted Sen. Barack Obama for his opposition, citing the Illinois senator's words that a Supreme Court justice "should share 'one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.' "

"These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism — come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law," Mr. McCain said.

"Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and they see it only in each other."

He noted that when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, "I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise."

Mr. McCain said he would give great care to the nomination of judges, and pledged to restore the core beliefs of the judicial system.

"My commitment to you and to all the American people is to help restore the standards and spirit that give the judicial branch its place of honor in our government. Every federal court should command respect, instead of just obedience. Every federal court should be a refuge from abuses of power, and not the source. In every federal court in America, we must have confidence again that no rule applies except the rule of law, and that no interest is served except the interest of justice," he said.

Read the entire article.

To underscore just how dangerous judicial activism is to our country, one need only look to the first decision mentioned by McCain, the Kelo decision. If you are not familiary with the Kelo decision, you can read about it here. A group of five activist Supreme Court judges rewrote the plain language of the 5th Amendment in possibly the worst Supreme Court decision of the past century. The effect was to take away the limits on government at all levels to allow them to take private property upon a minimum of pretext and give it to commercial interests. It is both an invitation to corruption and a decision whose effects are being felt very much by the poor and by minorities. This from a recent article in the Orlando Sentinel:

Few policies have done more to destroy community and opportunity for minorities than eminent domain. Some 3 million to 4 million Americans, most of them ethnic minorities, have been forcibly displaced from their homes as a result of urban-renewal takings since World War II.

The fact is that eminent-domain abuse is a crucial constitutional-rights issue. . . .

Current eminent-domain horror stories in the South and elsewhere are not hard to find. At this writing, for example, the city of Clarksville, Tenn., is giving itself authority to seize more than 1,000 homes, businesses and churches and then resell much of the land to developers. Many who reside there are black, live on fixed incomes, and own well-maintained Victorian homes. At a City Council meeting earlier this month that overflowed with protesters from the neighborhood, local resident Virginia Hatcher charged that that the threat of forcing "people from their homesteads of many years" through "underhanded political manipulation" was not only "un-Christian" but had created a climate of fear.

Eminent domain has always had an outsized impact on the constitutional rights of minorities, but most of the public didn't notice until the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the court endorsed the power of a local government to forcibly transfer private property to commercial interests for the purpose of "economic development." The Fifth Amendment requires that such seizures be for a "public use," but that requirement can be satisfied, the court ruled, by virtually any claim of some sort of public benefit. Many charge that Kelo gives governments a blank check to redistribute land from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

Few protested the Kelo ruling more ardently than the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In an amicus brief filed in the case, it argued that "[t]he burden of eminent domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and economically disadvantaged." Unfettered eminent-domain authority, the NAACP concluded, is a "license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests."

. . . Four years ago, the city of Alabaster, Ala., used "blight" as a pretext to take 400 acres of rural property, much of it owned by low-income blacks, for a new Wal-Mart. Many of the residents had lived there for generations, and two other Wal-Mart stores were located less than 15 miles away. Several of the land owners, particularly those who lacked political clout and legal aid, ended up selling out at a discount. . . .

Read the entire article.

(H/T Instapundit)

Read More...

Friday, May 2, 2008

A Week Of Enemy Propaganda & Pusillanimous Interviews

Iraq is the penultimate issue for our national security today. The economy will bounce back, but Iraq will not if the Dems win the presidency or a veto proof majority in the Senate. We are winning in Iraq against both al Qaeda and Iran – a fact that is reverberating throughout the Islamic world. Moreover, the government of Iraq has made tremendous strides politically and militarily since the start of the New Year. If we legislate surrender in Iraq, the ramifications will be dire and permanent. We will have handed a victory beyond reckoning to al Qaeda and to Iran, and we will have done far more to advance the cause of Islamic radicalism than had we never gone into Iraq. Yet we have seen this week:

- Fox’s Bill O’Reilly do, at best, a marginal interview of Hillary Clinton on the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday

- The Washington Post run a front page story Wednesday about American efforts to defeat the Sadrists in Sadr City – written from the Sadrist perspective and complete with photos of dead babies.

- The AP run an incredibly disingenuous story spinning statistics on our war dead and, in addition, ignoring all the positive indicators out of Iraq.

- Fox’s Chris Wallace do a horrendous interview of Obama on the issues of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan on Sunday. It was one puff ball question after the next with no follow-up.

