Archive for the ‘Subversives’ Category

Gerald Walpin is about to become President Obama’s worst nightmare. Walpin was the inspector general for the Americorps program. Walpin was illegally fired by President Obama for doing his job. Let me repeat that. Walpin was illegally fired for doing his job.

This is a classic case of President Obama vs. Sen. Obama.

Here’s something important that you need to know:

In 2008, SENATOR Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill known as the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. Here’s the synopsis of one of the chief provisions of the bill:

(Sec. 3) Requires the President, the heads of designated federal entities, the Librarian of Congress, the Capitol Police Board, and the Public Printer to communicate to Congress in writing the reasons for removing or transferring an IG no later than 30 days before such removal or transfer.
Provides that the IG of the U.S. Capitol Police may be transferred from office only by the unanimous vote of the Capitol Police Board.

Next, here’s a partial transcript from Mr. Walpin’s interview with Glen Beck:

GB: So, gosh, he hasn’t given you a reason on why you have been terminated. I’ve read the letter. It just doesn’t…he just basically says that he doesn’t have faith in you.
WALPIN: Well, that’s a conclusion, not a reason.

That led to this exchange:

GB: So your job, as I understand it, is to track down money that’s being wasted or is being misused.
WALPIN: That’s right.
GB: My tax dollars, Erin’s tax dollars, everyone’s tax dollars?
WALPIN: That’s exactly right. The AmeriCorp program, the other agencies programs, I believe, are great as long as they’re properly managed and the money isn’t being misused.
GB: Why do you think this is happening?
WALPIN: I can only say that I became a thorn in the side of someone because I was doing my job and I was fired for doing my job. And by the way, the investigation of Johnson was started by the agency itself. AmeriCorp management called us and asked us to investigate some reports they’d heard of wrongdoing.
GB: Were you ever pressured to stop it?
GB: Did anybody…
WALPIN: The only thing that came up was, after Johnson was elected mayor, after the stimulus money came in, there was great media and political pressure to get him off the hook and get his suspension lifted.
GB: This happened to you on Thursday…
WALPIN: Wednesday.
GB: Wednesday night. Do you remember the case when George Bush fired those attorneys, which he had the right to do?
WALPIN: They were serving at the discretion of the President.
GB: You were not serving at the discretion of the President, were you?
WALPIN: Only he can…under the statute, which was designed to protect the independence of the inspectors general, I can only be terminated if he gives 30 days advance notice and gives the reason why I’ve been terminated.
GB: So it’s all open and everyone knows?
WALPIN: That’s correct.
GB: So that you can truly be independent?
GB: Because if someone can put pressure on you, you aren’t really independent?
WALPIN: That is correct.

IRONY OF IRONIES: President Obama fired an IG while ignoring a law that SENATOR Obama co-sponsored a year earlier. It’s predictable that President Obama’s liberal apologists will say that this is just like President Bush’s firing of the attorneys. That’s BS. The only thing that Walpin’s case has in common with the US attorneys if that there were terminations involved.

What’s more important is that President Obama ignored the law that he co-sponsored to illegally fire someone in an effort to protect a political supporter of his. That’s the worst type of cronyism we’ve seen since the firing of the White House Travel Office staff.

Sen. Obama tried establishing reformer credentials. President Obama has literally rejected the laws that he helped create to protect a high profile political ally. Men of integrity don’t change their minds on something so important in that short of a period of time.

Simply put, President Obama’s action in this matter suggests that he’s willing to ignore the rules when it suits him. That isn’t inconsistent with his threatening political retribution on Chrysler’s bondholders. Let’s remember that President Obama characterized the bondholders as greedy vultures when, in fact, one of the bondholders was an Indiana pension fund.

President Obama’s actions tell us that he thinks he can do whatever he wants. He hasn’t proven that he’s the least bit interested in the rule of law if it will prevent him from helping his political allies.

That’s what third world despots get away with. It isn’t something that the American president should get away with.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Anyone who’s heard of Harvard Law School student Joel Pollak’s run-in with Barney Frank are likely calling him a hero. I certainly am, especially after I watched Greta’s interview of him last night:

What’s more impressive is what he said about his political journey:

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. He said that it was part of a right-wing attack. I think at some point, you said that you were a conservative. Are you part of some, you know, right-wing organization? You know, can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

POLLAK: Sure. Well, when I came to law school, I was actually a Democrat. My first year, I was the section representative to the Harvard law school Democrats. But I found that my positions differed widely from those of some of my friends and those of the Democratic Party, especially on foreign policy, but on other issues, as well. And I liked many Democratic politicians. I voted for Senator Obama when he was running for senator in 2004, but I was disappointed with the job he did for Illinois.

I still had some hope for him as a candidate, but as the election cycle started, I really was alarmed by some of the things he was saying about foreign policy and about free trade and the economy. So I had always admired Senator McCain, and I volunteered on the McCain campaign, and that was my first time that I was involved in Republican politics of any kind.

