Firewall 16: Walking Into Mordor

Bill's back with another Firewall. Here he ventures deep into enemy territory and brings back a recon report:

Firewall 4: Natural Law

Bill's at it again with the fourth in his series "What We Believe", this time explaining the idea of natural law:
If you haven't seen the others yet, get caught up here:

A Time For Choosing

46 years ago today, and what the Gipper says is still true, except even more so.
H/T Sarah Palin

Threely: http://3.ly/Time4Choosing

Lunching with Leftists

The Bride of Monster suggested we eat at a Vietnamese restaurant for lunch today. We settled into our booth, perused the menu, and each ordered chicken phở. Directly behind me were a couple of leftists reassuring each other how smart they are and how stupid the TEA Party types are. TBoM could see I wasn't taking this well, and via various gestures and code words dissuaded me from responding to them directly. She wisely suggested that I could "blog about it" (she knows I have one of these blog thingies but probably doesn't even know the URL).

I was a good boy while listening to one of them talking about how bad standardized testing for school teachers is. I just smiled and thought about how standardized testing for drivers, florists, hair braiders, and countless other occupations is exactly the sort of regulation they elect people to impose on the market to protect consumers against shady operators. Why should school teachers be exempt from the apparatchiks?

They dismissed the fact that "the words 'separation of church and state' do not appear in the First Amendment" by also saying "neither do 'assault weapons' appear in the Second". Well, that's a fascinating observation there, but the language is hardly similar:

1. In the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is very specific, and the Supreme Court first used the '' wording in 1947's Everson v. Board of Education. Somehow, the First Amendment was on the books a century and a half before this phrase was found written in invisible ink between its lines.
2. By contrast "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is very broadly worded. It doesn't have to say "assault weapons", because they are a subset of "Arms". The Supreme Court has ruled that certain arms are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not "ordinary military equipment" (United States v. Miller). So-called "assault weapons" are demonized precisely because they are (or at least appear to be) "military".

They continued by discussing how the Constitution provided for slavery (although the word itself didn't appear in the text until the 13th Amendment abolishing it) and that it counted slaves as "40%" (corrected by the other one to 3/5ths) of a person as evidence of how racist the Framers must have been. I bit my tongue and didn't say anything to them about how the 3/5 compromise was cleverly designed by the anti-slavery side to reduce the power of the slave states in the House and Presidential elections, and to keep them inside the union rather than split into two, three, or even more separate confederations of states that would have easily been reconquered by Great Britain. The abolitionists were playing the long game; they knew that slavery was an economic dead end, and the free North would build a powerful industrial base with free men while the South stagnated. Time was on their side.

After a while, their conversation turned to non-political matters, and my blood pressure settled down. Then the one closest to me stated as if it were an established fact that the TEA Party is motivated by racism. I turned around and said "I consider myself part of the TEA Party movement, and I am not motivated by racism." He tried to play it off like I was the @$$#013 by pointing out that he was talking to his friend, not to me, but I wasn't having any of it. Imagine Mel Gibson "talking to a friend" spouting negative stereotypes about Jews, with a Jew sitting back to back with him. Would anyone excuse such speech simply because Gibson wasn't talking to the Jew directly? I sure hope not.

Then he played the canard about how we didn't complain when Bush was POTUS, and since we were complaining now with a black POTUS... Raaacism! I told him that the people I know in the TEA Party movement did indeed complain when we felt Bush was betraying the principles he campaigned on. We opposed national health care when Hillary Clinton was pushing it.

That set off his friend, who said that ObamaCare isn't national health care, but a corporatist's dream. I tried to explain that the TP'ers I know don't really care that much for the big corporations buying favors from the government to shut down their competitors, and that ObamaCare would eventually lead to the nationalized health care he wants as it destroys the private health care industry, but he was too busy spitting out his hatred for me and anyone else who wants him or his sick relatives to die Die DIE! because we oppose national health care. And then he stormed out.

I didn't get to ask the guy who called us racists what he thought of the fact that most of us have spent the last few days defending a black liberal, that we're looking forward to seeing several new black faces in Congress next year.

At least TBoM didn't get upset that I reacted to that provocation. It's one thing to disagree on issues, but the charge of racism is so powerful that it must be confronted whenever it is raised. I won't sit idly by and let that charge be casually tossed out as if it were a proven fact. To let the charge go unanswered is to assent to its truth.[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Threely for this post http://3.ly/LunchWLeft

Obama vs. JFK on Tax Cuts

Just saw this tweet and couldn't agree more:
JazzShaw GENIUS from the Winston Group. Obama vs. JFK on the benefits of tax cuts. RT THIS! http://bit.ly/bhxbU8

Threely for this post: http://3.ly/BHOvJFK

Reason TV: Evolutionary Psychology

I've been planning on writing a series of posts about how our species evolved into its current condition, and how that process has influenced the way people think about the organization of society. Here is a husband-wife team of researchers into the very topic. Listen to what they have to say; it helps to explain a lot we need to be looking at.

Anti-Administration Protestors Threaten Violence

(NSFW video)

A Proclamation

It was appropriate then, it's appropriate now.

General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houſes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requeſted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eſtabliſh a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and aſſign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of theſe States to the ſervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our ſincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the ſignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpoſitions of His providence in the courſe and concluſion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have ſince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eſtablish Conſtitutions of government for our vafety and happineſs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleſſed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffuſing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleaſed to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in moſt humbly offering our prayers and ſupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beſeech Him to pardon our national and other tranſgreſſions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ſtations, to perform our ſeveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleſſing to all the people by conſtantly being a Government of wiſe, juſt, and conſtitutional laws, diſcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all ſovereigns and nations (especially ſuch as have shewn kindneſs unto us); and to bleſs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increaſe of ſcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind ſuch a degree of temporal proſperity as he alone knows to be beſt.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand ſeven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

[Ed note: Whoever digitized this into characters must have mistaken the "long s" form "ſ" ("ſ" above, where it is not italicized), common in English writing back then, for the lower-case "f" it so closely resembles. The ſ form was the norm, with "short s" reserved for the ends of words. Some writers would also use the latter form even in the middle of a word for the second letter of a double-s: "ſs". This has more than a passing resemblance to the ß in modern German that is rendered "ss" in Switzerland, or where the former ligature is unavailable. As a Language Martinet, I study such things, and have corrected the mistranscription accordingly. Happy Thankſgiving, everyone!]

So why are we here......again?

Got this from a friend. Don't know who sent it to him but I do know it's worthwhile...


OK, as we all know I'm not the big history buff type person, but... with the homeschool thing I have to learn this stuff, so... we're reading about the Declaration of Independence. We bought reproductions of the Declaration as well as some other historical documents when we were in DC last year. I went outside to smoke and brought the Declaration with me to read it. OMG folks! OK, I had a fairly decent education as a child but chose NOT to pay any attention to history, so I was essentially reading this for the first time...

As we all know, (even I knew this) it starts:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Then the often quoted:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Then... the part that we have obviously forgotten all about in the past 233 years.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

This is so true! We sit in our own shit because it's warm and soft even though it stinks... (I know that was kinda crude, but true)
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

So, what we have to do is....
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The rest of the document goes on to detail the abuses by the King, then to declare the independence of the states as I'm sure everyone else knows about the document, but it was all news to me!!! So this is why we study history, so we're not doomed to repeat it, right?? Then WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE HERE AGAIN!!!!!!!

Am I insane, or is today a time in the course of human events that it is necessary for us to dissolve the political bonds that have connected us to another???

Quitter!

Imagine a politician who is elected to one office, then two years later loses in the Electoral College. Two years and seven months into the term of the first office, months after the loss, this politician resigns! Can you imagine such a "quitter" being elected POTUS in the next election? I'll bet you $20 it can happen.


You'd lose the bet.

Andrew Jackson resigned his US Senate seat on October 14, 1825, after two years, seven months, and ten days in that six-year term. For those keeping score, that’s a dozen days fewer than Sarah Palin served of her four-year term as Governor of Alaska. He won the 1828 election for President, the first to do so in the “Democratic Party” faction he formed from the “Democratic-Republican Party”. So the next time you hear a Democrat talk about a "quitter", remind them about Old Hickory.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Stars and Stripes Forever!

