Recently, I was asked by a reader what I thought that Israel, and/or the US, might do about Iranian nukes. I answered as follows:
In the 2/16/10 LA Times there was an opinion piece saying how ridiculous the 2007 NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) was about Iran stopping their nuclear production in about 2003. I remember when it came out and the Times had a summary of it. It was like a child had written it. I could not believe that it was the combined "thinking" and "analysis" of our 12 or 16 or whatever number of intelligence agencies.
As I said in my latest blog, Bush let the issue go, even though he should have taken action long ago. After 2 to 3 years of our European allies (Britain, France and Germany) getting nowhere in their negotiations with Iran, Bush should have said "enough!" But he was already getting lots of flack about Iraq and Afghanistan; and the dems and the mainscream media were quite vocal in trying to preempt any action by us. They made it sound like the "cowboy" wanted to attack the entire muslim world.
Russia and China have prevented any meaningful sanctions. Frankly, however, I am hard pressed to see how sanctions would ever work to stop a country determined to make nukes. As I said in my latest blog, the time for appeasement has long since passed. So will Obama do what Bush failed to do? I know just asking the question makes it seem like I am nuts. But Obama has been using drones successfully in Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda. Can you imagine if Bush had sent those drones into a sovereign country that we are not at war with - the media would have gone crazy. Notice how it's a non-issue when Obama does it.
So, if after making all the overtures he has made to Iran and still being snubbed; and when it's clear now that Iran is enriching uranium for nukes, will Obama act or at least quietly support an Israeli attack? I can't rule it out.
As for Israel acting alone, there are still some (many I hope) who adhere to the credo: Never Again! Never again will Jews allow the mass extinction of many of their people. Israel sees itself as the defender and protector of Jews worldwide. That is why when a French plane was hijacked to Entebbe, Uganda it was Israel that sent commandos to rescue the hostages, many of them Jews. It was not the French. The sole Israeli soldier killed in that raid was Netanyahu's brother. So I do not believe Israel will do nothing. I would not be surprised if the Mossad already has agents in Iran either trying to disrupt their nuke program and/or killing some of their nuclear scientists.
It would still be a very difficult mission for tiny Israel to take on alone. Yes, they took out Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. And they took out Syria's a couple years ago. But Iran is considerably further and has spread out their numerous nuclear facilities across their large country. So the task is infinitely more difficult. But even with limited US assistance such as the cruise missiles and drones taking out Iran's anti-aircraft batteries and Iran's fighters it would make a huge difference. Of course, the AWACS surveillance wouldn't hurt either.
So I believe a lot of this falls on the USA as usual. Europe will do nothing. Russia and China don't care (in fact, they are probably enjoying it). Sending in troops is not an option. But our capabilities as noted above are significant. Obama just has to be pushed to the point where he is insulted enough by the snubbing Iran has given him. Otherwise, It falls onto Israel. Israel either does it, or at the very least, tells Iran very clearly that anything incoming into Israel from Iran will result in the immediate destruction of their country. As noted before, Israel has an estimated 200 nukes.
So while I wish I could be more definitive, that's the best I can do for now. If I learn more, you will hear about it from me.
Since sending the above reply, the 2/19/10 Jewish Press hit the newsstands. In an article concerning Iranian nukes, they indicate that Obama sent the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, to meet with IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi. According to the article they were "coordinating military strategy." With regards to Iran actually getting nukes, Mullen had this to say:
"Politically it is prohibited in any way for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
The US would like to exhaust all of the diplomatic options with Iran
before anyone decides what the next step would be. And all options,
including a military attack on Iran, are on the table. But we are not
there yet. We will operate all our forces to have a stable and secure
Israel. The collaboration and improving capabilities between our
militaries is not a response (to Iran) but only for defensive purposes."
Probably about as strong a statement as could be expected given where Mullen's boss, the Commander in Chief, currenly is on the issue. Obama is apparently sending Biden to Israel this week; so it remains to be seen if the political message varies significantly from Mullen's. This writer continues to believe that further sanctions, even if passed by the UN, are unlikely to deter a country determined to get nuclear weapons.
Then, in today's Verizon News online, they report that the Israeli Air Force has announced that they now have a new fleet of drones. The new drones, called Heron TP, are the size of a Boeing 737, with an 86' wingspan. They can fly up to 40,000 feet high and can go nonstop at least 20 hours - enabling them to reach the Persian Gulf. They have jamming capabilities, and can also "assist in communications between ground control and manned aircraft." And, of course, they can carry their own payloads.
So likely, Israel will allow the US to play out the sanctions issue a little longer. But if I am correct, it will ultimately take military action to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Of Israeli Friends and Enemies
1. American Jews seem to have an intense dislike for Sarah Palin. Part of that, of course, has to do with the fact that nearly 80% of American Jews are liberal democrats, and Palin is a conservative Republican. The fact that she is one of the strongest supporters of Israel is of no consequence. Palin: "We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America's friends from her enemies..." She goes on: "Israel, a friend and a critical ally, now questions the strength of our support." (From Caroline Glick at the 2/12/10 Jerusalem Post online.) As previously reported here, only 4% of Israelis believe that Obama favors Israel over the palestinians. As noted in the same article, Obama's attitudes about Israel come from such notable anti-Israel "intellectuals" as: Rashid Khalidi, John Mearshimer, Samantha Power, William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn and the late Edward Said. Mearshimer is the co-author of the anti-Israel diatribe "Palestine-Peace not Apartheid." Ms. Glick also left out the Reverend Wright as another anti-Israel friend of Obama's. Or as Obama said in referring to Wright: "my mentor."
Sadly, for many American Jews the continued existence of their fellow Jews in Israel is either foolishly taken for granted (notwithstanding the greatest forces ever allied against the Jewish State) or worse, deemed unimportant.
2. Meanwhile, Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. was invited to speak at a Southern California college campus, UC Irvine. That campus, like many others, has seen extreme levels of anti-Israel and anti-semitic expressions. About 75 muslims, among others, showed up for the Ambassador's speech on February 12. Some were students, some not. They had obviously prearranged periodic interruptions of Oren's speech in an effort to prevent him from continuing. In listening to part of it on You Tube, I heard such challenges as: "Propaganda is not an expression of free speech." And: "Propagating murder is not an expression of free speech." Well, not unless the muslim palestinians/arabs are doing it - then all bets are off. As each one of the hecklers spoke and were removed by the police, they were applauded by the remaining men and women muslims. The Ambassador, however, carried on. Outside, more muslims were holding signs and yelling expressions equating Israel with racism and with baby killing. But if a palestinian blows up men, women, and children on a bus or in a cafe, they are heroes and martyrs. These people disgust me. And they should disgust all Americans who favor freedom over the tyranny of the islamic (islamofascist) world.