And one of the reasons I don’t consider myself a Democrat anymore is because whenever you ask a question, you’re labeled. You’re put into a box. I found that even when I was a left-wing Democrat, as I was, and I was so left-wing in my undergrad days that I thought Bill Clinton was too far to the center. When I would go to left-wing events, I found that questioners did exactly what Congressman Frank did. When I went to conservative events, they listened to the question and they gave me an answer. And so I think that that has a profound effect on you over time, if you’re the kind of person who’s curious about the way the world works.

I hope my liberal friends will think about that last paragraph. I hope they ask themselves if they deflect blame onto someone else or if they change subjects without answering questions. I hope they can say they don’t react like Chairman Frank reacted. His behavior, which he consistently displays, is that of a bitter, hateful man who gets agitated by people he perceives don’t wholeheartedly buy into his thinking.

Chairman Frank represents the worst qualities of the Democratic Party. He’s a contemptible man who’d rather belittle people than deal honestly with those who don’t agree with him. Chairman Frank long ago lost the notion that he’s a public servant. Chairman Frank apparently thinks that it’s ok for public servants to belittle the people who pay his salary. That’s a disgusting attitude and there’s no excusing it.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

The message from Andrew Breitbart’s article about Hollywood’s elitists isn’t long on kumbayah. What it lacks in kumbayah, it makes up for in righteous annoyance:

The conservatives, Republicans and sundry non-lefties I know in show business have had nothing to say but positive and helpful things about the coming Obama presidency.

“We wish him well.” “He is our president now and he needs our help.”

These are the types of things I keep hearing.

And this is exactly the right attitude and exactly the right message.

God bless, President Obama. Even though I didn’t vote for him, and disagree with much of his agenda, he has my best wishes and all of my best efforts.

But that doesn’t mean I will forgive and forget an era of narcissism, petty complaining and conspiracy theory peddling from the majority celebrity class that began well before Iraq. [See “Hollywood, Interrupted “, my book co-written with Mark Ebner, which was written before and during the build-up to the Iraq war and before the WMDs weren’t found. The public behavior from Hollywood even then was almost uniformly deplorable.]

Conspiracy theories of America’s complicity in 9/11 dominated cocktail party discussions for eight tedious years. They couldn’t simply disagree with Bush. They had to ascribe evil to his motivations and make sure the whole world agreed on that flawed premise.

Yet, hating the president doesn’t mean one can’t still help out the country in a great time of need. But many went to foreign countries and demeaned it instead. Called those that disagreed with them rubes and hicks. The elitism of the celebrities against flyover country America could not have been more pronounced. They made a boat-load of movies that affirmed this narrow and patronizing world view.

And now they want us back.

We’re all Americans — NOW.

It’s a convenient lie the celebrity left peddles that they were with us during the initial Afghanistan phase of the war, and even after 9/11.

Conditional-Americanism is cheap Americanism. It’s worthless. I’ll-take-my-ball-and-go-home-if-you-don’t-play-by-rules-Americanism is equally worthless.

During the last eight years, we needed robust unconditional Americanism. Hollywood wasn’t interested in that type of Americanism. Hollywood’s habit of blaming America for all that’s wrong with the world is sickening. Michael Moore’s, Danny Glover’s and Sean Penn’s praise of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro is sickening. When they took shots at President Bush in the presence of those dictatorial tyrants, they showed how out of touch they were with America.

Twenty years ago AIDS was the number one cause for the Hollywood left. Remember the trendy red ribbons at all the self-aggrandizing awards shows? Hollywood has moved on (dot org) to better blame-your-fellow-American causes. But President Bush didn’t. And aside from Bob Geldof and Bono, they ignore this president’s demonstrable goodness.

Amazing that Geldof and Bono could valiantly fight their battles and serve humanity without being paralyzed by the Leader of the Free World 2000-2008’s all-encompassing awfulness.

Remember this video: It is a instructive relic of the era of celebrity decadence and boutique anti-Republican activism under President Bush. It is a sickening display that they want fast and easy absolution for having comported themselves like ill-behaved children for eight difficult and war-torn years.

President Clinton was hailed for being the first black president but President Bush implemented a plan that improved lives in AIDS-stricken Africa.

Mr. Breitbart sums things up perfectly:

Good luck, President Obama. The rest of you can go to hell.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

This AP article lists several indicators that have been emerging that California’s irresponsible behavior is driving people away:

Mike Reilly spent his lifetime chasing the California dream. This year he’s going to look for it in Colorado. With a house purchase near Denver in the works, the 38-year-old engineering contractor plans to move his family 1,200 miles away from his home state’s lemon groves, sunshine and beaches. For him, years of rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic have robbed the Golden State of its allure.

Is there something left of the California dream?

