While Obama calls on Iraqis to celebrate the US military’s withdrawal from the cities, Al Qaeda and the insurgents are also rejoicing. From Pakistan to Somalia, Al Qaeda and their affiliates have waged successful war on the local governments. Those countries receiving sizable US military aid have been the most successful in surviving, while most other countries end up giving them safe haven or making painful concessions to the terrorists. The Bush administration’s initial short-sightedness with respect to the Iraq War led to the rise of a potent insurgency and the empowerment of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a mistake that Bush started to correct in his second term. Now, with most Americans agreeing that a withdrawal is in order while at the same time acknowledging that violence will probably increase, the problem is that neither the media nor the administration has explicitly explained that an increase in violence means an increase in the power of the insurgents and the terrorists. In other words, an increase in violence may lead to the reconstitution or permanent establishment of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

What this means to the average American is that the administration, in ceding ground to the terrorists in Iraq by withdrawing, something that most people agree must happen, should present a plan for fighting Al Qaeda in the region, particularly in Iraq. Thus far, the only actions taken against the terrorist organization is sending more troops to Afghanistan and giving aid to the Pakistani and Afghan governments. This does not acknowledge the fact that the threat is not localized there, but primarily across Asia and Africa. At the same time, suspected terrorists are being granted more civil rights, some of them have been and will be released, the administration is in secret talks with Al-Qaeda-allied Taliban, little has been done to strengthen our border security, and the White House has ordered the use of “less confrontational” language when discussing our war on terror. Americans have a right to know how we will deal with Al Qaeda after we fully withdraw, for if we simply allow them to rearm, all of the gains from our military campaign against the perpetrators of 911 will be wasted.

-AG

While Obama did not call to celebrate the bombing, he might as well have. The Obama withdrawal is based more on politics than reality. He called for withdrawal before we went in, after we defeated Saddam Hussein, during the bad days of the insurgency, and even while the Petraeus “surge” strategy was succeeding.

Today, the US military has withdrawn from Iraqi cities and towns and will be stationed primarily in large bases and outposts. President Obama said that “Iraqis are rightly treating this day as a cause for celebration,” but Iraqis should consider whether the new administration’s timid image and actions have emboldened the enemy or not. Earlier this morning, General Ray Odierno stated that “there is not widespread violence in Iraq,” shortly thereafter, a bomb ripped through the city of Kirkuk killing 30 and wounding dozens more. The last few weeks, Al Qaeda in Iraq and insurgents have been escalating their attacks and bombings, as I have written about previously, in anticipation of the US withdrawal from the cities. We should also remember that the security gains made during the Iraq “surge” involved moving our troops off large bases and making them more visible, now we are reversing course in the hopes that Iraqi security forces can defeat the terrorists and insurgents. The terrorists believe that Obama has pulled back due to their terror campaign in Iraq, just like the terrorists believed that their terror campaign forced the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan. This mindset is what emboldens them, the thought that they can defeat superpowers. While I do advocate an eventual withdrawal from Iraq, we cannot leave them in the hands of terrorists or Iran. Bush left this war unfinished, leaving terrorists and insurgents roaming the country, and now Obama is determined to leave the war on terror to the local Iraqis. Our presence in Iraq was and is an opportunity to deal Al Qaeda a death blow standing side by side with the Iraqi army. Now that we are withdrawing, what is Obama’s plan to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq without troops on the ground? How does he plan to limit Iranian influence in Iraq? Will he redeploy troops to the region if Al Qaeda takes over? I do not believe that the administration fully appreciates the implications of not finishing the job in Iraq.

Let’s hope Iraqi security forces can protect their people, because the their victory over terror is also our victory over terror.

-AG

Mel Zelaya: “You want me to remain in power 16 more years right?”

Socialism vs. Freedom. It is a battle that is being lost in America, but one that has been won in Honduras. At a time when the socialist ideology of hatred has swept most of Latin America, Hondurans drew a line in the sand and said: “Not Here.” While the administration and the biased mainstream media call the ouster of former president Mel Zelaya a coup and undemocratic, regular Hondurans know the truth, they know what was at stake. Mel Zelaya was a criminal president, period. He violated their Supreme Court’s ruling, defied the National Congress, commanded the military to engage in illegal acts, fired the head of the military when they refused to be a part of his push for more power, he planned to dissolve congress, and he ignored the will of the entire country. Their military ousted him on orders from the courts, setting an example for all would-be dictators in the region: no man is above the law. Their congress stripped the president of his powers, elected a new interim president, and kept the democratic institutions in one piece, even vowing to hold all elections as planned. Today, fifty thousand Hondurans marched in favor of the new government and the preservation of democracy. And still, Obama says that he only recognizes Zelaya as president and wants him returned to power. He insists that the “rule of law” be restored, as if orders from the courts are not “law” and as if laws passed by congress are not “law.” Zelaya destroyed a basic principle of any democracy: respect for law… now Obama is siding with the socialists of the region, Castro, Chavez, Morales, Ortega, et al, and directly “meddling” in Honduran affairs by demanding the restitution of the criminal Mel Zelaya. If Obama cannot stand up for freedom, he should at least not interfere with other countries’ aspirations for freedom. Honduras will not be a Venezuelan satellite or another Socialist Gulag like Cuba.

-AG

The Senate is now firmly in the hand of the Democrats, who have been waging an unrelenting war against free markets and national security since the election of Barack Obama, now that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that Al Franken, comedian-turned-politician, won last November’s election. This means that the Democrats will not need a single Republican vote to push forward their high taxing, high spending, high borrowing, wealth redistribution-ist agenda in the Senate. There are definite benefits from having a two-party system, a perfect example was the stimulus proposal which was closer to $1 trillion until the Democrats compromised slightly with the Republicans. One can only wonder what an unfettered, ideological faction such as the modern-day Democrats will do with their new-found power. With important legislation regarding healthcare, the current international crises involving North Korea, Iraq, and Iran, and with the economic pressure from China, Russia, and the recession, Americans cannot trust a one-party system to come up with solutions that help all citizens. We must turn the tide of one-party rule. Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea are also single-party states… see how well it has served them?

-AG

While liberals and liberal-minded Republicans such as Crist are using their power to increase the cost of living in America by raising taxes, fees, energy prices, and causing inflation, they are also attacking American prosperity from the other end: they are trying to reduce executive salaries and compensation. Fortunately, the administration is aware that the American voter cannot take much more of this big government approach to the economy and their daily lives, and instead of directly putting a “cap” on executive pay, they are looking for ways to pressure them into disclosing all the details of their salaries and give shareholders the ability to have a “say in pay.” While this approach may not work, what bothers me profoundly is that the liberals believe that they have the right to dictate how much a company can pay its employees. Why? If a company wishes to give its executives high salaries or big bonuses, why do liberals think that the government should step in and stop it? Isn’t it the American Dream to be able be as prosperous as one can, without government interference?

The administration’s “say in pay” proposal does more to anger constituents than actually produce results. For those that advocate some sort of pay limits on exec pay, this proposal does nothing to stop companies from awarding large salaries or bonuses since the shareholder opinion is nonbinding. In other words, the rich get richer and that angers the socialists to no end. For those that prefer freedom over government authority, any effort to limit compensation for the end of mere control will make America less competitive and will undermine the American Dream. Talent seeks out compensation, that’s just the way it is… to limit the amount of compensation limits the amount of talent that America attracts. To burden America with unsustainable debt and then, adding injury to insult, to reduce our ability to attract business and talent is to wage internal war on this country. We Americans do not believe in class warfare because we are not an envious people, we believe that through personal effort we can achieve any level of success. We cannot allow liberalism or any other -ism take away our spirit of achievement.

-AG

I just read a tweet from Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who is also running for Senate, asking for support of his campaign. His campaign advocates “less taxes, less government, more freedom.” If only, Charlie Crist, if only.

Barack’s buddy, Crist, talks the talk but certainly does not walk the walk. In Florida, he signed a budget last month that increased taxes and fees by more than $2 billion dollars and he defended his actions by saying that one of the taxes, the cigarette tax did not apply to the majority of Floridians, only 11% (majority of which are mid to low income persons), and that he needed to balance the budget by raising fees on the majority of Floridians. This means:

Crist VIOLATED his pledge to oppose and veto any and all tax increases.

Crist ATTACKED the free market by breaking conservative principles and backing the cap-and-tax bill.

Crist BETRAYED the American taxpayer on the federal level by supporting Obama’s pet projects and eye-popping spending programs.

Too-Close-For-Comfort-Charlie

What audacity for him to run a campaign based on reducing government, reducing taxes, and increasing freedom. The very least that the leather-faced governor could do is be honest and say he is a pragmatist of some sort, though I doubt that he truly is. He seems to be too relaxed and too tanned to be able to defend America values. He will most likely fold if the situation gets too hot. Furthermore, with the I-will-not-die allegations that he is a homosexual and the fact that he denies it, the last thing we need is another Larry Craig in the Senate. Some say this is a low blow, but given the fact that he has lied about raising taxes and about being a conservative, I do not trust his word any more. Crist has officially lost my support in the Senatorial primary. Florida does not need an Arlen Specter.

-AG

While Honduras plays out its conflict between representative democracy and the deposed-president Zelaya’s socialist aspirations, Obama’s Latina nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, is caught in her own version of this conflict. I place the Sotomayor issue in the context of the battle between socialism and democracy because of her now widely reported comment:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

For the record, I am a Cuban-American, thus Hispanic, but my ethnicity does not color my politics, my judgment does, my conscience does, my heart does. For example, the fact that the administration left the Iranian protesters out to dry enrages me as much as if it were Latin people, or African people, or Italian people, or any other people that I have an ethnic or racial bond with. While experiences do enrich one’s life, it is one’s judgment that would help one reach a “better conclusion” not one’s ethnicity or race. So the question we must ask before confirming her is: if her Latina experiences make her more qualified than “white” people, as she hopes, is her judgment sufficiently objective with respect to the law or is it colored by this worldview? It is a worldview that, in the name of equality, rushes to harm one part of society to benefit another, simply on the basis of class or race or ethnicity… and it is the spirit of the socialist movements that now grip the world.

In an ironic twist, the Supreme Court, the job she’s applying for, has just reversed her ruling on a case involving reverse discrimination against white firefighters. Most people agree with the Supreme Court’s decision, both Republican and Democrat. It was an issue of qualification versus “special treatment for minorities” and Sotomayor ruled on the side of “special treatment.” While not an open and shut case, the fact that Sotomayor’s “ethnic experiences” cause her to believe that a democracy is best served when one group is given priority over another simply because of their genetics or culture make me conclude that she is not objective enough for the post. As a Hispanic, I am insulted that anyone would think that I cannot achieve some goal or place in society through merit and effort alone. As an American, I believe in equality of opportunity and such special treatment only furthers the cause of a social and economic system that uses “equality” to bludgeon individuality and personal achievement. Some say that the Republicans may lose the Latino vote by opposing Sotomayor, but to compromise American principles because of race plays into the Left’s hands. The fact that liberal elements insist on classifying people by race and ethnicity should not dissuade conservatives from seeking the only voting bloc that matters: the American voter.

-AG

Facts are stubborn things, unless you work in the mainstream media. Yesterday’s detention and expulsion of the Leftist Honduran president Jose Manuel ‘Mel’ Zelaya was decried by countries around the world and the mainstream media as a military coup d’état. What they do not report is what actually occurred. While Obama is pressing for Honduras to restore “democratic order” and the “rule of law,” showing solidarity with a fellow Leftist leader and claiming that Zelaya is still the constitutional president, the president conveniently ignores the fact that the military action against Zelaya was not the result of some rogue military elements, but rather they acted on orders from the courts, who had ruled Zelaya’s actions as president as illegal. The mainstream media, though, has almost unanimously omitted this fact from all of its reports. From my readings of Honduran news, the month prior to Zelaya’s arrest, the framers of the Honduran Constitution declared that according to their laws, Zelaya’s actions are an act of treason against the homeland [if only our own Founding Fathers could come forward today to put an end to the expanding powers and size of government]. Zelaya was attempting to violate certain parts of their Constitution that are “permanent,” specifically the part about not extending presidential term limits or powers. So when Obama talks about restoring the “rule of law,” he should not be directing these statements at the current civilian government of Honduras but rather at Zelaya, who had defied every branch of government and most sectors of society in order to gain more power for himself. The Honduran courts and congress acted in defense of their Constitution by expelling a president that was also planning to dissolve congress right after starting the illegal vote and change the Constitution in order to introduce a Chavez-style government.

Zelaya telling Chavez “it’s socialism time!”

If not for the fact that I can read Spanish, I would have been limited to the mainstream media’s reports and our politician’s statements, that would have us think that Zelaya was a victim and not a rogue president who thought himself above the law. Honduras has dodged the Castro-Chavez totalitarianism bullet by removing this man, let’s not punish them for preserving their democracy.

-AG

For the record, I believe that the United States should adopt a foreign policy that acknowledges our commitment to human rights, promotes global security, and defends our interests. What I do not believe in is a foreign policy that is guided by politics, one that is just plain arrogant, or one that is overly naive. Which is why the current administration’s policies towards leaders that thrive, politically, off of hating America hurts my sense of national pride and insults my sense of what is rational. For example, with Iran, Obama’s outreach is falling flat. Obama took much care to take a position on the Iranian anti-Ahmadinejad protests that would not be regarded as meddling by the Iranian regime. For all his efforts and previous attempts at reaching out to Iran, Ahmadinejad still blamed Obama for “meddling” in Iranian affairs and an Iranian official accused the CIA of killing the face of the protests, Neda. While Obama continues his “outreach,” Iran is still aiding the insurgents in Iraq and has had even more time to work on their nuclear program. What the administration’s outreach policy fails to realize is that the Iranian revolution was founded on resisting the “Great Satan” (the US), trying to cooperate with them will only strengthen their dictatorship and jeopardize our security.

-AG

Honduran troops surround Presidential Palace

When the executive branch of the government directly defies the legislative and judicial branches of government and the Constitution, what should be done? That is the question that was presented to the Honduran government this week. The president of Honduras, Jose Manuel Zelaya, was ousted and exiled to Costa Rica this morning by the Honduran military after he vowed to hold a referendum vote that would allow him to run for another term. This referendum was deemed illegal by the Supreme Court because their Constitution stipulates that referendums may not be held 180 days prior to an election and that the presidential term limits may not be amended. The Honduran Congress also opposed the referendum. The president then tried to circumvent the courts and the Congress by urging the Honduran military to distribute ballots anyways. When they refused to violate the court’s and the Congress’ decision, the president fired the head of the armed forces, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, and marched onto the military base where the ballots were being held and confiscated them. Before he could attempt his power grab, the military nabbed him. Reports say he was not harmed. This article says that the military also kidnapped the Cuban, Venezuelan, and Nicaraguan ambassadors to Honduras. According to the military, the detention and expulsion of the president was ordered by the courts. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has threatened to go to war if necessary. What is interesting is that the Leftist Latin American leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Bolivia have all condemned the action while Obama called on Honduras to “respect democratic norms” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that this act should be “condemned by all.” It is troubling to see Castro, Chavez, Morales, et al on the same page as Obama and Clinton.

Hugo Chávez, Raúl Castro, Manuel Zelaya and Fernando Lugo

But the question remains, when the president orders the military to do something illegal, and the military refuses, only to have their generals fired and then have the executive branch try to carry out that very illegal act, what should a democracy do? What happens if one individual can overrule the legislative branch, the judicial branch, the military, the Church (major Honduran institution, called the president’s illegal act a move towards Chavism, or a Chavez-style regime), and the Constitution of a country? Is that not a move towards dictatorship? His own party called it a “personal capricious act by the Executive.”

The Honduran people should be able to choose their own future, that said, no individual should have the power to overturn the decisions of nearly every elected official in government simply because he or she wants more power for him or herself. Since the courts ordered the military to detain the president, it would seem that this is not a military coup but rather an action against the executive by the other branches of government. If the president of my own country openly defied the will of the legislature, the judiciary, the military, and the Constitution, I know what I would do. No man should be above the law.

-AG

As the President of the United States leads the Democrats’ assault on the American economy and taxpayer, the opposition party has posted an “under construction” sign over its political platform. The disagreement is over the future of the party and whether it will pursue a more conservative line or a more moderate line. The problem is that, while conservatism is already pretty well defined, “moderation” is more ambiguous but as a centerpiece I expect that they advocate bipartisanship and reaching compromises on particular issues. Well, here in Florida, Republican Senate candidate and current Florida Governor Charlie Crist represents the “moderate” wing of the GOP while Marco Rubio, Republican Senate candidate and former Florida state House Speaker, represents the conservatives.

Fortunately for us watchers of these campaigns, the “moderate” Crist has made it clear what it means to be “moderate.” Apparently, to be moderate means to be an active supporter of a national “cap-and-trade” system, an active supporter of the Obama Stimulus/Spendulus bill, and to host the Democratic president in your home state while he pushes for a stimulus bill that undermines state government. This means that I am clearly NOT in the “moderate” wing of the Republican Party, because:

a) I reject a Stimulus bill that essentially increases the deficit to historically high levels, burdens the US taxpayer, infringes on state rights, is a handout to special interest groups, and does not work.
b) I reject a Cap-and-Trade system that punishes the American energy consumer instead of focusing only on incentivizing entrepreneurship and innovation that would help the environment
c) I reject any and all politicians who push for excessive government intervention in the free markets and the expansion of government power and size

For these reasons and more, I cannot support the theory of “moderation” of the Republican Party. What the moderates imply is that the conservative wing is out-dated and that surrendering to the will of Obama is the way forward. Conservatives need to emphasize their core values of independence, freedom, and opportunity to a constituency that has been brainwashed into thinking that government is the answer to everything. Those core values, though, represent the American Dream while the liberals believe in liberal spending of our wealth, liberal taxation of our wealth, and liberal appeasement of our enemies. Any Republican message should represent these values:

Independence is the ability to BE
Freedom is the ability to DREAM
Opportunity is the ability to BE what we DREAM

Therefore any government that promotes America’s dependence on government, or curtails our freedoms, or blocks opportunity through obstacles, economic or otherwise, must be opposed. America’s principles are being twisted beyond recognition during this period of one-party rule in Washington. Republicans need to do a better job in stopping them.

-AG

There is a lot I could write about the new cap-and-trade bill that made it through the House of Representatives in a tight 219-212 vote, but I will limit myself in this post to the jobs claims of the Obama administration, already known for making wildly optimistic and unmeasurable job-creation estimates. The President says that the new energy bill will make millions of new jobs, his example of how the cap-and-trade will start employing people: 3,000 new jobs in California to build a new solar plant that will permanently employ 1,000 people. First off, 4,000 jobs in California, the country’s most populous state, times 50 (4,000 per state) equals 200,000 jobs, not millions. If this is how Obama will count jobs, with a large percentage of them being temporary jobs, then the long-term effects on employment will not be that pronounced. Furthermore, if new solar plants employ about 1,000 people permanently, we would need many hundreds of solar plants to even start getting close to the millions of jobs goal, at least in the solar industry. But I am being too simplistic, possibly this is only one example of the many other initiatives in the state, but the claims of generating millions of jobs through shackling the free market will only lead to eventual government subsidies of the “green” energy sector (like Europe currently does) which, in the end, is just plain socialism since the only money they have to invest comes from taxpayers, you and me. Is this a flagrant attempt to nationalize the energy industry?

Second, the modern coal industry labor force numbers 174,000. The coal industry is an established industry with plants around the country, mining operations, and an relatively inelastic demand from a large consumer base and still, they can only employ about 174,000 people. The government’s plan to excessively tax the energy industry (in the form of the permits it issues) may stimulate business growth in the green sector and it will hurt the American consumer, probably resulting in more job loss overall than job creation. Eventually, like in Europe, the government will need to start subsidizing the green industry if oil prices drop, which may happen if the oil-producing countries see our demand fall precipitously, and other energy sources become cheaper. This means more taxes on Americans to keep the green sector alive. Even if the rosy estimates of how many jobs will be created are correct, Obama will alienate the labor unions by replacing good paying heavy industry and energy industry jobs with lower paying “green” jobs. In terms of creating manufacturing jobs, China’s entry into the market has cut the price of solar energy cells and will probably also do so with wind turbines as well, making the manufacturing problems that the US has faced in other industries also affect the future US green sector. The UK-based Financial Times says it best: “For western politicians, the uncomfortable truth is that the expansion of renewable energy in developed countries, aimed at reducing their carbon emissions, may result in a bonanza for poorer nations rather than a grand influx of jobs to their home countries.” In order to compete or to fulfill the promise of millions of jobs, the government will be forced to further subsidize the green sector in order to compete with China, India, and the already well-established European companies. However you slice it, the government will have to increase the tax burden on American citizens.

Third, while they build up this clean energy industry that will supposedly employ millions, Obama has claimed that he will definitely bankrupt the coal industry with his proposals, thus destroying 174,000 jobs just in the coal industry. This is not taking into account the effect it will have on other industries. The steel industry, which has already cut down carbon emissions by a third over the last 15 years, currently being beaten in the global market by countries such as China and India, suffering from Chinese pro-growth policies that violate international trade agreements, not fairing well during the recession, and as of 2006 employed 154,000 people will be seriously hurt by such a cap and trade system that will only further worsen an already challenging situation for the US Steel industry. All heavy industry in general will be given a great incentive, not to reduce carbon emissions, but rather to relocate their operations to third world countries with less restrictions on that good old American value: making money. This means that the whole rationale behind cap-and-trade reducing emissions from heavy industry will be offset by an expansion of heavy industry in third world countries that will be less likely to pass any such legislation. If you thought that China was bad for the US manufacturing industry, just wait until Obama is done with it.

Fourth, the economy as a whole will be hurt by rising prices making the cost of running a business higher and thus contributing to unemployment in this country. Just take oil as an example, gas prices in the US are less than half of many European countries, due to high taxes on energy there, yet Europe’s demand for oil has remained stable.

Graph according to the Energy Information Administration

This means that excessive taxes have merely punished consumers while doing little to curb consumption, which means that Americans will have less disposable income and businesses will have to move overseas to cut costs so that they can make some profit. In order words, less jobs overall. This article says that from Spain’s experience with subsidizing and encouraging “green” jobs, 2 jobs are lost for every 1 green job created.

Simply on the jobs part, the cap-and-trade program will end up costing America far more than it will help either the US economy or the environment. America cannot afford to pass a bill like this one. Sadly, the Republican opposition came up with an alternative bill that focused excessively on research and not enough on what we actually need: action. I back a policy that makes America energy independent, as a matter of national security, and that makes our production of energy efficient and cleaner. In essence, my policy would be one of “Clean Growth,” where government should help the markets tackle this global problem while remaining competitive. An example of this are to use the already existing technologies that make our unrivaled amount of coal cleaner and to make that technology more cost effective. Another example is to get serious about nuclear power, a thought that makes liberals cringe, yet is the most practical and common sense way to power our country, with the disposal of radioactive materials being the most pressing issue to be resolved. Another example is to develop battery technology further, frequent advances are already being made, and support alternative fuel cars, which is actually already a part of this bill.

What I do not support is a policy of “Clean Contraction” that punishes the American consumer for using cars and appliances simply because the Left has changed from believing in red socialism to believing in green socialism. We do not need to contract the economy to become energy independent and protect the environment. We need to unleash American ingenuity. For Republicans to become a viable forward-looking party, they need to embrace actions that lead to “Clean Growth,” especially since we have been funding dictators and terrorists around the world for our cheap oil who later turn around and launch attacks on Americans. It is no coincidence that most of America’s enemies come from regions with large oil reserves. Republicans need to embrace clean energy independence in order to strengthen their national security credentials… the days of irrational liberal policy victories are here, they need to be countered with common sense and courage for our country to survive.

-AG

As if the external threats to America weren’t enough, a few hours ago the House of Representatives passed the Cap-and-Trade bill proposed by the Obama administration, a bill that the president admits will cause the cost of energy to skyrocket. See this clip:

This is absurd. Al Qaeda, US enemy number one, says that their strategy is to “bleed” us until bankrupt. Well, someone inform Osama that he can stop his efforts right now, internally we are doing it to ourselves. Barack Obama has, from day one, has pushed harder and harder to tighten the grip of government on the free market. He has obfuscated and lied about not raising taxes on middle and lower income Americans and he has been helped by the entire extreme liberal voting bloc in Congress. I say liberal and not Democrat because there are many Democrats who do not think it makes sense to raise gas prices and raise families’ electricity costs by passing a bill that may not have any effect on global warming. First off, the effects on the environment that it will have will be offset by the fact that China will accelerate its consumption of fossil fuels as more of its citizens move into cities and buy cars.

Second, the improvement of India’s economy will also cause a substantial increase in carbon emissions. Third, any extensive government intrusion in the economy should focus more on creating incentives for cleaner energy instead of punishing the consumers of an already established market, i.e. all Americans. At this time when energy prices are already going higher and higher and people are making less due to unemployment, it is simply absurd that Congress would pass a bill that does more to punish Americans than try to unleash their creativity and innovation. Since everything that gets produced uses energy, the effects on the entire economy will be widespread. Obama’s efforts to bankrupt the coal industry and tax energy will make America less competitive and make businesses less likely to start up or remain in this country. If this bill passes the Senate, then the economic engine of America will get a bit more sluggish and we will no longer be the world superpower… China will.

Let your Senators know that Americans will not stand for this.

-AG

Yesterday, I watched the movie Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen and was thrilled to see that in addition to the spectacular special effects, the movie alluded to the current state of affairs at the White House. *Spoiler Alert* In the movie, the robotic Decepticons are on a mission to destroy the Sun and harvest its energy, but they need the knowledge inside Sam Witwicky’s (main character, college-student) head in order to find the Sun-destroying giant machine that is hidden somewhere on Earth. So the Decepticons launch a first strike that kills upwards of 7,000 people, giving us the shocking attack on a US carrier that we saw in the trailer, and immediately issuing their demand to world governments: hand over Sam or face destruction. Of course, no one knows yet about the Sun-destroying machine. In an excellent display of art imitating reality, after Obama is whisked away to an underground bunker, the administration shuts down the joint Autobot-Human anti-Decepticon task force (defense cuts) and seeks to negotiate with the Decepticons, with the Secretary of Defense indicating that Obama is willing to surrender Sam to the Decepticons in exchange for peace. Excellent! Even in the movies Obama is willing to appease the robots bent on world destruction, thinking that if only we could “talk” to them they would see the error of their ways. Even Hollywood expects his complete capitulation in the face of real danger. I hope that the moviegoers of America realize that appeasement is a sure-fire way to get destroyed… or at least get the Sun blown up.

Movie ticket: $10. Popcorn: $5. Seeing Obama Appeasement on the Big-Screen: Priceless.

-AG

As terrorists chide the United States for not being more active in promoting peace, Somali Al Qaeda linked militants are currently in an active campaign to take over Mogadishu and the whole country. The group is called Al Shabaab, The Mujihadeen Youth Movement, and are currently at war with the Somali Transitional Federal Government and their goal is the establishment of a society based on strict Sharia law, a Somali Taliban if you will. Oddly enough, the transitional government already accepts sharia law as the basis for law in Somalia, but the extremists want to go farther than that, hence why they’re called extremists. It is good to note that some of the radical groups that try to enforce a strict and cruel form of Islamic law have seemingly harmless names in their respective languages, e.g. Taliban means ’students’ and Shabaab means ‘youth.’ We should called the Marines the “Merry Men Corps” to fool our enemies, but I digress…

In a good move for the administration, instead of applying their usual foreign policy prescription when dealing with enemies (direct dialogue without preconditions), they have decided to support the transitional government in their fight against Al Shabaab and Al Qaeda. It’s about time that we started getting more serious about reining in Al Qaeda’s growing influence in Africa, if we allow it to get out of control then the US will be forced to send troops to that regime too, even if the Afghanistan war is still raging on. That is why we need to take bolder action in the region, forming security pacts and alliances with the more moderate countries specifically aimed at stopping the spread of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups. Right now though, the administration is in secret talks with the Taliban (another Al Qaeda affiliated group), offering them immunity in exchange for assurances that they will not resume fighting and possibly negotiating over Al Qaeda’s status in Afghanistan. If the talks culminate with the “peaceful” return of the Taliban en masse to Afghanistan, how long do we think that peace there will last, especially if we have swelled their ranks with “former” Taliban militants? What the prospect of negotiating with militant groups generates is the expectation of bringing the United States to the table if the terror is intense enough. Negotiation incentivizes terrorism. This means that talking to the Taliban will make all groups similar to the Taliban believe that they too can negotiate with America by killing innocents. The question we must ask as a nation before we continue the current dialogue doctrine is: should America negotiate with terrorists?

-AG

The leader of Hamas, a group regarded by most of the world as a terrorist organization, yesterday called for the United States to play a more active role in the Middle East peace process. What blatant hypocrisy! To say that they want more US participation in order to reach a peace deal while they reaffirm, in the same breath, their continued dedication to armed struggle against Israel is simply shameless. By armed struggle, Hamas refers to attacking Israelis, civilian and military, through gunfire, bombs, rocket attacks, or any other means. Instead of asking the United States to be more active in the peace process, Hamas should be less active in the terrorism process.

Hamas even refuses to recognize the right of Israel to merely exist, so what would they consider to be the “solution” to the Israel problem? Mass deportation or exodus of the Israeli population? Extermination of the Israeli population? Or will they be willing to live side by side with the Jewish people? If modern history is any indication, the prospects of a Hamas willing to live side by side in peace with the Jewish people are slim to none… especially considering that every time they launch a rocket into Israel, they consciously accept the fact that they might kill children. In other words, Hamas seems to lack conscience. I am not saying that Israel does not deserve some blame for the situation, as well as some members of the international community, but the truth of the matter is that if Hamas completely renounced violence and stopped terrorist attacks on Israel, then the international pressure on Israel to find a political solution to Palestinian demands for statehood would be so great that they would be forced to grant Palestinians their independence. If I am wrong, then the only thing we temporarily “sacrifice” is more war, a war that Hamas can simply pick up later if they so desire. If I am right, then both the Palestinians and the Israelis will get peace, even if only for a little while. Doesn’t saving a few lives make a ceasefire worth it? Sadly, history has proven that trying to reason with terrorists tends to be fruitless… and so the bloodshed continues…

-AG

When the United States pounded Al Qaeda after 911, the terrorist organization was essentially neutralized, forced to issue only a few statements from their mountain hideouts, forced to serve as simply the “inspirational” focus of would-be terrorists instead of actively supporting them, and forced to keep their organization small in order to prevent infiltration. They were fighting a relentless US-led campaign to wipe them out of existence for their crimes against thousands of innocent civilians and finally caught a break when Pakistan started negotiating with the Taliban and granting them quasi-autonomy in certain regions. It was in Pakistan’s ungovernable mountainous regions that Al Qaeda could exist with some form of security since the United States would not violate Pakistani sovereignty by invading or attacking the area. The recent Pakistani crackdown on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the terrorist-controlled region has been the most serious effort against the terror group in years, killing hundreds of militants and targeting terrorist hideouts. Despite the Pakistani government’s offensive operation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the terrorists have not been defeated but instead have launched multiple terrorist strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has also strengthened its presence in Algeria where it has carried out 10 attacks in the last month or so, Yemen where they are suspected of establishing a new base, Somalia where the government says that Al Qaeda-linked groups are too much for the government to handle, Iraq where terror attacks have increased substantially this year, and other countries. What is most troubling is that the mainstream media has not been devoting enough time to this troubling global trend.

In Africa, Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the death of an American aid worker in Mauritania, 39-year-old Christopher Ervin Leggett.

Christopher Ervin Leggett

Algeria is willing to offer amnesty to Al Qaeda terrorists, who recently killed a British hostage and launched attacks against Algerian soldiers, in an effort to reduce attacks in that country, a move that will only benefit Al Qaeda by making Algeria into a safe haven and a base from which terrorists can threaten Europe. In Mali, armed forces took over an Al Qaeda base near the Algerian border killing twelve militants, indicating that the terror group’s infrastructure in the region is pretty far advanced. Furthermore, as the pressure mounts on the Afghan-Pakistani border regions, Al Qaeda is now relocating to the Horn of Africa and setting up terrorist training camps. For example in Somalia, Al Qaeda is threatening to take over Mogadishu, engaging in a series of clashes with government forces recently.

Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, Al Qaeda commander of operations in Afghanistan

Unfortunately, this does not mean that Al Qaeda is giving up in Pakistan or Afghanistan, in fact there are signs that they and their Taliban-allies are getting stronger. First is the fact that they have launched several terror attacks across Pakistan since the offensive began. Second, in a recent interview with Al Jazeera, Al Qaeda spokesman said that they would soon win the battle in Pakistan and that they would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons against the United States. The Pakistani forces have reportedly made significant gains against the Taliban, but the group seems to continue resisting and carrying out attacks around the country. In a sign that the Taliban is reasserting itself decisively in Afghanistan, Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar has reestablished direct control of the Taliban resistance. Previously, the Taliban were a decentralized resistance group that carried out attacks according to the decisions of individual commanders. The Taliban recently launched a rocket attack on the US Bagram Air Base killing two soldiers and injuring six Americans, showing their resolve to continue fighting despite the upcoming increase in US troops in the region.

Baitullah Mehsud, Leader of Pakistani Taliban

Which brings us to Iraq, where recent bombings and terror attacks have increased as US forces have pulled out of Iraqi cities and back to US bases. In that same interviewed with Al Jazeera, the spokesman pointed to the US withdrawal as Al Qaeda’s victory in Iraq and that they have not launched major attacks on the US because they have been too busy fighting in the Middle East and Central Asia. Interestingly enough, this last point was the previous administration’s rationale for going to war, i.e. to bring the fight to the enemy so they do not attack us here.

Possible Aftermath of US Withdrawal

Of course, with a resurgent Al Qaeda that is able to project its power around the world and engage in terror in both Iraq and Afghanistan, countries where Al Qaeda was previously on the run, they will resume their plans to attack the United States mainland. An terrifying example is a recent video released by Al Qaeda that explains how they plan to exploit the security weaknesses of the US-Mexico border and sneak in a biological weapon. For those unconvinced of Al Qaeda’s sophistication in the development of biological weapons, early this year an Al Qaeda cell died of “the plague” at an Algerian terror base reportedly from their attempts to weaponize the disease. The threat from Al Qaeda is now more real than any time since 911.

With the current US strategy of withdrawing from Iraq, Al Qaeda will be able to fully challenge the Iraqi government by fomenting sectarian conflict and try to establish a base there, not to mention the propaganda value of having the US withdraw from Iraq in the midst of heightened terrorism. With the current behind-the-scenes talks with the Taliban, any sort of deal drawn up between the US-led coalition forces and the Taliban will result in the strengthening of the Taliban and subsequently the strengthening of their guests: Al Qaeda. With the current trend of politicization of terrorist groups occurring throughout the region and the US aversion to the deployment of troops anywhere else in the world, the possibility of the rise of an Islamic state-within-a-state with ties to Al Qaeda seems pretty inevitable. Only a sustained offensive policy towards Al Qaeda can stop them from gaining the capability to strike at the United States again. Our failure to address the growing Al Qaeda threat in Africa, inability to motivate Pakistan to crack down on terror, and the unraveling of last year’s security gains in Iraq have contributed to the resurgence of this threat. When one also considers that the eventual release of hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees, Iraqi detainees, and Afghan detainees will only swells Al Qaeda’s ranks with newly radicalized or re-radicalized recruits, it becomes apparent that the United States needs to adopt a better strategy in dealing with the terror group.

A world united against terror would certainly help

Hopefully, the cooperation we have been receiving from other nations and the operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan will be able to keep Al Qaeda from returning… but as of now, our “Overseas Contingency Operations” do not seem to be reducing Al Qaeda’s power. Let’s hope this changes.

-AG

Reading this blog post recently, it came to mind that maybe there was a connection between South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s adulterous ways and his support for opening up trade with the Castro regime. As a Republican he sponsored a bill that would allow for travel to Cuba, hoping to make the Castro gulag a vacation spot for dollar-wielding Americans. He has also taken trips to Cuba himself and has met with Fidel Castro. So what does that have to do with having an extramarital affair? Well, last month I wrote that the Cuban intelligence agency often eavesdropping on hollywood-types and political figures in order to acquire sensitive information that is used to blackmail them into becoming Castro-supporters. Is it possible that Sanford was blackmailed into supporting legislation that would enrich the Castro regime after Cuban intelligence found out about other extramarital activities? Pure speculation on my part, but interesting nonetheless.

What the Sanford affair actually shows is that politicians are humans, ambitions humans with many flaws, regardless of party. Politicians who claim or imply that they are perfect are simply lying. The American system of government was set up to provide some balance to the powers wielded by imperfect humans so that the people would not be subject to the whims of the few. Thus the modern tendency towards concentrating in the executive, the latest example being the appointment of 20+ “czars” accountable only to the president, is a direct assault on the system of checks and balances set up by the founding fathers. No one is perfect, regardless of what the mainstream media might have you think, and to increase the size and power of government, particularly the executive, is antithetical to the spirit of the American Revolution. Government needs to be efficient, smart, and practical, not the gargantuan, wealth-destroying/redistributing institution that it has become.

-AG

Yesterday, North Korea vowed to “wipe out the… [U.S.] off the globe once and for all” if we do anything that it considers a “declaration of war” such as stop to inspect the ship Kang Nam that is suspected of carrying illicit weapons. North Korea said that the United States’ pledge to bolster the security of South Korea against any nuclear strike invites a potential fire shower of nuclear retaliation. Apparently, the act of boosting our allies’ defensive capabilities is also being considered a hostile act. The US response to the sharpest threats from the communist regime has been less than inspiring. Yesterday, the administration renewed our economic sanctions against North Korea, which begs the question: why aren’t the sanctions as tight as can be right now? The second response was: dismissing their threats. The last time that the administration ignored North Korea’s threats, they responded by pulling out of nuclear talks, firing off missiles illegally, and detonating an atomic bomb. I wonder what the tantrum prone rogue state will do this time.

Now, while it may seem that Obama and co. have realized that their kid-gloves approach to our enemies is only making them more dangerous, I do not give them that much credit yet. We must remember that the agenda of our president is not to keep America safe but rather to make America subservient (to other nations), stagnant (by quashing entrepreneurship and freedom), and socialist, all while engaging in flagrant self-promotion. While he probably will not achieve these goals (this is America, people), these Leftist principles give us a pretty good idea of what Obama will eventually try to do. In the Obama spirit of backing down, the administration will not take any actions that North Korea would consider a provocation, which means that if the Kang Nam’s illegal weapons cargo is destined for Al Qaeda, Obama would still insist on not forcibly inspecting or stopping the ship. In the Obama spirit of reasoning with the unreasonable enemies of America, Obama will endeavor to reach out to North Korea one way or another, possibly by apologizing for our history towards them, a communist state that invaded South Korea leading to the death of tens of thousands of Americans. Finally, Obama will try to reproduce a “Nixon goes to China” moment, just like he tried to reproduce an “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment last year, and end up making a series of security concessions in Asia, probably including the reduction of US forces on the Korean peninsula and backing off commitments to Taiwanese independence… cementing Chinese hegemony in East Asia while proclaiming “peace in our time.” These are just some thoughts on what the inevitable consequences of the Obama foreign policy seem to be if the president continues on his current trajectory. So when some people say that they want the president to fail, at least in this case, I wholeheartedly agree. Obama should fail if his actions will make America weaker.

-AG

Authoritarian regimes around the world differ only in the details, their primary aims are all the same: retain power at all costs. To this end, countries such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, brand the United States, Europe, and anyone else want as the enemy in order to legitimize their rule to their own people. In times of social unrest, this tactic is particularly important because it denies dissidents any claim to moral authority by essentially branding them as traitors or as collaborators with “the enemy,” and because these tyrannical regimes control the media in the country, it is usually an easy sell. This is one reason that explains why tyranny lasts so long in certain countries.

On cue and disregarding fact, the Iranian regime scattered the blame for the anti-Ahmadinejad protests on the West, ultimately honing in on one group of countries: the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel (in that order). The fact that the Iranian regime still blames the United States despite Obama’s attempts to reach out to the regime and his hesitation in either condemning the regime or supporting the demonstrators shows that Iran’s leadership is not responding to the administration’s overtures. This was expected. What was also expected was the fact that Iran claimed that the new symbol of the protests, a woman named Neda who was filmed after she was shot and killed by Basij militia members, was killed by “groups who want to create division in the nation“, then also saying that she was killed because a marksman confused her for the sister of a terrorist. The Iranian regime does not even care if its story makes sense or not, it is just the nature of authoritarian governments to keep pointing fingers at others until the blame sticks to someone.

Neda Agha-Soltan, Face of Iranian Struggle for Freedom

It is interesting to note the developments between the administration and the Iranian regime in light of these protests. Prior to the elections Obama sent a letter to Ayatollah Khamenei requesting direct talks, indicating to the regime that the US was still committed to direct diplomacy. Later, in a Democratic signature move, Obama flip-flopped on playing nice with Iran and“toughened” his criticism of the regime, condemning their actions after more than a week of being careful not to anger the oppressive regime, definitely a sign that Obama is responding to pressure at home from members of both parties who believe in America’s role as the protector of freedom. Now Obama has rescinded its invitation to Iran for the July 4th celebration. It looks like the administration is finally on the right side of history, at least momentarily, by condemning a regime that indiscriminately kills abroad and at home in order to retain its power. What this scenario shows us about Iran is that no amount of outreach will change the principal goal of the Iranian revolution: regional and global power. US demands of respect for human rights, suspension of nuclear development, and renouncing terrorism simply do not fit their plans.

It is in situations like these, when dealing with tyrannical regimes that use the US as a scapegoat, that the Lefty Liberals get tripped up easily. Their confused logic concludes “they are using us as a scapegoat to retain their control over their population, so let’s treat them nice so that they have no reason to hate us.” To that I offer the clear example demonstrated by the Iranian regime’s response to Obama. To this, the hard-core Lefties will say “no we were not nice enough, they still resent us for our past relationship” and they will continue to push for unlimited concessions to our enemies. The reason that simply being nice to them does not work is that the primary goal of authoritarian regimes is to retain power by any means, specifically by creating the idea of an enemy or some bogeyman out there that only the rulers can protect the people from. This means that dictators only use our actions as examples, but ultimately it is our EXISTENCE that they hate. The only thing we can do to change this is to actively help the dictators oppress their people. If America is willing to help preserve and spread tyranny around the world, then we will get loads of love from tyrants everywhere…

How Giving Aid to Dictatorships Works

But if we adhere to the principles that founded this country, that ALL people have inalienable rights, then we cannot actively support tyranny. One good thing that can come from Obama foreign policy failures is that America will realize the importance of resisting terror and tyranny in the world. Unfortunately, it looks like the administration is not done with its mission of aiding and comforting our enemies. It will be a lesson well learned.

-AG

Chris Matthews, political commentator and host of the show Hardball, is a personality that I like listening to but disagree with. Sun Tzu said it best: Know thy enemy. When Republican Senate candidate (FL) Marco Rubio tweeted that “I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd Amendment like ours,” Matthews commented on his June 22nd show: “Wow! Things would be different if the protesters had the Constitutional right to bear arms?! To fight back against the Iranian Guard? I hadn’t thought of that. Then again it wouldn’t really be a non-violent protest, would it Mr. Rubio, if the non-violent protesters were walking around with guns!” Matthews is flat wrong in his analysis.

First off, Matthews’ own position on limiting the second amendment is clear, as shown in this video where he says that he wants people “disarmed":

In criticizing Rubio’s defense of our Second Amendment rights, Matthews seems to confuse strength with violence. Apparently, he has never heard the adage: “If you wish for peace, prepare for war.” The Second Amendment right is not to be interpreted as a mandate to go and use weapons on anyone or everyone, as some Democrats would have us believe, but rather as a reminder that the ultimate authority in our system of government is the people and the right of the people’s self-defense cannot be denied by any governing power. In practice, the Second Amendment serves as a deterrent to the rational-minded and a defense against imminent harm. Matthews’ assertion that the protests would turn violent if the Iranian people were armed is incorrect, just look at the vast majority of political protests and rallies in the United States that do not turn violent. The truth is that if the Iranian people had a Second Amendment, then the Iranian regime would not crack down on the protesters so heavy-handedly. The right to defend themselves would serve as a deterrent and the right to be heard would more likely be respected. The greatest fear of tyrannical regimes is a population that can defend itself.

Both on the domestic and international front, the Left is trying to disarm the United States, believing that somehow the criminals, terrorists, and dictators will respond to a defenseless America by becoming our friends and abandoning their evil ways. Freedom-loving Americans must not allow Democrats’ plans for unilateral disarmament to come to fruition. On that note: good for you, Marco Rubio, for pointing out that our rights in this country have been indispensable in securing our freedom and that some in the world can learn from our example. We ignore this lesson at our own peril.

-AG

With the Democrats’ two-pronged foreign policy strategy, appeasement and apologizing, and the Anti-American Axis‘ two-pronged responses to American weakness, threats and weapons development, will the issue of national security prove fatal to the Left in the next election cycle? I have three theories. The first one is simple: the media will spin all of the Democrats’ failures as successes and attribute any sort of positive development to Obama’s actions. So far we have seen this occur, from reporting that the Lebanon vote was swayed by the “Obama Effect,” then ignoring the “Obama Effect” as it applied to the Iranian vote/fraud, then ignoring the non-responsiveness of the administration to North Korea’s explosion of an atomic bomb, then ignoring the daily terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda affiliated groups, etc. The media, aka the government propaganda machine, has not taken a hard look at the short- nor long-term implications of getting friendly with regimes whose only claim to fame is their continuous practice of trying to kill Americans and weaken America. The media is supposed to be the watchdog of a healthy democracy, instead we have a mouthpiece for the president and considering that the government is currently pressing the need for more “oversight” of the free enterprise system and society in general, who will end up watching the watchers?

The second theory of how the security issue might affect the next elections revolves around the Democrats’ use of image instead of substance. Right now, the sitting president is a political “rock star” liked by many regardless of his actions while the Republican party is essentially leaderless and many of the more known personalities are not well regarded by the public. This means that if the Cheney’s, Limbaugh’s, and Bush’s of the world take center stage versus the “oh-so-cool” Obama, then the national security issue will be neutralized by the political popularity contest that will ensue. Turning democratic elections into a popularity contest by reducing the candidates’ positions on issues to soundbites and slogans, similar to what was done in ‘08, is more detrimental to the democratic process than anything happening in Iran right now. To avoid this, the American public must demand accountability from our elected officials and the Republicans must not put forward candidates without excessive baggage or negative publicity points like the aforementioned personalities.

Theory number three is that Republicans unify with a clear message about how America should be a responsible leader of the world. Hegemony is not forever and Obama is making sure of that. If we want to reverse the trend of a weakening America, then the Republicans will need to unite behind a clear, concise plan of how to promote American strength. Essentially, a metaphor for what is currently happening with America can be found in the plethora of action movies we have all watched: terrorists/bad guys start causing havoc in the world, the government and authorities are powerless to stop them, then the hero comes on stage and starts foiling the bad guys’ plans, all of this accompanied by stunning visuals and explosions. The better that the Republicans can narrate this story, with the conservative movement being the hero, then the better they will do at the polls… to their advantage, the emboldened terrorists and powerless government are already a reality due to this administration. I am not saying that instead of making elections a popularity contest, we should make them an action movie, but rather that the current administration has created the conditions for our enemies to threaten us and the Democrats are powerless to stop them, paralleling an action movie plot. In the present situation, reality imitates art… which means that the Republican Party can play the part of hero in real life. The only thing lacking is a focal point, i.e. a leader, party unity, and clear communication of the message: Peace through Strength. Or at least a variation of that message.

I believe that what will eventually play out is a combination of the first two scenarios and I am hoping that the Republicans take the course of action outlined in theory three. I am actively rooting for the underdog in the next elections, especially since I am so very proud of being an American that Obama’s country-bashing disgusts me. Our elected officials’ love of country should be as strong or stronger than mine, but many Democrats deride patriotism as having no part in public life. This is why Obama supporters forgave his insistence that he would not wear an American flag lapel pin or his insistence that not putting his hand over his heart while they played the national anthem was acceptable. The greatness of America is manifest in the greatness of Americans, their courage, their service, and their generosity… and it should be celebrated. The Republicans should launch their new united campaign for American freedom on July 4th… the most Republican of holidays.

-AG

Syria is a supporter of the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, it supports Iran’s nuclear program, it is technically in a state of war with US-ally Israel, and it allows foreign fighters that eventually fight American troops to enter Iraq. US and Israeli intelligence also reports that Syria was building a nuclear reactor, with help from North Korea, which was destroyed in a surprise Israeli air strike. Syria was also suspected to have played a hand in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was seen to have opposed Syrian control over Lebanon near the end of his life, and after his death, Syria withdrew their forces from Lebanon. It was due to this Syrian involvement that the United States withdrew its ambassador in protest. So what does the Obama administration want to do with Syria? Normalize relations. It’s a surreal world indeed.

Obama will be sending a new ambassador to Syria in order to re-establish relations with the terror-sponsoring country. He also wants to build a new embassy in Damascus. Apparently, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, friend of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, has been having “productive” conversations with the administration’s envoys. Talking to a regime such as Assad’s is only worth it if they are willing to make concessions. Particularly, Syria would need to do at least three major things for any serious talks to take place: stop supporting terrorist groups or get them to stop terrorizing Israel, secure the Syrian-Iraqi border, and come clean about any WMD or nuclear programs. Anything short of these three would seriously undermine US security. It is a process that worked with Libya, a former sponsor of terror that has agreed to dismantle its weapons programs. The problem with Obama’s approach is that it puts the cart before the horse. With Libya, we only sent an ambassador and built a new embassy once they changed their ways, a decision they made with the Iraq invasion fresh in their minds. With Obama, Syria will receive recognition from the US in exchange for… the sliver of cooperation we have received on the border issue with Iraq. Bad negotiating technique. Especially when the stakes are so high.

The administration needs to look at Syria’s history and its friends before it starts recognizing and legitimizing terror sponsoring states. By legitimizing Syria, the administration is signaling to the population of Lebanon and other nations that voting for an anti-American party or group will have no repercussions. Hezbollah was defeated in Lebanon, but won the popular vote, with the most decisive factor contributing to their defeat being the fear of Syrian and Iranian influence. If the US conveys to the world the false illusion that Syria and Iran aren’t really that bad, then future elections in moderate Middle Eastern countries might go to the radicals. I do believe that some sort of communication with the regime can be constructive, especially since General Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, has indicated that Syria is taking some action to secure the border. I personally do not think that these actions are enough though, especially considering that Syria’s willful neglect has probably led to the deaths of American soldiers and their continued support of terrorism and Iran is a threat to the world. Obama’s move toward the normalization of relations is giving them too much for too little in exchange and it sends the wrong message to the world. Dictators around the world now expect the red carpet treatment from Obama regardless of their crimes or actions… while Obama makes sure to not fully support pro-democracy protests. We must beware abandoning freedom, lest freedom one day abandon us.

-AG

One would expect that an emergency war supplemental bill to be a bill that primarily deals with funding for our troops, but under the Democrats’ regime that we currently live under, this expectation proves false. Essentially, the Obama administration has taken an emergency war spending bill that should mainly have been used to support the troops and added to it provisions that give an unaccountable international organization billions of dollars as a bailout. This means that the American taxpayer will now be footing the bill for not only the US financial institutions that got us into this economic crisis but also for European banks that made risky investments in Eastern Europe. The bill in itself is for $106 billion with about $80 billion going to our troops, but it authorizes a $108 billion loan to bail out the International Monetary Fund. This bill was a brazen attempt at tying “global bailout” efforts to supporting our troops, an underhanded move that split Senate and House Republicans, with the former supporting it and the latter voting almost unanimously against it. An emergency war supplemental bill should support our troops, not to spend taxpayer dollars to bail out other countries’ banks… instead, the administration should request the money for international organizations and foreign banks separately, but apparently they were betting that such a bill could not pass. They’re probably right.

This Supplemental Appropriations Act lost the support of 35 Democrats who were worried about the fact that Obama has not presented a thorough exit strategy for Afghanistan while allocating even more money to their military and non-military affairs and of course due to the $108 billion in loans to the IMF. Also, the bill initially requested funds for the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States mainland and for the release of photos of detainee abuse that could be used in terrorist recruitment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fortunately, the money was denied and it was decided that the photos would not be released, but it shows what the Obama administration’s agenda is all about and it’s not the safety of the American people or our troops. The bill prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is a premature commitment on the part of the administration. We cannot and do not know about the need for permanent bases, especially considering the worsening situation in both countries, therefore to ban bases is completely short-sighted. What this bill does is unnecessarily tie the hands of the military in the global war on terror… or should I say our “Overseas Contingency Operations.” What the military needs is a war spending bill that is not used as a Trojan Horse for the administration’s political agenda and that actually focuses more on the real-world security concerns of our country. With the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and Afghanistan we need more direct funding for the military, less funding for international organizations and foreign banks, and zero restrictions on our efforts to fight terror… it also wouldn’t hurt to resume the use of the ever-so-clear expression Global War on Terror.

Republicans should have been more united in opposing this bill and very loudly and publicly offering a better alternative, or at the very least demanding that the Democrats separate the part that actually funds the troops with the part that funds foreign governments, some of which actively support terror like Iran. With a united Republican opposition it may have been possible to secure more funds for the troops at a time when terrorism around the world is on the rise. The Democrats have been very clear on their plans for our enemies, diplomacy even if it means that they develop weapons of mass destruction while we negotiate with them. The Republicans must show that they are in complete opposition to this agenda by supporting a strong military force that will serve as a deterrent to rogue states developing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism. If the Republicans do not know how to remain united, then they should listen to this guy:

Politics should never be put before our troops.

-AG

As the external threats of an overtly oppressive and bellicose Iranian regime and the possibility of Iraq succumbing to terrorist forces or sectarian fragmentation continue to weigh on the American consciousness, it is important that we not be distracted from the domestic policy failures that will play an important part in the reduction of American influence in the world. Let’s go back to the days when a novice president said that the “time for action is now” and if that we did not act then “crisis will turn into catastrophe.” It was under these pretenses that the new administration reached into the dusty shelves of macroeconomics libraries and pulled out an economic theory conceived more than 70 years ago… so much for change. The idea was that the government could stimulate the economy by printing more and more money until the economy recovered, regardless of how the money is spent. Well, despite being completely absurd the idea that more borrowing and spending beyond one’s means was the solution to an economic recession caused by excessive borrowing and spending beyond one’s means, it turns out the the so-called “Stimulus” package rammed through Congress by the Democrats in power has actually not done its job. What the Stimulus has stimulated is special interests and the national debt, it looks like change hasn’t come to Washington after all.

First off, the administration propaganda-machine estimated that the Stimulus would create or save 750,000 jobs by early August. The reality is that for the month of May, unemployment rates increased in every state except for Nebraska. No new massive influx of the government-touted “green jobs” or “shovel ready” jobs. It was in manufacturing, in Michigan, where the highest unemployment rate increase occurred. Manufacturing jobs were hit hard by the repercussions of GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, despite the government spending billions of taxpayer dollars on these companies. So even when we stimulate individual companies, they still fail… why spend the taxpayers’ money to begin with? One thing is certain though, the UAW, a Democratic-voting union, was handed over 55% stake in Chrysler and the government has taken a majority stake in GM. Unions and the government are taking over the free enterprise system… all at the taxpayers’ and the consumers’ expense. Ain’t it grand?

Second, instead of stopping or slowing the recession, we have seen what we expected to see from a free market correcting itself, some economic sectors improving, some bottoming out, and some getting worse. One thing is certain though, companies such as GM and Chrysler would have gone into bankruptcy much earlier with much less cost to the taxpayer if the government had simply not intervened or not “stimulated” them and today we would have been talking about a resurgent American auto industry. Instead, we had months of uncertainty that only hurt the markets and an eventual outcome that put the government in the driver’s seat in terms of running these companies.. with the American taxpayer holding the bill. Just yesterday, as an example of how the Stimulus is only stimulating government size and power, we saw the stock market take a hit, with the Dow Jones dropping 201 points, after the World Bank estimated that the world economy would contract 2.9%, more than the previously projected 1.7%. I guess the world economy doesn’t feel stimulated yet. Add to that laws such as the new bill that gives the FDA overwhelming power over the tobacco industry, allowing the federal agency to ban flavoring, control advertising, and control the ingredients that go into tobacco products. This bill was signed into law by a guy who is himself a smoker, it could be that he’s trying to get the federal government to support his efforts to quit. The regulation of even advertisement, beyond merely requiring truth or warnings, shows that the government regards the American public as little more than children who need to be mommied and watched over lest we do something they think is “bad.” Government intervention in our daily lives is growing under the current administration.

Third, one thing that the Stimulus is not stimulating is the talent at firms that have accepted federal money. A brain-drain is currently going on at banks and financial institutions that have accepted, sometimes by force, stimulus dollars. This means that America, historically the beacon for talent from all over the world, is losing to other countries who have no such restrictions on compensation. The administration has appointed about 20 different “czars” that regulate areas from the auto industry to the amount of money executives can get paid. John McCain has joked that “Obama has more czars than the Romanovs,” but in truth, the expansion of executive power is no joking matter, not in this administration nor in the previous one. The executive branch has no business trying to supervise the compensation of employees at companies, especially in the cases where they had to take federal money against their will and have not been allowed to repay that money. Excessive government intervention will lead to the weakening of America’s economy.

The real threat to America is an overly ideological stance when it comes to government. It is practicality that Americans want and need. Right now, the administration has made its position clear: it stands for increased government intervention in the economy. Many may feel that the term “socialist” is unfair, but when you have an economic policy that is based on the redistribution of wealth, like Obama explicitly expressed during the campaign and during his presidency, it is a “socialist” policy. On the other hand, even the previous administration expanded government and redistributed wealth to some extent, despite its claims of being conservative. What this means is that Americans must judge a government by its actions, not only whether it is “liberal” or “conservative,” and unfortunately for us, both liberal and conservative administrations have conspired to increase the size and power of government, each for different reasons. Americans must stand for freedom… the freedom to live one’s life without government intervention, the freedom to succeed or fail in life as a result of our efforts and talents, the freedom to choose our own path… Affiliating with Republicans or Democrats or whatever party should only reflect that basic desire for freedom. One thing is certain though, giving government the power to control the free enterprise system, intrude on our personal life, and give away our tax dollars to special interests compromises our freedom… we must take care not to willingly give away our freedom simply because we “like” the current leader. A cult of personality is no substitute for a healthy republic.

For years, the Democratic choir sang the praises of being nicer to the enemy, of more rights for suspected terrorists, and for the normalization of relations with abnormally cruel and dangerous tyrants. With the Left firmly in control of Washington what we are witnessing in Iran is the logical consequence of that policy. The new administration has abandoned the courageous Iranian people who risk life and limb to demand freedoms that we Americans take for granted. Technology now allows us to see the raw reality of the Iranian regime’s crackdown on unarmed protesters, including the murder of individual protesters that serve as heart-wrenching rallying cries for the pro-democracy demonstrators and people around the world. In real-time, Americans can now watch what happens when tyranny goes unopposed and unchecked in the world… if this is how they treat unarmed protesters, then imagine what the Iranian regime is willing to do to us and Israel with nuclear weapons. Yet the unfolding events caused or enabled by a weakened America have not taught the new administration that their soft approach to our enemies is just plain wrong…

Enter Iraq, where Obama pledged a withdrawal of troops and is currently reducing our troop levels there. It was a short-sighted reaction to what was and is an unpopular war. The withdrawal of troops, to be mostly completed a year or so, is seen by the enemy as a direct consequence of their prolonged terror campaign against our troops. The problem with Obama’s plan for withdrawal is that it does not seem to outline a “post-exit strategy.” Take the recent events in Iraq that have largely been ignored by the mainstream media: four bombings in Iraq killed more than 20 including one that killed three students on their way to exams, more than 9 killed from bombings and gunmen attacks Sunday, last Saturday a suicide bomber killed about 80 people in a Shiite mosque, in separate attacks 4 people were killed on Saturday from bombings, gunmen attacks, and mortar attacks, just to name a few. Add to that the fact that the new administration is started to release thousands of suspected terrorists and insurgents as the dismantling of the US presence continues, and what you have is a situation where all of the gains made by the surge are being undone. The logic of our enemies in Iraq is clear: Obama responded to terror attacks by calling for a withdrawal of troops, therefore if they increase their attacks, Obama will accelerate his withdrawal while Al Qaeda and other groups can claim victory. By withdrawing because it is politically expedient rather than because we have achieve sustainable security gains, we are handing Iraq over to our enemies. Just by looking at another multi-religious state in the Middle East, Lebanon, we can expect Iraq to divide along sectarian lines and break into different sub-states. This exists in Lebanon today, where the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah is the de facto government in many areas and cannot be disarmed by the central government. While I advocate an eventual withdrawal from Iraq, I am more concerned over whether Iraq will become the new epicenter of Al Qaeda and/or other international terror groups because of a weak central government… or whether the Iranian “revolution” will spread to Iraq, which may spark a major war between Sunnis and Shiites across the Middle East, eventually involving us.

The new administration’s policies in these two countries will leave a lot of unresolved issues and may lead to the rise of a new terrorist state in Iraq. Obama has not thoroughly addressed how the Al Qaeda threat will be neutralized in Iraq during and after the withdrawal of US troops nor how we will deal with excessive Iranian influence over the Iraqi government. To leave these questions unanswered, or half-answered, will lead to an emboldened and strengthened enemy that we will have to face in the future. When the Bush administration was in power, they miscalculated and did not have an adequate “exit strategy” but at least they recognized that withdrawing as a response to terror attacks or setting arbitrary timetables would only invite more attacks on our troops. The Obama administration is making a similar mistake by not preparing for the consequences of our withdrawal, except that the cost of giving Al Qaeda the opportunity to re-constitute itself in Iraq or for Iran to turn Iraq into a satellite state is far too great. Worse still if half of Iraq goes to Iran and the other half to Al Qaeda. In retrospect, the Bush strategy of taking the fight to the enemy is superior to the Obama strategy of allowing the enemy to bring the fight to us. Al Qaeda cannot be allowed to rise again… which means we cannot hand them Iraq on a silver platter and we cannot engage in talks with their allies, the Taliban, like Obama is currently doing. The security of our citizens depends on a smart and strong foreign policy, not a weak and ideological foreign policy. Great nations only fall when they are weak, not when they are strong.

-AG

Today, Republican Senators criticized Barack Obama’s “timid” stance towards the protests in Iran. The Republicans have not been doing an overly effective job with their own public image by not offering a clear alternative to the Democratic agenda that is marching relentlessly forward. By taking a stand on issues like this and offering alternatives to the pseudo-socialist Democratic proposals, the Republican Party can finally come out of obscurity. Merely by reading all of the content on conservative websites, the Republican leadership can get more in touch with the “street” and refine their message. The times when assuming that the left-leaning-media could not erode the American public’s confidence in the values of Independence, Freedom, and the American Dream are over. The overt bias of the American media in favor of the current president has made independent thought a revolutionary act. Republicans are the new American revolutionaries.

On the issue of foreign policy, the Republicans have an opening… no, in fact, they have a duty to our country to point out how policies of weakness and timidity. The last time we had such a weak president, Iran became a totalitarian theocracy, Angola and Nicaragua were taken over by communists, El Salvador was fighting off commies, and the Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan. It took a Republican president to turn the tides. The current president is quick to point to Reagan as an example of how “talking with the enemy” works, but Obama is missing the entire point of HOW Reagan talked to the Soviets. When Reagan talked to the Evil Empire, he did so while significantly increasing military spending, restarting weapons programs, aiding anti-Soviet and anti-communist forces around the world, trying to deploy the “Star Wars” missile defense system, and deploying missiles to West Germany… peace through strength.

Obama, on the other hand, has unilaterally eased restrictions on communist Cuba, has apologized for American “arrogance” around the world, pledged disarmament (possibly unilateral disarmament), has waffled on missile defense shield plans, granted more rights to suspected terrorists, tried brokering immunity deals with the Taliban, and abandoned pro-democracy groups in Iran and around the world… peace through aiding and comforting the enemy?

So when Obama talks about Reagan engaging in direct diplomacy with our enemies, he is misleading the American public by omitting the part about the fact that diplomacy only works when the enemy respects or fears you, and the Republicans should pounce on these claims. The Republican party can only survive if it is willing to hold Obama accountable: accountable to his own words and accountable to the American people. The Republican party can only challenge the leftists currently in charge by offering an alternative to one-party rule, which means: proposing ideas that honor American principles and proposing ideas that work.

At this moment, when a terror-sponsoring totalitarian regime is being confronted by a people who are tired of having their voices ignored and their opinions steamrolled by the official government slogans, it is necessary to draw a clear line in the sand about where America stands. Reporters and demonstrators are under attack, getting beaten and shot in the street by government-sponsored paramilitary groups, and our own government has not stood firmly behind the victims of Iranian oppression. Republicans and Democrats alike need to search deep in their hearts and decide whether we should comfort the Iranian regime by offering only “cautious” words or if we should loudly and clearly commit ourselves to the spirit of freedom currently under attack in Iran. This is the chance for the party of no-more-socialism to become the party of yes-more-liberty.

-AG

Thanks to the internet, the repressive hand of tyranny can no longer operate in darkness with impunity. Below is footage from the Iranian protests currently taking place. The media is being strictly controlled, so the only way for information to trickle out is through the internet. As the Iranian dictatorship turns its guns on students, women, and protesters of all varieties, Obama continues to turn a deaf ear to the cries for help. People are dying in the streets supporting the cause of freedom, the right to choose their own government, which are rights that we Americans take for granted. The President in the meantime said that he would try not to meddle in Iranian affairs, only going as far as politely asking for the Iranian government to stop its “unjust” actions… Obama does not want to do anything to agitate the Iranian regime, forgetting that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

America must do something.

Caution: the images below contain raw footage of violence.

I added the song We’re Not Gonna Take It by Twisted Sister in honor of the protests.

-AG

Protests rage on in Iran with the reformist candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi saying that he is ready for “martyrdom.” In the meantime, the president of the United States of America has decided to stay a cautious distance away from the best opportunity for freedom in Iran in three decades. While Obama insists that he does not want to interfere in Iran’s affairs, Iran’s rulers have already charged us with doing just that. So the question is: if they already believe that we are “meddling” why not take the plunge and actually help the pro-democracy protesters by showing our support?

The reason is that standing with the Iranian people is not what Obama wants. Obama wants to stand next to the Ayatollahs. Obama wants a to hold a “historic” dialogue with Ahmadinejad. Obama wants a photo-op. Freedom is not what the president wants. While he talks about outreach, he is actively NOT reaching out to the only people in Iran that, in spite of suffering beatings, incarceration, and getting killed, are still out there on the street demanding real change. He is actively reaching out to thugs, tyrants, and terrorists because it fulfills some sort of ideological fetish, the idea that bad guys are just misunderstood. By turning a blind eye to the regime’s abuses, we are essentially enabling oppression. Yesterday, Ayatollah Khamenei issued his ultimatum, practically saying that any harm that befalls the protesters is the protesters’ own fault. This means that Iran will soon start taking the gloves off and really crack down on the demonstrators… if and when that happens, will America simply be standing to the side as the spirit of freedom gets crushed? Or will America be the defender of freedom?

Unfortunately, the president has already shown us his ability to ignore the suffering of the Iranian people. Our actions now will influence the future of our relations with Iran. If we abandon the people then both the regime and the people will hate us. If we stand against tyranny then only the regime will hate us. I think the choice is clear, but for a person like Obama, who excuses his relationships with former terrorists and excused the vicious anti-American diatribes of his former-pastor Jeremiah Wright, choosing freedom over tyranny is not so easy. Is it too much to ask for the president of America to actually act American?

To the Iranian people who oppose tyranny, the American people stand with you, regardless of what our politicians say or do.

-AG

When it comes to dealing with the thugs, terrorists, and tyrants of the world, direct talks without preconditions is naive, a betrayal of American values, and a threat to the security of the world. Just take the new administration’s approach to historical enemies of the United States, what the president calls “tough diplomacy” has, in 5 short months, increased the influence, strength, and belligerence of dictators and terrorists across the board. The amount of damage caused by the mere promise of holding direct talks with countries regardless of their human rights records, regardless of their complicity and participation in the deaths of Americans, regardless of their direct support of terrorism, and regardless of their nuclear aspirations has already been substantial. The examples are numerous and the effects of the administration’s new naive foreign policy have been felt on every continent.

To start off we have communist North Korea, a country that prior to Obama’s election was vilified as a member of the Axis of Evil and was in the process of suspending its nuclear program (at least in theory). During the election they favored the Democratic candidate because of his overt stance in favor of engaging with rogue states. Once the herald-of-change was elected, North Korea also changed. They threatened the destruction of South Korea, as they have in the past. They carried out illegal missile tests, as they have in the past. They pulled out of the six-party negotiations and resumed nuclear development. They conducted a new nuclear test. They launched medium-range missiles. They regarded the new United Nations resolution that tightened the arms embargo on North Korea as an act of war. They declared that they could not guarantee the safety of ships in disputed waters. They are currently preparing for the launch of a long-range missile, possibly towards Hawaii. The US response has been to urge them to return to the negotiation table. The State Department and the President have been repeating that North Korea’s actions will lead to further isolation and that the world will not tolerate these threats. In other words, the new administration has decided that the best course of action is diplomacy and each round of empty threats from the US have been met with new weapons tests and new provocations. Obama recently warned that North Korea “must respond to diplomacy” and warned that tougher actions would be taken otherwise. The reason that North Korea has not taken Obama seriously is that the president has made every indication that he would exhaust diplomatic venues before even considering a military response. While Obama waits for a response, North Korea will accelerate its weapons development programs and figure out how to best use their new weapons to blackmail the United States. While Obama waits for a response, Alaskans and Hawaiians worry a little more every day despite assurances from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that we are prepared for any potential missile attack from North Korea. While Obama waits for a response, the peoples of Japan and South Korea anxiously hope that the last bastion of freedom, the United States of America, will be able to solve this problem, which to them is an existential one. This is what the promise of negotiating with a madman like Kim Jong Il has brought us.

Which brings us to another nation that aspires to possess a nuclear capability: Iran. Run by a council of Islamic clerics and a hardline elected government headed by the Holocaust-denier, unstable Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When Obama offered to extend a hand if they unclenched their fist, Iran’s leaders immediately seized upon this as an excuse to demand an apology for all of our past actions. Iran’s efforts to increase their influence and power in the region after 30 years have led them to support sophisticated and well-organized terrorist organizations, interfere with US forces by arming and training insurgents, and develop a nuclear capability. Recognition by the United States and the world has been one of its primary goals, one that Obama went far to help them reach by offering to talk to them. The problem with recognizing this rogue state as a regional or world power is that it legitimizes their actions. It incentivizes sponsoring terrorism. It incentivizes pursuing nuclear weapons. It incentivizes military action against the United States. As I wrote before, Iran-sponsored terrorist organization Hezbollah recently met with officials from the European Union. In the last election they garnered the support of 55% of the Lebanese population. Actions that lead to the legitimization of terrorist organizations or regimes that vow the destruction of other countries, like Ahmadinejad has vowed to do to Israel, only lead to the spread of their murderous ideologies and their success at gaining political power. If Obama’s overtures to Iran did anything, it was to show the Iranian people that taking a hard stance against the United States will eventually cause us to back down and sue for peace. Even now, with demonstrations against Ahmadinejad, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spoke about accepting the election results as people chanted “Death to America”. The message that the US will respond to threats and attacks only helps terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Taliban gain and retain power. Right now, patriotic Iraqis are in fear of an Iranian-controlled government taking power as soon as the US withdraws its forces. Many Lebanese people fear that a disagreement between the central government and the terrorist organization Hezbollah will lead to another civil war. They also fear that Syria and Iran (Hezbollah’s sponsors) will come to wield undue influence in their country and that Hezbollah might launch another attack on Israel, dragging them into war yet again, or worse yet, another dose of Israeli occupation. Israel itself is afraid that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, which is now all but assured due to US insistence on dialogue which just gives them more time to finish their nuclear development, might bring about a nuclear Holocaust. Were Hamas to be more legitimized by the United States and the world, they would have the ability to smuggle more weapons into Gaza and continue their terrorist campaign against Israel. The US already has pledged hundreds of millions to help Gaza while insincerely reassuring the world that these funds would not make their way into terrorist hands. Ultimately though, the legitimization of Iran as a regional power in the Middle East makes it a perfect model of an Islamic fundamentalist state to be emulated by any other terrorist movement in any other country. By offering recognition the United States has just made extremism into a form of mainstream-ism in the world.

Which brings us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. After being almost totally routed in Afghanistan, the Taliban and their Al Qaeda guests relocated to Pakistan’s ungovernable tribal regions. In that area, due to the Pakistani government’s unwillingness to crack down on the terrorists, these organizations regrouped and rearmed. Upon assuming office, Obama has repeatedly proclaimed that the war in Afghanistan is being lost in spite of the fact that the Taliban have been ousted, they are forced to blend into the local population, and rarely engage in anything other than guerrilla attacks. To his credit, even General David D. McKiernan, the Commander of NATO and US forces in Afghanistan, agree with him. Among the solutions proposed by the commander-in-chief was to engage in dialogue with the Taliban. The United Nations also says that we must talk with the Taliban, including “alleged war criminals.” Another country that repeatedly has advocated talking to the Taliban is Pakistan, a country that is currently engaged in an offensive operation and in the midst of a terror wave. Apparently, the multitude of cease-fires, agreements, and negotiations did not prevent the Taliban and Al Qaeda from gaining strength in the region, so why does the Obama administration believe that some form of dialogue with the Taliban would do us any good? It is unknown why they believe that discussions with the Taliban would benefit US security, but since February, such secret talks with the Taliban have been underway. Of course they are secret, because if the American public was made aware that backers of the criminal terrorist Osama bin Laden are being offered immunity and other concessions, then there would be a great public outcry. To this date, negotiations are taking place in Saudi Arabia. While the Taliban are engaged in talks with the US, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Taliban terror attacks in Pakistan have been escalating. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have learned that if they continue to pressure these governments, they will eventually try to negotiate a way to end the conflict. Talking to the Taliban has only emboldened them. Right now, the citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan are in fear for their lives while their governments and ours is legitimizing the Taliban terror campaign by engaging in talks. The security of the world will be severely jeopardized if Al Qaeda is once again allowed to use Afghanistan as its training camp or if the Taliban once again assume control of the country. If this occurs, then Al Qaeda can claim victory over the United States and the memory of 911 will be betrayed. Obama’s policy of appeasement will only lead to more terror.

Which brings us to the western hemisphere. On Obama’s watch, the Organization of American States has lifted its suspension of communist Cuba after 47 years and now Cuba is well on its way to being recognized as a legitimate state. While Cuba has rejected OAS membership because of the stipulations that Cuba must re-apply to the organization and meet certain human rights standards, what this move signifies is that regardless of a regime’s crimes it will be accepted by the international community and the United States in particular. It also means that Castro-imitators will be accepted by the international community. Thus, to legitimize Castro by unilaterally easing restrictions on the embargo and lifting its suspension from an international organization of mainly democratic states is to legitimize Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela that has been, by increments, consolidating power in his and his party’s hands. Not to mention the fact that Obama has said that he is open to direct talks with Chavez, further legitimizing the socialist movement that has gripped the governments of many countries in Latin America. For example, Chavez recently has been cracking down on his political opponents and stripping them of power without the US saying a word, nor the media even mentioning it. When one also considers that these “socialist” governments are united mainly by their opposition to the United States and that they have been reaching out to anti-American nations around the world, it makes it clear that the threat to our country is closer than the new administration seems to believe. Chavez and Raul Castro have reached out to Iran.

Reports abound that Hezbollah has infiltrated Latin America. Bolivia’s ties with Iran have also increased substantially since the assumption of office by Evo Morales, Chavez’s good friend and fellow socialist. Some fear that this new relationship between these two America haters will lead to or has already led to the establishment of a terrorist cell or camp in Bolivia.

Ahmadinejad and Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, getting really friendly

Obama has treated these anti-American thugs with kindness. The president has not addressed their ties with Iran, probably because he is trying to engage with Iran. The policy of offering direct diplomacy without preconditions to these leaders only helps strengthen these regimes by giving them international legitimacy, even while the plot, prepare, and participate in attacks against America. In Latin America, an emerging socialist bloc threatens to reawaken the communist guerrilla armies that wreaked havoc in Colombia, Peru, and Nicaragua to name a few Latin American countries that have been affected by socialism/communism. In turn, civil wars in these countries will lead to a greater displacement of people and increase in the drug production and trafficking.

In the short time that this new administration has been in power, the seeds for regional destabilization have been sown and the enemies of the United States have been strengthened. It is now almost impossible to isolate Iran or North Korea. It is now expected that we negotiate with the Taliban and take a softer stance on the war on terror. It is now a fact of life that Latin America will consider the emerging socialist internationalist movements as a preferable alternative to free markets and trade with the United States. All of these states, organizations, and movements have one thing in common: anti-Americanism. They are reacting to the fact that America represents the eventual universal emancipation of people around the world. America represents the model for a government of, by, and for the people… a model where any person, including those who will undermine our national security due to poorly-conceived idealism, can become president. Thus, the idea that direct talks with our enemies without preconditions will lead to an era of dictators acting nicely and terrorists renouncing their ways only empowers both… our enemies have smelled weakness in our new government and although they have been united in purpose for some time now, they are increasingly uniting in action… they are forming an Anti-American Axis that is dramatically different from the Evil Empire that we faced in the last century. The potential loss of their entire country and people kept them from using weapons of mass destruction on the United States. Suicidal extremists have no such constraints.

When faced with such an enemy, the popular refrain seems most fitting: Talk is Cheap.

-AG

For the last couple of days, in the midst of North Korea’s serious provocations, I have been reading reports on how the President was able to kill a fly. They reported how the organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) reacted to the fly-swatting incident. Then I read a report that Abraham Lincoln also swatted a fly in his day, yet another “similarity” between Obama and the great emancipator. In fact, I am sure that every president, like most human beings not living in Antarctica, have had encounters with flies… the question is: should the media be wasting the public’s time with insignificant stories like this one?

The mainstream media has had a very public love-affair with the Obama administration. Recently, the editor of Newsweek Evan Thomas compared Obama to God, topping the list of ways that the media has been genuflecting in front of the Celebrity-in-Chief. The fact that those in the media do not even pretend to conceal their bias shows the public that the mainstream media does not even try to uphold standards of objectivity. Here’s the clip describing Obama as God:

Thinking about it yesterday, stories like the fly-swatting one only serve one purpose: they distract us from what the president is really doing. Think about it, Obama has inserted the government in the free markets, he has angered the gay community which is one of his most important voting bloc, he has asked for talks with Iran and that has resulted in the re-election of Ahmadinejad and giving more time for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, he has allowed North Korea to detonate another nuclear weapon and launch missiles, and the stimulus has yet to do anything noteworthy. While the media has reported these items, they have done so with kid gloves. For example, when Hezbollah failed to overwhelmingly win the Lebanese elections, the media immediately pointed to Obama as a main reason that the pro-western political coalition won (see this article). On the other hand, when discussing the “Obama effect” on the Iranian elections, the media seems to point to the demonstrations as the only sign of it. What the media does not do is address the fact that Ahmadinejad was leading in the polls before the election, regardless of Obama or maybe due to Obama, and if it is true that the vote was rigged, it shows that the ruling clique of Iran is not worried about being flagrantly dictatorial. Where’s the “Obama effect” here? Of course, even with the Lebanese elections, the media distorts the “Obama effect” when they do not report that despite Hezbollah’s loss, they actually won 55% of the popular vote (see the end of this article). This means that in spite of Obama’s rhetoric, the considerable majority of the Lebanese people believes that Hezbollah and their political allies were the better choice, not the pro-western, Obama-backed parties. It looks like the “Obama effect” has actually not done anything to weaken Iran nor Hezbollah, a fact that the mainstream media will ignore completely.

The media is giving the president a pass on his myriad of failures and promoting him as the world’s “savior” at a time when the enemies of America are re-arming, re-grouping, and challenging our place in the world. Imagine the raucous laughter emanating from Bin Laden’s cave when this cowardly terrorist hears that the American public is more interested in Obama’s fly-swatting adventures than the re-emergence on the Taliban. Seriously, more people have heard about the fly-swat-heard-round-the-world than about the near constant terrorist attacks in nuclear-armed Pakistan… how many terrorist attacks have there been you ask? Well, in descending order, there was the bombing of three schools today, the bombing of a market in the city of Dera Islamil Khan that killed 8 on Sunday, the killing of an anti-Taliban cleric and the suicide bombing of a mosque on June 13th, the suicide truck bomb of a hotel in Peshawar that killed 15 on June 9th, and the list goes on. I guess the mainstream media does not regard the possible implosion of a nuclear state to be newsworthy.

The Anti-American Axis of terrorists and tyrants, fundamentalist and atheist, is not resting. Instead of informing and alerting the American public, the mainstream media is comparing Obama to God, talking about his dog, and swooning over his wife. Our enemies are more than happy to see the American public so thoroughly distracted so that they can work in peace. It is the duty of all Americans interested in the preservation of this great nation to stay informed and form independent opinions. What the mainstream media is spoon-feeding us is tainted by their adoration of this false prophet, we must not allow them to tell us what to think… this is yet another way that the preachers of conformity and complacency are turning America away from our spirit of independence. We must resist!

-AG

It is a problem that has plagued presidents for decades and it is a problem that Barack Hussein Obama has inherited. For the last two administrations, our government’s prescription for the problem of the North Korean threat has been appeasement; I say appeasement and not compromise because while we gave them billions in aid in exchange for a suspension of their nuclear program, they never stopped developing nuclear weapons or missiles. It turned out that we were giving in to blackmail and the North Korean dictator understood the success of this formula: threats + weapons tests = billions in aid. What is different today compared to the last administration is the way we are treating North Korea. The last administration, for all its faults, made it absolutely clear to the world that North Korea’s dictator is EVIL. Can’t get more clear than that. Unfortunately, with our war on terror and the Iraq invasion, our ability to seriously consider the military option was diminished, especially when one takes into account the fact that many countries of the world made it a sport to oppose any US policy. So the Bush administration followed in the completely discredited footsteps of his predecessor, Bill, and adopted a policy of negotiations. Of course, few in the world gave him any credit for his multilateral diplomatic approach, like the Democrats were/are preaching, and in addition to being a failed policy, it was not even applauded (like Obama’s every move is applauded).

Which brings us to the Obama administration, whose foreign policy strategy was touted as “tough diplomacy.” The thing about “diplomacy” is that North Korea considers itself an expert at negotiation and therefore saw this president as a golden ticket to all of their desires. Once we understand this fact, we can understand the logic of North Korea’s moves and ultimately their motives. Like Carter before him, a soft approach to the Anti-American Axis that exists in the world only emboldens the enemy.

When Obama met with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, he reaffirmed America’s commitment to South Korea’s security as well as saying that the goal is the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Obama said that he would not reward North Korea for their threats and that their nuclear development was unacceptable. Bold words from a mild man… but, to North Korea’s rulers, they are utterly hollow. They know that Obama will not risk a war and that South Korea will not want to be wiped off the map. So North Korea will continue their tests, improving the range of their missiles so that they can hit the contiguous US mainland, improving their nuclear weapons, developing warheads, etc.

North Korean Poster

In the meantime, North Korea is holding two American journalists on the charges that they were participating in a “smear campaign.” They were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for their slandering the North Korean regime. Obama did not make a mention of them in his remarks after meeting the South Korean president. Way to root for the team, Barack! While the president was talking tough about Korea, the Pentagon recently capped the number of interceptor missiles in Alaska and California, saying that there are enough in place already… but how do we accurately know how many long-range missiles North Korea has produced and hidden? If anything, this indicates to the North Koreans that we are truly not interested in any sort of conflict… just talk.

The more pressing threat of course is not merely the development of their conventional weapons, since we have been preparing for such a threat for most of the last century, it is the threat of nuclear technology and weapons falling in the hands of a nihilistic group, e.g. Al Qaeda. While we know that North Korea had help from the Pakistani nuclear program, what we do not know is how far does North Korea’s contact in the Middle East, Central Asia, or South Asia goes. Right now, the US is tracking a North Korean ship suspected of carrying weapons or technology. They insist that they will not forcibly board the ship because North Korea would view that as an act of war… so I wonder, what would we consider the transfer of North Korean nuclear weapons technology to Al Qaeda? An act of peace? We need to have the option of forcibly boarding and inspecting the ship… this is for the purpose of mankind’s security, not merely our own interests. Our policy of treating our enemies with kid gloves will only allow them to strengthen and eventually strike at us. For the Obama administration, the possibility of a mushroom cloud over an American city is not enough to persuade him to get a little tougher.

What I do not understand is how the current president Obama and former president Carter can nonchalantly express the desire that we negotiate with terrorists and tyrants when these terrorists and tyrants are actively looking for ways to kill Americans. Americans are being imprisoned abroad, used as bargaining chips, while world peace is threatened and the president offers us only words. Just words. Nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to fall in the hands of a suicidal terrorist group, not from North Korea nor Iran nor anywhere else. How far is the current president willing to go in order to ensure the survival of our nation and our civilization? From the looks of it, not far enough.

-AG

What Hezbollah could not do early this month in Lebanon was accomplished by terrorist organization Hamas three years ago in the Palestinian territories. Now, Hamas finds itself governing only in Gaza, in a conflict with Fatah which controls the West Bank, isolated from the international community, and under siege by Israeli forces. Of course, the Israeli “siege” has come about because Israel is sick and tired of Hamas firing rockets into its territory. While the situation seems bleak for Hamas and the battered residents of Gaza, there is one person that they can count on for “support” (other than Syria, Iran, and other Arab state sponsors): Jimmy Carter.

Yes, former president of the United States Jimmy Carter visited Gaza in order to see the destruction of the conflict last January between Hamas and Israel. Instead of offering a sober appraisal of the current situation in Gaza, the causes and consequences of war and terrorism, Carter simply criticized the international community and placed the blame on everyone except Hamas, the group that routinely fires rockets into Israel. Carter said “the responsibility for this terrible human rights crime lies in Jerusalem, Cairo, Washington, and throughout the international community.” I guess that the appropriate response to terrorism from Hamas should be to simply take it, according to Carter. It is easy to sympathize with the Palestinians in the aftermath of a disproportionate strike by Israelis, but how else can Israel react to the near-constant terrorist strikes it endures?

The only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation is for both sides to commit to peace, meaning an end to Palestinian terrorism and an end to Israeli expansionism. When a former US president completely ignores the fact that Hamas’ indiscriminate attacks on Israel are the major cause of the recent conflict, he is exposing his bias and/or his idiocy. In order to put an end to terrorism, the world must recognize it for what it is, murder, and demonstrate that there can be no benefit from it… not sympathize with it. Carter needs to stop giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

-AG

While Iran’s rulers try to contain the mass dissatisfaction over the last election by arresting opponents, protesters, and further controlling the media, in another Middle Eastern nation, Iran’s power is still holding strong. On June 7th, Lebanon held elections where the pro-western Sunni dominated bloc won a decisive victory over the pro-Iran, pro-Syria Hezbollah dominated bloc: 71 parliamentary seats to 57. While the western world breathed a sigh of relief, the truth is that Hezbollah’s participation, concession of defeat at the polls, and capture of 57 seats have brought a brutal terrorist organization into the mainstream. Currently, the armed wing of Hezbollah is regarded as the most powerful military force in Lebanon: they kidnapped Israeli soldiers, launched thousands of rockets into Israel, withstood an Israeli counterattack, and currently have tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel. While the elections may seem like a setback for the group, the real power of Hezbollah lies in its willingness to use force to get their way. For example, for more power in the government, Hezbollah took over half of Beirut, Lebanon’s capital, in May 2008. They only withdrew after their demands were met. While the government has been trying to persuade Hezbollah to disarm, the terrorist group has refused, saying that they are the only ones who can defend Lebanon against Israel. In other words, the Iranian-backed terrorist group will remain armed and retain its power in Lebanon.

With a firmly entrenched Hezbollah in the semi-failed state of Lebanon (central gov’t is unable to control paramilitary groups), the former head of homeland security Michael Chertoff has warned that they may surpass Al Qaeda as America’s greatest terrorist threat. The fact that Hezbollah has state sponsors, more fighters, rocket and explosives technology, international legitimacy (except for with the US and Israel), and a safe haven in Lebanon make this terrorist group light-years ahead of Al Qaeda, which is currently under siege and on the run. Hezbollah has been implicated in the bombing of a US Army barracks in Lebanon in 1983 with 200 casualties and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 with 20 casualties. They have also been implicated in bombings of Jewish targets in South America. The fact that they started a war with Israel and survived is, in itself, troublesome enough to take this terrorist threat seriously. Especially when one takes into account that Hezbollah’s boss, Iran, may soon develop nuclear weapons… making the possibility of a “suicide nuclear truck bomb” a real possibility.

Instead of taking these threats seriously though, the current administration and the European Union have been trying to “talk” to Iran and Hezbollah. We all know that the president has repeated over and over his willingness to talk to Iran without preconditions… I would remind the audience that Iran sponsors terrorism, is developing nuclear weapons, captured British sailors while in Iraqi waters, has killed American soldiers in Iraq, and has threatened the destruction of Israel… In the spirit of the new willingness to talk to extremists, European Union officials held a meeting with Hezbollah officials four days ago. Inviting representatives of terrorist organizations and officials from terrorist-sponsoring states will only give them more legitimacy and in the end, more power. So while Hezbollah aims more rockets at Israel, extends its reach to the western hemisphere, and Iran develops nuclear weapons, the US and our allies are engaging in “dialogue.” The enemies of America are collaborating against us and our allies, but the real threat to our safety is a weak and naive foreign policy. Pretty speeches and starry-eyed idealism is a poor defense against nuclear bombs and missiles.

-AG

Over the last few days I have been reading reports about the protests in Iran over the landslide “victory” of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in their recent presidential election. His opponent was Mir Hossein Moussavi, a reformist candidate, who has accused the government of widespread fraud. There were many serious irregularities in the voting patterns, but it will be difficult to prove whether or not the election was rigged. What can be proven is that the entire system is rigged… because at the end of the day, it is Ayatollah Khamenei who controls Iran’s fate.

The government that exists beneath the totalitarian regime run by Iran’s clerics is simply an exercise in democracy, not the real thing. In theory, this “democracy” can serve as a useful distraction to the masses giving the clerics the ability to seem above-it-all and not directly responsible for Iran’s problems. In practice, it creates a civil society that will yearn for real results from their real participation in this fake democracy. These protests are a direct result of that miscalculation. The reaction of the ruling religious clique has been identical to the reactions of their atheist communist colleagues: shutting down media, violent suppression of protests, and incarceration of political opponents.

The question is: will the rulers of Iran continue this sham of government or will they simply make it clear that there is no real freedom in that country? I applaud the courage of the protesters and those that believe in a government of, by, and for the people… it shows us, a world away, that the human spirit for freedom is universal. Hopefully, the protests will bring about real change in Iran, but unfortunately history has shown us that those with power seldom give it up easily.

-AG

I added Rock the Kasbah by The Clash in honor of the protests… enjoy

Nuclear Blackmail. That’s the name of North Korea’s game and it is a game that we cannot afford to play. North Korea has vowed to strengthen its nuclear capabilities and weaponize plutonium in response to the UN resolution that tightened sanctions on the nuclear armed communist nation. As I have been writing about for months, North Korea is a nation that believes that they can throw a temper tantrum and push the United States around. They are ruled by a paranoid regime that has militarized every aspect of their society. With previous US Presidents they toed the line and got away with it… there is a real danger that with this president, who is perceived as weak by many of our enemies around the world, North Korea will finally cross the line.

The previous administration insisted on missile defense shields in order to prevent rogue nations from launching missiles, especially nuclear-armed ones, at the United States and our allies. Since the start of the new administration we have seen hesitation and uncertainty with respect to our missile defense initiatives in Europe… instead of hesitation, we need an expansion of our defensive grid. More dangerous still is the possibility that these nations will sell or give nuclear materials or technology to Al Qaeda. This is not a threat to be taken lightly and unfortunately, since January, each North Korean escalation has been met with either silence or some prepared statement by the State Department. The world needs to unite against the possibility of a nuclear war… this is where the country formerly-known-as-a-superpower, Obama’s United States, needs to show some leadership.

We voted for change and we got it: change from superpower status to paper tiger. We should not have to fear what we can easily defend against, just because the people in Washington don’t have the courage to protect our great country. This is what happens when the last bastion of liberty is perceived to be weak…

-AG

I have been writing about North Korea’s provocations for a while and so far, since the start of the new administration, nothing has been done except issuing “strongly worded” condemnations. In the meantime, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has tested more than half a dozen missiles, threatened the annihilation of South Korea, pulled out of the six-party nuclear negotiations and conducted another underground nuclear test with a weapon about as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. Well, finally, the United Nations Security Council has decided that North Korea’s actions are unacceptable and they have agreed on tougher sanctions.

While I commend the fact that something is being done, the reality is that the world stood by and did nothing while North Korea escalated from threats to missile tests to exploding a nuclear weapon. While an aloof President of the United States talked about disarmament in Europe, a tyrannical madman was launching missiles over Japan in Asia. What the new administration thought was mere saber-rattling has turned into a real threat. In Alaska, worried residents are fully aware that they are within range of North Korean missiles and are not confident in the administration’s assurances that the military will be able to “deal with it.” The UN’s recent actions do not offer much more comfort. To impose tighter sanctions on a country whose leadership was willing to starve millions to death in the 90’s because they preferred investing in their weapons programs may not have the intended effect. What is needed is a set of sanctions that more directly affect the ruling party and their weapons programs. What is needed is a set of sanctions that weaken the grip of the government on North Korean society. What is needed is a set of sanctions that will make China reconsider its nearly unconditional support of its neighbor. Only then can sanctions make a difference… and unfortunately, there is no other realistic course of action in the near-term, especially since the United States is currently run by an administration that believes in the inherent “goodness” of murderous dictators and is willing to stake our security on that belief. Let’s hope that the sanctions are able to put an end to North Korea’s weapons programs before those weapons are ever used against anyone.

-AG

For 30 years, ex-employees of the State Department Walter Kendall Myers and his wife Gwendolyn Myers passed classified materials to the Cuban government in exchange for little monetary compensation. Their motivation? A starry-eyed idealism that held Cuba’s totalitarian communist society as the model that man should aspire to. It is an idealism that has certain elements that diverge from reality so drastically, that one wonders how they can subsist in a day-to-day fashion. It is an idealism that proposes that:

• Total denial of individual human rights by emphasizing “Collective Needs” is a type of progress
• The United States is the source of all evil in the world
• Murder is justified in the name of Communism

Those are only a few of their “ideals,” and these are only a few of the spies. Cuba has specialized in recruiting the true believers in their tyrannical ideology in order to obtain sensitive materials that may eventually find their way into the hands of our enemies. Ana Belen Montes, the senior Cuba analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency, was another one of these spies who passed sensitive information that directly led to the death of a US operative in Central America. Her motivation was likewise ideological, an ideology that seeks to destroy the United States.

Ana Belen Montes

So as the people in Washington debate on how to play nice with the Castro government, maybe they should consider how a country with highly restricted trade and travel with the United States has been able to infiltrate our intelligence agencies. Before opening our wallets and borders to Communist Cuba, the government should first ask the question: will normalizing relations with a country that steals US secrets and passes them to our enemies help national security or hurt national security?

-AG

As I have written about earlier, the Taliban have been planning to attack Pakistan in response to the recent offensive operation in the Swat Valley region. They carried out a few attacks and just today they struck a five-star hotel in Peshawar that is mainly frequented by foreigners. This is the problem with appeasement. For years, the Pakistani government was negotiating with the Taliban and trying to get a firm ceasefire. So the Taliban would agree to a ceasefire, only to use the lull in the fighting to plant sleeper terror cells around the country, to be activated if and when the Pakistani government decided to drive out the Taliban. So now, innocent civilians are being bombed and shot by Taliban terrorists in an effort to turn Pakistani public opinion against the military offensive.

The Obama administration should take the Pakistani experience as a lesson. The more that we normalize relations with states that sponsor terrorism and extend our hand to our enemies, the more that they will use our goodwill against us wherever possible. Appeasement is never the answer. Obama should think it through: even if Obama is absolutely right and the evil terrorists and tyrants of the world huddle around the campfire singing kumbaya, the long term strategy of these terrorists will be to threaten and strike at America because they know, like we know, that the President of the United States is seldom as naive as Barack. They know that the next President will not take provocations lying down and will not allow nations to threaten others with nuclear weapons or terrorism. So for the sake of the safety of American citizens, Obama must not appease our enemies.

-AG

While I usually could care less about the opinions of actors and actresses, Jon Voight really hit it out of the park recently. At a Republican fundraiser he asked Republicans to “bring an end to this false prophet: Obama.” He went on to say that everything that Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous and that his weak foreign policy is based on the naive assumption that our enemies will back down if we act nicely towards them. In fact, here is a clip:

America needs to wake up and stop this false prophet before it is too late.

-AG

The next time you decide to go on vacation abroad, expect your money to stretch a lot less. In the tradition of African demagogues (read Mugabe), the President of the United States has decided that the best way to solve the country’s economic crisis is to print, borrow, and spend more money leading to two inevitable consequences: more taxation and more inflation. We already know that Obama has increased taxes in the short and long term and right now is pushing for a health care system that will cost Americans trillions more. That is old news. That is what voters chose last November. That is what we must endure. What many have not fully considered is: what happens after the federal government floods the economy with fresh and crispy hundred dollar bills? The same thing that has happened throughout history: inflation.

Already a hedge fund has bet that Obama’s spending will lead to hyperinflation, essentially putting their money where their mouth is. What inflation means to America is clear: higher costs at the supermarket, higher cost of gas, higher cost of clothing, higher cost of everything… Major investors and funds are already getting scared and investing in metals and other currencies rather than the US Dollar, if the trend continues a run on the dollar will mean that our currency will collapse and our most powerful weapon, our economy, will be rendered useless. It makes sense if you think about it, how else could Obama put his face on the one thousand dollar bill?

-AG

Update here.

In the past, one word summed up the politics of the Cuban-American community: Republican. But times are changing. With the new generations of Cuban-Americans born in the United States and the new waves of refugees coming from Cuba, the political identity of this community is changing fundamentally. It’s not a result of youth per se, but more so a change in collective consciousness and different historical circumstances. Essentially, the Republican and Democratic elements in the Cuban-American exile closely reflect two groups that exist: those that feel the effects of Castro’s totalitarian regime and those who do not. I use the present tense to emphasize that while many have been first hand witnesses and victims, some of those have detached themselves from the reality of the regime due to the dulling effects of time: apologizing for or ignoring the excesses, the violence, the murders, and the denial of basic dignity by emphasizing a sense of nationalism. The logic is odd, given that some of them tout the regime’s “universal health care system” and at the same time ignore or rationalize the thousands who have been sent to labor camps and/or have been murdered by the regime. Also, there are many who did not experience the “revolution” directly, but truly feel wronged by the regime. In these cases, these individuals feel a sense of connectedness with Cuba and/or patriotism. The new leftward movement of the exile community can be explained in these general terms… of course like all generalizations they do not fully explain the individual reasons that one would be a Republican or a Democrat.

On foreign policy, the exile idea that the United States must take a severe and uncompromising stand against the Castro regime was betrayed by the Democrats under John F. Kennedy and taken up by the Republicans. Those who experienced the violent victory of communism or the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs invasion would side with the right for decades. The monolithic exile community promoted the embargo and censure of Cuba for its deplorable human rights record. But the mere survival of the Castro regime started to change the minds of some of the younger generations, who seemed to reason that if one approach didn’t work then the polar opposite would work and started to think about lifting the embargo and dialogue. Add to them the incoming waves of Cuban refugees who, while in Cuba, were reminded on a daily basis that the embargo itself was to blame for all of the hardships on the island, and the calls to lift the embargo started gaining strength, driving more Cuban-Americans into the Democrats’ arms. They completely ignore the fact that lifting the embargo unilaterally only strengthens the Castro regime’s grip on power and the repression associated with it.

On the issue of national security, the Republican position of a strong national defense resonates more with those that believe that freedom must be defended against its enemies, otherwise it will be lost. This transpired during the lifetimes of those who lived through the revolution and those who see history as a conflict between freedom and tyranny. Those who did not personally lose this freedom and experience the triumph of tyranny in Cuba are more likely to ignore these issues as unimportant to life in the U.S. Younger generations trying to build their lives outside of Cuba enjoy freedoms that are well-defended against and see them as an intrinsic part of society. These persons tend to be more Democratic because they believe that the greatest threats to freedom are intolerance and forms of social injustice, thus national security is less important in terms of preserving freedom. The Democratic prescription for these problems, of course, is for more government intervention and turning a blind eye to terrorists and dictators that openly call for the destruction of America.

Which brings us to government. The traditional Cuban exile position tends towards less government since on the island the state usurped all of the rights of the individual. Hence, again the Republican Party seems more in line with the Cuban reality of the time, emphasizing individual responsibility rather than collective decisions. But more recently, with the aging of the exile population, the new influx of refugees that experienced the collapse of the communist bloc and the ensuing economic downturn, and the younger generations born in the U.S., the belief that problems need to be solved by the federal government has gained strength. Particularly the idea that, contrary to historical examples, our rights can better be protected by big government has become more common. Be they women’s rights, African-American rights, Hispanic rights, gay rights, consumer rights, immigrant rights or any other sort, these are exclusively in the realm of problems that the more Democratic leaning persons believe can only be solved by big government. They fail to realize that a government big enough to give us everything, can also take everything away.

This brings us to the intervention of government in the economy. The regime’s totalitarian control over all aspects of the individual’s life did not stop with the economy. With forced relocations, land redistribution, expropriation of businesses, wholesale rationing, a fully planned economy, and total prohibition of free enterprise, the Cuban exile population again gravitated towards the party that emphasized free markets: the Republicans. But the Democratic agenda of universal health care, wealth redistribution, and reining in of free markets, started to encroach on the exile’s long held beliefs that the collective should never supersede the individual. Universal health care becomes more popular to an aging population and also to a new generation that has confused the individual rights (what government cannot take away from anyone) guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution with collective rights (what government must take from everyone and redistribute). Furthermore, the idea that only big government can provide universal health care becomes the Democrats’ signature policy and those in the community agreeing on the urgent necessity for it trend Democratic.

For these reasons and others, the Cuban-American community is no longer the single-issue voting bloc that it used to be. While the old guard may lament this fact, the Cuban-American community benefits more from political flexibility than blind loyalty. Republicans have long thought that support from the Cuban-American community was a fact of life and have taken them for granted in many ways, paying lip service to many of their concerns and sometimes ignoring them altogether. On the other hand, a fractured voting bloc is not effective in advancing the goals of the community.

Ultimately, the solution to the dictatorship in Cuba cannot be solved in Washington; it must come from within the island. The party that helps end this nightmare is the one that deserves the exile vote (on this issue), though at the moment, the Democrats’ intentions seem to benefit the dictatorship (Democrats want a dialogue, to end the embargo, cutting funding to pro-freedom programs, and leaving Cuba to its own devices: policies that the Castro regime wants) and the Republicans seem to want to keep up this stalemate. There is a real movement on the island and in exile struggling for freedom from tyranny; our government should empower them to help defeat tyranny instead of helping the Castro regime remain in power. America requires an effective and tough policy towards Cuba that reflects our commitment to freedom around the world… the Cuban-American community has long been a powerful voice for the spirit of that very freedom and, now, in the face of the Democrats’ current goal of extending our hand to dictators and terrorists, we need this voice and the voice of all Americans to demand a return to our values. It is here that the Republican Party can strengthen their position in this community, and taking into account the betrayals of Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama, it shouldn’t be so hard.

-AG