I. Hillary and O'Reilly

This was Hillary Thursday night in her interview with Bill O’Reilly discussing issues of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran:



1. Why does O’reilly, of all people, play this kabuki dance with Hillary of accepting at face value her ostensible reasons for legislating defeat in Iraq? Her opposition to the war in Iraq is pure opportunistic partisanship. Very coldly, very calculatingly, she’s tossing our national security under the bus so that she can gain power. Her base wants to label Iraq a failure at any cost. She heard the clarion call of her base and then tried to get to the left of Edwards and Obama. She is ambition unguided by any principles. Why in God’s name allow this woman to make her utterly ridiculous assertions without calling her on her motives?

2. O’reilly opens the segment of questions on Iraq by saying that "Iraq is a mess." Apparently the incredible progress in Iraq, both in terms of security and politically, since the start of the surge literally through today counts for nothing. What an utterly pretentious pusillanimous pontificating pedant O’Reilly is.

3. Once Hillary starts in, it is just insane. O’Reilly let’s Hillary get away with the tired and intellectually dishonest half quote of Gen. Petraeus, that "there is no military solution" to Iraq, and then a bald and breathless assertion that what we face in Iraq is "unprecedented." What is "unprecedented" Hillary never explains and O’Reilly never asks. She utterly refuses to acknowledge any progress in Iraq, as apparently does O’Reilly. Update: As Gateway Pundit sagely asks, "why is there no 'military solution in Iraq' but there is a military solution in Afghanistan?"

4. Hillary trots out the dishonest argument that to withdraw is the only way to "focus the Iraqi government." This is so transparent as to be mind-numbing. Iraqis are doing a tremendous job of focussing with us there at the moment. Further, we know from the recent hearings that Amb. Crocker thinks that pressuring the Iraqi govt. with withdrawing U.S. forces will have the precisely opposite effect.

5. Can Hillary possibly believe that Iran actually wants the U.S. to remain in Iraq? Every intelligence briefing we have seen and everything Iran is doing is designed to drive out America and create a Lebanon out of Iraq. This is a ridiculous theory made out of whole cloth. I want our spy-chief Mike McConnell to poll our intelligence agencies to see if there is any analyst who has been able to seriously consider Hilary's Iran-wants-us-to-stay-in-Iraq theory without laughing to the point of incontinence.

6. Under what possible alternate reality is Afghanistan more strategically important than Iraq? How much of the world's oil reserves are in Afghanistan? Iraq’s economy is, what, 100 times the size of Afghanistan’s. Iraq is dead in the center of the Middle East, it has both major Islamic sects and two major ethnic groups. Its loss to either al Qaeda or Iran would be exponentially more devastating to the war on terror than would be the loss of Afghanistan. There is a reason al Qaeda’s leaders have been saying publicly and privately since 2004 that Iraq is their main effort and there is a reason Iran is trying to "Lebanize" Iraq but not Afghanistan.

7. How does Hillary square her claim that Iraq is harming our effort in Afghanistan with the recent testimony from our military that Iraq is not detracting from our effort in Afghanistan.

8. O’reilly is at least accurate when he tells Hillary that withdrawing from Iraq will appear as weakness to Iran and al Qaeda. Both Benard Lewis and Arthur Hermann have written excellent essays on how destructive that would be, and I written on the topic here. O’reilly is also accurate that once we are out of Iraq, the Dems claims to go back into Iraq in case of problems is devoid of substance. The only reason we are succeeding in Iraq is because we have the large scale support of the people. That is what counterinsurgency is all about. If we pull out and things fall apart, who in Iraq at the local level will put their trust in U.S. troops - who will be on the ground for only a few days - while the people who will kneecap them with a power drill will show back up again as soon as the U.S. leaves? Where will we get our intelligence? If Clinton or Obama actually believe that we can pull out of Iraq yet remain close with a QRF and that such is sufficient to keep al Qaeda and Iran out of Iraq, they are utterly clueless.

All in all, I would have to rate the O’Reilly interview of Hillary a D. And that is by far the best of this rouge's gallery of agenda journalism for the week.

II. WaPo Does Dead Baby Propaganda For Sadr

On Wednesday, the Washington Post ran a front page story, U.S. Role Deepens In Sadr City, which discusses the U.S. push into Sadr City to put an end to the fiefdom being run by the Iranian backed Sadrists and to end the Iranian proxy attacks on the Green Zone, where, among other things, the Iraqi Parliament meets. Those attacks have been ongoing for months. Our soldiers are dying at the hands of Sadrists.