“If you are a Hollywood actor,” Reilly says, “but not for us.”

Since the days of the Gold Rush, California has represented the Promised Land, an image celebrated in the songs of the Beach Boys and embodied by Silicon Valley’s instant millionaires and the young men and women who achieve stardom in Hollywood.

But for many California families last year, tomorrow started somewhere else.

The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period, more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y.

Why should people stay when California’s government has been so utterly irresponsible? Taxes keep rising. California’s deficits aren’t eliminated. They aren’t even reduced. Gov. Ahnold and the legislature can’t find a way to stop spending money they don’t have. The last governor that acted in anything resembling a fiscally responsible way was Pete Wilson.

In short, the supposedly enlightened people of California can’t figure out a way to balance a budget because their enlightened priorities are making matters worse with no end in sight. Fiscal restraint is now extinct in most parts of California. At minimum, it’s on the endangered species list.

If they don’t start acting with fiscal restraint, California will become the Michigan of the Left Coast.

Why are so many looking for an exit?

Among other things: California’s unemployment rate hit 8.4 percent in November, the third-highest in the nation, and it is expected to get worse. A record 236,000 foreclosures are projected for 2008, more than the prior nine years combined, according to research firm MDA DataQuick. Personal income was about flat last year.
With state government facing a $41.6 billion budget hole over 18 months, residents are bracing for higher taxes, cuts in education and postponed tax rebates. A multibillion-dollar plan to remake downtown Los Angeles has stalled, and office vacancy rates there and in San Diego and San Jose surpass the 10.2 percent national average.

California doesn’t really have much of a choice in raising taxes at this point. Raising taxes alone won’t solve California’s problems, either. California’s appetite for irresponsible spending must end. That won’t happen with spend-happy Ahnold. That won’t happen with this spend-happy legislature, either.

The only thing that will pull California out of their financial trainwreck is fiscal restraint, limited government, intelligent priorities and leadership that says, metaphorically speaking, the children can’t have dessert until they’ve finished their homework and eaten their vegetables.

I haven’t seen proof that any of California’s politicians are capable of or interested in providing that type of leadership. Without leadership and without restraint, California will be stuck in this hole for the forseeable future.

If ever there was a time when California needed adult management, it’s now. Let’s hope that leadership arrives soon. It can’t afford this pattern much longer.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Everyone’s heard about the vulgar anti-Palin t-shirts. Monday afternoon, Martha McCallum interviewed Tammy Bruce about those t-shirts. Here’s the videostream of the interview:

Here’s a partial transcript of the interview:

Martha McCallum: Well, McCain supporters have been accused of stirring up hate but what about Barack Obama’s supporters against Gov. Sarah Palin? She’s been pounded with protests in Pennsylvania this past weekend but the most dramatic is very offensive, frankly, no matter who you support.

An anti-Palin t-shirt that is so vulgar that we can’t even show it to you on cable TV. Are these protesters crossing the line? Joining me now is Fox News Analyst and syndicated radio talk show host Tammy Bruce. Tammy I think we have a photograph with part of this sort of blurred out to show what these people had on their t-shirts. But first of all, why haven’t we heard more about this?

Tammy Bruce: Well, partly from the way you introduced this, it’s not even a word that can be said. It’s not a word that people want to say. It’s the most derogatory term for womanhood that there is and the other remarkable thing other than knowing that the general establishment media is in the tank for Obama, the fact is that this is nothing new. This is part and parcel of the attitude and tone of the Obama campaign, which has upset so many Hillary Clinton supporters from the beginning of his presidential run, the misogyny and the sexism sets a tone for his supporters and it manifests in this way and it really is quite horrific.

Martha McCallum: Yeah. We’re not going to show the picture because we don’t want to add any legitimacy to it but it’s four people wearing green t-shirts and it basically says Palin is a…and it finishes that sentence in a really gross, derogatory way. And I was also shocked to see that there was a woman in that picture. Where does that come from?

Tammy Bruce: You know, this kind of misogyny, it’s not just from men. It transcends gender and race. It transcends class. The fact of the matter is that one of the most popular t-shirts out there when Barack Obama was running in the primary season said “Bros before hoes.” I mean, this is the tone that was set against Hillary and Hillary supporters, which is why John McCain has received so much support from that end. This isn’t just about defeating an oppponent when it comes to the issues. This is about personal destruction and this is the kind of thing that many people decided to reject and when we deal with issues of character and judgment, what your supporters are doing does reflect on what the top of the ticket is doing.

Martha McCallum: And I guess you always have to put the shoe on the other foot to see how this would be treated and I’m trying to imagine if there was something derogatory along those lines of a racial nature against Barack Obama on a t-shirt. I’ve gotta believe that you’d see this story practically everywhere.

