About Me

Name: Bert Chapman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Palin's Gubernatorial Resignation

Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin's rambling unfocused resignation speech and decision to resign are truly disappointing.  I was excited by her emergence on the national stage last year and by how she energized grass roots conservatives.   She should have at least finished her gubernatorial term to augment her public policy accomplishments and not whined about being a "lame duck."  In a Nov. 25, 2008 posting to this blog, I urged her to take advantage of the intellectual expertise available from a wide swath of conservative political and intellectual figures to augment her substantive understanding of political and public policy issues facing this country.  I hope follows through on the opportunity to consult with the high caliber intellectual capital conservatives have at their disposal in our academic institutions, public policy research institutions, companies, Congress, and Governors such as Indiana's Mitch Daniels and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal.

Palin, to her credit, did seek to go out and promote a conservative vision at many political events across the country, but it may have occurred at the expense of her conscientiously seeking to fill her considerable gubernatorial responsibilities.  Unfortunately, Palin never seemed to progress beyond familiar sound bites to offer credible public policies that would appeal to individuals beyond the conservative base.  She also, sadly, decided to play the role of victim whenever she or her family was confronted by adverse press coverage or criticism from popular culture comedians.  David Letterman's comments about Palin's daughter and New York Yankeee baseball player Alex Rodriguez were beyond the pale, but Palin shouldn't have wasted her energy worrying about ephemeral late night comedian wisecracks.

I also suspect being the mother of several children and worrying about them took a physical and emotional toll on Palin as well.  Having her family in the news in unhelpful ways, as evidenced by daughter Bristol's teenage pregnancy, was not helpful to her political aspirations and message and demonstrates that the more children you have the greater potential there is for disruption to personal and GOP political objectives.  This may be unpopular with some segments of conservative Christendom but that is the case.  Palin's charismatic Christianity with its acute emphasis on emotional displays of faith also alienated individuals who are not from the conservative base, allowed secularists to continue their practice of ridiculing Christians as intellectual lightweights, and reinforced the beliefs and rhetoric of leftist feminazis that only secularist pro-abortion women are entitled to participate in national political debate and the governmental process.  For articulate conservative women to play prominent roles in national
political debate and governmental policymaking, conservative Christianity must abandon the heretical belief that women are only suited to be wives and mothers and recognize that they have innate God-given talents and intelligence that demands they participate in the political process to constructive and substantive alternatives to the liberal and secularist ethos of unrestricted abortion, gay marriage, the diversity cult, and pernicious vision of women as pathetic victims of an alleged misogynist patriarchal hegemony!

I hope Palin does some serious soul-searching in the months to come and decides to play an intellectually constructive  role in the GOP's efforts to oppose the Obama Administration's dangerously misguided social, domestic economic, and national security policies.  To do so, Palin must abandon the victim mentality and prove herself to be an intellectually coherent and emotionally stable and resilient figure who communicates a clear and credible message of conservative opportunity that can appeal to open-minded nonconservatives and who doesn't give a rip if her message is attacked by secularist apparatchiks and other liberal opponents.  She should "man up" and emulate the examples of successful conservative women leaders as varied as Margaret Thatcher and Jeanne Kirkpatrick and quit whining when their is incoming flak from liberal artillery.


Tags: Srah Palin  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ahmadinejad's Apology Demand

Iranian "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also known as the swarthy shaggy runt, has demanded that "President" Obama apologize for his relatively mild condemnation of Ahmadinejad's fraudulent reelection and the harsh reaction of Iranian security forces to demonstrators protesting this election.  Since Obama's efforts to "engage" the theocratic mullah regime have failed miserably, Obama should have the sense to tell Ahmadinejad to take his apology demand and shove up his rectum.  Then Obama should have the guts to tell the mullah regime that the U.S. was right to overthrow Mossadeq's secularist nationalism regime in 1953 because that government was composed of incompetent socialists who would have ruined Iran's economy and been susceptible to Soviet subversion, that we were right to support the Shah, that  we should apologize to the Iranian people for not supporting the Shah more forcefully against Khomeini, that we were right to use our embassy in Iran to gather information on terrorist subversives such as those running Iran's government, that we were right to try to rescue our hostages from the Tehran embassy in April 1980 even though our rescue attempt was bungled, that we are right to provide any assistance we can to individuals and organizations who seek to build a better life for the Iranian people against the theocratic regime, and that we are right to try and stop Iran's nuclear weapons program and that we are willing to work with any other country or group of countries, including Israel, to do whatever it takes to prevent these deranged mullahs from having their hands on the nuclear trigger.

