One month ago, I predicted that the Obama administration would bail out Chrysler and GM, even though they had threatened to withhold federal funds. I was right (at least with the Chrysler part and probably also with GM).

Obama authorized up to $8 billion in aid to Chrysler and said today “I can report that the necessary steps have been taken to give… Chrysler, a new lease on life.” Chrysler, for its part, forged an alliance with Fiat, an Italian automaker, and declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which will essentially mean some restructuring and a change in management (not liquidation of assets). In the meantime, the United States taxpayer will provide this failing business with 3 to 3.5 billion dollars to help with operational costs and 4.5 billion dollars to help with the alliance with Fiat. Oh, and the American taxpayer also pledges to stand behind every Chrysler warranty. Didn’t you get the memo??

The government will now own 8% stake in the company. Currently, the government is actively pushing debt holders to drastically cut down what they are owed but some of the smaller debt holders are resisting. Bankruptcy courts (or another government bailout) will end up resolving this.

What is most curious about this deal is the fact that as part of these negotiations with the government, the United Auto Workers labor union will own a 55% stake of the company (though the government will administer its stake). Yes, you read that right, the labor union (represented by government) now has majority stake in Chrysler. In exchange, the union agreed to some pay cuts and reduced health care benefits. Ladies and Gentlemen, let me quote something from a curious book written in the 19th century: “The proletariat [workers] will use its political supremacy [Democrat-controlled gov’t] to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie [entreprenuers and business-people] and, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State.” This is a quote (I added the brackets for clarification) from The Communist Manifesto. 100 days later we have: flagrant Communist economic policy.

Communism must be defeated.

-AG

As a present commemorating the first 100 days of the Obama presidency, Congress passed a $3.44 trillion budget. This is the largest budget in history. No Republican from either the Senate or the House of Representatives voted for the bill and some fiscally conservative Democrats voted against the budget too. The Democrat-controlled Congress has just placed an even greater burden on the backs of future taxpayers. If you are planning to be a future taxpayer in America, then that means you. First off, the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010 and second, the Obama “tax cuts” are scheduled to expire after 2010. Then comes Obama’s “goal” of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his term, the only way he can do that and cover all of his additional spending is to raise taxes again. While Americans around the country are cutting back and budgeting more because of the recession, the Democrats have decided that it is a good idea to take more money away from people through higher taxes and to pass a budget that funds all of their pet projects. “Out of touch” doesn’t even begin to describe this. America needs a viable alternative to the reckless Democrats in Washington.

-AG

Well, yesterday we passed the hundred day mark for the current president. As I wrote a few days ago the main proponent of the Barack Obama presidency is the mainstream media. They do more to tout the party line, the White House line than any other body I can see. I gave three example last time, here’s one more

- CNN’s Kristi Keck writes about Obama’s 100 days citing a historian who compares him to FDR, JFK, and LBJ. Fortunately, Obama was also compared to Jimmy Carter (I think it was meant as a compliment), the one-term, UFO-spotting, weak president who allowed Iran to take American hostages, unilaterally withdrew the nuclear deterrent on the Korean Peninsula. I second that comparison (except I don’t think that Obama has ever seen a UFO). Anyways, the article completely misses the fact that the president has spent trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars and increased our national debt significantly. This is the most historic thing that this president has done, in a little more than three months proposing and passing nearly $5 trillion in budgets and stimuli, while the Federal Reserve printed $1.2 trillion. Obama has spent more money in his first 100 days than Bush did during 2,922 days (here are some sources: “Obama Doubling of National Debt”, “Obama Spending Shocks in Scale”, Obama driving up National Debt to 80% of GDP, “Obama outsources his presidency”…), . Take into account that Bush had to spent on two wars and expanding homeland security during that time. This article is little more than cheer-leading and the only time it mentions anything negative, the author writes “the Republicans think that…” Shame on you, Keck. One other huge omission is Obama’s entire foreign policy, probably because the only accomplishments are photo-ops with dictators and dictator-wannabes and unilateral concessions to dictatorships. That’s the media for you.

President promised to cut deficit in half by first term

I could keep going, but first off, it’s bad for my blood pressure to read this mainstream media spin and second, it seems that the overwhelming majority of articles I read on the main news sources tend to be just the same. But in spite of the non-stop pro-Obama media propaganda, when left to their own devices, people seem to be thinking on their own. Here is an excellent and unexpected example. On MSNBC, readers were asked to rate the first 100 days and after nearly 350,000 votes, the majority of respondents gave President Obama an F on his performance. Shocking! It looks like the hypnosis might be wearing off after all. Here’s the link, it should be changing as time progresses.

The fact is that president Obama is a highly polarizing figure in American politics, a far cry from the “post-partisan” fairy tale he was telling the Obamaton children during the campaign. The change he is offering is a break from American greatness. His accomplishments are all based on throwing enormous amounts of money at problems, more money than any president in history, and even then, we have not seen any results yet. His foreign policy essentially aims at removing the “power” from the term “superpower.” 100 days in, we have witnessed the Party of Carter rise to power again… we should remember that it takes a Reagan to beat Carter and, unfortunately, the minority party doesn’t seem to have one.

-AG

That is the question. To answer it, let’s imagine that “we” are the commander of Al Qaeda in Iraq. I know this might be difficult, but in order to defeat the enemy we must think like the enemy:

First off, after the US surge and enlisting local Sunni’s to fight against Al Qaeda, “our” group is not doing so hot. Essentially the US turned the tables on “us” and got Sunni and Shiite on the same team, a historical improbability. So “we” would hide out and wait until the Sunni and Shiite start having disagreements and friction. Al Qaeda took this very step because the surge worked. In the meantime, “we” start following US news and try to figure out their next move. Watching TV in our hiding place “we” stumble across a candidate who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, advocates a quick withdrawal, and does not believe that the surge is working.

And praise be to Allah! Obama actually wins. In addition to bringing America change, he brought Al Qaeda’s strategy change. Before, if Al Qaeda would get out of control, the Bush administration would get tougher: sending more troops, attacking insurgent strongholds, and training more Iraqi soldiers/police. With Obama, the more pressure that Al Qaeda puts on America, the louder the Democrats’ call for withdrawal. So what do “we” do? Come out of hiding and start causing trouble. The more trouble, the faster Obama will withdraw. So far, Obama has pledged to withdraw the majority of troops by August 2010. So “we” get back to the proven strategy of attacking Shiites in order to create a backlash against Sunnis and start a full-blown civil war. (That concludes this thought-experiment.)

Well… that is exactly what has been happening. Just today, two car bombs ripped through a Shiite neighborhood killing 41. Last Friday, 60 people were killed in bombings outside a Shiite shrine. Last Thursday, 78 people were killed in bombings of a humanitarian aid distribution area and a crowded restaurant… and the list goes on. All of these were blamed on “Sunni insurgents” and could have been Al Qaeda affiliated or not. The distinction does not matter to Al Qaeda because their goal is to divide Iraq into two or more camps: Sunni and Shiite. Of course, these attacks come on the heels of the withdrawal of thousands of “surge” troops and promises to reduce forces by August 2010. With Obama as president, the worst case scenario for Al Qaeda: hide out until the withdrawal date and then start wreaking havoc. Best case scenario for Al Qaeda: wreak havoc now and accelerate US withdrawal. They are counting on the Weak President to get frightened at the sight of explosions and beheadings.

The problem is that we have not only told the terrorists and insurgents that we are leaving Iraq, we told them when and how many troops we may leave behind as a residual force (50K or less). While it is a relief that Obama has not pulled out troops at the breakneck pace he promised during the campaign and his withdrawal is more orderly, the reality is that Al Qaeda is paying attention and is adjusting its own strategy accordingly. The question should not be: how do we go about withdrawing effectively? The question should be: how do we make sure that Al Qaeda is fully defeated? The former question does not take into account the consequences of leaving Al Qaeda intact, while the latter question implies not only an eventual withdrawal but it takes into account the fact that we might have to go back to Iraq if Al Qaeda takes over. In other words, the first question implies artificial timetables (politics-based) and the second question sets real timetables. Timetables should not be set by politics in Washington but rather by conditions in Iraq. Artificial timetables only give the enemy an edge in this fight… interestingly, some say that it’s what gave the Democrats an edge in the last couple of elections.

There’s one timetable that I agree with though: January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2013. Let’s see if it holds.

-AG

Listen to Obama’s naive goals of cutting funding for missile defense systems.

Russia’s response:

The Russians have announced that they will be testing at least five of these Bulava missiles that they can launch from their submarines anywhere in the world. These advanced ballistic missiles can hold up to six nuclear warheads, have a maximum range of about 6,200 miles, and can be launched even if the submarine is moving. After years of neglect, the Russians are spending heavily on defense in order to modernize their armed forces.

The only thing that a weak foreign policy will “reset” is Russia’s military might.

-AG

The liberal takeover of America is proceeding smoothly. Today, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter announced that he was switching parties from Republican to Democrat because he finds his “political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.” This means that now, Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority and will have an easier time ramming their agenda through Congress. Apparently, Specter previously denied that he was interested in changing parties by saying “to eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket.” Oh, how times have changed.

Anyways, maybe it is better that Benedict Specter leaves the party, since he was not very helpful in opposing the Democrats in the first place. Sure he voted against the Labor Union-backed “card check” act… and he opposes gay marriage believing that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman… and he voted to protect the secrecy of the CIA’s interrogation techniques… and he opposes most forms of gun control… and he supports drilling for oil in Alaska… but all in all he just wasn’t a team player. Jack Cafferty, CNN commentator, called him a “gutless Republican worm.” I guess now he’s a “gutless Democrat Benedict Arnold worm.” Not much of an improvement.

To the Democrats I say “good luck.”

-AG

President Obama has officially let his presidency’s PR get out of control. In New York yesterday, residents of the city looked up to see this:

For half an hour, this plane and an F-16 fighter circled the airspace over New York at low altitude prompting offices to evacuate and causing panic in a city that less than eight years ago experienced 9-11. Why were these planes flying so low near buildings and the Statue of Liberty? A photo-op.

Obama said it was “a mistake” and that it would not happen again. The fly-over was part of a series of photo-ops of the Obama plane in front of national landmarks. Ridiculous.

What’s next? A swarm of bombers flying over Pearl Harbor? I was not one of those who thought that Obama was “elitist” or a “snob” but with this stunt, Obama showed me that he is more interested in publicity and fame than the feelings and safety of the American people. Shame on you, Obama. He goes around the world apologizing for America and listening to anti-American tirades and when he gets back home he ignores the sensibilities of New Yorkers by staging a “mock 9-11″ for a photo op. Obama, stop disrespecting America.

-AG

In a surprisingly naïve and insulting move, the United States embassy in Argentina sponsored readings of a new book detailing the “enduring iconic power of Che Guevara.” While the embassy’s spokeperson Mara Tekach insists that it was hosting this event in order to promote free speech, I do not believe that the United States should be actively sponsoring events glorifying communist Che Guevara aka the “Butcher of la Cabaña” who executed countless Cubans without trial, persecuted political opponents, and helped lay the foundations for Castro’s totalitarian regime. Not to mention that his resistance to democracy around the world was “inspired” by a militant adherence to Communism, a system that killed hundreds of millions around the world.

The book itself is titled Che’s Afterlife: The Legacy of an Image and is written by Michael Casey. According to Roger F. Noriega, who wrote this review about the book, the author describes the murderer Che’s “heroism,” compares him to Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. The author apparently goes further and in an effort to excuse Che’s crimes compares right-wing Latin American dictators (like Chile’s Augusto Pinochet who killed around 3,000 people) to Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot (which caused the deaths of millions), a ridiculous stretch… as ridiculous a stretch of comparing Che to Stalin (though I may feel like Che deserves worse, he just can’t stack up to good old Uncle Jo). Here again we have one of these idealists who only listens to the words and does not look at the deeds of his “hero” like the countless persons who wear his image on their shirt without knowing that he stood for killing anyone that stood in the way of communism. At least many of the latter are simply ignorant, while the former uses a logic that rationalizes mass murder for simply having different ideas.

It is reprehensible that the United States would sponsor such an event. I believe in free speech, but to host an event like this and to respect an event like this is completely different. We should not be hosting things that stand in stark opposition to our ideals.

Early Communist Indoctrination

I find it fitting to end this post with an excerpt from Noriega’s review:
“Millions of Cuban schoolchildren have been indoctrinated in the dead-end, destructive ideology of Fidel Castro’s totalitarian regime. “We will be like Che,” these tots and teens are forced to cry out in unison, as they appear in public assemblies to demonstrate their unthinking loyalty to a political system that has stolen the God-given rights of 11 million Cubans.

“El Che” would be proud. Michael Casey is fascinated. The rest of us should be appalled.”

-AG

Like Stalin’s kulaks in the Soviet Union and what Marxists describe as petite bourgeoisie, America’s small business owners have become a target, only in this case a target of the Democratic Tax Machine. The problem is that when it comes to taxes, a lot of small business owners report profits on their personal income tax return, which means that they have to pay Obama’s higher taxes. Obama’s tax plan, in this respect and others, is counter intuitive when you take into account the recession we are in; we need to strengthen entrepreneurial activity and small business which employs over half of the US workforce as I wrote a month ago. Add to the higher direct tax on business revenues the higher energy costs and capital gains taxes on those who reinvest their profits in the market and we have a significantly increased burden on small businesses.

Of course, not all small businesses will be affected, but the National Federation of Independent Business took a poll and found that approximately 15% of small businesses will be affected, particularly the most successful ones with the most employees. While liberals may look down their noses at Republicans who believe in “trickle down economics,” I am sure that they would not dispute the fact that when the cost of business goes up, management tends to “downsize” or in layman’s terms: cut back hours and lay people off. This chain email presents it perfectly. Trickle down taxation turns into trickle down unemployment.

-AG

Remember, that this whole mess of Taliban invading Buner, killing a Pakistani police officer, and Pakistan retaliating by attacking an area with only modest militant activity started right after the Pakistani government surrendered to the demands of the Taliban. Well, now the Taliban say that their “deal” is “worthless” after the Pakistani armed forces used helicopters and artillery in the Lower Dir region looking for militants who were hiding out. The Taliban stronghold is the Swat Valley bordering Afghanistan but Pakistan is currently simply trying to contain them there by finding Taliban militants in neighboring districts. Operation Taliban Whac-a-Mole continuing splendidly.

The lesson? Appeasement does not work.

On cue, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari used this opportunity to ask for aid money in order to defeat the Taliban. I think (like Hillary Clinton) that Pakistan is not taking this threat seriously, especially in light of the fact that the Pakistani military has been training for war with India which allegedly included the training of guerrillas in Kashmir. I think they are well-equipped to deal with an insurgency on their own soil, especially one without popular support in the rest of Pakistan. Like I have said before, it is in the interest of Pakistan’s enemies (e.g. India) for Pakistan to stay in a state of civil war… so I would assume that if Pakistan’s leadership was interested in joining the rest of the regional and world powers then they would put their serious faces on and strike at the heart of the Taliban instead of the periphery. As an inducement, the US could offer aid money, but only AFTER the Pakistani army is neck deep in fighting the Taliban.

-AG

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, a Hugo Chavez friend and Latin leftist leader, handily won re-election yesterday. The election comes after the establishment of a new Constitution, the favorite move of leftists as soon as they assume power, that consolidates more power in the executive, extends term limits, and, interestingly enough, drafts the first bill of rights for the environment. The new constitution was drafted by an assembly whose vast majority belonged to Correa’s political party (Alianza PAIS). This president now has the power to dissolve congress within the first three years of its four-year term, rule by decree when congress is dissolved (until new congress in place), run for another term in 2013, and allow him to directly control monetary policy. Here’s an image on his website:

“Hasta la Victoria Siempre” translates to “Until Victory Always” and is a universal communist slogan

Here it is on a Cuban mural

This is yet another Latin American country that has had its political system hijacked and remade by self-described socialists. Correa has already racked up an impressive little resume by Marxist standards. His hits include: defaulting on the national debt (he said that he would not pay because the debt is “illegitimate"), nationalizing tv stations, aligning himself with Venezuela and Iran, allegedly aiding communist guerrillas fighting in neighboring Colombia, and not allowing American use of Manta air base after lease expires in 2009 (Correa offered it to China instead).

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has been fighting communist guerrillas that take refuge in Correa’s Ecuador and Chavez’s Venezuela

This just goes to show that ignoring the rise of what can now definitely be described as Latin socialism will only result in a continued “domino effect” across the region. While at the moment, there is no direct military threat, these nations are starting to ramp up military spending and have been invited China and Russia into this hemisphere. In the long-run, it would be better to have our own neighbors on our side than give any other world power an opening.

For now we can expect Correa’s brand of socialism to be more moderate than Chavez’s but with an economic system based on antagonizing any sort of foreign investment, cancelling the national debt, and unstable due to expropriations and renegotiation of contracts with foreign firms, we cannot be sure that a more radical Correa won’t emerge if things start looking bad. Latin America has come to believe that democracy and free markets are not desirable because of the rampant corruption that plagued the systems of government in the past. Once they experience what militant socialism has to offer: poverty, rationing, authoritarianism, and wholesale repression of human rights, they will come to know that freedom, while imperfect, is the best state for mankind.

Oh and curiously enough, Ecuador’s vice-president’s first name is “Lenin"… then again, our president’s middle name is “Hussein"… two leaders that advocated extreme government intervention or control. I guess citizens of free countries miss the warning signs out of tolerance.

-AG

I was thinking of giving Obama a progress report on his first 100 days, but I felt that it is far too premature to judge his actions and their consequences. All in all, Obama has strong-armed Congress with his domestic policies and weak-armed tyrants and terrorists with his foreign policy. Since his domestic policies involve the expansion of federal government, increased spending, and increased taxation (during a recession), I disagree with both internal and external policies. Though I think that my restraint in judging Obama prematurely is a virtue, the mainstream media has no such illusions. The judgments passed these first hundred days have reinforced the view that the current president has enlisted the media as a personal PR machine.

Here’s a few examples:

1) Newsweek opens one article with “he’s in league, so far, with FDR and LBJ” and another article is titled “The Halo Holds“

2)On MSNBC, Howard Fineman delivers a roughly 900 word ode to the president’s “Coolness” without even mentioning the word “policy” (not once, look it up if you don’t believe me).

3) CNN’s John King barely mentions anything that Obama has done wrong and cites the various legislative proposals rammed through Congress by a one-party controlled government as major accomplishments. The broken promises on bipartisanship, on transparency, the foreign policy weakness, and the increases in taxes are not referenced.

The list is longer of course, with a lot to come since the actual 100-day will be hit on April 29th. The media has mainly been concentrating on certain Republican remarks rather than Republican policy proposals: seizing on Rush Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” comments and making a quiet mention of Republican budget proposals to counter the borrow-tax-spend Democratic budget. The media worried more about how Republicans would back ever-increasing government and more taxation, instead of asking whether these things were inherently good in themselves.

On top of that, the media scarcely mentioned the specifics of Obama’s original proposals that included so much un-stimulative special project spending showing that the Democrats were more interested in scoring political points and paying special groups that helped get them into power than with actually stimulating anything. On the other hand, the media keeps repeating over and over the White House line that the Stimulus Package was full of infrastructure spending while in reality it is not so bold. Caterpillar Inc. CFO Dave Buritt says that China is doing much better with regards to infrastructure spending, approximately three times what the US is spending.

The media’s “objectivity” was woefully missing during the campaign and seems to have continued into the presidency as well. Unfortunately, the only thing that will shock the media out of the Obama-hypnosis is a major mistake. While I hope that does not happen, it just goes to show that in today’s world: “image is everything.”

-AG

Since invading the Buner district, 60 miles away from Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, Pakistani troops have been pouring into the region in order to contain what is being perceived as an invasion. The Taliban insist that they are carrying out a non-violent preaching campaign, but there was at least one confirmed dead during a skirmish between Pakistani forces and the radicals. A few days ago, a prominent Muslim cleric who helped draft the cease-fire agreement that imposed Islamic law on the Swat Valley area in exchange for cessation of hostilities asked the Taliban to leave the Buner district. The Taliban complied.

Today, Pakistan launched an offensive in the district of Lower Dir where Taliban militants have been increasing their presence. Dir is itself covered under the cease-fire deal that imposes Islamic law. Pakistan insists that the presence of militants will not be tolerated and that they should lay down their arms in accordance with the deal that gave in to their demands. The government insists that in spite of this new offensive, the peace deal is still intact.

It is about time that the Pakistani government took off the gloves in dealing with the Taliban. They should be careful not to enter into a prolonged guerrilla conflict which will only further destabilize this nuclear-armed country, but to allow the militants to swarm other districts and impose martial law is not acceptable. The war in Afghanistan is being fueled by Taliban safe havens in Pakistan and elements of Al Qaeda are currently hiding there. Victory will not be possible without stopping terrorist and militant operations in that region… which means that either Pakistan handles it or Pakistan must let the USA handle it. I prefer the former.

-AG

But don’t think that the war is over. The president that thinks that small town people get bitter and “cling to guns” and made it his priority to make permanent gun control laws, has realized that he probably bit off more than the American people can chew in these first few months. Already America will be forced to pay higher energy taxes, pay higher energy costs due to a “cap-and-trade” interventionist policy, pay higher tobacco taxes, pay higher capital gains taxes, pay a higher “death tax” (the tax was supposed to drop to zero next year, instead Obama has kept it at 45%), and pay trillions more to “bailout” Wall Street and fund the Democrats entitlement programs. Add to that a foreign policy that some people characterize as soft on terror and soft on tyranny and we have an administration that has “changed” America’s strategy of projecting power and stimulating free enterprise to a strategy of “playing nice” and increasing government economic intervention. Obama has not succeeded in implementing this strategy completely but he has started veering us in that direction. Fortunately, since we are still a nation where our voices count somewhat, Obama and attorney general Eric Holder seem to have backed off from their previous gun control goals, primary amongst them the assault weapons ban. At a time when liberals have been relentlessly attacking conservatives and constitutionalists, their push to change the spirit of American freedom is finally showing signs of strain. It’s about time we got some good news.

The fate of the Second Amendment was looking bleak as a recent string of shootings by deranged individuals and reports that Mexico’s drug violence was being fueled by weapons smuggled from the US were used by liberal elements in the media to push for gun control. The only sign that the government was not going full-force against the second amendment was the Supreme Court ruling that reasserted the right of individuals to own guns rather than just organized militias. Apparently, even though the liberals are in control of Congress, they do not have the support to restrict the right to bear arms which means that two government branches are not willing to pursue this agenda. That leaves the Obama administration with little to no chance that any aggressive restrictions on the second amendment will be enacted for the next couple of years. This does not mean that the administration won’t try to place restrictions one way or another, but it is a victory for Americans who believe that this right is necessary for freedom to endure. And to those who do not believe that it is vital to democracy, here’s what Lara Croft thinks:

-AG

America agrees with these two assertions:

1) Torture is unacceptable.
2) Mass murder is unacceptable.

The question is: what happens when faced with the choice between preventing mass murder by torturing a terrorist suspect or allowing mass murder by not applying enough pressure? The Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9-11, toed and crossed the line on torture in order to get valuable information from captured terrorist suspects. At the time, America was more worried about security than the legal and moral implications of using excessive force during the interrogation of terrorist suspects. The country was in a “do whatever is necessary” frame of mind… but after Al Qaeda was stomped in Afghanistan, their top leadership in hiding, captured, or killed, and with no further terrorist attacks on the United States, the general public started to question if the ends justified the means in this war on terror.

A lot of “good” people around the world can make the argument that the comfort of one person is not more valuable than the lives of countless of innocents. Of course, in practice that “one person” becomes “some persons” only to eventually mean “any person.” So where do we draw the line? Personally I believe, as did the Founding Fathers, that the United States should never engage in torture, but I have no tears for the terrorists who were waterboarded. As a matter of conscience, I believe that waterboarding is wrong because it is a form of torture that causes physical harm (damage to respiratory system by introduction of liquid) to the “torturee.”

The current issue is whether or not we should prosecute anyone involved in the facilitation or practice of torture. Obama has giving conflicting indications of what he would be willing to do, first he wanted to look into possible crimes committed, then he told the CIA that he would not seek the prosecution of operatives engaged in “enhanced interrogation,” only to later say that he was leaving the door open to prosecution of Bush administration officials who were involved, only to later back away from this idea saying he wants to look forward not backward. A bit confusing. In a way I feel bad for Obama, because he has to figure out a way to serve justice without damaging America’s security.

Right now, members of both parties are scrambling to find out who knew what and when because the reality is that Congress did not raise significant objections to this policy during the years that it was employed. It is known that these methods were described in detail to members of both parties as reported here. The truth is that the government erred on the side of security and to go back and prosecute those who were acting in the best interest of this country may not be the most productive action for us to take. The timing of the release of these memos was particularly bad. At this time of war, releasing these memos will only serve as a powerful recruitment tool for terrorist organizations and give the moderate elements in Islamic society a reason to side with them.

While I believe that the truth should come out, Americans should first take into account what it will do to the men and women serving overseas when the non-radical elements of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are privy to memos detailing how the United States engaged in torturing their brethren. America must not stray from its founding principles though and I do agree that some sort of investigation should be conducted because truth is necessary for a healthy democracy, we should just be sure that the timing is right.

To be sure though, the prosecution of Bush administration officials for a policy that is deemed illegal will create a nightmare scenario for our system of government. What would have happened if Lincoln’s administration was prosecuted for the times that it suspended habeas corpus and the first amendment in the name of national security? Or when Ulysses S. Grant suspended habeas corpus in order to fight the Ku Klux Klan? Or when Franklin Delano Roosevelt interned Japanese-Americans during WWII? There are countless decisions made by different administrations that can be deemed illegal after the fact and if the president, when faced with a crisis, could not react due to fear of prosecution of himself/herself or his/her administration then this nation would cease to exist. While in many cases, the excesses were unwarranted or unnecessary, to limit an administration through fear would severely undermine national security. The current administration cannot seriously prosecute the previous administration over policy differences, only in clear instances where the law was violated or where people went outside the scope of what was deemed legal at the time. I say let there be a truth commission but not a witch-hunt and absolutely not a partisan political circus where Democrats parade Republicans in front of Congressional hearings. The last thing we need is to surrender government to the whims of people who would rather witness this:

than witness this:

-AG

Abdirahman Mohamed Farole, the elected leader of a semi-autonomous region of Somalia called Puntland, was recently interviewed by Newsweek and gave his opinions on the recent uptick in piracy coming from his country. His advice was simple, giving in to the ransom demands will only strengthen the pirates, instead we must fight them. Of course, he took this opportunity to ask for international aid in order to fund an effective Somali Coast Guard that can deal with the pirates and with illegal fishing that occurs off their shores. In all, his statements, from the source of piracy, are a sober appraisal of this current crisis and how we can fix it.

On this point, I will give Obama some credit. In this case he pledged to crack down on piracy by using the military, international support, and stabilizing the Somali government. I only wish he would crack down on terrorism, communism, anti-Americanism, and nuclear proliferation by taking a similar approach instead of his usual foreign policy prescription: “listening,” bowing, criticizing America, direct talks without preconditions, and unilateral concessions.

Another idea floated by Ron Paul is to issue “letters of marque and reprisal” which allow the government to hire private citizens to act like bounty hunters in international waters and collect bounty for taking out pirates. It’s an intriguing idea and might serve as the best solution in terms of a way to get the government to spend less on military matters, but I don’t think it can work. The pirates have made piracy their lifestyle, if private commercial ships start carrying guns, the pirates will carry rocket-propelled grenades. if the private ships respond in kind, then you’ll have more pirate ships attacking from multiple vectors… and each escalation will make the pirates more and more sophisticated and effective, making the less guarded ships big soft targets. In the end, only a proper navy will be able to deal with such a threat… but that’s my opinion, and it looks like it’s Obama’s opinion too. In the spirit of fairness, here’s Ron Paul pitching his idea:

-AG

In February of this year, The Pakistani government decided that the best way to deal with the Taliban in the (ungoverned) Swat Valley was to engage in diplomacy with them. Instead of going after them or asking the US to help eliminate them, the Pakistan government signed a cease-fire agreement where they agree to allow Taliban-style laws in exchange for an end to terrorism. In essence, this can be described as “appeasement.” So guess what happened?

The Taliban decided that it would be a good idea to spread their influence to the neighboring Buner district which is 60 miles from the capital. Pakistani troops have been mobilized to secure the area but have been met with gunfire and resistance. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “I think the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists” and that the Obama administration was trying to convince the Pakistani government that the more imminent threat came from Islamic extremists rather than India. These events continue to show us that a foreign policy that relies too heavily on reasoning with the unreasonable is destined to fail. Oddly enough, the Obama administration, while it condemns Pakistan for talking to the Taliban, is pursuing a strategy of talking to the “moderate” Taliban in Afghanistan. So I ask, when is it acceptable to negotiate with terrorists?

The answer is never. The Obama administration’s foreign policy should take a lesson from what is happening today in Pakistan and realize that excessively focusing on diplomacy is dangerous when you are dealing with dictatorial regimes or terrorists whose only motivation is to bog the United States down, either in guerrilla war or in negotiations. The effective answer to terrorism is twofold: military neutralization and ideological opposition. In order to castrate a terrorist organization, we must cut off its potential to grow by emphasizing how destructive their ideology is and we must strike at the organization itself. Pursuing a policy of diplomacy with an enemy whose divine mission is to spread their perverted version of Islam by the sword will cause the loss of more American lives and threatened peace around the world. Now we can only wait and see what Pakistan’s soft approach to terror will lead to… and with Pakistan having an arsenal of nuclear weapons, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

-AG

The reclusive and ailing absolute dictator of Cuba, Fidel Castro, today published an essay where he indicates that US president Obama misrepresented his brother’s (Raul Castro’s) offer to hold direct talks with the United States. He asserts that those that we call “political prisoners” are, in his words, actually agents “in the service of a foreign power that threatens and blockades our homeland.” While Fidel Castro may be insinuating that he is unwilling to negotiate with them, in reality, he is just stating the official policy of the communist regime with regards to political prisoners and letting Obama know that a) the Cuban regime does not recognize them as political prisoners and b) they will be treated as agents of a foreign enemy.

I expect that any negotiations having to do with these political prisoners may require either an implicit or explicit admission by the United States that they (the prisoners) were in fact agents of the US. Castro will settle for exiling them, as he has done in the past. In essence, Castro is educating Obama on how to refer to Cuba’s political prisoners while reiterating that they are willing to exchange their prisoners for the five convicted spies that the US currently holds. Castro also criticized Obama for not doing more to lift the embargo.

Obama must stop using gentle tones and unilateral concessions in dealing with this dictatorship that only wants to eliminate the threats to their communist system by jailing and exiling pro-democracy activists. It is counter-productive… and it’s embarrassing.

Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) describes recent US “embarrassment”

-AG

Recently it was revealed that firms that were “bailed out” by the federal government have been spending millions to lobby the government to ease the restrictions on the use of that money. While this is not surprising to most who understand the system of Corporate Socialism in this country, some people have been having a hard time understanding this system. Here’s a tutorial:

Let’s say you are a huge company in the United States and you contribute to what is being called the Great Recession. Things couldn’t be looking better for you. Here’s how it works:

- First: your business practices and the market climate bring you to the brink of bankruptcy

- Second: fortunately the millions that you spent on lobbying government officials makes them “sympathetic” to your irresponsibility

- Third: the United States government swoops in and hands you and your buddies billions of dollars in “bailout funds” (taxpayer dollars)

- Fourth: you use this money as operational capital, including, but not limited to, paying yourself millions in bonuses and millions in lobbying

- Fifth: the millions that you spent on lobbying government officials makes them “sympathetic” to your irresponsibility

- Sixth: the United States government helps side-step the rules attached to the bailout funds to make it easier to use the bailouts at your discretion

etc. etc. etc.

In a nutshell see this graphic:

While the left will point to capitalism as the culprit, they could not be further from the truth. The system of Corporate Socialism provides a way to avoid the boom-and-bust cycles of the free market. Free market capitalism does not prescribe for excessive government intervention in the form of bailouts and preferential regulation. In socialist countries they use the wealth of the people to benefit the communist/socialist government and their state-funded enterprises, while the system we have now uses the wealth of the people to benefit the government and wall street. Interestingly enough, the large portion of the financial sector recently became “state-funded,” bringing us closer and closer to a true socialist model. We need to return to the free market and unleash America’s entrepreneurial spirit… not continue bailing out irresponsible behavior.

-AG

In a display of true dedication to their cause, a Cuban human rights activist, Elizardo Sanchez of the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and Reconciliation, has expressed that most of the political prisoners held in Cuba would rather serve out their long and unjustified sentences than be exchanged for Cuban spies being currently held by the United States. He is in frequent contact with political prisoners and their families in Cuba. This swap was suggested by Cuban “president” Raul Castro in response to Obama’s recent easing of restrictions on the regime and comments indicating the possibility of normalized relations between the two nations. These Cuban spies were implicated in the 1996 murder of American citizens and residents in international waters by the Cuban air force.

Elizardo Sanchez

As in the previous post, playing this game with the Castro regime will only raise the value of imprisoning people for political reasons and may backfire in the long run. Obama should demand the release of all political prisoners in Cuba (and around the world) without preconditions and immediately dismiss the idea of any sort of prisoner swap. America must help those that struggle for freedom through non-violence instead of unilaterally adopting policies that end up giving dollars to anti-American dictatorships. Let’s hope our president listens.

-AG

The FBI has added another suspect to their “Most Wanted” list. The suspect:

- wanted for bombings of two corporate offices in 2003
- member of a group called “Revolutionary Cells”
- has tattoo that says “it only takes a spark”
- may be living in Costa Rica

Oh, and did I mention, he’s a US citizen, a LEFT-WING extremist fighting for animal rights and a vegan.

Daniel Andreas San Diego, animal rights terrorist

The ironic thing is that the Department of Homeland Security recently published a report of threats that specifically pointed to war veterans who might be susceptible to RIGHT-WING extremism and violence. It points to pro-life groups, veterans, and supporters of gun rights. In its assessment of left-wing groups, they point to “cyber attacks” and attacks on property rather than violence. The left-wing assessment specifically references certain eco-terrorist and radical groups, it does not point to entire classes of American citizens (veterans, second amendment supporters aka Federalists or Constitutionalists, etc.). It’s absurd that under this administration we would have right-wing groups singled out while in reality, left-wing extremism is just as dangerous.

We should get back to focusing on violent extremists in general, regardless of ideology, that seek to disrupt or remake American society by any means necessary. Witch-hunts directed at American citizens because of their political beliefs is treasonous in my view and goes against our first amendment rights.

On a personal note, if the right-wing believes in life, liberty, love of country, and security for America, then I will gladly proclaim myself to be a RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST.

Remember that this guy was too…

-AG

The current president yesterday said that Raul Castro’s offer to be willing to discuss the fate of political prisoners was “a sign of progress.” That is exactly was Castro wants.

People in Washington are confused about the communist regime in Cuba. Whenever Cuba wants to negotiate, they are looking for substantial concessions from the United States. They want to score nationalistic political points by getting us to give in to their demands for the release of Cuban spies. They want the United States to start sending over dollars in the form of remittances and aid. They want trade credits so they can buy without putting up cash… ever. They want an end to the embargo so we can send over tourists, just as long as we don’t try to mess up the little gulag-setup they have on the island… and with this recent statement of praise from President Obama, it looks like we’ve taken the bait.

It’s a sweet deal for Cuba… because now it looks like they can use political prisoners as bargaining chips. Right now on the table we have a few hundred political prisoners… at least that’s what the Castros would have you think. In reality, Cuba’s laws prohibit just about everything in terms of human rights, meaning that technically, Cuba has more than 11 million political prisoners. With laws such as “dangerousness” and “counter-revolutionary activities,” the communist regime can charge any citizen that does, says, or thinks anything deemed dangerous to the dictatorship, and since the United States president has just raised the value of imprisoning someone for political reasons, it has just become more profitable to crackdown on the non-violent, pro-democracy activists on the island. Their subversive activities? Staging hunger strikes, marching, protesting in front of government offices, discussing human rights, hanging the Cuban flag upside down, and discussing human rights, amongst other things.

“Las Damas de Blanco” Activist Group’s March

Obama has done a disservice to Cuba by hinting that exchanging political prisoners for some degree of normalization is possible. I hope the president demands the release of all political prisoners simply because it is a violation of human rights, not as a quid pro quo… otherwise, the American people may end up paying a steep price for each of the Castros’ 11 million hostages.

Not to mention the pain it would inflict on the Cuban people.

-AG

Dear Mr. President,

In light of your current policy shift towards Cuba, I would like to offer the perspective of some of us, Cuban-Americans, who have a great deal of first and second-hand information about the current situation in Cuba. The unilateral move taken by your administration seems to be based on a humanitarian concern, but unfortunately I, as well as many other persons, disagree with this concession to the Castro dictatorship.

My primary concern is that this move is unilateral and what it effectively accomplishes is nothing less then enrich the Cuban government while doing very little with respect to human rights violations in Cuba. In particular, this policy does nothing to help the political prisoners now languishing in Cuban jails simply for expressing their opinions. How will you explain this new approach to Dr. Oscar Elías Biscet, a prominent political prisoner currently serving a 25-year sentence for meeting with human rights activists?

Dr. Biscet has been arrested numerous times for his non-violent protest of human rights violations and for his protest of abortion in Cuba. The last time he was arrested was in December 2002 while going to meet activists that were planning a non-violent protest. He was sentenced to 25 years for “disorderly conduct” and “counter-revolutionary activities.” Since his arrest, he has been beaten, tortured, and kept in special cells called “tapiadas” which are small, humid cells with no light. He was kept in these cells for 8 months. In spite of these hardships, Dr. Biscet refuses to wear the uniform of common prisoners and remains in high spirits knowing that his cause is just. What do we tell him and others like him about what the United States of America is doing to help them?

Replica of Dr. Biscet’s Cell

How can we justify unilaterally easing restrictions on this dictatorship? Why did you not ask for the release of political prisoners as a precondition? Why must those who ask for freedom suffer while the oppressors get to enjoy more economic engagement with the United States?

I hope you will respond and explain your rationale and how it will ultimately help the cause of freedom in Cuba. Hopefully, the answer is not that you simply don’t care.

Sincerely Yours,
AG

Bowing to kings… offering “new beginnings” to communist dictators… and shaking hands with Hugo Chavez. All in a days’ work for Obama. In the meantime, Iranian nuclear development continues undeterred and North Korea restarts its nuke program. The long-term repercussions of nuclear armed rogue states will be catastrophic for the United States, just as will be economic assistance to our long-time enemies such as communist Cuba.

Just today, Venezuelan strongman (president) Hugo Chavez, who has actively sought to undermine the United States all over Latin America, told Obama: “I want to be your friend.” Once again, the enemies of freedom have posed for a photo-op with the world’s most famous person, all smiles and holding hands. I’d rather get shoes thrown at me. What would it mean if the United States became part of the Chavez-Castro axis? I can only suppose that it would mean the victory of Bolivarian Socialism in the Western Hemisphere and the end of American liberty. We already have a rash of nationalization occurring before our very eyes. We already have one-party rule in Washington. We already are passing a budget that redistributes wealth and punishes productivity.

At least we still have the right to vote and petition the government for grievances… I urge all Americans to exercise this right as much as possible before it’s too late.

-AG

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued this statement in response to the sentencing of Roxana Saberi to 8 years for allegedly spying:

“I am deeply disappointed by the reported sentencing of Roxana Saberi by the Iranian judiciary… we will continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government.”

Deeply disappointed? When my cereal gets soggy I get deeply disappointed… not when journalists are imprisoned by rogue nations developing nuclear weapons.

I remember a time when an American president stood up to an evil empire and boldly commanded a dictator:

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!“

Two years later, the wall came down… That’s change I can believe in.

-AG

Since the end of the U.S.-muscle era (pre-Obama), anti-American forces around the world have experienced a resurgence. The list is growing, but here’s some of what’s been happening:

- North Korea detains two American journalists for alleged spying
- North Korea kicks out nuclear experts and inspectors and restarts nuclear development
- North Korea fires off rocket over Japan in defiance of international pressure
- Russia threatens to deploy missiles in Eastern Europe
- Russia pays Kyrgyzstan to evict U.S. base that supports our troops in Afghanistan
- Somali pirates attack two American ships
Etc. etc. etc.

Roxana Saberi, Iranian-American Journalist

The latest slap in the face to the United States comes from Iran, where a U.S. journalist was sentenced to 8 years for alleged espionage. In spite of the fact that Obama has been making moves towards direct talks with Iran, for the first time ever they imprisoned an American journalist for these charges. The “trial” occurred over the course of one day and behind closed doors. Of course, the U.S. response was: this was “certainly not helpful.” That’s the best they could come up with at the State Department. The administration needs to wake up before our enemies escalate… innocent American civilians are being targeted abroad and it doesn’t look like Obama is doing anything except trying to make friends with dictators. This needs to stop.

-AG

Yesterday, Barack Obama offered his hand in friendship to the totalitarian dictatorship in Cuba. Apparently, the current administration is willing to forget the decades of Cuban-sponsored guerilla war in Latin America. Apparently, the United States is willing to forget the cold-blooded murder of American citizens and residents over international waters that occurred during the “Brothers to the Rescue Shootdown” in 1996. Obama seems all too willing to forget the suffering of the American people in order to fulfill his agenda. He does not put any preconditions on meeting with Castro, not even for an apology for the murder of our citizens.

It was ironic that Obama said these remarks on the 48th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion, when Cuban exiles tried to take back their country from the communist grip… or maybe it was planned. When the invasion took place, the exile brigade was awaiting air support from the United States, but the Kennedy administration refused to send the planes, and after a few days, the communists defeated the pro-democracy forces. This created the foundation for a Republican Cuban-American community and a deep mistrust of the Democrats. Even then, the Democrats had no stomach for a fight with communism, a fight that freedom would and will invariably win… but Cuban-Americans have long suspected that the ideological similarity between the dictators in Cuba and the demagogues in the Democratic Party is the real culprit. Obama has shown a propensity towards softness in foreign policy and disrespect of America; not to mention that Obama chooses as one of his political heroes to be John F. Kennedy. Obama has betrayed the idea of freedom in Cuba… and spit in the face of the Americans who were gunned down by the Castro regime on February 24, 1996: Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre Jr., Mario de la Peña, and Pablo Morales.

-AG

Today, North Korea took the not-so-surprising move of asking United States nuclear experts to leave the country. They have also expelled IAEA inspectors from their Yongbyon nuclear plant. This was after they decided to withdraw from the six-party talks on Tuesday while calling for bilateral talks with the US. They have declared to the world that they will restart their nuclear program. It looks like Kim Jong Il’s temper tantrum has gone beyond threatening to turn South Korea into “debris” and launching rockets.

It is interesting to note that at a time when the current administration is considering meeting Iran without preconditions (though today they denied it as reported here) and has softened its policy towards the Cuban dictatorship, another dictatorship takes the bold step of kicking out inspectors and restarting its nuclear program while demanding bilateral talks. Actually, that’s not so interesting… it’s expected. These nations have realized that all they need to do is keep the pressure up and the current government will cave in to their demands… or they will drag out the issue for years, essentially running out the clock, while they develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. It seems that the administration’s new softer, kinder, gentler approach to foreign policy is not paying off… in fact it is merely emboldening the enemy. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

-AG

Yesterday’s debate between David Rivera, Republican Florida State Representative, and Joe Garcia, former executive director of the Cuban-American National Foundation, on CNN was nothing short of a good old-fashioned left-wing beat-down of the conservative on national television. Forget the facts, forget fairness, and forget the truth, Joe Garcia (Enron Joe, nickname he picked up during a failed run for the US House of Representatives) and Roland Martin, the host, took turns firing shots at Rivera and the hard-line position with the same old liberal slogans. The debate was going okay until Rivera committed the mortal sin in our current political climate: he criticized president Obama. Unfortunately, Rivera misspoke and said that Obama promised to bow down to dictators, he later corrected himself after Martin pressed him. True, Obama did not promise he would bow to dictators… he actually did:

At least he didn’t kiss the monarch’s feet. America was forged in the fires of a war against monarchy and tyranny… bowing to monarchs is not an American value and should never be.

Back to the debate. The main issue is what Rivera identified during the debate: Obama unilaterally eased restrictions without any concessions from the other side. Obama’s response to tyranny seems to be to give in to demands without preconditions. Garcia’s position, boosted by the apparent and stated bias of host Roland Martin (before the guests appeared, he asked if US-Cuba policy was contradictory/hypocritical), was the same old line that this is a failed policy. To his credit, he delivered his position with relative clarity and Garcia even got to whack the big, bright political piñata that is the Bush administration. The blogosphere is touting Garcia’s victory over David Rivera… and sadly, I must agree. It does not take a lot of mental gymnastics to support a policy that targets dictators, contains communism, and takes a moral stand against human rights violators, but it looks like Rivera was not up to the task. On the other hand, it is much harder to defend Obama’s unilateral action that effectively puts billions of dollars into dictators’ pockets, but Garcia’s many years of infiltrating Cuban-American politics with his brand of double-speak, that ultimately justifies incremental surrender, was more than able to defend the policy of giving funds to Castro. Sad.

The communist dictators do not want to concede anything and won’t. Yesterday, a religious watchdog organization was denied visas to Cuba, even after Obama eased restrictions. The regime doesn’t want anyone on the island that will actually report on the state of human rights, they only want tourists and American dollars.

My position is to strangle the regime and directly fund the pro-democracy groups on the island, neither can work alone. It is pitiful that the liberal elements have been able to keep Cuba policy at mere half-measures… and now they are using the failure of these half-measures as justification for completely capitulating to the communist regime’s demands. It’s no surprise that Joe Garcia’s Cuban-American National Foundation has stopped taking a tough stand against Castro… the Cuban-American community should send a message to this organization that a policy that treats the dictators nicely is not in the best interest of freedom… and that Enron Joe has got to go.

-AG

As expected, Castro’s response to the unilateral easing of restrictions on travel and remittances was: “not enough.” Not surprising. President Obama took the unwise step of putting more money in the communist regime’s pockets without asking for anything in return, essentially putting Castro’s interests above U.S. interests. Heckuva chief of state we have. Sure that Obama claims that it helps U.S. interests/citizens, but I do not see how sending money to a hostile regime is in America’s best interest. What’s the return we get on that money? There’s no free enterprise in Cuba, there’s no transaction that doesn’t eventually make its way to the government treasury, and worst of all there it makes the communist repressive machine more efficient. At the very least Obama could have asked for a “thank you,” but no; the liberals are content with helping prop up a regime that embodies what they preach: wholesale redistribution of wealth (or whatever can be considered “wealth” after they’re through with their war on free enterprise).

So far, the new administration has not decided to lift the embargo… but if we are not careful Castro’s lobbying efforts might finally prove more effective than the Cuban-American community’s, possibly because one of the most prominent exile groups has softened their position (see previous post) and decided that opposing and containing communism is not the best strategy. Our very own congressmen and women are lobbying on Castro’s behalf. In the meantime, political prisoners languish in Cuban jails simply for asking for freedom… why not lobby for Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet (25-year sentence for discussing human rights)? Why not lobby for the rights of political prisoners languishing in jail for organizing petitions calling for democratic reforms?

Reading the Miami Herald, one would think that they are being subsidized by Castro-apologists… well at least one columnist: Carl Hiaasen . His recent article about CANF’s about-face, stinks of revisionist history and head-in-the-sand analysis. He claims that the U.S. has been pursuing a “fruitless course of trying to isolate Cuba.” Fruitless? Name one other full blown communist country in Latin America. Can’t do it can you? The best that Castro can do is inspire a would-be dictator who still needs to work through a democratic process (albeit a seriously compromised one) in Venezuela. Hiaasen can’t be that ignorant of our current world, so I chalk this statement up to him being a mouthpiece for the communist regime or at least of subscribing to their dystopian worldview. Hiaasen goes further in pointing out U.S. hypocrisy with respect to other dictatorships such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Libya… wow… one needs only to read my earlier posts to realize the folly of this assertion:

Some “Benefits” of Trade with Hostile Regimes:

China- involved in extensive cyber espionage, defends North Korea against sanctions in the U.N., steals U.S. nuclear secrets, violent/deadly suppression of Tibetan protests during the Olympics, largest holder of U.S. treasury securities, etc.

Russia- extensive arms sales to anti-American countries, threatened to restart arms race (over the proposed missile shield), shuts down energy flow to allied countries, defends Iranian nuclear development, bribing countries to shut down U.S. bases, etc. (see previous post)

Saudi Arabia- home to all 911 hijackers, large holder of U.S. treasury securities, etc. (see previous post for more complete analysis)

With regards to Libya, the used to be a sponsor of terrorism and finally surrendered to international pressure in renouncing terrorism, paying reparations to victims, and halting WMD programs. These concessions on the part of Libya came after many years of international pressure and unilateral U.S. air strikes that ended up killing the dictator’s daughter. While they still violate human rights, the combined carrot and stick strategy has produced results. What Hiaasen is advocating with Cuba is that easing trade restrictions will by itself cause freedom to magically spring up. In general, all of the countries that Hiaasen mentioned are current threats to national security… and Cuba, which has limited trade with us, is NOT a substantial threat. Point well taken, Carl, if we trade with Cuba then they become like these other countries. I think I’ll pass. It’s incredibly naive to think that with more funds, the communist regime will come to its senses and bring democracy to the people.

Go back to writing children’s books, Carl, because it looks like these fairy tales are getting to your head.

There you have it: Castro’s tentacles reaching into the Oval Office, Congress, and the media. This is only the beginning of Fidel Castro’s influence over Washington… We must resist the idea that we can negotiate with tyranny. America has never been fooled by it before, why start now?

-AG

The Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF) was founded in 1981 by Jorge Mas Canosa and for the purpose of advancing freedom and democracy in Cuba, a communist controlled island 90 miles south of the United States. The group, under Mas Canosa’s direction, pushed for a strategy of isolating the regime while helping the Cuban people generate change on the island. The strategy included policies such as the embargo and programs such as Radio Marti and TV Marti that transmitted pro-democracy messages directly to the people of Cuba, bypassing the official censored communist media. Mas Canosa’s leadership helped shape U.S. foreign policy to Cuba and contributed in isolating communism to this island during a critical time in the Cold War and after. He passed away on November 23, 1997 due to lung cancer.

Today, CANF is a very different organization. Since the death of Mas Canosa, there has been what some describe as a softening of their positions and what other describe as a more pragmatic approach. In general, I have hoped that this group would take a stronger stance and hold policy-makers in Washington more accountable to their promises of helping Cuba rid itself of totalitarian communism. For too long, both Republicans and Democrats would travel to Miami promising to stand up to Castro and to help bring democracy to the island while sipping Cuban coffee and yelling “Cuba Libre,” all without the intention of doing anything of significance. Unfortunately, the organization seems to have lost the fire in its belly and I can cite no constructive policy coming out of Washington with their stamp. Even Bush’s restrictions did not directly bring Cuba significantly closer to freedom. Worse, a few days ago the Cuban-American National Foundation released recommendations on US-Cuba Policy that explicitly calls for ending direct confrontation with the communist regime, to engage in limited bilateral/multilateral diplomacy, and to relax our policy of containment. In other words, CANF has put forward a plan that agrees to everything Fidel Castro wants: normalization of relations, though in an incremental fashion.

In this proposal to the current administration, called the White [flag] Paper, they say that the US policy since the Cold War has been ineffective at promoting our own interests and the interests of the Cuban people. I, as well as many others, disagree. The policy of containment has limited communism to Cuba only. Imagine a western hemisphere with a communist Mexico on our border, or a communist bloc in South America reporting directly to Moscow during the Cold War… it would have been a recipe for disaster and a threat to freedom on this side of the world. The Cuban Missile crisis showed us how dangerous communism could be when brought to our doorstep. Furthermore, the strategy could have been more successful if we actually contained Cuba, but we did no such thing. The embargo only prevented trade between the United States and Cuba, the rest of the world was open for business. Regardless, the communist regime would pilfer the nation’s resources selling them on the world market, denying Cuba citizens the fruits of their labor, and creating a society of haves (the Castro cartel) and have-nots (everyone else). With the Soviet Union in their corner providing them with an immense amount of aid, “containment” was incomplete at best. So when CANF insists that we take a new direction, I would agree if what they advocate is a dual strategy of actual containment coupled with grassroots empowerment. The policy would be simple: weaken the oppressors while strengthening the oppressed. Instead, CANF insists on a strategy that doesn’t put more pressure on the communist rulers but pins its hope on the rationality/understanding of the dictator(s), and I quote: “It requires Cuba’s present rulers, or their successors, to understand that… the incorporation of grassroots reforms demanded by the Cuban people, are absolutely essential to the nation’s future prosperity and stability.” Naive and dangerous.

I understand the spirit of these proposals which insists on supporting the non-violent, pro-democracy dissident movement that is constantly threatened, harassed, beaten, and arbitrarily arrested, but when it comes to US policy towards Cuba, we should not start increasing the prestige, power, and wealth of these dictators. In one form or another, the proposals in this White [flag] Paper give the communist government in Cuba more international legitimacy and more direct funding. I might be willing to accept a little bit of funding to trickle into government coffers if it asymmetrically made the democratic activists stronger… but for this to happen, the communist regime must be under pressure, it must be contained, and it must be challenged at every turn. You cannot do one without the other. This has been the failure of US-Cuba policy, it only pursued quasi-containment and did not assist the resistance on the ground.

Now, a few old battle-weary warriors and young, kumbaya idealists are beating the drums of defeat and leading us down the road to appeasement. As a whole, I reject the White [flag] Paper and only hope that America do the same, particularly the Cuban-American community. As for CANF, I used to proudly carry around my membership card, but since I am foremost a member of a group of free people throughout history who never surrendered, like George Washington and Antonio Maceo, I offer this gesture:

-AG

During the Bush administration, Somali pirates knew that to attack American vessels meant “shock and awe,” or meant “you are either with us or against us,” or meant “bring it on.” With the Obama administration, the Somali pirates reached a different conclusion. With all the talk of meeting and negotiating with dictators, ending rough treatment of terrorist detainees, and taking a less militant approach to the now-defunct “war on terror,” these pirates thought that America had softened up. They were woefully mistaken.

First of all, just because the commander in chief is preaching a softer approach to foreign policy, it does not make America less American. The pirates thought that they could simply take one of our ships, but the crew fought them back. Then they kidnapped the captain as they retreated in a lifeboat, only to have the captain escape by jumping into the middle of the Indian Ocean. The pirates recovered him but not before a guided missile destroyer, a guided missile frigate, and an amphibious assault vessel started to close in on the boat. Once they caught up, during hostage negotiations, snipers killed three out of four pirates, captured the last, and rescued the captain. Mission Accomplished. Obama authorized the rescue attempt in probably the best decision of his presidency thus far.

It was simple really, if you unleash our the best trained military in the world and give them the tools that they need to perform, they will deliver. Our military has overrun countries in weeks time. Casualties on our side have been at historical lows and the better we get, the fewer of our soldiers will be harmed. We are a 21st century military, but we need a 21st century foreign policy to back it up. The image of weakness abroad has already emboldened North Korea, Somali pirates, and Iran has shown no signs of backing down. The best war strategy is to win without firing a single shot… with fanatical terrorists this is not possible, but with more clear-headed adversaries, we can influence their behavior by not giving them the impression that we will never answer with force. I don’t think that this latest event with pirates will convince the world that the Obama administration means business in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, but its a start.

If we do not make it clear to the world that we are willing and able to use the American military without hesitation, then we make such confrontations more likely and we put our soldiers at risk. Even the during the hawkish Bush administration, many countries assumed that we could not send our troops anywhere else in the world because we were “bogged down” in Iraq and Afghanistan, a message that was carried by Al Qaeda, Iran, international news agencies, our own news agencies, and our own politicians. This led Al Qaeda, North Korea, Iran, and Syria to feel safer… that is, until we started carrying out precision strikes in Pakistan, started detaining Iranians in Iraq, and helped Israel bomb Syria. All in a days work and the world took note. Obama should not let his utopian ideas of human nature be seen as weakness in the world. Even now, the pirates are saying that it was just a fluke and have vowed revenge. Hopefully, the current administration will take action to keep America safe… it’s OK to speak softly, but make sure you’re carrying that big stick.

-AG

Politics in America has long been more about image than substance; the current president is an excellent example. A limited or sketchy past, limited or no experience, and a parroting of the liberal agenda is what characterized Obama during his campaign. On the other hand, he has excellent campaign slogans, a killer smile, and is a historical figure (first non-white president). So what if he wants to redistribute wealth, meet dictators without preconditions, and raise taxes across all segments of society (energy taxes, tobacco taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.)? He seems like a nice guy. Hell, he might even do what this lady is suggesting:

This article highlights how the Obama campaign has been absolutely overjoyed with the current feuds that included Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney because of how unfavorably they are viewed by the general public. Mark Murray, the author of the article, thinks that the Republicans are having a hard time finding a messenger who is more liked and who smells less like Bush. I agree… but at the same time, I think that America can transcend the “cult of personality” that the Democrats are offering us.

Plenty of Americans are sickened by the masses of Obamatons (Obama’s automatons or unquestioning followers) that are currently chanting party slogans in unison and preaching a new Utopian era under one-party rule. This behavior is reminiscent of communist regimes and fascist regimes of old… and it scares a lot of us level-headed citizens. That all discussion is silenced by a roar of “change” in current political dialogue runs contrary to the spirit of freedom in this country. It is troubling that the Obama administration has openly declared that they would not allow this “crisis to go to waste” and have used this opening to spend more, borrow more, and tax more. They have decided to fund every special interest project they could and expand the size of government in the meantime. They passed a nearly $800 billion spending bill without reading it. Our representative democracy has been hijacked by the Obamaton army… but things cannot continue this way.

Eventually, Americans will start waking up from this dream and start to re-affirm their independence as free citizens. History has shown that, in the long run, Americans make poor robots and have an streak of standing out, making waves, and rejecting the status quo. If Republicans are to survive as a viable alternative, they will need to be the party of independent thought, of American uniqueness, and of innovation. America wanted change last election, but America has always wanted independence above all things, and the change that is being offered will make us a society dependent on government. Republicans do not necessarily need a popular figure, they need principles that transcend the current mood in the country and they need ideas that work. Defeating the current sheep mentality will not happen overnight, but once citizens return to the spirit of optimistic individualism that affirms the ability and the right for all Americans to reach their dreams, it will be the party of the individual, not the party of the collective masses, that will be left standing. Democrats advocate a society of uniform mediocrity in the name of the common good. Republicans need to advocate a society of infinite personal opportunity that does not leave anyone behind. Once Republicans get behind that popular idea and shout it from the rooftops, the Obamaton masses will begin to wake up, and then the real American change can take place.

-AG

Is said to be doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If that’s the case, then our government’s economic policy seems steeped in this principle. Just today, the president has announced that the economy is showing “glimmers of hope” and while I do not doubt it, I would not make the mistake of declaring “mission accomplished” in our war against the recession. How did we get here and what did we do to get out of this mess? The simple explanation is that all of the participants in the economy, in one way or another, spent too much, borrowed too much, and made excessively risky investments. We refinanced mortgages, took out loan after loan, took out variable rate mortgages that proved too expensive to sustain. The financial industry followed suit, sometimes acting like loan sharks enticing would-be homeowners and current homeowners with offers that seemed too good to be true and in the end were. They used as collateral high risk assets and when these assets started to become worthless, the whole house of cards started to come down. So… what does the government do in order to save us from excessive borrowing, spending, and high risk investment? It does the very same thing: borrows from the Federal Reserve, spends on everything they can think of, and invests taxpayer dollars in corporations that are collapsing or on the brink of collapse… in the trillions. So much money has been spent that the national debt might almost double over the next decade according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate.

The person in charge of this mess, Timothy Geithner, was one of the principal players who dropped the ball when it came to regulating America’s largest financial firms and let them get out of control. His remedy has been to repeat the mistakes of the past and while he has proposed further regulation of the financial industry, the reality is that there were a lot of “regulations” on the books that people like Geithner and his ilk failed to use to put the brakes on the industry. So is it really surprising that after trillions of dollars materialized out of thin air the economy would recover in the short term? Of course not. Throw enough money at a problem and anything can be solved. The problem is what will happen to the economy and the country in the long-term and what it means to us.

With the government printing money at record pace, they are reducing the value of the dollar which will mean a rise in the price of everything, particularly oil (see this report). We can expect energy prices to go high in the medium-term to long-term, not only because of a weaker dollar and scarcity but because of higher taxes on coal and oil companies. Add to that, Obama’s plans to increase spending on health care and entitlements and we have another public obligation; that means that reducing spending will be ever more difficult. What the government is doing is kicking the problem down the road by simply printing money and eventually all of us will have to pay. The countries that help finance our debt are already looking to diversify and stop investing the U.S. debt… it started under Bush and has been accelerated by the current administration.

What I see is a future United States with a reduced role in the world and the end of the twentieth century definition of superpower. Obama even cautioned at the G20 summit that the United States cannot be counted on to be the driving engine of the world economy… what this ultimately means is not yet certain. What is clear is that Obama is currently setting the foundation for a future without America at the helm… a world that will allow the excesses of authoritarianism to proliferate unchecked by this last and greatest bastion of freedom. To allow that to happen is the true definition of insanity.

-AG

Yesterday, Steve Bierfeldt, a member of the Ron Paul group “Campaign for Liberty,” was detained by authorities and questioned at the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. They were questioning him over his possession of $4700 that were collected from fundraising activities for the Campaign for Liberty. Bierfeldt asked if he was legally required to ask questions about carrying around money and the officers got angry, started cursing, and threatened to release him to the DEA and FBI. They never answered the question until the last minute of this half hour detention when they asked if he worked for Ron Paul, Bierfeldt said yes, and they released him.

The New Face of Terror (take notes, Al Qaeda)

A couple of months ago, the Missouri State Highway Patrol was adopting a report on local militias that said that militia members may claim to be part of Ron Paul’s, Bob Barr’s, or other third party campaigns. They ultimately decided on not using this report and not profiling third party campaigns. Bierfeldt at the time was carrying around campaign literature, stickers, etc. that linked him to these campaigns. It is uncertain whether or not the authorities were profiling at the airport.

The problem with this situation is twofold: the authorities did not explain what this young man was legally obligated to do and most people (except Mr. Bierfeldt) do not know their rights. The problem of miscommunication in our society is most evident during encounters between law enforcement and regular citizens, because the former believe they have powers without immediate oversight and the latter not knowing how far law enforcement can go. At airports, I have never seen a sign prohibiting me from carrying large sums of money (under $10,000), yet the person was detained and questioned for just that. The only result that linking militias to third party candidates and their campaigns is to discredit their ideas and give cause for law enforcement to detain them and disrupt their activities.

America must be careful that in our push for security in this post-9/11 world that we do not sacrifice all of our freedoms. At a time when Al Qaeda can disguise itself as a college student, a stay-at-home mom, a professor, or even a police officer, we cannot decide that the detention of every person with a beard, ululating in public, or carrying a bag is permissible. Without detaining everyone, we cannot know what disguise the enemy is using. This is why we need to find the enemy and strike at the root before they can send terrorists here. This is why we need more funding for and better intelligence. This is why we need to fight them on their territory and not on ours. Of course, common sense must be used: if we see someone wearing an “I Love Bin Laden” bandana running towards a crowd, we need to be able to stop them. What is needed is a clear set of rules on public safety that does not violate our human rights… otherwise the terrorists win.

-AG

Around the country, the conservative movement has been rallying in opposition to the current administration and the Democrats have replied by using their congressional majority to silence the debate on spending bills. They have used Bush as an excuse for everything they’ve done wrong. They have tried to portray the opposition party as the “party of no.” The Republican Party has, to its merit, circled the wagons and has been united in its opposition to the skyrocketing spending and to the increased taxation that the Democrats have been forcing through Congress.

For Congressional unity, the Republicans can thank House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (VA) for keeping the party on message. He even helped put together a strategy of ambushing Democrats in Congress asking them tough questions on their questionable positions and votes. In the meantime, the Democrats are repeating that same old line, that we just keep saying “no.” Their recent ad against him shows just how much of a threat a united opposition poses to the liberal agenda. The video claims that Cantor and the Republicans have not offered an alternative budget and instead just say no… to set the record straight, the Republicans have indeed offered up an alternative budget that won’t bankrupt this country like the Obama team is planning on.

The Democrats accuse the Republicans of having no new ideas, while they peddle a policy of class warfare through taxation and spending that echoes the old socialist ideals that the Party of Reagan discredited. The liberals know that they cannot get America to agree to higher taxes and the redistribution of wealth without running up the national debt to what economists describe as unsustainable. Only then will America be forced into a position where it must substantially raise taxes and deal its death blow to the free enterprise system that is already under attack. The reason is simple: a political party is an organization whose purpose is to win elections and remain in power, in order to remain in power they must appeal and expand their voting bloc, and when we consider that people with union or government jobs and people who benefit from entitlement programs vote predominantly Democratic, the liberals must expand government and increase the number of dependents on the government in order to keep winning elections. This analysis might seem a bit extreme, but one only needs to look at their policies and realize that they set out to undermine private property, free enterprise, and Constitutional rights in the name of the “greater good"… these are old tactics recommended by none other than Karl Marx, the godfather of universal unionization, universal public sector employment, and universal welfare, i.e. communism.

At the same time, we have North Korea launching a missile over Japan while the president was in Prague preaching “disarmament.” Iran, in the meantime, continues down the road towards developing nuclear weapons in the face of UN sanctions… the opposite of disarmament. This is not the time to treat these hostile regimes to a diplomatic slumber party at the White House or commit to “disarmament” treaties that will prevent us from building missile defenses (like Russia is pushing on us and Obama said he was willing to talk about). The Republican Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has been pushing for a missile defense shield in Alaska to protect against anything the North Koreans might throw our way. Good idea if you ask me… but no, the Democrats still brand us as the party of failed ideas, the party of no.

To my conservative friends I ask: what’s wrong with being the party of NO? Especially when you take into account what we are saying no to:

The Republican Party of…

NO democrat ONE-PARTY RULE
NO extreme wealth REDISTRIBUTION
NO foreign policy WEAKNESS
NO excessive TAXATION
NO skyrocketing SPENDING
NO unsustainable DEBT

Sounds like my kind of party. In fact, I might even change the name of this blog to “NoRepublica"… on second thought, no.

Republicans should embrace this label… and until we stop the Democrats we must be the party of:

-AG

Recently I was reading up on a local Miami group that supports the anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, “revolutionary,” anti-American ideology of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. It is an offshoot of the “Bolivarian Circles,” which were Venezuelan government-sponsored groups that formed the backbone of Chavez’s socialist programs on a grassroots level and participated in the harassment of opposition parties and journalists (according to the U.N. and the Inter American Press Association). They style themselves the “Bolivarian Youth.” Oddly, the name is reminiscent of the Hitler Youth, a fascist group, even though this Miami version is radically socialist. The “youth” part of the name is somewhat misleading since the members seem to be in their twenties, thirties, forties, and older… I guess they are all young at heart, which is fortunate, because the last thing I’d like is for a radical organization like this one, that advocates the overthrow of the state, to be preaching at our elementary schools. Fortunately for them, the freedom of speech afforded by the Constitution allows them to advocate for the destruction of that very same Constitution… ironic indeed.

Reading their website, I came across their “Ten Point” program and realized that it was remarkably similar to the current administration’s platform. Not surprisingly, I have found a wealth of information about their protests against Bush, but not a single bad word about Obama. Probably they only disagree with his Afghanistan war policy. Here is their program compared to Obama’s policies (I include links for those wanting to follow up on most of these points):

This image is actually on their site

—————————————————————————————————————–

Somewhat Agrees (policies/speeches indicate belief in the injustice of system but not advocating full destruction)

—————————————————————————————————————–

Somewhat Disagrees (not on education for the whole human population and wants “free” health care for more people, not all people)

—————————————————————————————————————–

Completely Agrees (goes further by advocating redistribution)

—————————————————————————————————————–

Somewhat Agrees (is not calling for an end to free enterprise, just undermining it)

—————————————————————————————————————–

Somewhat Agrees (disagrees with “immediate end")

—————————————————————————————————————–

Somewhat Agrees (disagrees with “total destruction")

—————————————————————————————————————–

Completely Agrees

—————————————————————————————————————–

Completely Agrees

—————————————————————————————————————–

Completely Agrees

—————————————————————————————————————–

Somewhat Agrees (has not openly advocated “open borders")

—————————————————————————————————————–

There it is: Obama’s policies tend to agree with the socialist agenda outlined by this group… and to those who have read the Communist Manifesto, you will find similarities there as well.

So to those who say that calling Obama a socialist is unfair or an exaggeration, they should read up on what modern socialist parties advocate and they will find that while Obama is not a flagrant socialist, he at the very least sympathizes with almost all of their views.

Dictator’s Choice Performing Marvelously

Given that this group admires the communist revolution in Cuba and the ongoing “socialist revolution” in Venezuela, do we find it surprising then that Obama has been calling for talking to both Cuba and Venezuela? Already, seven legislators have visited Cuba this week in order to produce a “thaw” in bilateral relations. America cannot afford to legitimize these ideologies that aim at destroying this great nation. As a matter of principle, we must not ignore tyranny at home nor around the world… otherwise we may silently slide into slavery ourselves.

-AG

Yesterday, while answering questions about Afghanistan and it’s new law that legalizes rape for the Shiite minority (10 to 30 percent of population), the president indicated that while he believes that the law is “abhorrent,” as indicated in the White House transcript, while rationalizing it by saying that “it is very important for us to be sensitive to local culture.” He also says that nations should respect basic human rights but does not outline a way to pressure or influence this violation occurring right under our noses in Afghanistan (other than merely have our views “communicated to the Karzai government"). While I personally do not recommend that we start making our troops go out and defend women in Afghanistan while they fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I think that if we truly respect human rights we should pressure the Karzai government to rethink its decision. This is the problem with nation-building in general, if we make Afghanistan our baby then we have certain responsibilities. Were our policy more of military cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, our link to this human rights abuse would be less direct. At this time, while American forces are fighting the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to tacitly support a law that only benefits Shiites may further legitimize the Taliban ideology by exposing religious divisions. The Taliban are fiercely anti-Shia and may be able to use this to their advantage. On various levels, not doing more to stop or repeal this law would run contrary to our goals in Afghanistan. Obama’s appeal to cultural tolerance must have its limits…

Curiously, cultural tolerance goes extraordinarily far when talking about the violation of human rights in Afghanistan, but falls short when observing harmless local customs in France. While France’s first lady, supermodel Carla Bruni, gave a hug and kiss to Michelle Obama, when she tried to kiss President Obama on the cheek he awkwardly turned away and shook her hand instead. Strange. I don’t see why he wouldn’t want to tolerate a kiss from her:

Its an odd double standard.

-AG

In the meantime, over in Prague, a seemingly aloof Barack Obama sings the praises of disarmament to a Czech audience.

In characteristic fashion, the new administration continues to wave the banner of “cooperation” with friends and enemies alike. I don’t think that Kim Jong Il is listening. Last week, N. Korea announced that they would be putting two American journalists, accused of espionage, on trial. Today’s launch is just the latest stunt in Kim’s attempt to demonstrate his relevance to the world and the United States’ impotence. Even though they were threatening to violate international law with a missile test that would improve the North’s ability to hit the U.S. mainland, our government announced that it had no planned of intercepting or downing the missile. Our response was, consistently, a semi-strongly worded statement advising N. Korea that it would damage relations and isolate them further. Obama’s promise of tough diplomacy seems to be falling short; let’s hope that this changes and that he learns from these events that we cannot simply talk to our enemies praying that they’ll see the light and play nice. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the missile launch demonstrates the “imperviousness of this regime in North Korea to any kind of diplomatic overtures.” The president should listen to his own SecDef… and to rational people around the country saying the same thing.

To his credit, Obama did signal that in this face of this renewed threat, he would be going forward with the missile defense shield over Eastern Europe. Though I doubt it. He has already committed to arms reduction with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev during a highly publicized meeting that plastered an all smiley photo op of the presidents on news sites and newspapers around the world. Also, his long lost senior thesis, which was about “Soviet nuclear disarmament,” will probably motivate our president to try and make his ideas a reality. The bad part is that we do not really know what he proposed in that thesis or if it was even relevant… but if recent events indicate anything, his current position is in favor of disarmament at a time when Iran and North Korea are aggressively adhering to a policy of armament. I expect the administration to trade the missile defense shield for some vague promise of Russian cooperation on Iran or some arms-reduction deal.

A thought on appeasement, which was a hot topic when George W. Bush made a comment in Israel expressing his distaste with some politicians that favored a softer line with Iran (all at a time when Iran was training, arming, and even possibly attacking our troops in Iraq while pursuing nuclear technology). When this exchange took place on the topic of appeasement, the Bush supporter was attacked for being ignorant of history and for redefining appeasement incorrectly as “talking to the enemy.” This particular Bush supporter was pretty incompetent and, the host of Hardball, Chris Matthews shouldn’t put people on the air who don’t know what they are talking about, especially when he uses their incompetence as an excuse to invalidate an argument. In reality, “talking to enemy” while that very enemy is developing nuclear weapons is tantamount to “running the clock” during a game… this type of diplomacy is a way of surrendering to the enemy regime’s demands while saving face, saying “we were trying.” Any sort of diplomacy must have time constraints, otherwise we will be faced with an international emergency that we will have to respond to with the blood of our soldiers and citizens. The indefinite, long-term diplomatic approach towards countries that are racing towards the ability to cause mass casualties can be fairly described as appeasement, especially when we consider that another goal of these isolated rogue states is to be recognized as a power on the world stage. We end up giving them legitimacy and allowing them to continue with their weapons programs, which is tantamount to surrendering half of Czechoslovakia or, in the Iranian case, sacrificing the security and very existence of Israel. That is appeasement. In the other case, to slap another round of sanctions on North Korea, an impoverished country that has been isolated for decades, while they continue improving their missile and nuclear capability so that they can hit us right here at home is also appeasement. Sanctions won’t do much, but letting them proceed unhampered will endanger world security.

The administration should realize that while they focus on reducing nuclear proliferation, threatening acts like this one fuel the image of American weakness which compromises the safety of Americans everywhere, including those two journalists that are to be put on trial by a dictator that does not believe in human rights. It is unfortunate that Bush’s attempt to make America strong was an overreach and now the knee-jerk reaction of this administration is to show the world that we are kinder… and contrary to popular opinion, when dealing with maniacal dictators, kindness is weakness.

-AG

Right on the heels of the Binghamton, NY shootings, another shooting took place today in Pittsburgh, PA. Three police officers were killed by a 23 year-old man, Richard Poplawski, who was recently laid off from his job and who ardently believed that the Obama administration was going to take away his rights. This idea is not uncommon. Apparently, Poplawski had told his long-time friend, right before the shootout, that he was opposed to “Zionist propaganda” and thought that his right to bear arms was going to be taken away. He claims that he was not part of any militia or organization.

Already, the blogosphere is abuzz with talks of how he was a “right-wing nutjob” and how the right is responsible for the paranoia that caused this. Actually, if anything, this is an extreme and insane reaction to what is increasingly looking like a liberal hijacking of this country. This man was disturbed and, from the looks of his comments on Zionist propaganda, may have subscribed to an extremist far-right ideology that believes that the United States is being controlled by “Zionist” elements. This sort of extremism runs contrary to the intent of the second amendment and the Constitution in general, whose purpose to protect citizens from those who would do harm to them. Furthermore, if this person truly cared about the second amendment, then he would not have abused it as he did and cost the lives of three officers who were sworn to protect his. Mr. Poplawski was either pro-gun control or irrational or both.

While this event may have been in part motivated by the siege mentality that comes from living under “one-party rule” (democrats controlling congress and the executive), the real underlying cause is the instability of this individual and his extremist beliefs. I agree that gun ownership rights are a double-edged sword, but the crimes of a few must not outweigh the necessary rights of a whole nation. In the face of consecutive tragedies, many are scrambling to destroy the second amendment while there are few with the moral courage to stand in defense of the Constitution.

If we pass laws to ban guns in America, only the law-abiding will be gun-less. The bad guys will always be able to procure weapons. Will we allow people like Mr. Poplawski to take away our right to self-defense, our right to defend against tyranny? Will we tell the old man working the night shift at his quickie shop in a bad neighborhood that he cannot defend himself? Will we tell a father (or mother) that he (or she) cannot protect his family from a gang that invades his (or her) home? The irony is that if liberals have their way, it will be the criminals who motivate our government to ban guns, and it will be the criminals who benefit the most from an unarmed law-abiding population… oh, and it will also benefit any government that would decide to take away any of our other rights.

We added those rights in the Constitution when Americans lived in a time where tyrannical governments were seen as the greatest threat to the people, while nowadays, in this country founded on freedom, we see crime as the greatest threat. I guess we just have to experience tyranny again so that we can decide which is worse… and destroying the second amendment will help us get there sooner.

-AG

As expected the all out assault on the second amendment has started over the tragedy in Binghamton, NY. Here is ABC linking gun sales to the tragedy in this article Gun Sales Up in Binghamton and U.S.. Apparently, what was supposed to be a “high-powered rifle” (see my last post) turned out to be two handguns and a knife, notwithstanding the attacks continue. In this article, the violence in Mexico and this tragedy are linked as part of a larger issue simply because of the means and not the causes of the problems. The violence in Mexico is a result of a war between law enforcement in Mexico and the well financed drug cartels that are terrorizing their people, cutting off people’s heads, and bringing narcotics into this country, not a result of gun laws in the United States and our rights should not be infringed upon because of this conflict in a foreign country. The Binghamton tragedy has to do with the sanity of this individual and is a law enforcement issue. It is an issue that really does need addressing, but we must keep in mind that the second amendment exists for a reason.

On the Huffington Post we have another article by Jackson Williams that refers to those who post comments in favor of our second amendment as “gun obsessives” and to those who are not as people who “know better.” To reduce an argument over a Constitutional amendment to “gun obsessives” vs “people who know better” is just plain name-calling and dangerous to American freedom. This article would do better by explaining how far the government should go in curtailing this freedom and if the right to self defense against others (criminals, invading armies, and oppressive governments included) should be sacrificed. I could go and call those that oppose this freedom the “naive-kumbaya crowd” and leave it at that, but that would be dishonest as well because some rational people believe that the benefit of this right is outweighed by the cost. It is better to discuss the topic and present one’s position without simplify discounting the opposing viewpoint. Similarly, this other article from OpEdNews (a self-described liberal news source) boils down support the second amendment with this explanation: “For years its [the National Rifle Association’s] hunter/rancher and rural constituents have recoiled at its paranoid secessionist/military weapon wing which drives so much NRA policy.” For the record, I am not a hunter nor a rancher nor a rural constituent nor a paranoid secessionist nor a war hawk nor a weapon enthusiast, but I do believe that the government should not be allowed to take away our constitutionally guaranteed rights without going through the democratic process outlined in said Constitution for the repeal of amendments (i.e. passing another amendment). And even in that case I would disagree with taking away that freedom. Unfortunately, it seems to be that the liberal position, almost unanimously expressed in these articles and others, takes aim at the Constitution and uses emotion-based politics to undermine it.

I could go on citing articles, blogs, opinions, etc. but in reality this is all detracting from the real events that have taken place in Binghamton, NY and I think that using an emotional event like this one and others in order to “go around” our second amendment by restricting our rights is a cold, opportunistic political move. Instead I invite all parties involved in this debate to present their arguments without exploiting tragic events. That said, my heart goes out to the victims of the Binghamton tragedy.

-AG

Just now, in Binghamton, NY, an Asian man in his 20’s has shot various people and taken hostages at the American Civic Association, a immigration center. So far there are 4 confirmed wounded and there are reports of 13 possible dead, the rest of the 41 people (at least) thought to be inside have been taken hostage. The shooter is reported to be carrying a high-powered rifle, wearing a green nylon jacket and dark rimmed glasses. Let’s hope that this situation doesn’t worsen.

Already, some blogs have started to link illegal immigration to this tragedy. With the exception of violating immigration law, illegal immigrants do not cause a disproportionate amount of crime in the U.S., at least according to this study and this article and this article, etc. etc. While there are articles that stress the opposite, I subscribe to the view that most illegal immigrants come to work and stay below the radar so they don’t get deported. That being said, violation of immigration law is not acceptable and a nation needs to have the right to decide on its immigration policy. We need to secure our borders as a matter of national security, not because “they” purportedly cause higher crime (which they do not) but because the enemies of the United States and organized crime elements will exploit our lax security. While we should focus on the problem of securing our borders as a sovereign nation, we should shy away from vilifying a whole population or saying that crime itself is mainly caused by this problem. I worry about Al Qaeda and international gangs, luckily these organizations do not represent the face of the illegal immigrant community, so let’s not link them unnecessarily.

Another issue that inevitably will come up is the issue of the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates around the country will start pointing to this event, like they point at other gun related crimes and tragedies, to push their agenda on the voting public. It’s a compelling argument, appealing to mothers and fathers worried about their children getting gunned down in their schools or other public places, but it’s a tactic that uses emotion to circumvent a constitutional right and a practical human right: the right of self-defense. The origins of the second amendment are rooted in revolution against an oppressive government that would use force against innocent people… centuries of freedom in this country have dulled the revolutionary imperative that makes us Americans: that we must be free at any cost. To restrain the people from bearing arms for the end of self-defense against any violation of their rights, be it a government or another citizen that commits crime, is to neuter the freedom’s spirit in America. I agree that it is a double edged sword and that this right also allows criminals to do more harm to law abiding citizens, but with proper law enforcement we can reduce the harm without leaving freedom defenseless. The restrictions that we place on gun ownership should not infringe on people’s rights but should be reasonable, such as taking into account sanity, competence, age, etc. It is shameful when gun control advocates use tragedies such as these to advance their constitution-shredding agenda. Wherever people do not have the right to defend themselves, their governments have a much easier time repressing and murdering them. The fact that we have not all agreed that preserving freedom is the highest goal is very disturbing.

-AG

Well, a bipartisan group in Washington thinks so. This group recently proposed lifting travel restrictions for U.S. citizens as a first step towards the elimination of the embargo. The reasons cited for lifting the embargo are numerous, but the main reasons are that the embargo has not helped bring democracy to Cuba, the embargo has actually helped Castro retain power, and that opening up trade and travel with the island will actually help the democracy movement (through osmosis I suppose). The problem with these arguments are various and I can get into it at length, but I would rather show an example of how lifting the embargo will not only strengthen the dictatorship but actually may eventually become a threat to our national security. Here is a comparison of two different countries with similarly repressive regimes and vastly different relations with the United States: Cuba and Saudi Arabia. First off, Cuba and Saudi Arabia both: have authoritarian governments, have political prisoners in jail simply for expressing themselves or dissenting peacefully(Cuba, S.A.), engage in torture (Cuba, S.A.), are anti-American (in Cuba, according to their propaganda, mainly because of the embargo, in S.A. just because), are the source of international terrorism, etc. etc. Here is where U.S. relations with these two countries are different:

So here we have two different approaches to these authoritarian regimes and one thing in common: repression continues. The differences (oil, proximity, ideology) between our approaches to these countries demonstrate more about U.S. interests than what an embargo can accomplish. One thing is for sure, the communist regime in Cuba has lasted more than 50 years while the modern Saudi state has lasted for more than 83 years. While the embargo has not caused the collapse of the communist government, it has seriously limited its ability to serve as an effective destabilizing force in Latin America. Alternately, Saudi Arabia became the breeding ground for Al Qaeda, which ultimately led to the terrible events of 9-11.

There are some that advocate for normalization of relations with Cuba because of our hypocrisy in having normal relations with Saudi Arabia and China (among others). I disagree with this view. The embargo has served the purpose of safeguarding the United States and while I do not necessarily advocate imposing an embargo on Saudi Arabia (too late now), I’m sure that if we had an embargo against them, multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden would have had a harder time financing his attacks on America. Just a thought. The embargo cannot lead to democracy in Cuba by itself because ultimately only the Cuban people’s will can effect lasting and stable regime change. Unfortunately, the totalitarian regime has systematically repressed the people and instead of receiving assistance from abroad, governments have only gone as far as paying lip service to the idea of Cuban freedom. The United States towers above all other countries in helping the Cuban people rid themselves of arbitrary imprisonment, arbitrary executions, and wholesale denial of human rights… but more direct assistance is needed. Instead of advocating a policy promoting the Cuban people’s empowerment, we have in Washington a political cadre advocating a policy promoting the Cuban government’s empowerment. The embargo is a tool against the regime and it needs to be supplemented with effective assistance to Cuban dissidents who toil day and night for the dream of a free Cuba.

With our current Obamaton nation goosestepping its way towards a form of socialism in this country, it is not an exercise in futility to remind America that the extreme example of socialism just 90 miles to the south is not the paradise that Cuba yearned for prior to Castro. They have “free” health care, “total” literacy, “free” elementary-to-university education, and they “spread the wealth” just like the Democrats want… the difference is that Democrats are increasing the U.S. national debt at an alarming rate which will lead to higher and higher taxes, while in Cuba they only asked the people to sacrifice one thing: freedom.

-AG

When Vice President Joe Biden predicted that within six months the world would test the Obama administration, he was right. With Obama currently in Europe for the G20 Summit, countries around the world have been preparing to deal with the new government in Washington… in order to ultimately curb American global power. Some for sinister reasons, some for nationalistic reasons, and some for pragmatic reasons, but their approach will be semi-predictable. Those nations with enough either military or economic power , to challenge us (Russia and China respectively) will approach be seen with the president, all smiles, asking for “cooperation.” At the same time, nations lacking the power to pose a significant threat will puff up their feathers, beat their chests, and talk tough. Today, Russia’s Medvedev met with Obama to discuss an arms reduction treaty… but let’s not forget that only a few months ago, Medvedev threatened to start a new arms race by deploying missiles in Eastern Europe if we decide to green light the anti-missile defense shield. In other words, he had his photo op moment with the photogenic head-of-state while holding behind his back the threat of an arms race and all that America has to do is give in to Russia’s demands and no one gets hurt. Good move on their part if you ask me.

Next, you have an upcoming official meeting with China, coming on the heels of announcements that they are less confident in American debt and suggestions of creating a new international reserve currency. Of course, during Clinton’s visit to Asia she signaled that we would not let China’s human rights records get in the way of economic cooperation… pesky human rights, who needs them? I thought that “ending torture” would give us the moral high ground to address other nations’ rights abuses, but I guess not if it gets in the way of business. And so this administration continues to assist in China’s quest for superpower status. Bravo.

On to N. Korea, a concern of mine as of late. This is one of the countries without the ability to threaten us significantly, so they bark and bark and bark. Just today they threatened to shoot down U.S. planes that enter their airspace as they prepare to launch their missile/rocket. Clinton called this an “unfortunate and continuing example of provocation,” and proceeded to wag her finger at Kim Jong Il. “Bad, Kim, bad!” Japan has threatened to shoot down the missile in order to protect its territory and North Korea announced that they would consider this an act of war and would retaliate. Looks like the six-party negotiations are working like a charm. Ain’t dialogue with dictators grand?

And on the terrorism front, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, a Mr. Baitullah Mehsud, threatened yesterday to carry out attacks against the United States on our own soil. Though they are going to focus on Pakistani and Afghani terrorist operations first. This group carried out an attack on a police academy in Pakistan last Monday killing eight cadets, is the prime suspect in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and orchestrated a suicide bomb attack in September 2007 in the city of Rawalpindi near the capital. Just today, a missile attack took place aimed at Mehsud but he reportedly escaped unharmed. What we need to do is get Pakistan to invade that area and/or bring it under control quickly before it becomes too late. Clinton’s, Bush’s, and now Obama’s missile strike strategy have historically not been sufficiently successful in dealing with these terrorists and others around the world. Just ask Israel if their own missile strikes have brought an end to terrorism. There are various other strategies available, such as gaining the support of “moderate” Taliban or boots on the ground to name a couple, that can better deal with the enemy in a shorter period of time. We cannot wait for them to get their act together and hit us at home.

By the looks of it, Biden had a point, we are being tested on every front. Unfortunately, we as Americans did not ask the tough questions and demand to know what this administration would do to meet those threats and challenges. All that I heard was “tough diplomacy” and “invade Pakistan if we have actionable intelligence on bin Laden.” On the former I say, tough talk is just that: talk. And on the latter I say: good luck. In the meantime, how do we make sure that in 4 years we will still be a/the global superpower and not replaced by some authoritarian regime that wants to gobble up its neighbors (read: Russia and/or China)? I fear I may live to see the triumph of evil empires over the promise of American freedom.

-AG