3. Recently, the highest court in England took it upon themselves to define who is a Jew. A couple tried to enroll their son in one of the country's Jewish schools, all of which receive some public support. For those who do not know, whether or not one is deemed a Jew - by the religion - is based on birth, and more specifically, matrilineal descent. If your mother is a Jew, so are you. If your father is and your mother is not, you are not a Jew. Judaism does allow for conversions; however, the Orthodox do not accept conversions performed by a Reform Rabbi. In this case the mother was born a Catholic and had a reform conversion. The school, however, followed orthodoxy, and the child was not admitted. The lawsuit followed.
The UK's Race Relations Act of 1976 forbids discrimination based on "colour, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins." Somehow, the court decided that the use of matrilineal descent was "a test of ethnic origin by definition" and therefore the school discriminated on "racial grounds." (Information from an article by David Pryce-Jones in the February 2010 edition of Commentary magazine.) So, not unlike the UN before it, the court in Britain basically decided that Judaism is racism! Perhaps not such a surprise from an increasingly anti-semitic country. The number of anti-semitic incidents rose 55% in England from 2008 to 2009. And the unions and intellectuals in Britain regularly call for the boycott of all things Israeli. In fact, some British lawyers working with Hamas tried to get Tzipi Livni (former Prime Minister of Israel) arrested on a trip she was due to make to the UK. The charge: war crimes because of the war with Hamas in 2008. She found out about the plan and cancelled her trip.
4. There seems to be a great fear among Jews both in and out of Israel of a Jew speaking out strongly and not being intimidated by threats. A Jew is supposed to be meek and not "cause any trouble." My Jewish readers know exactly what I am talking about.
Case in point. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem threatened Israel, saying: "Don't test...the determination of Syria. You know that war this time would move to your cities." Not cowering and not backing down, Israel's own Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, replied: "...what was said yesterday marked a dramatic change of game, a direct threat on the State of Israel...Assad should know that if he attacks, he will not only lose the war. Neither he nor his family will remain in power." (From the 2/12/10 edition of Yated Ne'eman.) Lieberman is controversial precisely because he does speak out and refuses to let the Arabs play their games and say whatever they want. He will call them on it every time. In return, the cowering Jews criticize Lieberman for "stiring up trouble." Again, my Jewish readers know exactly what I am talking about.
Meanwhile, Syria has pledged its support of Lebanon in the event of another war; and the Lebanese government has pledged their support of Hezbollah if there is a further war with Israel.
5. In a visit to Israel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had this to say to the Knesset, Israel's Parliament: "We cannot accept the nuclearization of a country whose leaders have exlicitly expressed their desire to destroy Israel, denied the Holocaust and delegitimized the Jewish State." He went on: "Today, the safeguarding of Israel's safety, and its right to exist as a Jewish State is an ethical choice and a moral decree against the possibility of the return of anti-semitism, Holocaust denial and a loss of memory of the West." (From the 2/12/10 Yated Ne'eman and the 2/12/10 Jewish Press.)
In return, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had this interesting story to tell: "On the train on her way to work, (an Italian woman) saw a German policeman arrest a Jewish girl. The woman, who was eight months pregnant, fearlessly put herself between the two, telling the German policeman, "You can kill me, but look at the faces of the passengers. They won't let you get out of here alive." In this courageous way, she saved the life of the Jewish girl and sparked a light of humanity in this dark period which had fallen upon Europe. This woman was called Rosa, and one of her children is called Silvio Berlusconi." And we Jews refer to her as one of the righteous among the nations.
6. So back to the USA. As noted above, Sarah Palin - huge supporter of Israel. And our President? Still talking sanctions against Iran, the biggest threat to Israel's existence and to the world. China, however, continues to insist on diplomacy. Clearly, neither sanctions nor diplomacy has worked over the last 6 years. So both are meaningless. Obama, however, seems to think that reducing our nuclear arsenal (in the latest arms control agreement with Russia) will what - make Teheran see the error of their ways? Or does he still want to sit down and talk with Ahmadinijad on the assumption that he can convince Iran to drop the nukes?
On the plus side, the 2/15/10 Jerusalem Report notes that, after a shaky start, Obama has allowed cooperation between the US and Israeli militaries. And according to the same article, Obama has now recommitted to the same 10 year $30 billion aid package to Israel that Bush had put in place.
But just how far is Obama willing to go to stop Iran's nukes? Bush clearly did not do enough. So now it is up to Obama. Is he willing to send in the cruise missiles and drones, followed by an aerial attack of US and Israeli fighter planes and bombers? I cannot foresee Israel sitting out the next battle, as Bush I asked of them in the Gulf War with Saddam. We put a stop to Iran, and that should quiet the terrorists and their supporters in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah. The stronger Iran gets, the greater the threats from its puppets, and the greater the likelihood of war breaking out in the Middle East somewhere, and spreading to G-d knows where. The time for appeasement has long since passed.
Sadly, for many American Jews the continued existence of their fellow Jews in Israel is either foolishly taken for granted (notwithstanding the greatest forces ever allied against the Jewish State) or worse, deemed unimportant.
2. Meanwhile, Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. was invited to speak at a Southern California college campus, UC Irvine. That campus, like many others, has seen extreme levels of anti-Israel and anti-semitic expressions. About 75 muslims, among others, showed up for the Ambassador's speech on February 12. Some were students, some not. They had obviously prearranged periodic interruptions of Oren's speech in an effort to prevent him from continuing. In listening to part of it on You Tube, I heard such challenges as: "Propaganda is not an expression of free speech." And: "Propagating murder is not an expression of free speech." Well, not unless the muslim palestinians/arabs are doing it - then all bets are off. As each one of the hecklers spoke and were removed by the police, they were applauded by the remaining men and women muslims. The Ambassador, however, carried on. Outside, more muslims were holding signs and yelling expressions equating Israel with racism and with baby killing. But if a palestinian blows up men, women, and children on a bus or in a cafe, they are heroes and martyrs. These people disgust me. And they should disgust all Americans who favor freedom over the tyranny of the islamic (islamofascist) world.
3. Recently, the highest court in England took it upon themselves to define who is a Jew. A couple tried to enroll their son in one of the country's Jewish schools, all of which receive some public support. For those who do not know, whether or not one is deemed a Jew - by the religion - is based on birth, and more specifically, matrilineal descent. If your mother is a Jew, so are you. If your father is and your mother is not, you are not a Jew. Judaism does allow for conversions; however, the Orthodox do not accept conversions performed by a Reform Rabbi. In this case the mother was born a Catholic and had a reform conversion. The school, however, followed orthodoxy, and the child was not admitted. The lawsuit followed.
The UK's Race Relations Act of 1976 forbids discrimination based on "colour, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins." Somehow, the court decided that the use of matrilineal descent was "a test of ethnic origin by definition" and therefore the school discriminated on "racial grounds." (Information from an article by David Pryce-Jones in the February 2010 edition of Commentary magazine.) So, not unlike the UN before it, the court in Britain basically decided that Judaism is racism! Perhaps not such a surprise from an increasingly anti-semitic country. The number of anti-semitic incidents rose 55% in England from 2008 to 2009. And the unions and intellectuals in Britain regularly call for the boycott of all things Israeli. In fact, some British lawyers working with Hamas tried to get Tzipi Livni (former Prime Minister of Israel) arrested on a trip she was due to make to the UK. The charge: war crimes because of the war with Hamas in 2008. She found out about the plan and cancelled her trip.
4. There seems to be a great fear among Jews both in and out of Israel of a Jew speaking out strongly and not being intimidated by threats. A Jew is supposed to be meek and not "cause any trouble." My Jewish readers know exactly what I am talking about.
Case in point. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem threatened Israel, saying: "Don't test...the determination of Syria. You know that war this time would move to your cities." Not cowering and not backing down, Israel's own Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, replied: "...what was said yesterday marked a dramatic change of game, a direct threat on the State of Israel...Assad should know that if he attacks, he will not only lose the war. Neither he nor his family will remain in power." (From the 2/12/10 edition of Yated Ne'eman.) Lieberman is controversial precisely because he does speak out and refuses to let the Arabs play their games and say whatever they want. He will call them on it every time. In return, the cowering Jews criticize Lieberman for "stiring up trouble." Again, my Jewish readers know exactly what I am talking about.
Meanwhile, Syria has pledged its support of Lebanon in the event of another war; and the Lebanese government has pledged their support of Hezbollah if there is a further war with Israel.
5. In a visit to Israel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had this to say to the Knesset, Israel's Parliament: "We cannot accept the nuclearization of a country whose leaders have exlicitly expressed their desire to destroy Israel, denied the Holocaust and delegitimized the Jewish State." He went on: "Today, the safeguarding of Israel's safety, and its right to exist as a Jewish State is an ethical choice and a moral decree against the possibility of the return of anti-semitism, Holocaust denial and a loss of memory of the West." (From the 2/12/10 Yated Ne'eman and the 2/12/10 Jewish Press.)
In return, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had this interesting story to tell: "On the train on her way to work, (an Italian woman) saw a German policeman arrest a Jewish girl. The woman, who was eight months pregnant, fearlessly put herself between the two, telling the German policeman, "You can kill me, but look at the faces of the passengers. They won't let you get out of here alive." In this courageous way, she saved the life of the Jewish girl and sparked a light of humanity in this dark period which had fallen upon Europe. This woman was called Rosa, and one of her children is called Silvio Berlusconi." And we Jews refer to her as one of the righteous among the nations.
6. So back to the USA. As noted above, Sarah Palin - huge supporter of Israel. And our President? Still talking sanctions against Iran, the biggest threat to Israel's existence and to the world. China, however, continues to insist on diplomacy. Clearly, neither sanctions nor diplomacy has worked over the last 6 years. So both are meaningless. Obama, however, seems to think that reducing our nuclear arsenal (in the latest arms control agreement with Russia) will what - make Teheran see the error of their ways? Or does he still want to sit down and talk with Ahmadinijad on the assumption that he can convince Iran to drop the nukes?
On the plus side, the 2/15/10 Jerusalem Report notes that, after a shaky start, Obama has allowed cooperation between the US and Israeli militaries. And according to the same article, Obama has now recommitted to the same 10 year $30 billion aid package to Israel that Bush had put in place.
But just how far is Obama willing to go to stop Iran's nukes? Bush clearly did not do enough. So now it is up to Obama. Is he willing to send in the cruise missiles and drones, followed by an aerial attack of US and Israeli fighter planes and bombers? I cannot foresee Israel sitting out the next battle, as Bush I asked of them in the Gulf War with Saddam. We put a stop to Iran, and that should quiet the terrorists and their supporters in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah. The stronger Iran gets, the greater the threats from its puppets, and the greater the likelihood of war breaking out in the Middle East somewhere, and spreading to G-d knows where. The time for appeasement has long since passed.
Friday, February 5, 2010
In Defense of the USA and Our Ally Israel
The USA is at greater risk of another terrorist attack - perhaps the greatest risk since 9/11. So said, in not so many words, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller. All three indicated to the Senate Intelligence Committee a further attack in the next 3 to 6 months was "certain." So what is the Obama Administration doing to protect us?
In his State of the Union address he expressed his concern about the threat of nuclear weapons; and that the US and Russia were going to enter into a new arms control agreement. Not so good. He talked about attempting to secure all nuclear material around the world at an upcoming 44 nation meeting in April. Good. And he talked about possible further sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Meaningless. Meanwhile, the EU has no interest in further sanctions against Iran unless they come from the UN Security Council. But with China being opposed, and likely Russia also, sanctions are simply not possible. Both countries have veto power.
Meanwhile, this past week Iran launched a missile into space. It appears that Iran is on its way towards developing an intercontinental ballistic missile. And, given the lack of action by the Western world, Iran is also about to have nukes. How convenient that they will have nuclear warheads to put on top of their ICBMs. Of course, if their only target was Israel, they would not need the ICBMs. So I wonder who else they might consider for targetting? Maybe the "Great Satan?"
And Iran and North Korea are not the only threats. China has been steadily increasing the size of its military personnel and arsenal over the last decade or so. It claims to have an F-22 type fighter that will be ready in a year. Not to be outdone, Russia says its next generation stealth fighter will be ready in 2013 with production in 2015. (From the 2/5/10 Investor's Business Daily.) And the US? Halting production of the F-22 Raptor in 2011 or 2012. The maximum authorized production is 187. Its replacement, the F-35, is in trouble. There have been the usual cost overruns and delays. Also, per the same IBD article, it is considered to be "vastly inferior in both air-to-air combat and ground defense penetration." Yet the Raptor may be the only plane we have capable of evading the Russian's sophisticated surface to air missile system - the S-300. Russia has already contracted to sell these advanced missile batteries to: IRAN. Nice how this all comes together. Israel has brought to bear whatever pressure it could to convince the Russians not to proceed with the delivery of the S-300's.
It should be pretty clear to all that Iran does not demonstrate much reluctance to cause - or threaten to cause - lots of problems. The unelected Ayatollah Khameni again threatened Israel saying: "Surely the day will come when the nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionest regime..." (From Caroline Glick in the 1/30/10 Jerusalem Post online.) But Obama gave the Iranians until 12/31/09 to come clean on their nuclear program. Yet another deadline has passed with no real action by the US or the West. And while the US Senate passed another round of sanctions, just how effective can they be if not even the EU is willing to go along. It's a sure bet that Iran can already count on China and Russia and Venezuela among others.
On the other hand, 54 members of the House of Representatives should be hanging their heads in shame. ALL DEMOCRATS, they sent a letter to President Obama asking that he pressure Israel to open up Gaza. Hamas, a terrorist organization, not only controls Gaza, but essentially acts as a branch of the Iranian military. In any conflict between Israel and Iran, becoming increasingly likely due to the Western powers failure to act, Hamas would undoubtedly join in on any attack against Israel. Signing on to this letter were Representatives Barbara Lee, Loretta Sanchez, Pete Stark and Diane Watson. And signing at the top: Keith Ellison, the sole muslim member of Congress.
Hezbollah has also jumped on the war bandwagon, with their leader Nasrallah saying on 1/15 that the next war will "change the face of the region." (From Caroline Glick in the 2/5/10 Jerusalem Post online.) Syria also has been making threatening sounds. Yet our President is going to open diplomatic relations with this state sponsor of terrorism.
So our President continues on his mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons, apparently oblivious to all of the dangers around us. And the strength (weakness?) of our military is also not an issue apparently. So while his State of the Union address now indicated that jobs would be the number one priority, he also has not given up on healthcare, energy/cap and trade, and education. Yes, he talked about Afghanistan, and getting our troops out of Iraq by 8/31. And not being able to control himself, he again compared himself favorably to Bush, noting that "far more" Al-Qaeda leaders and fighters were captured or killed in 2009 than 2008.
Imagine, however, if Israel did not have their widely estimated 200 nukes. Just what would the Arab states and/or Iran have tried already? 300 million Arabs and 80 million Iranians - compared to 7 million Israelis. Obama seems to have no appreciation of American military might - and it's ability to act as a deterrence. It is strength that leads to peace. Weakness leads to war.
But he appears to still have no uniform foreign policy/defense vision. Or maybe it's just that it's the same as a year ago - appeasement, and a belief that the US should not be the world's superpower. But it would have been nice to hear something from our Commander in Chief about what appears to be an imminent terrorist attack.
In his State of the Union address he expressed his concern about the threat of nuclear weapons; and that the US and Russia were going to enter into a new arms control agreement. Not so good. He talked about attempting to secure all nuclear material around the world at an upcoming 44 nation meeting in April. Good. And he talked about possible further sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Meaningless. Meanwhile, the EU has no interest in further sanctions against Iran unless they come from the UN Security Council. But with China being opposed, and likely Russia also, sanctions are simply not possible. Both countries have veto power.
Meanwhile, this past week Iran launched a missile into space. It appears that Iran is on its way towards developing an intercontinental ballistic missile. And, given the lack of action by the Western world, Iran is also about to have nukes. How convenient that they will have nuclear warheads to put on top of their ICBMs. Of course, if their only target was Israel, they would not need the ICBMs. So I wonder who else they might consider for targetting? Maybe the "Great Satan?"
And Iran and North Korea are not the only threats. China has been steadily increasing the size of its military personnel and arsenal over the last decade or so. It claims to have an F-22 type fighter that will be ready in a year. Not to be outdone, Russia says its next generation stealth fighter will be ready in 2013 with production in 2015. (From the 2/5/10 Investor's Business Daily.) And the US? Halting production of the F-22 Raptor in 2011 or 2012. The maximum authorized production is 187. Its replacement, the F-35, is in trouble. There have been the usual cost overruns and delays. Also, per the same IBD article, it is considered to be "vastly inferior in both air-to-air combat and ground defense penetration." Yet the Raptor may be the only plane we have capable of evading the Russian's sophisticated surface to air missile system - the S-300. Russia has already contracted to sell these advanced missile batteries to: IRAN. Nice how this all comes together. Israel has brought to bear whatever pressure it could to convince the Russians not to proceed with the delivery of the S-300's.
It should be pretty clear to all that Iran does not demonstrate much reluctance to cause - or threaten to cause - lots of problems. The unelected Ayatollah Khameni again threatened Israel saying: "Surely the day will come when the nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionest regime..." (From Caroline Glick in the 1/30/10 Jerusalem Post online.) But Obama gave the Iranians until 12/31/09 to come clean on their nuclear program. Yet another deadline has passed with no real action by the US or the West. And while the US Senate passed another round of sanctions, just how effective can they be if not even the EU is willing to go along. It's a sure bet that Iran can already count on China and Russia and Venezuela among others.
On the other hand, 54 members of the House of Representatives should be hanging their heads in shame. ALL DEMOCRATS, they sent a letter to President Obama asking that he pressure Israel to open up Gaza. Hamas, a terrorist organization, not only controls Gaza, but essentially acts as a branch of the Iranian military. In any conflict between Israel and Iran, becoming increasingly likely due to the Western powers failure to act, Hamas would undoubtedly join in on any attack against Israel. Signing on to this letter were Representatives Barbara Lee, Loretta Sanchez, Pete Stark and Diane Watson. And signing at the top: Keith Ellison, the sole muslim member of Congress.
Hezbollah has also jumped on the war bandwagon, with their leader Nasrallah saying on 1/15 that the next war will "change the face of the region." (From Caroline Glick in the 2/5/10 Jerusalem Post online.) Syria also has been making threatening sounds. Yet our President is going to open diplomatic relations with this state sponsor of terrorism.
So our President continues on his mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons, apparently oblivious to all of the dangers around us. And the strength (weakness?) of our military is also not an issue apparently. So while his State of the Union address now indicated that jobs would be the number one priority, he also has not given up on healthcare, energy/cap and trade, and education. Yes, he talked about Afghanistan, and getting our troops out of Iraq by 8/31. And not being able to control himself, he again compared himself favorably to Bush, noting that "far more" Al-Qaeda leaders and fighters were captured or killed in 2009 than 2008.
Imagine, however, if Israel did not have their widely estimated 200 nukes. Just what would the Arab states and/or Iran have tried already? 300 million Arabs and 80 million Iranians - compared to 7 million Israelis. Obama seems to have no appreciation of American military might - and it's ability to act as a deterrence. It is strength that leads to peace. Weakness leads to war.
But he appears to still have no uniform foreign policy/defense vision. Or maybe it's just that it's the same as a year ago - appeasement, and a belief that the US should not be the world's superpower. But it would have been nice to hear something from our Commander in Chief about what appears to be an imminent terrorist attack.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Independent Corporate Campaign Spending Limits
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides, in pertinent part, the following: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
In a major boost for the First Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that government may not limit or ban "independent" spending by corporations for political campaigns and elections. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee) While there is still a limit on direct contributions to political campaigns, corporations may now use unlimited funds to run their own ads. And they will not be restricted by the McCain-Feingold time limits which prohibit use of corporate general funds 30 days before a Presidential primary and 60 days before a general election.
In decrying the decision, and playing to his usual class-warfare theme, President Obama said it is "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
So let's think about what the President says. First, never a believer in free enterprise and capitalism, he demonizes big business. It does not matter that these businesses provide millions of jobs. Next, he talks about how these corporations "marshal their power" in Washington. Is he really suggesting that the average American had the same access to politicians that the wealthy and big corporations had BEFORE this decision? How about all those $10,000. a plate fund- raisers politicians regularly hold. "Everyday Americans" attending those Mr. President? Real access is gained with big contributions.
So then what is the problem with the Court's decision that has politicians (mostly dems) in an uproar? It is not that vast sums of money will be flowing into political campaigns. That happens now. It is that the politicians will no longer be able to CONTROL how that money is spent. When the money goes directly into their campaigns, the candidates and their campaign directors can decide how to spend it. Now, there is no limit on corporate spending as long as it is an "independent expenditure" not coordinated with any candidate. And therein lies the rub. Even favorable ads may not focus on the issue(s) the candidates want to focus on. And attack ads on their opponents may not have the tone or content that the candidates prefer.
So on the one hand, you have the interest of political candidates wanting complete control over their own campaigns and messages; and on the other you have the First Amendment. In explaining why the First Amendment must prevail, Justice Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
The New York Times was fuming over the decision. In their 1/22/10 lead editorial they wrote: "It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs (corporations) have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate." I think the NY Times is on to something. What right do any of the following artificial legal constructs have to political speech: The NY Times Corp., NBC/Universal, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Tribune Co., The Washington Post Co., and on and on. Or do only those corporations that own media outlets have a right to political speech?
The NY Times bemoans the fact that while labor unions will also be free to spend their money, the unions have far less to spend than corporations. The inference is less influence by the unions. So here's a question: how did the unions manage to get their special exemption on taxes on "cadillac" healthcare plans that corporations did not get under the Senate version of Obamacare?
In anticipation of what he thought might be an "unfavorable" decision, Democrat Senator Charles Schumer has been working on legislation to limit the impact of the court's decision. So I would ask Mr. Schumer if he refuses to accept campaign contributions from these evil corporations. Apparently not. According to one google site, the top five industries contributing to his campaign from 2005 to 2010 are as follows: Securities and Investments (over 1 million), Lawyers (over $830,000), Real Estate (over $587,000), Misc. Finance (over $280,000), and Insurance (over $197,000). And what committees does Senator Schumer sit on? Banking, Finance and Judiciary. Matches up pretty nicely with his top contributors. But their money was just fine - as long as it went into the Senator's campaign coffers to use as he saw fit.
In a major boost for the First Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that government may not limit or ban "independent" spending by corporations for political campaigns and elections. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee) While there is still a limit on direct contributions to political campaigns, corporations may now use unlimited funds to run their own ads. And they will not be restricted by the McCain-Feingold time limits which prohibit use of corporate general funds 30 days before a Presidential primary and 60 days before a general election.
In decrying the decision, and playing to his usual class-warfare theme, President Obama said it is "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
So let's think about what the President says. First, never a believer in free enterprise and capitalism, he demonizes big business. It does not matter that these businesses provide millions of jobs. Next, he talks about how these corporations "marshal their power" in Washington. Is he really suggesting that the average American had the same access to politicians that the wealthy and big corporations had BEFORE this decision? How about all those $10,000. a plate fund- raisers politicians regularly hold. "Everyday Americans" attending those Mr. President? Real access is gained with big contributions.
So then what is the problem with the Court's decision that has politicians (mostly dems) in an uproar? It is not that vast sums of money will be flowing into political campaigns. That happens now. It is that the politicians will no longer be able to CONTROL how that money is spent. When the money goes directly into their campaigns, the candidates and their campaign directors can decide how to spend it. Now, there is no limit on corporate spending as long as it is an "independent expenditure" not coordinated with any candidate. And therein lies the rub. Even favorable ads may not focus on the issue(s) the candidates want to focus on. And attack ads on their opponents may not have the tone or content that the candidates prefer.
So on the one hand, you have the interest of political candidates wanting complete control over their own campaigns and messages; and on the other you have the First Amendment. In explaining why the First Amendment must prevail, Justice Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
The New York Times was fuming over the decision. In their 1/22/10 lead editorial they wrote: "It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs (corporations) have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate." I think the NY Times is on to something. What right do any of the following artificial legal constructs have to political speech: The NY Times Corp., NBC/Universal, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Tribune Co., The Washington Post Co., and on and on. Or do only those corporations that own media outlets have a right to political speech?
The NY Times bemoans the fact that while labor unions will also be free to spend their money, the unions have far less to spend than corporations. The inference is less influence by the unions. So here's a question: how did the unions manage to get their special exemption on taxes on "cadillac" healthcare plans that corporations did not get under the Senate version of Obamacare?
In anticipation of what he thought might be an "unfavorable" decision, Democrat Senator Charles Schumer has been working on legislation to limit the impact of the court's decision. So I would ask Mr. Schumer if he refuses to accept campaign contributions from these evil corporations. Apparently not. According to one google site, the top five industries contributing to his campaign from 2005 to 2010 are as follows: Securities and Investments (over 1 million), Lawyers (over $830,000), Real Estate (over $587,000), Misc. Finance (over $280,000), and Insurance (over $197,000). And what committees does Senator Schumer sit on? Banking, Finance and Judiciary. Matches up pretty nicely with his top contributors. But their money was just fine - as long as it went into the Senator's campaign coffers to use as he saw fit.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Republican takes Massachusetts!
Republican Scott Brown won the U.S. Senate seat that had been occupied by democrats for nearly six decades - in the most liberal of states. President Obama went to Massachusetts over the weekend to help support Martha Coakley, the democrat's candidate. And once again, as happened in November in New Jersey and Virginia, it was to no avail. But the spin began before the final results were in - with the O. team already blaming Coakley for running a weak campaign and just not being a good candidate. In other words, THEY STILL DON'T GET IT!
When Obama was in Massachusetts campaigning with Coakley, he resorted to what he always seems to rely upon: Blame Bush! Guess what? You have been in office for a year Mr. President. The people don't want a whiner for president. The people don't want unrestrained government spending. The people don't want higher taxes. The people don't want government control of their healthcare. The people expect you to put greater emphasis on job creation by stimulating the economy through tax cuts, not by spending us deeper into debt. And the people expect a greater emphasis on keeping us safe.
It took "W" eight years to lose the support of independents and even some republicans. It's taken Obama only one year to lose the support of the independents and republicans who voted for him, and even the support of some democrats.
So it's time to stop the corruption (with special favors to Nebraska and Louisiana and union health plans); and provide the transparency you so frequently promised during your campaign. Stop the back room deals. Stop the express train of Obamacare now.
You have now been told time and again that the people don't want Obamacare. You heard it at the townhall meetings, at the tea parties, in N.J., in Virginia, and now in Massachusetts. So will you concede the issue? Or does your arrogance and disdain for the American people know no bounds? And will you try to ram it through the Congress before Brown can be seated? Will the democrats look for reasons to delay the seating of Brown? What the democrats do now could very well determine their fate in the November elections. But as of now, it certainly appears that they just don't get it.
When Obama was in Massachusetts campaigning with Coakley, he resorted to what he always seems to rely upon: Blame Bush! Guess what? You have been in office for a year Mr. President. The people don't want a whiner for president. The people don't want unrestrained government spending. The people don't want higher taxes. The people don't want government control of their healthcare. The people expect you to put greater emphasis on job creation by stimulating the economy through tax cuts, not by spending us deeper into debt. And the people expect a greater emphasis on keeping us safe.
It took "W" eight years to lose the support of independents and even some republicans. It's taken Obama only one year to lose the support of the independents and republicans who voted for him, and even the support of some democrats.
So it's time to stop the corruption (with special favors to Nebraska and Louisiana and union health plans); and provide the transparency you so frequently promised during your campaign. Stop the back room deals. Stop the express train of Obamacare now.
You have now been told time and again that the people don't want Obamacare. You heard it at the townhall meetings, at the tea parties, in N.J., in Virginia, and now in Massachusetts. So will you concede the issue? Or does your arrogance and disdain for the American people know no bounds? And will you try to ram it through the Congress before Brown can be seated? Will the democrats look for reasons to delay the seating of Brown? What the democrats do now could very well determine their fate in the November elections. But as of now, it certainly appears that they just don't get it.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Quick Hits II
1. President Obama's September,2009 speech to the UN General Assembly included this: "It is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 - more than at any point in human history - the interests of nations and peoples are shared."
News item: "Islamists looted and burned a Protestant church in Algeria." They also "set fire to a pile of Bibles and religious textbooks, and desecrated Christian crosses."
News item: "Nine churches have also been recently burned down amid violence against the country's (Malaysia) Christian minority." (News items from the 1/11/10 Jerusalem Post online.)
Everybody see those "shared interests?"
2. Obama, in 4/09, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." So, Mr. President, after you reduce the size of our military and take away our nukes, and do all you can to negate American values, who would you like to see take America's place in the world? The U.N.? Russia? China? Iran? The islamofascists?
3. Jimmy Carter recently, with great publicity, "apologized" to the Jewish community for any offense caused by his remarks about Israel. Except, on the same day as his apology, he opined in the London Guardian that the terrorist organization Hamas should be recognized as a legitimate organization. The same Hamas that routinely calls for the destruction of Israel. So Carter remains an anti-semite. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that his "apology" comes at a time when his grandson may be running for state senate in Dekalb County, Georgia - which has a "substantial Jewish population." (From the 12/25/09 Jewish Press.)
4. Global cooling continues. Britain was in its "longest cold spell in nearly 30 years." In France "snow piled up from Normandy to Marseilles on the Mediterranean shore." Norway had its "lowest temperatures in more than two decades." (From the 1/8/10 Verizon News online.) And in Florida, USA, temperatures there broke 80 year old records for low temperatures. (From Fox News, 1/11/10.)
5. Dems are calling it quits. Senators Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (No. Dak.) will not be running for re-election. In the November, 2009 elections, two significant gubernatorial races went to the Republicans. Chris Christie won in N.J. and Bob McDonnell won in Virginia. Now, we have an election on Tuesday for the Senate seat in Massachusetts that became vacant upon the death of Ted Kennedy. A seat held by the dems/Kennedys for decades. But democrat state Attorney General Martha Coakley has been slipping in the polls to republican state Senator Scott Brown. Obama plans on making a last minute trip to Mass. to help bolster Coakley. Hopefully, it will be with the same ineffectiveness that he brought to the N.J. and Virginia races.
6. As previously discussed here, Iran has been given deadlines with regards to their nuclear program. October, 2009. December 31, 2009. So the U.S. is now working with Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany to try to come up with some new sanctions. The U.N. Security Council has already imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran. I wonder how many more sets of sanctions it will take until Iran finally has a nuke. Am I missing something here?
7. Israel had to cancel plans to send a delegation of IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers to Britain. Like other European countries, Britain has a "universal jurisdiction law" allowing them to decide cases in which Britain has no actual interest. Israeli civilian leaders have also had to avoid even diplomatic visits to Britain for fear of arrest. All this because of alleged war crimes committed by Israel in defending itself against Hamas rocket and missile attacks.
And for those who may think the above has no effect on the U.S., think again. Unlike President Bush, the Obama administration is pushing to get the U.S. to sign on to the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court. Secretary Clinton expressed her "great regret but it is a fact we are not yet a signatory" to the Rome Statute. This, of course, would subject U.S. military personnel - and civilian leaders - to the jurisdiction of that court.
Given our President's lack of enthusiasm for "American exceptionalism," it should be no surprise that he would be willing to give up American autonomy and sovereignty to international organizations. As John Bolton discusses in the January, 2010 issue of Commentary, Obama is the first "post-American" president.
8. From George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East Czar, explaining why the U.S. may have to punish Israel and withhold loan guarantees: "We think the way to approach this is to try to persuade the parties what is in their self-interest." (From the 1/15/10Jewish Press.)
This sounds strangely similar to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, democratic Congress member from Florida. On Fox, she was asked why the democrats are pushing a health care bill the American people do not want. She felt it was her job, as part of the leadership, to explain to the American people why the health care bill is good for them.
Given the extreme arrogance of the "elite" in D.C. - Obama, et. al. - anyone doubt that the dems will attempt to rush through their health care plan if Scott Brown wins and the dems no longer have a filibuster-proof Senate?
Or maybe they can set up re-programming camps for those of us who have not accepted the party line and just do not know what is in our best interest.