I doubt "Messiah Obama" and his advisors have the cojones to take any of these actions, but recent events in Iran make it clear that there is no constructive basis for any kinds of negotiations with this regime and we should do whatever we can to encourage the rise of opposition elements favorably disposed to us that can one day overthrow this bloodthirsty theocratic gang and give the Iranian people the chance to reach their optimum potential.


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

Iranian Election Turmoil


The turmoil following Iran's "election" has been interesting to watch.  Any discomfort for Ahmadinejad and his Islamist galoots is to be welcomed.  We don't know how widespread this unrest is.  Does it only cover more liberal elites in Tehran or has it reached to other Iranian cities or even the countryside.  If it reaches Ahmadinejad's peasant base than the bearded holocaust denier could be toast.  Opposition leader Hossein Mousavi is not a western liberal Democrat who would be welcome in Georgetown or Manhattan's Upper EAst side salons with Obama and our chattering classes.  He's just a less obnoxious version of the Khomeini revolution who keeps a neat beard and some semblance of sartorial decency unlike Ahmadinejad.  Mousavi is a creature of the Islamic Republic having been a Prime Minister during the 1980s and even if we were to come to power through some miraculous upheaval, he would not pursue radically different policies.

This is a regime that will continue seeking to cut off Iranians contact with the outside world so it can engage in Tiananmien Square style crackdowns against the young people who despise it.  These young people, thanks to the Internet and satellite television, know how far behind Iran is in terms of economic development and social equality for women.  There numbers are growing and it's possible that at some point in the future they may be able to overthrow the Khomeini created Islamist gangsta regime which has squandered their oil wealth through a disastrous war with Iraq, trying to build a dangerous nuclear weapons capability, and supporting Islamist terrorists in far flung locales.  It would be nice if Iran used its human capital and significant historical cultural legacy to build a moderate Western oriented quasi-democratic state that didn't adhere to infantile ideological animosity toward Israel and the U.S.  It would take a couple of decades of religious and intellectual reengineering for that to happen.

Obama and other western leaders will make the usual impotent denunciations of this election fraud but will be unwilling to take steps that would make the Iranians hurt like freeze Iranian assets or fund covert action against the ayatollah's regime such as damaging Iran's antiquated petroleum infrastructure.  The regime probably has a better than 50/50 chance of surviving and becoming more emboldened which will increase the possibility that we and the Israelis will need to take military action to destroy the nascent Iranian nuclear arsenal.
Obama is slowly finding out that his promises of new engagement and dialogue with this terrorist regime are being rebuffed and that U.S.a and regional Mideast security are in further jeopardy because of his appalling naivete.

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

Stop Sotomayor!

President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Citing her purportedly compelling personal story and her supposedly superior recognition of the "real life concerns" of Americans, the messianic complex President now seeks to infiltrate the nation's highest court with one of his leftist acolytes.  The Obamites believe that appointing the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court will reap political gains among this demographic group without bothering to consider that most Hispanics do not adhere to the liberal social and legal values Sotomayor espouses and would seek to codify into constitutional law.
 