Tammy Bruce: Well, already through these campaigns, we’ve learned that the issue of race is treated much more seriously than misogyny is. That’s an education that we’ve got to deal with. John McCain and Sarah Palin will be the beneficiaries of the types of people who reject this type of dynamic.

I’m certain that the vast majority of people would be utterly disgusted if they heard about these t-shirts. That’s why the Obama news networks won’t say a word about it.

Obama’s crafted an image of being a moderate who gets along with everyone of all political stripes. The ladies of PUMA aren’t buying into that. Bill Clinton isn’t buying into that either. Bill Clinton knows that Sen. Obama played the race card on him. He knows that Sen. Obama played the sexism card against Hillary, too. Let’s not forget that Sen. Obama unloaded on Geraldine Ferarro, too.

I don’t even think it’s all about being sexist, though I think that Sen. Obama is sexist. Instead, Sen. Obama is a product of the Daley machine, which means he’s ruthless. If someone challenges Sen. Obama, he’ll do everything he can to annihilate his opponent.

Frankly, I hope alot of feminists give Sen. Obama the political equivalent of the finger on Election Night. He’s ruthless, a racist, a sexist, a political radical and a thoroughly dishonest man.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Last week, Speaker Pelosi sent Steny Hoyer out to wave the white flag of defeat on energy. Or so we thought. This is what Hoyer said then:

“[Republicans] will have the opportunity to offer their alternative, yes,” Hoyer said in response to a question about how the energy bill will be introduced. “We understand that their motion to recommit will be their Republican alternative.”

Rep. Hoyer’s words no longer apply. Ms. Pelosi has reverted back to her tyrannical behavior. The Democrats’ new ‘Drilling Bill’ is being brought up under a closed rule again:

Late last night, the Democrat Rules Committee decided to allow debate on ZERO amendments to the Democrats’ new energy gimmick bill. It is a closed bill, so no amendments can be offered, and no compromise can be reached. They made this decision over Republican objections, in the dead of night, and less than 12 hours before the House would begin consideration of the bill.

That’s a complete turnaround from their original promise. Democrats have just just told America that their word is worthless. Their credibility, which was already circling the drain, just dropped lower. It’s almost vanished.

Here are 3 definitions of corruption:

  • perversion of integrity.
  • corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
  • debasement or alteration, as of language or a text

I’d say each definition fits what the House Democratic leadership promised a week earlier. Minority Leader John Boehner isn’t taking this lightly:

“With today’s floor debate, Speaker Pelosi has designed yet another cynical strategy that enables vulnerable Democrats to claim they support more American energy back in their districts but then vote against it here in Washington. In rigging today’s debate on the Speaker’s latest ‘no energy’ bill, Democrats have made an open and honest debate impossible for those who support an ‘all of the above’ approach to reduce fuel costs. In fact, last night at the Rules Committee, Republicans offered a proposal to open up today’s debate to enable a real vote on our ‘all of the above’ American Energy Act, and Democrats voted it down. The Majority has even gone so far as to begin debate on their sham bill today while several Members of the Texas delegation are still home with their constituents, helping in the recovery effort after Hurricane Ike.

“Written behind closed doors, with their special interest allies who are on the record in support of higher gas prices, and finally released to the public in the dark of night, the Democrats’ latest ‘no energy’ bill once again defies the will of the American people who support a comprehensive approach to lower gas prices. This Democratic bill permanently locks away some 88 percent of the best American oil resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. It blocks valuable and job-creating energy production on Alaska’s North Slope and Inter-Mountain West. And it stops efforts to produce more and cheaper energy through emissions-free nuclear and coal-to-liquids technologies. Rather than an ‘all of the above’ approach, this bill is very nearly ‘none of the above.’ The American people have been waiting for months for this Democratic Congress to give them a meaningful, honest vote on more American energy production, but instead, Speaker Pelosi has served-up a legislative hoax and a debate rigged to once again defy their will.”

Speaker Pelosi and her minions aren’t corrupt in the sense that they’re involved in a major scandal. What they are is utterly dishonest and untrustworthy. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them with both arms broken and a bad back.

What makes this that much more vile is that they’re doing this because their environmental extremist allies gave them their orders:

Less than a week after hearing delegates at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul chanting “Drill here, drill now,” members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation were getting a different message from the Sierra Club.

The environmental organization, joined by a handful of other Mankato-area residents, said drilling offshore and in other ecologically sensitive areas would do little to solve the nation’s energy problem and would distract from real solutions.

The message of the press event in Jackson Park was aimed at Democratic Congressman Tim Walz and Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, and the Sierra Club planned to deliver the point personally to the local offices of both lawmakers. It comes as Congress is reconvening after the August recess and political conventions and is under pressure to take aim at high gas prices.

“The vote coming up on oil is one of the key ones we face,” said John Hottinger, who represented Mankato and St. Peter in the state Senate until retiring two years ago and is now on the Sierra Club’s state board of directors.

Let there be no doubt about this: Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have given the proverbial finger to Main Street while siding with K Street extremists. That’s unacceptable. PERIOD.

The Sierra Club’s views on energy production stand in opposition to Main Street’s view of increasing energy production. That’s because their agenda is warped:

  • Distribute literature and talk to your neighbors.
  • Find creative ways to protest pollution.
  • Take your child to a political rally.
  • Take a leadership role in a chapter or campaign.

I found that information on their “Sierra Club 101” page. They couldn’t care less about Main Street. They’re all about their radical political ideology. They’re about pursuing their ‘religion’.

Let’s bring this information back to this bill. Ms. Pelosi shut down true deliberations on this legislation because she’s wedded to the environmental extremists’ agenda. The fact that Main Street is suffering with high gas prices is irrelevant. The fact that Main Street will be suffering through high heating costs this winter is equally irrelevant.

When a political organization puts their allies’ wishlist ahead of We The People, it’s time to put a halt to that movement. I’d argue that the Sierra Club and other like-minded organizations have joined forces with the House Democratic leadership and that they’ve put meeting Main Street’s needs down the list of priorities.

That’s got to end ASAP. We can’t afford Ms. Pelosi set the agenda any longer.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Earlier today, I said that it was ironic that Democrats had gone from the mantra of “Count every vote” in 2000 to making votes count little in 2008. Now it’s official: the DNC voted to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations before ruling that each delegate’s vote would count as 1/2 a vote. Here’s what the AP is reporting:

Democratic party officials said a committee agreed Saturday on a compromise to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes after Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get enough support to force their positions through.

Clinton’s chief delegate hunter Harold Ickes angrily informed the committee that Clinton had instructed him to reserve her right to appeal the matter to the Democrats’ credentials committee, which could potentially drag the matter to the party’s convention in August.

“There’s been a lot of talk about party unity, let’s all come together, and put our arms around each other,” said Ickes, who is also a member of the Rules Committee that approved the deal. “I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, hijacking four delegates…is not a good way to start down the path of party unity.”

It’s predictable that Hillary wouldn’t accept such a deal because it essentially cedes victory to Sen. Obama. That said, there’s definitely merit to her argument. Here’s what TNR is reporting on the unity front:

Howard Dean may hope that the “healing will begin today,” but two blocks away from the northwest Washington Marriott where the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting right now to try to figure out Florida and Michigan, the Hillary protesters are occupying an utterly alternate (and healing-free) universe: a universe in which one of the big lawn rally’s speakers yells that the Democratic Party no longer is in the business of “promoting equality and fairness for all”; in which a Hillary supporter with two poodles shouts, “Howard Dean is a leftist freak!”; in which a man exhibits a sign that reads “At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen” and shows Dean whipping handcuffed people; and in which Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who took to YouTube to allege that Barack Obama had oral sex with him in the back of a limousine in 1999, is one of the belles of the ball.

Based on that report, I think it’s a stretch to believe that healing is a priority with Hillary’s supporters. Rather, I’d say that their mission is simple: winning isn’t the biggest thing; it’s the only thing.

I referenced the troubles within the Democratic Party in my earlier post. This is a perfect illustration of that divide. When they were deciding who would succeed Terry McAuliffe as DNC chairman, Eli Pariser made it known what the wing wanted:

“For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base[.] But we can’t afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers…In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it’s our party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”

It’s an established fact that hates the DLC wing. It isn’t just that they see things a bit differently; it’s that sees things through a completely different lens. To people like Eli Pariser, the DLC is nothing more than GOP Lite.

Another troublespot for the DNC to deal with is the rift between the limosine liberal elitists and the blue collar Reagan Democrats. Remember all the exit polls showing Hillary supporters as unwilling to vote for Obama? Check this out:

Of the eight Hillary supporters I quiz at the protest (six of them women), only one says she’d even consider voting for Obama in the fall. “It’s sad. I’m a lifelong Democrat and the party’s been taken over by these Obama people who say they want ‘change,'” gripes Linda of Horseheads, New York, outside the Marriott as a honking car decorated with a painting of Hillary, a glued-on bust of Cleopatra, and a tampon drives by. Linda, she says, has already gone to the state Board of Elections to learn how to write Hillary’s name in in November. “So much has been stolen from her.”

That’s got to worry the Obama campaign. If that’s how Hillary’s supporters see him, then he’s toast. I’d be surprised if that is representative but even if it’s halfways accurate, it’s still awful news for Team Obama. If Hillary’s Democrats stay home or Reagan Democrats vote for John McCain, then that makes Obama’s job awfully difficult in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has some explaining to do after it was revealed that he’s maintained strong ties with Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, aka FARC. I’m not an international law student but I’d have to think that supporting a terrorist organization whose sole intent is to overthrow the democratically elected government of another country is an act of war. Here’s what the AP is reporting:

Interpol on Thursday endorsed the authenticity of computer files seized in a rebel camp, announcing that Colombia did not tamper with documents indicating Chavez sought to finance and arm the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

Venezuelan officials set up contacts with Australian arms dealers and arranged for missile training in the Middle East, according to the documents, which were on computer hard drives seized by Colombia and obtained by the Washington Post.

