Posts
White House advisor briefed on 'underwear bomb' in October
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/white_house_advisor_briefed_on.html
JAN 2 2010
Rick Moran
Newsweek follows up its story on Obama being informed of a Christmas terror plot with the story that White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan being briefed about the kind of bomb used during the holiday attack:
White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan was briefed in October on an assassination attempt by Al Qaeda that investigators now believe used the same underwear bombing technique as the Nigerian suspect who tried to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day, U.S. intelligence and administration officials tell NEWSWEEK.
The briefing to Brennan was delivered at the White House by Muhammad bin Nayef, Saudi Arabia's chief counterterrorism official. In late August, Nayef had survived an assassination attempt by an operative dispatched by the Yemeni branch of Al Qaeda who was pretending to turn himself in. The operative had tried to kill the Saudi prince by detonating a bomb on his body, but stumbled on his way into the prince's palace and blew himself up.
U.S. officials now suspect that Nayef's attempted assassin and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian suspect aboard the Northwest flight, had the same bomb maker in Yemen, intelligence experts tell NEWSWEEK. At the briefing for Brennan, Nayef was concerned because "he didn't think [U.S. officials] were paying enough attention" to the growing threat from Al Qaeda in Yemen, said a former U.S. intelligence official familiar with the briefing. (A senior Saudi official told NEWSWEEK Saturday that "we don't have any concerns that the U.S. government isn't sufficiently concerned about Yemen. In the latter part of the Bush administration and in this administration, the U.S. has been very focused on the dangers emanating from Yemen.")
The more that dribbles out about the reaction of the administration to this threat, the more klutzy they look
Saturday, January 2, 2010
The Government Was Alerted to the Nigerian Threat
It appears that the CIA did absolutely everything correctly. POTUS is mistaken again and lays the blame everywhere but at his desk.
Another Obama-CIA rift as POTUS deflects blame from self, DNI and appointees
http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/01/02/another-obama-cia-rift-as-potus-deflects-blame-from-self-dni-and-appointees/
While the painstaking process of unearthing the “systematic failures” of intelligence on the “underwear bomber” continues, Obama again performs on script. Just as he’s done with virtually every past crises – and always while armed with only the bare essentials of information – the now infamous POTUS finger of blame moves away from anyone remotely connected with Obama, his decisions or performance of his appointees, and falls once again on his favorite scapegoat, the CIA.
And the CIA spy chiefs are none to happy about the accusations. It seemed especially harsh when, in an apparent moment of political expedience, Obama was hailing the seven CIA agents slain by a suicide bomber at a US base in the eastern province of Khost 24 hours later.
One day the President is pointing the finger and blaming the intelligence services, saying there is a systemic failure,’ said one agency official. ‘Now we are heroes. The fact is that we are doing everything humanly possible to stay on top of the security situation. The deaths of our operatives shows just how involved we are on the ground.’
But CIA bosses claim they were unfairly blamed at a time the covert government agency has been stretched further than ever before in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They point to the murder of seven operatives at a remote mountain base in Afghanistan’s Khost Province as an example of how agents are putting their lives on the line at the vanguard of America’s far-flung wars.
~~~
Some CIA officials are angry at being criticised by the White House after Abdulmutallab, 23, was allowed to slip through the security net and board a US-bound flight in Amsterdam despite evidence he was a terror threat.
The president complained that a warning from the former London engineering student’s father and information about an al Qaeda bomb plot involving a Nigerian were not handled properly by the intelligence networks.
But CIA officials say the data was sent to the US National Counterterrorism Centre in Washington, which was set up after the 9/11 attacks as a clearing house where raw data should be analysed.
Agents claim that is where the dots should have been connected to help identify Abdulmutallab as a threat.
The National Counterterrorism Center (aka NCTC) is a post 911 creation by President Bush’s EO# 13355 August 2004, subsequently codified by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA).
The Director of NCTC is a Deputy Secretary-equivalent with a unique, dual line of reporting: (1) to the President regarding Executive branch-wide counterterrorism planning, and (2) to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) regarding intelligence matters. NCTC follows the policy direction of the President, and National and Homeland Security Councils.
This means that the intel sharing buck now stops at the desk of retired Adm. Dennis Blair, Obama’s appointee as Director of National Intelligence, and the honcho who oversees the sharing of intel between the 16 intelligence agencies.
The interagency blame game eminates from Obama accusations that the CIA did not pass along complete information that would result in a “red flag” being raised. On Dec 29th, CNN reported what can only be construed as preliminary talking points obtained from “sources” (aka WH mouthpieces…?) insisting that CIA Langley headquarters received the information, then it “…sat there for five weeks and was not disseminated.”
However the CIA insists that a cable was sent to the NCTC in November, containing any and all information that could have put the underwear bomber on a no-fly list via interagency instructions.
According to CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, the father of the Christmas bomber Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, spoke to a CIA official with the Nigerian embassy about the concerns he had with his son’s disappearance, extremists views and ties to radicals in Yemen. The father, a former Nigerian banker, met with embassy officials at least once and also made several phone calls. A report was created on AbdulMutallab; the 23-year-old Nigerian and delivered to CIA headquarters, but the full contents of the report was not disseminated to other agencies, according to a source.
However, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly pushed back against the claim that the CIA sat on information that could have prevented the attempted bombing:
“State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said department staff did what they were supposed to have done by sending a cable to the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington about the matter. Kelly said any decision to have revoked the suspect’s visa would have been an interagency decision.”
The cable reportedly contained AbdulMutallab’s name, passport number and possible connection to extremists. “I’m not aware of a magic piece of intelligence somehow withheld that would have put AbdulMutallab on the no-fly list,” an official told CNN.
The National Counterterrorism Center claims that the CIA cable contained nothing that would have alerted officials to place AbdulMutallab on the no fly list. Out of hundreds of alerts the Counterterrorism Center receives each day, the cable on the Nigerian Christmas bomber apparently did not raise a red flag.
President Obama said on Tuesday that a red flag should have been raised. “Even without this one report, there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together, said Obama.
CBS News reported that as far back as August 2009, “the Central Intelligence Agency was picking up information on a person of interest dubbed “The Nigerian,” suspected of meeting with “terrorist elements” in Yemen.” CIA officials did not connect the information to the “underwear bomber” Abudulmutallab, until after the attempted bombing of Flight 253, with about 3 ounces of a powerful explosive hidde inside a pair of specially-made underwear.
Obama believes that had the full CIA report been shared with other agencies, the Nigerian bomber may have, at the very least, been given greater scrutiny that may have prevented the 23-year-old terrorist from boarding the plane in Amsterdam bound for the United States:
“Had this critical information been shared, it could been compiled with other intelligence, and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged. The warning signs would have triggered red flags, and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America,” said Obama in his speech delivered from his vacation in Hawaii.
While the CIA admits they did not forward on the full file of “the Nigerian”, it was not until after the attack that “the Nigerian” and the underwear bomber were positively ID’d as one and the same. This does not negate that absolute specifics of a potential terrorist… including his name, passport and key biographical information – was sent on the the NCTC more than a month before the Christmas attack.
“We learned of him in November, when his father came to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and sought help in finding him. We did not have his name before then,” said Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman. “Also in November, we worked with the embassy to ensure he was in the government’s terrorist database – including mention of his possible extremist connections in Yemen. We also forwarded key biographical information about him to the National Counterterrorism Center. This agency, like others in our government, is reviewing all data to which it had access – not just what we ourselves may have collected – to determine if more could have been done to stop Abdulmutallab.”
Obama is quick to lay blame on the CIA, despite their timely forwarding of risk specifics. The POTUS is also just as quick to ignore that the same information did not get relayed properly from his appointee to both his own office and Napolitano… the ultimate buck stop desks. This is yet another CYA moment for a naive CiC…. an obvious desperate attempt to draw focus away from his choices of appointees and the failures of his administration.
But friction between this POTUS and the CIA isn’t new… He didn’t win the hearts and minds of our own intelligence community when he declassified memos on CIA interrogation methods yet refused to release subsequent memos that noted success of thwarted attacks while simultaneously promising CIA agents immuity from prosecution.