Where to begin with the reasons for opposing this nomination.  Personal stories, no matter how compelling, are not sufficient reason for supporting a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  Sotomayor is a member of the totalitarian leftist victimization school of thought which would seek to do anything necessary to entrench racial preferences for non whites into constitutional law and public policy while branding as racists those daring to disagree with them.  This is most vividly demonstrated by her siding with New Haven, CT's racially discriminatory practices denying promotion to meritorious white firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano because no minority applicants were able to pass the justifiably rigorous firefighter promotion requirements in this community.  Her imbecilic comments that she has special insights into legal philosophy because she is a Latina should be shot down as infantile racism!  Her videotaped comments at a Duke University Law School forum, in which she declared that judges make policy, is sufficient evidence that she does not have a proper judicial philosophy of interpreting the law let alone an intellectually valid understanding of the judiciary's role in our constitutional government as envisioned by the founders which thunderously demonstrates that she is unworthy of being appointed to the Supreme Court.
 
Her appointment will result in opinions that seek to expand abortion rights, trample on traditional marriage by expanding it to include sodomites, place acute burdens on businesses through expanded and unnecessary regulations with the emerging area of climate change likely to be a particulary burdensome demonstration of this, give expanded constitutional legal rights to Islamist terrorists who seek to kill multiple numbers of Americans and impose Sharia law on our country, and sacrifice U.S. constitutional sovereignty by deferring to the opinions of foreign and international laws which are produced by individuals and organizations not elected by or accountable to U.S. taxpayers.  She is already on record in Didden v. Village of Port Chester as favoring aggressive governmental eminent domain claims and has the bizarre and historically inaccurate viewpoint that the 2nd amendment does not limit state or local government gun control laws.
 
Sotomayor is an intellectual lightweight who has had numerous opinions reversed. Even the liberal magazine New Republic has expressed serious reservations about her quality, qualifications, and judicial temperment.  Conservatives should wager a vigourous opposition to her nomination by intellectually and rhetorically roughing her up as much as possible during the confirmation process.  It's HIGH TIME liberal administrations and Senators get a dose of the medicine they gave conservative Supreme Court nominees like Robert Bork and Justice Thomas when they experienced tumultuous confirmations in 1987 and 1991.  Sotomayor is entitled to no special treatment because of her ethnicity or life's story and she needs to be told in the bluntest language possible that playing the ethnic or racial cards in her confirmation hearings won't work this time.  We also need to explain to Hispanics that she does not hold the conservative social and family values they cherish and that her opinions and rulings will be injurious to traditional moral values and to the ability for Hispanics and all other Americans to economically prosper and fully participate in the American dream.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liar! Liar! Speaker Pelosi's Pants On Fire!

Those of you who remember the Gomer Pyle sitcom of the 1960s, will recall that one of his favorite lines he uttered when he didn't believe something was "Liar Liar pants on fire."  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that she had not been briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques nearly seven years ago has been demolished by CIA records saying she was briefed and by the testimony of numerous members of Congress from both parties.  The last time such a high-ranking government official was caught in such a lie was when Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury in December 1998.  Unfortunately, the political climate is more favorable toward Pelosi at this time, but her credibility (not that she had much with conservatives anyway) has taken an irreperable hit by her politically timed amnesia.  Pelosi is more concerned with scoring retroactive political points against Bush Administration policies toward terrorists,  than in finding effective ways of winning wars against these terrorists and extracting actionable intelligence from them.  If Pelosi had concerns about enhanced interrogation techniques, she should have expressed them when she was briefed.  Apparently, she did not express such concerns and little did she realize that May 2009 would see her make a perjuring fool out of herself, embarass the House of Representatives, and further increase enmity and distrust between intelligence community agencies and Congress.  If Pelosi, had any shred of decency she would resign as Speaker but I don't see this egocentric prima donna having the courage to demonstrate such statesmanship.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cheney's Defense of Bush Administration Antiterror Policies