News item: "Islamists looted and burned a Protestant church in Algeria." They also "set fire to a pile of Bibles and religious textbooks, and desecrated Christian crosses."
News item: "Nine churches have also been recently burned down amid violence against the country's (Malaysia) Christian minority." (News items from the 1/11/10 Jerusalem Post online.)
Everybody see those "shared interests?"
2. Obama, in 4/09, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." So, Mr. President, after you reduce the size of our military and take away our nukes, and do all you can to negate American values, who would you like to see take America's place in the world? The U.N.? Russia? China? Iran? The islamofascists?
3. Jimmy Carter recently, with great publicity, "apologized" to the Jewish community for any offense caused by his remarks about Israel. Except, on the same day as his apology, he opined in the London Guardian that the terrorist organization Hamas should be recognized as a legitimate organization. The same Hamas that routinely calls for the destruction of Israel. So Carter remains an anti-semite. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that his "apology" comes at a time when his grandson may be running for state senate in Dekalb County, Georgia - which has a "substantial Jewish population." (From the 12/25/09 Jewish Press.)
4. Global cooling continues. Britain was in its "longest cold spell in nearly 30 years." In France "snow piled up from Normandy to Marseilles on the Mediterranean shore." Norway had its "lowest temperatures in more than two decades." (From the 1/8/10 Verizon News online.) And in Florida, USA, temperatures there broke 80 year old records for low temperatures. (From Fox News, 1/11/10.)
5. Dems are calling it quits. Senators Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (No. Dak.) will not be running for re-election. In the November, 2009 elections, two significant gubernatorial races went to the Republicans. Chris Christie won in N.J. and Bob McDonnell won in Virginia. Now, we have an election on Tuesday for the Senate seat in Massachusetts that became vacant upon the death of Ted Kennedy. A seat held by the dems/Kennedys for decades. But democrat state Attorney General Martha Coakley has been slipping in the polls to republican state Senator Scott Brown. Obama plans on making a last minute trip to Mass. to help bolster Coakley. Hopefully, it will be with the same ineffectiveness that he brought to the N.J. and Virginia races.
6. As previously discussed here, Iran has been given deadlines with regards to their nuclear program. October, 2009. December 31, 2009. So the U.S. is now working with Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany to try to come up with some new sanctions. The U.N. Security Council has already imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran. I wonder how many more sets of sanctions it will take until Iran finally has a nuke. Am I missing something here?
7. Israel had to cancel plans to send a delegation of IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers to Britain. Like other European countries, Britain has a "universal jurisdiction law" allowing them to decide cases in which Britain has no actual interest. Israeli civilian leaders have also had to avoid even diplomatic visits to Britain for fear of arrest. All this because of alleged war crimes committed by Israel in defending itself against Hamas rocket and missile attacks.
And for those who may think the above has no effect on the U.S., think again. Unlike President Bush, the Obama administration is pushing to get the U.S. to sign on to the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court. Secretary Clinton expressed her "great regret but it is a fact we are not yet a signatory" to the Rome Statute. This, of course, would subject U.S. military personnel - and civilian leaders - to the jurisdiction of that court.
Given our President's lack of enthusiasm for "American exceptionalism," it should be no surprise that he would be willing to give up American autonomy and sovereignty to international organizations. As John Bolton discusses in the January, 2010 issue of Commentary, Obama is the first "post-American" president.
8. From George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East Czar, explaining why the U.S. may have to punish Israel and withhold loan guarantees: "We think the way to approach this is to try to persuade the parties what is in their self-interest." (From the 1/15/10Jewish Press.)
This sounds strangely similar to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, democratic Congress member from Florida. On Fox, she was asked why the democrats are pushing a health care bill the American people do not want. She felt it was her job, as part of the leadership, to explain to the American people why the health care bill is good for them.
Given the extreme arrogance of the "elite" in D.C. - Obama, et. al. - anyone doubt that the dems will attempt to rush through their health care plan if Scott Brown wins and the dems no longer have a filibuster-proof Senate?
Or maybe they can set up re-programming camps for those of us who have not accepted the party line and just do not know what is in our best interest.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Terrorism; and the Big Chill
1. The Global War Against...um..."man made disasters"...er..."networks." One Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas day. Abdulmutallab, a muslim from Nigeria, apparently was able to buy a one-way ticket for cash. His father had warned the US embassy about his extremist tendencies. By sheer luck, and the impatience of this terrorist in waiting sufficiently long for the chemicals to mix to be able to explode, the bomb never went off.
On the direction of our President, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano previously told us that we have a fight with "man made disasters." That is the kind of spin that they put on the logical, understandable expression of "war on terror." But "terror" was too closely associated with radical islam; and was definitely too closely associated with our former President Bush. Then, after the attempted blowing up of Flight 253, Secretary Napolitano tells us that the system worked like it should - because the bomb did not go off. Even the lamestream media could not tolerate that one; and she had to retract her statement a day later.
When we heard from our President we were told that: "Our nation is at war against a far reaching network of violence and hatred." That's it - we are at war against a "network." Is that like ABC or CBS or NBC? Is that the network? Obama WILL NOT say "terrorism" or "radical Islam" or "jihadists." He continues his stupid appeasement of the muslim world; even though a year later he has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show for his approach. Well, not nothing. Foreign leaders seem to think he is weak and indecisive. I wonder why! (On the other hand, Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire." He was not afraid of insulting the Russians; and maybe even encouraged the dissidents. Obama gives great deference to a regime like Iran, which strengthens the Ayatollahs and fails to give needed moral support to the dissidents there. Reagan was feared. Bush was feared. Obama wants to be everyone's BFF - but no one fears him. A little fear in the right people is a good thing. You know, "talk softly, but carry a big stick." Too bad our President does not get that.) So what formerly antagonistic muslim country has warmed up to the US because of the Great Obama? Iran? No. Syria? No. The palestinians? No. Of course, the same applies to the formerly - and still - antagonistic non-muslim countries - No. Korea, Russia, Venezuela. I feel so much safer now!
Consistent with his appeasement and anti-Bush approach, he immediately decided to try Abdulmutallab in criminal court rather than as an enemy combatant. That, of course, gives him the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. Although some might think that we might actually want to find out what he knows about others who may be planning further attacks. But no.
Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, had this to say: "There was no single piece of intelligence or smoking gun if you will that said Mr. Abdulmutallab was going to carry out an attack against that aircraft." Well, you have a young muslim male (OMG - profiling!) whose father reported to US authorities that he had been influenced by extremists, who buys a one way ticket for cash, and was apparently known to the CIA before.
