Saturday, September 12, 2009
Have You Forgotten?
Friday marked a sad anniversary, the anniversary of the mass murders of thousands of people eight years ago by fanatics bent on imposing a narrow, totalitarian ideology on the entire world under the cover of religion.
They flew airplanes into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in the Washington, DC area. The damage would have been worse had the brave passengers of an additional flight not taken it over from the terrorists and crashed it into a field in Pennsylvania instead of its intended target, the Capitol or White House.
These people attacked America, put off by our freedom, our prosperity, and our declining values. They also seek to restore the caliphate – with themselves in charge, of course, like the totalitarians they are.
Although most Muslims detest these people and what they stand for, the media does not want you to hear those voices. Nor does it want to show us what happened on September 11, 2001. Apparently, their political cause will suffer if we remember that the issue is our ongoing war against totalitarianism. Unfortunately, it looks like some in this country would rather score political points than do what it takes to destroy the Islamofascist menace.
But it seems our President would rather hijack 9/11 for his own narrow ideological purposes. Instead of focusing on remembering the terrible events of that day, he tried to turn it into a day of "community service" to his dreams of overweaning Big Government. He has made it into a day to serve him.
This from a man whose close friend and political sponsor tried to bomb the Pentagon, just as the 9/11 terrorists did; who for 20 years attended a church whose pastor after 9/11 announced that "America's chickens have come home to roost"; whose wife said that she had never been proud of America and that it was "a downright mean country"; who had a Cuban flag and a picture of Che Guevara in his Houston campaign headquarters during the primaries; who appointed the likes of Van Jones (a self-proclaimed Communist and a believer that the US government carried out the September 11 attack on its own as a pretext for war) and Cass Sunstein, among others; who supported the Palestinian terrorist Rashid Khalidi; who accepted an anti-American book from Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
Although the vast majority of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, President Obama had no trouble bowing to the Saudi king.
Just as we fought to end Naziism and we brought down the Soviet Union, we must engage the Islamofascists in order to preserve our freedom. Yet now the Democrats who control Congress are talking about cutting off funding for our efforts in Afghanistan.
Just as a previous generation of Americans remembered Pearl Harbor long after the fact, we must never forget what happened to our countrymen eight years ago. Let us take our time today to honor the victims of these terrorist cowards and let us not rest until this particular incarnation of the totalitarian, anti-freedom ideology has stopped bobbing up its head.
Let us never forget.
Happy Birthday, YAF
49 years ago this week (September 9-11, 1960) a group of young people gathered at an estate in Sharon, Connecticut and formed a new organization of which I am a proud alumnus: Young Americans for Freedom.
Although parts of the founding statement are specific to their time, much of it is still right on target today:
The Sharon Statement
"Adopted in Conference, at Sharon, Connecticut, on September 11, 1960."
That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;
That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?
While Communism remains on the scene the imminent menace today is Islamofascism. But the principles outlined in the Sharon Statement remain the same almost five decades later.
For almost half a century now, Young Americans for Freedom has been a force for freedom, whether opening college campuses that were being shut down by the anti-American left, protesting trade with our enemies, publishing its magazine, The New Guard, or holding a rally or a convention.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Are We About to Put a Racist on the Supreme Court?
Are we about to put a racist on the Supreme Court? It is virtually certain that President Obama's nominee for Justice Souter's seat, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, will be confirmed. But there are innumerable reasons why she shouldn't be. One is that she is clearly a racist.
It's not just her ridiculous statement that she could make "better decisions" because she's Hispanic. Her ruling against the New Haven firefighters is clearly based on race. While it is a good thing that the court she is poised to join overturned that unjust ruling, the fact remains that she based her ruling entirely on race and the effect that her ruling would have on racial groups. She clearly can't see beyond skin color.
Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, a group whose slogan is "For the race everything, for those not of the race nothing." She has by her continued membership supported this racist policy.
Sotomayor has made it clear that she has no regard for the U.S. Constitution. She stated that the Circuit Court, on which she presently serves, "is where policy is made." No, that would be Congress.
And Sotomayor is hailed as the person who "saved baseball" in her ruling against the use of replacement players. This was just another case where Judge Sotomayor exceeded her authority.
Oddly, she is supported by the same people who circulated a memo about Miguel Estrada saying "this nominee is especially dangerous because he is Latino." What a bunch of hypocrites! Now they are suddenly pretending to like Hispanic people.
Putting this woman on the Supreme Court is a danger to our Republic. Those Senators who vote for her confirmation should be ashamed of themselves.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Pelosi Lied About Enhanced Interrogation Knowledge
Hoyer Calls for Investigation
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has called for an investigation of Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her false statements on what she knew about waterboarding. Hoyer said that the controversy over Pelosi's statements "probably ought to be on the record."
Meanwhile, documents have emerged that show that both the CIA and a Congressional aide briefed Pelosi on enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, and she approved of those tactics. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R- Mich.) revealed the existence of these documents and they were reported in The Politico. In addition, Michael Sheehy, a top aide to Pelosi, told the Washington Post that he and Pelosi had been briefed on waterboarding and she approved of the tactic. The only Democrat who filed any objection was Rep. Jane Harman (D-Cal.)
Pelosi and Sheehan were briefed on September 4, 2002. At that time, they were told that waterboarding had been used on Abu Zubaydah and that it was producing information. The information that Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad gave under waterboarding proved vital in saving thousands of lives – perhaps hundreds of thousands, according to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Pelosi has been caught lying to you and me. She cannot be trusted. The Democrats have been trying to politicize their policy differences, calling for show trials of those who approved of enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, despite the fact that no criminal offense occurred. Now awe have confirmed that they approved of these techniques. Will they put themselves on trial? Political trials of the sort that Democrats have been calling for are bad for a free country, so it's a good thing in that regard that Pelosi has been caught lying. Perhaps it will derail the Democrats' obsession with criminalizing opposition to their narrow ideology.
I don't often agree with Hoyer, but let me take this opportunity to second his call for an investigation of the Speaker.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Obama's Intelligence Pick Quits
Freeman Would Have Been Very Dangerous to the Country
Reflection of Obama's Real Views
President Obama's nominee for chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Charles (Chas) Freeman, withdrew his nomination yesterday after his extreme, anti-American views and associations were exposed.
This is great news for the country, but the downside is that Freeman's appointment was a perfect reflection of who President Obama really is. Personnel is policy.
In addition to Freeman's connections to the Saudi government, a leading exporter of Islamofascist terrorism, he has business connections to the bin Laden family and their Saudi Binladen Group, a multibillion-dollar construction conglomerate founded by the father of Osama bin Laden. He served as cairman of Projects International Inc., and in that capacity, he told the Associated Press, he was still "discussing proposals with the Binladen Group—and that won't change."
I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at "Tian'anmen" stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action.
Freeman's "ill-conceived restraint" consisted of sending tanks in to mass-murder the peaceful demonstrators. Troops indiscriminately fired AK-47s at the crowd. Many demonstrators were pulled out of buses and beaten with heavy sticks. Journalist Charlie Cole reported that tanks ran over numerous demonstrators, crushing them. Very restrained, don't you think? Chas Freeman does, and apparently, so does President Obama.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
I Didn't Realize You Could Pile Baloney That High
I watched President Obama's non-State of the Union speech Tuesday night. What a waste of my time. The man says nothing very well.
Obama's proposals reduce the degree of freedom to direct our own lives and the degree of responsibility for our own lives. And they spend massive amounts of money to do so. The porkulus bill alone added almost a trillion dollars to our deficit. Where does he propose to get that money?
Unfortunately, nothing President Obama says is believable as far as I am concerned. He's been caught not telling the truth about the so-called "stimulus" bill, as well as other issues. In his speech Tuesday he just plain would not tell the truth about the causes of the mortgage crisis. It was caused by the Clinton administration pressuring banks (under the threat of government action) to issue mortgages that everyone knew could never be paid back. Obama is more Clintonian than the Clintons.
Obama is talking the language of "Yes we can" but practicing the politics of "No we can't." His policies promote limits and suffering and pain. The implication of both his rhetoric and his policies is that you can't -- and shouldn't -- achieve, or make many decisions for yourself without bad stuff happening to you, so he'll just take over your life and run it for you so it can be run better. That is insultingly offensive. It's also authoritarian.
Furthermore, his ongoing theme of "remaking" America -- not reviving, renewing, or restoring, not even reforming, but remaking -- shows that he fundamentally does not believe in the American vision and the American dream handed to us by our Founders. You do not try to remake what you think is fundamentally well done, well built, well structured. Only if there is a systemic, fundamental flaw do you try to remake something. In other words, Barack Hussein Obama does not believe in America.
President Obama's latent anti-American attitude is showing. So are his authoritarian impulses. He is going to tell us what health care we can have, tell the banks how to operate, and tell everyone he can how to do everything. Big Brother is watching you – on a big-screen TV in the White House residence.
Barack Obama: Dishonest, Lying Hypocrite
During the campaign, I described President Obama as a "dishonest, lying hypocrite" for his insincere denunciation of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his spiritual mentor of 20 years who had said "God damn America" from the pulpit and referred to America as "the United States of White America" and "the US of KKKA." Obama had said of Rev. Wright, "I could no more disown him than I could disown the black community" – then he threw Wright under the bus. Then Wright showed up at his Inauguration.
Obama was also dishonest in claiming that he would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Republicans proposed to cut taxes in a major way – FICA (the Social Security tax), income taxes, capital gains, the corporate tax, and others – as part of the stimulus bill, but the tax cutter Obama told them that their ideas were not being considered because "I won." Meanwhile, he appointed tax cheats to his Cabinet.
President Obama promised that he would give the people five days to look over any bill before signing it, yet signed the so-called "stimulus" bill on the first business day after it was passed by Congress – even though neither the President nor any member of Congress nor the American people had read that almost a billion dollar piece of garbage. Obama lied again.
He also claimed that there was "not a single earmark" in the porkulus bill or in his budget. I have to give him that one, as Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) pointed out. "There is not a single earmark. It's loaded with them." In all, there are about 900 earmarks. Another falsehood from the Liar-in-Chief. We have a fundamentally dishonest, America-hating President in our White House.
Barack Obama finally has a real achievement. He is the only person in America who could make the Clintons look honest. And that is pretty scary.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Senate Committee Approves Friend of Terrorists
Holder Passes First Hurdle for Confirmation as Attorney General
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General with just two dissenting votes. Holder's nomination now moves to the full Senate. I would like to congratulate Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) for doing the right thing and voting against this friend of terrorists.
As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, Holder was in charge of overseeing the pardons and clemency process. In that capacity, he was instrumental in the pardons of two members of the Weather Underground. This is the organization in which President Obama's friend Bill Ayers was a top leader. The Weather Underground declared war on America. They bombed the Pentagon (long before Al Qaeda thought of it), New York City police headquarters, and other official targets.
The Weather Underground had a bomb factory in a townhouse in New York City, from which Ayers courageously ran away when it exploded, leveling the townhouse and killing three of his comrades, where they were making bombs to blow up a dance at Fort Dix and the Detroit police headquarters.
While Holder was the official receiving and reviewing pardon applications, former President Clinton issued pardons to Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, two members of this domestic terrorist organization. Rosenberg was involved in the notorious Brinks robbery in Nyack, New York in 1981 in which two officers were murdered. In 1984 she was caught with explosives. She admitted that she intended to supply explosives to others. She was sentenced to 58 years in jail.
Evans served time in prison for her connection to eight (8) bombings, including the U.S. Capitol bombing, as well as using false identification to buy firearms and harboring a fugitive.
One of the top bundlers for President Obama's campaign was attorney Howard Gutman, who served as Rosenberg's attorney during the pardon process.
Holder was also instrumental in the pardons of 16 members of the terrorist "Armed Forces of National Liberation" (FALN), a violent Puerto Rican independence group. Hillary Clinton, now Secretary of State, was running for Senator from New York at the time and New York has a large Puerto Rican community.
Holder instructed his staff at Justice's Office of the Pardon Attorney to effectively replace the department's original report recommending against any commutations, which had been sent to the White House in 1996, with one that favored clemency for at least half the prisoners, according to these interviews and documents.
The 16 members of the FALN and Los Macheteros had been convicted in Chicago and Hartford variously of bank robbery, possession of explosives and participating in a seditious conspiracy. Overall, the two groups had been linked by the FBI to more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and hundreds of injuries. Yet Holder thought they were worthy of clemency.
Then there is Marc Rich, perhaps President Clinton's most famous – and controversial – pardon. Rich didn't even qualify for a pardon under Justice Department guidelines, which specify that no pardons shall be requested until five years after a criminal sentence has been completed. Rich has never served any of his sentence, as he is a fugitive from justice.
Rich has been based in Switzerland since 1983, just before he was indicted in the United States, accused of tax evasion on more than $100 million in income, fraud and participating in illegal oil deals with the terrorist regime of Iran, the same Iranian regime that is sponsoring the insurgency in Iraq, which is killing American troops. President Clinton issued the pardon after his foundation received a large contribution from Rich's ex-wife, songwriter Denise Rich.
According to the prosecutors in the Rich case, no one consulted them before recommending a pardon for Mr. Rich. Yet Mr. Holder strongly pushed for the Rich pardon.
This friend of terrorists is President Obama's choice to be the nation's top law-enforcement official and it looks like the Senate will go along. Maybe they're afraid to oppose him because he is African-American. But he is unfit for the office. His nomination is a payoff to the enemies of America. If the Senate had any principles, they would defeat the Holder nomination and tell President Obama to find another Attorney General. That they will not shows the dangerously troubled state into which our country has fallen.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever
Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Reminds Us of the Need to Protect the Most Defenseless
Time to Protect the Unborn
Today, January 22, is the anniversary of the worst Supreme Court decision ever: Roe v. Wade, the decision that enshrined abortion as a so-called "Constitutional right." Even Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the Roe v. Wade decision, admitted that there was no Constitutional basis for it. He said he found a right to abortion in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution.
Roe v. Wade has resulted in the slaughter of 45 million Americans because they are inconvenient to their parents. It set a dangerous precedent that it is permissible to take a human life if it's inconvenient. It has opened the door to taking human life in other ways, such as the atrocity that was the Terry Schiavo case.
Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in our country, which is why it belongs in the legislative arena, not that of the courts. Roe took away the authority of legislatures to enact laws outlawing or even severely restricting abortion.
Yet the Constitution is very clear: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This is precisely what abortion does: it deprives a person of life without due process. When sperm meets egg and they bond, a new entity is created which is genetically of the human species, which has everything it needs to be born as a human being, which is distinct. Brain waves have been measured as early as a few weeks. So have independent heartbeats. Yet the pro-abortion left insists on treating this as nothing more than a mass of tissue.
That is because organizations lie Planned Parenthood make big money doing abortions and for historical reasons as well. Each year, Planned Parenthood gets millions in taxpayers' money (such as $15 million in 2007) for their nefarious activities and its annual report for 2006-07 reported that it took in a billion dollars. During that year, this brutal organization aborted 289,570 of America's children, an increase of over 2,500 from the previous year.
Planned Parenthood was founded on the principle of eugenics by a eugenicist who wanted to "improve the human race" by eliminating minorities such as blacks (which would have included the ancestors of our current President.) Planned Parenthood refuses to criticize their founder, Margaret Sanger, despite her vile record.
Now President Obama has said that one of his first acts will be to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act." This would be a disaster for anyone who cares about defending the most defenseless. This immoral bill would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.
* FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
* FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
* FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
But whether you're pro-life or "pro-choice", there are certain things on which I think most of us can agree. One of these is that children, once born, are entitled to the legal protections of a human being and cannot and should not be killed.
Apparently, President Obama does not agree.
He was one of the driving forces in the state legislature preventing Illinois from adopting the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This entirely reasonable law would stop hospitals and abortion mills from shelving live aborted babies to die with no medical attention. In other words, those babies who are born alive in spite of the abortionist's efforts were being left to die and the state legislature wanted to prevent this barbaric practice. Barack Obama fought to stop passage of this bill in 2001 and 2002. He was the only State Senator to speak against the act. In 2003, he was the chairman of the committee that bottled up the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, preventing its passage.
Does President Obama want more abortions? Does he have no respect for the rights of babies born alive? At what point would he allow their rights to be protected? President Obama is a father of two young girls. How can he look his young daughters in the eye, knowing that he has undermined every available protection for the children of this country? This is a shameful policy.
Is that what is meant by "change we can believe in"?