Not surprisingly, Chavez responded disdainfully:

“Do you think we should waste time here on something so ridiculous?” he told reporters in Caracas.

Chavez has denied providing the FARC material support, but did not address the issue directly on Thursday. Instead, he called Interpol’s secretary general, Ronald Noble, “a tremendous actor,” “Mr. Ignoble” and an “immoral police officer who applauds killers.”

The answer to Chavez’ first question is simple: You damn right I think he’d supply these terrorists.

Colombia has been leaking details from the documents since the day after the raid. The most damning evidence against Chavez was revealed to The Associated Press last week.

More than a dozen rebel messages detail close cooperation with Venezuela, including rebel training facilities on Venezuelan soil and a meeting inside Venezuela’s equivalent of the Pentagon. They suggest Venezuela wanted to loan the rebels $250 million and help them get Russian weapons and possibly even surface-to-air missiles.

While this information is important, it pales in comparison to this information (H/T: Gateway Pundit):

Interpol confirmed documents today showing that US Congressman James McGovern, (D-Mass.), a leading opponent of the Colombia free-trade deal has been working with a go-between, who has been offering the FARC terrorists help in undermining Colombia’s elected and popular government.
Colombia is America’s closest ally in South America.

What on earth are Democrats thinking? At this point, these aren’t allegations. This information was confirmed by Interpol. As bad as that information is for Democrats, this information might top it:

The information also confirms that US Democrats were secretly reaching out to the FARC terrorists.
One document explained:

The 16 documents were published Sunday by the news magazine Semana. They also detail previously unknown relationships held or sought by Latin America’s oldest and most potent rebel force, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

Another discusses an apparent effort by U.S. Democrats to have celebrated novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez mediate talks with the insurgents, possibly with former President Clinton’s involvement.

There is no evidence the FARC ever obtained surface-to-air missiles, however. Attempts to reach Clinton and Garcia Marquez were unsuccessful.

If this information is accurate, then Bill Clinton can kiss his legacy goodbye. More importantly, if that information is verified, that information would expose Democrats as conspriing to undercut a democratically elected government.

Let’s not forget Rep. William Delahunt’s negotiations with Hugo Chavez:

A subsidiary of the Venezuelan national oil company will ship 12 million gallons of discounted home-heating oil to local charities and 45,000 low-income families in Massachusetts next month under a deal arranged by US Representative William D. Delahunt, a local nonprofit energy corporation, and Venezuela’s president, White House critic Hugo Chávez.

In light of these latest revelations, one has to wonder if there’s more to this story. After all, this article ran in the Boston Globe on November 20, 2005. This paragraph is pure spin:

Chávez showed “an inclination to do a humanitarian distribution” of oil, and poor families in Massachusetts had a “desperate need” for relief from high home-heating prices, Schwadron said. He characterized the deal as one between “a US company and two nonprofits to help them do more of what they already do, with terms that mean the price is good.”

Hugo Chavez doesn’t do anything for altruistic reasons. I’ve got to wonder if Delahunt’s deal with Chavez wasn’t the precursor for the Democrats’ attempt to undercut Colombia’s democratically elected government.

Based on Adam Housely’s post, I’d say that the contrast between Republicans and Democrats couldn’t be more stark:

WASHINGTON – Congressman Connie Mack (FL-14) renewed his calls for the Administration to impose tough new sanctions on Venezuela today after Interpol, the international police agency, confirmed the validity of the contents of laptops and other documents containing information strongly tying Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his allies to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), an internationally-recognized terrorist organization.

Interpol released its report early this afternoon on laptops, files and other documents that Colombian forces recovered after a raid on a FARC camp inEcuador in which a top leader in the FARC, Raul Reyes, was killed. The laptops and documents contain solid evidence that Chavez and his closest advisors have cooperated and coordinated with the FARC and given them hundreds of millions of dollars, weapons, public support and safe passage and haven in Venezuela.

“Today’s report sheds another bright light on the active efforts of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and his cronies to promote terror and instability throughout Latin America. He has used his vast oil wealth to fund terrorism in the region and make mischief in order to undermine democratic institutions and principles in Colombia and other countries.

A Massachusetts liberal tries to undercut a democratically elected government in Colombia. A Florida conservative pushes the Bush administration to list Venezuela as a state sponsor of terror.

The difference is like night and day.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

I didn’t get far into this LA Times editorial before spotting the first hint of BDS. Look at this misstatement of fact:

After the 9/11 attacks, Bush determined that U.S. intelligence agencies needed to be more aggressive in intercepting telephone calls and e-mail between suspected foreign terrorists and people in the United States. He then faced a choice: He could publicly ask Congress to remedy what he saw as shortcomings in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that required judicial oversight of domestic wiretapping of suspected foreign agents. Or he could act on his own, and in secret, to authorize the monitoring of electronic communications involving Americans.

Abetted by Vice President Dick Cheney, who long had resented what he regarded as congressional encroachment on executive authority, Bush made the latter choice.

Actually, President Bush didn’t act alone. Here’s what a USA Today article said about the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program:

The Bush administration briefed select members of Congress 30 times on the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a declassified list released Wednesday.

The fact is that the Bush administration briefed the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on the program. I’ll gladly admit that these meetings were confidential. After all, what’s the sense of having public hearings on a confidential program aimed at not telling terrorists that we’re intercepting their communications?

In other words, the Bush administration took prudent steps to prevent more terrorist attacks while keeping members of congress with the proper security clearance informed. The editorialist clearly intended to paint the image that President Bush was evil for concealing the NSA’s TSP. Here’s another whiny section from the editorial:

Only this year, after the election of a Democratic Congress, did Bush shift ground and agree to allow the program to be supervised by the secret federal court created by FISA.

This acceptance of judicial oversight proved to be short-lived. When the court found fault with aspects of the program, reportedly ruling that FISA required the government to seek a court order for “foreign-to-foreign” communications that are routed through the United States, Bush pressed Congress to do much more than close what everyone agreed was a loophole created by advances in technology.

First of all, what proof does the unnamed editorialist provide to show that President Bush “pressed Congress to do much more than close” a loophole that some wacky FISA appeals court judge misguidedly created? It’s likely that the editorialist is opining that that’s what happened. He/she couldn’t possibly know without being a member of congress who’d been lobbied by the Bush administration.

Secondly, I called Rep. Keith Ellison’s office this week to see how he voted on the RESTORE Act. After talking with the secretary of his Minneapolis office for 2-3 minutes, she put Rep. Ellison on the phone. (To say that I was surprised would be understatement.) Rep. Ellison said that the RESTORE Act was “10 million times better than” what we currently have in place and that “FISA never applied to foreign to foreign calls.” I chose not to point out the FISA appellate court judge’s ruling that calls from Pakistan to Afghanistan that route through an American switch now required a warrant from the FISA Court.

In other words, only for a brief period of time was there any judicial oversight of foreign surveillance required. The editorialist implies that that’s been required since FISA was enacted. It clearly wasn’t.

I’d further point out that precedent says that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct reasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches. Intercepting enemy communications, especially in wartime, has always been considered a reasonable search.

Let’s take Rep. Ellison at his word that “FISA never applied to foreign to foreign communications” for the sake of this discussion. That leads me to ask why the DNI and the Attorney General would have to apply for a yearlong warrant? That’s what this provision clearly states:

Sec. 105B. (a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General may jointly apply to a judge of the court established under section 103(a) for an ex parte order, or the extension of an order, authorizing for a period of up to one year the acquisition of communications of persons that are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States and not United States persons for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information (as defined in paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 101(e)) by targeting those persons.

If Rep. Ellison is right in saying that foreign to foreign communications have never been subject to FISA warrants, why should they now be required? At minimum, this seems like a provision that just creates another time-consuming and unnecessary burden for the DNI and the Attorney General.

Let’s step back and ask a simple question: Did the Founding Fathers envision letting the Legislative Branch attach strings that hindered the Executive Branch’s ability to protect us from attacks? I’m not a constitutional scholar but, after reading the Constitution, it’s apparent that they intended for the Executive Branch to be in charge of national security and that the Legislative Branch only had oversight responsibilities.

When the dust settles, I strongly suspect that RESTORE will be substantially rewritten. I believe that because the Senate is already on record as saying they’ll reject RESTORE. (Does this mean that the editorialist will characterize Senate Democrats in the same way as he/she mischaracterizes President Bush? Something tells me that that won’t happen.)

For all the whining about President Bush’s promised veto, there isn’t a single word spoken about having the Senate agree to passing RESTORE. That seems hypocritical at minimum. Why am I not surprised that an LA Times editorial was this selective in their criticism?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That isn’t an opinion, it’s a statement of fact. If you want proof, I’ve got tons of it. Let’s start with Jack Reed’s ‘rebuttal’ of President Bush’s speech:

Tonight, a nation eager for change in Iraq heard the President speak about his plans for the future. But once again, the President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.

The truth is that Jack Reed didn’t hear a “convincing rationale to continue” the war because he’d made up his mind months ago. In fact, it isn’t a stretch to say that he made up his mind in 2002 when he voted against authorizing the President to take military action in Iraq.

As for Sen. Reed’s claim that President Bush didn’t provide a convincing rationale for continuing the war, what doesn’t he think this paragraph provides that rationale?

In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Why doesn’t Sen. Reed think that breaking the terrorists’ backs in Iraq is a worthy mission? Why doesn’t Sen. Reed think that preventing state sponsors of terrorism like Iran from dominating the Middle East is a worthwhile mission? Doesn’t Sen. Reed think that keeping our word with a freedom-loving ally is worthwhile?

When Sen. Reed wasn’t mischaracterizing President Bush’s plan for defeating the terrorists, he was mischaracterizing Gen. Petraeus’ testimony:

Yet, as General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, Iraq’s fundamental problems are not military, they are political. The only way to create a lasting peace in Iraq is for Iraqi leaders to negotiate a settlement of their long-standing differences.

Sen. Reed knows that that’s nonsense. You must defeat the enemies of the elected Iraqi government before you can have longlasting political progress. That means killing off the terrorists. If you don’t do that, the government can’t operate and the civilians have to live in fear, just like they did when Saddam was ruler.

I watched most of Gen. Petraeus’ testimony. He made it especially clear that the military had to take action in Ramadi before reconstruction could start. That was imperative because Ramadi was a terrorist stronghold. Notice that I said was. Ramadi is now well on the path to rebuilding. During his allotted time, Sen. Norm Coleman, my senator, spoke excitedly about how the Ramadi mayor told him about eventually building a resort area.

By the way, doesn’t the thought of building a luxury resort in Ramadi speaks volumes about how much progress has been made in Anbar Province?

It was a mere year ago that so-called military experts wrote off Anbar as being a permanent AQI stronghold and base. I’d say that it’s nothing short of amazing that Anbar, especially Ramadi, went from being AQI’s base of operations to being a rebuilding sectarian city.

Sen. Reed isn’t the only Democratic pessimist who’s demanding troop withdrawals. Earlier today, I wrote about Sen. Obama’s speech in Clinton, IA, which he touted as a major foreign policy speech. Here’s the main point he made in the speech:

“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,” Obama was expected to say in a speech Wednesday at Ashford University.

“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year…now,” the Illinois senator was to say.

Sen. Obama must be pandering to his contributors because elected officials can’t be foolish enough to think that “there never was” a military solution to Iraq’s problems. Again, where’s the proof that Sen. Obama thinks that the American military can’t defeat the terrorists? How would he respond to this portion of President Bush’s speech?

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.

Here’s what happened in AQI’s former stronghold:

  • Sunni sheikhs worked with the Iraqi military and the multinational forces to drive out terrorists.
  • Anbar citizens now provide intel on terrorist hideouts.
  • Sunnis are joining the military and police instead of joining the insurgents.
  • The economy is growing.

How dare Sen. Reed and Sen. Obama say that progress isn’t being made. How dare they say that there isn’t a compelling reason for staying on the offensive. How dare they say that there isn’t a military component to stabilizing Iraq.

Most importantly, the changes that’ve taken hold in Anbar are sustainable, long-lasting reforms because the citizens have rejected AQI’s brutality.

Here’s how other Democratic presidential candidates reacted:


“This is bizarre. It’s all about handing the war off to the next president. It’s not about solving any problems…All this is is a continuation of a God-awful failed policy…There is no strategy here.”


“What the president told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home.”


“Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he’s ever had: more time, more troops, and more war…Now, after General (David) Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when all of us know it won’t.”

Let me repeat what I said earlier: What’s obviously missing is the belief that the American military can defeat terrorists. That’s what the Democrats stand for. If the Democrat’s name isn’t Joe Lieberman, they don’t believe that victory is possible. Shame on them.

Despite all the information that conditions have dramatically changed in Al-Anbar, Democrats insist that President Bush refuses to change strategies. Despite all the proof that Iraqis turned against the terrorists because President Bush wouldn’t abandon America’s ally when the going got tough, Democrats insist that there isn’t a compelling reason to stay in Iraq. Despite all the proof that Iran wants to establish a regionwide hegemony the minute America abandons Iraq, Democrats think that leaving is the right thing to do.

Finally, let’s contrast the Democrats’ defeatism against what Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain said:


“Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight.”


“The mission in Iraq is safety and security in Iraq, and of course the end purpose of that is so we can have an ally against Islamic terrorism. We can be successful in that. I don’t see the idea of running out, withdrawing and retreating.”


“I think what I find interesting is the lack of appreciation of success on the part of many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, success that we have achieved in a relatively short period of time after four years of failure under the (then Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld doctrine, strategy, which was a disaster.”

I especially love Fred Thompson’s statement because it perfectly characterizes the Democrats’ top priority. They’ve spent their time complaining about President Bush’s “failed strategy” but not putting forward a plan to defeat the terrorists in Iraq.

They didn’t put forward such a plan because it would’ve eliminated the biggest source of their campaign contributions.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative