About Me

Name: Always To The...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

Can't Trust Liberals With Our Security

A brief time ago I asked if anyone knew about the term "useful idiots" well here's an answer.

Lenin is widely credited with the prediction that liberals and other weak minded souls in the West could be relied upon to be "useful idiots" as far as the Soviet Union was concerned.  Though Lenin may never have actually uttered the phrase, it is consistant with his cynical style.  . . . liberals managed, time after time during the Cold War, to live down to this . . . prediction.

The above paragraph is from the book "Useful Idiots; How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First"  by Mona Charen.  You could substitute Islamic-facism [or whatever your choice is] for Soviet Union and you can see how the Liberal Democrats are falling into the same mold as they did during the Cold War.  BTW the book is a good read for those that were too young during the Cold War time and shows just where people stood.  We can see now how these same people trying to revise history-as they are trying to do now with the war-on-terror [and the run up to it].
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Terrorism Is

America Is Not the Bad Guy in This Fight

It is apparent that we need to review what terrorism is. The definition is simple: terrorism is carried out by a bunch of sickos who have hijacked the religion of Islam to force their extremist agenda on everybody on this earth through violence and mass murder. They operate on no other motive except that we aren’t Islamofascists. It’s that simple, and it’s black and white.

A recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate appearing in the New York Times (surprise!) stated that our actions in Iraq have emboldened the Islamofascists, making us more vulnerable to attack. The report also confirmed that hot air rises (OK, I made that up). As if terrorists needed emboldening. They already killed 3,000 Americans in New York using American airliners. Honestly, how much bolder can they get?

Democrats, upon learning of the intelligence estimate continued screaming like banshees, but this time it was not only that Saddam wasn’t a threat and thus we should’ve ignored the purging of Iraqi dissidents by the tens of thousands, but that moreover, our actions in Iraq have made us more susceptible to attack. My question is: What the [heck] did we do to motivate a bunch of Islamofascists to turn planes into missiles? The assertion that our pursuit of terrorists and their allies before they strike has somehow compromised national security is the equivalent of, “Because we allow women to vote, because women can go to college, and because Americans like to eat pork, Islamofascists decided to kill scores of Americans.” Make sense now?

If the Democrats are trying to dispel the myth that they represent the “blame America first” crowd, they’re doing a shoddy job. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, et al may chastise GOP senators for characterizing his Democratic party as caring more about making sure we don’t anger Islamofascists or deny them their “constitutional rights” then they do about keeping them from harming America. Usually, such an attack is false, but in this case, Democrats prove the Republicans’ point through their rhetoric.

The assertion that our offensive against terrorism is making Islamofascists angry isn’t new. They are flabbergasted that we have prevented them from killing innocent Americans since September 11. Infidels we may be, but we’re using tools such as warrantless surveillance and the Patriot Act to stop them in their tracks. Of course, these tools will probably be taken away by Speaker Nancy Pelosi if Democrats win in November.

While the Democrats think that telling people that Iraq has jeopardized national security, too much has happened that makes their argument irrelevant. If fighting terrorism makes us more vulnerable to attack, Pope Benedict has jeopardized the entire Catholic Church with his recent remarks about how Islam is, well, violent. To prove the Pope right, Islamofascists in short order gunned down a nun in Mogadishu. Having already pledged to investigate the lead-up to the Iraq war and September 11 should they win in November, perhaps Democrats should open an investigation into the publication of Danish cartoons depicting parodies of Mohammed in college newspapers across the nation last spring. The publication of the controversial cartoons in the Daily Tarheel at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill motivated an Islamofascist to drive a jeep into a crowd of students after the DTH refused to honor demands from the Muslim Student Association to issue an apology; he is now being held in the Orange County jail on charges of terrorism and attempted murder. Of course, Democrats would have you believe that the editor of the DTH is responsible for the terrorism perpetrated by the suspect -- he fueled the fire.

