“We are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"), we are at war with something that is tangible: Al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered” - White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.

The fun part about Leftists is that they tend to be pretty straightforward (not always though) about their incompetence and cowardice. This was a response to Dick Cheney’s comments about Obama pretending that we are not at war with terrorism and it goes to show how the Left twists statements in order to score political points. The statement, to begin with, is intellectually dishonest because it redefines “war on terror” and makes it into an absurdism. To say that the war on terror is strictly a war against the tactic of terrorism is akin to saying that the war on poverty is a war against poor people, or the war on drugs is a war against all drugs (recreational or health-related)… apparently, if the White House is releasing such incompetence on their blog, then Cheney seems to be right about the administration being soft on terror because they do not even seem to understand the context of “the war on terror.”

My second observation is that, in explicitly writing that “we are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"),” the administration is making a quiet concession to our enemies: terrorism is an “acceptable” tactic. Just think about it, would Harry Truman have been criticized for saying that, after WWII, America was at war with genocide? What would have happened if the opposing party said “we are not at war with other countries’ domestic policies ("genocide")?” America absolutely should be at war with the use of terrorism abroad. When rockets are launched into civilian areas simply for the sake of killing civilians, we must respond. When suicide bombers board airplanes for the sole purpose of sending the world a message, we must respond. When planes are crashed into buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians while they worked, we did respond. There is a huge difference between guerrilla war and terrorism. So when the administration says that they are not at war against the tactic of terrorism, it sends the message to our enemies that maybe some terrorism, especially not directed at America, is acceptable. America is at war with terror… today it may be Al Qaeda, but we cannot ignore other organizations that use terror as a tool to destabilize regions and accomplish political goals. The world can never have peace as long as these organizations exist. To throw up our hands in defeat saying that we do not go to war against “tactics” is to enable this very tactic… and if this is what Obama has in mind with respect to our struggle against terror then, to quote Rush, I hope he fails.

-AG

Back during the dot-com bubble’s bursting, to my colleagues and family members I said that the economy would not explode but that money would flee from these high-risk securities which were “new” and exciting and seek greater stability. This occurred with the eventual rise in speculation on home prices and other asset-backed securities. At the time I openly worried about what would happen if the housing market crashed given that the economic power of the middle class, especially here in South Florida, was 100% founded on home values. Refinancing mortgages, taking out credit lines on one’s home, and easier access to credit due to home ownership increased consumption without a concurrent increase in average incomes. It was clear to me that a crash in the housing market would leave the America economy and money in general with little place to “go,” i.e. that I did not see where the market could make up its losses. Apparently, my concerns played out… but the government answered my question, the “new money” would come out of thin air, by printing money with reckless abandon. This, my friends, is something that seemed unfathomable to me because of how bad this idea was and is. What our economy has become is one that relies on government moves almost exclusively. Just take a look at the survival of US financial firms and automakers. Just take a look at the commodities markets that are being buoyed by a weakening dollar and lower interest rates. To all those investors out there, be warned, this is a bubble! The US dollar will not crash anytime soon and interests rates are destined to rise in the short- to medium-term. So the question is: what will the effects be of an economic system where the government picks and chooses (in a process that MUST be corrupt) what to inflate with bailout dollars and what not to? This is a question that is most interesting to me and I wondered if there was anything in history that resembled the sort of band-aid-bailout-economy where the temporary inflation of one industry or another would skew markets, hurt the dollar long-term, and keep dying companies alive. Actually there is a historical example: Japan.

While a lot has already been written about Japan’s Lost Decade and comparisons to the current recession, I am more interested in the medium to long-term effects of a bailout-driven economy since it is clear that the current administration has no intention of using this money to pay down our debt. An interesting article on Time focused on the idea of “too big to fail” and also spotlighted Japan’s bailout policies. On the former, the article highlights that South Korea let Daewoo fail, a company that was larger relative their economy than any company in the US, and their economy not only survived but grew, but that’s another topic. On the latter, the article talks about how Japan pumped money into companies that were failing and just continued to lose money, to quote:

“In a pathetic attempt to avoid losses, Japanese banks kept pumping fresh funds into debt-ridden, unprofitable firms to keep them afloat. These companies came to be known as zombie firms — they appeared to be living but were actually dead, too burdened by debt to do much more than live off further handouts.”

This exact scenario will not play out in our government’s own effort because US firms are doing things to turn themselves around and will continue to. Unfortunately, human nature plays against us here: people and groups of people win by the smallest margin they need. This means that it is possible that a lot of these huge companies, if they cannot make good profits for whatever reason, will exploit the lack of moral hazard that exists in American pseudo-capitalism and that an infinite loop of bailouts will continue. Ultimately, it is both moral hazard and competition that ensure innovation and economic independence… a bailout economy only dampens innovation and increases dependence.

The similarity with Japan is in the fact that with government pumping money into failing entities, the entities themselves actually did not improve in a real sense, they simply survived. In America’s case, we are pumping money into sectors that are not doing so well. The question that comes to mind is: once we pump money into some sector in the short-term, what happens then? Do we expect that private investors take over? Do we expect that demand for said sector’s products go up, just because the government pumped money into it? There are a few ways to create wealth, but borrowing from the taxpayer of the future to pay the government handout recipient of the present is not one of them. The market, on the other hand, eager to make profits will invest in “stimulated” industries and then take their money out as soon as the stimulus money moves elsewhere. This skews the market and does not create real wealth.

While this topic deserves much investigation and discussion I wanted to simply present the problem of a bailout-driven economy and what it means to capitalism in general. I do not believe that the dollar will be destroyed by a bailout economy, but I do believe that it will hurt the dollar long term. I truly wonder how such an economy can compete in the world and whether or not it is compatible with a global economy. One thing is certain, the ever-increasing debt that will exist as a result of such an economy will do nothing to help us. I will admit one thing, no candidate for any office will have my vote if they wish to perpetuate a bailout-economy because the only feasible result of such a system is full-fledged Socialism, be it of a corporatist flavor or a straight up nanny-state flavor. We need to retire this bailout by paying down the debt as soon as possible.

-AG

When the previous administration was in power, the United States could be expected to behave a certain way with respect to the War on Terror: stubbornly. This was both a good thing and a bad thing, leading to the uprooting of Al Qaeda, destruction of Hussein’s dictatorial regime, and keeping America safe while at the same time giving more moderate Muslims another excuse to hate us and having us follow a bad strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. When dealing with fanatics, it is necessary to have the resolve to fight. Al Qaeda could do nothing but hope that we would withdraw prematurely or hope that some sociopaths would carry out an attack in the West while calling themselves Al Qaeda. In general, the United States kept Al Qaeda on the defense, albeit not in an ideal fashion.

Enter the new administration. While we are still engaged in wars abroad, the intensity in Iraq has gone down and the tone in Afghanistan has changed. Al Qaeda leadership, in all probability, has decided that dealing with the Obama administration will be easier than dealing with the intransigent Bush administration. By looking at Obama’s proposed policies and reasons behind them, such as his plans to withdraw from Iraq because “it is a distraction,” or change our language with respect to the war on terror, it is abundantly clear to our enemies that this administration is more mindful of “how something looks” and of casualties. This means that, while they survive, our enemies will adopt a strategy that exploits this new reality, a new reality that some would call a weakness. Lucky for them (unlucky for us), terrorists have long used terror as a political tool rather than a military tool. Since Bush forced them to use it as a military tool, they have been unsuccessful; with Obama insistence on dialogue instead of conflict, they hope to go back to doing the thing they do best: sucker punches to make a point.

Terrorists view their terror attacks as a conditioning of the behavior of the target population. Many terror attacks come followed by some sort of terror group list of reasons for the attacks and with some demands. The demands of terrorists do not always come about, but the intention is not necessarily to score a win immediately, instead they aim to condition the enemy. Rewind back to 2004, when Spain was the victim of an Al Qaeda attack on March 11 and 191 people were killed. Did this condition the Spanish government? Yes sir, because shortly thereafter the Spanish withdraw their troops from Iraq. Fast-forward to 2009, when Pakistan invaded the Swat valley where Al Qaeda and the Taliban were holed up, a terror campaign swept the country in retaliation. Did this condition the Pakistani government? You betcha, because when the United States asked for help against the Haqqani Network in northern Pakistan, the Pakistani government refused. So when the United States and Yemen started cooperating more closely over Al Qaeda, they sent a lone Nigerian kid to take down a passenger plane, which he failed to do. Their aim is simply to condition the administration, saying without words “if you stop helping Yemen, we’ll stop sending terrorists.” The reality is that the spectacular attacks favored by old-school Al Qaeda are no longer possible because they have been weakened by war and now they are willing to engage in low level terror, because they have no choice. While spectacular attacks are out of the question, low level attacks will do two things: not pose a significant threat politically to the administration (keeping a condition-able leader in power) while simultaneously conditioning their behavior. Will Obama be conditioned by terror any more than he already has been? That is the question that both Americans and Al Qaeda are asking… the former are hoping that he won’t be… the latter truly believe that he will be.

-AG

With the withdrawal of United States support for freedom in Latin America (see Obama administration), citizens of nations that are threatened with socialist takeovers are rising up against their dictators and would-be dictators. From Honduras to Venezuela to Cuba, the political landscape in these countries and others is starting to change. After years of socialist advances in the region, opposition in these countries is starting to organize from the bottom-up, as opposed to top-down which was for a long time the norm.

New Conservative President of Honduras

In Honduras, elections were held in order to bring an end to the crisis that started when the courts deposed and exiled the then president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya, who was trying to hold an illegal referendum vote. Remember that it was Mel Zelaya who was following in Hugo Chavez’s footsteps, trying to turn the country into another socialist stronghold until the Congress, the courts, and the military put an end to his designs. In the November election, Hondurans were asked to choose between Zelaya’s former vice president, Elvin Santos, from the Liberal Party and Porfirio Lobo from the conservative National Party. Despite near-constant bombings carried out by pro-Zelaya supporters, voter turnout was estimated as being from 49% to 61% and Hondurans elected the conservative Lobo by 56% of the vote versus 38% for the liberal candidate, clearly an indication of the Honduran people’s will to move on from the Zelaya debacle and put their country back on a prosperous path. While the leftist governments of Latin America have all refused to recognize the new government, the United States and other nations have started to re-establish ties with Honduras. In the face of international pressure demanding the return of the socialist Zelaya (including pressure from the Obama administration), Honduras remained firm and stopped the socialist advance on their country. Hopefully, things will improve for them from here on.

Moving on to the nearly socialist state of Venezuela, where strongman/clown Hugo Chavez has made political opposition a highly stressful career choice and we see that the Venezuelan people have had enough. Despite the Obama-Chavez embrace heard round the world and with the Obama administration generally unresponsive to Chavez’s actions, Chavez has not toned down his anti-American rhetoric, in fact, he has increased it on many occasions. Basing his “presidency” on anti-Americanism and socialist redistribution of wealth has brought his country an increase in poverty, violence, and authoritarianism. I am talking about Chavez in this instance, not Obama. While in the past the traditional political structure was Chavez’s only challenger, a new movement is springing up in Venezuela that may prove more successful in kicking him out. A political party by the name Popular Will Movement led by Leopoldo Lopez, an ex-mayor of a Caracas district, has started gaining support across the nation, even with former Chavez supporters. Chavez seems to be getting worried saying that his opponents “are getting into the barrios. They are trying to organize coordinated movements, and they are going to try to win a majority in the National Assembly.” Apparently, he finds this to be a sinister plot. Funny thing is that this strategy is straight out of Chavez’s playbook, reaching out to areas that previously did not participate in politics as much (read “poor areas").

Popular Will Rally

The movement in Venezuela can only succeed if the old-school politicians decide to stay on the sidelines and let fresh new leaders with new ideas come out as the face of the opposition. (I think there is something that American conservatives can learn from the Venezuelan experience here… the Democrats did it in 2008, they put a fresh new face to their old political agenda and voila! Democrats now control Washington.) Let us hope that the opposition will not be rounded up by Chavez’s repressive machinery which has already arrested and exiled many opposition figures.

This brings me to Cuba, the Godfather of Latin American socialism. Unlike what many people predicted, the end of Fidel Castro’s (direct) rule did not bring about any significant changes in Cuba’s communist system. It has been kept almost totally intact by Raul Castro, whose only “shakeups” have been internal, a reshuffling of the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, if you will. Obama’s policy of reaching out to Cuba which culminated in an easing US policy towards them (more travel, more remittances) have produced no improvement in the Cuban situation. In fact, the anti-Americanism continues unabated. The Cuban situation can be explained simply: America’s enemies have a guaranteed foothold in the western hemisphere as long as this Cuban regime exists and Cuba is actively exports its brand of authoritarianism by aiding socialists/communists everywhere it can in anyway it can. Cut off the Castro regime and the benefits are obvious: you save many countries from the ravages of communist dictatorship and you ease a national security threat that exists just ninety miles from the coast of Florida. Since the current administration is unwilling to stand up the communist regime, the only people who have been posing a threat to Castro are the internal pro-democracy dissidents. These are individuals have lived most of their lives in the “revolution” and yearn for a change, either an abrupt change or a modest incremental change, towards democracy. Recently, an American citizen was arrested for giving away cellphones and laptops, only in a communist dictatorship can this be a crime, but it shows two things. The first is that the Castro regime does not want the normalization of relations and will go out of its way to set back any progress with provocative acts like this one. The second is that the regime understands that the new empowerment of democratic activists on the island with access to video cameras and the internet is the greatest threat to the communist system. Dictatorships thrive in the shadows and while the US government cuts funds for radio broadcasts into Cuba, it is the Cuban people that are taking initiative, using technology, and risking their lives to shine a light on the realities on that island.

Yoani Sánchez, Cuban blogger

The change is bottom-up with people like blogger Yoani Sánchez, recently beaten and detained for typing the harsh reality she lives, and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, serving a 25 year sentence for speaking out against Cuba’s policy of free abortions and talking about human rights in public (gasp!), leading the charge and taking hits along the way. What this goes to show is that, even without a clear beacon for freedom, the human spirit will continue to fight against tyranny no matter what.

These developments to the south, ranging from a victory against socialism to a campaign that is certain to result in thousands more tragedies before any real change comes about, can provide a blueprint for how we, as Americans currently facing a government that ignores the people, can start changing the system. Change (to borrow that slogan from the demagogues) cannot come from the top-down anymore, it must come from an energized, grassroots movement that takes on the establishment from the bottom-up. Sometimes these popular movements are hijacked by personalities who pervert the original intentions and use this momentum for personal gain. The great advantage of the Tea Party movement in America is that there is no one leader but relies on one great commonality: our desire to make and keep America great. When the 2010 elections roll around, I expect some of the more savvy politicians to try and hijack the movement… let us guard against this. Americans, historically, do not blindly follow leaders, we are individuals. Let’s never forget this as we keep fighting on.

-AG

On September 11th, 2001, the United States was attacked by a terrorist network that operated out of Afghanistan. What ensued is what should have happened: the United States issued an ultimatum to surrender the terrorists deemed responsible and invaded once that ultimatum was ignored. Thus was born the War in Afghanistan. The conflict focused on two particular groups: Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. The idea was simple enough, to dismantle Al Qaeda, uproot the Taliban regime, and essentially give the country back to the Northern Alliance rebels.

Somewhere along the way, the clarity of our mission dissipated and we got stuck in nation-building. It did not happen overnight especially because of the Bush administration’s initial resistance to the idea, but as of now, we are knee deep in sending not only troops but specialists and advisers. The Obama administration has made it a point that success in our campaign cannot come only through military means, but through other factors:

“We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development … those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical,” Obama told ABC News.

This is the very definition of nation-building, though it seems that the administration will be content with leaving some shell of a “sustainable society” as opposed to making sure that the institutions we help establish will last. Which brings me to my point, how does “terrorist attack on American soil” eventually lead to “providing security, political stability, and economic development to Afghanistan?” In a bar fight, how many times does the winner drive the loser to the hospital, pay their bar tab, and make sure their car gets driven home safely? Yet this is exactly what we are doing and plan to continue doing in Afghanistan, a place that has never had a strong national identity nor strong civil institutions to match. Afghanistan is a made-up place whose national character has not developed yet and, in truth, may never develop. The problem with nation-building in Afghanistan is that we must build the nation out of whole cloth, not simply prop up or re-inflate certain parts of it like we did in Iraq. In Iraq there existed more of a “nation” than in Afghanistan and so we only needed to reinforce those parts of it that were necessary for stability. So when people wonder why the conflict in Afghanistan has taken so long, the answer is right before our eyes: insurgencies are a way of life for the Afghans and when regular Afghans see the Afghan flag, not enough of their eyes fill up with proud tears.

To reach victory in Afghanistan, we must not insist that whatever government take its place be democratic or ideal, it might be corrupt (like it is now), it might be a little authoritarian, heck, it might be a little bit of a militant Islamic state, but the absolute truth is that we cannot impose the centuries of political and philosophic development of the Western world on this “country.” What we need is to be pragmatists in foreign policy, unlike Bush and unlike Obama. This means that maybe we tolerate their opium economy but make sure that it is not in the wrong hands. This means we make the tough choices, the choices that a morally repugnant, the choices that lead to other problems in the short-term, because at the end of the day we must choose our battles. Do we fight the evil that killed almost 3,000 that September day and their allies, or do we worry about drug trade, the corruption, the human rights abuses, etc. prevalent in Afghan society? My vote is to stomp out Al Qaeda and the Taliban first and worry about the stability of their society second… ultimately, their national shortfalls will be regional threats but to leave Al Qaeda a safe haven would be an international threat.

The best way for America to spread freedom around the world is two-fold, defend freedom when under attack and serve as a role model for the world. We currently have an administration that is not so keen on doing either. My positions above are a bit cold, but in the end, they are the best ways to defend against Al Qaeda and get us out of long-term counterinsurgency campaigns that only cost blood and treasure. For a bit of perspective, the Colombian armed guerrilla conflict started in 1964 and only now is showing signs of abating… guerrilla wars are a long-term proposition, McCain knew that and seemed to have the stomach for it, but I do not want more Americans to die needlessly. We can accomplish our goals and come home, we just have to cast aside those silly ideas about nation-building that may take centuries to work.

-AG

For the first time ever, I was recently reading the Daily Kos website (link not included), a leftist blog that is set up quite like a leftist society would be: a council of supreme leaders (top contributors who post directly to the front page) and the teeming masses (individuals who posts “diaries” or simply comment). While they call themselves a “Democratic Party” blog, the majority of their content is from the leftist perspective, so a leftist blog it is. To my conservative friends, I would recommend taking a glance once in a while at what delusional rants and campaigns of distortion blogs and sites like this have to offer because as Sun Tzu said: “Know thy enemy.”

Their Great Leader

In general terms, it looks like the writers seem to cherry-pick the news and twist the truth beyond recognition in order to satisfy their liberal audience in a behavior I have heard people refer to as a “circle jerk.” For example, on December 24th, Jed Lewison (fine, I’ll provide the link) took time out of his busy day to criticize “right-wing activist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com” for demanding that the Attorney General “investigate Rahm Emanuel for… corrupt practices involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” First, Jed says that it was not, in fact, Freddie/Fannie, other government sponsored enterprises, and the government itself that created the conditions for the financial collapse by pushing for the financial industry to originate riskier and riskier loans (and by keeping capital reserves low) but rather it was all the banks’ fault. He tops this accusation by saying “[right-]wingers love it [the idea that gov’t intervention created the recession] because it not only absolves the financial and real estate industries of responsibility for the financial crisis, but it puts the blame squarely on the backs of blacks and Latinos.” This man is not only dead wrong about the causes of the recession but he is also a class/ethnic warfare antagonizer for characterizing all “right-wingers,” which I assume applies to me (a “Latino” according to this leftist class/ethnic warfare-monger), as “in love” with blaming blacks and Latinos for the recession. Both of his assertions are just plain wrong. The proof that government intervention was the principal cause of the recession is clear as day, not to say that Wall Street didn’t play its part… but the simplistic answers generated from the simplistic minds of these leftist liberals who assert that a kumbaya-singing, moral-relativistic, wealth-redistributionist socialist utopia would be the pinnacle of human development continue to ignore facts in order to satisfy their own limited and grossly distorted worldview. [Catches breath]. There is zero profit motive in giving away money to people who are expected to default on their payments, e.g. people with bad credit… that is, unless the riskiness of issuing those mortgages were lessened somehow: enter the federal government. That said, here’s an interesting video about government’s efforts to get financial institutions to loosen lending standards by using Freddie and Fannie:

The speaker here, Peter J. Wallison, had written a piece in 2005 about the need to regulate Freddie and Fannie and of course it is clear that he was right. You may say that he is a conservative and therefore his opinion is skewed, but facts are facts regardless of one’s political leanings; prior to government intervention under the Clinton and Bush administrations, no financial institution with sound business practices would make such risky bets on subprime mortgages.

Of course, the author continues by insisting that Republicans are racists because of a comment by Norquist that “Obama is John Kerry with a tan"… Obama is a liberal and he is darker than Kerry, it’s obvious! Is it racism to point out a fact like this, referring to visible physical characteristics of a person objectively? So if someone in public life his big ears or big eyes, should those observations be off the table? When it comes to certain “protected groups” it seems that PC standards have gone from don’t speak ill to don’t even mention. I believe that a nation where its citizens can no longer speak plain objective truth because of the hyper-sensitivity of other citizens is a nation with the wrong value set. What ever happened to freedom of speech? Since when was having a tan a bad thing? Who does this comment hurt? No matter, the liberals have ruled that one cannot say such things and we, the poor plebeians under their care, must comply.

Ultimately, Jed concludes that liberals should not be attacking the administration or Freddie/Fannie because… it distracts from “progressive goals.” He may be correct but this concern is not restricted only to conservatives or wingers, as he playfully refers to us, it is a national issue that affects everyone. With a rising national debt, how with liberals be able to accomplish all of these “progressive goals?” The truth is that regular Joes who happen to be liberal still see these programs as a sort of safety net for the less fortunate and when they see mountains of debt and the US government and Federal Reserve pumping money into Freddie and Fannie, they start to worry that these programs will disappear. The far left liberals are more focused on the forest rather than the trees and understand that the ultimate goal is not a “safety net” but rather a “spider web” that will trap a majority of individuals and put us on the path to a society where wealth is “evenly” distributed and individual achievement is punished or outlawed. So to liberals, conservatives, and independents who care about the behind-the-scenes corruption, unsustainable spending, and irresponsible behavior of any administration, it is your God-given right and duty to call for an investigation of such practices… just don’t expect the big government leftists to be on your side.

All in all, blogs like DK showcase leftist America, unfiltered… something that may help conservatives understand how far removed from reality their perspective is… and maybe even give us a clue about how to reach out to them because at the end of the day, we need all Americans to preserve freedom and bring prosperity back to our country.

-AG

I was not going to write any more today, but… a Nigerian man who claims to be tied to Al Qaeda tried to blow up a plane landing in Detroit but the explosive failed to go off as planned and he was immediately subdued by passengers. The explosive device was fairly sophisticated and the individual in question was already on counterterrorism lists, meaning that he should not have been on a plane to begin with and that security should have done a better job screening for this explosive device. Remember that the 9-11 planes were hijacked with box cutters and now, in 2009, this man was able to get on a plane with an explosive device, from a country that Al Qaeda is known to operate in. In time for Christmas, regular people stopped this would-be suicide bomber from killing the 278 passengers on board… it is a slight mixture of a Christmas miracle and the courage of individuals that made this possible. If only the current administration was as serious about stopping terrorists as it is about treating them more nicely.

-AG

First off, Merry Christmas to all! Now onto other pressing matters:

Few people in the mainstream media or on the Left would have thought that 1 year after Obama’s victory, Republicans would be poised for a comeback. In fact, few Republicans would have thought this either. The underlying reason for this is that this administration was elected to bring change and hope and in place of those things we have seen an Washington hand over trillions of dollars to Wall Street, continued expansion of federal government, massive deficit spending and debt, and unfulfilled promises. The final nail in the coffin for Left-wing politics in this country, at least in the short term, will be the passage of the Health Care Reform bill as it currently stands by the House, a piece of legislation that is currently opposed by a majority of Americans. What we are witnessing is an implosion of the Democratic Party which has chosen to swing the sword of federal power in order to satisfy mere political goals instead of leading all Americans. This will be of immense benefit to Republicans next year.

What has been the most interesting thing this year is that the main engine of the movement against the Democrats is not the Republican Party but rather a conservative movement that has swept the country. This means one thing, that Republicans, in the absence of some game-changing event (or fraud), will gain seats riding a semi-populist conservative wave of support… without actually creating or agreeing with the movement to begin with. We need to be clear on this: the conservative revival that is currently underway is not a Republican revival, it is fully grassroots and has taken aim at RINO’s and liberals alike. The question is: from the standpoint of a conservative activist, should Republicans benefit from this movement if they do not abide by conservative principles? Already, we have seen conservative defections in two different races: New York and New Jersey. Whenever they have taken power, Republicans have looked a lot more liberal than their constituents would have liked.

My view is straightforward, I would rather have liberal Democrats win elections against liberal Republicans for three reasons: first, liberal Democrats are more honest about their propensity for big government, taxation for taxation’s sake, being anti-life, etc. than liberal Republicans who try to toe the line and end up doing the same as Democrats (honesty matters). Second, if Republicans continue to vote down the party line instead of actually looking at the candidates, we will never truly have historic leaders. Republicans need to lead, they do not merely need to win elections. Third and most importantly, for the Republican Party to inch back from left-of-center to right-of-center, voters need to make it absolutely clear that Republicans will not win any vote that they do not deserve. To justify the left-of-center charge, look at the mismanagement of the Bush administration, not necessarily with respect to the wars, but rather with respect to growth of government, deficit spending, immigration reform, billions on foreign aid with no strategic value, the first bailouts of Wall Street, etc. we come to realize that Bush did not adhere to limited government principles. I am being a bit strict in my view that Republicans should fail until they come to realize the importance of sticking by conservative issues, but there simply is no better way to nudge them in the right direction. Pun intended.

What does this mean for 2010 and 2012? Simple: Republicans need to strengthen their support of free markets, individual empowerment, and roll back the big government takeover that is currently underway. It would also be nice if they stopped apologizing and bowing to foreign kings and emperors. If they do not, there may be and should be political consequences from the conservative “bloc.” We cannot allow Republicans to get complacent.

-AG

Yesterday, the day before to passing the Senate Health Care Reform bill with a vote along party lines: “I don’t see this as 60 Democrats versus 40 Republicans,” Harry Reid said. “I see it as 60 leaders who stood up to insurance companies and stood up for working families all across America.”

Yesterday: “mid-cap biotech stocks and large pharmaceutical stocks… two groups that could rise at least 10 percent over the next month. The legislation currently leaves both industries relatively unscathed…

Shares of large health insurers – the industry probably most affected by the legislation – have soared about 26 percent since the start of October, leading the charge for health stocks. The S&P Health Care Sector index has risen about 10 percent in that time, while the broader S&P 500 index has climbed 6 percent.”

Utter detachment from reality… or just flagrant lying to the American public. Like pointed out yesterday in my post about the government’s plans to destroy free and open competition, today’s passage of the Senate health care reform bill takes us one step closer to socialism. Despite taking flak from the left and the right, the bureaucratic powers that control our nation decided that they know what is best for us… they have resorted to ruling by decree while Americans are distracted by the holidays. We are witnessing the creation of a government program so intrusive that the very concepts of liberty and personal responsibility will completely take on new meaning in one generation; they will come to mean “the freedom government lets you have” and “the government takes care of us all so do whatever you like,” respectively. In less than one year, the United States has come a long way from the Constitutional Republic we once were.

While Imperial Democrats continue to repeat the empty party slogans of change and hope, saying that they have stood up to big business,just glance over at the stock market, where investors are doing backflips over the idea that the government will mandate people to purchase insurance… the lifelong dream of any company CEO: forcing people to buy your product.

While the Obama campaign promised an end to old-style politics, what we saw during this endeavor was the most audacious display of corruption at the highest levels of government. This “new-style” politics is more exclusive to liberal interests and more corrupt than ever before. They cut deals with big pharmaceutical companies. They cut deals with Senators who were on the sidelines by handing them blank checks. They handed out money for votes in a scheme that most people would consider illegal… in fact, a scheme that if carried out by any private individual, it would be called bribery, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment and fines.

The losers in this are clear: the American people, but there is a silver lining. This entire display of corruption and disregard for public will has shown to everyone how exactly these Imperial Democrats operate. This means that come 2010, the American public can express their dissatisfaction by throwing out the bums who helped increase the burden on American families through taxation and mandates. Now that they have removed their masks it will be much harder for nice-sounding speeches and Bush-bashing to win the Democrats any votes. All we need to do is point towards their pro-government expansion, pro-taxation, pro-entitlement spending, pro-Wall Street bailout agenda and unleash popular sentiment against these clowns. It’s funny that it only took one year of Democrat control of Washington for them to cram big government down America’s throat… it only shows us that the Left has had these plans in the works for years, they were just biding their time until they got decisive majorities. That said, we need to put them back in the minority ASAP. While political setback may pale compared to what the Democrats have planned for us, it’s something and it should give us hope that there still exists some semblance of freedom in this country.

-AG

I am simply stunned by the amount of opposition this one piece of legislation, the Health Care Reform bill, is getting from all sides… I am particularly impressed by the Leftist groups that are against this plan. A number of them want the Public Option included in the final bill, but they fail to realize that it is their fellow liberals who have negotiated the Public Option away. This ad by a progressive group catches Obama lying to the American public saying that he will not sign a bill without a public option and he also goes on record slamming individual mandates, something he now supports:

Then we have a union that is opposed to the health care reform bill. A union!!! They are opposed to taxing health care benefits:

The Republican Party has a number of ads; I like this one for its sheer simplicity:

These are just some of the ads that caught my eye. What they illustrate is an across the board rejection of the health care bill but unfortunately, time is running out. The Senate has scheduled a vote for tomorrow, Christmas Eve, as a little present for president Obama and a huge lump of coal for the rest of America. Taxes. Fines. Mandates. Government control of health care. A blue state bonanza of special favors and kickbacks to secure all the votes necessary to pass this bill. $1 trillion price tag, on the conservative side. Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare that simply foreshadow their approach: to make cuts in quality for more quantity. Most importantly, playing politics on a law that will affect every American for generations to come in order to pass a bill by the arbitrary timeline of December 24th. But these things we already know…

What we have not thoroughly discussed is what happens afterward. No matter which bill passes, the Senate version or the House version, the outcome will be the same. The first step is that smaller companies will eventually have to accept people with pre-existing conditions, fundamentally making it much more difficult to have a profitable enterprise, leaving mainly the large insurance companies in the market. The second step is that insurance companies, the ones big enough to survive, will use their every resource to blast holes in the bill so that they can deny coverage or reduce the amount of coverage legally. It’s what businesses do in the face of unsustainable regulation, look for loopholes. What more, given that the United States federal government will mandate that every individual must purchase insurance, the remaining insurance giants will stand to make a killing. The only thing standing between these remaining big insurance companies and high profits is the federal government. The third step is that, as occurred with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and other government-sponsored enterprises, government intervention essentially guarantees health insurance no matter what. This means that if government regulations prove too strict and the companies go under, the government is left controlling everyone’s health insurance and the taxpayer foots the bill (like with the bailouts). If government regulations are not strict enough, then we can expect the remaining insurance giants to form an oligopoly with limited competition, record profits, and higher premiums for consumers (like after the bailouts). Even if there is some middle ground and government for the first time in history is able to regulate the industry effectively, it is the average American who ends up paying on both ends, through taxes and directly through premiums. Of course, since insurance is, effectively, the pooling of risk amongst policyholders and the government has decided to increase that amount of risk by including people with pre-existing conditions while at the same time trying to decrease or hold down prices, because of the adage “there is no free lunch” ultimately something has to give, be it quality of care, direct nationalization, even higher debt/taxes, or something not yet imagined. This is Corporate Socialism 102 (with the Obama Bailouts being C.S. 101) and it results in either direct government control or indirect government control of all of us.

At first I was hopeful that this would not come to be because I knew that there was enough garbage in the mix to garner enough opposition at least on the conservative side, but I now see that Congress and the administration could care less about opposition from every side. Let us hope that some lone, courageous Senator decides to derail this thing tomorrow so we can go back to the drawing board and, at the very least, come up with a plan that is not born out of backroom deals, kickbacks, and just plain-old corruption.

-AG

Excerpts from an alternate dimension, recovered from the 2,000 page health care bill:

Journal entry 12/23/13

“All hail Chairman Obamao.

Waking up today in my standard issue gray uniform was wondrous: another day working for the glory of the State and the Party. Every morning I take the opportunity to thank my Party for their work on behalf of the people. Especially since I remember those days when the state was run by greedy “individualists” who cared nothing about the general welfare of the people, the days when the government was so aloof to the needs of the people that they would not substantially increase taxes on individuals and businesses in order to pay for the medical care of everyone else! Believe it or not, there was once a time when people had the choice to purchase their own medical insurance or not. Fortunately, our Dear Leader had the vision and the strength to mandate individuals to surrender a portion of their wealth for the greater good, all praises onto him. The system would have worked perfectly, like all of Dear Leader’s plans, but the traitorous “rich people” decided that it was in their best interest to leave the country, drying up the much needed revenues from those bourgeoisie scum. Now the Dear Leader is forced to ration medical care, but despite the hardships I am so proud that everyone in America has medical coverage… especially those alien migrants (formerly known as “illegal immigrants") who have it so hard. After passing the Great Socialist Medical Experiment Act, the population of alien migrants nearly tripled overnight, most probably because of the socialist utopia we were creating at the time. Now look at them, they are now receiving federal aid, medical coverage, they can drive, they can vote, and they can preserve their cultures by speaking their native tongues, if only they would take that final step towards citizenship but, regardless, I am thrilled to be working so that they can have all of these benefits. I hope more come.

The heater wasn’t working last night due too the limited amount of sunlight during the winter months and the low intensity of wind we’ve been experiencing. It was a bit uncomfortable, but in truth I am just happy that we were able to cap-and-trade away all those coal power plants that were turning this Earth into one big furnace. Last night, the reassurances of the Party kept me warm. Despite my ideological comfort, at one point I could not feel my toes, so I tried today to get some medical assistance and waited for a few hours in line at my local clinic. Foolishly, I had chosen to stand in the line on the wrong day, my rationing card clearly said that I could only get medical attention on Thursdays. I guess I will have to endure until then.

Tonight the Dear Leader gave a speech and I was reminded of the real reason that I voted for him all those years ago when people still needed to vote: his oratory made me melt inside. Since the Presidential Permanence Act of 2010, when people were asked if they wanted to keep Dear Leader until the recession ended, and “The People’s Tuesday,” when economists testified before Congress that the recession would never end, the people have not had to worry about those non-socialists coming back to power. Imagine what would happen to the single greatest accomplishment of our age, Health Care Reform, if we allowed those barbarians back into government. First, they would probably insist on reducing dependence on the federal government. But then who would take care of us?!? Second, they would probably insist on cutting deficit spending and paying down the debt. Fools! Don’t they know that we need to spend our way out of the recession caused by reckless spending?!? Third, they would probably insist on not taxing the rich at such high levels. It is here that these so-called “conservatives” make no sense: there are no rich people in America anymore! It is a great thing that the administration and the Congress, back in 2009, decided to ram the Health Care Reform bill through and increase the debt limit every time the debt got close to that limit. They say that the vast majority of Americans opposed the plan, but hearing Dear Leader, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi speak, it was clear that the three people who mattered the most were in full agreement. Just yesterday someone on the radio asked why there existed an individual mandate to buy health insurance if we get actually cannot get quality, timely care. He said that there used to exist hospitals where expense came secondary to actually saving people and that it was the administration that targeted these types of hospitals opting for quantity over quality. I know he was lying because he was almost immediately sterilized and lobotomized, for good measure. Where else, if not in a socialist utopia do you get that kind of immediate care for insanity?

If I could go back in time, I would let the Americans of 2009 know how great we have it now and that they should stop questioning the bold leadership of Dear Leader… if only I had a time machine and if only I could feel my shins.”

Hmmmm… somehow I don’t think the author got his or her message across.

-AG

As of now, the information that scientists have in determining whether or not global warming is caused by human activity is limited. By limited, I mean limited in determining whether human action is the principal cause of the warming that we are currently seeing (at least until the last few years), warming that might be temporary, or if it is principally a natural fluctuation in Earth’s temperature. Global warming events have taken place in Earth’s history long before the proliferation of the Hummer, but unfortunately the doomsayers continue to preach that humans are the principal cause and must be stopped at all costs. Interestingly enough, currently we have been experienced a drop in average world temperature over the last few years, but this neither refutes nor asserts the global warming hypothesis (here’s an interesting website). To put it plainly, the nearly “instantaneous” (in terms of Earth’s age and history) temperature changes that we are experiencing right now do not point to human caused global warming nor do they refute this claim and, equally important, Earth has been hotter or about as hot during past periods of human existence and nothing catastrophic has happened (see the Medieval Warm Period). Personally, I do believe that humans contribute to the warming of the planet that we have experienced simply because it is true that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and we produce significant amounts of greenhouse gases, but at the same time I recognize that our models do not and cannot accurately predict what will happen in the future. This means that it is possible that the planet might warm up a couple more degrees Celsius and then immediately start cooling because of greater cloud coverage caused by higher amount of water vapor in the atmosphere… it is also possible that warming will continue indefinitely and we will become a water world. My point is that we must continue to study the issue but not allow these environmental concerns, which may be wrong, to destroy the progress that human civilization has made. Most importantly, no matter what we do, a government-based “solution” to controlling greenhouse gas emissions will almost certainly fail. Government can help, but the only thing that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the free market and until the free market finds a profitable reason to do so, the current trends will not change.

Compiled from Hadley/CRU (Climatic Research Unit) temperature data

As of now, leftists around the world are trying to use the global warming argument as an instrument in the weakening and ultimate destruction of America. What is most unfortunate is that conservatives and libertarians have not presented the public with another option beyond calls to continue studying climate change. The truth of the matter is that there exist opportunities for the free market and for America as a whole to change our behaviors in such a way that will reduce carbon emissions drastically. While climate change is not a principal concern on my mind, as compared to the immediate dangers of militant Islam, nuclear armed rogue nations, and the threats against freedom, it just so happens that there is a solution to all of these problems: energy independence. What would happen if the United States of America reduced dependence on oil and/or developed a non-carbon based energy source? Would Iran be able to continue financing its nuclear program? Would militant Islam continue to finance international terrorism? Would human carbon emissions continue to envelope the planet? The answer to these questions is probably no. This is why I consider climate change a secondary issue, because the primary issues of security and energy independence can be solved by the same thing that would solve the climate issue. Here is where the free market comes in: if entrepreneurs out there came to realize the potential profits they can make by being the developers or producers of an alternative energy source (hopefully non-carbon emitting), then the United States will be safer, cleaner, and these entrepreneurs will be very successful. I have read articles here that showcase some of these types of entrepreneurs, but the effort has not been intense enough to produce the type of results that are necessary. If government wants to be involved, the most that it should do is aid in the research and development of these alternative energy sources.

Sadly, instead of tackling the problem in a common-sense way, government has instead decided that it will pump billions into a “green” economy that is inefficient and only expands government size. For example, the obvious solution to reducing emissions from coal plants would be to start building nuclear power plants, but the government has been reluctant to do so. The only environmental issue there is in the storage of nuclear waste, but at least global warming can be averted. Of course, the environmentalists are opposed to the obvious benefits of nuclear power, showing how detached from reality and attached to ideology that many environmentalists are. It is clear that the government is not serious about cutting our emissions nor about energy independence, but instead they use the threat of climate-linked catastrophe to justify government economic intervention. This needs to change. To continue to rely on the burning of carbon-based fuels at this point in history is absurd. It is about time that we move beyond this and develop an energy source that will not leave us at the mercy of third world dictatorships with ties to terrorism and, at the same time, will not contribute to the increasing global temperatures (we may not be the principal cause, but we do contribute somewhat). Since the problem of relying on fossil fuels for energy is a national security issue and an economic issue, we cannot allow the climate-change-doomsday-alarmists to use this in order to promote a government expansion agenda. At the end of the day, the only thing that we can do is wait for a free market solution to this problem, let’s just hope that government does not stand in the way of progress. That’s some irony though, given that many environmentalists tend to be die-hard opponents of the free market and the only thing that can save the environment is just that.

-AG

As is expected from politicians who know only how to pretend to know about things, a liberal Maine House member, Andrea Boland, is pushing for legislation that would place warnings on cell phones stating that they cause brain cancer. Is Boland an engineer? No. Is she a medical specialist of any sort? No. Is she a physicist with extensive knowledge of radioactive materials? Absolutely not. According to http://www.maine.gov, she is actually a real estate title examiner and an independent distributor of nutritional products. As for her education, “she graduated from Elmira College in New York with a B.A. in international relations and French… studied for a year at the University of Paris at the Political Science Institute and earned her M.A. in business administration from Northeastern University.” Apparently, a fluent knowledge of French qualifies her to know about the health effects of cell phone use…

In reality, there is no scientific consensus that cell phones cause brain cancer (here’s a great article), but that inconvenient truth is not going to get in the way of liberal encroachments on the free market. The question is, why would a politician try to present legislation that is not backed by real evidence if not for political gain? Time and time again, Democrats try to panic everyone over some false crisis and use this as an excuse to expand their power, tax more, spend more, intervene in the free market, and violate individual rights. The real crisis is the lack of logic on the part of leftists and liberals who simply take politicians’ word on technical issues and support legislation that ends up concentrating more power in the hands of the state. Though Boland’s incompetence will not affect us nationally (at least I don’t think so), it is another example of how these leftists chip away at freedom with the big government chisel on the small and large scale. The place to stop these types of people is when they are simply local politicians, when they are community organizers, and when their socialistic careers start taking form. Stopping them early is the only way to prevent their ascent to the national stage where they can cause, and currently are causing, all sorts of problems. The way to stop politicians like this is simple: blast away political agendas with cold hard facts.

As an aside, there are two reasons why Boland should not be concerned with cell phone brain cancer: first, the scientific community has not determined that cell phone use causes brain cancer (that’s the big one) and second, brain cancer can only develop in brain tissue. You can sleep safe, Andrea.

-AG

For those who do not understand the moral implications of appeasing one’s enemies I suggest they simply take a good look at what has been happening in the Senate these last few weeks. Senator after senator, seeing that the health care reform bill could not be passed without unanimous Democrat and Independent support, started holding the bill hostage for concessions for their states. With each capitulation on the part of Harry Reid and the administration, senators became more emboldened and demanded more for their votes. Nebraska got the federal government to pick up the tab for Medicaid expansion. Louisiana received $300 million in Medicaid funds from the federal government. Massachusetts and Vermont also got more federal funds for Medicaid. Vermont received an additional $10 billion for new health centers. The list goes on. What this shows is that when the enemy (or in this case, one’s “friends) smells weakness, they pounce, especially if one is known for appeasing at all costs. This applies to politics at home and diplomacy abroad… but the Democrats do not seem to understand this, despite the fact that they engage in the same type of extortion in Congress.

This pic makes my stomach turn

Interestingly enough, the president and Majority Leader Reid seem all too happy to hand out these payoffs in order to secure their legislative victory this year, knowing full well that they would have a hard time passing it next year because of the midterm elections. What this shows is that we can expect for any future legislative push from the White House or from the Democratic Party to be held hostage at every turn, especially considering the high dissatisfaction with Congress and the slipping poll numbers for the president which point to the probability of Republicans gaining some seats in 2010. This, in general, is a good thing legislatively (because it may end up stopping the big-government agenda), although a bad thing in terms of foreign policy. Washington is becoming a federal-funds gold rush for politicians hoping to cash in their votes, for corporations that are deemed too big to fail, for government agencies and programs that Democrats support, and for every special interest group that leans left. If we measure the success of a government by its willingness to create money out of thin air and hand it out with reckless abandon, then this one bests all the previous ones by a wide margin. As of yet, the new administration has not proven itself able to force anyone’s hand at anything… we were opposed at Copenhagen, Iran continues to defy us, North Korea also, the closing of Guantanamo is lagging, Pakistan will only cooperate with us so much, the banks won’t do what the president says, etc. etc. The only victories that the administration has claimed are victories that were handed to them either through luck, Democrats exercising their Congressional majorities, or luck. One of the major reasons for this is because of the weakness that a policy of total appeasement projects… which I guess reinforces my previous observation of evil: it ends up destroying itself.

-AG

Lately, my view of politics in this country has changed slightly. While in the past I was more willing to empathize with liberals in this country, I am less patient with them now. Remember also that I make a clear distinction between the “liberals” I can deal with (classical liberals) and the “liberals” that I cannot stomach (in a word: Marxists).

To all the liberals out there of all stripes, I get it, and in general I think that most conservatives get it, liberals do not like discriminating against the little guy and feel bad when some prosper and others do not. I understand that sentiment. What I do not understand is the self-delusion that many liberals suffer from where they believe that the great bureaucratic, inefficient, and colossally expensive monster that we call government can and will solve all of these problems. The leftist liberals are a lost cause, they have come to believe that everything American is evil and that the individual must be reined in by the collective at all costs, not cognizant of the fact that they can only legally have these counter-establishment ideas because of the establishment itself; we already know that counter-establishment ideas in leftist dictatorships result in imprisonment, torture, and death. Irony of ironies. This is not new, but what has lately pushed me away from the trying to bridge the divide is that modern politicians are mediocre leaders in extraordinary times. I am now even less patient with these mediocre personalities that dominate the public discourse.

Let me be clear: most of the people that I hear or read do not understand what they are talking about. Here I want to point out a great difference between people who truly understand things and people who pretend to understand things. The first group is what this country desperately needs to fix the mess that we are currently in and, unfortunately, the second group is what we are electing to office. Let us be frank, in the 2008 presidential election, with the economy as the biggest issue, the American public was asked to choose between a War Hero (and Air Force pilot) and a lawyer specializing in Constitutional Law (and a community organizer)… where were the economists? Where were the people with business experience (Romney supporters can chime in here)? What was most indicative of the irrationality that had gripped America after years of Bush mismanagement, we did not choose the War Hero despite the fact that we were in the middle of two wars!

The majority is now waking up from this mass hypnosis and to those former liberals I say “welcome back to sanity,” but the damage is done. Just think about how the current administration and Congress has decided to focus on tax increases, cap-and-tax, closing Guantanamo, and especially health care reform while unemployment spiked into the double digits. Wouldn’t the common sense approach be to focus all of our energies on the economy, period? Where are the brilliant leaders in government? Giving the banking industry billions and billions of dollars has saved many financial firms, but the rest of the economy is still ailing and all that the government has done is kick the problem down the road by drastically increasing the national debt. This is not a solution, it is a delaying tactic and will continue to drag out the recession. America needs to stop settling for the mediocrity espoused by our political parties and strive, instead, for American excellence. I do not care about folksy, small town politicians who I can culturally connect with or an everyman I can have a beer with, I care if they are clear-thinkers with America’s best interest in mind and at heart. I do not care for Harvard graduates who look down on regular Americans as simple masses who cling only to religion and guns. I want some real, down-to-Earth, intelligent people to stand up and get elected for their merits, for their ideas, and for their devotion to the welfare of this country.

This criticism is directed at both the Republicans and Democrats. For the Republicans, they should not continue to appeal to the cultural base nor continue promoting a populist message while simultaneously going to Washington and becoming immersed in bureaucracy and bowing to special interests. For the Democrats, they should not continue to appeal to the resentment between races and classes while simultaneously going to Washington and becoming immersed in bureaucracy and bowing to special interests. Americans need to support the thinking man’s party and not the populist party. The reason is obvious: populism leads to mass irrationality, like lynch mobs with pitchforks.

Right now, the Republican Party is closer to the thinking man’s party, but they have a lot of work to do and they should do a much better job of promoting their solutions rather than promoting their criticisms. This may run contrary to the beliefs of many “educated” people (group two) who have long caricatured conservatives as country bumpkins, but they are truly mistaken. Democrats promote policies that “feel right.” Democrats are constantly warning that without government the environment will implode, without government Americans will not be able to afford health care, and without government Wall Street will destroy the economy. Leftists simply throw “government” at every problem while conservatives actually have to think of a real-world solution. Conservatives want to use the most powerful organizing force in the world, the free market, to make our society better. The Republican Party needs more true-blue (or real-red) conservatives and less of these populists if it wants to be THE party of the America’s future.

In sum, Americans need to stop rewarding the “feel-good” candidate and start rewarding the candidate with the best ideas. Around the world, many people still equate the word America with excellence… let’s not lose the power of the American brand by falling into mass irrationality and mediocrity.

-AG

Democrat control of Washington has ushered in a new era of American politics, an era where the far left and the far right would put aside their constant bickering and finally come to agree on something. This is truly a historic moment where most Americans can clearly agree on what policy to adopt and what not to. This is happening right now: In Congress, we have unanimous Republican opposition to the health care reform bill. We have the Tea Party movement in staunch opposition to this bill. Now we have far left liberals, headed by Howard Dean and MoveOn.org who strongly oppose the same health care reform bill. This is amazing! The political stars have aligned and everyone seems to agree that this HC reform bill belongs in a porcelain bowl swirling towards oblivion.

In response to this, what have the Congressional Democrats decided to do? Ignore the will of the people, conservatives and liberals, and pass it anyways so that they can chalk up a “victory.” Is this a democratic republic, as envisioned by our founding fathers, or a Corporate Socialist state where government and big business conspire to eliminate American freedom? At what point do we, as a society, decide that enough is enough and that the Republic we founded more than two hundred years ago needs to be defended? The promises of better government made by the Democrats before wresting power from the Republicans in 2006 should have been warning enough… what we needed was not “better” government, we needed and desperately need now less government, limited government. Under the previous administration and Congress we had an expansion of federal power like never before and now, under this regime, we have an even more accelerated expansion of federal power. Add to this the fact that Congress does not take its marching orders from the people and what we have brewing is a more controlled society. Fortunately, the voting booth has not been outlawed yet… though we need to be vigilant so they do not start rigging this too. If Democrats retain control of Washington come 2010, then we, as Americans, need to take a very close look at our electoral process and see if in fact we continue to live in a republic or if the power-that-be have taken it away from us right under our noses.

-AG

Imagine you are an Al Qaeda terrorist and want to make it to the United States. Under Bush, such a plan would not have been so easy, especially after 9-11. But under Obama, the prospects just got a little bit easier. First, all that a terrorist needs to do is get caught. A terrorist can be caught for allegedly giving money to a terrorist organization, for attempting to recruit terrorists via the internet, or for threatening to carry out an attack. Normally, these terrorists would be placed in a detention center far away from the United States mainland, in a “magical” place called Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Nowadays, thanks to the Obama administration, these terrorist detainees may now be brought to the US mainland, where they can enjoy a stay at one of our federal prisons. This is what may come about in Illinois if the administration has its way, where a federal prison is may end up housing terror suspects now being held in Guantanamo Bay.

Potential Concert for Suspected Terrorist Inmates

What might be the problems of bringing terrorists to the US mainland? Though many persons may believe that this is obviously something to be avoided, actually the problems are not truly obvious. Just because it sounds bad does not mean that it IS bad. The true problems that may come from housing terrorists within the United States has to do with law. While it may be possible to station a small army in and around this federal prison (though this is unlikely) preventing escape or any other security concerns, the real threat comes from the fact that detaining individuals within the United States may be legally tricky. Without a doubt, we will have organizations lining up to represent the terrorists, to try and accommodate the terrorists, and to give terrorists more and more legal rights. The risks we run are the possible mingling of the run-of-the-mill prison population and the terrorists, infiltration of militant Islam among Muslims in prison, contact between organized crime with international terrorism, potential legal rights for terror suspects, and other unthinkable possibilities. The last thing America needs is for murderers and other criminals to learn the art of bomb-making from terrorist inmates. Giving terror suspects certain legal rights may also prove counterproductive in our war on terror. Imagine how difficult it would be to capture terrorists abroad if they somehow win the legal right in the United States entitling them to some form of Miranda rights. The great disconnect here between what the Obama administration wants and what is happening in the real world is that we are currently engaged in a WAR on terror, not in a law enforcement campaign. These terrorists have declared war on the United States and will strap bombs to themselves and murder children just to hurt us… worrying about their legal status should not be our primary concern.

-AG

The Obama administration, known for leaving its enemies cowering in fear (note sarcasm), has recently asked Pakistan to crack down on the Haqqani network, a Taliban group that resides in the lawless regions near the Pakistani-Afghan border. The Pakistani government has flatly refused. Here is where the Obama foreign policy of appease-apologize-retreat comes into plain view and where the “with us or against us” foreign policy of the previous administration starts to makes more sense. The Haqqani network uses Pakistan as a safe haven to launch attacks on coalition troops in Afghanistan and has contact with senior Al Qaeda leaders, in other words, this group has attacked and killed US servicemen and women and is allied with the perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in our history. Unfortunately, with the current administration hell-bent on a quick surge and a quick withdrawal, it is unlikely that they will take any serious action against this group. In the meantime, while Pakistan “deals” with its own Taliban elements, a terror campaign has swept across the country (as I predicted before the whole Pakistani offensive started) with bombs hitting metropolitan areas and killing in excess of 500 Pakistanis. Just recently, a bomb ripped through a Punjabi town killing 33 as a display of the terrorists’ reach. Pakistan’s refusal to deal the Haqqani network foreshadows a possible cease-fire or peace treaty with the militants, at least some of them, and indicates that the terror attacks are dampening support for the recent Taliban crackdown. Democracies often cannot sustain wars very long, especially when bombs are going off in local markets around the country.

The real problem is the Obama administration’s strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clearly, if we do not have access to the command center of the Taliban because it is being offered safe haven by a neighboring country that we will not invade, then we cannot easily win the war. In such a scenario, we can only play defense for an indefinite amount of time until we either get lucky or the enemy gets tired. The other option is withdrawal and the president has made it clear that this is his intention. A winning strategy would not have us be held hostage by a neighboring country, but would, through sticks and carrots, have the Pakistanis either let us eliminate these targets within their territory or have the Pakistanis actively eliminate the insurgents themselves (all of them). A winning strategy will not set an arbitrary withdrawal date and publicize it for our enemies to see. A winning strategy requires bold action and listening to our commanders in the field. Already, our quick-paced withdrawal from Iraq has left the country open to terrorist attacks, which, contrary to what the media silence would have you believe, have been unleashed around the country, including within the Green Zone, the ultra-highly defended government area of Baghdad. Arbitrary timelines for withdrawal only embolden the enemy and, as I have heard people say, our surge begins this year while the Taliban-Al Qaeda surge beings in 18 months, when we are scheduled to withdraw. It is sad to see the world’s last superpower retreating before the rise of militant, nihilistic Islamic extremists. We are truly being defeated from the inside out… the irrational idealism of our so-called leaders has given way to the cold hatred of our enemies. We CAN defeat our enemies, if only Obama would let us.

-AG

I have often thought to myself that truly evil people could never thrive for long. The reason is that evil, by its very nature, it not only destructive but also auto-destructive and so any group of people tied together by a common belief in such destruction only end up destroying themselves. In general, the evil that we see in the world is not pure, at least not in groups of people. Evil as we know it in the world comes from purely evil individuals who last long enough to convince others that some truly horrible act or system is actually good. Hence we have the homicidal dictators of the world: Castro, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, etc. In American politics, I characterize the modern Left’s ideas as well-intentioned offspring of evils (or stupidities) that started many, many years ago. The modern Left has taken the justifications offered up by evil people and turned them into a political platform. Specifically, I refer to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism (Marx was more “mistaken,” Lenin was more “evil"), the ideas of police states, and the ideas of command economies, these were all ideas set up to benefit a single tyrant or a single party, but in America they are passed off as being ideas that help “the people.” Contrary to what the “dreamers,” “hopers,” and “changers” would have you believe, these ideas are inherently evil not merely because they were thought of by evil individuals (or mistaken individuals), but because they were created for the express purpose of subjecting entire populations to the whims of a supreme leader. So when a person says “let’s provide free health care for all” these people are proposing an evil policy (no matter how “nice” it sounds) because there is no such thing as “free” and because they, in the name of some ideal, wish to cause an injustice to someone else (in this case, by making some people pay for other people against their will). Only when people realize that certain nice-sounding policies actually have terrible costs and try to reach some sort of equilibrium between one’s goals and costs can a policy not be evil (liberals, there is hope!)… in other words, people should read Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and come away understanding that extremism, whether for good reasons or not, destroys virtue.

The idealist Plato discussing with Aristotle

A clear example of this is that a free man should voluntary surrender his freedom (somewhat) in the service of one’s fellow man, this is called having a job or giving to charity, for a “completely” free man would only end up destroying himself through having no attachments to the world. My treatment of this topic is light and oversimplified (not all collectivist ideas originated from evil people for example), but I hope I have gotten my point across.

This leads me to the master of disaster, the Democrats’ Doctor, the Bishop of Byaaaah!: Howard Dean. Just yesterday I read that Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, wrote an op-ed piece in The Washington Times explaining why he would not vote for the health care reform bill as it stands and urging senators to also not vote for it. Yes, that’s right, Howard Dean, the architect of the Democrat Comeback has decided to offer his two cents and help torpedo the Obama administration’s hopes to pass a health care reform bill soon.

This highlights my point about evil: they eat their own. The evil ideas that emerged from Dean and the evil ideas that emerged from Obama have clashed with one another for two reasons, the first is that Dean is more extreme (hence having more vice) than Obama and the second is that Obama, in his quest to get something massively expensive passed, does not care how many big corporations benefit from his plan as long as the government has more control. Their ends are the same, state control of the health industry for the “common good,” but their means diverge. In all truth, I morally prefer Dean’s approach because it is more straightforward and honest, his disdain of private industry is clear and so is his unwillingness to compromise with them. To be clear, I obviously disagree with him. Obama, on the other hand, is more willing to deal with a small number of big insurance companies and ultimately keep them under the control of the state. Dean is straight up command economy, while Obama is more Corporate Socialism (as I have described in previous posts). The end result is the same for Americans, economic power in the hands of state-sponsored enterprises and an end to free competition and choice.

Let us hope that the Democrats do not come to realize that both courses of action lead to the same thing. If clear-thinking voters gain a temporary victory over state encroachment on the free market, we should not squander it nor should we continue to count on the Democrats’ self-destruction. Defeating the collectivists requires exposing these idealistic sounding policies as being ploys to expand the power of the federal government… let’s just hope that the American public actually cares.

-AG

Text of letter that President Obama sent to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il

Dear Dear Leader Kim Jong Il,

First of all, I want to express my deep disappointment with your behavior over the last year or so. Since my election I have been reaching out to leaders, friend and foe alike, in order to bring change not only to America but to the world. You do not seem to understand how important this is… not only to world peace but for me, personally. I have long dreamed of the day that I could stand before you and deeply genuflect until my forehead touches the ground. It is a great shame that I have been able to bow before the Saudi king, the Japanese Emperor, and put my arms around Hugo Chavez but not be able to express my feelings to you, arguable more powerful than all of these other leaders put together.

I have many reasons to bow before you, not merely because it is my custom when first meeting tyrants, real and symbolic. You have truly impressed me with your big missiles and your nuclear explosions, but your most impressive feat is keeping those North Koreans in line for years. How do you do it? I, like you, have complete control of the press in my country, yet my poll numbers keep going down. Should I decree that polls should be illegal? I, like you, have works of art of me on display around the country (and the world) but I still have an opposition party that will just not stop opposing my plans to take over private industry. I suppose I could send the army to eliminate my political opponents, what do you suggest? I, like you, use fear to pacify my subjects, particularly fear of economic collapse, fear of swine flu, fear of environmental catastrophe around the corner, and fear of enemy weapons development. That last one is where you come in. I personally have no problem with you having nuclear weapons, just look at what I did after your tests… nothing. Actually, I said that I would tighten sanctions but seriously, we have no commerce, so I was merely trying to please the crowd. Anyways, “dealing” with your nuclear program will make it easier for me to exert influence (maybe even absolute power) in my own country. I need results. That said, I propose that you do what you have done in the past with my predecessors: come join the six-party talks, agree to very little in exchange for halting nuclear/missile development, and then just continue working on your nuclear/missiles programs “behind my back.” This way, I can continue with my program at home, you can continue with yours, and we both look like heroes. It’s a win-win!

I am sorry if it has looked like I was ignoring North Korea, that was not my intention. I simply believed that you, like most other world leaders, would come to summits and meetings so that I could apologize for America’s behavior over the years and promise that I would do better by not bothering so much with human rights and terrorism issues. Also, I have been so busy devaluing my country’s currency and gaining favor by throwing money at special interests and organizations that helped me get elected that it would have been impossible to devote my time to you, time that you truly deserve. I heard you had some health problems, I would advise that you travel to the US in disguise before my health reform plan kicks in… I couldn’t bear the thought of losing you. I’m tearing up just reading the teleprompter that is telling me what to write in this letter. Well, I hope you get better and most importantly, I hope to one day wrap my arms around your frail body and tell you how deeply sorry I am for America so that one day you could forgive me…

I Love You,
Barack Hussein Obama

PS I have enclose a photo of me bowing to a person of the same physical build as you so that you could imagine what it would be like at our first meeting:

Rick Sanchez is an incompetent liberal (redundant?) and I’m sick of him parading around his ignorance for the world to see. Specifically, this poor excuse for an anchor, who lived in Miami and was on the air for a long time here, was recently discussing the issue of regulation and the banking industry with Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Minority Whip. Below is the actual video of the exchange:

His analysis of the situation is simplistic, although for his own intellect, this may be as complex as it gets: the cause of the recession was not enough regulation of greedy bankers on Wall Street and the only solution is to regulate them until they cry uncle. Now for a general overview of the real reasons we are in a recession and not this populist, leftist, haves-versus-have-nots drivel:

The reasons that we are in this recession are not simple because they involve many players, many problems that we could have averted and many problems that we could not have averted. It is easy to point the finger at a particular scapegoat and say “it was all their fault,” and we have examples of this: from the right you hear that it was the government’s fault and from the left you hear that it was Wall Street’s fault. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. It starts with government intrusion into the economy which used Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other outlets to increase the ease with which people with less than ideal credit could get homes. This very same government then lowers interest rates and under both the Clinton and Bush administration pushed for expanded home ownership no matter what the cost. The Federal Reserve lent money at preferential rates to government-sponsored enterprises that competed directly with private financial institutions and these government enterprises set out to give mortgages to people who normally would not have qualified for them. Then the Federal Reserve set interest prices low and made lending money easier across the board. Add in the Clinton recession and the 9-11 attacks and the federal government tried to make absolutely sure that the economy would be revived through easy access to money. Most importantly, the federal government, like most other government around the world, have an implicit contract with the big financial institutions: the government would never allow them to fail and these firms knew it, especially the government-sponsored ones.

Then the private sector got more involved. With low interest rates, pressure to give loans to more risky borrowers, and competition from the public sector, private financial institutions started offering adjustable rate mortgages more and more, with artificially low starting interest rates that would shoot up after the initial grace period. The banks and other firms started taking on more risk and leveraging themselves more and more. So what is the logical thing to do if one’s portfolio is more risky? Try to minimize the risk by diversifying, spreading it around, and selling more risky for less risky assets. This became the general practice of these financial institutions and all in all, it was a smart move. What went wrong was the fact that the financial instruments that they created to hedge their risks were so complicated that no one knew how risky they actually were. They bundled high, medium, and low risk assets together and the independent agencies that were supposed to give them an accurate rating failed miserably at understanding them. There were probably those within the firms that originated these financial products that knew that these securities were being overrated, but why would they say anything? Investors around the world, seeing too-good-to-be-true returns on securities that had very high ratings should have been wary of them, but because everyone was doing it, irrational exuberance took over.

Then we swing back to government, which set the conditions for easy money and then, with so many adjustable rate mortgages on the market and with financial firms so leveraged already, the Federal Reserve started to increase interest rates. It was at this point that they noticed that a housing bubble had formed, but any analyst with a degree could clearly have seen that house prices had skyrocketed, not because homes were now made out of pure gold or came equipped with rocket boosters, but rather because of pure speculation. No one acted fast enough, particularly in government, to slow the obvious growth of the housing bubble. The incompetence was across the board. We have the CEO of Freddie Mac testifying that they did not need to increase their capital reserves because investing in houses was “a sure thing.” We have the Democrats in Congress stopping the Bush administration from regulating these government-sponsored enterprises that held the majority of US mortgages because they said that the companies were sound. At the same time, many of these Democrats got sweetheart deals on home purchases made during this time period… but then again, corruption is expected from these clowns. By the time the foreclosures started rolling in, it was too late, it was a bubble created by the state and burst by the state. The second half of this is where Wall Street gets some blame: poor risk management, lack of transparency in describing these new financial instruments, and the buying and selling of these credit derivatives put investors around the country and the world at risk of massive losses if the defaults continued… and continue they did. Voila: Recession.

Now, the ultimate cause of the recession, in my book, was the government and the Federal Reserve. Not one of these events would have occurred without government intervention in the first place; the idealism of having an “ownership society” espoused by Bush and predecessors alike, plus the situation we found ourselves in at the time, and of course government’s insatiable thirst for resources and size all conspired together to set the conditions for the recession. The problem was not that these financial firms were under regulated but rather that the regulations in place were not the right ones and the right regulations that were in place were not successfully implemented (on regulations, I may devote another post to discuss more thoroughly). The problem was not that banks created derivatives upon derivatives, but rather that the way they rated and measured their risk was terrible. If I may be so bold, I believe that we need more of these credit derivatives to help manage risk and the only regulation that we should place on them is to make sure that investors have all the pertinent information about them, i.e. to make them transparent. Yet what I hear out in the world, day after day, is that we need “more regulation,” that Wall Street must be held accountable, and that capitalism has failed us all. This is what politicians and those in power would have you believe, but it is false. While many of the “fat cats,” to use an Obamaism, deserve no love for some of their actions, to cut off our financial industry at the legs in order to satisfy some collective need to hold someone accountable is wrong when the true culprit is the one who has placed the bankers in the gallows. It is the State that has done this and for them to come to us with a scapegoat and a set of penalties for them only does two things: it fools us into thinking that the government itself was just an unwitting victim and it consolidates economic power in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians who should not and cannot run an economy without destroying it for their own political ends. Look at what is being done right now, how the government, instead of focusing on getting people back in their homes, instead of trying to get people back to work, instead of reducing the burden on the everyday man, is engage in more government intervention, more government takeovers, and passing more government spending bills that do nothing but inflate their powers and increase our dependence on them.

Which brings me back the DUI driving, pedestrian-slaying Rick Sanchez who, with absolutely no qualification in economics, mathematics, quantitative risk analysis, or any other related field of study, has the gall to stand before the CNN audience and say that the only solution is to increase regulation and end certain Wall Street practices that he finds offensive. When are we going to realize that these people that are on air know nothing about technical matters and are witting tools in an overt agenda to get people to conform to a line of thinking that would rather have us out in the streets with pitchforks, lynching the haves a-la-French Revolution rather than have us take a good, hard look at the real hand behind all of these events. To the astute thinker these things are worrisome: the State created the conditions for an economic bubble, watched the bubble form, burst the bubble, and in its aftermath engaged in asserting its control over the financial sector, the car industry, the energy industry, and the health care industry, to name a few. At the forefront of this all is a government led by an individual with few credentials, little experience, little courage but a whole lot of charisma who is treated like royalty by the majority of the mainstream media. We cannot let these characters lead us like cattle to the slaughter… we need to be objective, we need to educate ourselves, and we need to realize that we cannot listen to everyone out there with a microphone…

-AG

Health Care Socialism is almost upon us. All that the Imperial Democrats, who currently run Washington like the mob, have to do is close ranks in the Senate and bludgeon the opposition with their supermajority in order to pass one of the most ambitious government takeover plans in our history. What the Democrats want to do is take one industry, an industry already heavily influenced by the hand of the state, and control almost every aspect of it… including consumers. The health care reform plans that they are currently debating in the Senate include employer and individual mandates to buy health insurance. We need to be clear in understanding this fact: the federal government will have the power to force American citizens to buy the product of their choosing and to impose penalties if we do not comply. This is a targeted intrusion in the lives of all American citizens in order to satisfy political goals… this is this first domino in what we can expect to be a long line of government programs intended to erode the entrepreneurial and free character of our nation.

The truly insidious part of the health care reform plan is in the Democrats’ blatant lying about the costs of the new health care experiment that they are trying to set up. Many American’s are every day being fooled and confused about the costs of this new system, but the truth is plainly clear: health care reform will, in the short AND long run, cost this country more than a trillion dollars. The reasons are abundantly obvious: Democrats want to expand government subsidized care, penalize private insurance causing more people to be on government programs, and increase the taxes on every American by demanding that a certain percentage of their income be used to purchase health care. This means that regardless of the incessant hot air coming out of Obama’s and the rest of his cronies’ mouths, health care reform means that you will be poorer and America will be closer to bankruptcy. What else can you expect from the political party that just passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill without breaking a sweat, a spending bill that increases the funding across the board for government programs. That’s right, government programs are getting a revenue boost while everyday Americans are tightening their belts and making sure that they live within their budgets.

The last line of defense is the Republican Party, an irony given that they have also been fiscally undisciplined during their time in office… but the Democrats have been spending at a breakneck pace that would put the national debt at 85% the total gross domestic product of the United States by 2018. Let’s just hope that by 2012 we can start changing course.

-AG

Sometimes, he hits it on the head:

Sometimes, he comes up with the most convoluted diagrams and theories that I am left in awe of his ability to find connections, however tenuous, between people and organizations. I am talking about Glenn Beck, of course, who is today one of the most influential commentators on the airwaves. Beck is not my cup of tea: I don’t like the crying, his voice kind of nauseates me, and his chalkboard diagrams suggest vast Left-wing conspiracies (something I do not entirely agree with). On the flip side, I think that Glenn Beck is tremendously logical in his analysis. The central belief that I share with Beck is that the Obama administration is comprised of socialists (from simply socialist-leaning folks to full-blown communists, the whole spectrum). The problem is that I do not believe that Obama and the socialists of the world have a weekly meeting at the oval office to decide on how to destroy America. Glenn Beck would have us all believe that the conspiracy is active, but I beg to differ.

I do not have fancy diagrams to show you, but I do have personal experience and some analysis of what is currently happening in this country of ours. My main argument is this: I have no evidence that Obama is a Manchurian candidate, i.e. that he is a secret communist or secret terrorist or secret anything, therefore, as a regular Joe, I can only take the president at his word and conclude that Obama truly believes that his policies are good for the country. Now, this is more dangerous than if he actually were a Manchurian candidate, because as a true believer in socialistic policies, he will push them through with all his will, use his intellect to disguise radical policy as moderate policy, convince the uninformed, and coerce the underrepresented (non-leftists) to get his policies passed. The effect of his rhetoric and the mainstream media’s near-constant repetition of his message has been profound for two reasons: it has given legitimacy to impractical leftist ideas, empowering them even more and his message appeals to the idealist sentiments of people, sentiments divorced from rationality. The problem is that human beings prefer the “nice-sounding” idea to the “true” idea, hence the reason for phrases such as “the truth hurts” or, as Jack Nicholson said:

Which brings me to the anecdotal evidence. Just two days ago I briefly overheard a conversation at a coffee shop where one man was defending the current president’s foreign policy and a woman was criticizing it. The man reflexively equated defending Obama with attacking Bush and started denouncing a basic premise of Bush’s foreign policy, that there exists evil in the world, specifically the Axis of Evil. He said, almost verbatim “there is no such thing as an evil country. What makes them evil, that they disagree with us? Does their ethnicity make them evil?” This naivete is the type of thing that left us open to attack on 9-11. In my own opinion, populations are not evil but leadership can be, as is the case with the leadership of terrorist organizations or dictatorships that murder their own people. Castro is not evil because he disagrees with us, he is evil because he has coldly murdered thousands and destroyed his country. Same goes for Saddam Hussein, former member of the Axis of Evil. Same goes for Kim Jong Il, who would rather spend billions on nuclear weapons while millions of his subjects starve to death. Despite the clarity of this argument, that there exists evil in the world, here you have an educated person making the argument that we must see the world through a morally relativistic lens, the very type of person that Obama is. Systematically raping virgins so that the state can execute them in Iran is not a cultural curiosity, it is a gross violation of human rights and it is evil. With the Obama presidency, the clarity of these basic observations has been muddled and those who already believed that certain cultures should have the right to act however they want and violate human rights if they so wish have been given a voice in the oval office. For those without a thorough understanding of history and current events, rhetoric emphasizing “empathy” for others and peaceful coexistence at any cost may sound very appealing but make no mistake, there are people in countries all around the world that are actively planning to destroy the United States and actively using violence to gain and retain power. These are not cultural curiosities, these are calculated moves aimed at benefiting from the suffering of others… and it is called evil.

This man that was confused about the nature of evil in the world did not seem to be a radical and probably was not. Since I have no proof that he was not, I point to people I know personally. After the president’s speech on health care the other day, a colleague of mine, a relatively rational person, said that she was very inspired by the president and could not understand those who were protesting his policies. Apparently, she was drawn in by his language and not by the substance or a clear understanding of the consequences of a government-run health system. She obviously has already heard the counter arguments, at the very least from me personally, but she has decided to block all of the reasons out and continues to blindly follow the Leftists. She is not the only one, I am certain that each of you out there knows a few or more than a few people that almost faint at the mere mention of the name Barack. Which brings me back to Glenn Beck and his insinuations that there is an active conspiracy. With so many people out there, regular people at coffee shops, schools, and supermarkets that are enamored of the president and believe everything he says without question, is there any need for an active conspiracy? There are so many people out there that have turned away from rationality and embraced a worldview that emphasizes what “feels right” that I can attribute Obama’s success to this percentage of the population plus the widespread rejection of a truly disappointing Republican Party during the Bush years.

Then consider that Obama appoints socialists as czars and as advisers, does this mean that we are looking at a conspiracy? Of course not. Obama is a person who aligns himself with the Left, therefore he aligns himself with other people who align themselves with the Left, people that include America haters, full-blown communists, terrorist sympathizers, and the like. This means that the pool of people he trusts and that he chooses from to fill positions in his government will be those very same people form the Left. I mean, seriously, how many former-members of a terrorist organization, like William Ayers, host fundraisers for you? I do not even know one terrorist or former-terrorist. That is not proof of a conspiracy, it is a consequence of the “crowd” he runs with. I may be wrong, but until I see some real evidence of closed-door meetings where Obama and his cohorts plan out the downfall of America I will not be convinced. It is sufficient to believe that all of these shady characters that Glenn Beck parades out in front of us during his show are acting independently towards the same goal: redistribution of the wealth and power of America.

To a certain extent, I worry that tying all of these characters together will instill a paranoid fear among those of us liberty-loving people that the Leftists are in an active conspiracy against us. This is not necessarily true. For years, the labor movement and the environmentalist movement were not on the same page. Labor still has certain problems with the Left’s immigration policies. The African-American community, though staunchly liberal, has not embraced the “gay rights” movement. This is good news because it shows that liberals do not form a monolithic group and that some are open to alternate, rational arguments. Beck seems more worried about the commies hiding under the bed than in facilitating some sort of national discourse whereby liberals have a viable alternative to the extreme Leftism that has taken over the Democratic Party. I prefer coming up with ways to brings all Americans together by addressing common concerns and rejecting ideas that would make our country and by extension every one of us, weaker, poorer, and not free. This is why Beck is not my style… sounding the alarm only makes people alarmed. That said, there are times where I support Glenn Beck 100% and this is one of them:

American needs people like Glenn Beck because at least he cares enough to be outraged and maybe even a little misty-eyed. Let’s just make sure that while we strive to defend our freedoms, we not alienate those who are still on the fence.

-AG

Why I am not surprised about ACORN condoning, encouraging, and helping set up an international child prostitution ring? Shockingly, the do-Obama’s-bidding Congress passed an amendment to cut off federal funding for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Good job, guys, it’s about time. Now, we all already know that ACORN has been under investigation for voter fraud and we also already know about the deep ties that they have with the Community-Organizer-in-Chief, but what we did not have was evidence that ACORN offices in multiple cities were more than willing to help up-and-coming international child prostitution enterprises. The videos themselves are pretty undeniable. Here is the latest one:

Similar exchanges occurred throughout the country and different ACORN offices and while it may be possible that the organization does not condone such behavior, what it does show is that our tax dollars are being spent on a shady group of people. Despite the video footage, at least one of the employees claims that she was just making up stories and she thought the whole thing was a joke from the beginning. If so, then she, as a joke, advised them to evade taxes, beat children, run a prostitution ring, fund a political campaign with funds from prostitution, and threaten people with murder. What a comedian! At the very least, this shows that ACORN is a completely undisciplined organization that funds offices that are run by people who have a broken moral compass and that their hiring practices are laughable. At worst, ACORN is an organization that will try, by any means necessary, to accomplish their Leftist political goals by encouraging illegal behavior and defrauding America’s taxpayers. I believe that the truth is more skewed towards the latter. I call on the President of the United States, who has had extensive ties with this group, to denounce their actions. Somehow I doubt he will.

-AG

Jimmy Carter, the man who puts his arms around the world’s more ruthless murderers, tyrants, and terrorists, yesterday said that race was the underlying reason for the Joe Wilson outburst and the strong resistance to the president’s proposals. Two things: this shows just how out of his mind and how rabidly Leftist that Jimmy Carter is. Fidel Castro felt so comfortable with Jimmy Carter’s ideology that he allowed the ex-president to give an unscripted, uncensored speech in totalitarian communist Cuba. Carter is a communist and/or a communist sympathizer, so of course he has no idea as to why so many Americans are up in arms about Obama’s “socialist” policies. Second thing: race is not the reason that so many people oppose the president, if racism were the reason then the two thirds white majority of this country would not have voted for a biracial president by such margins. That is exhibit A. Exhibit B is that Americans are not protesting against his color, nor his accent, nor anything having to do with race, heritage, etc. People are protesting against his policies. The only thing that even borders on racism are the claims that he is a Muslim, but even that claim is backed up by evidence on paper that shows that Barack Obama (under the last name of his stepfather, Soetoro), as a child, was enrolled in school as a Muslim.

One can assume that it is racism but, again, they would be wrong. Personally, I do not think he is a Muslim (I don’t care if he is), but I do believe that he, like Carter, sympathizes and empathizes with even the most extremist elements of the Muslim world.

Carter goes on to say that there is a “belief among many white people – not just in the South but around the country – that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.” Again, he distorts reality. Americans who oppose the president, by and large, do not think he is incompetent but rather that he is smart… too smart. Let me remind you that it was a white president, George W. Bush, who was constantly accused of being unqualified by the Left for eight years.

What Jimmy Carter’s comments go to show is that in moments of desperation, Democrats will reach into their political playbook and pull out the race card. How many times already have we seen this move pulled so far this year? We saw it play out with the Gates arrest incident, when the president said that the police “acted stupidly” in arresting his friend Professor Gates, before even knowing the facts of the case. We saw it when Glenn Beck stated an opinion firmly grounded in fact and backed up by the president’s own words and actions (undistorted, in full context), that Barack Obama is racist, in terms of his policies on social justice. I do not believe that the president is a “racist” (in that he hates people of some color or ethnicity) but I do believe that the president does have ideas of racial reparations and racial social justice, which are, by definition, racist (or racially based). Obama said it:

Yet despite his own words, despite written evidence in his books, Glenn Beck was demonized for his poor choice of words. Then we have the case where the charges against the New Black Panther Party members who intimidated voters were dropped by Obama’s Justice Department. Now we have Carter, standard-bearer of the Democratic Party, accusing Americans who oppose Obama of being racist.

I find it humorous that when liberals criticize conservatives and libertarians, they distort the truth, flat-out lie, and misrepresent individual activists or protesters, but when conservatives criticize liberals, all we have to do is play the video, show the transcript, or point to the very words that the Democratic Party leadership say in order to make our arguments. I understand why the Democrats play the race card to defend their president’s policies, especially when these policies cannot be defended on their own “merits.” What I do not understand, for the life of me, is why the Democrats, when in a hole, think that it is a good idea to play the Peanut Card? At least they got his name right when I checked Wikipedia earlier this morning:

-AG

These are general thoughts about recent events:

First off, RIP Patrick Swayze. He will be missed.

Second, Kanye West was rude to Taylor Swift. Get over it. They are entertainers.

Third, Joe Wilson does not need to apologize anymore. Today’s House vote to formally admonish Joe Wilson for his outburst was a complete waste of time. He already apologized to the president and now the Democrat-controlled House is demanding more blood. What more do they want, the Lewinsky treatment? What this shows is that the Democrats are more interested in crushing dissent than in actually representing the American people. Apparently, the tens of thousands of activists that descended on Washington D.C. to protest the actions of the current administration and the Congress this past 12th of September made little impression on the Democrat ruling party. Instead of focusing on the truly arduous and necessary task before them, scrapping the ObamaCare plan and coming up with a more practical alternative, the Democrats of the House of Representatives decided that slapping Joe Wilson’s hands for speaking out of turn during the president’s speech was more important. No wonder about 70% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing.

What I found especially rich is that the spokeswoman for Democratic House Majority whip said, about the outburst, that “we’re not the British Parliament for a reason,” but apparently the Democrats want to be like the British “National Health Service” system. Of course, the “fun” part of this whole affair is the sheer hypocrisy of the Democrats because of their own disrespectful comments and interruptions of former president George W. Bush. During a speech by Bush on Social Security Democrats hollered at the president “making it appear for a moment that Mr. Bush was standing in the well at the British House of Commons.” Where were the admonishments? Where was the outrage from the Congress? Do we so easily forget the years of relentless abuse that Bush received from the Left for his whole eight years as president? Let’s get a grip, people. The Democrats are playing partisan politics and they are playing for keeps. The post-partisan era has yet to materialize. Joe Wilson should not have interrupted the president’s speech, but I understand why he did and in that moment that he breached protocol, he spoke for millions upon millions of Americans across the country who were yelling the same thing at their TV screens. It is now a rallying cry for conservatives. Next time you see a Democrat, thank them, because every single day the Democratic Party’s actions make it clear that they care only about playing politics and power.

-AG

The astroturf creeps onto Washington D.C. After months of deriding legitimate opposition to the government-run health care proposals floating around in Congress, the ruling Democrat Party sitting behind the castle walls of Washington D.C. got a glimpse at the country’s popular will: no more big government. Yesterday, the Tea Party Express, a collection of activists that oppose the current administration’s incessant march towards socialism ranging from conservatives to libertarians to constitutionalists, held a protest rally in the capital. At the same time, we have the President traveling around the country trying to shore up support for his government takeover plans, saying that it will not ruin the free market, that senior care will not suffer, and every other lie and misleading argument he has made about his plans. The question is: which message will triumph?

People across the nation are torn between whether they should support the president’s government health care plans or to oppose them. The problem is that, at the moment, the Democrats have essentially convinced the majority of Americans that they are the only ones with a plan and the Republicans are simply naysayers. This leads moderates to err on the side of action rather than inaction, especially since they know what the costs of inaction are: eventual bankruptcy of our current system and ever more expensive health care. Conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between know the stakes, but not everyone is clear on the costs of the Democrats’ proposals. To put it succinctly, the cost is higher taxes AND, most importantly, the end of competition and innovation in health care. The current system we have now is a trade-off between quantity and quality: free markets sacrifice some quantity for quality and government care would sacrifice much quality for quantity. For those with health care, the vast majority, the quality of care is very high. The quantity part is that we do not insure a certain percentage of the population, a percentage that does not have health insurance for reasons ranging from not qualifying for government help to reasons such as refusing health insurance because they are wealthy enough to afford care. Democrats right now are proposing a system that will focus solely on quantity, nothing in Obama’s speeches clearly explains how we will retain the high degree of quality that we currently enjoy. Equally important is the question: should we offer health care to all or should we simply make the system more “fair?” I think that most Americans would prefer the latter, which brings me back to the “marketing” problem that we face.

The Democrats right now enjoy the reputation of being the party of health care and it is something that they deserve, not because of the quality of their ideas, but rather due to the quantity of ideas that they put forth every year. These ideas have one thing in common, more government spending and more government control of health care. The reality is that the conservative side has come up with ideas as well, many of them that target the excessive costs of the current system and how to reduce them. There are many things at the moment that can reduce cost, only one of which the president has addressed (albeit halfheartedly), and these cost reductions would not drain the taxpayers’ wallets. The problem is that the Republican Party has done a very poor job of explaining and “marketing” their ideas to the general populace. The only thing that is stopping the current regime from simply passing a socialized health care system is the fact that Americans are traditionally averse to government intervention in their lives and higher taxes (we fought a revolution over both). What needs to be done is to market the ideas from the Republican camp so that the population can weigh each one and determine what would be in the best interest of the country. Obama would have us do something different. Obama would have us accept his program with some compromise over the minor points. That’s what he calls bipartisanship. If that is the choice, then I would rather go bankrupt at the current pace than accelerate it by adding more government programs, more taxes, and more spending of taxpayer dollars. It is undemocratic to simply present one plan and then claim that not compromising on that one plan is “obstructionist” when there are more plans out there. Instead of simply taking Obama’s word for it, that his plan is the best, shouldn’t the American public know what their choices are? This blame falls only on the Republicans and on that fact that they are content with simply exploiting the anti-government sentiment that is sweeping the country instead of strongly marketing a real, practical solution to the problems we face with health care, problems partly caused by government intrusion already.

This is why the Tea Party protests that have been popping up around the country since April are not partisan. They reject both parties for their inaction and for their corruption. Republicans cannot prove themselves, once again, to be a party of opportunity and instead cast themselves as a party of action on these issues that currently affect us. To their credit, Democrats are a party of action when it comes to domestic issues, but it is an action that leads to government control and inflated bureaucracies. We need representatives out there that will take action to bring America back to its first principles, the ones that you may have heard of before: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the Republican Party does not do this, then conservatives and libertarians will splinter off and form a third party… giving the Democratic(-Socialist) Party of America a permanent majority for decades to come.

-AG

Yesterday marked the eighth year anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. Today marks the eighth anniversary of 9-12-2001, a day equally important in the history of the United States. It was on that day that a president who initially hesitated several minutes in reacting to the terrorist attack found the courage and the clarity to recognize and explain the world we live in: there exists evil in the world and we must confront it. It was on that day that we understood that nations can either be with us or against us because the mission of America is not to reshape the world in our image, but rather to allow nations to coexist, trade, and prosper in peace. We have a Freedom doctrine, that is undeniable, but that is because it is the truly free nations in this world that shy away from war because when the destructive wishes of some demagogue emerge in society, only the free exercise of speech allow reason to prevail. I have read articles that make these arguments, grounded in real life experience here in America, sound plain old stupid. I guess some people believe that the dreams that founded America are stupid. Good thing that one of those dreams is the freedom of speech.

Specifically, I refer to this article on the Associated Press where the author explains that now Obama has the bullhorn on 9-11, not Bush. This brings to mind an alternate scenario where instead of having Bush as president we would have had Obama. According to the article, Obama released a statement right after the attacks where he talked about improving security, “understanding the sources of such madness,” and about the “fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers.” What immediately bothers me about Obama’s statement after 9-11 was the fact that he immediately empathized with the attackers, writing that poverty and despair was part of the reasons they did this and saying that they need more empathy. So imagine what a president Obama would have done on 9-12-2001. First of all, some sort of military response would have been necessary, Americans would not allow this to go unanswered. After that initial response, which most probably would not have been as robust as Bush’s response, what would he have done to improve empathy among the attackers? Would he go ahead and give a speech to the Muslim world? Would he try to dialogue with Osama bin Laden? Would he start spending billions more on alleviating poverty abroad, money that probably would end up in the hands of corrupt governments, dictators, and the very terrorists that struck us eight years ago? If Obama were president on that fateful day, we know that today Al Qaeda would be a powerful organization, that they would still have a safe haven, and that instead of two nuclear programs today, we would have had three to contend with. My more liberal friends may want to dispute that, but looking at the evidence, it is clear. Bush needs to be applauded for one thing, something that most people in their everyday lives should be doing more often, he did what he thought was right regardless of his popularity. Day after day, he received terrorist warning after terrorist warning, deciding on which ones were credible and which ones were not, knowing full well that a single terrorist attack on American soil after 9-11 would sink his presidency and kill innocent Americans. Imagine the pressure. On the other hand, Obama cares about his popularity. Just think about how he has reversed course on many decisions, from appointing a communist as his Green Economy Czar then firing him to removing the flag@whitehouse.gov snitch email program. Obama always has been a political animal, flashing a smile, talking softly, lying to our faces, and trying to create socialism under our noses. Bush was much more direct and much more clear in his actions.

So when the liberal terrorist apologists say that we need to empathize more with Osama bin Laden, set them straight: America cannot negotiate with terrorists. An empathetic president on 9-12 would have been a national disaster. In the words of Rudy Giuliani “thank God George Bush… [was] President.” The world today is not so different from the world before 9-11, except for one major difference: America is vigilant. Right now, more than 60% of Americans believe that Obama can keep us safe from terrorists (by being nice to them?) when the reality is that only the residual effects of Bush’s anti-terror policies can keep the enemy at bay: a strong intelligence agency, an offensive campaign, and cracking down on terrorist finances. Obama would have us think that we can talk to the enemy and they will willingly abandon their plans to destroy America. The only people who benefit from a worldview that refuses to acknowledge the existence of evil are those who are evil. The only people who benefit from a policy of playing nice with our enemies are our enemies. It is useful to reflect on our own actions, to admit excesses, and to apologize for missteps, no nation is perfect, but it borders on treasonous to adopt the views and philosophies of terrorists who kill thousands of innocents to make their point. Terrorists want us to empathize with them… Barack Hussein Obama is their biggest success story.

-AG

South Carolina House member Joe Wilson yelled this during the Obama speech on health care tonight. Good for him. Sadly, he did not stand by his outburst and issued an apology to the White House. Bad. What we need right now is for the men and women in government, the ones with the courage to stand up to ‘The Empire,’ to speak truth to power. The comment was made over Obama’s assertion that no illegal immigrants would be covered under the health care reform proposal, but it can be applied to nearly everything that he has said over the last 8 months. While many have denounced Wilson for being disrespectful, I applaud his emotional response. It shows that we are not simply slouching towards Gomorrah but that still exists some fire in our bellies, that even some members of that semi- to fully-corrupt body we call the Congress can call out a liar when he sees one. He deserves to be commended for his actions.

He starts his (second!) prime-time speech on health care claiming that he brought the economy “back from the brink,” when reality shows us that retirement plans have taken a beating, unemployment continues to inch towards double digits, credit is still tight, banks are continuing to fail, consumer spending is stagnant, and the national debt continues to balloon. To call the president out of touch would be too kind. The rest of the speech is a flagrant insult to logic, calling our current health care fiscally unsustainable while simultaneously urging Americans to pass a system that will cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, trillions more. The fact that we are even discussing this distresses me immensely. If the problem is that we cannot sustain this level of expenditure on health care, then we should not be passing a health care program that will cost more money. This cannot be repeated enough.

Yet in a poll taken after Obama’s speech, two thirds of those who watched now favor his plan. This is absurd. Obama simply repeated the same old arguments. He blamed Bush for a deficit that is dwarfed by Obama’s, yet he received a standing ovation. He misrepresented conservatives’ position on health care and presented his Public Option as something that would not destroy the free market. He promised that senior care will not suffer. He lied about the cost of the health care reform plan. He lied about not raising taxes on the middle class while pushing an individual mandate for everyone to buy into the system (there’s your taxes). He denied everything that people have come to hear about his health care reform plan. He denied that federal dollars would be used to fund abortion (they just fund everything else, call it ’subsidizing’ abortions). It went on and on. He used his urgent voice, his soft voice, his dreamer voice and, apparently, a lot of Americans out there fell for it… again.

This is why I worried when Obama was going to give a speech to schoolchildren, because when Obama speaks to adult Americans, polls show that so many of them turn off their brains. I am starting to doubt the accuracy of these polls… otherwise, we are truly entering a brave new world.

-AG

The audacity of Obama knows no bounds. He has taken it upon himself to become the country’s “educator-in-chief” by having schools show a speech that is supposedly a simple “pep talk” about doing well in school but comes with “suggested” lesson plans. Where in the Constitution does it say that the president of the United States can set the curriculum for students. This is a dangerous and unconstitutional action by the executive branch and may be the first steps towards a full-fledged, government-sponsored cult of personality. The great dictators of our time have all reached out to students and indoctrinated them in order to carry out their grand social experiments. Worst of all was the Department of Education’s initial proposal to have students write letters about how they can “help” the president. Given that President Obama’s entire domestic policy is just one redistributionist program after the other, to invite students to engage in thought experiments about how best to implement such socialism is simply another attempt to brainwash Americans, starting from the earliest of ages.

Fortunately, the Department of Education has scrapped its plans to force public school students to write letters, but regardless of that, the president should not have the power to reach into the classrooms of young students and set their lesson plans. The teachers’ union, of course, is in the pocket of the Democratic party and would be more than delighted to show this video to their students… is this not an egregious conflict of interest? Imagine what would happen if there were not a large public outcry from concerned citizens around the country. The White House would have simply gone ahead with making students part of this socialist experiment and encouraging students to see themselves as part of the Democratic Party. It is, by its very nature, a political act, because to help a Democrat in the Oval Office is to believe in his political mission. We need to continue watching Obama’s actions very closely, otherwise we will end up subsidizing a cross-generational indoctrination by the far Left in America. Keep Obama out of the classroom!

-AG

I was just reading that a CNN poll shows that 57% of Americans are opposed to the war in Afghanistan, a war that even the tremendously timid Obama has called necessary. Surprisingly, only about three quarters of Democrats oppose the war, I was expecting something nearer to 100%. The numbers are frightening because they show us two different thing about Americans: we do not understand the stakes in Afghanistan and that it takes a catastrophic terrorist attack to make us understand the stakes. That’s right, on cue I bring up 9-11. Now, don’t ever forget it. It is well worth repeating that what America faces in the world is not a rag-tag team of terrorists here and there, we face a well-organized, well-financed, and relentless offensive campaign against freedom. They are connected… no not in the neoconservatives’ imagination, but rather in real-cold-as-ice-life. Ask yourself why North Korea was building a nuclear reactor in Syria? Why Russia is doing naval exercises in the Caribbean? What we face is an Anti-American Axis that stretches across the globe constituted by nations and groups that want to destroy the type of world we have brought about.

At present, Islamo-fascists, communists, and dictatorships of all types are arrayed in a relatively well-strung-together coalition against all of our interests. Where does Afghanistan figure in all of this? It (and Pakistan) is the epicenter of the most well-organized and anti-American international terrorist organization in the world. Hezbollah is actually better organized, but they are not as virulently anti-American as Al Qaeda… yet. We are fighting two wings, the domestic wing and the international terrorist wing. The former is the Taliban and the latter is Al Qaeda. The former secures a safe haven for the training, arming, recruiting, and planning of the latter. The latter is dedicated to our destruction and/or the re-establishing of the Caliphate or “true Islamic state(s).” If we withdraw at this point, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will make short work of the current Afghan government and reinstate a terror sponsoring state. What person in their right mind would want to let this happen? Do the majority of Democrats truly believe that Al Qaeda was just joking with us that one time in 2001? Do they not understand the threat? To my more libertarian friends I say this: if you believe that blowback was the reason for their attacks against us, consider the near-impossible task of complying with their demands that we leave Muslim lands forever and abandon our ally Israel. What we need to do is complete our mission in Afghanistan and get Pakistan to keep cooperating with us on the War on Terror, I mean Overseas Contingency Operations. We cannot surrender now, just look at Iraq, a partial withdrawal has already increased the frequency and intensity of Al Qaeda’s attacks and now they await our full withdrawal.

The far Left has hijacked the Democratic Party, insisting on socialism at home and surrender abroad. We cannot let the world think that only catastrophes like 9-11 can wake us from our naive slumber, even if it might be true for the majority of the current dominant political party.

-AG

Years ago, I concluded that America was trending leftward politically due to factors such as liberal education, liberal mainstream media, and the changing culture of America. There are many other factors as well, given that we have achieved, as a society, something that may have seemed impossible to generations of the past: ignorance through over-information. Right now, human beings living in America can only remember so much, a slogan here, a jingle there because we live in a society where TV commercials, billboards, spam email, pop-up ads, product placement, and countless other sources (like this blog) are trying to get our attention. Yet mass propaganda has been a specialty of the Left for more than a century, because Leftist ideology is an ideology of the masses, not individuals or human rights. American society is tilting further and further to the left because of this. I say this because it comes from personal experience… let me explain: I am a person of Latin American descent, the eldest son in an immigrant family that came with nothing to this country, and my first language was Spanish. We lived in a one-room apartment in a seedy area of Miami during the days when crack and cocaine overran the streets. I have family members who ended up on drugs, imprisoned, and killed due to the street life. My upbringing was decidedly urban, a mixture of Latin culture, urban music, and street slang. I went to public school where they taught me that affirmative action, welfare, and Keynesianism were all good things. They taught me that the great Presidents were all Democrats (except for Lincoln): FDR, JFK, LBJ, etc. They taught me that ethnic and racial diversity should be mandated. In other words, my experiences within the system was pretty much the formula for creating a “class-conscious,” tax-the-rich, reverse-racist liberal. So why did I overcome these influences and decide on embracing liberty instead of liberalism? There are two reasons for this: the first is that I am an individual and never allowed myself to be sucked into ways of thinking just because it was the popular thing, the second is that I read.

It is rather curious how I became conservative, especially since I accepted a lot of the things that liberalism holds to be true when I was younger, like seeing the world as black, white, brown, yellow, etc. One reason that turned me against the Democrats at a young age stemmed from the fact that they categorized me as “Cuban-American” and I accepted that label… unfortunately for liberals, when Cuban exiles mounted up, landed on the beaches of Cuba with rifle in hand ready to depose the most brutal dictator ever seen in this hemisphere, it was a Democratic president, John F. Kennedy, that refused to provide the promised air support and left my fellow Cubans to die at the hands of the communists. So while they brand me a Cuban-American, their own actions towards Cubans and Cuban-Americans make me more aware of what they, as a party, have done to us, as an ethnic group. So immediately, in my mind, the halo around JFK started to dissipate and I started to question what it was that made him supposedly great. Nice speeches? Great expectations? He had the chance to end communism once and for all in the Americas… this would have meant no Cuban Missile Crisis, no communist guerrilla war in Colombia, no Hugo Chavez, etc. etc. etc. He squandered this great opportunity.

While the liberals taught me that “white” Americans were racist and thought themselves as superior, I came to conclude that racism was a bad thing… but that is where liberals wanted me to stop, they did not want me to actually think. So I, at a young age, realized that if it was wrong of one race to prejudge or discriminate against another, then it must be wrong the other way around, thus blacks and Latins should not be racist towards whites. So when I was told that qualifications were secondary when it comes to getting accepted into college, that first they consider the racial composition (skewed in favor of minorities) of the student body (I am simplifying a bit to make a point), I immediately realized that this was another form of racism and it was completely illogical. The inherent contradiction in liberalism made it clear that it was not “racial justice” that Democrats care about, it is a political maneuver to keep people thinking that they are oppressed somehow and to keep them voting for Democrats.

One of the biggest political influences on my life was Das Kapital and The Manifesto of the Communist Party, mainly because I was revolted by these ideas. The former was a text of utter incompetence written in rich complexity. The latter was a blueprint for a totalitarian state written in clear, direct prose. Both form the foundation for modern American liberalism (in my opinion), from the insistence on absolute secularism to the wealth redistribution methods to the interpretation of History as a perpetual conflict between rich and poor, almost everything that Democrats represent is Marxist. My thorough understanding of this philosophy turned me completely against liberalism… I have always believed in freedom, human rights, responsibility, and I believe that one should be able to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor. There are those who say “yeah, but communism is good on paper, it just doesn’t work in real life,” those who say that either a) have never read Marx or b) do not understand it. It does not work even on paper. If you are one of those, I advise you to reread the books mentioned, it is a blueprint for totalitarianism… read about Bakunin too. Here’s a quick, less known quote from the Communist Manifesto: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.” Is it any wonder that Democrats are not considered friendly to “family values?”

In sum, my life experience has been an experiment in liberal social engineering and I believe that I am one of the lucky few who emerged with a strong rejection of socialism and a stronger belief in freedom. Because of this, I no longer see myself as part of some group, as a race or an ethnicity, I see myself as an individual, an American. Sadly, most of my peers fell into the liberal trap and continue to twist logic to fit the world-view inculcated by the liberal education we receive on a daily basis. I believe that my path away from liberalism is relatively unique because it is not based on a strong family tradition nor a strong religious background nor a conservative social environment nor even the traditional “Cuban-American” stereotype that we are all Republicans… politics was not discussed all that much in the family, politics cost my family so much back in Cuba (imprisonment for political reasons, blacklisting, family separation) that here in the United States we focused more on living the American Dream. There are signs that the leftward movement of this country might not be inevitable, reading this article about how independents are becoming a larger part of the electorate gives me hope, especially since the current Democratic regime is losing their support rather quickly. From my perspective, there is only one thing that can save Americans from this national liberal indoctrination: the truth. Let’s hope that people keep trying to seek it.

-AG

Well, it has been a hectic week so I haven’t been able to post recently, but my life is stabilizing so worry not, I will be back to posting as frequently as before. I’ve missed you guys and gals out there, whoever you are.

By now, most people are aware that Ted Kennedy succumbed to brain cancer, may he rest in peace. He was known as one of the most liberal members of Congress and was a driving force behind many projects of the Left throughout the decades. His principal issue was health care reform and he favored a universal government-centric system. He called it the “cause of my life.” Now that he has passed, what I see is the Leftist machinery start to do what the Communist machinery did in Cuba: use the death of a national figure as a bludgeon. In Cuba, it was Che Guevara, a person who was essentially sent on a suicide mission abroad to start communist revolutions in Latin America, and his death was ruthlessly and coldly marketed by the Castro regime, having young children recite songs in his honor. While the leftists in America may not go quite that far, I have started to see them start the exploitation of Kennedy’s death.

First I read this article, that called to honor Kennedy by passing universal health care and made the sensationalist (and completely false) claim that 14 million Americans are losing their health coverage every day. First of all, the wishes of one man should not determine whether or not we pass a national government-run health care program. If he wished that the Constitution be repealed would we heed the calls to honor his wishes and change this nation overnight? Of course not. He was a legislator with many ideas, let’s not use his death as an excuse to suspend debate on any or all of them.

Of course, the Democrats in Washington never let a crisis go to waste and they are going to politically use Kennedy’s passing as much as possible. Consider that Senator Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, has proposed renaming the health care bill after Ted Kennedy, could he be more opportunist? Imagine how it would look if anyone voted against the bill. Again, the exploitation of the Kennedy name continues.

It does not end with the Democrats, even in the mainstream media (surprise surprise) Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball, called Barack Obama the “last brother.” Of course, no conservative commentator could ever get away with calling Obama a “brother,” but despite the racial connotation, to knight the current president as a symbolic brother of the Kennedy’s is, again, exploitation of the highest order.

These are just a few examples of what is typical among the Left, exploitation of the death of a national figure. It figures from the illogical promotion of the idea that Kennedy’s death had something to do with the current health care reform debate, that his death was actually a martyrdom. It was not. It is very sad that he got sick and died, even with the extra health care he received, extra care that, as Mike Huckabee said, would not have been possible if not for the choice offered by having a private, competitive health care system. People have criticized Huckabee for saying what he said, but he spoke plainly and truthfully about Obama’s plan. You can see it for yourself below, Obama says that “we as a… society” (that’s code for government) should step in to make decisions about end of life care, crassly saying that maybe instead of trying an expensive or risky surgery, grandma should just take a pain pill. This is what choice is about, it should not be the government that decides this, it should be the patient.

The truth is that we should not be throwing around Ted Kennedy’s name around in the health care debate or using it as a political bludgeon, neither side. It would be best if both sides just stick to the facts about Kennedy’s life and beliefs, but not try to “load” the current health care debate with emotional responses to Kennedy’s passing.

-AG

Ladies and gentlemen, this is insanity! See this short video below:

I had not seen this before, but he was already planning his “change” and telling us to our faces about the radical direction he wanted to take this country. Is this what Organizing for America and ACORN are about, the seeds of a future paramilitary organization? This was done in Germany by Adolph Hitler: the Schutzstaffel (SS). It exists in Venezuela under Chavez: the Bolivarian National Militia. It exists in Iran under the Ayatollahs: the Basij militia. Will it now come to be, right under our noses, here in the United States? I thought this was America, people!

-AG

I was thinking of starting a new blog called NeoSocialista and the posts would look something like this:

“Today I woke up thinking how crappy my life is. I live in a country where there is racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, homophobia, and, the big ‘C,’ capitalism. After I had my ten dollar morning coffee with whipped cream from Starbucks, I got to thinking how great life would be if Obama finally got through his health care reform… I mean really got through what he wanted, not the watered-down public option that he’s being forced to pass by these neanderthal Republicans who want us back in caves beating our women. Seriously, health care is a human right that should be given (by our loving government) to all people just like the right to (im)migration across recognized, international borders (like the one between us and Mexico) or the right for women to choose at the end of eight months or so if they want to abort their babies, err… I mean, fetuses. Obama should simply focus on passing his ultimate goal: single-payer health care. Instead, we have all these paid, right-wing operatives who show up at these town hall meetings with their walkers and canes making a scene and demanding answers. Don’t these people realize that Obama knows best? He went to Harvard for goodness sake! I hope that if single-payer does kick in, the rationing boards will take their age into account, I mean seriously, how can our society progress with all these reactionary, right-wing, fascistic old people still stuck mentally in the Cold War? On top of that, they don’t even work anymore and as a society we need to make these tough choices, otherwise we’ll be dragged down.

Luckily for the rest of us young and productive members of society we can rest assured that we will have health care paid for and on top of it all, it will be for free! At least for the regular Joe’s like you and me, since we are going to tax these greedy capitalists dry for their crimes. Greed is so terrible, I wish there were no rich people. Anyways, like I said, we’ll tax the rich so that we can pay for all these social services and hopefully, make this world a better place. This is the change I wanted and the change I voted for. Furthermore, I think that the health care battle will help bring everyone to the same level where rich and poor, black and white, homosexual and heterosexual, male and female, non-citizen and citizen will all sit side by side waiting for their appointed physician to come and take a look at them. Of course, we also have to consider that the white majority of this country has gotten better health care than all the other minorities, so it would be best if black, Latinos, and other minorities get first dibs on the doctors and the treatments. After all, these people need help so they can be equal to whites and whites are already in such good shape, even white European immigrants since the system was in their favor since they got here (it gets tricky when the white person is also a homosexual or if they are mixed race, but we’ll let the government sort that out). It feels so good, doesn’t it, to send white people to the back of the line? Hopefully, this will finally make it clear that their past racism was bad. Civil Rights wasn’t enough for them to realize it. Affirmative action wasn’t enough either. I mean look at all the fuss that these Republicans and conservatives are making over our first black president, he’s done such wonderful things, like making friends with dictators and promising better treatment for suspected terrorists, but they keep attacking him…. because he’s black of course. Even the libertarians are getting in on it. I have been reporting all of them to flag@whitehouse.gov and I hope that the administration does something about these Reagan-loving crazies.

Come to think of it, we need to have more minorities in government. Sotomayor was a great start but the right-wing conspirators kept wanting to look at her record and tried to make her answer questions about her past. These tactics are reprehensible. Just because she said that Latina women make better judgments than white men doesn’t mean she is racist and just because she said that “court is where policy is made” doesn’t make her a judicial activist. She’s just being honest and the fascists in this country can’t take it. You go, girl! Anyways, back to my depressing life, wondering when my dear president will level the playing field and knock out capitalism once and for all. I wish I lived in North Korea! That’s a place where people are living in harmony.”

I wonder if people would relate more to this blog than NeoRepublica? To tell you the truth I would never start such a blog, I’m too worried that they would.

-AG

Today, California Rep. Maxine Waters called on president Obama to keep pushing for public option and called some anti-public option “Neanderthals.” Maxine Waters is a profound disappointment. She is the person who publicly called for the nationalization of, actually for “socializing,” oil companies for the prices to come down. Here’s the video:

Can we call her a socialist? Yes we can! It should come as no surprise to conservatives everywhere that any time there is some financial problem, the Democrats, and sometimes the Republicans too, offer the same-old, tired prescription that they have always offered: more government control. But I digress. Waters is a piece of work. I guess that whenever a Senator exercises their God-given, Constitutional right to disagree with the President, according to Maxine Waters, that Senator is a “Neanderthal.” Or maybe it’s something else?

Here is a letter from Maxine Waters to the leader of Communism in the western hemisphere, Fidel Castro, where she apologizes for voting on a resolution that requests the extradition of a Black Panther fugitive who is wanted for murder, bank robbery, and kidnapping who is currently being granted asylum in Cuba. What is amazing about this letter is that she humbles herself before a mass murdering dictator, complaining about the Republican Party, and defends someone who is accused of multiple federal crimes, including murder. Her excuse is that sovereign nations have the legitimate right to grant political asylum (she regards murder a “political” act it seems) and she does not want to infringe on that… but is she being honest? During the whole Elian Gonzalez fiasco, I don’t remember her saying that the United States had the right to grant the child asylum, in fact, she said the opposite, that the Elian issue needed to be decided by parental rights and not any “right” of a sovereign nation to grant asylum. So she believes that a child escaping Castro’s gulag needs to be sent back to be re-educated while a suspected bank robber, kidnapper, and murderer should remain living in safety. Makes sense, don’t it?

Elian looks happy right?

It makes sense if you understand why Maxine Waters thinks that anti-public option senators are Neanderthals while she goes on repeated visits to see Fidel Castro in Cuba. Seriously, of what worth is her opinion if she believes that the totalitarian, mass murdering leader of communist Cuba is a decent human being, while senators that are opposed to increased government intrusion in the economy, senators opposed to socialism, are supposedly subhuman? From Stalin’s war on kulaks to Hitler’s rampant antisemitism to Castro’s demonization of exile “gusanos” (worms), totalitarian regimes use dehumanization as a technique to oppress particular segments of their populations and this is the very technique that Waters is currently employing by branding opposition senators as subhuman. Socialists and communists have used these tactics for more than a century, name-calling and dehumanization. I am sick and tired of liberals genuflecting before portraits of Castro and Che Guevara while they try to trample over the Constitution en masse. I am sick and tired of Maxine Waters, Castro apologist and socialist. Maxine Waters needs to look in the mirror and consider who the real Neanderthal is…

-AG

I was reading this blog post on the Florida Progressive Coalition Blog, Florida’s most useful idiots, where they assert that Barack Hussein Obama is not a socialist, because the socialists say so. To begin with, the socialists in this country would never feed into the accusations that Obama is a socialist because it would only push their agenda back by giving the Right more evidence about his socialist-ness. So in itself, the Socialist Party’s rejection of Obama means nothing. The interesting thing is that if you read their reasons for rejecting him, you realize that he actually is a socialist, about 100%.

First, the Socialist Party USA’s spokesperson asserts that socialists advocate direct nationalization of the financial industry. Apparently, buying and controlling majority stake in several major financial institutions is not going far enough. The only difference between what the administration has done and direct nationalization is that the government has taken over certain companies and banks “temporarily.” We saw that the government took majority stake in GM, unions were given majority stake of Chrysler, so far this year 81 banks have been seized by the state, and the government has huge stakes in several major banks… at what point can we cry nationalization? Politically, direct nationalization is impossible in America, no matter how loved the dear leader is. So the government takes the first approach, de facto nationalization and a second approach, destroying private industry. This is evident in the Cap-and-Trade proposal that, in Obama’s own, un-spun words, would “bankrupt” the coal industry. This is evident in the Public Option plan that the Obama administration was pushing, one that would be taxpayer-funded and would destroy smaller private insurers. So when the socialists say that Obama is not pursuing nationalization, their real concern is the speed at which Obama destroys private enterprise and increases government control. Obama’s socialism is socialism by increments.

On the issue of Health Care Reform, the socialists point out that Obama wants to create mandates that would force people to buy health insurance and therefore, they reason, that this actually helps the private insurance industry and is not a socialist plan. Either the socialists are lying or their are oblivious to reality. If the administration introduces a “public option” that is cheaper and subsidized, then the mandates will disproportionately help the government-run insurance program and end up destroying the rest of the industry, except for the very expensive ones. Mandates coupled with a public option of some sort will only accelerate government’s control of health care… but from all indications, it looks like the mandates have been dropped. Obama has made it clear that he favors single-payer universal health care but cannot get there right now and that the best way is to get there through a public option program. Socialists want single-payer right now. Again, it’s an issue of speed, not goals. Obama’s socialism is socialism by increments.

On the last issue of war policy, again the problem that the socialists have is that Obama has not called for a complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently, Obama is not defeatist enough. What the administration has done is plan to significantly reduce the number of troops in Iraq while somewhat increasing our presence in Afghanistan. His policy is one that decidedly draws us down and eventually takes us out of the region completely. Already, administration officials are in secret talks with the Taliban, probably planning our exit from there as well. Again, it’s an issue of speed, not goals. Obama’s socialism is socialism by increments.

So, is Obama a socialist? In my opinion, he tends towards socialism. He is taking an incremental approach to socialism in this country, particularly because Americans would never stand for such a society and the Constitution does not grant the federal government the necessary powers to become a full socialist state. Little by little, through a progressive taxation scheme that has the top 5% pay more taxes than the bottom 95%, through class and social divisions like affirmative action and identity politics, through the de facto nationalization of whole industries, and through massive federal spending, the government bureaucrats and socialists are inching their way towards socialism. Americans need live and vote like we are only one inch away from this “worker’s paradise.”

-AG

The Health Care Reform debate rages on. Now, people are starting to look at what Republican Mitt Romney did as governor of Democratic Massachusetts to create an almost-universal health care system. Personally, I am not a big fan of Romney, though I have respect for his accomplishments and think that he has some very good ideas. The MA model for health care provides many lessons for us as we discuss an even more government-intrusive health care system. The first problem I have with “RomneyCare” is the fact that it is based on “mandates,” a government-enforced obligation of all citizens to purchase health insurance simply because they have “health.” This essentially benefits the health insurance industry in general because it expands the size of the market, by force. I disagree with mandates because I do not think that the state should be in the business of telling people what to buy and what not to buy, it is another form of redistributing wealth, only in this case the wealth goes form the general population to corporations. The Obama plan is considering, or was considering, mandates for businesses and/or individuals. So does it make sense, in the current recessionary economic climate, for people and businesses to reduce their purchasing power by mandating that they spend a percentage of it on health insurance? Not really.

The next issue is addressed in this article by a New Hampshire physician: a shortage of primary care physicians. Right now in MA, the average wait time for a new patient looking for a primary care physician is one to two months. So the predictions of long lines and long waiting periods are not exaggerations, they are a necessary by-product of a universal health care system that has a scarcity of primary care physicians. Economically and logically speaking, the only way that we can change this is to have government pay these physicians more, but this would only increase the cost of health care in this country and bankrupt us even faster. In other words, if we enact a near-universal system like MA, we will be stuck with choosing between long lines or national bankruptcy. We have already heard the horror story of the Canadian woman who may have died if she kept waiting for Canada’s universal health care system to help her instead of coming to the US for treatment:

Since the MA system is essentially a government program, it has come in over budget and will end up costing billions more than initially expected. Given that Obama’s plan is slated to cost $1 trillion, it is probable that the real cost will be much higher. With higher costs, we have higher deficits and/or higher taxes.

The fun part of this debate is that every single liberal that I have spoken to is convinced that the current plans will not include rationed care, that there are not long wait times, that the government will keep administrative costs downs, and that the quality of care will not be affected. I wonder what planet they live on. Even in the private health insurance system, health care is rationed: by the consumer’s willingness to pay higher premiums. The question is who should choose the quality and quantity of care, patients or the government? As for the long wait times, look at every country with universal health care. I rest my case. As for a government program that keeps costs down… do I really need to address this? We already have a government “option” for the poor and elderly and we are going bankrupt because of it. As for diminishing quality of care, as soon as government requires tens of millions of new patients to be treated by a health care system that is already overburdened, you can bet that quality will go down.

In sum, RomneyCare, while not overly reliant on the state, suffers from many problems and according to the article I linked above, 70% of the people in MA are happy with the program. Compare that to the 77% of Americans (87% have health insurance times 89% who are happy with their health insurance) who are happy with their health insurance and the fact is that even with universal health care model, people are less happy than with the current unworkable hybrid system that the rest of America has. RomneyCare imposes a government solution on the public (mandates) while ObamaCare (with Public Option) imposes a government solution on both the public and the free market. What we need is to expand the free market model in a way that promotes innovation, quality, and fairness.

-AG

Today, I was very busy and I was not planning to post anything else on NeoRepublica, but after reading this article on slavery I could not help myself. First off, as I often do for the benefit of those who care about class, race, ethnicity, etc. I am a mixed race American of Cuban descent. Cubans, on the island, can be broken down racially as 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 mulato or mixed (this is for simplicity’s sake, accurate statistics are unknown). Enough of that though, it is not that relevant. This article was written by a self-described “white” American who is the descendant of slave-traders and from reading this article it looks like the guilt of participating in the slave-trade has spilled across the generations.

Katrina Browne

What she writes is one part liberalism at its finest and another part absolute irrationality (some may say that I am being redundant). Essentially, she concludes that because of the ripples in history caused by America’s history of racially-based slavery and discrimination, apologies are not enough and she “believe[s] [that] we do need more reckoning.” She wrote that equal rights and affirmative action are not enough. This is one of the myriad of reasons that people cite to make the case for some sort of economic redistribution or class preference and all that it does is undermine American freedom.

First let’s talk about the racial part. As a member of a minority group, more importantly, as a dark person (compared to “white” people) in America, I can attest that there is nothing in this world except the degree of my personal effort that has held me down or allowed me to succeed. Even my father, who spoke no English and whose Afro hairstyle would make Ludacris cringe, was able to pick himself up form his bootstraps without worrying about the “privileges” of the “white guy” next door.

Luda

No white privilege stopped me from reading books. No white privilege stopped me from rejecting a culture of mediocrity (these subcultures exist in all communities, “white punks", “black gangsters,” “latin thugs,” etc.) No white privilege stopped me from gaining an education. I could go on, but Katrina Browne personally insults me when she wraps her real condescension in “white guilt” by expressing that the poor “brown people” of the world cannot do anything because “the man” has held them down. If anything, Katrina Browne holds my ethnic “brothers” down with their hand-outs and their affirmative action by allowing us to profit from our race or ethnicity and not our sweat and intellect. So let’s first be clear, race is not a handicap.

Second, if people want to make the case that historical circumstance must be taken into account in the present in order to truly create better society, then we cannot stop with slavery… the list of actions taken by this nation and others against particular racial or ethnic groups is ridiculously extensive. What should we do about the Native Americans who were killed by both disease and military action at the hands of the United States? Should we surrender our entire civilization to them, given that this land was “theirs” before it was “ours"? How about the country of Cuba, where the entire native Taino people were destroyed? How do they distribute “reparations” or whatever other form of compensation? Technically speaking, US crimes against Native Americans and their descendants were very terrible and the inequalities that persist to this day are a result of “our” actions.

But why stop at the United States? Why not go back to Great Britain where the persecution of heretics was prevalent during the 16th and 17th centuries? Or Spain, for their treatment of Jews and Muslims during the Inquisition? Or to any country that ever engaged in any form of discrimination? Why not go back as far as all of documented history and if ever, any nation has discriminated against any race or ethnicity that a person is descended from, why not give that person some form of reparations? Adjusted for inflation, this will make a lot of random individuals in the present very rich for crimes committed by people in the past, a past now represented by certain countries and people in the present. As for me, I will be super-rich. I am certain I have African, Spanish, Native, and maybe even Arab heritage which, depending if they ever lived as a discriminated minority in any country that still exists today, means that I may be getting a good number of checks in the mail. Add to that the fact that I am also of Italian descent that I may get a check for the US internment of Italian-Americans during WWII. Hurray for racial reparations!

This Armenian-American received this chain from the Turkish gov’t as Reparations(jk)

Third, what about immigrants who arrived at this country after slavery was abolished? Are they exempt from having to “do more"? Or are they only exempt if they are not white, given that “white” people have “benefited” from the oppression of African-Americans? I wonder if I have to surrender some of my hard earned money or if my children will have to sit in the back of the bus because other people we are not related to oppressed some other people we are not related to many years ago. Collective punishment for a collective crime will punish people who did not benefit at all from the crime, people who benefited marginally, people who did benefit most, and ironically enough it will punish the people who were oppressed to begin with. The promotion of redistribution of wealth only drives away wealth and rewards people (in the present) on the basis of some genetic coincidence and not effort. The overall effect on America will be to make everyone poorer: less wealthy people, less investment, less businesses, less jobs, less overall opportunity for those poor oppressed minorities.

Fourth, Browne’s insistence that “love” of our fellow man should drive this redistributive experiment is misleading. If she means that out of personal affection we reach out to our fellow man, sure why not, if it’s our free choice? But this is not her intent. She insists that the state take the responsibility of fixing these “disparate outcomes” that exist today in society. The only way that government taking away one person’s wealth and giving it to another on the basis of race won’t be considered robbery is if we love the government for it. How Orwellian. Forced redistribution is “love.”

In totality, what she expresses here is a view of history that would have us look backwards forever until all historical grievances are addressed. Should the Christians continue to persecute the Jews for their complicity in Jesus Christ’s death? This is similar logic: collective punishment for a particular grievance carried out by particular people who are already dead. Luckily, reality is much different. The only way for humanity to progress (yes, that lefty word) is for societies to be forward looking (within reason, some introspection and retrospection is sometimes necessary). We must strive to create conditions and institutions so that the mistakes and crimes of the past are not allowed to occur ever again. We must make sure that there are no more Holocausts, no more slave trades, no more political persecution… and one day we will also realize that there should be no more ever-intrusive governments. If the crime of slavery was giving benefit to one race to the detriment of another, then the solution cannot be the same action in the opposite direction… the solution must be to abolish any system that is NOT colorblind. We can only start setting the foundation for a better world today… otherwise we will forever be condemned to answer for crimes and inequalities perpetrated by people who no longer exist and who have no relation to many in the present.

The truth is that the Left will look for any and every excuse to place the “collective good” or, as Browne writes, “the public good” above individual achievement and individual rights. Race is one of these excuses. I’ll let the Brownes of the world know that while they worry about their historical guilt and historical “disparate outcomes” I will make sure that I live my American Dream… I will live it without worrying about anyone else’s privileges… and I will live it because I have the freedom and the right to. I will not have it derailed by the ancient crimes of people who have neither benefited me through “privilege” nor have any relation to me… and I would hope that no American would have their dreams derailed by the irrational arguments I read in that article.

-AG

Single-party tyranny. Is it any wonder that people compare the Obama administration and his Imperial Democrats to Nazis? According to this article, top Democrats are considering ramming through health care with or without Republican support.

While they’re at it, why not just ram wholesale income redistribution and a centrally planned economy down our throats? Remember Obama’s promises of bipartisanship? Neither does he. We are entering dangerous territory, where one party can come in, spend more money, and create more gargantuan government programs than any time before in our history. From the banking industry takeover to the auto industry takeover to cash-for-clunkers to the welfare-like “Make Work Pay” tax credits to higher taxes on income and tobacco, we have seen the new government put their hands on the levers of the economy while throwing out hand-outs to their base like chum to hungry sharks. Talk of disregarding others opinions simply because they have a bare majority is plain-old tyranny of the majority. Talk of government intervention in so many major economic sectors is the beginning of socialism.

The positive side of this is the inevitable backlash and redefinition of the Democratic Party. Just like Bush’s betrayal of conservative principles caused many within the Republican Party to go back to their first principles, overreach in Democrat single-party rule will eventually produce a huge backlash from a fed-up and informed electorate. Unless the Imperial Democrats can figure out a way to disenfranchise conservatives, libertarians, and independents, this republic will be able to throw off the big government establishment. The Democratic Party will need to become more center and less radically Leftist, with fiscal conservatives taking the wheel, a welcome change from the free-spending, social-engineering, wealth-redistributionist Democrats that currently reign. Let’s just hope that the damage they do now is reversible.

-AG

Democratic Senator Kent Conrad

Right now, as Democrats slowly back away from their plans for a government-run ‘public option,’ another idea is emerging as a possible replacement: health care cooperatives. North Dakota Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who recently said that the administration’s push for a ‘public option’ was dead in the water is a main proponent of this plan. So the question is: is a health care co-op a viable alternative or just the Democrats’ attempt to put lipstick on a pig?

Universal health Care Proponents (Left)

A health care co-op would be a non-profit entity that would offer insurance rates at competitive prices. Any profits they make would go back to the system. Conrad said on CNN’s “American Morning” that this program would attract 12 million customers and quickly become the third largest insurer in the country. The problems with this description affect people on both right and left. Starting with the Left, there are 46 million uninsured people, so the 12 million figure falls short. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the co-ops would provide coverage discounted enough for the less affluent and many existing co-ops can deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. In other words, liberals will complain that this is far too little government involvement.

Protest against Government Takeover of Health Care (Right)

From the Right, the problems are more pronounced. First of all, this plan will end up gaining 12 million members, but from where? Obviously, this means that many of these new members will be people who already have private health insurance, hence when they talk about a ‘competitive’ co-op they mean competition against private insurers. In order to make them ‘competitive,’ government will need to subsidize people’s insurance, this is due to the fact that, unlike what liberals and other who have not worked in the private sector would have you believe, profits account for a small percentage of added costs to health insurance consumers. So you have a government-subsidized health care option… hmmm, sound familiar? So if the federal government ends up setting health care rules and subsidizing a non-profit entity that will very quickly become the third largest insurer (or larger), couldn’t this be called a ‘public option’? What a federally administered or subsidized health care co-op creates is the foundation for a future government takeover of health care… the co-op plan is but a toehold.

Of course, there are no details yet and some of my long-term predictions may be off, but to make a co-op competitive it is likely that we are looking at some sort of federal government subsidy. A co-op will not satisfy the far left unless it involves some heavy government backing and all it will do is compete with private insurers without insuring many of the currently uninsured. The liberal administration and Congress is simply trying to once again get its hands on private industry. Note that cooperative and commune are very similar terms… let’s make sure we keep up the pressure on those who want to turn America into one big commune/communist state.

-AG

A man showed up at an Obama protest toting an assault rifle! No crimes were committed. THIS IS NOT NEWS! The next time I exercise a right guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States I expect to see TV crews outside my home… the next time I water my lawn… the next time I go to the grocery store… the next time I go vote. The Leftist mainstream media is simply reporting every single gun sighting near any venue where the president is present in order to foment panic among the population. In fact, what this also does is inspire other American citizens to do the same, since it will get them on the news and since it is perfectly legal! Funny how the Left accused conservatives and Republicans of fear-mongering whenever they mentioned terrorists (people who actually want to kill us all) and think it is just fine to fear-monger by shining a spotlight on any American who legally carries a firearm. Actually, it’s not funny at all…

-AG

Obama has had a tough time with foreign policy. No single event has captured the full attention of the nation yet and let us hope that nothing catastrophic happens, but in all truth, Obama has fumbled nearly everything beyond our shores. He goes to Europe and apologizes. He gives a speech on disarmament the same day that North Korea fires a rocket over Japan. He claims that the United States is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world during his Islamic appeasement speech. He chastises allies like Israel and Honduras while reaching out to communist Cuba, Chavez’s Venezuela, and terror-sponsor Iran. In other words, he has turned US foreign policy on its head… remember people, the US is the world superpower and our foreign policy had at least a ‘little’ to do with that. Even during the campaign, it was equal parts comical and worrisome when then-candidate Obama vowed quick retreat from Iraq and brashly declared that he would invade our ally Pakistan if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights. So is he a pacifist or a war hawk?

This is Obama’s problem: he doesn’t know what, exactly, to do. So he sends more troops into Afghanistan while started a phased withdrawal from Iraq. The bad part is that our reduced presence in Iraq has only emboldened Al Qaeda while our increased presence in Afghanistan has similarly emboldened the Taliban. Commanders on the ground say that they need more troops, but Obama cannot commit many more troops because it would alienate his far left base, a group that is already mad at him for extending the Iraq withdrawal timetable and not withdrawing from Afghanistan. If he keeps this level of troops or reduces it, then he risks losing significant ground to the Taliban. The president needs to seriously consider increasing our presence, but because of politics he probably will not increase it by much. That is one good thing about former president George W. Bush, he did not care about politics when it came to the war, he took flak for sending more troops into what was starting to turn into a civil war in Iraq, and the surge succeeded. Obama, on the other hand, has his “popularity” and liberal base to take care of. He is between a rock (no pun intended) and a hard place.

Obama’s Far Left Base

Today, he is going to address the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention which will bring this issue to the forefront. Right now, most people are more worried about health care reform and the economy than the threat posed by a resurgent Al Qaeda and Taliban, so he has been getting a pass on his foreign policy blusters. This will eventually change. We cannot turn a blind eye to the events taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan… bombings are occurring over there on a nearly daily basis. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not taking a break for us to debate health care… and with Obama, they smell blood in the water. We should drop the bulk of American military power on their heads, not go in halfway.

-AG

In nearby Cuba, we see it happen time after time. The Castro regime takes some action that the United States does not like such as mass arrests of political prisoners or sending mass waves of immigrants in order to use that manufactured crisis to their advantage. They then start releasing some prisoners or try swapping them. They then stop the flow of immigrants and rafters from reaching our shores. All in exchange for two things: recognition for engaging in “reasonable” diplomacy and for whatever concessions they can get from developed, democratic nations. In North Korea, the same strategy applies, but with higher stakes.

What we see in North Korea is a regime that escalation after escalation showed no signs of wanting to cooperate in earnest. There are two reasons for this. The first is that by not cooperating, they could further develop their weapons technologies, knowing full-well that neither the United States nor anyone else would take any serious action to stop them. The second reason is that only by generating a crisis serious enough does North Korea have anything that it can barter with. After that point, it can start de-escalating and try extracting concessions from the rest of the world. Make no mistake though, they want both: nuclear/missile capabilities and concessions.

This is why North Korea even accepted Bill Clinton’s visit and released the two American journalists, it gave Kim Jong Il international diplomatic capital by demonstrating that they are willing to negotiate. The mere fact that former President of the United States Bill Clinton visited one of the most impoverished nations in the world gave North Korea more legitimacy. Of course, I applaud his success in getting back our citizens. Unfortunately, right now, the more timid elements of the State Department and the Obama administration are seeing this as a sign that Kim Jong Il just wanted attention from the beginning, attention that Obama was focusing more on the Islamic world, Europe, Russia, and the economic crisis. This is the wrong lesson, but North Korea is wasting no time in exploiting this opening. Now, North Korea has expressed that it is willing to resume family reunifications and cross-border tourism once again, a far cry from the North Korea of just a little over a month ago that was firing missiles toward Hawaii in a show of strength.

On their side, North Korea points to continued US espionage, sanctions, and joint South Korean and US military exercises as the provocations that have led to this tense moment in relations. They now portray themselves as the good guys, reaching out to the US by granting amnesty for the two journalists, reaching out to South Korea by granting family reunification and tourism, turning around a ship that was suspected of transporting weapons to Myanmar, and we can expect their weapons tests to be suspended for the time being. It was a manufactured crisis that they are now trying to exploit by reducing tensions and trying to lure the United States to the negotiating table. The Obama administration’s naivete and the Left’s burning desire to engage with communists and enemies of America will all but guarantee another round of concessions. These concessions will be followed by a period of relative calm only to be followed by more North Korean belligerence. This is the unchanged cycle of things. The single, most pressing global security issue is the proliferation of nuclear weapons because of the possibility that they may land in the hands of terrorist organizations. Appeasement of a regime that is determined to make themselves a potent nuclear power will only make things worse. Clinton did it and they became nuclearized. Bush did it and they became even more nuclearized. What do you think will happen when Obama does it?

-AG

I am glad to hear a Democratic Senator admit that there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass a health care reform plan that include a government-run public option. What this means is that the one-party control of Washington is not absolute enough to simply steamroll over any dissenting opinion. What this also means is that the “unruly mobs” supposedly paid by the RNC and “anti-reform PAC’s” are succeeding in stopping a government takeover of health care. Speaking of unruly mobs, I had dinner with two young ladies (and other friends), one a Democrat and another a Republican, who participated in town hall protests down here… rest assured that they were not paid by any organization and are not extremists of any kind, one is a registered nurse and the other works as a physical therapist. This is not what the mainstream media nor the Imperial Democrats would have you believe. They want to keep up the narrative that the grassroots protests are actually “astroturf” or “manufactured” popular protests. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are as organized as the Democrats are, as organized as any other grassroots organization that go make cardboard signs and try to carpool to the town hall meetings.

This goes to show that the far Left’s success in 2008 was the result of their relentless activist campaign against George W. Bush and the disillusionment of the conservative movement, since our leadership was going against our core principles. Now the pendulum has swung farther left and only activism on the grassroots level has been able to counter the president and his cronies. It fills me with pride to think that the President and the Democrats have resorted to attacking the grassroots themselves instead of simply attacking Republicans or corporations. They have insulted the American voter with their condescension and their accusations because they do not understand that neither the GOP nor big business are the source of Americans’ thirst for freedom and aversion to government. It is part of our national character; it is the foundation for our existence as a nation. Democrats always err on the side of big government and excessive spending… promoting collective mediocrity instead of individual empowerment. Only continued activism on the grassroots level can help change politics in America, away from big interests, big government, and the truly impressive cult of personality built up around the current president. This is not a nation run by one dear leader, we are a nation of independent, courageous, and free citizens. Let’s keep acting like it.

-AG

It is high time to bring it back to the 90’s… the 1890’s that is. Here’s a throwback to the days of the Communist Internationals:

Right now we have a man named Wendell Potter, former vice-president of corporate communications at health insurance corporation Cigna, who is blowing the whistle on his former health insurance company. What is he letting the public know about this uber-malevolent organization? They use “buzz” words!!!! Bring out the guillotines, we cannot allow this to happen!!! He accuses them of being masters at linguistics, the fascist version of Shakespeare if you will. Someone tell the president that engaging in PR should be a capital offense.

Potter also accuses them of… [wait for it]… raising insurance rates on people who get more expensive to insure! Heavens no! Didn’t anyone tell Cigna that they are supposed to freeze their premiums regardless of cost? But wait, if Cigna raises rates “artificially,” doesn’t the free market allow their customers to switch to other companies? Never mind that, let’s just focus on greedy greedy Cigna. What can we do to make the company seem even more evil? Let’s look at a case where they made a bad health decision that resulted in death… remember, all’s fair in love and health care reform debates. Apparently, a 17 year old boy died from leukemia because Cigna would not cover their liver transplant… but don’t France, the UK, Germany, Sweden and most European countries with government-run health care systems have higher death rates than the US? Never mind that, let’s focus on the greedy greedy Cigna.

Tired of this class conflict, greedy-corporations-versus-starving-little-Timmy argument? I know I am. Will it work? I certainly hope not. Let’s reform the system in such a way that takes advantage of the free market, lowers cost, reduces the burden on the taxpayer, and find a way to keep sick people from being left without care… without resorting to the easy solution of throwing our hands up and saying “let government do everything.” We can do it. We are enterprising Americans. Yes we can!

-AG

The Obama administration passed spending bill after spending bill the first few months in power. The reason? The recession. Already, his moves have made put America more in the red than any other president has in history… but he is not done. Now he wants to pass a health care reform plan that will end up costing $1 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office but, knowing how government works, it will probably cost more. His reason: the recession is linked with the burden of the health care system. In the current economic climate, with rising unemployment, many people are even more worried about losing their employer-based health insurance. It is an interesting idea, health care partly leads to the recession and the recession leads to less and worse health care, but it is an idea not based in reality. The recession was caused by “a fundamental misallocation of capital” mainly a housing bubble in the US, whether government caused it or free markets caused it is a matter of debate. By linking the recession and the health care issue, he is banking that he can wield his political broadsword before the business cycle takes over and we get out of the recession. That is why he has been so adamant about passing health care reform NOW! Otherwise, people will not be losing their employer based health insurance and the public will not be in the panic mode that the administration wants to generate. Right now, in touting how he has saved the economy with his Stimulus package, pulling it back from “the brink” as he said, it looks like the conditions for passing government-based health care reform are fading away. Like Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Unfortunately for the Democrats, contrary to their lack of understanding of free markets, recessions eventually come to an end. Funny how Obama benefits when America is in crisis, and fails when America is prospering. Actually… it’s not funny at all.

These are not the only outrageous claims that the president has made in order to panic the public into accepting his plan. To cite a few: in order to dispel rumors that he wanted a full government-run single-payer system, he denied ever supporting such a system, this is an outright LIE. See video. The quote: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.”

In order to scare us into his plan, he tries to turn class-based anger on the “greedy” insurance companies by saying that they have been making record profits. This is a lie. To further scare us into a government-based system, he recently claimed that some doctors have opted to remove tonsils unnecessarily and have amputated diabetics’ feet simply for profit. Specifically, he implies that doctors may choose not to perform preventative treatment because of the amount of reimbursement and simply perform the amputation because it pays more. Outrageous.

These are just a few things that he has said that stretch the truth or tear the truth to pieces. It seems that the president insists on making the American people deathly afraid of greedy insurance companies who maliciously and purposely let people die every year and greedy doctors that will remove tonsils and amputate limbs for profit. This tactic of making outrageous claims is behind the Democrats’ insults aimed at concerned citizens at town hall meetings, calling them unruly mobs. Citizens have the right to petition government, we still have a first amendment… I yesterday saw Chris Matthews of MSNBC raise his voice at a protester who dared carry a non-concealed weapon to a protest, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, saying at one point “your carrying a Goddamn gun!” Fortunately, the guest, William Kostric, was calm, explained his point pretty clearly, and was able to avoid being cornered by Matthews on various points, but this only illustrates the point that liberals in the media are marching in lockstep with the Imperial Democrats that now control Washington. Here’s the video:

We, as Americans, cannot allow ourselves to be herded by threats, outrageous claims, or fear. We must think critically and independently. We must use conscience and, most importantly, facts in the face of so much confusion and emotional response. America’s spirit will not be broken by those who try to intimidate its people, our external enemies have failed and our internal ones will too.

-AG

Last month, I wrote a post about Nigeria and how Al Qaeda may be looking to extend its reach to that part of Africa. Just today, Hillary Clinton visited Nigeria and warned about the very same thing: Nigeria may be within Al Qaeda’s sights. Like I said before, the conditions in Nigeria are all favorable for Al Qaeda, especially since there are already terrorist groups with sufficient organization that have been launching attacks for some time now. Recently, a group named Boko Haram (meaning “western education is forbidden") was involved in clashes that killed hundreds in their fight to establish an Islamic State. The most important factors that Al Qaeda looks for in potential host nations is the presence of local militant groups in line with their ideology and a government that is willing to negotiate with them; the Nigerian government has shown a willingness to negotiate with the already-present terrorist groups there, making this country a suitable place to set up shop. This admission by the State Department shows that while Americans look inward at the government’s efforts to insert itself into health care, Al Qaeda and terrorist organizations are still not resting.

Boko Haram militants

The Obama administration has been overly focused on domestic issues while Al Qaeda has been running rampant. Other than the drone strike that supposedly killed Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan that was blamed for killing Benazir Bhutto and that has been threatening to strike at the United States(as I wrote abou t before), Al Qaeda has not been greatly hindered nor has it slowed its activities. Since our semi-withdrawal from Iraqi cities, Al Qaeda has upped the ante, launching terrorist attacks in their signature style: multiple simultaneous bombings, mainly in Shiite areas. In Kuwait, Al Qaeda terrorists were stopped from bombing and American base. Even more seriously, a leading British expert on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal reported that Al Qaeda has attacked Pakistan’s nuclear facilities three times in the last two years. Al Qaeda is not resting… we mustn’t either.

The threat from Islamo-fascism is as important as the threat from creeping socialism. We would do well in remembering back in the nineties that we were so focused on domestic and internal affairs that Osama Bin Laden was given the breathing room necessary to build up Al Qaeda right under our noses and plan the tragic events of 9-11. We cannot make this same mistake. Recent Al Qaeda bombings and video messages haven’t caught our attention as a nation… we are distracted and that is exactly what Al Qaeda wants.

-AG

Irony. That is what I think when I see reports that religious groups will be coming to the aid of the Obama administration in their push for health care reform. Calling it a “moral issue,” certain religious groups are launching a national campaign called “40 days for Health Reform” in favor of the Obama plan. The real moral issue is whether or not a central government authority should force taxpayers to subsidize other people’s unhealthy lifestyles or subsidize procedures that are against personal beliefs like abortion or sex change operations. Should religious groups open the door for government to mandate participation in immoral acts? Whatever happened to free will? This makes no sense. It makes even less sense to come to the aid of a president who issued an executive order that funds abortions abroad as one of his first acts. In addition to that, opening the door for humans to be harvested for biological material, Obama issued an executive order to federally fund stem cell research. This is a president that calls a baby “punishment.” Personally, I believe in the sanctity of life… I highly doubt that the president shares my opinion.

Not all religious groups have taken a swig of the Obama kool-aid, the Christian Coalition of America and the Family Research Council are still opposed to the president. I find it surprising that any person of faith would support a person who could say that small town people are bitter and “cling to religion.” His condescension is amazing. It further surprises me that his ties to Jeremiah Wright, the reverend who thought it to be “moral” to say “God damn America,” haven’t completely alienated anyone who strives to lead an upright life. Of course I cannot judge them. People have their free will and their reasons for following a man who would take away our freedom to choose who to contribute our money to and for what reasons. I pray for this nation’s future.

-AG

The health care reform battle rages on. In one corner you have concerned citizens who are hearing things about rationing of care, socialized medicine, etc. and in the other corner you have a liberal government that is willing to question the motives of American citizens in order to pass a government overhaul that, by the most conservative measures, will guarantee even more unsustainable spending. Let’s be very very clear… Obama says that his goal is to create a plan that is deficit neutral, assuming this is the case and he is able to create a government run health care “option” at zero net dollars (to be paid for by more taxes I assume), the current unsustainable federal spending on health care will continue rising. Right here is where every American, regardless of politics, must realize that Obama’s solution IS NOT A SOLUTION. The problem is two-fold, current health care spending levels and the actual health care Americans. The latter is not so much of a problem, with 87% of Americans reporting that they have health care and 89% reporting that they are satisfied with the quality of their health care (source here). The former is a titanic-sized problem, with increases in total federal spending reaching higher and higher levels, taxes will go up, borrowing will increase, and the burden on the economy in general will increase. So why is the government trying to sell us a plan that may reduce the number of private insurers that are providing good service and increase government involvement?

Which brings me to the town hall meetings that have Democrats calling concerned citizens various names. Particularly, I want to comment on the words of Arlen Specter (PA-D) when he said at a recent town hall that “in our social compact, we have provisions that see to it that you take care of people who need some help.” What is he talking about?!? First of all, whatever social compact he must be referring to cannot be the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document do you find that our government is somehow obligated to provide health care to its citizens, in fact, the Constitution explicitly points out that any powers not given to the federal government fall to the states. Limited government was the intent of the Constitution, not a welfare state. Specter is way off. The only way that this statement makes any sense is if Specter is referring to some sort of Rousseau-inspired conceptualization of our society where the individual must bow to the “general will,” a general will that the Imperial Democrats in Congress and the White House will decide for us.

What Arlen Specter faced in this town hall meeting were people of all ages and probably of all political affiliations, standing up and demanding answers. We saw a young woman voice her concern that government creep into the economy will result in socialism. We saw an older gentleman in a very angry state because he was told he could speak but was denied the opportunity (until he made a scene). I couldn’t believe it when Specter said that he was in fact “defending” the Constitution by opposing warrantless wiretaps (even though Obama defends those very policies), bringing up the specter of Bush at a time when we are debating Obama, his spending, and his health care plans. The hypocrisy of these politicians is astounding. Bush expanded government and Obama is doing worse… was it the founders’ vision that the Executive Branch would one day be compiling lists of people who oppose their policies?

The only way for people to wake up in this country and realize that the 2008 elections do not simply mean that we take whatever the Democrats gives us is for ordinary Americans to stand up and be heard. To allude to an old school Democrat, Americans need to “give ‘em hell.”

-AG

The Left is playing a dangerous game. At town halls all over the country, Senators and House Representatives are facing the anger of their constituents over what is perceived to be a government takeover of health care. Democrats are reacting by calling them organized mobs, saying that its manufactured anger, and calling these demonstrations a “violation” of the democratic process. The first problem I have is that these Democrats are quick to brand non-liberal demonstrators as a mob, but when the anti-Bush and anti-war protesters came out, camping outside the president’s home and causing disruptions, they did not make similar accusations. Just as other people have pointed out, it seems that for Democrats, it’s OK for liberals to protest, just not conservatives or libertarians. This is beside the point though, a lot of politicians are hypocrites and that’s just a fact.

The second issue is that Democrats are really missing the point here. They say that the mobs are organized by the Republicans, well then why didn’t the Republicans mobilize these people on November 4th? In fact, if I recall correctly, it was the Democratic Party that was very adept at mobilizing people, not the Republicans. The truth is that many of the people who are going to these town halls are not even Republicans, because the reality is that the backlash is not only conservative, it includes many independents and most libertarians. The Democrats simply do not understand that their actions in Washington run contrary to the very spirit of America. They continuously repeat that they were given a mandate by voters last year, but they misunderstand the mandate or maybe the voters misunderstood it. When Democrats say that we voted for “change” they confuse the true intent: Americans voted for “change from” Bushes, Clintons, etc., they did not vote for “change to” bigger government, more spending, and more taxation.

The outrage is not “manufactured” or “organized,” it is spontaneous and it is very real. Just look at what has happened: Obama explicitly states that he believes spreading the wealth around. His citizenship is questioned because a) his grandmother said that he was born in Kenya and b) because Obama has not shown his long form birth certificate. Pictures of him not holding his hand over his heart during the national anthem while everyone around him is. He vows to raise taxes on the rich but gives conflicting indications of what he considers “rich” to be. He passes a nearly ineffective stimulus package that does little to put Americans back to work but increases the burden on the taxpayer to unprecedented level. He proposes plans [Cap-and-Trade] to “bankrupt” [those are his words, not mine] the coal industry and heavy industry in general at a time when we are in a recession. He travels around the world, apologizing for America everywhere, essentially insulting the American people for their electoral choices over the last few decades. His policies of negotiating with the terrorists and tyrants have only resulted in giving them more time to develop and perfect their nuclear weapons and missiles. Congress falls under complete Democratic rule and the promises of bipartisanship are betrayed. Now, Congress is not listening to its constituents, instead branding them as members of an organized mob. In spite of all this, Democrats still do not understand why people are angry.

Add to everything I just mentioned the fact that Washington is now trying to insert government into health care and you just get more intense anger. The Democrats are making the average voter feel powerless to stop them and worry about what government-run care will entail: senior death notifications, the eventual rationing of health care, taxpayer-funded abortions, taxpayer-funded sex-change operations? All of these things are real concerns and while some in Congress have indicated that they would not do these things, but certain language in the bills and amendments being kicked around leave the door open for several objectionable things.

So, what we are witnessing is spontaneous popular outrage over what is being viewed by many as a government takeover that will affect everyone’s personal lives. This is not a calculated political move. No one from the RNC delivered instructions to me so that I could write this in my blog. That said, for those getting rowdy at town halls (both left or right): try to keep it civil, the last thing we need is for Congress to say “these protesters are crazy” and then dismiss the real and important concerns of Americans all over. On the other side, Democrats need to realize that Americans will not allow their country to be hijacked and changed beyond recognition. We are a free society of individuals, not a commune or a bunch of children that need a nanny-state to care for us. The message that politicians need to hear is this: Respect the American Citizen.

-AG

If you know anyone in Florida, send them this post, because people need to understand what governor Charlie Crist has done, especially since he will be running for Senate. Republicans are supposed to stand for free markets, limited government, and lower taxes, Charlie Crist has done none of this during his time as governor. First of all, in an effort to rein in skyrocketing insurance rates in the wake of two devastating hurricane seasons, he implemented price controls and required insurance companies to get permission from the state if they wanted to increase their prices. He also made it so that these companies will have to “return” the “excessive” profits they make. So much for free markets.

His next move was to make the state-run insurance company, Citizens, more competitive. It’s pretty expensive. After the price control policy was implemented, many insurers have either stopped writing policies or reduced their business in Florida, making Citizens the largest insurer in the state. In essence, Charlie Crist made the state the principal insurer of homes in a hurricane-prone peninsula. So much for limited government.

The next part is the most important. It is simple math. Let us say that Florida is hit by consecutive hurricanes like a few years ago. According to this article, insurance companies ended up paying more than $30 billion to meet their policy obligations. Right now, Citizens faces $400 billion in potential exposure and only has $3.4 billion in net assets. Simply put, a bad hurricane season can put Citizens out of business, but since it is state-run, taxpayers will end up “bailing out” the company. So much for lower taxes.

For the environmentalists out there, freezing prices and making property insurance rates more competitive will only increase urban sprawl and development along the coast. Bad news for the everglades and undeveloped lands. For those concerned with giving people affordable insurance, currently Citizens is among the most expensive insurance companies and if larger, more dependable insurers keep leaving the state, then a lot of people will be stuck with paying higher insurance bills or stuck with less dependable companies that may not be able to live up to their policy obligations.

In all, both Democrats and Republicans have compelling reasons to oppose Charlie Crist. He has put Florida at significant risk in a state where hurricanes are common. More importantly, he lied to and betrayed his constituents, pledging not to raise taxes but did so anyways. He cannot be trusted. Floridians need to make sure not to make this man Senator, we have enough crooked politicians in Washington.

-AG

At first, people around the country were simply doubting the legitimacy of the president. Some called him a fraud and others a usurper. Later, frustrated citizens were demanding proof of his legitimacy but the government simply kept repeating that they were not lying. The government accused the people who questioned their authority of being organized mobs paid for by political enemies, completely disregarding the protesters’ legitimate grievances. The president’s political opponents were branded as domestic terrorists and extremists… This is not merely happening here in the United States, it’s also happening in Iran.

The Iranian regime, which has rounded up and arrested scores of people for their protests questioning the fairness of the last election, is putting about 100 people on trial for their involvement in the protests. Among these people on trial are French and British embassy workers and notable people within Iranian society. It is important that we not lose sight of what happens overseas, because so many of the elements are the same, the only thing missing is government’s use of force, mass arrest, and kangaroo courts to silence opposition. What is worrisome is that fact that there are several independent reports of SEIU “activists” that have been threatening, manhandling, and assaulting people at town hall meetings who oppose the Obama plan to expand the government’s role in health care (examples here and here). We already have seen that the case of voter intimidation by New Black Panther Party members in the last election is being dropped by the Justice Department… I guess that to the victor go the spoils.

Black Panther members intimidating voters

Add to that the Department of Homeland Security report that labeled conservatives, libertarians, military veterans, and anyone considered “rightwing” as potential terrorists, and what you have is an administration that is increasingly using its political and executive muscle to bully political opponents. This is happening in Iran. This is happening in Venezuela. This already happened in Cuba. Americans must be wary: big government and political intimidation never lead to positive outcomes… at the same time, we must not allow ourselves to be goaded into a violent response, that is exactly the excuse that the administration needs to openly persecute patriots who oppose Obama’s expansion of government. Once that happens… let’s just try to make sure that never happens.

-AG

Right now, politics is getting ugly. While conservatives are on the offensive against the Obama administration’s proposed government intrusion into health care, the Democratic Party is striking back by labeling conservatives at town hall meetings: members of organized mobs. This is the second wave of attacks on conservatives in recent weeks, the first being the fact that the left has labelled anyone who wants to see the president’s birth certificate a “birther.” Let us be very clear on this point, regardless of what the mainstream media reports over and over, Barack Hussein Obama II has not EVER released a copy of his official, long form birth certificate. More importantly, he probably never will. That said, conservatives need to take it easy on this point, since it is highly doubtful that any action will be taken to confirm whether or not Obama was a natural born citizen or not. We will have to wait for these files to come out when they release the “who killed Kennedy?” files. You win some, you lose some.

Labeling conservatives that attend town hall meetings a “mob” just shows the desperation of the Democratic party. This is not the first time that this language has been used to discredit people to the right side of the political spectrum. For decades, the communists in Cuba and their sympathizers in the United States have called the Cuban-American population of Miami a “Mafia.” You could say that calling conservatives a mob is straight out of the Castro playbook. Of course, the assertion that every Cuban-American in Miami is the member of a “mafia” is ludicrous… and if it’s true, then I have not been receiving my “mafia” checks in the mail. I am not paid to oppose communism. I am not paid to resist socialism in this country. More specifically, I am not paid to, day in and day out, try to explain on this blog and to people I meet why government intervention into the health care industry is the wrong way to go. I do it because of PATRIOTISM, that p-word that liberals dread oh-so-much. It is my patriotic duty to speak truth, to oppose any agenda that threatens our country, and to fight for the freedoms that we enjoy. Accusing conservatives and libertarians of being an angry mob that is bought and paid for by the Republican Party just shows that A) the Democrats are clueless as to what the average American thinks nowadays and B) the Democrats are out of ideas.

Patriots around the country need to take a real hard look at the liberal agenda, particularly the administration’s health care reform proposals. If they are deficit neutral or cost more money, they will fail. If they don’t talk about tort reform, they will fail. If they cannot guarantee that the majority of Americans, who like their health insurance, will not lose their coverage, they will fail. The solution to the health care problem needs to look something like this: tort reform, cutting costs, tax incentives, quality analysis, and promoting the free market. The Democrats are offering: more spending, bigger and more complicated bureaucracy, higher taxes, centrally planned rationing of health care, and more governmental control. America cannot afford what the liberals are offering… and if it takes a mob to let Washington know what we think, then so be it.

-AG

Today, Senator Mel Martinez (FL-R) announced that he was resigning as soon as the governor can find a replacement for him. His decision comes on the heels of the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as justice of the Supreme Court, a vote where he broke ranks with the Republicans and joined the Democrats. Just yesterday, I wrote a post about his treason and lo and behold: Mel Martinez resigns. This can only mean one thing: NeoRepublica forced him out of office!

I humbly accept responsibility for driving out this Republican-In-Name-Only. Furthermore, our shared Cuban heritage makes it fitting and ironic that NeoRepublica would be the cause of his demise.

The truth of the matter is that all concerned citizens must speak out, incessantly and passionately, against those who claim to represent us, but instead lie and betray the people’s trust. Like a fellow blogger commented today, we must compile a list of politicians who lie and cheat their way into power and hold them accountable. The next in line for Martinez’s Senate seat is Charlie Crist, current governor, another RINO more interested in political maneuvering than in keeping his promises. Right now, we have a liberal Congress and an even more liberal White House intent on spending their way to “paradise” but instead will lead us to bankruptcy. We must stop them. The more that we reveal the truth about these political animals, the more that we lay out their broken promises and betrayals for all to see, the more honest we keep them and the better they represent us. Like one of my philosophical opponents once said: [bloggers] have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. Let’s keep speaking truth to power!

-AG

The relentless march towards a society that rewards people solely based on their race or ethnicity in the name of diversity is proceeding smoothly. Sonia Sotomayor, the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court, was just confirmed to the Supreme Court today. The vote was 68 for and 31 against, with nine Republicans voting with the Democrats. As a conservative, I believe that these Benedict Arnolds should be burned at the stake for their treason, politically of course. The list includes: Ohio’s George Voinovich, Maine’s Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg, Indiana’s Richard Lugar, Missouri’s Kit Bond, Florida’s Mel Martinez, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, and Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander. Conservatives everywhere who oppose Sotomayor’s confirmation should call or write to these representatives and let them know how disappointed they are. Remember fellow Republicans, we are elephants and elephants never forget!

I have a few choice words for my own state’s Mel Martinez. He came from Cuba knowing full well what is done in the name of “equality.” It means the forced relocation of people, the forced exile of people, and the subjugation of people in the name of equality. It means labor camps for homosexuals, still prevalent racism, and “re-education” for people of faith. Cuba should have taught him this, that justice must be color-blind and that interpretation of the law does not mean revisionism. I oppose wholeheartedly his decision to back Sotomayor particularly because he used the words “Hispanic-American.” I am considered a Hispanic-American, just as he is, but I will not be pigeonholed, I will not simply bow to the expectations of identity politics-as-usual, I will be an individual, an American. I may use the hyphen to express my heritage sometimes but I consider myself simply American, nothing more nor less. I am not a type of American, I am an American. Martinez’s support of a judge that has expressed openly that court is “where policy is made,” an empathetic judge, a judge who hopes that a wise latina would form better judgments than white judges, and a judge who barely answered any questions during her confirmation hearings is wholly unacceptable. For anyone who saw the confirmation hearings and had the patience to see her time after time refuse to answer simple questions, confirming her is an insult to common sense…

To all the conservatives out there, vote these guys out.

-AG

Today is August 5th and for the Cuban people and lovers of freedom everywhere is a date that shows that decades of totalitarian oppression cannot extinguish the spirit of freedom. On August 5th 1994, the people of Havana, Cuba spontaneously took to the streets demanding a free Cuba and shouting “Down with Fidel!” It was an event that came to be known as the “Maleconazo” named after the place where it all started, Havan’s famous Malecon. This act was not widely reported because of the Cuban regime’s censorship, but it showed that there was massive discontent with a government that brutally represses its own people. It resulted in thousands of arrests and a realization by the Castro regime that they needed to appease the population before a popular revolution overthrew them. This discontent continues to exist to this day and the Castro regime will routinely smash opposition figures, peaceful dissenters, and anything that smells like being pro-democracy or pro-human rights in order to preempt any popular uprising.

Currently, the administration is moving towards easing its policy on the Cuban regime, but it is not aware that, like in Iran, the people are fed up with decades of non-representation, decades of arbitrary imprisonment, decades of oppression, and decades of living in the darkness. All that the Cuban people need is a little bit of help, a little bit of organization, and a little bit of moral support for them to finally rise up once and for all and put an end to the totalitarian nightmare that is currently threatening Venezuela, Bolivia, and the other Latin American nations that have been hijacked by socialism. So this day, we should commemorate the Maleconazo and realize that while we enjoy freedom in this country, there are millions around the world that fight for it every day. Let’s not abandon them.

Viva Cuba Libre!

-AG

According to CNN, Americans are split when it comes to the president’s plan to increase government involvement in health care. Fifty percent are for the plan and forty-five percent are opposed. Most telling is this statement by CNN Polling Director Keating Holland: “Most people on Medicare and Medicaid also don’t think that the Obama plan will help them.” Yes that’s right, the majority of people who already benefit from government sponsored health care do not believe that more government intrusion will help. As I have expressed before, the solution to the health care problem in this country lies in free markets, not in big government. Every day, more people are waking up to the fact that the Obama administration’s answer to nearly every domestic problem is to throw money at it, money we don’t have and money that will eventually come out of the taxpayers’ pockets. Let’s just hope that the Democratic supermajority doesn’t ram this plan down our throats.

-AG

Speaking of liberals who pledge not to raise taxes, in local news Charlie Crist was censured yesterday by the Volusia County Republican Executive Committee for his non-conservative ways. The list of reasons assembled by the Volusian Republican rebels (they are going against the de facto GOP endorsement of Crist) is essentially a Marco Rubio blueprint for attacks against the leathery faced governor.

You gotta love it. A Republican censured in his own state for being a RINO. I do not support Charlie Crist anymore, specifically for his performance as governor… even my father, hard-line right-wing Republican, voted for the Democratic candidate for FL governor. The truth is that Crist is a corporate puppet, a politician in every sense of the word. He betrayed the state, signing tax increases and appeasing the Left by appointing liberal judges. He is just plain dishonest. Moreover, he rubs it in the faces of Floridians by going on a $430K vacation to Europe under the pretense of a “trade mission” on the public dime.

While Charlie “Crispy” Crist was getting tanned on the beach, Floridians have been foreclosing on homes at higher rates than the national average. While Charlie “Crispy” Crist was getting tanned on the beach, Floridians were stuck with paying higher taxes and higher fees. While Charlie “Crispy” Crist was getting tanned on the beach, Democrats around the country have been using Crist’s endorsement of Obama’s plan to bludgeon the Republican party. Being censured in his own state is not enough, Charlie Crist needs to be outed as a closet Liberal. Enough is enough.

-AG

When government takes away your money it’s called taxes. What is it called when government takes away your purchasing power? That’s what unsustainable national debt will bring. That’s what printing huge sums of money will bring. Now, government officials are leaving the door open to increasing taxes on middle class Americans directly. Make no mistake, Obama and co. have already “indirectly” increased taxes on all Americans through higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on upper tax bracket folks, and higher taxes on tobacco products to name a few. Those who don’t believe in trickle down wealth better start believing in trickle down taxation. Higher taxes on businesses and business owners translates into higher prices and less jobs. These guys are not about to let a liberal Washington take their money away.

Of course, many politicians make pledges that they will not raise taxes and do so. George HW Bush is the obvious example. Locally, in Florida, Charlie Crist is another example. Barack Obama, of course, is next in line to break this pledge, a pledge that no conservative took seriously. He might as well do it, he keeps getting criticized for his tax policies, so the costs of taxing the middle class directly will not be that high and it may offset some of his ridiculous spending. Of course in the long run, these taxes will probably reduce productivity and end up generating less revenue than initially expected. Not to mention that raising taxes during or immediately after a recession is a terrible idea. I say that Obama might as well take the plunge, if he really believes in it. I have a better solution though, instead of raising taxes on the middle class to balance the budget, he should cut the absurdly expensive spending programs and entitlement programs that he passed. Instead of funding a gov’t-run public option, focus on a cost-cutting approach to health care reform and include the free market through common sense tax incentives. Oh silly me, these solutions are all conservative solutions and do not involve “spreading the wealth around” as BHO famously said to Joe the Plumber. I guess in this administration, ideology trumps common sense. Again, I call for Obama to hire one more czar: the Logic Czar.

-AG

Notice the big smile on Kim Jong Il’s face, could it be that he just took his happy pills or that he’s overjoyed that the man who helped him develop nuclear weapons under the world’s noses is back for a second round? William Jefferson Clinton, former president of the United States, was the man who assured us at the end of his second term that he would stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for billions in aid from the US. Apparently, peace-in-our-time Bill was under the impression that Kim Jong Il actually cared about his people or peace… how wrong he was. Fortunately, there seems to be a good chance that Clinton will secure the release of two US journalists being held there. Unfortunately, Clinton’s visit may also be the precursor to a strategy of direct diplomacy that will result in more appeasement of the communist regime. So far the official line is that this visit is a private affair. I highly doubt that. Slick Willy met his match in Slick Kim Jong Il-ly last time, let’s hope that this time he brought his poker face.

-AG

I am adding the song “Dream On” by Aerosmith to the songs on the left (scroll through the songs to find it) in honor of this visit.

Update: North Korea grants amnesty to the two journalists. Bravo. Only bad thing is that North Korea wins PR victory, but the lives of two Americans are much more valuable. “Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it.” I guess that being a journalist is a “hostile action.” Let’s hope that Clinton or the administration did not make any other concessions to the communist regime… this goes to show that even Democrats can do good things, but at what cost?

I was just reading this article on how Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda’s second in command, was criticizing Obama for trying to advocate for a Palestinian state that does Israel’s bidding. It is funny that Al Qaeda is trying to slam Obama’s efforts far not going far enough in helping the Palestinian cause. It shows us that appeasement does not work and that extremists will blame us for anything and everything that is wrong in the world, even if we are doing something that they agree with. While some may consider this to be a sign that Obama is succeeding in capturing some Muslim goodwill, the reality is that terrorists are still capitalizing on anti-American sentiment in the region, with groups such as the Taliban, Hezbollah, and Hamas showing no signs of subsiding. They hate us for being a free and democratic superpower, only abandoning our ideals, our allies, and our interests will be enough to appease them.

He also said that Obama’s new nice-guy policy towards the Islamic world was the direct result of the “heavy losses” we have suffered because of them (and other terrorists/insurgents). This was my point from the beginning, Obama is perceived as one who cannot stomach a fight and will surrender and withdraw at the sight of terrorist attacks. Repeated communications from Al Qaeda only further prove this point. It is this very sentiment with regard to the mujihadeens’ fight against the USSR in Afghanistan that made the Taliban and Al Qaeda so appealing to terrorists and would-be terrorists. Beating Goliath is as much a motivator as being beaten by Goliath.

Another interesting thing is that Al Qaeda took the time to criticize Iran for not fighting directly against Israel when they invaded Gaza. Zawahiri called the Iranians sell-outs… which makes it official: even terrorists, our sworn enemies, will stand up to Iran but our president won’t. When Iranian protesters were on the street getting beaten, arrested, and killed as they demanded democracy, Obama said nothing and did nothing. When the abuses became more and more apparent and the international community condemned Iran’s regime nearly unanimously, only then did the president come out and condemn them for their oppressiveness. When Iran publicly expressed their support for international terrorism, the administration again did and said nothing. This is the pattern for the administration and it only enables Iran’s destabilization of the region.

Since Obama will probably do little to defend America from these two threats, Al Qaeda and Iran, I certainly do not mind if Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime go at it… and destroy themselves both in the process.

-AG

Iran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb, Western intelligence sources have told The Times.

At this moment, Iran has the capability to develop the bomb and can produce enough enriched uranium in about 6 months. Last January 20th it would have taken them 6 more months, but of course they were not stopped by the Obama administration. Instead, Obama decided it was time to engage in a long-term chat with the Iranian regime. Worse still, Iran’s Supreme Leader has just endorsed the hard-line, Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iranian president, making these US-Iranian tea-time-chats even more useless in advancing our goal of preventing their production of nuclear weapons. When Israel suggested that a military strike was possible and it would push back their development 2 to 3 years, Obama told them ‘absolutely not.’ At what point does timidity become treason?

Worry not, though, I am not sticking to the right-wing talking points, the truth is that Bush also played a huge part in this appeasement strategy. Bush’s botched handling of the Iraq war gave North Korea and Iran the green light to develop nuclear weapons because they knew that we could not commit to another lengthy invasion/occupation like Iraq and Afghanistan. A successful invasion/reconstruction of Iraq would have been the best deterrent, but alas, a failed post-invasion strategy led to a near-civil war and an empowered Iran. Obama made it worse by openly advocating a kids-gloves policy towards dictatorships and terror-sponsoring states… it’s like the more dangerous the regime, the nicer that Obama acts.

If The Times report is accurate, then the civilized world better find a way to stop the Iranian regime or get used to a nuclear-armed state that openly preaches the utter destruction of our allies while sponsoring international terrorism. The thing that Americans need to ask themselves is “Why would president Obama work to further the goals of that hard-line Iranian regime?” The answer straddles the line between the sinister and the naive. The Left has long had a love-affair with totalitarian ideologies because of the fact that they are instinctively suspicious of American power and American freedom. Left-wing ideology stems from a rejection of individual initiative and instead embraces almost any ideology that posits that the collective is superior to the individual. This belief also applies to nations, where they believe that the inequality of nations, the inequality of powers in the world, is inherently evil and leads to war. That’s why Leftists ridicule and fear patriotism, disdain the military, and believe that the idea of “country” needs to go away and be replaced with a unified single world government. The only way to do this is to make countries equal in power, just like the Left’s domestic socialism strives to make everyone equal in wealth. This is why Obama embraces any regime that is willing to challenge American power, it is simply in his DNA to strive to create a world of multiple “equal” powers; he essentially said as much when he visited Europe telling them not to rely on America (economically) as much in the future. In the process, the role of democracy and freedom in the world will be diminished and instead of worrying about an intrusive federal government accountable to the people of America, we will have to worry about an authoritarian global government accountable to no one. It’s a brave new world out there.

-AG

For years, the terrorists of the world have dreamed of setting foot inside the continental United States so that they could wreak havoc… finally, their dreams are about to come true. Our Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama, is considering bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to the continental US: either Michigan or Kansas. We have known about this for a while, but the administration has been unclear as to where they want to take them and Congress recently denied the funds to relocate detainees. The administration is now considering building a prison-courtroom complex to house the suspected terrorists and put them on trial. Remind me again, why can’t we put them on trial in Guantanamo right now? Didn’t the administration put all of the suspected terrorists’ trials on hold? Oh yes, of course, FOX wanted to film a reality-TV version of Prison Break but wasn’t allowed to film in Gitmo.

Closing a perfectly good legal purgatory that keeps the suspected terrorists far away from the American population makes no sense. The reason that the administration is doing this is just politics, appeasing the far left. Let’s get the trials rolling. Let’s make it a bit more transparent so that the skittish liberals can see that we are not torturing anymore, and if they are torturing then it will get them to stop. Let’s keep the suspected terrorists off US soil. Is SANITY from this administration too much to ask?

-AG

I talk a lot about socialists in this blog, particularly Castro and Chavez. My worry, which is the worry of many Americans, is that president Obama is following in the footsteps of these leaders, expanding government to the detriment of the individual and free markets. It is important to highlight the events that are taking place in socialist countries around the world, especially the socialists that base their systems on the ideas of Karl Marx and his authoritarianism. The reason that Marx fails is simple, I have had discussions about this ad nauseam: Marx theorized that organizing the “proletariat” into a ruling class and implementing communism through dictatorship will eventually lead to a “stateless” and “classless” society… clear logic will reveal that making the state all-powerful will likely not lead to a “stateless” society and that making the proletariat a “ruling class” will likely not lead to a “classless” society. Hence, Marxism is a recipe for permanent dictatorship in the name of economic justice and history has repeatedly shown this to be true.

That said, Venezuelan “president” Hugo Chavez has recently shut down dozens of private radio stations in Venezuela in his campaign to stifle all dissent and free expression. This is rule number six as listed in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” written by Marx and Frederick Engels: controlling all means of communication. Of course, people familiar with the history of Cuba knew full well that Chavez would eventually get to this point; we have been warning Venezuelans of this for years. In fact, Chavez is going further and trying to pass a law that will criminalize certain types of speech. Amending the Constitution, nationalization of private industry, shutting down the media, aiding communist guerrillas in Colombia, and increased militarization of Venezuela are all actions that Chavez has taken to transform that country into a socialist/communist state. He is also exporting this Castro-inspired model to other countries in the region, spending heavily to influence their electoral processes. Is this a person we want to be friends with?

-AG

With the recent declaration from Cuban dictator Raul Castro that he will not end ’socialism’ in Cuba but rather ‘defend, maintain and continue perfecting’ it, I realized that my position with respect to Cuba is diametrically opposed to this administration’s approach. Castro, either Fidel or Raul, cannot be negotiated with, Castro must be killed. Of course, I am no extremist, so when I say ‘kill’ I mean that the dictators should be put on trial and given the death penalty… in other words, there is a legal process, but the crimes are already known, there is not much wiggle room. By Cuba’s very laws, the crimes that the regime has perpetrated at the direction of both Castros are punishable by death. There have been forced deportations, denial of basic human rights, mass executions, disappearances of political opponents, widespread torture, and untold other crimes that the Castros have authorized with impunity.

In a more objective sense, international law calls the Castro regime a perpetrator of “crimes against humanity.” People like Wilhem Frick, a Nazi who ran the concentration camps, was sentenced to death even though his participation was institutional, i.e. he wasn’t personally killing people. The Castros on the other hand were and are the ultimate architects of the daily criminal acts against the Cuban people and they know exactly what they are doing. Just like the Nazis, these enemies of humanity will not just surrender to international authorities, they need to be arrested and put on trial. Apparently, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674 makes the UN Security Council responsible for the prevention of crimes against humanity and also for the protection of populations from these crimes. This means that Castro, according to international law and the UN, needs to either surrender to the authorities or be forcibly arrested, and given that the United States is the closest and most able member of the UN Security Council, it only makes sense that the US be the nation that carries out this mission. In fact, I will volunteer to join the group that is sent to arrest the Castros… gladly in fact. So, let’s not mince words, the United Nations needs to live up to its mission and obligation to the world and order the arrest of Fidel Castro and Raul Castro (and anyone else that is guilty in the regime)… dictators around the world will be put on notice if the Castros are given the death penalty.

I hope that makes my position on Cuba crystal clear. The Castros need to die.

-AG

Once upon a time there was a country with private run health care. The system was not perfect in that it did not cover everyone, but the quality of care was very high by international standards. One day, a person came along and ran for president. He would come to promise a better life for everyone, a change from the previous government, and the people flocked around him. When he came to power, he started making changes that would eventually result in a government-run universal health care system. Sound familiar?

In this system, if you needed to go to the dentist, you would need to make a line and sleep over the night before at the doorstep of the dentist’s office. Once you would be admitted, all the dental work would be done without anesthesia, because of a shortage, and the dentist would be rushing to get you out. If you moved too much he would yell “Stop moving! I have like twenty other people behind you!” all while hitting a nerve and nearly drowning you with the little water hose (because they have no suction hose either, costs too much).

Well, this is not a story about what is happening or may happen in America, but rather a story of what actually happened in Cuba. The person visiting the dentist was my father and this was a typical visit to the dentist. The regular doctor was not much different. The moral of the story is that government-run health care will invariably lead to rationing and long lines, it already happens in Canada and the UK. If this is the type of care that Americans want, a system that puts people on long waiting lists so that they can simply see, then we can start with a public option that will eventually evolve into a straight government-run health care system. Obama has been very explicit in calling for single-payer government-run universal health care, he is simply going about it a roundabout way. This is a matter of choice: either you deny choice by creating a government system or you allow people to have choice by letting private insurers offer their services. Red pill or blue pill. Should Washington bureaucrats, who refuse to read the bills they pass, choose or the American people?

-AG

This month the Dow surged almost 9% making it the best July in 20 years for the index. Furthermore, the GDP is declining at a slower pace than expected, which is good. See graph:

Was it the stimulus? Unknown, but doubtful. What is known is that as of the end of May, only 6% of the money designated to directly boost the economy was actually spent, with only 5% more planned for the rest of the year. The administration admits that much of the money will be spent next year… how convenient. As I wrote before, the cyclical nature of the market means that we will eventually recover and in fact, this recovery is being seen in different parts of the economy but not much as a direct measurable result of the stimulus. Even the administration’s fictitious claims of creating or saving 150,000 jobs does not come close to the millions of jobs lost the year.

The problem is simple: the economy is showing some signs of recovery already and if we get a huge infusion of cash into the market in the middle of an upswing, we risk inflation. Already, the dollar has weakened and may weaken further, even though just a few months ago we were talking about deflation. By running the US dollar printing press on max to solve our problems all that the administration has done is kick the problem down the road. The collapse of the dollar is worse than a global recession because while the latter affects everyone, the former shifts the balance of power in the world. There are many reasons to oppose or criticize the Obama administration but the most serious one is the unsustainable fiscal irresponsibility because, coupled with foreign policy weakness, it will lead to the end of American superpower status.

-AG

Well, less than a week into the cash-for-clunkers government handout that was tucked neatly in an emergency war spending bill (car rebates in a war spending bill?), the $1 billion program is nearly out of money. How is this a shock to the administration? If you put out $1 billion dollars in a big basket outside of Washington, I would be surprised if the basket itself would remain after the end of one day. Now Congress is thinking of extending the program by a few more billion dollars… typical. People need to pay attention, this car rebate program is a clear example of how government programs tend to exceed cost expectations… so while the administration pushes a Health Care Reform program that will cost $1 trillion, Americans must realize that this price tag will most probably go up.

Socialism, ladies and gentlemen, does not work. I say it time and time again but the government keeps on taking people’s money and handing it to other people. It is human nature to accept money for free, but there is no free lunch and eventually we will have to pay for it, if not with our dollars then with our freedoms. Do not fall for it.

Update: $2 billion in extra funding approved for Cash for Clunkers program.

-AG

I know that many people out there will have a gag reflex after reading the title of this post and by no means do I agree with W. Bush on everything, but facts are facts. Missile defense. It was something much touted by the previous president and now it is something that is a matter of life or death for America. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and the administration has all but assured us that Iran will develop them as well. Their missile technology is improving on a daily basis and sanctions seems to have little effect on their military programs. Military strikes against North Korea are out of the question while the administration has pretty much commanded that Israel not strike at Iran. This means that now the only thing standing between a nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missile and a major American city is a couple of years and missile defense shields. Isn’t it interesting that a major part of Bush’s defense policy is the only thing that can protect us against these threats? People need to be more objective when considering Dubya’s legacy, else we are doomed to be mainstream media controlled zombies.

-AG

In the United States, we have a two ideologies that disagree on the role of government in the daily lives of people and the economy. Conservatives believe that the role, size, and power of government should be limited to only what is necessary. Liberals believe that the role of government is to serve the people, regardless of its size. Both ideologies have merits and both have their weakness: conservatives will err on the side of smaller government and some ‘public’ demands may not be met while liberals will err on the side of larger government with an ever-expanding burden on the taxpayer and gross bureaucratic inefficiency. Many believe our system to be a free market, but general opinion in this case is somewhat incorrect, particularly when it comes to the way that we redistribute wealth. In 2006, according to the IRS, the top 1% of households (in terms of income) pay about 40% of federal individual income taxes while receiving only 23% of total income. The top 5% paid nearly 61% of federal income taxes while earning 37% of total income. What this means is that the average American is not experiencing the costs of domestic policy… so the calculation of the average American is grossly skewed when it comes to deciding government policy.

In having an economic situation where the majority of people suffers little or no tax consequences for passing expensive and inefficient government programs, the average American is being given an inducement to grow government by shielding them from the costs. Interestingly enough, the much criticized Bush tax cuts that ‘benefited’ the rich ended up increasing the amount and percentage of income tax that top earners had to pay, more than during Clinton. Eventually though, we can expect that when the cost of running government becomes sufficiently high, these taxes will start to ‘trickle down’ and affect everyone, else we chase all of the wealth away form the country. We must take this into account when we decide on the Health Care Reform plans that the administration and Congress are trying to pass, especially since we did not think twice about passing the stimulus package which has turned out to be slow, ineffective, yet exceedingly expensive.

If a society burdens only a small percentage of its population with the majority of the costs of running government, wouldn’t this end up encouraging the growth of government? More importantly, wouldn’t this mean that the people who are most affected by government programs are grossly underrepresented? Has our government become a tyranny of the majority (people who pay little to no income taxes)? Our republic has strayed from its founding principles and for the last two decades we have experienced an uninterrupted period of growth of government under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We need to return to our first principles that emphasize freedom and individual responsibility. We have become a nation that no longer believes that happiness should be pursued but instead handed to us and rationed by an all-powerful government. Oh how times have changed…

-AG

This one is easy. Let’s say you are a foreign government or a person with some money to invest and you are looking for a safe investment, especially now during this recession. Well, historically, United States government debt in the form of T-bills, T-notes, etc. have been a good investment, but now, with the reasonable expectation that the administration will create a multi-hundred-billion dollar (on the low end) to multi-trillion dollar health insurance program and will pay for it through deficit spending, the threat of dollar devaluation rises. With inflation possibly over the horizon, investors choose to either wait out to see what happens or they invest elsewhere fearing that the dollar will reduce in value. This means that the overall demand for the dollar falls and as the government prints more and more money to “stimulate” the economy, increasing its supply, the value of the dollar declines in the long and short term.

This has happened already. We have seen that the US dollar has fallen compared to most other major currencies. This in turn leads to higher costs for nearly everything that we Americans buy. The US debt is a major reason that the dollar’s value declines… so we can say in absolute terms, the record-smashing spending passed by the Democrats in Congress have already, in six short months, made Americans who hold US dollars considerably poorer. The more that the administration and the Congress talk about deficit spending or entitlement spending, the more worried investors get. If we cannot get deficit spending under control and get the Federal Reserve to enact measures that reduce inflation once the recovery is underway, then inflation will rage out of control. This is why fiscal discipline, lacking under Bush and completely out the window with Obama, is so important.

-AG

I have been focusing mainly on the international scene for the last few posts, primarily because I think enough conservative and non-conservative commentators have taken up the health care battle with gusto and did not want people to ignore what happens beyond our shores. I would like to change subjects for a moment and write about Marco Rubio who caught my attention due to his actions and recommendations as Speaker of the Florida House. His run for the Senate against Charlie Crist, the current, moderate, ultra-tanned governor of FL, is likely to prove disastrous. Sorry, Rubio. This is not because he lacks substance but rather because he is up against the GOP establishment which has pretty much endorsed Crist (though Rubio denies it). In my humble opinion, there are certain things that Rubio can do to improve his performance in this race. Already, he has made several existential mistakes and so I will endeavor to outline some of his weaknesses and recommend ways to turn them into strengths.

His first “weakness” is actually the central argument behind his candidacy: he is conservative, not moderate. While he may not say it outright during interviews, in typical political style, he starts describing Crist as someone who has betrayed or compromised on conservative principles. The first thing he needs to do is come right out and say it “I will stay true to my principles, unlike Crist.” Be more direct, no subliminals, no politics, just the truth. He just needs to make sure he defines principles, like sound government, personal freedom, or whatever. If he continues to be branded as a “conservative,” while that might appeal to the more right-leaning base (like me), it will make some think that he is an ideologue and not even take a chance to listen to him. Remember, there are centrist Republicans too. Clarity of message, not clarity of ideology. Ideology needs to leave this contest. The message should be fiscal responsibility period. Pound it into people’s heads: Crist raised taxes, Crist supported record breaking national spending, etc. Stay on message. Put Crist on defense. Also, Crist will be running to the right in the primary only to backtrack on his positions in the general. Hold him accountable. Flip-flopping hurt Romney, Kerry, and countless others.

The second “weakness” is his presentation. I like Rubio, he comes off straightforward, knowledgeable, and generally like a nice guy. That said, Crist seems even nicer, in fact, too nice for my tastes. Rubio suffers from a technocratic sort of demeanor, like he knows how to make the best steak but will not dress it up with garnish or mashed potatoes. Well, I hate frills, but I do like to be entertained as much as the next guy. He looks kind of nervous sometimes. Sometimes he looks like he belongs in a lecture hall teaching philosophy to half-awake students. Rubio needs to loosen up when he talks policy. Throw a joke in. Loosen your tie. Smile more. Do something, but don’t overdo it. Of course, Rubio cannot compete with Crist when it comes to looking like a “nice” guy. This is where the weakness becomes the strength. Crist seems way too laid back… I mean, look at the guy, he’s ridiculously tanned. Ridiculous. This makes him seem nice, but it does not make him seem more competent. Rubio must capitalize by keeping his technocratic demeanor in place, with a little garnish of “approachability,” and point out that representing FL shouldn’t be a day at the beach. Make that can-do attitude (with a smile) the basic approach while saying that as Florida’s problems mounted, the person in charge was getting a tan, taking trips, and relaxing a little too much. Take the gloves off but stay positive.

The third “weakness” is his appeal to the GOP. Let’s be clear, just because Crist is not that conservative does not mean that the GOP will discard him. The GOP, like any political organization, is in the business of winning elections and Crist can win elections, general elections in Florida. Regaining a significant number of Congressmen and women is the GOP’s primary aim. So Rubio needs to make his case even more clear. The Obama-Crist link is not enough, it is good for conservatives, but not enough to win. The GOP needs to see results, it needs to see action. What this means is popular support. Crist has proven it, now it’s Rubio’s turn. I’m saying the grassroots should have an even more active role in his campaign, in fact, the grassroots should hijack the Rubio campaign. His participation in the Tea Parties was excellent, now that they know his face, he needs to plan another, and then another and another, he needs to participate in non-stop town halls, continue challenging Crist, get out there, eat at diners, speak everywhere… energy is very very very very important. Not saying that Rubio does not have energy, but this is where the focus should be. I, for example, was a supporter of the Fred Thompson campaign in the primary but was disappointed when the energy wasn’t there… McCain had/has immense amounts of energy and he won the primary even though he was significantly behind and not the most conservative (he then lagged after winning the primary and look what happened). There is a lot of untapped conservative and libertarian energy out here in Florida, if Rubio can mobilize that then he will show the GOP what he can do. Look at Howard Dean, he used this very model and while he did not win, due to self-destruction (byahh!), he did go on to lead the Democratic Party and eventually took control of both Congress and the Executive. Not a bad model… except that he’s as liberal as the current president.

I have more recommendations and observations, but these are the big ones. Hopefully, Rubio will change his tactics a little because he seems to have good ideas and a good heart. I also can relate to his upbringing, hearing stories about the Castro gulag, the repression of faith, the mass extermination of “political opponents,” etc. These stories were our nursery rhymes, these stories stressed the importance of freedom, respect for human rights, and the accountability of government to the people. These are lessons that are ignored by many on the Left, and the main reason (in my opinion) why Cuban-Americans have tended towards conservatism. This race is a microcosm of the greater struggle within the Republican Party, the struggle to define itself as either the party of winning elections or the party of individual empowerment.

-AG

Israel and the current administration have not had the best of relationships. In a world where nearly everyone is sucked in to the Obama mania, Israelis recently held an anti-Obama rally, going so far as to call him ‘racist.’ This is a result of an openly anti-Israel stance taken by the president, in fact, the president’s first official call to a head of state was to Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. Add to that relatively small gesture the policy of reaching out to Israel arch-nemesis Iran and regular nemesis Syria and their worry turned into real fear, fear of being abandoned in a sea of Arab resentment. Then comes the words from the administration pressuring Israel to not attack Iran if it acquires or is about to acquire nuclear weapons, intimations from Clinton that a nuclear Iran is acceptable, and Obama’s public call that Israel dismantle its settlements and that fear turns into anger. By and large, we can say that this administration is decidedly not pro-Israel, and many may argue it is anti-Israel.

Apparently, the administration is trying to repair this hurt relationship by sending government official after government official to Israel. While I am usually critical of the president, I applaud this action. Keeping Israel in the loop is something that the United States needs to do, just like we should be doing with our other allies. The truth is that actions speak louder than words and for the administration to rescue our relationship with Israel, we need to take their national security interests more seriously. Obama should keep trying to mend fences with Israel, but diplomacy is but a first step; he needs to take a strong stand against terrorism and Iran, which is something that not only benefits Israel but our security as well.

-AG

While the threat of terrorism increases internationally, as displayed by the events in Nigeria, Indonesia, and North Carolina, the Obama administration has decided to ease trade sanctions on Syria, a nation that gives aid to terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. Did I forget to mention that they are close allies of Iran? This post should end right here, but I will continue to break it down for my less conservative cohorts.

Trade sanctions are leverage. Right now, we need Syria to make peace with Israel, increase cooperation with Iraq, stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas, not interfere with the Lebanese political process, respect for human rights, and help us in projects like preventing Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. With the unilateral easing of sanctions, we have just removed some of that leverage. What has Syria done to earn this economic boost we are about to give them? Nothing significant. Just like Obama’s Cuba policy, the unilateral easing of sanctions only gives the impression that America is in the business of giving up concessions for little to nothing in return.

We can be sure of one thing: the economic benefits from this concession to the Syrian regime will end up helping Hezbollah and other terrorist groups in the Middle East, enemies of Israel and the United States. The only positive that we can get from making friends with the Syrian dictatorship is the possibility of drawing them away from Iran, but in the long-term it makes no sense for Syria to abandon their long-time ally. Iran is growing in power and may be a serious power broker in Iraq, it only benefits Syria to keep Iran close. Syria and Iran will remain part of the Anti-American Axis in the region, and while Obama is around, they will squeeze us for every last drop, every last concession he’s willing to give them. The Obama administration has been a public relations and diplomatic coup for dictatorships and terror-sponsors around the world.

-AG

I recently wrote about the recent resurgence of Al Qaeda in the world. Their comeback is a product of the new administration’s insistence on dialogue instead of action, on withdrawal for political points instead of acting in accordance with the facts on the ground, and on the fact that Al Qaeda thinks that Obama will cower before terrorist threats, not rise to combat it. Well, over the last few days, Nigerian rebels who are part of a group called Boko Haram, which translates to “western education is forbidden,” have risen up and battled the government. More than 400 people have been killed in the fighting. Last week there was a clash between Nigerian troops and the rebels. As of yet there is no connection between Boko Haram and Al Qaeda, but Nigeria is starting to look more and more like a future destination for Al Qaeda.

The conditions are all there: There is a local terror group trying to impose Sharia on the country, there is high foreign investment in Nigeria, there are groups such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) that are launching terrorist attacks on foreign oil companies and pipelines, and the central government is willing to negotiate with the terrorists. This makes Nigeria, and thus the entire West African region a potential target for Al Qaeda expansion. Already, some traditional leaders in the region have grown wary of Al Qaeda’s influence and have banded together to stop its spread.

Boko Haram Militant

We must not forget that right now Al Qaeda has many supporters scattered around the world, all they need is a safe enough haven so they can start planning their next attack. The United State’s mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan is critical, and Somalia is looming on the horizon. All they need is another psychopathic leader to inspire suicide brigades to strike at us, ‘the far enemy.’ We cannot abandon the war on terror and we must give them men and women fighting that war all the tools they need to succeed.

-AG

Last night I had a dream, it was a strange dream where I was supposed to introduce this very special guest at a dinner but I had no idea who it was. There were blue table covers, people were seated along rectangular tables, and behind the podium you could see a thin, frail man surrounded by much bigger men. I was finally told who I was going to be introducing: Fidel Castro. So, I quickly assembled my thoughts and was going to talk about the truth about Fidel Castro, something I am sure would have gotten me escorted out of the room or arrested. The dream ended before I could give my speech. It was the first time ever that I had a dream/nightmare including this butcher.

To my surprise, sort of, today I read that the Obama administration took down the big screen built along the side of the US interests section in Havana that would display messages promoting democracy and freedom of expression. CNN calls them “anti-Cuba” signs, sayings such as “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent,” showing that this news outlet simply parrots the Castro regime’s version of reality. Castro ended up putting up more than one hundred flags in front of the screen obstructing people’s view, so that they could not read the screen.

Why is it that every time I hear about some dictatorship or some terrorist in the news, it tends to be because the Obama administration has done something to damage the cause of America. He went to Europe to apologize. He talked about disarmament while North Korea fired off missiles. He would not support the Iranian people’s pro-democracy protests. He supports Chavez allies in Latin America. The list is extensive and it has only been six months. I want to hear that Obama went forth and challenged a country to be free. I want to hear Obama speak truth to power and call out dictators on their record. Instead we get appeasement. In his defense, the screen was not very useful since it was blocked, but instead of doing less to promote freedom in Cuba, Obama should do more. That’s where people get confused about measures such as the embargo. An embargo cannot bring down a regime, if that was the case, Saddam Hussein would not have been in power after the first Iraq war. The embargo needs to be followed up with policies that support the pro-democracy movement on the island. The solution to Cuba is not to make friends with the dictatorship, it is to pressure the regime while supporting the people that want to be free. Does Obama want to go down in history as being the president who abandoned the millions of people around the world who yearn to be free?

-AG

In yet another example of the naivete of the administration’s foreign policy, president Obama declared a new era of “cooperation, not confrontation” with China, apparently the head of state has not been receiving the security memos from the Pentagon… nor has he been watching the news. While Obama’s chief concerns are getting China to cooperate over energy, nuclear proliferation, and other issues, he is completely overlooking the grand chess match that is currently taking place in the world. Russia is down but not out. Islamo-fascism is wreaking havoc worldwide. Authoritarian socialism is sweeping the globe. China is currently growing at a break-neck pace, with aspirations to overtake the first world within decades. Does China really benefit from full cooperation with the United States? Not really.

First of all, China and Russia have been indicating their lack of confidence in the US dollar. This is where Obama’s domestic policies will shift the balance of global power: with the excessive deficit spending threatening to reduce the value of the US dollar, China and other nations will be stop buying the dollar, further reducing its value. So, while China at the moment may not benefit from a precipitous fall in the value of the dollar, it is in their long term interest to promote the decrease in US economic power so that they can rise. Imagine major US firms going out of business and/or getting bought out on the cheap by rising Chinese companies. We may be looking at Chinese ownership of major formerly US-based companies in the near future. China has world power aspirations and the administration cannot lose sight of this.

Second of all, in terms of military power, China has started to beef up its military and build up its navy. The United States’ historical naval superiority is what allowed us to engage in military operations in Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula, the Middle East, Latin America, etc. The rise of China, militarily, is problematic, especially considering their strategic aims: controlling Taiwan and controlling East Asia. Does a pesky North Korea benefit China? Yes, it distracts the US. Does international terrorism bother China? Not that much, internal ‘terrorism’ does. Does nuclear proliferation bother China? Not really. In all, the concerns of the United States are not that important to China, which means to get them to help us we will have to give up more than we should. China is an authoritarian one-party state and it enjoys close ties with every nation that considers itself an enemy of the United States. Does the spread of Anti-Americanism help China? Yes it does indeed. Chinese arms sales have fueled regional conflicts for years now and cause problems that eventually end up becoming US problems.

A policy towards China that involves some cooperation and some confrontation is what is best and we should be open about it. We should press them on the issues we care about, like we are currently doing, but also make it clear that certain things need to change, like their human rights record. We must make it clear that they should pressure North Korea more forcefully. We must support the continued independence of Taiwan. We must not be silent about their brutal repression of the Tibetan people. America stands for freedom in this world, even if we make mistakes in how we work towards that goal. China stands for the repression of its own people and global power. They have already tasted the benefits of opening up their economy, now we can only hope that they will realize the benefits of empowering their people. China is playing to win over the long term, but it looks like the administration is just playing to get some immediate political goals.

-AG

Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara’s Capture

I wrote before that many speculate that the death of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara was caused directly or indirectly by Fidel Castro. The logic is simple: a martyr is better than a living political ally because the martyr cannot challenge your power. This is not an isolated event, communists have a history of using the deaths of other communists as propaganda campaigns. With that in mind, I was wondering if maybe it would occur to Hugo Chavez that the death of Jose Manuel Zelaya, deposed socialist ex-president of Honduras, would actually be more beneficial to the whole “Socialism in the 21st Century” campaign (this is Chavez’s international socialist ‘movement’). Currently, Zelaya is just playing tag on the border with Honduras and Nicaragua, essentially at a stalemate.

Technically, claims of assassination attempts and coup attempts orchestrated in Washington are the most common unfounded claims that these socialists make. Of course, I do not generally believe these conspiracy theories for a simple reason, if the United States or the Central Intelligence Agency wanted to kill a public figure, they would do it pretty efficiently, particularly because it is US policy not to engage in political assassinations but I digress. Chavez has been crying for years that the US wants to kill him, depose him, etc. but the whole “I am a victim, wah wah wah!” routine has gotten kind of old. Chavez’s best propaganda and political tool is to do what Castro has done, take the nation’s national hero and incorporate him somehow in their ideology. The truth is that the best socialist movements need a martyr. In Nicaragua, the socialists are called Sandinistas, named after a peasant rebel called Augusto Sandino who was assassinated by a right-wing dictator, and now the have power in that country. We all know that the Che Guevara image is used on everything from T-shirts to coasters, so much for the whole anti-capitalist thing. Imagine the effect that the death of Mel Zelaya would have on socialism in Latin America… it would breathe life into a movement that may be growing stale. Furthermore, it would create a figure for the socialist movement in Honduras to promote. For Chavez, the assassination of Zelaya would give him the chance to blame the United States for even more reprehensible ‘interventionism’ and again appear like the victim in the international arena.

Honestly, even if Mel Zelaya would return to power, he would probably not have the political capital to impose any sort of socialist program. He can’t use the army either, since the military opposes Zelaya. In a sense, Zelaya would be a lame-duck and he would never be able to run for president again. If he returns and they put him on trial, his credibility and his allies’ credibility will be harmed. All in all, Chavez does not benefit from any of the moves he has in front of him, except assassination. I will not bet that Chavez will do this, but in case it does happen, the fact is that Zelaya’s political opponents will be severely hurt and the socialists will be helped. It happened with Che and his communist sponsor, it can happen again with Mel and his socialist sponsor. He should watch his back.

-AG

It was on this day, in 1953, that a group of rebels attacked the Moncada Barracks in Cuba and failed miserably. A number of the rebels were captured and executed immediately by the Cuban military, but not their leader, a lawyer named Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz. He escaped to the countryside and was later captured. He was put on trial but allowed to speak for four hours giving a speech that outlined his political views and that ended with the phrase “History will absolve me.”

Many people at the time thought that Castro was not a communist and, in fact, they were probably right. Castro had promised the Cuban people a democracy that redistributed wealth more justly, but now we know that he was simply lying. My grandfather was amongst those people and he, like many others, joined in the struggle against then-dictator of Cuba Fulgencio Batista only to later realize the terrible mistake they made in supporting Fidel Castro.

During the struggle, on the 13th of March 1957, a group called the Directorio Revolucionario (Revolutionary Directorate) would attack the presidential palace and also fail. Fidel Castro hated this group for not joining his 26th of July Movement. Interestingly enough, my grandfather was recruited to participate in the assault on the palace, but for whatever reason the assault went ahead without him. Could that one extra person have made the difference between victory and defeat? We will never know… but if that attack was successful, Castro would not have been able to torture the Cuban people for these 50 long years.

While many Cubans fought for the 26th of July Movement, many more Cubans died because of it. My grandfather hoped that the 26th of July would mean a renewed life for the Cuban Republic but instead it meant the death of Cuban freedom… and ultimately, in an ironic twist of fate, my grandfather died a few years ago on this very day, the 26th of July, never seeing a free Cuba. I will forever remember this day as the day when the forces of tyranny won out over the forces of freedom, the day that took away from me a true revolutionary and a true freedom fighter: my grandfather. Castro will stand out in history books as a great warning to the free people of the world: do not be fooled by great speeches or promises of utopia. And by no means will history absolve anything having to do with the atrocities that started that day: the 26th of July.

-AG

In case Americans have not realized what “change” means, this is how it works: Iran can threaten to wipe Israel off the map merely for existing. Iran can develop their nuclear capability while the civilized world calls for more negotiation. Iran can arm, train, and fund terrorists in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq while the administration looks the other way. Iran can imprison and kill its own citizens who are demanding democracy while the free world tries not to “meddle.” While Iran can do all this, the president of the United States says that Israel should not take military action to stop them.

Iran just reaffirmed their willingness and ability to retaliate in case there is any Israeli strike. This comes on the heels of an important development: Hillary Clinton said that the US would consider extending a “defense umbrella” over Israel and Middle East allies to counter a nuclear-armed Iran. This is problematic for two reasons, the first being the implication that the US was preparing to simply allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons (Clinton later clarified that the administration was still trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons) and the second is that the administration has no idea what a nuclear-armed Iran means.

The Novice-in-Chief we call president and the political animals he has working for him need to understand that Iran does not simply have the ability to fire long-range missiles, they have the ability to deploy their own version of “smart bombs": Hezbollah suicide bombers. We are not dealing with a conventional enemy, Iran has used suicide bombers as an official war tactic since their war with Iraq. To talk about a “defense umbrella” while accepting the fact of Iran’s terror ties and even tacitly supporting terrorists by providing funds to Gaza and Lebanon, shows that they do not fully appreciate the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose. A defense umbrella is a good first step, but it needs to be supplemented by some policy that also addresses the terrorist threat. The administration is currently setting the foundation for a nuclear holocaust to be carried out either by suicidal terrorists or by a suicidal Iranian regime, probably the former. When talking about Iran, we cannot simply focus on their nuclear aspirations and ignore their support of terrorism. The problem is nuclear weapons AND terrorism. We are already taking a huge risk with North Korea, there is no reason we should let Iran be the next potential nightmare.

-AG

It’s official. Mel Zelaya, the deposed president of Honduras who wanted to violate his country’s constitution in order to extend presidential terms limits, has defied the interim government and, surrounded by supporters, returned to Honduras. Previously, Zelaya supporters blocks roads and troops fired shots, two people may have been wounded. Two hours later, Zelaya retreated back to Nicaragua fearing imminent arrest. Ridiculous.

They should have just arrested Zelaya and kept him hidden in some undisclosed location… all this will do is instigate further violence in Honduras between the pro-Zelaya camp and the legitimate interim government. Zelaya, like Chavez, is just a clown looking for news coverage. I applaud the Honduran government for showing restraint in a situation that could have easily led to even more bloodshed, I only urge that they put an end to this show as soon as possible.

-AG

While America is distracted with the problems of race and the President’s push to pass and expensive and intrusive government health care system, two of the world’s biggest powers have started to cooperate militarily: Russia and China. What does this mean for America? It means that while the United States may remain the only superpower, an alliance between Anti-American states may counterbalance our influence. We already see it happening. Both China and Russia are indicating their willingness to adopt an international currency to replace the US dollar. Both China and Russia are rushing to secure energy and nuclear deals with developing nations around the world. China is brutally cracking down on the Uighur population in its western provinces while Russia recently invaded neighboring country Georgia and redrew their borders (by recognizing former-Georgian breakaway regions). Most importantly, both China and Russia are providing arms, aid, and diplomatic support for most of America’s enemies.

With the recession taking a heavy toll on the American economic juggernaut and with the new administration pumping so much money into the system that it may significantly weaken the dollar, these two nations now see that it is in their mutual interest to join forces against us. The reason is this: these nations want to retain authoritarian control at home and the United States constantly badgers everybody about democratic reforms, tying diplomacy and economic policy. These nations also have expansionist tendencies that do not interfere with each other, for China it is Taiwan and for Russia it is all of the former Soviet republics. The current administration ignored North Korea and they set off an atomic bomb, we engaged with Iran and they starting killing pro-democracy protesters, we cannot ignore nor embrace these developments in Asia. The last thing we need is an alliance between nuclear powers whose only goal is to undermine the United States. I am certain that Obama does not want to be the president who sat by idly as a Sino-Russian Axis became the de facto world superpower.

-AG

I am of mixed race. My grandmother is the color of coal. My other grandmother is brown. My grandfather was white. The races are so mixed, I have no clue what to call myself. I just say Hispanic to make it easy. The sight of a president that was mixed race did not fill me with joy, it just showed me that America is living up to its own standards. My confusion as to my own race makes me colorblind when it comes to dealing with people… I can’t be racist because I would end up hating myself somehow. Which makes questions about what is racist that much harder for me. For example, let’s say I wanted to make a point about Obama’s health care reform by comparing his health system to the practices of a witch doctor. So if I had to superimpose Obama’s face on any of these pictures below, which one would I choose?

Well, if you chose #3 then you are apparently a racist. On Sunday, St. Petersburg neurosurgeon David McKalip, who is also a founder of the anti-tax group Cut Taxes Now, forwarded an email containing this image with the words “Funny Stuff” to members of a Google listserv. Here’s the image:

Now people are saying that Dr. McKalip is a racist. In my opinion, it is pretty funny, then again I, as a “colored” person, am not so bothered by stereotypes. Neither is my “white guilt” on full blast (was that racist?).

So the question I pose is this: did the author have to choose a witch doctor that was not black or black-ish (might be aboriginal) in order to be politically correct? So, if my own face was superimposed, the author could not use the witch doctor #2, otherwise its racist? If this offends anyone I am sorry, but I never picked up the Malcolm X 3-D glasses that casts everything as a racist offense or not. Was it racist of me to talk about Malcolm X? How about we get a little less sensitive about the racism thing unless, of course, the “offense” is clearly and overtly racist. I don’t think this image was… then again, I could be wrong. Remember everyone, the Democratic primary included an African-American, a Hispanic, a woman, and a metrosexual (John Edwards who spends way too much time on his hair, not that there’s anything wrong with that, is this parentheses homophobic?). We elected the African-American by a large margin. It’s time we got a little less sensitive about race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preference.

-AG

I just finished watching the Obama press conference on Health Care Reform. If you have not watched it, please click above. His opening remarks were the grossest revisionist distortion of reality I have ever heard a politician express. Barack Hussein Obama either believes that the American people are a mass of morons or he perceives reality to be something it is not. Let me address this on a point by point basis:

1. Obama: “As a result of the actions we took in those first weeks, we’ve been able to pull our economy back from the brink… we passed a recovery act that has already saved jobs and created new ones.”

The jobs claim is a plain old dishonest. Unemployment has topped 9.5%, a 26-year high, as of June. So far this year, we have lost 3.5 million jobs, with almost half a million of those job losses occurring in June. Vice President Joe Biden admitted that they misread the economy. The most that the administration claims is to have created or saved is 150,000 jobs. Compared to the avalanche of unemployment, the stimulus gains are pathetic. What is not pathetic is the long-term cost on the taxpayer and the rising national debt… Obama needs to come back to Earth and realize that he has not saved anything. Which brings me to his next whopper:

2. Obama: “The fact is, even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for those folks at the very top, but not a lot of good paying jobs for the rest of America. It’s an economy that simply wasn’t ready to compete in the 21st century.”

Absurd. The United States of America has been the economic engine of the world for decades, that did not change under Bush. We had years of growth and job creation even after the Clinton recession and 911. Obama must have been living in Kenya or Indonesia all these years if he thinks that the US hasn’t been and can’t compete in the 21st century.

3. Obama: “Where we spend much more on health care than any other nation, but aren’t any healthier for it.”

This quote is factually correct… but begs the question: if our government already spends too much on health care, why propose a plan that will only increase the amount of government involvement and the amount of money we spend? Why not use the free markets? Obama is clueless.

4. Obama: “A lot of Americans may be wondering [about health care reform] ‘What’s in this for me?’”

How times have changed. I remember a president not so long ago saying “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Here the Democrats’ pandering is evident… they believe that government’s role is to be our nanny and do things for us.

5. Obama: “It [his health reform plan] will keep government out of health care decisions.”

Flat out lie. Read here. The government will determine what is acceptable, affordable, and treatable. This is why I oppose Obama. He simply, coolly, audaciously lies to our faces.

6. Obama: “Now, if you don’t have health insurance or are a small business looking to cover your employees, you’ll be able to choose a quality, affordable health plan…”

This statement is similar to this one: “if you murder someone, you will get the choice of getting any legal representative you want or the government can give you one free of charge.” Obama is implying choice where there is none. Under the current proposal, there will be an individual and employer mandate that forces everyone to buy health insurance. This will raise costs for small business owners which will be reflected in price and make entering the market more difficult for small start-ups. So when Obama talks about choice, he is really talking about government mandates. I hope you guys have your updated Doublespeak Dictionaries.

7. Obama: “It [his health care reform] will be paid for.”

False. The Congressional Budget Office explicitly stated that the plan will end up costing trillions.

8. Obama: “Our proposals would change incentives so that doctors and nurses are free to give patients the best care, just not the most expensive care”

Didn’t he just say that government would not influence health care decisions??

9. Obama: “So let me be clear: this isn’t about me.”

Another lie. Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican who has been working on the health care reform bill, reported that Obama said to a fellow Democrat “You’re going to destroy my presidency.“

10. Obama: “We will do it this year.”

Doubtful. As more Americans wake up and realize that this is just another attempt to make the federal government even more powerful, increase the size of the bureaucracy in Washington, and to increase taxes on every American, there will be even more pressure to stop this proposal dead in its tracks.

We do need real reform. We do need to find a way to make health care more affordable and to stop the runaway spending of the federal government… but simply throwing money at the problem and making government even more involved in administering health care to Americans is like pouring gasoline on the fire. We need to cut costs, increase private ownership, and let the free market’s proven record of promoting efficiency and innovation have a greater role in any health care system we come up with.

After seeing this press conference, I was disgusted. I am sick of being lied to… and I think the American public is too.

-AG

Honduras stands strong. In the face of the European Union suspending nearly $100 million in aid to the country, in the face of United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening more punishment if the criminal socialist Mel Zelaya was not installed as president, the interim government and the people of Honduras have resisted the wave of anti-democratic socialism that is sweeping Latin America. Americans are proud of you, Hondurans.

The talks taking place in San Jose, Costa Rica, between Zelaya and the Honduran government have been postponed. The main problem is the absurd demand that Zelaya be reinstated. He is a traitor who will be arrested on sight, how can he be president behind bars? As usual, the administration is on the wrong side of history. This cannot last… soon the people of the world will urge their governments to side with the Honduran people and not with the Chavez Axis of Latin America.

Already, the president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, has expressed sympathy for the interim government, probably because of his own experience with the Chavez-backed FARC guerrillas and the drug war. If you recall, Zelaya has been implicated in drug trafficking.

The MSM keeps referring to the execution of a court order to remove Zelaya for treason as a “coup”

The lesson here is clear: freedom is not something won cheaply. Iranians are learning this. Every round of sanctions on Honduras is only strengthening the people’s resolve. Let us hope that the governments of the world come to their senses before they do irreparable harm to this democracy-loving nation.

-AG

Back in the sixties, Fidel Castro sent Ernest “Che” Guevara into the jungles of Bolivia and essentially got him killed, many speculate that he did so in order to eliminate a potential political rival since “Che” was so well-known. I wonder if Obama is doing the same to Hillary Clinton. Right after recovering from a broken arm, she was sent on a trip to Asia right after the terrorist attack in Indonesia. First she visits India, where they promptly tell her to take her “cap-and-trade” and shove it you know where. During her visit, the trial on the Mumbai attacks reveals that a Pakistani terrorist masterminded the attacks, potentially increasing tensions between the two nuclear powers. She comes out with a defense agreement and progress on the nuclear pact (a leftover of the Bush administration), while risking potentially angering Pakistan, India’s historical enemy. Fortunately, Pakistan has shown signs that they will not interfere in US-India relations.

Next, she travels to Thailand, where she talks about the growing threat from Myanmar (Burma) and their military cooperation with North Korea. She recently downplayed the threat from North Korea in an interview with ABC, comparing the regime to “teenagers.” When was the last time a teenager denoted a nuclear weapon? Seriously, does the State Department think that the danger of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists is not a significant threat? Does this mean we will spend more money on aid to Thailand? Thailand itself has problems with its Muslim minority and political unrest. Complicating things further, in Indonesia, a US mining company was attacked by gunmen. It looks like the new XOXObama foreign policy is making Hillary’s job harder than it needs to be.

Indonesian luxury hotels bombed

I would feel bad for Hillary, except for the fact that she called the legal and democratic government of Honduras to threaten them with more action if they did not install their socialist buddy Mel Zelaya. This shows that not only will they let the bad guys operate with impunity in Asia, but they will install would-be anti-American dictators in Latin America. I thought the Hill was smarter than this. I truly wonder who is calling the shots in this administration, or if it is some sort of weird power-sharing deal. Regardless, Hillary is in the jungle right now, dodging terrorist attacks and North Korean missile tests… she seems to be doing alright, but our “changed” foreign policy is not making it easy on her. We’ll see if she survives or if Obama makes her another “Che,” politically of course.

-AG

I was thinking: how do I move from discussing Latin America to discussing terrorism to discussing national security to discussing how the Left wants to leave America defenseless? Talk about drugs. I asked this question because I am one of those guys who recognizes the link between the different policies of the Left in this country. From open borders to drug policy to gun control to government size, all of these policies point to a specific type of society that the Left wants to create; a society based on government control run by bureaucrats and demagogues. My last post talked about Honduran ex-president Mel Zelaya who supports a policy of drug legalization in the United States (to make the violence go away… somehow) and has been linked to drug trafficking by Honduran authorities. Obama supports Zelaya’s return to power. Not a shocker from the guy who was asked if he inhaled and replied “I inhaled frequently… that was the point.” See video in case you missed it:

Well, Zelaya is not the only Latin American socialist with drug issues. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has his own problems with drugs, overseeing a fourfold increase in the amount of cocaine shipped from his country. Obama has been reaching out to Chavez. In fact, Obama didn’t let Chavez’s rants and insults get in the way of their renewed relationship. See this video that I made a while back:

Now, when it comes national security, the drug business is one of the biggest threats to America. Which is why the US government should do more to back governments in Latin America and around the world that crack down on the drug trade. That means opposing people like Zelaya, Chavez, Correa, etc. Which brings me to some positive actions taken by our military; just today, US forces bombed about 300 tons of poppy seeds in southern Afghanistan in an effort to destroy a source of income for the Taliban: heroin. At the end of the day, only sustained economic activity can preserve a military campaign… which means that the drug war is indeed an integral part of the war on terror, and this drug war is currently raging in Mexico as well.

Just like the administration’s approach to the war on terror, Obama has said on record that the drug war is an “utter failure” and has called for the decriminalization of marijuana.

At the same time, in a press conference with Mexico’s president, he acknowledged that US demand for drugs is part of the problem. So if the president wants to decriminalize some drugs in the US and at the same time thinks that drug violence is influenced by high demand.. isn’t he calling for more drug violence, more funding for drug cartels, and more funding for terrorist groups?

The military is acting in our nation’s interest by recognizing the link between our enemies and drugs and taking action against the drug trade. Why does the Commander-in-Chief seem to favor a policy that increases the drug trade? It makes little sense. Why does the Obama cozy up to leaders who do not cooperate in the war on drugs, like Chavez and Zelaya? Why do the Democrats oppose free trade with Colombia, one of our closest allies in the war on drugs? Unfortunately, the answer that covers all of these questions is: more government power. More drug trafficking and drug violence in other countries means more immigrants coming to the United States. More immigrants inevitably depresses wages nationally leading to more government dependence(if the size of labor pool larger than available jobs). More people addicted to drugs means less productivity and more dependence on the government. More hostile regimes in the world, the more fearful our population, and the more we rely on government to save us. More tyrannical regimes around the world and our own government’s size and power won’t seem all that bad. Just like a corporation strives to increase its profits, government strives to increase its power… and the people are the last line of defense. Let’s stay vigilant.

-AG

I was just thinking earlier today that the Honduran crisis is dragging out for too long. The powers of the world have lined up behind the socialists and are wasting time opposing the democratic process in Honduras. In the meantime, terrorists are attacking in Indonesia, Iraq, and the Afghan Taliban have not been defeated. I have a clear solution for the Honduran crisis and it has two parts.

Roberto Micheletti, Interim President of Honduras

The first part is simple, Mel Zelaya, the ousted president who is also a traitor to his country and is suspected of drug ties, has no legal basis to return to Honduras since he has already violated the Constitution of his country, he is only riding the wave of popular support. His violation was so severe that, Constitutionally, he is regarded a traitor to his own country. The reality of it is that the president was deposed by the military… and unfortunately, to socialists and liberals “military” is a four letter word. So this is a PR issue, not a legal one. With that in mind, the interim Honduras government needs to start winning the PR war. In the early days, they tried to do just that but for some reason have been failing… despite the fact that Venezuela threatened invasion, despite the fact that Zelaya called for violence in Honduras, despite the fact that Zelaya has issued ultimatums while the Honduran government has been willing to negotiate. So… the Honduras government should step up the efforts to investigate this man. Investigate his links to the drug trade. Investigate his motives behind calling for the legalization of drugs in the US. Investigate his improper relationship with Hugo Chavez. Investigate his efforts to extend his term limits. Then publish it all. Already I have been reading on blogs and in Spanish newspapers that investigators turned up computers with the results of the referendum vote already loaded, giving Zelaya a wide victory. The problem is that this vote-rigging discovery is not public enough, maybe it’s not confirmed, but at least it should be made public. Dig up every grain of dirt on this man, there is probably a lot, especially with this arrogant, eccentric guy who wears cowboy hats and sports a ridiculous mustache that puts Burt Reynolds’ to shame. Air out his dirty laundry so that the world has a clearer picture of who this man really is.

The second course of action to take is a little less simple, but certainly doable. Elections. Call for elections as soon as possible. The more votes and democratic actions taken the more difficult it will be for the international community to deny the will of the Honduran people. I know that right now elections are not possible, because not everyone has identification, but the sooner that elections can take place, the better. Each layer of democratic process will make Zelaya’s claim of being the rightful president, more and more hollow.

These two action will make it politically unfeasible for other countries to continue supporting Zelaya since the people of the world will not have their governments side with would-be dictators. The only countries that would continue supporting Zelaya would be the Anti-American Axis in Latin America, just as it should be. Otherwise, Honduras will continue to be threatened by Chavez of Venezuela, Hillary Clinton of the United States, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, and every other socialist out there.

-AG

I have tended to be overly critical of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, mainly for involving himself in bickering with other Republicans and not creating a clear message for the GOP. He also spent way too much time in front of the camera and not enough time crafting comeback strategy for the only major party that stands for fiscal discipline and free markets, at least in theory. He has redeemed himself in some respects over the last couple of months, and today on that road to redemption he blasted the president for pushing “a risky multitrillion dollar experiment with our health care.” Steele is right. This is a risk that increase the role of government, an entity that has been shown time and time again to decrease quality, reduce efficiency, and promote corruption. The cost is astronomical. The implications to our freedom in this country are frightening.

The truth is that Republicans need to put their own health care plan on the front page and create momentum behind it. Republicans during the last administration and during this one have done a poor job of communicating their message and the drubbings that the GOP has received at the polls are a direct result of this. It’s one thing to oppose bad policy and quite another to use good policy as a counter. I want to hear a point by point rebuttal of the Democrats’ plan with an explanation of how the Republican plan will be better. We need the party to fight with solutions not mere criticisms. When the president says that “we can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat” he is right, we cannot afford to delay a conservative solution to the health care problem and we cannot let the liberals defeat America’s free markets.

-AG

The stimulus package was 1,000 plus pages and it was voted on in record time. Few in Congress read it. The Cap-and-Trade bill was finalized just hours before the scheduled vote. Again, there was no time to read it all or confer with voters. Now the administration is pushing for another trillion dollar program that will end up increasing the government’s role in our lives significantly, mandating compliance with the government health care system. He insists that we have already talked this problem “to death” and we must “act now”… where are the alternatives? Where are America’s choices? Right now he offers only one solution to the problem of the spiraling cost of our health care: more government. Someone needs to step up and offer a better solution.

By Wednesday, the president wants the Senate Finance Committee to approve his program despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office reported that this plan would only weaken an already weakened economy. This presidency has been marked by an insistence that Congress, a branch of government supposed to act as a check on the executive, simply follow Obama’s orders blindly. Recently, I heard someone ask ‘what has Obama done that is so tyrannical?’ Obama has been instructing his party to pass legislation that he cooks up behind closed doors without reading it. Democracy cannot work if the legislature acts on orders from the president with minimal to no debate. The stimulus package forced certain changes in states’ laws for them to qualify for federal dollars. That was an attack on federalism. Like throwing a lifesaver to a drowning man only after he hands over his wallet. The administration’s tactic of rushing legislation using their party dominance of Congress is an attack on the separation of powers. Nominating an “empathetic” judge instead of a judge that follows the letter of the law was another attack on the Constitution. Placing an organization like ACORN, which has a history of voter fraud, in charge of the census is an attack on democracy itself. Does America benefit from a government that is directly controlled by the executive?

Tell Congress to read and debate bills before they pass them. Ask them to achieve more bipartisanship. We can’t let our democracy be hijacked. Americans need the right to choose their own future and their own government… we lose that right every time we allow the president to say “act now” and watch helplessly as Congress bends to his will.

-AG

While still on the subject of Cuba, it is good to look at Obama’s plan with that in mind. The first thing is to come to grips with the fact that the Obama plan will substantially increase the role of government in providing health care and will eventually lead to a takeover, see this post. At the very least, if some of you do not agree that it will lead to government takeover, you must agree that a significant percent of the population will be on government run health care… that is the explicit goal of the administration’s proposal, to insure everyone and let people choose the cheaper government program over their current private insurance. So now we can take a look at a health care system that is based on the fundamental premise that “health care is a right.”

The Cuban health care system is exceedingly inefficient, requiring patients to bring their own blankets, toilet paper, and drugs. The scarcity of antibiotics and drugs in general cannot be attributed to the embargo, since the United States does not restrict the sales of medical supplies to Cuba, it can only be attributed to politics. On the other hand, when it comes to tourist hospitals, where tourists pay in cash, or hospitals that serve party officials, these drugs are in abundance. For the Cuban citizen, the hospitals themselves lack maintenance and are dirty. For the privileged, the hospitals are immaculate. For both systems, there is one positive: there is never a lack of personnel. Cuba has one of the highest number of doctors per capita in the world… but this means little when you consider that they make about $15 a month, a small amount even in Cuban terms, and many people prefer to work in the tourist industry or as taxi drivers. The low pay drives away talent and thus reduces quality of care… a characteristic of most government programs.

Infant mortality is low… because abortions are widespread. In fact, the abortion rate in Cuba is the highest in the hemisphere even by official numbers. The total control of the media and strict government censorship does not allow us to know the full story of health care in Cuba, but there have been reports that old diseases that have been eradicated in many parts of the world have resurfaced in Cuba due to the poor state of their system.

So what does this have to do with our own government run health care system? While Cuba is an extreme example of government control, it highlights the problems with government run health care. The reality is that in this country we will be forced to create a system of separate and unequal health care. Expect the government to opt out of the “public option” and the ultra-rich to keep some form of expensive insurance. The government program must be rationed and while the rationing will not be as strict as Cuba’s, we can expect a decline in the quality of care. The question is, why do we assume that the answer to every problem is more government, more spending, and more bureaucracy?

Neither party has come up with a system that takes advantage of the most effective “program” that has ever existed in the history of mankind: free markets. Free markets reward efficiency and innovation. Bureaucracy rewards corruption and inefficiency. Let’s aim for a system that employs more of the former and less of the latter.

-AG

This post is about personal reflection. With today being the anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, it is fitting to talk about the achievements of man. While many consider this one to be among the greatest, as a society we have been more focused on the events down here than on how to continue developing human space travel. Humanity has yet to decide on which way to organize itself, so how can we expect humanity to decisively stretch its hand out into space? I hope that in the end, humanity will choose freedom over tyranny, and peace over war, but in this sense, America and the free world are but one small step. With tyrannical and homicidal regimes still out there seeking nuclear weapons, we still have a long way to go.

Which brings me to a certain individual in this human family. He is a person of African descent with lofty ideals and a history of serving his community. He became a community organizer in his neighborhood because the state was not representing its citizens adequately. One of his heroes is Abraham Lincoln. He would eventually start a campaign based on the idea of change from the status quo and gained the respect and admiration of many at home and even more overseas. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, and he is a strong believer in human rights, democracy, and he is pro-life. Still think it’s the same guy?

His name is Oscar Elías Biscet González, I have written about him before, and he is currently serving a prison term of 25-years for discussing human rights in his private residence. Right now there are many others in prison with him for the same reasons: for asking for freedom in Cuba. 90 miles away from the US there is a tropical gulag where its wardens, the Castro brothers, have enslaved 11 million people. Their oppressive ideology has spread to Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and now threatens to swallow Honduras. They have allied themselves with Iran, with China, with Russia, and with any and every other power that would challenge America and democracy.

The ones with the courage to oppose their brand of totalitarian communism are rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and exiled. It is important to remember them, for it is they who fight our fight, the fight for freedom, in their own countries. If ever there was any hope of regime change in countries like this one, it cannot come at the hands of the US military (we would have to invade half the world), it must come from the popular will of the people of that country. It wouldn’t hurt to give them support… and if we can’t give support, the least we could do is offer them a prayer and, as they languish in jail on their birthday for believing in liberty, ask the wind for their freedom.

The sooner we can learn to treat each other justly on Earth, the sooner we can reach for the stars.

-AG

Just like their promotion of a collectivist state at home, the Obama administration wants to restrict human rights in Israel, at least for the Jewish population. The administration has demanded that Israel stop planning a Jewish Housing project because it will be situated in a predominantly Arab East Jerusalem neighborhood. Israel has refused to comply with the administration’s demand. This marks the second time in a month or so that a democratic nation, presumably allied to the United States, has refused to bend to the will of the Obama administration (see Honduras).

The fact that the administration would try to restrict the rights of Jewish citizens of Israel to carry out legal construction in their capital city because of race reminds me of how they play the race and ethnic card here in the US (see Sotomayor). While Arab-Jewish relations can certainly improve, I would imagine that integrating the populations would actually do some good. Imagine that, Democrats advocating racial and ethnic segregation in Israel.

Will the administration also demand that Israel cease being an independent nation because it is situated in the “Arab neighborhood” called the Middle East? That should have been the president’s campaign slogan: “Exodus We Can Believe In.“

-AG