Now I recall after 9/11 some of the criticisms of Bush. He was on vacation in August and should have been in D.C. coordinating intelligence efforts - because when the head guy is away, people do not work as hard. Although I find that suggestion to be silly, this time Obama was away - and clearly did not rush back from his Hawaiian vacation after the Christmas day terrorist act. Also, Bush was blamed because our intelligence agencies were not sharing information in a way that would have allowed someone to connect all the dots. So Congress did what it always does to solve a problem - it created new bureaucracies. We got a new National Intelligence Director, the Department of Homeland Security and a new Counter terrorism unit. Personally, I thought it was ridiculous to think that creating new levels of bureaucracy would help improve our intelligence gathering and counter terrorism efforts. And clearly, those additional bureaucracies did NOTHING to prevent this current act of terrorism. Brennan had this to say: "There is no indication whatsoever that any agency or department was not trying to share information." Which, of course, misses the point entirely! So if everyone was cooperating and the system FAILED anyway - then maybe the problem was never the "system" in the first place. Maybe the problem is a failed mind-set.
My son just returned from a trip to Israel. He flew El Al - probably the No. 1 target for terrorists - yet the safest airline to fly. My son indicated the questioning by the El Al agents was more intense than ever. Yes, they do not just rely on x-ray screening or metal detectors. They ask questions - and they PROFILE! Why are you going to Israel? What's your Jewish background? What holidays do you celebrate? Where will you be staying? And the questions are often repeated to check for inconsistencies in the answers. Is the United States of America incapable of that same type of screening? Do we not have enough people that can be trained to do this type of screening? Or, does political correctness prevent us from doing what should be done (just like it prevented the Army from kicking out another murderous islamist terrorist - Major Hasan). So we will continue to give the same attention to elderly grandmothers and six year old girls that we should be giving to young men from muslim countries.
2. The Big Chill! Forget global warming. CNN reported today that "dangerously cold weather had much of the United States in its grip early Monday morning, with no relief in sight for the rest of the week." The cold temps went all the way down to Florida which had a hard freeze warning in effect. Parts of Louisiana and Florida were expecting temperature readings in the 20's; with possible new record lows being set there and in southern Georgia and Texas. Maybe that's why the left stopped referring to "global warming" and in its place put "climate change." Now, they just need to come up with an explanation as to how man's activities are causing the "global cooling." Problems, problems.
On the direction of our President, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano previously told us that we have a fight with "man made disasters." That is the kind of spin that they put on the logical, understandable expression of "war on terror." But "terror" was too closely associated with radical islam; and was definitely too closely associated with our former President Bush. Then, after the attempted blowing up of Flight 253, Secretary Napolitano tells us that the system worked like it should - because the bomb did not go off. Even the lamestream media could not tolerate that one; and she had to retract her statement a day later.
When we heard from our President we were told that: "Our nation is at war against a far reaching network of violence and hatred." That's it - we are at war against a "network." Is that like ABC or CBS or NBC? Is that the network? Obama WILL NOT say "terrorism" or "radical Islam" or "jihadists." He continues his stupid appeasement of the muslim world; even though a year later he has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show for his approach. Well, not nothing. Foreign leaders seem to think he is weak and indecisive. I wonder why! (On the other hand, Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire." He was not afraid of insulting the Russians; and maybe even encouraged the dissidents. Obama gives great deference to a regime like Iran, which strengthens the Ayatollahs and fails to give needed moral support to the dissidents there. Reagan was feared. Bush was feared. Obama wants to be everyone's BFF - but no one fears him. A little fear in the right people is a good thing. You know, "talk softly, but carry a big stick." Too bad our President does not get that.) So what formerly antagonistic muslim country has warmed up to the US because of the Great Obama? Iran? No. Syria? No. The palestinians? No. Of course, the same applies to the formerly - and still - antagonistic non-muslim countries - No. Korea, Russia, Venezuela. I feel so much safer now!
Consistent with his appeasement and anti-Bush approach, he immediately decided to try Abdulmutallab in criminal court rather than as an enemy combatant. That, of course, gives him the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. Although some might think that we might actually want to find out what he knows about others who may be planning further attacks. But no.
Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, had this to say: "There was no single piece of intelligence or smoking gun if you will that said Mr. Abdulmutallab was going to carry out an attack against that aircraft." Well, you have a young muslim male (OMG - profiling!) whose father reported to US authorities that he had been influenced by extremists, who buys a one way ticket for cash, and was apparently known to the CIA before.
Now I recall after 9/11 some of the criticisms of Bush. He was on vacation in August and should have been in D.C. coordinating intelligence efforts - because when the head guy is away, people do not work as hard. Although I find that suggestion to be silly, this time Obama was away - and clearly did not rush back from his Hawaiian vacation after the Christmas day terrorist act. Also, Bush was blamed because our intelligence agencies were not sharing information in a way that would have allowed someone to connect all the dots. So Congress did what it always does to solve a problem - it created new bureaucracies. We got a new National Intelligence Director, the Department of Homeland Security and a new Counter terrorism unit. Personally, I thought it was ridiculous to think that creating new levels of bureaucracy would help improve our intelligence gathering and counter terrorism efforts. And clearly, those additional bureaucracies did NOTHING to prevent this current act of terrorism. Brennan had this to say: "There is no indication whatsoever that any agency or department was not trying to share information." Which, of course, misses the point entirely! So if everyone was cooperating and the system FAILED anyway - then maybe the problem was never the "system" in the first place. Maybe the problem is a failed mind-set.
My son just returned from a trip to Israel. He flew El Al - probably the No. 1 target for terrorists - yet the safest airline to fly. My son indicated the questioning by the El Al agents was more intense than ever. Yes, they do not just rely on x-ray screening or metal detectors. They ask questions - and they PROFILE! Why are you going to Israel? What's your Jewish background? What holidays do you celebrate? Where will you be staying? And the questions are often repeated to check for inconsistencies in the answers. Is the United States of America incapable of that same type of screening? Do we not have enough people that can be trained to do this type of screening? Or, does political correctness prevent us from doing what should be done (just like it prevented the Army from kicking out another murderous islamist terrorist - Major Hasan). So we will continue to give the same attention to elderly grandmothers and six year old girls that we should be giving to young men from muslim countries.
2. The Big Chill! Forget global warming. CNN reported today that "dangerously cold weather had much of the United States in its grip early Monday morning, with no relief in sight for the rest of the week." The cold temps went all the way down to Florida which had a hard freeze warning in effect. Parts of Louisiana and Florida were expecting temperature readings in the 20's; with possible new record lows being set there and in southern Georgia and Texas. Maybe that's why the left stopped referring to "global warming" and in its place put "climate change." Now, they just need to come up with an explanation as to how man's activities are causing the "global cooling." Problems, problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)