I am sick and [darn] tired of being told that the principles of America, such as free speech by the Pope and the press, coupled equal rights and liberty for all is offensive to Muslims. We are the victims, not Muslims. For Muslims to go around killing nuns and then make the entire world walk on eggshells so we don’t “offend” them is beyond comprehension. Our Catholic faith is ridiculed daily by people around the world, and yet we don’t going around killing people who work for Planned Parenthood. I have had it with Americans on the left who seem to capitulate to the demands of Muslims by decrying America as the bad guy in this War on Terror. I am sick of seeing signs throughout the nation depicting President Bush as a turban-bedecked terrorist. It is time to say enough is enough; this “we fuel the fire” hogwash goes no further. America’s message is quite plain: don’t mess with the bull, ‘cause you’ll get the horns.

  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Strike Again

About Michael Ramirez
 
Michael Ramirez - 10/02/06
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Weak On Defense

Investor's Business Daily
 
 

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/29/2006

Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after another.

Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.

President Carter (4) also stopped B-1 bomber production, (5) gave away our strategically located Panama Canal and (6) made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.

That led Carter, a Democrat, (7) to make a monumental miscalculation and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran. (8) Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

The Soviets, (9) with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist threats to Iran that Carter never understood.

Carter (10) thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious man. (11) With U.S. support withdrawn, the Shah was overthrown, and (12) the ayatollah returned and promptly proclaimed Iran an Islamic nation. (13) Executions followed. Palestinian hit men were hired to secretly eliminate the opposition so the religious mullahs couldn't be blamed.

Iran's ayatollah (14) then introduces the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to attack and kill as many Israeli citizens as possible by blowing themselves up. This inhumane menace has grown unchallenged.

The ayatollah (15) next created and financed with Iran's oil wealth Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that later bombed our barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and sailors. With Iran's encouragement this summer, (16) Hezbollah attacked Israel and started a war that damaged Lebanon and (17) diverted the world's attention from Iran's nuclear bomb program.

In November 1979, Iranians, including (18) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their current puppet president who was elected in an unfree, rigged election in which opponents were intimidated into not running, (19) stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444 days.

Carter, after nearly six months, (20) belatedly attempted a poorly executed rescue with only six Navy helicopters (three were lost or disabled in sandstorms) and Air Force planes with Delta Force commandos. The mission was aborted, but foul-ups on the ground resulted in a loss of eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines. The bungled plan was never put down on paper for the Joint Chiefs to evaluate. There were practice sessions, but no full dress rehearsal, and pilots weren't allowed to meet with their weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security.

America (21) can thank the well-meaning but naive and inexperienced Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for a foreign policy that lost a strong military ally, Iran, and (22) put the U.S. at odds with a gangster regime that was determined to build nuclear bombs to wipe Israel off the map and threaten the U.S. and other nations. Iran also has a working relationship with al-Qaida, which also wants nukes. Care to connect the dots?

Shortly after a meeting at which Carter kissed Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on each cheek, (23) the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter the appeaser was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied to me," he said.

During the Carter Democrat period, (24) communism was on a rampage worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took over (25) Ethiopia, (26) South Yemen ( (27) located at the mouth of the Red Sea where they could block Mideast oil shipments and access to the Suez Canal), (28) Afghanistan, (29) Angola, (30) Cambodia, (31) Mozambique, (32) Grenada and ( 33) Nicaragua.

Compared to the pre-Vietnam War defense budget in 1964, Carter requested in fiscal 1982's defense budget (34) a 45% reduction in fighter aircraft, (35) a 75% reduction in ships, (36) an 83% reduction in attack submarines and (37) a 90% reduction in helicopters.

The Soviets for years (38) consistently spent 15% of their GDP on defense; (39) in 1980 we spent under 5%. As a percentage of our government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor. No wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense spending to help us win the 45-year-old Cold War and relegate the USSR to the ash heap of history — an astounding feat no one (except Reagan) believed possible.

In addition to a communist enemy rapidly expanding its territorial conquests, Reagan (40) inherited from Democratic management a 12% inflation rate (highest in 34 years), (41) 21% interest rates (highest since Abraham Lincoln was president), (42) a depleted military and (43) a serious energy crisis.