Sitting here listening to Sousa marches. Happy Independence Day!

VP Cheney @ the American Enterprise Institute...

(Full-Text via the Weekly Standard - skipping the first intro-bit)

Reasoned, Honest and in full factual acknowledgement of History.

... which means it's sure to leave a mark.
=============================================

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.


The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, they bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t know about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Those personnel were carefully chosen from within the CIA, and were specially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training and the limits of the law. Torture was never permitted, and the methods were given careful legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew to stay on the right side of it.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Their idea now, as stated by Attorney General Holder and others, is apparently to bring some of these hardened terrorists into the United States. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” – my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would “include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thank you very much.
=================================

No - Thank You, Mister Vice President.

- MuscleDaddy
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

A Symbol...

I was listening to a Raleigh, NC talk radio show last Thursday (Bill LuMaye on WPTF) as Bill and a woman caller discussed the Raleigh Tea Party. The lady said that "we" needed some kind of "symbol" so that other like-minded folks could identify kindred spirits.

Friends and neighbors...we've got one:

Image courtesy of Chris Whitten

Dating back to 1775, the coiled rattlesnake on a yellow background has stood for resistance to tyranny. It is thought that Benjamin Franklin saw the emblem painted on drums carried by American Marines and, writing as "An American Guesser", observed that the rattlesnake is found in "no other quarter of the world besides America" and that the rattlesnake also has sharp eyes and "may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance".

But Franklin's name isn't attached to the flag which bears the rattlesnake emblem. That is reserved for Christopher Gadsden, a leader of the Sons of Liberty in South Carolina who was later made a Colonel in the Continental Army. Being in Philadelphia in 1775 representing his home state in the Continental Congress, he could have read "American Guesser's" musings and might have seen the emblem on the drums of the Marines. In any event, the coiled rattlesnake on a yellow background is know as the "Gadsden Flag".

Now there are numerous places you can purchase Gadsden Flags on the web. Ruffin Flag Company in South Carolina is one that I've used before but there seems to be a problem with their web site. There is also Flagline.com, For stickers and magnets try Gadsden and Culpeper.

There are folks out there coming up with wonderful new emblems for this "take back America" movement, the upside down teapot being one of the best I've seen so far. But being the history nut that I am (along with being a "Right Wing Extremist"), I'm in favor of using something that has meant the same thing for better than 300 years: Leave me ALONE!

White House Seeks Muslim Adherents for Government Posts

(I swear, this wasn't intended as a continuation of the last post - MD)


This one has been floating around for a while now - strangely, no one is picking it up.

Obama gets list of top Muslim Americans

"In a bid to get more Muslim Americans working in the Obama administration, a book with resumes of 45 of the nation's most qualified — Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and public servants, all carefully vetted — has been submitted to the White House."

"The effort, driven by community leaders and others, including U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., was bumped up two weeks because White House officials heard about the venture, said J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, who sifted through more than 300 names."

Okay - covering some of the basic points:


- Yes, that's the same "Rep. Keith Ellison, (D-Minn)" who made his pilgrimage to Mecca with the sponsorship of the "Muslim American Society".

- Yes, that would be the same "Muslim American Society" that is the US arm of the "Muslim Brotherhood"

- Yes, that is the same "Muslim Brotherhood" who funds and supports terrorist actions across the world and whose mission in the U.S. (as handed down by its council) includes:

"The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means.

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

There - now that we're clear on that set of connections (and I'm not even taking the obvious shot at referring to Democrats in the same paragraph with the phrase "carefully vetted")

- let's move on to the more obvious and Ameri-centric questions.... Oh, like:


Why is the United States Government seeking applicants for White House posts based on their religion?


"Ivy-League-Fortune-500-blah-blah-blah" - while ladling-on the modifications, they're still being quite up-front about seeking out these people for their adherence to Islam, and considering any other qualifications second.


Umm.., I'm sorry for potentially summoning them but where, may I ask, are the usual "Separation Clause" suspects?

You know, the ones who regularly shovel money into the court system over such 'oppressive' displays of "Christianism" as "In God We Trust" or, that dream-killing "One Nation, Under God"?

Well - Let's take a look:



Wow.

Color me Shocked.

Okay, though - let's try a test-search..just to be sure:



Notice that last part there? "Objecting to Government Promotion of"

What do you think...

- would "Seeking out Muslims for White House positions" rate as "Government Promotion"?

Because I'm thinking it does.

"Hue & Cry", anyone?


- MuscleDaddy

Obama Embraces Islam

The Capitulation Heard 'Round the World:

President Barack Obama sought Monday to make American amends with the Islamic world after eight years of tension, declaring in a speech to the Turkish parliament that he is determined to have a “partnership with the Muslim world.”

“Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not – and will never be — at war with Islam,” Obama said in remarks delivered in Ankara.

Well, I'm sure that a lot of people will be very relieved to hear that...

...particularly the perps from The List.


Now, be certain - I hear the Old Rejoinders often enough to predict them here:

"It's only a small percentage"

"It's only the Fundamentalist Radicals"

"It's not all of the Muslims in the World"

etc., etc., etc.....


But Consider This:

If we were talking about a country (let's call it Muslonesia) committing these sorts of attacks against another country (with only a 'small percentage' of their military, of course), killing, burning, beheading...

...and the only response from either the leaders or the citizens of 'Muslonesia' was to quietly nod their heads and go about their business with no outcry, no condemnation, and no demands on their leaders to recall the soldiers committing those murders... (indeed, with some dancing-in-the-streets at any news of Western deaths)

...would you have to decide that 'Muslonesia' was 'at war' with you?

Naturally, You Would.


Would you meekly accept the assertions that 'Moderate Muslonesia' wishes your country no ill, even though they obviously don't bear you enough 'good' to speak out - and even though the various Muslonesian-leaders continue to insist, over and over again that there is no 'Moderate Muslonesia'?

Of course not.

Hell, you're probably a High-School graduate who (apparently) knows how to work a computer - you're not stupid enough to miss the nose-on-your-face.

...even if a significant number of your fellow-citizens are.
(55 percent of those polled said they are without a basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam, ... but 58 percent said it is a peaceful religion. )


So why does our 'President' seem to have fallen off of the reality-train?

At what point did Barack Obama come to the conclusion that if you smile at an opposing force and say "I don't want to fight you, I want to be your friend" that they would fail to see the inherent weakness in that reaction and pour on the violence?

And what about "Giving them What They Want So They'll Leave You Alone" ?

Haven't we already seen that movie?


Apparently, France still remembers how it turned out.

Leave Turkey’s bid to join EU to us, Nicolas Sarkozy warns Barack Obama



And here's an extra bit of 'sticky' for your 'wicket':


Apparently, that part of the Turkish population lacking a world-domination-bent (read: 'want to just be left alone') don't even want to be a part of NATO



(the signs say "Obama Get Out!" ... hmmm... whaddaya think, CafePress?)

So we find ourselves with a 'President' whose stated intentions

- Will break our country's financial back,

- Capitulate to those who seek our destruction, and

- Surrender our sovereignty to some nebulous 'World Body' of questionable integrity and intent.


And who utterly rejects the notion that America is in any way greater than it's role of "cog in the collectivist machine" within his vision of a New World Order.


Remind me - how much more of this are we supposed to take?

- MuscleDaddy

H.R. 1444 - They're not even trying now...

(H/T - Michelle Malkin)

Some of you may remember my post on H.R. 1388 a few days ago.

Well, it turns out that it has not only passed both House and Senate, but has even been re-named to honor Ted "swimmer" Kennedy.
(apparently, Orrin Hatch thought it would make a nice present)


Now, while all of the parts that tie "Volunteer Requirements" to "grants" remained in 1388 - they did remove something before getting the abomination passed.

Between being first officially "reported" to the House and being voted on by the full House, bill managers stripped one whole section of the measure that created a Congressional Commission on Civil Service, thus removing the section that contained the language cited above concerning "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" and a possible requirement for "all individuals in the United States" to perform such service. The section could be restored during the Senate-House conference committee meeting.

A new, separate bill containing that language has since been introduced in the House.

Did you hear your internal reading-voice deepen on that last sentence?


"A new, separate bill containing that language..."

That's a polite way to put it - but how about this instead:

The whole section was lifted - in its word-for-word entirety - and reintroduced as if it were a brand-spanking-new piece of legislation, rather than the unendurable, cast-off by-blow that it really is.

Behold!

H.R. 1444: Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act

Identical in every single way to the 1388 text - they didn't even rearrange the section numbers:

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

And make no mistake - both laws being passed will have exactly the same effect as if it had remained one law, their details, intent and design so neatly dovetailling the way they do.
(what a coincidence!)


There is one significant difference, though.

Apparently out of gratitude for having 1388 named after him, Ted Kennedy actually put his name on 1444.


1388 is enough to light-torches-and-raise-pitchforks over, but at least it still uses the grant-money-carrot to lure you in.

1444 sets up "Mandatory" for everyone.



H.R. 1444 - Because Freedoms lost to the Collective come more easily in smaller bites.


- MuscleDaddy

So now that we've 'Marked Biden's Words'...

Look at that - it's like the man's a genius or something!

So, this basically acts as a continuation of Friday's "What IS he trying to do?" - post.

Now that the world has seen the complete & utter incomprehensible incompetence of The One in relation to the domestic American economy, any ability to relate to the will of the American People, and now have a good sampling of his clumsy, club-footed and largely spineless forays into what should have been fairly straight-forward foreign policy matters....

Some of the larger and more immediately-scary players on the world stage have decided to take Joe Biden's advice and test our "overwhelmed" Commander-in-Chief.

First it was the Chinese deciding that this would be a good time to start playing 'chicken' with US Naval ships.

"...one of the Chinese ships came within 25 feet (7.5 meters) of the USNS Impeccable, a surveillance vessel designed to support anti-submarine warfare, and that the Chinese crew tried to snag the cables that tow the ship's underwater sonars."

Naturally when the inevitable protests came, the Chinese fell back on that old chestnut that has worked so well all over the world - "It's America's Fault"

"Ma said U.S. naval ships must ask China's permission anytime they sailed within its exclusive economic zone, a 200-nautical-mile zone off its shores. The claim amounted to an assertive attempt to bar U.S. Navy vessels from approaching China's shores, even affecting transit of the sensitive Taiwan Strait."

...and why not?  

After all, given Obama's grovelling apology to terrorist-supplying Muslim countries during the first post-inauguration-days, Ma has to figure that his approach runs at least even-odds of being successful - maybe even to the extent of getting The One to throw Taiwan under the bus in a Carter/Panama-Canal-esque reflex action.

But, in the sense of "If Some is Good, then More is Better"...

Smelling buffoonery in the water - the North Koreans have now queued-up for their helping of whatever -else-will-be-given-away...

"North Korea on Monday cut its military hotline to Seoul and put its million-man army at battle stations, ratcheting up tensions as South Korean and US troops began war games that Pyongyang warned could spark open conflict.

North Korea’s official KCNA news agency quoted an army spokesman as saying: “It is nonsensical to maintain the normal channels of communication when the South Korean puppets are in a frenzy about these military exercises, levelling their guns at fellow countrymen in league with foreign forces.”

Now, the whole point-of and motivation-for all of this should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

China and N.Korea, having watched (along with the rest of us) Obama begin systemic capitulation to Iran AND initiate the alienation of our closest allies AND take the necessary steps to ensure that the US economy will soon render us unable to continue defending our neighbors and allies - have decided to belly-up to the bar to see what sort of fire-sale bargains they can rattle or threaten out of us.

Makes sense, really - it's not like he's given them any reason to believe it won't work.


... and I might be wrong, but I don't think "I Won" is going cut it.


- MuscleDaddy

P.S. - Note to the BDS-afflicted: This same sort of business that has Obama 'overwrought' and trying to find his own ...ahem... with a flashlight?

Same stuff that George W. dealt with - every day...

Just sayin' is all.

Lessons from History...

...both recent and distant.

This comes from the Great Hairy Silverback - our friend and the Original pre-Core, Core-Member from Bill's Site. Originally a couldn't-stop-himself rant in the comments-section of another post, it was just too good to leave it tucked away and unseen. And so - with permission - take it away, GHS...

Let's see...

What was it... 1932? A financial crisis -- already roughly two years in existence, and on a scale unprecedented to that point -- panicked the citizenry into crying out for a savior... not just a competent helmsman, but a veritable archangel, to sweep the deeply corrupted status quo aside, to heave the baby out with the bathwater, to wipe the proverbial slate clean and start anew. And once they found one, they granted Him carte blanche to Do As He Would, risky, borderline illegal, even unconstitutional as it might be.

Enter an elitist arch-liberal with a complete disconnect with the Common Man, but with a confident swagger (so to speak), a jaunty, smooth-talking, unflappable self-assurance, and Big Plans for boundless employment opportunities, government-provided entitlements, landslides of socialist largesse, and chickens in every pot... Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Regardless of their popularity (or un-), (1) his Lend Lease actions stretched, if not blatantly violated, the definition of a neutral nation in a time of war, arguably "justifying" any commensurate German aggressions against the United States, (2) his four consecutive terms in the White House defied the Constitution, (3) the shamelessly socialist programs he rammed into law burdened an already over-burdened economy when it could least afford it, and has continued to drag the economy down like an anchor ever since, and (4) turned a two-year depression into an EIGHT-year DEPRESSION. And while it can be argued whether, item for item, these issues might have served a greater good despite their destructive short-term impacts, the fact is that these were solutions that would have been -- and WERE -- rejected out-of-hand prior to the advent of the "economic crisis," and would never have even been considered (with any seriousness) were it not for the extreme fiscal pressures.

In other words, these were recognized, during a period of greater levelheadedness, as radical, unhealthy, and unacceptable solutions, and gained acceptability only because of (a) the atmosphere of fiscal panic, (b) the perceived "need" for an absolute, far-reaching, even all-encompassing "clearing of the board," and (c) because The Savior SAID it was needed. And people listened with their quailing hearts rather than their brains.

Obama's been called "Lincoln-esque." What horse-pucky. The only thing remotely "Lincoln-esque" about Barack Obama -- aside from his long neck and big goofy ears -- is the fact that he rode into Washington for his inauguration in a TRAIN (which he chose to do for precisely that reason).

No, for all the reasons and historical parallels described above, Obama is purely 100% "Rooseveltish." And, much like FDR, he will likely be remembered (by the emotion-based crowd) as the calm, confident hand at the helm of the ship of state during its time of crisis... and (by the cold, clear examiners of data) as the disastrously naive, blindly idealistic, arrogant elitist, who exacerbated an otherwise easily corrected problem, prolonged and even worsened the country's agonies, and burdened the economy for generations to come... just like FDR.

He will also, in my opinion, be renowned (by anyone NOT completely smitten by his exalted visage) as a liar, a fraud, a reckless amateur, and from many perspectives, even as a traitor... the man who singlehandedly did his level best to end the most successful, fruitful, and beneficent experiment in self-rule in history.

Dick Morris was asked in an interview about a potential comparison between Obama and Clinton, economically speaking. When Clinton charged into HIS administration six-guns blazing, jacking up tax brackets, instituting retroactive debt loads on the wealthier demographics, and promising/threatening even more radical, draconian, and again SOCIALIST programs, he was pulled aside and basically told that he needed to calm down, slow down, and leave at least one piece of furniture upright in the house... and he DID. So, couldn't that be possible for Obama as well? Couldn't he be "whoa'd up" a bit by a few strong calming words? And Dick Morris -- who was one of those involved in the reining-in of Bill Clinton -- said, quite categorically, "No."

Unlike Clinton -- who had, as one of his primary motivators, the quest for a second term -- Obama is ALL ABOUT HIS AGENDA. He wouldn't MIND a second term, but the far greater priority for him is the establishment of his outright socialist agenda. So, no matter how many (or how firm) the hands are on his shoulders, Obama is going to blast full speed ahead on his "mission"... that being to nationalize as much of America as possible as QUICKLY as possible... before the momentum can peter out. And from what I've seen, his actions of the last eight to nine months bear that assessment out fully.

He wouldn't issue a statement of policy until a day or two before the first debates. Thereafter, he spun and evaded and stuck to carefully crafted (and Teleprompted) scripts that screamed vague promises of undefined Hope and radical Change. He kept his secretive past, his questionable affiliations, and his staggering lack of qualifications or experience as far from the limelight as he could manage. But still...

He was voted into office on the basis of only a handful of passionate but typically ill-informed reasons, ranging from the novelty of electing the nation's first (mostly) black president, to slapping the much-despised President Bush in the face, to the promise of freebies and bolstered welfare and "deserved" entitlements for the so-called "lower classes." And with the aid of an enamored media that not only went to great lengths to inflame the causes of panic, but smothered any negative examinations of the long awaited Savior, He was swept into office on the shoulders of adoring minions willing to turn a collective blind eye on His excesses, His reckless oversteps, and His baldfaced efforts to socialize the world's most successful capitalist nation.

His first interview as a freshly inaugurated president was with el Arabiya, in which He fawned and patronized the Muslim world, apologized for American actions of the past, and promised to "listen" more and "dictate" less... only to be criticized by the Arab press days later as a coward for his weak and simpering sucking-up. His first "legislation" was the largest, most pork-laden monstrosity in American political history, which he handed off to the most unpopular congress in American history to do all the writing. Then he whipped up an even greater storm of fear and dread (which the media ran with, trumpets blaring) to ensure that everyone believed that any delay in signing this legislative outrage would result in hundreds-of-millions of jobs being lost EVERY MONTH... in a country with only THREE-HUNDRED-million men, women, senior citizens, and infants living within its borders (apparently there are many times more jobs in this country than there are people -- of ANY age -- to fill them).

And then... and THEN...

In that downright blasphemous "speech" he gave to Congress, he had the unmitigated gall -- the sheer baldfaced temerity -- to look into the eyes of the Republican ranks (who weren't leaping to their feet and shrieking like high school cheerleaders at every sentence he uttered) and into the eyes of every American watching on TV, and say staggeringly stupid and outrageous things like, "I'd like to thank the Congress for creating a bill WITHOUT A SINGLE EARMARK in it," and "I know this bill is a tough pill to swallow, but it is only the beginning... there will be more to come," followed shortly thereafter by, "I can assure you that by the end of my term in office, I will have cut the deficit IN HALF."

Outright lies -- so bold and cavalier that you almost have to believe he's joking -- followed by mathematically impossible fictions, undefined reparations that will magically fix everything, and wishful thinking on an epic scale... all "reassuring" little bandages to counter the added panic he took such pains to foment over the previous several months, and somehow "made more real" by his even more-utterly-baseless assertion that he'd "already found TWO-TRILLION-DOLLARS worth of budget cuts" that they could implement (one of which, by the way, was the cost savings of cutting short TEN-YEARS of full-scale military operations in Iraq, which wasn't going to happen anyway). Pure hog-twaddle.

This guy is either the most cynical, anti-American, anti-capitalist, politcal anti-Christ this country has ever seen, or he's the most blindly naive and amateurish political dupe the Demogogue... er, DemoCRAT party has ever had the good fortune to have as a frontman.

And either way, he's a disaster on the hoof.

Not a POTENTIAL disaster, or a disaster-waiting-to-happen, but a disaster HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, crippling and further burdening an already reeling economy, nationalizing everything he can get the government's tendrils into, ramming home the guaranteed ruinous and proven-failed tenets of socialism, screwing the achievers, success stories, and job-creators, and encouraging the unmotivated, the unprincipled, and the irresponsible... weakening our defenses and our global reputation, alienating our allies, emboldening our enemies, and killing the independent and self-reliant spirit of this once great pioneering nation.

He may be my president by name and by legal definition, but in every other way, he's my ENEMY just as much as the barbarians for whom he's swinging the door wide open.

To hell with him and the horse's asses he rode in on. Stop him... NOW. Bombard your "representatives" with protests, throw out the ones who refuse in 2010, and make a long-standing example of the catastrophic failings of unbounded liberalism, and heedless Marxism.

(*sigh*)

But at least, as one commenter once wrote, he's a nice guy, a bit of a geek, and a decent bowler.

I am completely reassured now.

GHS