Again, within 24 hours, the forked tongue POTUS was busy shifting blame for the false promises. In the lies about “immunity”, Obama deflected the blame to Holder.
Senior members of the Bush administration who approved the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation measures could face prosecution, President Obama disclosed today .
He said the use of torture reflected America “losing our moral bearings”.
He said his attorney general, Eric Holder, was conducting an investigation and the decision rested with him. Obama last week ruled out prosecution of CIA agents who carried out the interrogation of suspected al-Qaida members at Guantánamo and secret prisons around the world.
But for the first time today he opened up the possibility that those in the administration who gave the go-ahead for the use of waterboarding could be prosecuted.
That was April… by September, investigations and broken promises were well underway – with Holder taking the heat instead of the POTUS. Either this President is a manipulated puppet figure, or the liar. But then… this is becoming a pattern with this President.
When it comes to accessible information, Obama is busy either releasing selective data, or locking it away… whichever proves to be more politically expedient for his image. As Wordsmith pointed out only yesterday, WH officials, poring thru the Bush archives to find intel failures, is fair game if it helps the press focus anywhere other than his own admin’s failures. It will, however, be difficult to find Bush failures that lessen the blow to Obama’s national security credentials since events like the underwear bomber or the shootings at Ft. Hood simply didn’t happen post 911.
Obama’s assault on the CIA goes back even further… with a jr. Senator on record… Congressional Record most specifically… in putting the CIA on notice. In an ironic choice of date – Pearl Harbor Day – then Sen. Obama and professional POTUS campaigner lambasted the CIA over the destruction of videotape, and suggested that the CIA felt themselves to be above the law.
Mr. President, this incident deserves further congressional oversight and inquiry – neither the CIA nor this interrogation program is immune to our laws. This is yet another chapter in a dark period in our constitutional history. Now, it is time to turn the page. That is why I was heartened to learn that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have reached agreement on including a requirement in the Intelligence Authorization bill that subjects CIA interrogators to the guidelines on interrogation included in the U.S. Army Field Manual. It would be a grave disappointment – though not surprising – if this important step forward were subject to a veto threat from the President. That must not deter the Congress from moving forward. We have a responsibility to act.
To make this pompous speech on a day of infamy is particularly arrogant. For I’m willing to bet that any US official and citizen would be quick to give the nod of approval to waterboard any suspect, or play loud music 24/7, if it prevented the deaths at Pearl Harbor.
From the actions and behavior of this POTUS… constantly deflecting blame to others at every avenue… we have learned two things.
First: There is nothing he is willing to take responsibility for directly. That’s why he has appointed lackeys.
Second: Obama’s choice of enemies should be harshly called into question. While he limits any sparse references of “war” with the global Islamic jihad movement to just AQ, he appears to be waging an all out war with our own intelligence agencies. This is a CiC who needs his priorities straightened out in the worst way.
Another Obama-CIA rift as POTUS deflects blame from self, DNI and appointees
http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/01/02/another-obama-cia-rift-as-potus-deflects-blame-from-self-dni-and-appointees/
While the painstaking process of unearthing the “systematic failures” of intelligence on the “underwear bomber” continues, Obama again performs on script. Just as he’s done with virtually every past crises – and always while armed with only the bare essentials of information – the now infamous POTUS finger of blame moves away from anyone remotely connected with Obama, his decisions or performance of his appointees, and falls once again on his favorite scapegoat, the CIA.
And the CIA spy chiefs are none to happy about the accusations. It seemed especially harsh when, in an apparent moment of political expedience, Obama was hailing the seven CIA agents slain by a suicide bomber at a US base in the eastern province of Khost 24 hours later.
One day the President is pointing the finger and blaming the intelligence services, saying there is a systemic failure,’ said one agency official. ‘Now we are heroes. The fact is that we are doing everything humanly possible to stay on top of the security situation. The deaths of our operatives shows just how involved we are on the ground.’
But CIA bosses claim they were unfairly blamed at a time the covert government agency has been stretched further than ever before in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They point to the murder of seven operatives at a remote mountain base in Afghanistan’s Khost Province as an example of how agents are putting their lives on the line at the vanguard of America’s far-flung wars.
~~~
Some CIA officials are angry at being criticised by the White House after Abdulmutallab, 23, was allowed to slip through the security net and board a US-bound flight in Amsterdam despite evidence he was a terror threat.
The president complained that a warning from the former London engineering student’s father and information about an al Qaeda bomb plot involving a Nigerian were not handled properly by the intelligence networks.
But CIA officials say the data was sent to the US National Counterterrorism Centre in Washington, which was set up after the 9/11 attacks as a clearing house where raw data should be analysed.
Agents claim that is where the dots should have been connected to help identify Abdulmutallab as a threat.
The National Counterterrorism Center (aka NCTC) is a post 911 creation by President Bush’s EO# 13355 August 2004, subsequently codified by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA).
The Director of NCTC is a Deputy Secretary-equivalent with a unique, dual line of reporting: (1) to the President regarding Executive branch-wide counterterrorism planning, and (2) to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) regarding intelligence matters. NCTC follows the policy direction of the President, and National and Homeland Security Councils.
This means that the intel sharing buck now stops at the desk of retired Adm. Dennis Blair, Obama’s appointee as Director of National Intelligence, and the honcho who oversees the sharing of intel between the 16 intelligence agencies.
The interagency blame game eminates from Obama accusations that the CIA did not pass along complete information that would result in a “red flag” being raised. On Dec 29th, CNN reported what can only be construed as preliminary talking points obtained from “sources” (aka WH mouthpieces…?) insisting that CIA Langley headquarters received the information, then it “…sat there for five weeks and was not disseminated.”
However the CIA insists that a cable was sent to the NCTC in November, containing any and all information that could have put the underwear bomber on a no-fly list via interagency instructions.
According to CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, the father of the Christmas bomber Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, spoke to a CIA official with the Nigerian embassy about the concerns he had with his son’s disappearance, extremists views and ties to radicals in Yemen. The father, a former Nigerian banker, met with embassy officials at least once and also made several phone calls. A report was created on AbdulMutallab; the 23-year-old Nigerian and delivered to CIA headquarters, but the full contents of the report was not disseminated to other agencies, according to a source.
However, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly pushed back against the claim that the CIA sat on information that could have prevented the attempted bombing:
“State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said department staff did what they were supposed to have done by sending a cable to the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington about the matter. Kelly said any decision to have revoked the suspect’s visa would have been an interagency decision.”
The cable reportedly contained AbdulMutallab’s name, passport number and possible connection to extremists. “I’m not aware of a magic piece of intelligence somehow withheld that would have put AbdulMutallab on the no-fly list,” an official told CNN.
The National Counterterrorism Center claims that the CIA cable contained nothing that would have alerted officials to place AbdulMutallab on the no fly list. Out of hundreds of alerts the Counterterrorism Center receives each day, the cable on the Nigerian Christmas bomber apparently did not raise a red flag.
President Obama said on Tuesday that a red flag should have been raised. “Even without this one report, there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together, said Obama.
CBS News reported that as far back as August 2009, “the Central Intelligence Agency was picking up information on a person of interest dubbed “The Nigerian,” suspected of meeting with “terrorist elements” in Yemen.” CIA officials did not connect the information to the “underwear bomber” Abudulmutallab, until after the attempted bombing of Flight 253, with about 3 ounces of a powerful explosive hidde inside a pair of specially-made underwear.
Obama believes that had the full CIA report been shared with other agencies, the Nigerian bomber may have, at the very least, been given greater scrutiny that may have prevented the 23-year-old terrorist from boarding the plane in Amsterdam bound for the United States:
“Had this critical information been shared, it could been compiled with other intelligence, and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged. The warning signs would have triggered red flags, and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America,” said Obama in his speech delivered from his vacation in Hawaii.
While the CIA admits they did not forward on the full file of “the Nigerian”, it was not until after the attack that “the Nigerian” and the underwear bomber were positively ID’d as one and the same. This does not negate that absolute specifics of a potential terrorist… including his name, passport and key biographical information – was sent on the the NCTC more than a month before the Christmas attack.
“We learned of him in November, when his father came to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and sought help in finding him. We did not have his name before then,” said Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman. “Also in November, we worked with the embassy to ensure he was in the government’s terrorist database – including mention of his possible extremist connections in Yemen. We also forwarded key biographical information about him to the National Counterterrorism Center. This agency, like others in our government, is reviewing all data to which it had access – not just what we ourselves may have collected – to determine if more could have been done to stop Abdulmutallab.”
Obama is quick to lay blame on the CIA, despite their timely forwarding of risk specifics. The POTUS is also just as quick to ignore that the same information did not get relayed properly from his appointee to both his own office and Napolitano… the ultimate buck stop desks. This is yet another CYA moment for a naive CiC…. an obvious desperate attempt to draw focus away from his choices of appointees and the failures of his administration.
But friction between this POTUS and the CIA isn’t new… He didn’t win the hearts and minds of our own intelligence community when he declassified memos on CIA interrogation methods yet refused to release subsequent memos that noted success of thwarted attacks while simultaneously promising CIA agents immuity from prosecution.
Again, within 24 hours, the forked tongue POTUS was busy shifting blame for the false promises. In the lies about “immunity”, Obama deflected the blame to Holder.
Senior members of the Bush administration who approved the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation measures could face prosecution, President Obama disclosed today .
He said the use of torture reflected America “losing our moral bearings”.
He said his attorney general, Eric Holder, was conducting an investigation and the decision rested with him. Obama last week ruled out prosecution of CIA agents who carried out the interrogation of suspected al-Qaida members at Guantánamo and secret prisons around the world.
But for the first time today he opened up the possibility that those in the administration who gave the go-ahead for the use of waterboarding could be prosecuted.
That was April… by September, investigations and broken promises were well underway – with Holder taking the heat instead of the POTUS. Either this President is a manipulated puppet figure, or the liar. But then… this is becoming a pattern with this President.
When it comes to accessible information, Obama is busy either releasing selective data, or locking it away… whichever proves to be more politically expedient for his image. As Wordsmith pointed out only yesterday, WH officials, poring thru the Bush archives to find intel failures, is fair game if it helps the press focus anywhere other than his own admin’s failures. It will, however, be difficult to find Bush failures that lessen the blow to Obama’s national security credentials since events like the underwear bomber or the shootings at Ft. Hood simply didn’t happen post 911.
Obama’s assault on the CIA goes back even further… with a jr. Senator on record… Congressional Record most specifically… in putting the CIA on notice. In an ironic choice of date – Pearl Harbor Day – then Sen. Obama and professional POTUS campaigner lambasted the CIA over the destruction of videotape, and suggested that the CIA felt themselves to be above the law.
Mr. President, this incident deserves further congressional oversight and inquiry – neither the CIA nor this interrogation program is immune to our laws. This is yet another chapter in a dark period in our constitutional history. Now, it is time to turn the page. That is why I was heartened to learn that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have reached agreement on including a requirement in the Intelligence Authorization bill that subjects CIA interrogators to the guidelines on interrogation included in the U.S. Army Field Manual. It would be a grave disappointment – though not surprising – if this important step forward were subject to a veto threat from the President. That must not deter the Congress from moving forward. We have a responsibility to act.
To make this pompous speech on a day of infamy is particularly arrogant. For I’m willing to bet that any US official and citizen would be quick to give the nod of approval to waterboard any suspect, or play loud music 24/7, if it prevented the deaths at Pearl Harbor.
From the actions and behavior of this POTUS… constantly deflecting blame to others at every avenue… we have learned two things.
First: There is nothing he is willing to take responsibility for directly. That’s why he has appointed lackeys.
Second: Obama’s choice of enemies should be harshly called into question. While he limits any sparse references of “war” with the global Islamic jihad movement to just AQ, he appears to be waging an all out war with our own intelligence agencies. This is a CiC who needs his priorities straightened out in the worst way.
Horowitz on the Horowitz on Obama's Communist Czar
I am not a Glenn Beck. However, his interview with noted intellectual and observer of the Left in America David Horowitz is too delicious to withhold. Horowitz does a wonderful job deconstructing the liberal left in this country, its philosophical underpinnings and agenda over the last 100 years.
Links to the 2 part interview...
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W276ICvVAd4
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B4H4C4dFHs&NR=1
Links to the 2 part interview...
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W276ICvVAd4
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B4H4C4dFHs&NR=1
ALL EUROPE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
Remember as you read this it was originally printed in a Spanish newspaper.
If you have a politically correct, anti-racial profiling friend please send this to them. They can print and read as they stand in some ridiculous line at the airport where crotch bombers will be over-looked, but 80 year old Grandmas will be searched.
ALL EUROPE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
Date : Tue, 15 January 2008
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.autos.driving/2008-01/msg00407.html
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.
If you have a politically correct, anti-racial profiling friend please send this to them. They can print and read as they stand in some ridiculous line at the airport where crotch bombers will be over-looked, but 80 year old Grandmas will be searched.
ALL EUROPE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
Date : Tue, 15 January 2008
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.autos.driving/2008-01/msg00407.html
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.
Why The Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
My brother the physician was taught in Medical School that any competent adult can refuse medical treatment. If I understand these bills correctly, the same individual would now be compelled to purchase medical insurance. Do we have ideology trumping law, in lieu of the special deals made to the Nelsons, Landrieus and Liebermans of the Senate to reach the 60 vote cloture mark? Seems like bribery to me and an act that would incur the wrath of prosecution in any other business venue.
Why The Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html?mod=djemITP
By ORRIN G. HATCH, J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory.
Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
Mr. Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law.
Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union
Why The Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html?mod=djemITP
By ORRIN G. HATCH, J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory.
Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
Mr. Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law.
Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union
Positively thunderous destruction of lib philosophy on Terror
The Left's Permanent War on the War on Terrorism
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/296476.php#296476
Via Instapundit, this exquisite distillation of the left's Let a Smile Be Your Umbrella defense against terrorism:
Some idiot set firecrackers off on a jet and [we're supposed] to be afraid of that? Al-Q is a joke
And that's from Spence Ackerman, a light of the left (at least of the dimmer variety), not some random Twit-wit.
And it's not just him; another dim light of the left, Matthew Yglesias, is similarly unilaterally lowering his personal Terrorist Threat Condition Chart from "Orange" to "Hakuna Matada:"
Obviously, people shouldn’t be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat....
Ultimately, it does no favors to anyone to blow this sort of thing out of proportion. The United States could not, of course, be “devastated” by anything resembling this scheme. We ought to be clear on that fact. We want to send the message around the world that this sort of vile attempt to slaughter innocent people is not, at the end of the day, anything resembling a serious challenge to American power. It’s attempted murder, it’s wrong, we should try to stop it, but it’s really not much more than that.
Emphasis added. Although they're barely added. Those sentences pretty much just bold themselves, don't they?
On one hand, he says we should merely treat terrorism as an act of attempted murder. Well -- let's be clear. It's an attempt at mass-murder.
Soo... okay, let's say I treat terrorism as "merely" organized, sophisticated, unending institutionally-sponsored attempts at mass-murder.
I'm sorry-- I'm not clear, what level of alarm am I supposed to have over that? Because you seem to be suggesting I should take a wait-and-see attitude on it. Apparently, by your lights, I'm currently taking this much too seriously.
Though it's nice to see it acknowledged that mass murder is "wrong" and "we should try to stop it." Thanks for that.
This is obvious, but obvious is what I do, so here goes:
The left has four political goals:
1) To reverse the public perception that they are a bunch of sissy-pants (not Sassypants, which is altogether different).
2) To de-emphasize terrorism as a media issue, because terror concerns play well for conservatives. (See Goal 1 and the sissy-pants problem.)
3) To sell the public, politically, on a hateful policy of treating terrorists nicely, because, like, Dostoyevsky said something like "you can judge a nation by the way it treats psychotic murder-cultists intent on killing as many innocent civilians as possible for no other reason except to masturbate in human blood."
4) To actually reduce terrorism, because doing so achieves Goal 1 and Goal 2, and also would be a great selling point for Goal 3. (See?! It makes no sense but it works!)
Before getting any further, let us note the incandescently obvious that Goals 1-3 are Major Goals and Goal 4 is a sort of "Nice but Not Necessary" sort of thing. If they can accomplish Goals 1-3, in terms of politics, they're all set. If they can sell the public on the idea that a little bit of mass-murder never killed anyone (except for the people it actually killed, of course), they can pretty ignore Goal 4.
Goal 4 is an entirely secondary proposition which merely assists in Goals 1-3. If you nail Goals 1-3, you really don't need Goal 4. And you can pretty much tell they know that by their emphasis on the first three, and blowing off altogether the fourth. ("The system worked," you've no doubt heard.)
Now, on to the slightly less obvious stuff. Slightly.
To achieve Goals 1-3, they have settled on a basic, stupid, unserious, unpersuasive, jackass political message: Only little pussy-fairies are afraid of terrorists and terrorism; real tough strong he-men types, like us on the left, laugh at it as a big joke. Don't you want to join the super-tough guys who laugh in the face of mass-murder? (As long as it's mass-murder killing other people, of course.) So join us, and laugh at terror, be one of the Real Tough Guys with the Cocks of Burnished Blued Steel, and just put your silly-ass concerns about terrorism away. Let's focus on what really matters -- universal health care and the fundamental restructuring of the economy into something more socialistic -- and let us not be distracted by the childish antics of some Muslim head-cases who are, after all, just "acting up" in a particularly aggressive fashion.
Oh, and of course: Let us also be so bad-ass and Rambo-licious as to shower terrorists with kindness and good treatment, because, you know, if you're really a super nail-spitting fire-breathing Hard Case like us, you never let a bit of righteous fury interfere with your civility and dedication to social justice.
Endlessly repeated, endlessly repeated. It's all so stupid. But apparently some blogger -- or someone -- struck up on this idea in around 2006 (around then -- that's when I seem to remember it popping up) and the idea caught on like wildfire.
They really think that with a little "re-branding" they can solve their perennial Terrorist Gap problem.
By the way, Douchebags, not every problem in our lives can be fixed by "re-branding;" get this, some problems are actually real-world physical-reality problems and require real-world physical-reality solutions. A cute and counterintuitive marketing campaign is not, in fact, enough to stop terrorism, the same as it's not enough to cure AIDS, and it's not enough to cure cancer, and it's not enough to re-start the economy.
Their fundamental unseriousness on this topic is revealed right out of the gate as all their emphasis is on slogans and memes rather than actually doing something to stop or at least diminish the threat of terrorism.
Sure, guys, if I define a problem as not a problem at all, the problem does, in fact, effectively go away; or, at least, it goes away in the sense I'm no longer acknowledging it as a problem at all. But the fact that I no longer acknowledge it as such does not actually make it not such.
I can take a very blase attitude towards 250 people dying in an Al-Qaeda plane detonation. And yes, that will make those 250 deaths "not a problem" for me, but you know what it won't do? It won't bring those 250 human beings back to life.
This whole idea permeates the Obama Administration, which not only embraced it as a marketing campaign, but as actual, concrete US policy. The first -- engaging in a marketing campaign to soft-pedal terrorism -- is hateful enough (we are talking about human lives here, or does Hope and Change not concern itself with such petty, less-than-grandiose considerations?), but to actually reify such a vile idea into concrete, tangible US policy is unforgivable and anti-life and palpably evil.
Laugh at terrorism? Treat it less-than-seriously? This demonstrates what, exactly? Seems to demonstrate exactly what it's intended to demonstrate: A callousness to the number of preventable murders of United States citizens.
How to analogize? Well, you know, Friends of the Left, a cynical, jaded homicide cop who doesn't take murder all that seriously might be a "cool guy" and might make for an interesting character in a movie -- so jaded and sophisticated is he that he understands that Murder is an essential and unavoidable phenomenon of the human condition -- but you know what? When someone I know is killed I'd rather have the guy with the less-sophisticated attitude towards Murder, the guy who thinks Murder is a rather large trespass, working the case.
He might be a little less cosmpolitan, and a little less familiar with the New York City underground jazz scene, and maybe his apartment will be a big of disaster and not tastefully minimalist-moderne like the other guy's, but you know, I'd rather have someone who takes murder seriously working them murder cases.
Forgive me for my naive, uncouth Red State attitude toward this. I am, as you know, just a stupid, unenlightened tea-bagger. I'm not smart enough to treat Murder as a blow-off. I am not, as you so plainly are, super-smart totally-awesome bad-ass Ultra-Commandos of Cock Force Five.
The pathetic thing is they really think this crap is working. Wade into any comment section favored by the left and you'll see them all repeating this idea. Dislocating their shoulders to pat themselves on the back for their principled, elevated, hard-ass decision to take the mass-murder of their fellow citizens in an light, European que sera sera sort of fashion.
All I can advise them is: Keep it up. Keep pushing this attitude out there, keep trying to sell the American People on the idea that it's the sissy-pants and pants-wetters and nancyboys who actually take this stuff deadly seriously, and meanwhile those who mock concerns about mass murder potentially killing thousands at a clip are really the true zealots of the Cult of the Brave.
Let's both run on the same thing -- that is, after all, how true political decisions are made by the public. When both parties agree exactly that this is what we each represent, where the discussion isn't muddled by one party disguising its beliefs or trying to "hug" the other party's positions or triangulate or so forth.
When both parties run on the exact same message, the public gets the rare opportunity to make an unambiguous choice, untainted by the deliberate muddying of positions both parties so often engage in.
So let's do this. Let us both of us agree that I and my fellows take terrorism seriously, and you think we're scaredy-cats for doing so, and that you do not take terrorism all that seriously, and it is your belief -- your honest, true, serious belief -- that it makes you Courageous for treating mass murder with a puckish insouciance.
And let's go out there, and let's beat this unified message to death, and let's see what happens. Let's go to market selling our wares with the same basic message and see who tallies up the most sales.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/296476.php#296476
Via Instapundit, this exquisite distillation of the left's Let a Smile Be Your Umbrella defense against terrorism:
Some idiot set firecrackers off on a jet and [we're supposed] to be afraid of that? Al-Q is a joke
And that's from Spence Ackerman, a light of the left (at least of the dimmer variety), not some random Twit-wit.
And it's not just him; another dim light of the left, Matthew Yglesias, is similarly unilaterally lowering his personal Terrorist Threat Condition Chart from "Orange" to "Hakuna Matada:"
Obviously, people shouldn’t be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat....
Ultimately, it does no favors to anyone to blow this sort of thing out of proportion. The United States could not, of course, be “devastated” by anything resembling this scheme. We ought to be clear on that fact. We want to send the message around the world that this sort of vile attempt to slaughter innocent people is not, at the end of the day, anything resembling a serious challenge to American power. It’s attempted murder, it’s wrong, we should try to stop it, but it’s really not much more than that.
Emphasis added. Although they're barely added. Those sentences pretty much just bold themselves, don't they?
On one hand, he says we should merely treat terrorism as an act of attempted murder. Well -- let's be clear. It's an attempt at mass-murder.
Soo... okay, let's say I treat terrorism as "merely" organized, sophisticated, unending institutionally-sponsored attempts at mass-murder.
I'm sorry-- I'm not clear, what level of alarm am I supposed to have over that? Because you seem to be suggesting I should take a wait-and-see attitude on it. Apparently, by your lights, I'm currently taking this much too seriously.
Though it's nice to see it acknowledged that mass murder is "wrong" and "we should try to stop it." Thanks for that.
This is obvious, but obvious is what I do, so here goes:
The left has four political goals:
1) To reverse the public perception that they are a bunch of sissy-pants (not Sassypants, which is altogether different).
2) To de-emphasize terrorism as a media issue, because terror concerns play well for conservatives. (See Goal 1 and the sissy-pants problem.)
3) To sell the public, politically, on a hateful policy of treating terrorists nicely, because, like, Dostoyevsky said something like "you can judge a nation by the way it treats psychotic murder-cultists intent on killing as many innocent civilians as possible for no other reason except to masturbate in human blood."
4) To actually reduce terrorism, because doing so achieves Goal 1 and Goal 2, and also would be a great selling point for Goal 3. (See?! It makes no sense but it works!)
Before getting any further, let us note the incandescently obvious that Goals 1-3 are Major Goals and Goal 4 is a sort of "Nice but Not Necessary" sort of thing. If they can accomplish Goals 1-3, in terms of politics, they're all set. If they can sell the public on the idea that a little bit of mass-murder never killed anyone (except for the people it actually killed, of course), they can pretty ignore Goal 4.
Goal 4 is an entirely secondary proposition which merely assists in Goals 1-3. If you nail Goals 1-3, you really don't need Goal 4. And you can pretty much tell they know that by their emphasis on the first three, and blowing off altogether the fourth. ("The system worked," you've no doubt heard.)
Now, on to the slightly less obvious stuff. Slightly.
To achieve Goals 1-3, they have settled on a basic, stupid, unserious, unpersuasive, jackass political message: Only little pussy-fairies are afraid of terrorists and terrorism; real tough strong he-men types, like us on the left, laugh at it as a big joke. Don't you want to join the super-tough guys who laugh in the face of mass-murder? (As long as it's mass-murder killing other people, of course.) So join us, and laugh at terror, be one of the Real Tough Guys with the Cocks of Burnished Blued Steel, and just put your silly-ass concerns about terrorism away. Let's focus on what really matters -- universal health care and the fundamental restructuring of the economy into something more socialistic -- and let us not be distracted by the childish antics of some Muslim head-cases who are, after all, just "acting up" in a particularly aggressive fashion.
Oh, and of course: Let us also be so bad-ass and Rambo-licious as to shower terrorists with kindness and good treatment, because, you know, if you're really a super nail-spitting fire-breathing Hard Case like us, you never let a bit of righteous fury interfere with your civility and dedication to social justice.
Endlessly repeated, endlessly repeated. It's all so stupid. But apparently some blogger -- or someone -- struck up on this idea in around 2006 (around then -- that's when I seem to remember it popping up) and the idea caught on like wildfire.
They really think that with a little "re-branding" they can solve their perennial Terrorist Gap problem.
By the way, Douchebags, not every problem in our lives can be fixed by "re-branding;" get this, some problems are actually real-world physical-reality problems and require real-world physical-reality solutions. A cute and counterintuitive marketing campaign is not, in fact, enough to stop terrorism, the same as it's not enough to cure AIDS, and it's not enough to cure cancer, and it's not enough to re-start the economy.
Their fundamental unseriousness on this topic is revealed right out of the gate as all their emphasis is on slogans and memes rather than actually doing something to stop or at least diminish the threat of terrorism.
Sure, guys, if I define a problem as not a problem at all, the problem does, in fact, effectively go away; or, at least, it goes away in the sense I'm no longer acknowledging it as a problem at all. But the fact that I no longer acknowledge it as such does not actually make it not such.
I can take a very blase attitude towards 250 people dying in an Al-Qaeda plane detonation. And yes, that will make those 250 deaths "not a problem" for me, but you know what it won't do? It won't bring those 250 human beings back to life.
This whole idea permeates the Obama Administration, which not only embraced it as a marketing campaign, but as actual, concrete US policy. The first -- engaging in a marketing campaign to soft-pedal terrorism -- is hateful enough (we are talking about human lives here, or does Hope and Change not concern itself with such petty, less-than-grandiose considerations?), but to actually reify such a vile idea into concrete, tangible US policy is unforgivable and anti-life and palpably evil.
Laugh at terrorism? Treat it less-than-seriously? This demonstrates what, exactly? Seems to demonstrate exactly what it's intended to demonstrate: A callousness to the number of preventable murders of United States citizens.
How to analogize? Well, you know, Friends of the Left, a cynical, jaded homicide cop who doesn't take murder all that seriously might be a "cool guy" and might make for an interesting character in a movie -- so jaded and sophisticated is he that he understands that Murder is an essential and unavoidable phenomenon of the human condition -- but you know what? When someone I know is killed I'd rather have the guy with the less-sophisticated attitude towards Murder, the guy who thinks Murder is a rather large trespass, working the case.
He might be a little less cosmpolitan, and a little less familiar with the New York City underground jazz scene, and maybe his apartment will be a big of disaster and not tastefully minimalist-moderne like the other guy's, but you know, I'd rather have someone who takes murder seriously working them murder cases.
Forgive me for my naive, uncouth Red State attitude toward this. I am, as you know, just a stupid, unenlightened tea-bagger. I'm not smart enough to treat Murder as a blow-off. I am not, as you so plainly are, super-smart totally-awesome bad-ass Ultra-Commandos of Cock Force Five.
The pathetic thing is they really think this crap is working. Wade into any comment section favored by the left and you'll see them all repeating this idea. Dislocating their shoulders to pat themselves on the back for their principled, elevated, hard-ass decision to take the mass-murder of their fellow citizens in an light, European que sera sera sort of fashion.
All I can advise them is: Keep it up. Keep pushing this attitude out there, keep trying to sell the American People on the idea that it's the sissy-pants and pants-wetters and nancyboys who actually take this stuff deadly seriously, and meanwhile those who mock concerns about mass murder potentially killing thousands at a clip are really the true zealots of the Cult of the Brave.
Let's both run on the same thing -- that is, after all, how true political decisions are made by the public. When both parties agree exactly that this is what we each represent, where the discussion isn't muddled by one party disguising its beliefs or trying to "hug" the other party's positions or triangulate or so forth.
When both parties run on the exact same message, the public gets the rare opportunity to make an unambiguous choice, untainted by the deliberate muddying of positions both parties so often engage in.
So let's do this. Let us both of us agree that I and my fellows take terrorism seriously, and you think we're scaredy-cats for doing so, and that you do not take terrorism all that seriously, and it is your belief -- your honest, true, serious belief -- that it makes you Courageous for treating mass murder with a puckish insouciance.
And let's go out there, and let's beat this unified message to death, and let's see what happens. Let's go to market selling our wares with the same basic message and see who tallies up the most sales.
Clueless - Our President and his Administration
Three more years of this dilettante (an insult to such people, by the way) and his administration is a prospect that America can't afford. It means, by definition, three times the damage already wrought to the US, our economy, our security and our future. Another three years of this wrecking crew is frightening to contemplate.
As if the country club Republicans have any solutions.
Clueless
Linda Chavez, Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2010/01/01/clueless
Clueless. It’s the word that best describes the Obama administration’s first year in office. They’ve proven themselves clueless about creating jobs; clueless about handling growing nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea; and now, most devastatingly, clueless about protecting Americans from terrorist attacks on our own soil. And with nearly one year under the belts, they can’t keep blaming the Bush administration for everything that goes awry.
It is hard to imagine a more incompetent handling of the thwarted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. jetliner. First, the commander in chief was too busy enjoying his vacation in Hawaii to do much more than issue platitudinous assurances that he was "actively monitoring" the incident, while dispersing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to the weekend talk shows to downplay the significance of the event.
When the news media began uncovering evidence that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was exactly who he claimed to be when taken into custody -- a terrorist tied to an al-Qaida network in Yemen -- the administration began backtracking on its earlier statements that the incident was not part of a larger terrorist plot and that "the system worked." But it took the president three days to appear before the American public to insist on a thorough investigation. By that time, everyone knew that the would-be suicide bomber’s own father had alerted U.S. intelligence officials of his son’s threat to American security. But the warnings didn’t keep Abdulmutallab off a jetliner headed to the United States.
Even the words the president used in his press conference Dec. 28 suggest how clueless he is. He described Abdulmutallab as a "passenger (who) allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device," repeatedly referring to Abdulmutallab in his comments as a "suspect." These are the weasel words we use when talking about ordinary criminals, which is no accident. The Obama administration’s anti-terrorism philosophy is to treat terrorist attacks like criminal actions, not acts of war.
The Obama administration’s response to the deadly terrorist attack at Fort Hood in November was exactly the same. For days after Nidal Hasan gunned down his fellow soldiers at the Texas Army installation, killing 13 and injuring dozens, the administration tried to portray Hasan as a troubled lone wolf whose actions had nothing to do with his increasingly radicalized Islamic faith. But as news organizations revealed that the FBI had been monitoring Hasan and that he had been in contact with a known radical imam in Yemen, the insanity explanation looked increasingly lame. Now the administration is engaged in a review of why so many clues to Hasan's terrorist intentions went ignored.
The Obama administration’s cluelessness has reached the point that even the president’s admirers have to admit something is drastically wrong. The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, one of President Obama’s most fawning fans, wrote this week: "The more I think about the Christmas all-but-bombing, the angrier I get. At the multiple failures that allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to get on the plane with explosives sewn inside his underwear. And at the Obama administration's initial, everything's-fine-everybody-move-right-along reaction." And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, now wants to stop the administration from releasing Guantanamo detainees to Yemen, in light of growing evidence of al-Qaida's active presence there.
Many of us who criticized Barack Obama’s candidacy did so because we felt he was too inexperienced to be president. His first year in office has done nothing to allay those fears. He has put together a team of White House operatives who politicize every crisis. Their first concern seems to be to protect the president from blame, not to protect the American people from harm, whether it be from failed economic policies or terrorist attacks.
And the president seems unable to go much beyond reading a script. He shows little actual leadership, whether in crafting a health care plan or devising a coherent foreign policy, preferring to delegate to others duties that he should assume. He turned over responsibility for the stimulus plan and totally revamping of U.S. health care to Democrats in Congress, with predictably unsatisfactory results. Meanwhile, his policy of engagement with enemies like Iran and North Korea has simply emboldened them to pursue their nuclear aims at a faster pace.
Americans have given President Obama an extended honeymoon, but their love affair with a man who showed much promise, if not actual accomplishment, is cooling down. The latest Rasmussen presidential tracking numbers show the president at only 47 percent approval. Unless President Obama dramatically changes course, 2010 will be the year when most Americans begin thinking about divorce.
As if the country club Republicans have any solutions.
Clueless
Linda Chavez, Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2010/01/01/clueless
Clueless. It’s the word that best describes the Obama administration’s first year in office. They’ve proven themselves clueless about creating jobs; clueless about handling growing nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea; and now, most devastatingly, clueless about protecting Americans from terrorist attacks on our own soil. And with nearly one year under the belts, they can’t keep blaming the Bush administration for everything that goes awry.
It is hard to imagine a more incompetent handling of the thwarted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. jetliner. First, the commander in chief was too busy enjoying his vacation in Hawaii to do much more than issue platitudinous assurances that he was "actively monitoring" the incident, while dispersing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to the weekend talk shows to downplay the significance of the event.
When the news media began uncovering evidence that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was exactly who he claimed to be when taken into custody -- a terrorist tied to an al-Qaida network in Yemen -- the administration began backtracking on its earlier statements that the incident was not part of a larger terrorist plot and that "the system worked." But it took the president three days to appear before the American public to insist on a thorough investigation. By that time, everyone knew that the would-be suicide bomber’s own father had alerted U.S. intelligence officials of his son’s threat to American security. But the warnings didn’t keep Abdulmutallab off a jetliner headed to the United States.
Even the words the president used in his press conference Dec. 28 suggest how clueless he is. He described Abdulmutallab as a "passenger (who) allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device," repeatedly referring to Abdulmutallab in his comments as a "suspect." These are the weasel words we use when talking about ordinary criminals, which is no accident. The Obama administration’s anti-terrorism philosophy is to treat terrorist attacks like criminal actions, not acts of war.
The Obama administration’s response to the deadly terrorist attack at Fort Hood in November was exactly the same. For days after Nidal Hasan gunned down his fellow soldiers at the Texas Army installation, killing 13 and injuring dozens, the administration tried to portray Hasan as a troubled lone wolf whose actions had nothing to do with his increasingly radicalized Islamic faith. But as news organizations revealed that the FBI had been monitoring Hasan and that he had been in contact with a known radical imam in Yemen, the insanity explanation looked increasingly lame. Now the administration is engaged in a review of why so many clues to Hasan's terrorist intentions went ignored.
The Obama administration’s cluelessness has reached the point that even the president’s admirers have to admit something is drastically wrong. The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, one of President Obama’s most fawning fans, wrote this week: "The more I think about the Christmas all-but-bombing, the angrier I get. At the multiple failures that allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to get on the plane with explosives sewn inside his underwear. And at the Obama administration's initial, everything's-fine-everybody-move-right-along reaction." And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, now wants to stop the administration from releasing Guantanamo detainees to Yemen, in light of growing evidence of al-Qaida's active presence there.
Many of us who criticized Barack Obama’s candidacy did so because we felt he was too inexperienced to be president. His first year in office has done nothing to allay those fears. He has put together a team of White House operatives who politicize every crisis. Their first concern seems to be to protect the president from blame, not to protect the American people from harm, whether it be from failed economic policies or terrorist attacks.
And the president seems unable to go much beyond reading a script. He shows little actual leadership, whether in crafting a health care plan or devising a coherent foreign policy, preferring to delegate to others duties that he should assume. He turned over responsibility for the stimulus plan and totally revamping of U.S. health care to Democrats in Congress, with predictably unsatisfactory results. Meanwhile, his policy of engagement with enemies like Iran and North Korea has simply emboldened them to pursue their nuclear aims at a faster pace.
Americans have given President Obama an extended honeymoon, but their love affair with a man who showed much promise, if not actual accomplishment, is cooling down. The latest Rasmussen presidential tracking numbers show the president at only 47 percent approval. Unless President Obama dramatically changes course, 2010 will be the year when most Americans begin thinking about divorce.
The Yoke of Political Correctness
There is no cogent reason why political correctness exists. The entire notion smacks of hypocrisy, guilt, and a misguided sense of fairness that promotes an insidious false sense of “doing things right”. For reasons not easily explained it has become the sine qua non of fairness in the United States. Actually, most politically correct actions, laws, regulations and stipulations do not reflect anything but someone’s – usually a very liberal someone – idea of what the world should be like. Because they believe that their view of what the world ought to be like, they incrementally change the paradigms of our American culture to reflect that belief.
For example, in a politically correct world there are no Mexican gangs, no Black gangs, no gangs at all that reflect a specific minority. To label gangs as such is unfair, demeaning and politically incorrect. As someone who has a fair amount of experience working with gangs, I can state categorically that Black gangs, White gangs, Mexican gangs, and Asian gangs, among others do exist, and they are proud of their ethnicity. There is also another gang, rather recently developed and fairly well organized. It is Al Qaeda, and it is a Muslim gang.
Years ago – not really all that long ago actually – it was easy to determine what type of gang one was investigating. Police rounded up suspects from specific areas and questioned them. If the suspects were Mexican and the city was Los Angeles, one went to East Los Angeles neighborhoods and took likely culprits into custody for questioning. There was little reason to go into Watts. Ditto in New York. If a Black gang was active the police went to Harlem. Same reason.
How did the police know where to go? Profiling. The police had gang profiles established and if a gang-banger fit the profile he or she was picked up. Profiling saved a lot of time and a lot of lives. Now it is not accepted practice to profile suspects. Why change something that worked, and has worked for centuries? Political correctness advocates did it.
It became unfair to look for specific ethnic groups, and develop a profile that fit the modus operandi of the crime committed. After all, establishing a profile that reflected the input of victims would be unfair to the perpetrator. How so, you may ask? We are not indicting all Blacks (Mexican, Asians, Whites, Italians) when we establish a profile. We are gathering objective data that provides clues to the type of person that might actually have committed the crime. Are we not using these data to simple say: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it’s a duck.” Yes, because if it barked it would not be a duck! Likewise if the last 28 terrorist acts were perpetrated by Fundamentalist Muslims, it is highly likely that the next terrorist act would be perpetrated by a Fundamentalist Muslim regardless of what CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) says!
In fact, perhaps the first Muslim group to be profiled should be CAIR. Any group whose leader said that the only law is the Koran, and who believes in Sharia Law needs to be profiled, because there can be no good in someone whose goal is to replace the U. S. Constitution. (http://www.anti-cair-net.org/)
“Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States," said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.
CAIR itself recently [2007] was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas. In the Holy Land Foundation case, federal prosecutors also listed CAIR as a member of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that gave rise to Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The government will retry the Holy Land case, which ended in a hung jury.
"There was a lot of evidence presented at the recent Holy Land Foundation trial which exposed CAIR and others as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States," Myrick said. Still, CAIR is lobbying House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and other sympathetic members of Congress to pressure the Justice Department to expunge its name from the case, arguing the negative publicity has hurt membership and fundraising.”
All persons and organizations who fit into a terrorist profile must be investigated, whether they are Army Majors, or young Muslims traveling from a country far away with no luggage, a one way ticket and an admitted love of Jihad. How can any sane country not do so? Why have Western nations strayed so far from sanity? How can we decide to not “insult” our Muslim brothers, yet risk the lives of our own citizens? Choosing between safety and possibly upsetting any number of Mid-East countries is a no-brainer. Given our superior computer capability, our software programs that use artificial intelligence, we can profile our way to safety far quicker that taking the time to try and convince our enemies that we are nice guys. They have a mission to destroy our way of life and to substitute their way of life for it. They believe that this is the instruction contained in the Koran. Is it? That depends upon whose reading what version of what Koran.
There are a billion or so of peace loving, moderate Muslims. These people are not the enemy, but they are complicit in that they do little to stop the Fundamentalists. Be that as it may, the enemy is the Fundamentalist Muslim. They must be profiled into obsolescence.
Jerry De Angelis
http://midica.blogspot.com/ (Author)
For example, in a politically correct world there are no Mexican gangs, no Black gangs, no gangs at all that reflect a specific minority. To label gangs as such is unfair, demeaning and politically incorrect. As someone who has a fair amount of experience working with gangs, I can state categorically that Black gangs, White gangs, Mexican gangs, and Asian gangs, among others do exist, and they are proud of their ethnicity. There is also another gang, rather recently developed and fairly well organized. It is Al Qaeda, and it is a Muslim gang.
Years ago – not really all that long ago actually – it was easy to determine what type of gang one was investigating. Police rounded up suspects from specific areas and questioned them. If the suspects were Mexican and the city was Los Angeles, one went to East Los Angeles neighborhoods and took likely culprits into custody for questioning. There was little reason to go into Watts. Ditto in New York. If a Black gang was active the police went to Harlem. Same reason.
How did the police know where to go? Profiling. The police had gang profiles established and if a gang-banger fit the profile he or she was picked up. Profiling saved a lot of time and a lot of lives. Now it is not accepted practice to profile suspects. Why change something that worked, and has worked for centuries? Political correctness advocates did it.
It became unfair to look for specific ethnic groups, and develop a profile that fit the modus operandi of the crime committed. After all, establishing a profile that reflected the input of victims would be unfair to the perpetrator. How so, you may ask? We are not indicting all Blacks (Mexican, Asians, Whites, Italians) when we establish a profile. We are gathering objective data that provides clues to the type of person that might actually have committed the crime. Are we not using these data to simple say: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it’s a duck.” Yes, because if it barked it would not be a duck! Likewise if the last 28 terrorist acts were perpetrated by Fundamentalist Muslims, it is highly likely that the next terrorist act would be perpetrated by a Fundamentalist Muslim regardless of what CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) says!
In fact, perhaps the first Muslim group to be profiled should be CAIR. Any group whose leader said that the only law is the Koran, and who believes in Sharia Law needs to be profiled, because there can be no good in someone whose goal is to replace the U. S. Constitution. (http://www.anti-cair-net.org/)
“Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States," said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.
CAIR itself recently [2007] was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas. In the Holy Land Foundation case, federal prosecutors also listed CAIR as a member of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that gave rise to Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The government will retry the Holy Land case, which ended in a hung jury.
"There was a lot of evidence presented at the recent Holy Land Foundation trial which exposed CAIR and others as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States," Myrick said. Still, CAIR is lobbying House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and other sympathetic members of Congress to pressure the Justice Department to expunge its name from the case, arguing the negative publicity has hurt membership and fundraising.”
All persons and organizations who fit into a terrorist profile must be investigated, whether they are Army Majors, or young Muslims traveling from a country far away with no luggage, a one way ticket and an admitted love of Jihad. How can any sane country not do so? Why have Western nations strayed so far from sanity? How can we decide to not “insult” our Muslim brothers, yet risk the lives of our own citizens? Choosing between safety and possibly upsetting any number of Mid-East countries is a no-brainer. Given our superior computer capability, our software programs that use artificial intelligence, we can profile our way to safety far quicker that taking the time to try and convince our enemies that we are nice guys. They have a mission to destroy our way of life and to substitute their way of life for it. They believe that this is the instruction contained in the Koran. Is it? That depends upon whose reading what version of what Koran.
There are a billion or so of peace loving, moderate Muslims. These people are not the enemy, but they are complicit in that they do little to stop the Fundamentalists. Be that as it may, the enemy is the Fundamentalist Muslim. They must be profiled into obsolescence.
Jerry De Angelis
http://midica.blogspot.com/ (Author)
You stoop to their level and you are no better than they are…
This article is 2 1/2 months old, but captures the gestalt. His thinking and mine are synchronymous.
You stoop to their level and you are no better than they are…
http://midica.blogspot.com/
FRI OCT 23, 2009
You stoop to their level and you are no better than they are…
The line in the title of this article was used by an RNC Blog member who disagreed with my approach to recapturing control of the United States Congress. It is used often when strong actions of any kind are either taken or even suggested. Something similar, i.e. “If we do that we will be just like them …”
Why did I decided to write this piece? I logged onto the Facebook GOP/RNC site forum. That was my first mistake. I had imagined that I would find Republicans who were ready to do anything legal to win back the Congress and the Senate. I expected to see rational people questioning the RNC, and asking why their responses to ObamaCare, TARP, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, The UN “One World “ conference, Tax increases, etc have either been tepid or non-existent. I expected a fired up electorate who wanted change – not BO’s change, but real change back to small government, constitutional themes, concerns about the second amendment, the Trillions of dollars in debt that we now owe, the weakened, and soon to be even weaker dollar, The takeover of GM, Chrysler and the banks. Not a word.
I expected to see some support for the tea parties, for the millions who have lost their jobs, often through no fault of their own. I expected to see outrage over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and calls the trial and imprisonment of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. There was no mention of these criminals, or the lives that they have impacted.
I suggested that the Republican Party had forgotten how to fight, and that they needed to take a few pages from the Democrats vis-à-vis learning more street fighter tactics to counter those of the Rahm Emanuals of the world. I suggested that we needed more of a “Go for the Jugular” attitude, so that we can WIN. I suggested that we be more like THEM.
Not a person agreed. I was accused of being a Democrat, or one who should be. It was said I was one of those people who gave Republicans a bad name. Actually I am a Conservative who belongs to the Republican Party. I am also frustrated that we seem to have grown another generation of country club Republicans. Republicans who actually believe that nothing more than talk, currying favor, keeping quiet, and ignoring the real issues because they may require getting “down and dirty” is the way to get the job done.
Most of what America has suffered at the hands of the Obama Administration in the last 10 months is Obama’s fault. Much is also the fault of Republicans who are in collusion with him. Republicans like those in the RNC.
Often, exploring what person or group of persons responds to something with this comment I find that, more often than not it is a Liberal, a moderate Republican or someone who actually believes that peace can be achieved by apologizing – like President Obama.
The idea that “being just like them” or “stooping to their level”, or anything similar is necessarily bad is an assumption that may not be warranted. The “them” that is discussed is seldom identifies in detail. The things that “them” do, is also many times disregarded.
Let’s start by looking at the current baseball playoff between the LA Dodgers and the Philadelphia Phillies. The Dodgers lost. I imagine that if the Dodgers said “we must be just like them. We must execute better, we must win, and next year we must change how we play this game. We must play like them”. This is not seen as anything but good, clean competition.
What about when a pitcher on one team purposely throws a ball at an opposing pitcher’s head, and the next inning the other pitcher does the same. As a baseball player (in my youth) and a fan now, I have seen this done on a number of occasions, but never have I heard anyone say, “ Now we are just like ‘them’”. Why not? In baseball the second pitcher was sending a message, and that message was if you do this so will we, and we can do it better.
In the 1920’s, through the 70’s the underworld spent a great deal of time eluding the police and law enforcement in general. One reason is that the law enforcement then was very different than now. Police were not loath to “bust a few heads” to solve a crime. They did this for many reasons, but one was to be more like them – the criminals. Anyone who has seen photos of shootouts between police and the underworld saw that force was the rule. The police simply used the same tactics as the criminals, but did it better. They became “Just like them”. Unfortunately activists came along and said we cannot just shoot the bad guys, they need lawyers. What if one was innocent, or not as guilty? He or she needed to be protected from the police. That was necessary because some of the police, in the opinion of the ACLU types.
The police are first responders, and so are our military. They now respond not to nationally recognized force, but to insurgents, Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc. The latter in turn fight us in many ways including mass murder, de-capitation, rape, firing squads, plus the ever present IED’s. We are often at a loss as we try to figure out how to win a war without hurting anyone. We were not always like that. War was seen for what it was – War. The major objective was to kill more of the enemy than they killed of you. It was simple and effective, and usually saved lives in the long run.
The Second World War, and what the Germans did to England is a case in point. They bombed England mercilessly. We eventually bombed Germany quite thoroughly. We did what they did, but better. Anzio was similar. After taking casualties far bar beyond the norm, we simply decide that the best thing to do would be to annihilate the Germans. No quarter was asked, none was taken, Ditto for the entire campaign from Sicily to Rome. We won – they lost. We became like THEM, and we ended that part of the war, by killing more Germans than they did Allied soldiers.
But somehow that did not resonate for long. We fought to a stalemate in Korea, we actually won in Viet Nam, but let Walter Cronkite announce our loss, and Johnson believe him. The entire American government became like them – the media.
Fast Forward. So we now enter the 8th year of a war or two that could have been won in 1 to 2 years. Our forces have fought gallantly, but are hamstrung by lawyers and do-gooders who would see a rabid dog as a mistreated animal who simply need his or her ears scratched. So many atrocities have been perpetrated against our military, and yet we are told, be nice, no strong action, no shooting until you are certain the man with the AK-47 is an enemy, and for sure no torture, no matter what. We don’t want to be like them. Why not? Being like them may have shortened the war, and more importantly saved American lives.
Now all that philosophy is part and parcel of our entire political gestalt.
We will never be able to save a continent again, because we cannot save ourselves from those who have made us but a shadow of the country who set nations free.
I leave with Dante’s great line “Abandon all Hope ye who enter here…”
You stoop to their level and you are no better than they are…
http://midica.blogspot.com/
FRI OCT 23, 2009
You stoop to their level and you are no better than they are…
The line in the title of this article was used by an RNC Blog member who disagreed with my approach to recapturing control of the United States Congress. It is used often when strong actions of any kind are either taken or even suggested. Something similar, i.e. “If we do that we will be just like them …”
Why did I decided to write this piece? I logged onto the Facebook GOP/RNC site forum. That was my first mistake. I had imagined that I would find Republicans who were ready to do anything legal to win back the Congress and the Senate. I expected to see rational people questioning the RNC, and asking why their responses to ObamaCare, TARP, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, The UN “One World “ conference, Tax increases, etc have either been tepid or non-existent. I expected a fired up electorate who wanted change – not BO’s change, but real change back to small government, constitutional themes, concerns about the second amendment, the Trillions of dollars in debt that we now owe, the weakened, and soon to be even weaker dollar, The takeover of GM, Chrysler and the banks. Not a word.
I expected to see some support for the tea parties, for the millions who have lost their jobs, often through no fault of their own. I expected to see outrage over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and calls the trial and imprisonment of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. There was no mention of these criminals, or the lives that they have impacted.
I suggested that the Republican Party had forgotten how to fight, and that they needed to take a few pages from the Democrats vis-à-vis learning more street fighter tactics to counter those of the Rahm Emanuals of the world. I suggested that we needed more of a “Go for the Jugular” attitude, so that we can WIN. I suggested that we be more like THEM.
Not a person agreed. I was accused of being a Democrat, or one who should be. It was said I was one of those people who gave Republicans a bad name. Actually I am a Conservative who belongs to the Republican Party. I am also frustrated that we seem to have grown another generation of country club Republicans. Republicans who actually believe that nothing more than talk, currying favor, keeping quiet, and ignoring the real issues because they may require getting “down and dirty” is the way to get the job done.
Most of what America has suffered at the hands of the Obama Administration in the last 10 months is Obama’s fault. Much is also the fault of Republicans who are in collusion with him. Republicans like those in the RNC.
Often, exploring what person or group of persons responds to something with this comment I find that, more often than not it is a Liberal, a moderate Republican or someone who actually believes that peace can be achieved by apologizing – like President Obama.
The idea that “being just like them” or “stooping to their level”, or anything similar is necessarily bad is an assumption that may not be warranted. The “them” that is discussed is seldom identifies in detail. The things that “them” do, is also many times disregarded.
Let’s start by looking at the current baseball playoff between the LA Dodgers and the Philadelphia Phillies. The Dodgers lost. I imagine that if the Dodgers said “we must be just like them. We must execute better, we must win, and next year we must change how we play this game. We must play like them”. This is not seen as anything but good, clean competition.
What about when a pitcher on one team purposely throws a ball at an opposing pitcher’s head, and the next inning the other pitcher does the same. As a baseball player (in my youth) and a fan now, I have seen this done on a number of occasions, but never have I heard anyone say, “ Now we are just like ‘them’”. Why not? In baseball the second pitcher was sending a message, and that message was if you do this so will we, and we can do it better.
In the 1920’s, through the 70’s the underworld spent a great deal of time eluding the police and law enforcement in general. One reason is that the law enforcement then was very different than now. Police were not loath to “bust a few heads” to solve a crime. They did this for many reasons, but one was to be more like them – the criminals. Anyone who has seen photos of shootouts between police and the underworld saw that force was the rule. The police simply used the same tactics as the criminals, but did it better. They became “Just like them”. Unfortunately activists came along and said we cannot just shoot the bad guys, they need lawyers. What if one was innocent, or not as guilty? He or she needed to be protected from the police. That was necessary because some of the police, in the opinion of the ACLU types.
The police are first responders, and so are our military. They now respond not to nationally recognized force, but to insurgents, Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc. The latter in turn fight us in many ways including mass murder, de-capitation, rape, firing squads, plus the ever present IED’s. We are often at a loss as we try to figure out how to win a war without hurting anyone. We were not always like that. War was seen for what it was – War. The major objective was to kill more of the enemy than they killed of you. It was simple and effective, and usually saved lives in the long run.
The Second World War, and what the Germans did to England is a case in point. They bombed England mercilessly. We eventually bombed Germany quite thoroughly. We did what they did, but better. Anzio was similar. After taking casualties far bar beyond the norm, we simply decide that the best thing to do would be to annihilate the Germans. No quarter was asked, none was taken, Ditto for the entire campaign from Sicily to Rome. We won – they lost. We became like THEM, and we ended that part of the war, by killing more Germans than they did Allied soldiers.
But somehow that did not resonate for long. We fought to a stalemate in Korea, we actually won in Viet Nam, but let Walter Cronkite announce our loss, and Johnson believe him. The entire American government became like them – the media.
Fast Forward. So we now enter the 8th year of a war or two that could have been won in 1 to 2 years. Our forces have fought gallantly, but are hamstrung by lawyers and do-gooders who would see a rabid dog as a mistreated animal who simply need his or her ears scratched. So many atrocities have been perpetrated against our military, and yet we are told, be nice, no strong action, no shooting until you are certain the man with the AK-47 is an enemy, and for sure no torture, no matter what. We don’t want to be like them. Why not? Being like them may have shortened the war, and more importantly saved American lives.
Now all that philosophy is part and parcel of our entire political gestalt.
We will never be able to save a continent again, because we cannot save ourselves from those who have made us but a shadow of the country who set nations free.
I leave with Dante’s great line “Abandon all Hope ye who enter here…”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)