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney is spot on in his defense of Bush Administration antiterror policies.  Although there were flaws in the execution of aspects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these policies have succeeded in keeping the U.S. free from subsequent terrorist attacks.  I am particularly heartened to see Cheney's stout defense of waterboarding as an interrogation tactic.  Time is of the essence in intelligence work and you frequently need to act quickly to be able to extract actionable intelligence from terrorists, their collaborators, and synthesizers.  We are not dealing with choir boys who want to sing Kum By Yah.  We continually forget that we are dealing with sadistic monsters who want to kill hundreds or thousands of non-Islamists "infidels" in a single act in the fallacious belief that they will inherit heavenly virgins as a reward.  We also forget that these individuals want to impose an autocratic Taliban-like regime over the entire world.  This is not a esoteric philosophic debate conducted in a pristine academic conference hall.  It is an existential struggle between freedom and an centuries old form of tyranny which seeks to use our open society and the multiple characteristics of 21st century telecommunication technology to advance its objectives.

I only wish Cheney, former President Bush, and other Bush Administration officials had made more vociferous defenses of their policies against the pygmy brained Obamaites during the 2008 campaign and earlier.  While that might not have been enough to keep the election from swinging to the Democrats given the lamentable state of our economy, it would have heartened the conservative base and reinforced the inclination of some swing voters to not take a chance of Barack Obama's empty "change you can believe in" rhetoric.  Unfortunately, antiterrorism policies being pursued by the Obama Administration, if they even merit the phrase "antiterrorism policies", are little more than pathetic attempts to appease Islamist terrorists and the loony left of the Democratic Party, and are daily increasing the possibility of another terrorist attack or attacks within the U.S. which will produce higher casualties than 9/11's attackers ever dreamed of.


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

A Modest Proposal for Party Loyalty & Specter's Departure

The news of "Senator" Arlen Specter's defection to the Democrats has left the liberal media a flutter and I'm sure Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are feeling tingles in their legs as well.  Despite his admirable job interrogating and devastating Anita Hill during the 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas, Specter's departure from the GOP is highly desirable.  I don't know what Specter's party support voting percentage has been in recent years but it's clear he had moved into the RINO (Republican in name only) category and it was just a matter of time before he defected to the donkeys.  My modest proposal for party loyalty is that if a legislator doesn't support their party's positions at least 60% of the time (which is a D- in most academic grading), that their overall commitment and loyalty to party principles and policies is dubious and that they are prime candidates for defection to the opposition.

Particularly reflective of Specter's arrogance is his desire to avoid subjecting his political fate to Pennsylvania GOP primary voters in 2010.  Here's a news flash for the "Senator."  You are accountable to the people of your state and especially accountable to those of us who are members of the party you purport to represent!  Specter's defection will provide, in most cases, the Democrats with a sycophantic supporter of Obama Administration policies and his lack of overall moral principles, other than his absolute desire to retain his Senate seat, should give pause to any Democrats inclined to support him.  By moving to caucus with banditos Reid and Pelosi, Specter gives the Democrats a near hammerlock on Senate legislative activities and does not provide the counterbalance to Obama Administration fiscal recklessness, obsequious pandering to union militancy, foreign and national security policy weakness, and social policy degeneracy which this country urgently needs.

Hopefully, Specter's defection will allow Pennsylvania voters of moderate to conservative ideological convictions to see that former Rep Pat Toomey is the best representative of their ideological views and should be sent to the Senate during the 2010 elections.  Specter clings to a delusional ideological belief that the Democratic appeasement oriented Modern Republicanism of Nelson Rockefeller and Dwight Eisenhower is relevant, instead of being totally discredited by party members, ideologically dead, and not appropriate to the challenges facing our country today.  Specter's departure from the GOP gives the party a chance to expunge ideological and personally opportunistic offal from its intestines and to rebuild itself with principled conservatives willing to promote and pursue fiscally prudent, morally beneficial, and realistic national security policies to promote our country's economic, social, and foreign policies.

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

Obama Interrogation Decision Increases Terrorist Attack Possibilities

In the over 7 1/2 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks there have been no additional terrorist attacks in the U.S.  The reasons for this have been providential protection, security enhancements made by governmental agencies since 9/11, initiating military operations against Islamist terrorist strongholds in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq, and conducting vigorous interrogation (including waterboarding) against terrorist suspects.  Unfortunately, Obama's recent decision to end enhanced interrogation against terrorist suspects is a dangerous move that drastically increases the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack in the U.S.

When seeking to gather actionable intelligence against terrorist targets time is of the essence.  It is often necessary to use harsh techniques to elicit the information necessary to prevent such attacks from occurring.  Islamist terrorists have no interest in appealing to our better our natures nor are they responsive to the alleged cures of secularist western psychotherapy.  They do not desire to dialogue with us.  They desire to destroy us and believe that by doing so they will go to heaven.  Attempting to rationally converse with them in the naive hope that they will voluntarily confess operational attacks against American targets is sheer stupidity!

Whether you are playing a game or sport or engaging in a war you never tell your opponent or enemy what you will not do because that gives them an overwhelming competitive advantage against you.  For instance, a prudent basketball coach will never publicly announce that they will not use a 2-3 zone defense against an opponent or abstain from taking three point shots.  Obama's decision to ban enhanced interrogation techniques means terrorists now know the limits to which use military and civilian intelligence personnel can legally go in their attempts to extract information from terrorists we capture.  Al Qaida and other anti-American terrorists can now train their operatives on how to effectively resist these drastically limited interrogations of them.  There is no telling how many American and civilian lives will be lost because of this imbecilic decision.

The Obama Administration's decision that it may actually consider prosecuting Bush Administration officials who wrote the legal justifications for these enhanced interrogations is also chilling.  Policy differences between presidential administrations are now being criminalized.  Can you imagine the outcry that would ensue if the Republican Administration coming after the Obama Administration decided it would criminally prosecute Obama Administration Justice Dept. officials such as Attorney General Holder for issuing this document.  The leftist legal "intelligentsia" would go beserk with cries of fascist intimidation and other nonsense.

Sadly, we have a President who is absolutely clueless on how to fight Islamist terrorism.  He naively believes he can sit down and have a civil conservation with terrorist despots like Ahmadinejad and demagogic twits like Hugo Chavez who desire to kill Americans and thwart our national interests at every turn.  This naive belief in his persuasive powers is something Obama shares with Franklin D. Roosevelt who stupidly believed he could turn Joseph Stalin into a respector of democratic freedoms.  If, God forbid, there are further terrorist attacks in the U.S. against American civilian and/or military targets, you can trace the lineage of such attacks to the April decision to end enhanced interrogation techniques.   Is this the kind of change you can believe in?  I don't think so.


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

DHS Says Those Right Wingers Are Coming!

In a distressing sign of the left wing ideological imbecility influencing Obama Administration policymaking, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently released a report warning of potential threats to national security from returning U.S. military veterans.  Using "reasoning" generally practiced by kooky anti-racist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, DHS hypothesized that U.S. soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq could be susceptible to undefined "right wing propaganda" and might then use their military skills to launch terrorist attacks in the U.S. given existing economic anxieties.
 
Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano has apparently apologized for this stupidity to veterans organizations and to normal intelligent Americans, but her department has suffered serious damage to its analytical credibility and Napolitano's own credibility has also been seriously, if not fatally, compromised.  Instead of focusing on mythical right wing threats existing only in the fevered delusional imaginations of leftist multicultural paranoids, Napolitano should direct DHS analysts to focus on addressing real security threats to the U.S. emanating from Islamist terrorists and spillover violence from Mexican drug cartel wars.  It is vital that all U.S. intelligence agencies conduct sober threat-based assessments of existing and emerging threats to U.S. security and not succumb to the ideological delusions of Obamaite supporters who are convinced that there are "racists under every bed" who seek to thwart the messianic delusions of the Obama Administration.  I hope Americans maintain their outrage over this shoddy analysis and that congressional homeland security oversight committees rake Napolitano over the coals and conduct hearings on whether the Obama Administration is compromising the quality of intelligence analysis on security threats to the U.S. in order to placate its militant left-wing ideological base.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and the Somali Pirates

Yesterday's rescue of the captain of the pirate seized U.S. tanker off the Somali coast is a welcome event.  The Obama Administration was slow to recognize the gravity of this matter but , fortunately, Obama decided to listen to the military and the Navy seals resolved this matter in the only way it could be.  Unfortunately, the pirates and terrorists as criminals mentality contending that such individuals can be prosecuted in normal civilian legal proceedings still holds dangerous sway in Obama Administration thinking as demonstrated by pronouncements and policy decisions made by Attorney General Holder and Sec. State Clinton.  The fact that the surviving pirate kidnapper is to be tried under civilian procedures is not a good sign that the Obama Administration understands that the resurgence of international maritime piracy can only be dealt with through military means.

Positive steps the Obama Administration could take to cope with this menace are reversing the two decades long decline in U.S. naval surface ships and seeking funding for fast, highly mobile, and heavily armed vessels capable of finding, tracking, and destroying pirates in oceanic and littoral waters in areas of the world as diverse as the Somali coast, Straits of Malacca, and elsewhere.   Giving our naval forces liberal rules of engagement to destroy these bandits is also essential!   The administration and congress should also draft legislation giving U.S. flagged merchant ships the legal authority to train and arm their crews to fight and defeat, or at least deter, pirate attacks until naval reinforcements can arrive.  Such legislation would be consistent with U.S. constitutional provisions giving privateers the authority to conduct de facto military operations and seize pirate property.  We should immediately withdraw from any international maritime agreements prohibiting civilian merchant ships and their crews from defending themselves against pirate attacks.  We should also work closely with our allies and potential allies to develop coordinated procedures for ruthlessly destroying pirate forces desirous of attacking commercial shipping which is so critical to global economic health.  A basic prerequisite of such procedures is an ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION against ship owners paying ransom to pirate terrorists.

These pirate attacks are result of the consequences of a failed Somali state which has no control over its terroritory and failed nation states are a national security threat to the U.S. and other countries which is constantly referenced in national security literature.  The U.S. and other western countries should seriously reconsider establishing a colonial presence in Somalia regardless of what the United Nations or African nations think.  Somali's location so close to critical trade routes and Middle East oil supplies is so important to the international economy that it must be governed by a stable and competent entity even if this entity consists of Western countries.  The world cannot allow that region of the world to be controlled by anarchy or Islamist terrorist organizations.


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

North Korea: Obama's First National Security Test

North Korea is threatening to conduct a ballistic missile test in the next several days.  Such weapons could carry nuclear weapons which could be used against our allies in South Korea or Japan or even against the western U.S.  Japan, fortunately, has the good sense to begin deploying its Patriot missile defense system against this danger.  Unfortunately, Barack Obama and his administration seem to be taking a "whatever" attitude toward this threat.  Obama is seriously considering scaling back or even eliminating the missile defense systems that we have installed in Eastern Europe, Alaska, and the Pacific Ocean as part of his ideological attachment to failed 1970s style arms control ideology.  One of the tenets of this ideology is its belief in mutually assured destruction in which all sides participating in a nuclear exchange are destined to be destroyed and that it's useless to try to defend your populations and security interests through missile defense or other protective measures.  Was this the change you wanted when you voted for Obama last November?
 
While Obama is at the critically important G20 summit in London this week and will also be attending a subsequent NATO summit after the G20, his administration seems more intent on asking the United Nations Security Council for another toothless, spineless resolution against Kim Jong Il's Stalinist regime.  Obama should be working to make sure the military is prepared to take all defensive and offensive measures necessary to prevent the North Koreans from carrying out a missile test.  Kim Jong Il only understands brute force and the credible threat of regime change.  Passing another empty UN resolution or tightening already existing economic sanctions against North Korea will have no impact on a regime that doesn't care about its citizens well-being and is only interested in clinging to power at all costs.  If Obama were a true leader, he would use his eloquence to persuade leaders at the G20 and NATO summits of the need to take decisive action against the North Korean missile threat and its rogue regime.  Failure to take out North Korean missiles will be noticed by anti-American factions in Iran, Al Qaida bases in Pakistan, Hizbollah in Lebanon, the Taliban, and China.  Conversely, resolute action against the North Korean missile threat will produce positive behavioral responses from anti-American regimes and terrorist groups.
 
This is truly Obama's first critical national security test as commander-in-chief.  So far, his response, and that of his Administration, have not been encouraging.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Uprising Against Obama Notre Dame Commencement Speech

The University of Notre Dame has invited new presidents to speak at its spring graduation ceremonies for as long as I can remember.  In 1977, dimwit Jimmy Carter pontificated that Americans were "over their inordinate fear of Communism" in his graduation oratory within the Golden Dome's shadow.  This, of course, was as the Cubans were seeking to export Communism to African countries as varied as Angola and Somalia, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was committing genocidal atrocities in Cambodia, and the Soviets were preparing to directly intervene in Afghanistan and while also saturating Eastern Europe with SS-20 nuclear missiles aimed at Western Europe. 
 
With the advent of "Messiah Obama", this invitation has been extended by Notre Dame's administration.  However, something remarkable is happening.  An online petition site www.notredamescandal.com/ has been launched and is currently gathering signatures to send to Notre Dame's President protesting this invitation to Obama on the grounds of his abortionist and anti-life proclivities.  I've just signed this petition myself, although as a Protestant I wish the petitioner organizers had deemphasized the Catholic theology doctrinal aspects of their protests in favor of a more theologically ecumenical pro-life rhetorical approach.   One of the particularly nice features of this protest is that it bluntly charges Notre Dame administrators with favoring popularity over principle in their effort to curry favor with Obama and his minions.
 
Notre Dame is located in St. Joseph's County Indiana which, according to Indiana Secretary of State election returns, voted for Mr. "Change We Can Believe In" by a margin of 68,000+ to 48,000+ last November.  It would be nice to think that some of the signers of this petition we're idealistic dimwits who have seen the error of their ways and are beginning to realize the fraudulent nature of Obamamania when it comes public policy implementation.  I hope alums and other individuals concerned about their alma mater's institutional reputation will voice opposition to any inviations for Obama to speak at their graduations or award him an honorary doctorate.  We can hope the scales of delusion about Obama's intent and policies are starting to end and the clarity of increasing personal and national debt and vulnerability to national security problems is becoming more apparent to the American public.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dawn Johnsen: Obama's Dangerous Nominee to Head Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel

President Obama has nominated Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Dept's Office of Legal Counsel.
This office is responsible for providing legal advice to the Justice Dept. and the President.  Johnsen is a dangerous choice and all conservatives should contact their Senators to urge them to vote against her.
 
Johnsen advocates unrestricted access to abortion in her writings and public legal advocacy.  If confirmed, she would use her powers to turn this important and allegedly nonpartisan office into a government funded and authorized propaganda wing for abortionist advocacy organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League.  Johnson's writings and temperament would see OLC devote a significant portion of its taxpayer funded resources to further expanding and codifying "abortion rights" into federal law and to legally targeting individuals and groups holding pro-life abortion positions.  Recent attempts by some abortionist advocates to use Racketeering in Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws intended for organized crime bosses against pro-life individuals and organizations may occur on a federal level if doctrinaire abortionist apparatchiks such as Johnsen have their way.
 
Johnsen's nomination should also be opposed due to her dangerously naive beliefs on the nature of the Islamist terrorist threat.  She stupidly believes that conventional legal tactics are all that is necessary to confront and defeat an agile and fanatically devoted coalition of forces which are contemptuous of western Judeo-Christian derived legal jurisprudence.  She fails to understand that harsh actions, including warrantless wireless surveillance and even torture, are necessary to prevent Islamist terrorists from launching assaults against civilian and military U.S. targets.  The policies Johnsen advocates would dismantle the success we've had in preventing subsequent 9/11 terrorist attacks within the U.S. and would actually increase the possibility of terrorist attacks within national boundaries.

She has also launched libelous personal attacks against former Justice Dept. official John Yoo, a noted constitutional scholar, who wrote many of the Bush Administration's legal justifications for its anti-terrorist campaigns.  I heartily recommend Yoo's book The Powers of War and Peace:  The Constitution and Foreign Affairs After 9/11 published in 2005 by the University of Chicago Press.  Apparently, Johnsen can't deal with the reality that Yoo is a superior scholar to her and has a more intelligent and moral understanding of the Islamist terrorist threat.
 
We should work to defeat Johnsen's nomination.  She is an embarrassment to the legal profession and, as a Hoosier, I find it appalling that someone with values and beliefs antithetical to the values this country needs in trying times will be providing legal advice to the Justice Dept. and the President on so many critically important issues. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Remember British Conservative Party Leader David Cameron and His Family

British Conservative Party leader David Cameron and his family should have the sympathies and prayers of all American conservatives today.  He and his wife Samantha have lost their six year old son Ivan who died after a long battle with cerebal palsy and epilepsy.  The Camerons have two other children and the British Conservatives are, under his leadership, experiencing a revival of their fortunes after nearly 12 years of Labour Government.  The House of Commons suspended Prime Minister's Question Time today as a gesture of sympathy for the Camerons.  The British Conservative Party website www.conservatives.com/ has a blog with expressions of sympathy.  As an American Conservative and admirer of British Conservatism, I wish to extend my personal sympathy to the Camerons and my prayers that they will experience God's healing comfort at this time.  Even though I don't have children, I appreciate that all children are God's precious and unique blessings.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Fiscal Responsibility" Summit

The audacity of the Obama Administration's hyprocrisy reached new heights and sunk to new depths today.  It announced it was holding a "fiscal responsibility summit" to focus on the upcoming release of its first budget.  At a time when our budget deficit is skyrocketing due to Keynesian stimulus packages and never ending aid to incompetently run financial institutions and recklessly profligate mortgagees, Obama has decided the great unwashed among us need to learn the lessons of fiscal responsibility.

Watching Liberal Democrats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden pose as paragons of fiscal probity is nauseating!  It's like hearing the Kennedy family pose as paragons of ethical virtue, Bill Clinton posing as a defender of marital monogamy, and a brothel of prostitutes posturing as paragons of sexual chastity!  At no time in their political career, have Barack Obama or Joe Biden demonstrate the slightest concern for governmental budgetary restraint.  Neither have congressional allies of theirs as varied as Barney Frank, John Dingell, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid and a host of other congressional appropriators.  During a time when our government should be seriously looking at ways of trimming government spending, these dimwits have just passed a "stimulus" bill which will exacerbate our federal budget deficit and national debt, create limited long-term economic development and job creation, and further addict our credit obsessed society with the illusion of free money without consequence.

Whenever previous Republican adminstrations made tenouous efforts to achieve reductions in government spending or make substantive reforms to entitlement programs such as Social Security or Medicare, they were greated with vituperation from Obama, Biden, and other congressional Democratic defenders of unlimited pork barrel spending.  Charges of racism, meanness to the poor, insensitivity, and  other forms of denunciation greeted those of us with the gall to suggest the government should live within its means and not burden future generations with debt.  We should expose Obama and his economic pretensions for the hypocritical frauds that they are and tell him that real economic reform in this country requires making tough decisions that will offend the parasitic welfare state galoots representing many of the core constitutencies of the Democratic Party.  If Obama wants to truly be a fiscally transformative leader, instead of an empty rhetorical blowhard, he needs to have the political guts to repeatedly kick the labor unions, social welfare lobbies, civil libertarians, imprudent state and local governments, and other cohorts of liberal polity in the groin when they come squawking for economic stimulus money.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen but hope does spring eternal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910Next »