I sat down to fisk the article, but have found myself so outraged on each occasion that I have refrained, as what I would have written would have been incoherent profanity. The majority of the article is given over to presenting the Sadrist point of view and dwelling on collateral damage caused by U.S. counterattacks against Sadrist combatants who have taken up positions in inhabited dwellings. The article reports the casualty count according to the Sadrists and clearly gives the impression that the Sadrists are being more honest than the U.S. military – who stand accused of wantonly killing civilians. Here are the money quotes/photos from the article:

. . . An Associated Press photograph showed a boy being pulled from the rubble [after a U.S. counterattack]. The AP reported that Ali Hussein, 2, died at the hospital.

"Sadr City is under the American hammer and nobody is monitoring it," said Leewa Smeisim, the head of the Sadr movement's political bureau. "Eighty percent of the military operations are targeting innocents, . . .




Not to appear cold-hearted, but we are in a war and the people trying to kill our soldiers were in or near where that child was located. But a photo of that does not appear in the WaPo. The only reason to run the photo of this dead child is to create a negative emotional response towards our military. The child's death is a tragedy. The photo of that child's death is utterly despicable agenda journalism on behalf of those who wish to kill our soldiers.

If you would like to express your displeasure with this traitorous propaganda, the author is Amit R. Paley and can be reached by e-mail form here.

III. AP Misleading Reports Of U.S. Casualties

Also spinning beyond the pale was the A.P. with their article, US troop deaths push monthly toll to 7-month high in Iraq. It is a piece that ignores the incredibly positive news from Iraq in April and spins the rest in a manner as to approach the WaPo article as a piece of enemy propoganda. Dafydd at Big Lizards does an exceptional job of addressing this article, and I will simply link to his work here.

IV. Chris Wallace Interview of Obama

And then, lastly on Sunday, Fox’s Chris Wallace did a puff ball interview of Obama, letting him get away with ridiculous answers to easy questions on Iraq with no follow-up of any note. There were at least eight questions that should have been put to Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan, and I posted them here in detail. To summarize them:

1. At the Senate Hearings, you had a chance to ask Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker to evaluate your plan to leave Iraq beginning as soon as you take office – to let the American people know what the costs and benefits would be? You chose not to ask them that. Why not?

2. How much damage will it do to the war on terror, the fight against radical Islam led by al Qaeda and Iran, and our ability to convince any nation facing a threat to ally themselves with us if we leave Iraq before it is stabilized, allowing al Qaeda to reinfiltrate the Sunni portion while Iran creates a Hezbollah to dominate the Shia south?

3. Ambassador Crocker has clearly stated that attempting to pressure Iraq with threats of pulling out our soldiers is counterproductive because it puts Iraq’s political groups in the position of looking at their interests when the U.S. is gone rather than having enough feeling of security to make concessions. Why should we believe your argument to the contrary?

4. Al Qaeda says Iraq is its main effort. Zawahiri and bin Laden hate the Sunni Anbar Awakening movement and have vowed to destroy it because its success poses a mortal danger to the radical Islamic cause al Qaeda champions. We have all but destroyed al Qaeda in Iraq. So why should we leave and endanger all these gains before Iraq can handle its own internal and external security?

5. If Afghanistan is so important in your eyes, why, if you are in charge of the Sen. For. Relations subcommittee, have you not put the interests of the nation ahead of your own for a week and convened hearings to put pressure on our NATO allies to support the Afghan mission?

6. The Protect America Act contains an immunity provision for telecom companies who voluntarily cooperate with our intelligence community. Those companies face massive law suits from a dem special interest group - the tort bar. The Chairman of the House Sen. Intel Comm., a democrat, is on the record as noting that continued voluntary cooperation from these companies is vital to our national security and would be endangered by these lawsuits. You voted to strip out the immunity provision from the act. Why did you place the interests of a special interest group ahead of our nation’s security?

7. Given Iran’s long history of terrorism since 1979 and their clear goals to expand their influence and build a nuclear arsenal, what could you possibly offer Iran in talks that would change the inherent nature of the theocracy and move them from their current course?

8. What makes you think your plans to hold talks with Iran under the current circumstances are, one, justified, and two, would be any less ill advised, counterproductive and disastrous than the attempts to find a middle ground with Hitler in the 30's?
______________________________________________________

If you value intellectual honesty, objectivity and reality, this has been a very bad week for you, indeed.

Read More...