For eight years (44) congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought with Reagan and were on the wrong side of nearly all his defense and economic policies. They said he wasn't bright — an "amiable dunce," as party elder Clark Clifford (45) put it. They maintained his tax cuts wouldn't work, (46) that he insulted the Soviets by labeling them the "Evil Empire" (47) and that he was going to start World War III by putting missiles in West Germany to counter new Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles installed in East Germany. (48) John Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze that would guarantee the Soviets overwhelming tactical nuclear superiority in Europe. (49) Kerry seemed to constantly advise retreating, giving up and handing our enemies what they wanted — a recipe for us to lose every war.

Democrats waffled (50) on Reagan's request for support of Contras who were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50 million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

Democratic leaders (51) all dismissed as a ridiculous pipe dream Reagan's plan for the U.S. to develop a missile that could shoot down incoming enemy missiles. (52) Showing no vision, Democrats mockingly called it Star Wars.

Democratic politicians (53) were proved wrong on virtually every vital Reagan policy. (54) His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic boom that created 20 million new jobs. (55) Interest rates tumbled from 21% to 7 1/2%. (56) Inflation nose-dived from 12% to 3%. And (57) oil prices collapsed when — contrary to warnings from Democrats — he removed price controls on natural gas.

Reagan's motto was "Peace through Strength," (58) not peace through weakness and accommodation. With his steadfast determination and perseverance, the communists were kicked out of Grenada and defeated in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. And for the first time in history Soviet expansion ended.

Reagan (59) never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

Years later, (60) a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. (61) So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later (62) Gorbachev said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

In July 2001, (63) the U.S. military used an SDI missile launched thousands of miles away and flying at near bullet speed to blow a test missile out of the sky. (64) Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

The current terrorist threat (65) to U.S. national security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected November 1992. (66) The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000. (67) Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

October 1993. (68) A Somali warlord, with help from weapons and top trainers sent by al-Qaida, shot down two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. Clinton, under pressure from a Democratic Congress, ordered retreat and withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Said Osama bin Laden: "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame."

January 1995. (69) Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

Bin Laden (70) tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon that would kill on a mass basis — like Hiroshima. (71) In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a Saudi-U.S. joint facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans.

June 1996. (72) Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up by Saudi Hezbollahs with help from Iran and some al-Qaida involvement. Nineteen Americans were killed and 372 wounded.

July-August 1996. (73) The U.S. received from senior level al-Qaida defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and intentions of al-Qaida.

February 1998. (74) Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

May 29, 1998. Finally, (75) after a long series of deadly bombings carried out since 1992, and bin Laden calls to attack the U.S., Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture the al-Qaida leader at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. After months of planning, consultations with senior officials in other departments and numerous full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off at the last moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden didn't survive.

Aug. 7, 1998. (76) Al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, five minutes apart, killing 200, injuring 5,000.

Now (77) Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a Sudan aspirin factory. (78) But the administration gave up to 48 hours notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Somehow forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

Dec. 20, 1998. (79) Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential collateral damage and the risk of failure. (80) Clinton approved a plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

Next, (81) the Pentagon created a plan to use an HC 130 gunship, a more precise method, against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense, told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

Feb. 10, 1999. (82) The CIA knew bin Laden would be at a desert hunting camp the next morning, the 11th. But the military failed to act because an official airplane of the United Arab Emirates was there and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

May 1999. (83) Detailed reports from several sources let the CIA know that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. Everyone agreed it was the best chance to get bin Laden. But word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were again concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours. October 2000, (84) the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Americans must learn from history and costly mistakes. Sadly, (85) Democrat Jimmy Carter, a Southern peanut farmer, became our Neville Chamberlain, creating the specific conditions that have brought us the three greatest threats to our national security today: 1) (86) Iran's nuke-bound terrorists; 2) (87) al-Qaida and other terrorists; and 3) (88) North Korea and its nuclear weapons.

Carter's (89) inability to deal with the Soviet communists emboldened them to invade Afghanistan. A 23-year-old bin Laden also was drawn there to recruit young Muslim fighters and build a network to raise money for the anti-Soviet jihad that later became al-Qaida.

Years later, (90) civilian Carter took it on himself to go to North Korea and negotiate a peace agreement that would stop that communist country from developing nuclear weapons. He then convinced Clinton and Albright to go along with it. (91) The signed piece of paper proved worthless, as the Koreans easily deceived Democrats and used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear bombs and increase the threat we face today.

The Clinton administration (92) had at least 10 chances to get bin Laden, but it repeatedly could not make the decision to act. There were too many people and departments involved, too much confusion and no strong leader to make the tough decisions to act. They were too timid and concerned about repercussions if they failed.

Contrast this inability to take action with Harry Truman's ability to make sound decisions and get results on complex defense issues — from dropping the bomb to end WWII to helping Iran and Turkey stave off the Soviets, from defending Greece from communist takeover following WWII to confronting and beating the Soviet's Berlin blockade with a 14-month night-and-day Berlin airlift, from taking on the North Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.

Further Democratic incompetence in matters of defense emerged from Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick. (93) They built a legal barrier that in effect prevented the CIA from sharing intelligence with the FBI before 9/11.

Democrats in the Clinton administration (94) allowed the selling of important defense technology and secrets to the Chinese, who are now engaged in a massive military buildup.

Estimates are that (95) 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained in bin Laden's many camps in the years before 9/11.

Oil is also vital for our national defense. In 1952 we produced 93% of the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%. Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

Democrats (96) in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and create chaos. Quitters never win.

Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties. As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free, entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements.

However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Face A Choice In November



Who's Really in Denial?
  It's not President Bush.
 


"Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror."
--George W. Bush, September 28, 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will They Ever Learn?

Excellent column by Thomas Sowell shows the path these fools on the liberal/left want to lead us.  I remember the statement "those who refuse to learn from history are bound to repeat it" why do they believe that being nice to these Islamo-killers will make them just not kill us?  Seems like if you don't give them [Islamofacists] what they want never say anything improper about Mohammad, or Islam, they riot and kill, then the MSM in the West and politicians [liberals] and the EU fall all over themselves, "be nice to them" "religion of peace" and the Muslims say "do what we want or else."  Will these people ever learn?


This past week has told us more than we wanted to know about ourselves and about our enemies.

There was far more controversy over remarks made by the Pope than over the violence unleashed by Muslims against people who had nothing to do with what the Pope said.



Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, in this Thursday, Sept. 14, 2006 file photo. Graham cannot serve as a member of Congress and as a military judge at the same time because it violates the separation of powers spelled out in the Constitution, a military court ruled Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

That our enemies do not understand the significance of free speech in a free society, where things that offend us can be denounced without indiscriminate violence, is bad enough. But that we ourselves seem headed further down the slippery slope of self-censorship is chilling.

Tolerance has been one of the virtues of western civilization. But virtues can be carried to extremes that turn them into vices. Toleration of intolerance is a particularly dangerous vice to which western nations are succumbing, both within their own countries and internationally.

Double standards are being wrapped in the mantle of morality. The drive to extend Geneva convention protection to terrorists who are not covered under the Geneva convention is one of a number of dangerous self-indulgences by people who seem to think that being morally one-up is the ultimate and survival is secondary.

Senator Lindsey Graham's comment that we are going to win in our struggle with terrorists "because we are better" was all too typical of this mindset.

It would be hard to know which would be worse -- if he said it as just some offhand political rhetoric or whether he is really fatuous enough to believe it and irresponsible enough to gamble American lives rather than extract murderous secrets from captured cutthroats.

There is already evidence from Guantanamo that the prisoners there are abusing the guards far worse than any guards have abused these prisoners. Yet our media have no interest in that and have been willing to believe every allegation by these professional terrorists, including the physical absurdity of trying to flush the Koran -- or any other book -- down a toilet.

Unfortunately, these are not just isolated lapses in judgment. It is largely the same people who have for years been more protective of criminals than of their victims who are now more protective of captured terrorists than of those who are their targets.

When such attitudes became ascendant in our courts during the 1960s, the declining trend in crime rates suddenly reversed and skyrocketed, as liberal judges created new "rights" for criminals out of thin air and called it constitutional law.

But this goes far beyond judges and far beyond our own times. The political left has been weak on protecting society from criminals for more than two centuries.

No one should be surprised that this same attitude has led to great preoccupation with trying to get captured terrorists treated more nicely.

This past week has also seen revelations about our enemies. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez' cheap demagoguery at the United Nations was a clear sign of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of his anti-Americanism. Surely if he had anything concrete and serious to say against this country, he would have said it.

Equally clearly, he understood that no coherent argument was necessary. All that was necessary was to tap into visceral resentments and play to the gallery of those poisoned by envy and ready to blame their own lack of achievement on somebody else.

The president of Iran was slicker but his speech at the United Nations and his artful evasions at his press conference are also revealing and should be a warning. He too is obviously playing us for fools.

Those in the United States and in other western nations who are urging dialogue with Iran are repeating the tragic mistakes of the 1930s that led to World War II. People say talk is cheap but it can be enormously costly when it becomes just a way to forestall action while an enemy nation builds up its military threat.

Since Iran is not letting the idle chatter at the U.N. delay their rush to get nuclear weapons, they are more dangerous than the Nazis were -- while we remain as gullible as those in the west who blundered into World War II and almost lost it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Father Of The Constitution

Quote

–James Madison, The Federalist, 10.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don't Let Them Do This

From newsmax.com.  Don't let this happen.


The 'Interstate Compact' to Kill Federalism
Lowell Ponte
Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2006

Could the 11 most populous states in America conspire to control future presidential elections? This is not only hypothetically possible – but also starting to happen, with little public attention or awareness.

In California, the Democrat-controlled state Legislature has already passed such legislation. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has until September 30 to sign this measure into law or veto it. On September 22 the New York Times reported that the governor, up for re-election this November, is "seriously considering" it.

The little-noticed movement behind this is known as National Popular Vote (NPV). Its aim is to nullify the Electoral College without bothering to go through the difficult process of amending the U.S. Constitution. This would produce something like the direct popular election of future presidents by a national majority of total votes.

This "Interstate Compact," imposed by partisan state legislatures without any direct vote of approval by state citizens, would require a state's electors to cast their votes for whichever presidential candidate won a majority of nationwide, not statewide, popular votes.

Thus, in 2008, 60 percent of California voters might cast their ballots for Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain of Arizona. But if Governor Schwarzenegger signs the National Popular Vote legislation into law, California's electors could be required to ignore California voters and cast their 55 Electoral College votes instead for the national popular vote winner – perhaps for Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

This is unlikely to happen by 2008. California's legislation provides that this takes effect only when the same Interstate Compact is enacted by as few as 10 other states that, combined with California, control a winning 270 electoral votes.

As of today, the only other legislative body to pass such a measure is Colorado's state Senate. Such legislation has been introduced into both legislative houses in Illinois and into the lower house of the legislatures in New York, Missouri and Louisiana. Lawmakers reportedly plan to introduce it in 2007 in Arizona, Delaware, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming and at least 10 other unnamed states.

This plan to circumvent the Constitution's amendment process was first proposed in 2001, shortly after Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Al Gore narrowly won the national popular vote but (after losing his home state, Tennessee, where people knew him best) lost in the Electoral College to now-President George W. Bush.

It was originally called the "Amar Plan" after its two authors. Akhil Reed Amar is a professor at Yale Law School, a former law clerk for 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Breyer (later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton) and a consultant to the now canceled ultra-leftwing TV series "The West Wing." One of his star students is Neal Katyal, lead counsel in the Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that led to a ruling on the side of this suspected terrorist.

Akhil Amar's "Amar Plan" co-author and younger brother Vikram David Amar is a professor at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Vikram is a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun (who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade that discovered privacy abortion rights between the Constitution's lines).

Chief spokesman for this plan today is Dr. John R. Koza, a computer scientist who teaches at Stanford University. The former chief executive of Scientific Games in Atlanta, Koza is co-inventor of the "scratch-off" lottery ticket. From working on multi-state lotteries such as Powerball, Koza learned how states create Interstate Compacts.

Two figureheads of this movement are former Illinois liberal Republican and perennial independent candidate John Anderson and former Indiana Democratic Senator Birch Bayh, both of whom had formed the group Fair Vote to push a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. When people complain that his scheme is an end run around the Constitutional amendment process, Koza replies: "Hey, an end run is a legal play in football."

Is our democratic republic a game of "football"? America's founders could have instituted direct majoritarian democracy but deliberately chose not to. Instead they created today's system of 50 different state elections of presidential electors to preserve federalism and states' rights.

The founders created a system with checks and balances that included selection of senators by state legislatures, not voters, and selection of presidents by an Electoral College, not voters. In 1913 the 17th Amendment created direct popular election of U.S. senators. In 1961 the 23rd Amendment granted electoral votes to the overwhelmingly partisan Democratic District of Columbia, thereby diluting state electoral votes.

But 704 efforts to change or abolish the Electoral College have failed, according to University of Denver Law Professor Robert Hardaway, author of the 1994 book "The Electoral College and the Constitution: The Case for Preserving Federalism."

Hardaway concedes that the Amar Plan is "legal," but "it would be a terrible idea." He told the Times: "Look at the trauma the country went through having a recount in Florida. Suppose what would happen, in the face of a close national election, if we had to have a recount in every little hamlet."

The National Popular Vote Plan has token Republican supporters, but most of its backers are liberal Democrats eager to break the Republican "electoral lock" of small states in the South, West and Midwest. Koza himself, wrote Times reporter Rick Lyman, was twice a Democratic elector whose "living room is festooned with photographs of him beside former Vice President Al Gore and former President Bill Clinton."

This is the latest scheme from liberal Democrats who want voting rights for felons and the mentally ill (their natural constituency?); Clinton-Gore's Motor Voter with nearly automatic registration for welfare recipients and impediments to removing fraudulent names from voter rolls; and driver's licenses and polling place rules to make it easy for illegal aliens to vote.

And now these same Democrats would steal your vote by letting a stolen vote thousands of miles away cancel yours out. This is how today's Democrats are redefining democracy.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religion Of Peace

Investor's Business Daily
 
 

Time To Stand Up

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/28/2006

Multiculturalism: Germany's cowardly self-censorship of a Mozart opera over potential offense to Islamists is a new capitulation to this implacable minority. But it's not the first. Across Europe, intimidation is the norm.

The murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, Muslim riots in France and the violence in the wake of Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad are the best-known examples of Islamist intimidation tactics aimed at Europe. Sadly, European officials' vision of a multicultural society has led them to appease the Islamofascist bullies. Here's a snapshot of recent instances of radical Islamists' intimidation and bullying:

• The Netherlands: Elected leaders critical of radical Islam, such as lawmaker Geert Wilders, Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen, ex-lawmaker Hirsi Ali and alderman Ahmed Aboutaleb, now must have bodyguards after Islamist threats. Wilders told the Washington Post of seeing Islamist videos calling for his beheading.

• U.K.: Government workers in West Midlands were told to remove or cover all pig-related items, including a tissue box depicting Winnie the Pooh and Piglet, after a Muslim took offense. An official called it "tolerance of people's beliefs." Meanwhile, a Bristol man had to remove a "porking yard" sign at his pub under a local court's "Anti-Social Behavior Order" for offending Muslims.

• Spain: Premier Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero showed up at a socialist youth assembly in a "Palestinian scarf," which the Wiesenthal Center called a militant rather than religious symbol.

• France: Police denied anti-Semitism was the motive in the kidnap-murder of a young Jewish man by a Muslim immigrant who demanded the victim's family raise a ransom from a synagogue.

• Norway: Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store apologized for Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. "I fully understand that these cartoons are giving offense worldwide," he said.

• Belgium: Islamic youths rioted for three nights, burning cars and trashing shops, in a bid to intimidate Belgian voters who favor what the press calls "anti-immigrant" and "Islamophobic" candidates in municipal elections Oct. 8.

• Germany: The EU ordered Oktoberfest barmaids serving beer to stop wearing traditional low-cut blouses with dirndls, as a sunburn protection measure. Outraged locals said it was a bid to appease Muslim sensibilities. The order was later rescinded.

• Norway: Norwegians must mount proof of their own innocence if Muslim immigrants accuse them of discrimination in any form, including speech, according to a new Discrimination Act.

• Sweden: A man was attacked and nearly killed by Muslim immigrants in Malmo for wearing the Swedish national flag, which features a cross, on his clothes during a World Cup match. Police said his regalia "provoked some emotions."

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Right On Ruddy

This is about Giuliani from opinionjournal
the part in bold is my idea. Shows them
he knows they want to come back and kill us
the "cut and run" crowd should take note




"Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Bill Clinton on Wednesday
over the former president's counterterrorism efforts, saying recent
criticism on preventing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is wrong," reports
the Associated Press:

*** QUOTE ***

"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong
for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he
deserves it," Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance
with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. "I
don't think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for
Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists--the
Islamic fanatics--who came here and killed us and want to come here again
and do it." . . .

Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything
he could with the information he was provided.

"Every American president I've known would have given his life to
prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President
Bush," the former mayor said. "They did the best they could with the
information they had at the time."

*** END QUOTE ***

This seems right to us (not to mention politically smart, allowing the
mayor to look like a statesman). But of course it doesn't address the
reason the issue puts Clinton on the defensive: His legacy will still be
one of doing little about a gathering crisis--even if little is all one
could reasonably have expected one to do.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Want Carnage On Election Day [In Iraq]

This is taken from the Rush Limbaugh site and shows just what the Democrats are hoping for on election day.



RUSH: Let's go CBS News this morning, Hannah Storm was talking to [plagiarist] Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and asked this question: "This report, this National Intelligence Estimate, it was issued back in April, and the president said it was leaked for political reasons with the midterm elections approaching. You think that's the case? You think that this will have an impact on the election?"

BIDEN: I think what will affect the elections, Hannah, is when the people pick up their newspaper on November, uhhh -- on Election Day, that morning, if there's still the carnage in the streets of Iraq, then it will be clear that they have concluded this administration's policy has failed and there will be a political price for it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dems Do Not Want The Truth To Come Out

The  New York Sun  
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=40461 has some good news:

*** QUOTE ***

On a day when much of the capital's attention was focused on leaked
excerpts of an intelligence estimate report that suggested the Iraq war
was creating more jihadists, the military quietly released an intercepted
letter from Al Qaeda complaining that the terrorist organization was
losing ground in Iraq.

The letter, found in the headquarters of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq,
Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, after he was killed on June 7, was sent to Zarqawi
by a senior Al Qaeda leader who signs his name simply "Atiyah." He
complains that Al Qaeda is weak both in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border
region and in Iraq. . . .

"Know that we, like all the Mujahidin, are still weak," he wrote in the
letter dated December 11, 2005. "We are in the stage of weakness and a
state of paucity. We have not yet reached a level of stability. We have
no alternative but to not squander any element of the foundations of
strength, or any helper or supporter."

*** END QUOTE ***

In fact, the NIE summary begins by noting that "United States-led
counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida
and disrupted its operations." No one said this was going to be easy,
and like any important and challenging undertaking, it requires patience
and forbearance.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Politically Motivated?

From opinionjournal.com.  Do you think the 
leaks were politically motivated?


In announcing the declassification, according to
another Times report the president implied that
the leaks were politically motivated:

President Bush was clearly unhappy that findings from the
National Intelligence Estimate had made their way
into news reports. Noting that evidence-gathering for
the assessment had been concluded in February, and that
the report itself had been finished two months later,
Mr. Bush said: "Here we are, coming down the homestretch
of an election campaign and it's on the front page of
your newspapers. Isn't that interesting?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Liberal/Left Will Also Get Us Killed

From Michelle Malkin's blog.  Some comments by his "windbagness" from Massachusetts [that's the senior Senator].  I can't believe it, as long as the leaked items made it look bad for Bush it was ok that we only got some of it.  Then Bush had more released which added balance now we have to have it all released [they know that can't happen] so them along with their fellow travelers in the MSM just keep it up.  It never ends.   Anyone who reads this look up the phrase "useful idiots" which is just what those fools are.


The Windbag from Massachusetts wins hands down today. John Hinderaker at Power Line nails him:

The Democrats evidently aren't happy with the release of the "key judgments" of the National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism, because now they've demanded that the White House release the entire report.

That will get them what they're looking for, i.e., headlines like this one: "White House refuses to release full NIE." The Democrats knew, obviously, that the administration can't release the entire document without both endangering agents and compromising the ability of intelligence analysts to write candid assessments without worrying that their work product will wind up in the newspaper. But for now, at least, they can change the subject.

Ted Kennedy weighed in with the most surreal attack:

"The American people deserve the full story, not those parts of it that the Bush administration selects," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

That would be hilarious, if it were not so contemptible. When Democrats in the bureaucracy illegally leaked misleading portions of the NIE's "key judgments" in hopes of influencing the election, that was fine with Kennedy. But when the administration declassified the entire "judgments" section so that the American people can read it all and judge for themselves, now Kennedy complains that the voters aren't getting "the full story." Absolutely outrageous, but typical of the Democrats' ever more hysterical campaign.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Will Get Us Killed

What other nation in history has obsessively investigated itself during time of war? When are we going to quit beating ourselves up and move down the road?

Just a few weeks ago, we were treated to Phase 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report analyzing our failures of prewar intelligence for the millionth time. The Committee -- with a nominal majority of Republicans and a working majority of antiwar members -- reported that the administration had been wrong in alleging a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

As Republican Chairman Pat Roberts made clear, the working majority cherry picked the evidence to conclude there was no relationship when the weight of the evidence indicated there was -- going back 10 years, no less. Condoleezza Rice confirmed that there were always dissenting opinions, but that the prevailing view among our intelligence agencies was that there was indeed a relationship.

The committee demonstrated its absurdity elsewhere, too, when it concluded, preposterously, that Saddam didn't consider the United States an enemy because he said so during his debriefing. The committee chose to believe that obvious lie from a lying, murderous tyrant over his consistently contradictory statements and behavior over the previous decade.

So we're paying federal dollars to be told we must ignore our lying eyes and ears: that we must conveniently forget Saddam's myriad verbal jihads against the United States because he later made the self-serving statement that he hadn't considered us an enemy? This is too much. You might also recall that we fought a war against this maniac in 1991. I suppose he didn't consider us the enemy then either, or when he shot at our planes in the no-fly zones.

The same kind of nonsensical analysis has surfaced again this week through yet another leak from the treasonous New York Times, which selectively reported that an April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate concluded the Iraq war has exacerbated worldwide terrorism.

Of course, this little leak wasn't designed to feed into the Democrats' November election propaganda message, now was it? Surely you've heard the line many times before: President Bush diverted resources from capturing Osama bin Laden -- the only terrorist chieftain in the non-global war on terror -- to pursue his recklessly quixotic vendetta against Iraq. This unprovoked, preemptive strike on the non-threatening Saddam has caused Muslims the world over to hate us and swelled the ranks of terrorism.

When will these tone-deaf people get it through their heads that Islamic extremists have hated us since before the flood (figuratively, of course)? When will they comprehend that Osama attacked us before we attacked Iraq?

Besides, who would expect that our attack on Iraq would endear us to the enemy?  But if Iraq were not a terrorist-supporting state, why would the terrorists care? Why have they invested so much of their resources to disrupt the Iraqi freedom experiment? Why are they trying to foment a civil war there if Iraq has nothing to do with the global jihad?

More importantly, why does the left keep dredging this stuff up? The answer is they have no alternative plan for Iraq and they figure the only way they can make headway on the national security issue is to continue to paint Bush as a liar, which brings me to the main point.

Democrats have been telling us nonstop that President Bush's policies -- his alleged unilateralism in general, and his attack on Iraq specifically -- have caused an otherwise loving enemy to hate and wage war against us. If that's true -- which it isn't -- how much more true is it that the feelings of the Muslim world (and the European left) toward the United States have deteriorated as a direct result of the Democrats' constant lies about President Bush?

If they truly believe our policies have intensified the hatred of Islamic extremists toward the United States, then why don't they quit telling the world -- when they know better -- that President Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and about Saddam's relationship with Al Qaeda? Why don't they quit falsely charging that it is the covert policy of this administration to torture enemy combatant detainees at Gitmo? Why don't they quit saying that President Bush attacked Iraq for its oil?

Easy. They either don't believe negative world opinion of the United States spawns terrorism as they claim, or they don't care whether it does or not -- at least they don't care as much about that as they do regaining political power.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »