This month the Dow surged almost 9% making it the best July in 20 years for the index. Furthermore, the GDP is declining at a slower pace than expected, which is good. See graph:

Was it the stimulus? Unknown, but doubtful. What is known is that as of the end of May, only 6% of the money designated to directly boost the economy was actually spent, with only 5% more planned for the rest of the year. The administration admits that much of the money will be spent next year… how convenient. As I wrote before, the cyclical nature of the market means that we will eventually recover and in fact, this recovery is being seen in different parts of the economy but not much as a direct measurable result of the stimulus. Even the administration’s fictitious claims of creating or saving 150,000 jobs does not come close to the millions of jobs lost the year.

The problem is simple: the economy is showing some signs of recovery already and if we get a huge infusion of cash into the market in the middle of an upswing, we risk inflation. Already, the dollar has weakened and may weaken further, even though just a few months ago we were talking about deflation. By running the US dollar printing press on max to solve our problems all that the administration has done is kick the problem down the road. The collapse of the dollar is worse than a global recession because while the latter affects everyone, the former shifts the balance of power in the world. There are many reasons to oppose or criticize the Obama administration but the most serious one is the unsustainable fiscal irresponsibility because, coupled with foreign policy weakness, it will lead to the end of American superpower status.

-AG

Well, less than a week into the cash-for-clunkers government handout that was tucked neatly in an emergency war spending bill (car rebates in a war spending bill?), the $1 billion program is nearly out of money. How is this a shock to the administration? If you put out $1 billion dollars in a big basket outside of Washington, I would be surprised if the basket itself would remain after the end of one day. Now Congress is thinking of extending the program by a few more billion dollars… typical. People need to pay attention, this car rebate program is a clear example of how government programs tend to exceed cost expectations… so while the administration pushes a Health Care Reform program that will cost $1 trillion, Americans must realize that this price tag will most probably go up.

Socialism, ladies and gentlemen, does not work. I say it time and time again but the government keeps on taking people’s money and handing it to other people. It is human nature to accept money for free, but there is no free lunch and eventually we will have to pay for it, if not with our dollars then with our freedoms. Do not fall for it.

Update: $2 billion in extra funding approved for Cash for Clunkers program.

-AG

I know that many people out there will have a gag reflex after reading the title of this post and by no means do I agree with W. Bush on everything, but facts are facts. Missile defense. It was something much touted by the previous president and now it is something that is a matter of life or death for America. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and the administration has all but assured us that Iran will develop them as well. Their missile technology is improving on a daily basis and sanctions seems to have little effect on their military programs. Military strikes against North Korea are out of the question while the administration has pretty much commanded that Israel not strike at Iran. This means that now the only thing standing between a nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missile and a major American city is a couple of years and missile defense shields. Isn’t it interesting that a major part of Bush’s defense policy is the only thing that can protect us against these threats? People need to be more objective when considering Dubya’s legacy, else we are doomed to be mainstream media controlled zombies.

-AG

In the United States, we have a two ideologies that disagree on the role of government in the daily lives of people and the economy. Conservatives believe that the role, size, and power of government should be limited to only what is necessary. Liberals believe that the role of government is to serve the people, regardless of its size. Both ideologies have merits and both have their weakness: conservatives will err on the side of smaller government and some ‘public’ demands may not be met while liberals will err on the side of larger government with an ever-expanding burden on the taxpayer and gross bureaucratic inefficiency. Many believe our system to be a free market, but general opinion in this case is somewhat incorrect, particularly when it comes to the way that we redistribute wealth. In 2006, according to the IRS, the top 1% of households (in terms of income) pay about 40% of federal individual income taxes while receiving only 23% of total income. The top 5% paid nearly 61% of federal income taxes while earning 37% of total income. What this means is that the average American is not experiencing the costs of domestic policy… so the calculation of the average American is grossly skewed when it comes to deciding government policy.

In having an economic situation where the majority of people suffers little or no tax consequences for passing expensive and inefficient government programs, the average American is being given an inducement to grow government by shielding them from the costs. Interestingly enough, the much criticized Bush tax cuts that ‘benefited’ the rich ended up increasing the amount and percentage of income tax that top earners had to pay, more than during Clinton. Eventually though, we can expect that when the cost of running government becomes sufficiently high, these taxes will start to ‘trickle down’ and affect everyone, else we chase all of the wealth away form the country. We must take this into account when we decide on the Health Care Reform plans that the administration and Congress are trying to pass, especially since we did not think twice about passing the stimulus package which has turned out to be slow, ineffective, yet exceedingly expensive.

If a society burdens only a small percentage of its population with the majority of the costs of running government, wouldn’t this end up encouraging the growth of government? More importantly, wouldn’t this mean that the people who are most affected by government programs are grossly underrepresented? Has our government become a tyranny of the majority (people who pay little to no income taxes)? Our republic has strayed from its founding principles and for the last two decades we have experienced an uninterrupted period of growth of government under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We need to return to our first principles that emphasize freedom and individual responsibility. We have become a nation that no longer believes that happiness should be pursued but instead handed to us and rationed by an all-powerful government. Oh how times have changed…

-AG

This one is easy. Let’s say you are a foreign government or a person with some money to invest and you are looking for a safe investment, especially now during this recession. Well, historically, United States government debt in the form of T-bills, T-notes, etc. have been a good investment, but now, with the reasonable expectation that the administration will create a multi-hundred-billion dollar (on the low end) to multi-trillion dollar health insurance program and will pay for it through deficit spending, the threat of dollar devaluation rises. With inflation possibly over the horizon, investors choose to either wait out to see what happens or they invest elsewhere fearing that the dollar will reduce in value. This means that the overall demand for the dollar falls and as the government prints more and more money to “stimulate” the economy, increasing its supply, the value of the dollar declines in the long and short term.

This has happened already. We have seen that the US dollar has fallen compared to most other major currencies. This in turn leads to higher costs for nearly everything that we Americans buy. The US debt is a major reason that the dollar’s value declines… so we can say in absolute terms, the record-smashing spending passed by the Democrats in Congress have already, in six short months, made Americans who hold US dollars considerably poorer. The more that the administration and the Congress talk about deficit spending or entitlement spending, the more worried investors get. If we cannot get deficit spending under control and get the Federal Reserve to enact measures that reduce inflation once the recovery is underway, then inflation will rage out of control. This is why fiscal discipline, lacking under Bush and completely out the window with Obama, is so important.

-AG

I have been focusing mainly on the international scene for the last few posts, primarily because I think enough conservative and non-conservative commentators have taken up the health care battle with gusto and did not want people to ignore what happens beyond our shores. I would like to change subjects for a moment and write about Marco Rubio who caught my attention due to his actions and recommendations as Speaker of the Florida House. His run for the Senate against Charlie Crist, the current, moderate, ultra-tanned governor of FL, is likely to prove disastrous. Sorry, Rubio. This is not because he lacks substance but rather because he is up against the GOP establishment which has pretty much endorsed Crist (though Rubio denies it). In my humble opinion, there are certain things that Rubio can do to improve his performance in this race. Already, he has made several existential mistakes and so I will endeavor to outline some of his weaknesses and recommend ways to turn them into strengths.

His first “weakness” is actually the central argument behind his candidacy: he is conservative, not moderate. While he may not say it outright during interviews, in typical political style, he starts describing Crist as someone who has betrayed or compromised on conservative principles. The first thing he needs to do is come right out and say it “I will stay true to my principles, unlike Crist.” Be more direct, no subliminals, no politics, just the truth. He just needs to make sure he defines principles, like sound government, personal freedom, or whatever. If he continues to be branded as a “conservative,” while that might appeal to the more right-leaning base (like me), it will make some think that he is an ideologue and not even take a chance to listen to him. Remember, there are centrist Republicans too. Clarity of message, not clarity of ideology. Ideology needs to leave this contest. The message should be fiscal responsibility period. Pound it into people’s heads: Crist raised taxes, Crist supported record breaking national spending, etc. Stay on message. Put Crist on defense. Also, Crist will be running to the right in the primary only to backtrack on his positions in the general. Hold him accountable. Flip-flopping hurt Romney, Kerry, and countless others.

The second “weakness” is his presentation. I like Rubio, he comes off straightforward, knowledgeable, and generally like a nice guy. That said, Crist seems even nicer, in fact, too nice for my tastes. Rubio suffers from a technocratic sort of demeanor, like he knows how to make the best steak but will not dress it up with garnish or mashed potatoes. Well, I hate frills, but I do like to be entertained as much as the next guy. He looks kind of nervous sometimes. Sometimes he looks like he belongs in a lecture hall teaching philosophy to half-awake students. Rubio needs to loosen up when he talks policy. Throw a joke in. Loosen your tie. Smile more. Do something, but don’t overdo it. Of course, Rubio cannot compete with Crist when it comes to looking like a “nice” guy. This is where the weakness becomes the strength. Crist seems way too laid back… I mean, look at the guy, he’s ridiculously tanned. Ridiculous. This makes him seem nice, but it does not make him seem more competent. Rubio must capitalize by keeping his technocratic demeanor in place, with a little garnish of “approachability,” and point out that representing FL shouldn’t be a day at the beach. Make that can-do attitude (with a smile) the basic approach while saying that as Florida’s problems mounted, the person in charge was getting a tan, taking trips, and relaxing a little too much. Take the gloves off but stay positive.

The third “weakness” is his appeal to the GOP. Let’s be clear, just because Crist is not that conservative does not mean that the GOP will discard him. The GOP, like any political organization, is in the business of winning elections and Crist can win elections, general elections in Florida. Regaining a significant number of Congressmen and women is the GOP’s primary aim. So Rubio needs to make his case even more clear. The Obama-Crist link is not enough, it is good for conservatives, but not enough to win. The GOP needs to see results, it needs to see action. What this means is popular support. Crist has proven it, now it’s Rubio’s turn. I’m saying the grassroots should have an even more active role in his campaign, in fact, the grassroots should hijack the Rubio campaign. His participation in the Tea Parties was excellent, now that they know his face, he needs to plan another, and then another and another, he needs to participate in non-stop town halls, continue challenging Crist, get out there, eat at diners, speak everywhere… energy is very very very very important. Not saying that Rubio does not have energy, but this is where the focus should be. I, for example, was a supporter of the Fred Thompson campaign in the primary but was disappointed when the energy wasn’t there… McCain had/has immense amounts of energy and he won the primary even though he was significantly behind and not the most conservative (he then lagged after winning the primary and look what happened). There is a lot of untapped conservative and libertarian energy out here in Florida, if Rubio can mobilize that then he will show the GOP what he can do. Look at Howard Dean, he used this very model and while he did not win, due to self-destruction (byahh!), he did go on to lead the Democratic Party and eventually took control of both Congress and the Executive. Not a bad model… except that he’s as liberal as the current president.

I have more recommendations and observations, but these are the big ones. Hopefully, Rubio will change his tactics a little because he seems to have good ideas and a good heart. I also can relate to his upbringing, hearing stories about the Castro gulag, the repression of faith, the mass extermination of “political opponents,” etc. These stories were our nursery rhymes, these stories stressed the importance of freedom, respect for human rights, and the accountability of government to the people. These are lessons that are ignored by many on the Left, and the main reason (in my opinion) why Cuban-Americans have tended towards conservatism. This race is a microcosm of the greater struggle within the Republican Party, the struggle to define itself as either the party of winning elections or the party of individual empowerment.

-AG

Israel and the current administration have not had the best of relationships. In a world where nearly everyone is sucked in to the Obama mania, Israelis recently held an anti-Obama rally, going so far as to call him ‘racist.’ This is a result of an openly anti-Israel stance taken by the president, in fact, the president’s first official call to a head of state was to Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. Add to that relatively small gesture the policy of reaching out to Israel arch-nemesis Iran and regular nemesis Syria and their worry turned into real fear, fear of being abandoned in a sea of Arab resentment. Then comes the words from the administration pressuring Israel to not attack Iran if it acquires or is about to acquire nuclear weapons, intimations from Clinton that a nuclear Iran is acceptable, and Obama’s public call that Israel dismantle its settlements and that fear turns into anger. By and large, we can say that this administration is decidedly not pro-Israel, and many may argue it is anti-Israel.

Apparently, the administration is trying to repair this hurt relationship by sending government official after government official to Israel. While I am usually critical of the president, I applaud this action. Keeping Israel in the loop is something that the United States needs to do, just like we should be doing with our other allies. The truth is that actions speak louder than words and for the administration to rescue our relationship with Israel, we need to take their national security interests more seriously. Obama should keep trying to mend fences with Israel, but diplomacy is but a first step; he needs to take a strong stand against terrorism and Iran, which is something that not only benefits Israel but our security as well.

-AG

While the threat of terrorism increases internationally, as displayed by the events in Nigeria, Indonesia, and North Carolina, the Obama administration has decided to ease trade sanctions on Syria, a nation that gives aid to terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. Did I forget to mention that they are close allies of Iran? This post should end right here, but I will continue to break it down for my less conservative cohorts.

Trade sanctions are leverage. Right now, we need Syria to make peace with Israel, increase cooperation with Iraq, stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas, not interfere with the Lebanese political process, respect for human rights, and help us in projects like preventing Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. With the unilateral easing of sanctions, we have just removed some of that leverage. What has Syria done to earn this economic boost we are about to give them? Nothing significant. Just like Obama’s Cuba policy, the unilateral easing of sanctions only gives the impression that America is in the business of giving up concessions for little to nothing in return.

We can be sure of one thing: the economic benefits from this concession to the Syrian regime will end up helping Hezbollah and other terrorist groups in the Middle East, enemies of Israel and the United States. The only positive that we can get from making friends with the Syrian dictatorship is the possibility of drawing them away from Iran, but in the long-term it makes no sense for Syria to abandon their long-time ally. Iran is growing in power and may be a serious power broker in Iraq, it only benefits Syria to keep Iran close. Syria and Iran will remain part of the Anti-American Axis in the region, and while Obama is around, they will squeeze us for every last drop, every last concession he’s willing to give them. The Obama administration has been a public relations and diplomatic coup for dictatorships and terror-sponsors around the world.

-AG

I recently wrote about the recent resurgence of Al Qaeda in the world. Their comeback is a product of the new administration’s insistence on dialogue instead of action, on withdrawal for political points instead of acting in accordance with the facts on the ground, and on the fact that Al Qaeda thinks that Obama will cower before terrorist threats, not rise to combat it. Well, over the last few days, Nigerian rebels who are part of a group called Boko Haram, which translates to “western education is forbidden,” have risen up and battled the government. More than 400 people have been killed in the fighting. Last week there was a clash between Nigerian troops and the rebels. As of yet there is no connection between Boko Haram and Al Qaeda, but Nigeria is starting to look more and more like a future destination for Al Qaeda.

The conditions are all there: There is a local terror group trying to impose Sharia on the country, there is high foreign investment in Nigeria, there are groups such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) that are launching terrorist attacks on foreign oil companies and pipelines, and the central government is willing to negotiate with the terrorists. This makes Nigeria, and thus the entire West African region a potential target for Al Qaeda expansion. Already, some traditional leaders in the region have grown wary of Al Qaeda’s influence and have banded together to stop its spread.

Boko Haram Militant

We must not forget that right now Al Qaeda has many supporters scattered around the world, all they need is a safe enough haven so they can start planning their next attack. The United State’s mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan is critical, and Somalia is looming on the horizon. All they need is another psychopathic leader to inspire suicide brigades to strike at us, ‘the far enemy.’ We cannot abandon the war on terror and we must give them men and women fighting that war all the tools they need to succeed.

-AG

Last night I had a dream, it was a strange dream where I was supposed to introduce this very special guest at a dinner but I had no idea who it was. There were blue table covers, people were seated along rectangular tables, and behind the podium you could see a thin, frail man surrounded by much bigger men. I was finally told who I was going to be introducing: Fidel Castro. So, I quickly assembled my thoughts and was going to talk about the truth about Fidel Castro, something I am sure would have gotten me escorted out of the room or arrested. The dream ended before I could give my speech. It was the first time ever that I had a dream/nightmare including this butcher.

To my surprise, sort of, today I read that the Obama administration took down the big screen built along the side of the US interests section in Havana that would display messages promoting democracy and freedom of expression. CNN calls them “anti-Cuba” signs, sayings such as “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent,” showing that this news outlet simply parrots the Castro regime’s version of reality. Castro ended up putting up more than one hundred flags in front of the screen obstructing people’s view, so that they could not read the screen.

Why is it that every time I hear about some dictatorship or some terrorist in the news, it tends to be because the Obama administration has done something to damage the cause of America. He went to Europe to apologize. He talked about disarmament while North Korea fired off missiles. He would not support the Iranian people’s pro-democracy protests. He supports Chavez allies in Latin America. The list is extensive and it has only been six months. I want to hear that Obama went forth and challenged a country to be free. I want to hear Obama speak truth to power and call out dictators on their record. Instead we get appeasement. In his defense, the screen was not very useful since it was blocked, but instead of doing less to promote freedom in Cuba, Obama should do more. That’s where people get confused about measures such as the embargo. An embargo cannot bring down a regime, if that was the case, Saddam Hussein would not have been in power after the first Iraq war. The embargo needs to be followed up with policies that support the pro-democracy movement on the island. The solution to Cuba is not to make friends with the dictatorship, it is to pressure the regime while supporting the people that want to be free. Does Obama want to go down in history as being the president who abandoned the millions of people around the world who yearn to be free?

-AG

In yet another example of the naivete of the administration’s foreign policy, president Obama declared a new era of “cooperation, not confrontation” with China, apparently the head of state has not been receiving the security memos from the Pentagon… nor has he been watching the news. While Obama’s chief concerns are getting China to cooperate over energy, nuclear proliferation, and other issues, he is completely overlooking the grand chess match that is currently taking place in the world. Russia is down but not out. Islamo-fascism is wreaking havoc worldwide. Authoritarian socialism is sweeping the globe. China is currently growing at a break-neck pace, with aspirations to overtake the first world within decades. Does China really benefit from full cooperation with the United States? Not really.

First of all, China and Russia have been indicating their lack of confidence in the US dollar. This is where Obama’s domestic policies will shift the balance of global power: with the excessive deficit spending threatening to reduce the value of the US dollar, China and other nations will be stop buying the dollar, further reducing its value. So, while China at the moment may not benefit from a precipitous fall in the value of the dollar, it is in their long term interest to promote the decrease in US economic power so that they can rise. Imagine major US firms going out of business and/or getting bought out on the cheap by rising Chinese companies. We may be looking at Chinese ownership of major formerly US-based companies in the near future. China has world power aspirations and the administration cannot lose sight of this.

Second of all, in terms of military power, China has started to beef up its military and build up its navy. The United States’ historical naval superiority is what allowed us to engage in military operations in Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula, the Middle East, Latin America, etc. The rise of China, militarily, is problematic, especially considering their strategic aims: controlling Taiwan and controlling East Asia. Does a pesky North Korea benefit China? Yes, it distracts the US. Does international terrorism bother China? Not that much, internal ‘terrorism’ does. Does nuclear proliferation bother China? Not really. In all, the concerns of the United States are not that important to China, which means to get them to help us we will have to give up more than we should. China is an authoritarian one-party state and it enjoys close ties with every nation that considers itself an enemy of the United States. Does the spread of Anti-Americanism help China? Yes it does indeed. Chinese arms sales have fueled regional conflicts for years now and cause problems that eventually end up becoming US problems.

A policy towards China that involves some cooperation and some confrontation is what is best and we should be open about it. We should press them on the issues we care about, like we are currently doing, but also make it clear that certain things need to change, like their human rights record. We must make it clear that they should pressure North Korea more forcefully. We must support the continued independence of Taiwan. We must not be silent about their brutal repression of the Tibetan people. America stands for freedom in this world, even if we make mistakes in how we work towards that goal. China stands for the repression of its own people and global power. They have already tasted the benefits of opening up their economy, now we can only hope that they will realize the benefits of empowering their people. China is playing to win over the long term, but it looks like the administration is just playing to get some immediate political goals.

-AG

Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara’s Capture

I wrote before that many speculate that the death of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara was caused directly or indirectly by Fidel Castro. The logic is simple: a martyr is better than a living political ally because the martyr cannot challenge your power. This is not an isolated event, communists have a history of using the deaths of other communists as propaganda campaigns. With that in mind, I was wondering if maybe it would occur to Hugo Chavez that the death of Jose Manuel Zelaya, deposed socialist ex-president of Honduras, would actually be more beneficial to the whole “Socialism in the 21st Century” campaign (this is Chavez’s international socialist ‘movement’). Currently, Zelaya is just playing tag on the border with Honduras and Nicaragua, essentially at a stalemate.

Technically, claims of assassination attempts and coup attempts orchestrated in Washington are the most common unfounded claims that these socialists make. Of course, I do not generally believe these conspiracy theories for a simple reason, if the United States or the Central Intelligence Agency wanted to kill a public figure, they would do it pretty efficiently, particularly because it is US policy not to engage in political assassinations but I digress. Chavez has been crying for years that the US wants to kill him, depose him, etc. but the whole “I am a victim, wah wah wah!” routine has gotten kind of old. Chavez’s best propaganda and political tool is to do what Castro has done, take the nation’s national hero and incorporate him somehow in their ideology. The truth is that the best socialist movements need a martyr. In Nicaragua, the socialists are called Sandinistas, named after a peasant rebel called Augusto Sandino who was assassinated by a right-wing dictator, and now the have power in that country. We all know that the Che Guevara image is used on everything from T-shirts to coasters, so much for the whole anti-capitalist thing. Imagine the effect that the death of Mel Zelaya would have on socialism in Latin America… it would breathe life into a movement that may be growing stale. Furthermore, it would create a figure for the socialist movement in Honduras to promote. For Chavez, the assassination of Zelaya would give him the chance to blame the United States for even more reprehensible ‘interventionism’ and again appear like the victim in the international arena.

Honestly, even if Mel Zelaya would return to power, he would probably not have the political capital to impose any sort of socialist program. He can’t use the army either, since the military opposes Zelaya. In a sense, Zelaya would be a lame-duck and he would never be able to run for president again. If he returns and they put him on trial, his credibility and his allies’ credibility will be harmed. All in all, Chavez does not benefit from any of the moves he has in front of him, except assassination. I will not bet that Chavez will do this, but in case it does happen, the fact is that Zelaya’s political opponents will be severely hurt and the socialists will be helped. It happened with Che and his communist sponsor, it can happen again with Mel and his socialist sponsor. He should watch his back.

-AG

It was on this day, in 1953, that a group of rebels attacked the Moncada Barracks in Cuba and failed miserably. A number of the rebels were captured and executed immediately by the Cuban military, but not their leader, a lawyer named Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz. He escaped to the countryside and was later captured. He was put on trial but allowed to speak for four hours giving a speech that outlined his political views and that ended with the phrase “History will absolve me.”

Many people at the time thought that Castro was not a communist and, in fact, they were probably right. Castro had promised the Cuban people a democracy that redistributed wealth more justly, but now we know that he was simply lying. My grandfather was amongst those people and he, like many others, joined in the struggle against then-dictator of Cuba Fulgencio Batista only to later realize the terrible mistake they made in supporting Fidel Castro.

During the struggle, on the 13th of March 1957, a group called the Directorio Revolucionario (Revolutionary Directorate) would attack the presidential palace and also fail. Fidel Castro hated this group for not joining his 26th of July Movement. Interestingly enough, my grandfather was recruited to participate in the assault on the palace, but for whatever reason the assault went ahead without him. Could that one extra person have made the difference between victory and defeat? We will never know… but if that attack was successful, Castro would not have been able to torture the Cuban people for these 50 long years.

While many Cubans fought for the 26th of July Movement, many more Cubans died because of it. My grandfather hoped that the 26th of July would mean a renewed life for the Cuban Republic but instead it meant the death of Cuban freedom… and ultimately, in an ironic twist of fate, my grandfather died a few years ago on this very day, the 26th of July, never seeing a free Cuba. I will forever remember this day as the day when the forces of tyranny won out over the forces of freedom, the day that took away from me a true revolutionary and a true freedom fighter: my grandfather. Castro will stand out in history books as a great warning to the free people of the world: do not be fooled by great speeches or promises of utopia. And by no means will history absolve anything having to do with the atrocities that started that day: the 26th of July.

-AG

In case Americans have not realized what “change” means, this is how it works: Iran can threaten to wipe Israel off the map merely for existing. Iran can develop their nuclear capability while the civilized world calls for more negotiation. Iran can arm, train, and fund terrorists in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq while the administration looks the other way. Iran can imprison and kill its own citizens who are demanding democracy while the free world tries not to “meddle.” While Iran can do all this, the president of the United States says that Israel should not take military action to stop them.

Iran just reaffirmed their willingness and ability to retaliate in case there is any Israeli strike. This comes on the heels of an important development: Hillary Clinton said that the US would consider extending a “defense umbrella” over Israel and Middle East allies to counter a nuclear-armed Iran. This is problematic for two reasons, the first being the implication that the US was preparing to simply allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons (Clinton later clarified that the administration was still trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons) and the second is that the administration has no idea what a nuclear-armed Iran means.

The Novice-in-Chief we call president and the political animals he has working for him need to understand that Iran does not simply have the ability to fire long-range missiles, they have the ability to deploy their own version of “smart bombs": Hezbollah suicide bombers. We are not dealing with a conventional enemy, Iran has used suicide bombers as an official war tactic since their war with Iraq. To talk about a “defense umbrella” while accepting the fact of Iran’s terror ties and even tacitly supporting terrorists by providing funds to Gaza and Lebanon, shows that they do not fully appreciate the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose. A defense umbrella is a good first step, but it needs to be supplemented by some policy that also addresses the terrorist threat. The administration is currently setting the foundation for a nuclear holocaust to be carried out either by suicidal terrorists or by a suicidal Iranian regime, probably the former. When talking about Iran, we cannot simply focus on their nuclear aspirations and ignore their support of terrorism. The problem is nuclear weapons AND terrorism. We are already taking a huge risk with North Korea, there is no reason we should let Iran be the next potential nightmare.

-AG

It’s official. Mel Zelaya, the deposed president of Honduras who wanted to violate his country’s constitution in order to extend presidential terms limits, has defied the interim government and, surrounded by supporters, returned to Honduras. Previously, Zelaya supporters blocks roads and troops fired shots, two people may have been wounded. Two hours later, Zelaya retreated back to Nicaragua fearing imminent arrest. Ridiculous.

They should have just arrested Zelaya and kept him hidden in some undisclosed location… all this will do is instigate further violence in Honduras between the pro-Zelaya camp and the legitimate interim government. Zelaya, like Chavez, is just a clown looking for news coverage. I applaud the Honduran government for showing restraint in a situation that could have easily led to even more bloodshed, I only urge that they put an end to this show as soon as possible.

-AG

While America is distracted with the problems of race and the President’s push to pass and expensive and intrusive government health care system, two of the world’s biggest powers have started to cooperate militarily: Russia and China. What does this mean for America? It means that while the United States may remain the only superpower, an alliance between Anti-American states may counterbalance our influence. We already see it happening. Both China and Russia are indicating their willingness to adopt an international currency to replace the US dollar. Both China and Russia are rushing to secure energy and nuclear deals with developing nations around the world. China is brutally cracking down on the Uighur population in its western provinces while Russia recently invaded neighboring country Georgia and redrew their borders (by recognizing former-Georgian breakaway regions). Most importantly, both China and Russia are providing arms, aid, and diplomatic support for most of America’s enemies.

With the recession taking a heavy toll on the American economic juggernaut and with the new administration pumping so much money into the system that it may significantly weaken the dollar, these two nations now see that it is in their mutual interest to join forces against us. The reason is this: these nations want to retain authoritarian control at home and the United States constantly badgers everybody about democratic reforms, tying diplomacy and economic policy. These nations also have expansionist tendencies that do not interfere with each other, for China it is Taiwan and for Russia it is all of the former Soviet republics. The current administration ignored North Korea and they set off an atomic bomb, we engaged with Iran and they starting killing pro-democracy protesters, we cannot ignore nor embrace these developments in Asia. The last thing we need is an alliance between nuclear powers whose only goal is to undermine the United States. I am certain that Obama does not want to be the president who sat by idly as a Sino-Russian Axis became the de facto world superpower.

-AG

I am of mixed race. My grandmother is the color of coal. My other grandmother is brown. My grandfather was white. The races are so mixed, I have no clue what to call myself. I just say Hispanic to make it easy. The sight of a president that was mixed race did not fill me with joy, it just showed me that America is living up to its own standards. My confusion as to my own race makes me colorblind when it comes to dealing with people… I can’t be racist because I would end up hating myself somehow. Which makes questions about what is racist that much harder for me. For example, let’s say I wanted to make a point about Obama’s health care reform by comparing his health system to the practices of a witch doctor. So if I had to superimpose Obama’s face on any of these pictures below, which one would I choose?

Well, if you chose #3 then you are apparently a racist. On Sunday, St. Petersburg neurosurgeon David McKalip, who is also a founder of the anti-tax group Cut Taxes Now, forwarded an email containing this image with the words “Funny Stuff” to members of a Google listserv. Here’s the image:

Now people are saying that Dr. McKalip is a racist. In my opinion, it is pretty funny, then again I, as a “colored” person, am not so bothered by stereotypes. Neither is my “white guilt” on full blast (was that racist?).

So the question I pose is this: did the author have to choose a witch doctor that was not black or black-ish (might be aboriginal) in order to be politically correct? So, if my own face was superimposed, the author could not use the witch doctor #2, otherwise its racist? If this offends anyone I am sorry, but I never picked up the Malcolm X 3-D glasses that casts everything as a racist offense or not. Was it racist of me to talk about Malcolm X? How about we get a little less sensitive about the racism thing unless, of course, the “offense” is clearly and overtly racist. I don’t think this image was… then again, I could be wrong. Remember everyone, the Democratic primary included an African-American, a Hispanic, a woman, and a metrosexual (John Edwards who spends way too much time on his hair, not that there’s anything wrong with that, is this parentheses homophobic?). We elected the African-American by a large margin. It’s time we got a little less sensitive about race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preference.

-AG

I just finished watching the Obama press conference on Health Care Reform. If you have not watched it, please click above. His opening remarks were the grossest revisionist distortion of reality I have ever heard a politician express. Barack Hussein Obama either believes that the American people are a mass of morons or he perceives reality to be something it is not. Let me address this on a point by point basis:

1. Obama: “As a result of the actions we took in those first weeks, we’ve been able to pull our economy back from the brink… we passed a recovery act that has already saved jobs and created new ones.”

The jobs claim is a plain old dishonest. Unemployment has topped 9.5%, a 26-year high, as of June. So far this year, we have lost 3.5 million jobs, with almost half a million of those job losses occurring in June. Vice President Joe Biden admitted that they misread the economy. The most that the administration claims is to have created or saved is 150,000 jobs. Compared to the avalanche of unemployment, the stimulus gains are pathetic. What is not pathetic is the long-term cost on the taxpayer and the rising national debt… Obama needs to come back to Earth and realize that he has not saved anything. Which brings me to his next whopper:

2. Obama: “The fact is, even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for those folks at the very top, but not a lot of good paying jobs for the rest of America. It’s an economy that simply wasn’t ready to compete in the 21st century.”

Absurd. The United States of America has been the economic engine of the world for decades, that did not change under Bush. We had years of growth and job creation even after the Clinton recession and 911. Obama must have been living in Kenya or Indonesia all these years if he thinks that the US hasn’t been and can’t compete in the 21st century.

3. Obama: “Where we spend much more on health care than any other nation, but aren’t any healthier for it.”

This quote is factually correct… but begs the question: if our government already spends too much on health care, why propose a plan that will only increase the amount of government involvement and the amount of money we spend? Why not use the free markets? Obama is clueless.

4. Obama: “A lot of Americans may be wondering [about health care reform] ‘What’s in this for me?’”

How times have changed. I remember a president not so long ago saying “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Here the Democrats’ pandering is evident… they believe that government’s role is to be our nanny and do things for us.

5. Obama: “It [his health reform plan] will keep government out of health care decisions.”

Flat out lie. Read here. The government will determine what is acceptable, affordable, and treatable. This is why I oppose Obama. He simply, coolly, audaciously lies to our faces.

6. Obama: “Now, if you don’t have health insurance or are a small business looking to cover your employees, you’ll be able to choose a quality, affordable health plan…”

This statement is similar to this one: “if you murder someone, you will get the choice of getting any legal representative you want or the government can give you one free of charge.” Obama is implying choice where there is none. Under the current proposal, there will be an individual and employer mandate that forces everyone to buy health insurance. This will raise costs for small business owners which will be reflected in price and make entering the market more difficult for small start-ups. So when Obama talks about choice, he is really talking about government mandates. I hope you guys have your updated Doublespeak Dictionaries.

7. Obama: “It [his health care reform] will be paid for.”

False. The Congressional Budget Office explicitly stated that the plan will end up costing trillions.

8. Obama: “Our proposals would change incentives so that doctors and nurses are free to give patients the best care, just not the most expensive care”

Didn’t he just say that government would not influence health care decisions??

9. Obama: “So let me be clear: this isn’t about me.”

Another lie. Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican who has been working on the health care reform bill, reported that Obama said to a fellow Democrat “You’re going to destroy my presidency.“

10. Obama: “We will do it this year.”

Doubtful. As more Americans wake up and realize that this is just another attempt to make the federal government even more powerful, increase the size of the bureaucracy in Washington, and to increase taxes on every American, there will be even more pressure to stop this proposal dead in its tracks.

We do need real reform. We do need to find a way to make health care more affordable and to stop the runaway spending of the federal government… but simply throwing money at the problem and making government even more involved in administering health care to Americans is like pouring gasoline on the fire. We need to cut costs, increase private ownership, and let the free market’s proven record of promoting efficiency and innovation have a greater role in any health care system we come up with.

After seeing this press conference, I was disgusted. I am sick of being lied to… and I think the American public is too.

-AG

Honduras stands strong. In the face of the European Union suspending nearly $100 million in aid to the country, in the face of United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening more punishment if the criminal socialist Mel Zelaya was not installed as president, the interim government and the people of Honduras have resisted the wave of anti-democratic socialism that is sweeping Latin America. Americans are proud of you, Hondurans.

The talks taking place in San Jose, Costa Rica, between Zelaya and the Honduran government have been postponed. The main problem is the absurd demand that Zelaya be reinstated. He is a traitor who will be arrested on sight, how can he be president behind bars? As usual, the administration is on the wrong side of history. This cannot last… soon the people of the world will urge their governments to side with the Honduran people and not with the Chavez Axis of Latin America.

Already, the president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, has expressed sympathy for the interim government, probably because of his own experience with the Chavez-backed FARC guerrillas and the drug war. If you recall, Zelaya has been implicated in drug trafficking.

The MSM keeps referring to the execution of a court order to remove Zelaya for treason as a “coup”

The lesson here is clear: freedom is not something won cheaply. Iranians are learning this. Every round of sanctions on Honduras is only strengthening the people’s resolve. Let us hope that the governments of the world come to their senses before they do irreparable harm to this democracy-loving nation.

-AG

Back in the sixties, Fidel Castro sent Ernest “Che” Guevara into the jungles of Bolivia and essentially got him killed, many speculate that he did so in order to eliminate a potential political rival since “Che” was so well-known. I wonder if Obama is doing the same to Hillary Clinton. Right after recovering from a broken arm, she was sent on a trip to Asia right after the terrorist attack in Indonesia. First she visits India, where they promptly tell her to take her “cap-and-trade” and shove it you know where. During her visit, the trial on the Mumbai attacks reveals that a Pakistani terrorist masterminded the attacks, potentially increasing tensions between the two nuclear powers. She comes out with a defense agreement and progress on the nuclear pact (a leftover of the Bush administration), while risking potentially angering Pakistan, India’s historical enemy. Fortunately, Pakistan has shown signs that they will not interfere in US-India relations.

Next, she travels to Thailand, where she talks about the growing threat from Myanmar (Burma) and their military cooperation with North Korea. She recently downplayed the threat from North Korea in an interview with ABC, comparing the regime to “teenagers.” When was the last time a teenager denoted a nuclear weapon? Seriously, does the State Department think that the danger of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists is not a significant threat? Does this mean we will spend more money on aid to Thailand? Thailand itself has problems with its Muslim minority and political unrest. Complicating things further, in Indonesia, a US mining company was attacked by gunmen. It looks like the new XOXObama foreign policy is making Hillary’s job harder than it needs to be.

Indonesian luxury hotels bombed

I would feel bad for Hillary, except for the fact that she called the legal and democratic government of Honduras to threaten them with more action if they did not install their socialist buddy Mel Zelaya. This shows that not only will they let the bad guys operate with impunity in Asia, but they will install would-be anti-American dictators in Latin America. I thought the Hill was smarter than this. I truly wonder who is calling the shots in this administration, or if it is some sort of weird power-sharing deal. Regardless, Hillary is in the jungle right now, dodging terrorist attacks and North Korean missile tests… she seems to be doing alright, but our “changed” foreign policy is not making it easy on her. We’ll see if she survives or if Obama makes her another “Che,” politically of course.

-AG

I was thinking: how do I move from discussing Latin America to discussing terrorism to discussing national security to discussing how the Left wants to leave America defenseless? Talk about drugs. I asked this question because I am one of those guys who recognizes the link between the different policies of the Left in this country. From open borders to drug policy to gun control to government size, all of these policies point to a specific type of society that the Left wants to create; a society based on government control run by bureaucrats and demagogues. My last post talked about Honduran ex-president Mel Zelaya who supports a policy of drug legalization in the United States (to make the violence go away… somehow) and has been linked to drug trafficking by Honduran authorities. Obama supports Zelaya’s return to power. Not a shocker from the guy who was asked if he inhaled and replied “I inhaled frequently… that was the point.” See video in case you missed it:

Well, Zelaya is not the only Latin American socialist with drug issues. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has his own problems with drugs, overseeing a fourfold increase in the amount of cocaine shipped from his country. Obama has been reaching out to Chavez. In fact, Obama didn’t let Chavez’s rants and insults get in the way of their renewed relationship. See this video that I made a while back:

Now, when it comes national security, the drug business is one of the biggest threats to America. Which is why the US government should do more to back governments in Latin America and around the world that crack down on the drug trade. That means opposing people like Zelaya, Chavez, Correa, etc. Which brings me to some positive actions taken by our military; just today, US forces bombed about 300 tons of poppy seeds in southern Afghanistan in an effort to destroy a source of income for the Taliban: heroin. At the end of the day, only sustained economic activity can preserve a military campaign… which means that the drug war is indeed an integral part of the war on terror, and this drug war is currently raging in Mexico as well.

Just like the administration’s approach to the war on terror, Obama has said on record that the drug war is an “utter failure” and has called for the decriminalization of marijuana.

At the same time, in a press conference with Mexico’s president, he acknowledged that US demand for drugs is part of the problem. So if the president wants to decriminalize some drugs in the US and at the same time thinks that drug violence is influenced by high demand.. isn’t he calling for more drug violence, more funding for drug cartels, and more funding for terrorist groups?

The military is acting in our nation’s interest by recognizing the link between our enemies and drugs and taking action against the drug trade. Why does the Commander-in-Chief seem to favor a policy that increases the drug trade? It makes little sense. Why does the Obama cozy up to leaders who do not cooperate in the war on drugs, like Chavez and Zelaya? Why do the Democrats oppose free trade with Colombia, one of our closest allies in the war on drugs? Unfortunately, the answer that covers all of these questions is: more government power. More drug trafficking and drug violence in other countries means more immigrants coming to the United States. More immigrants inevitably depresses wages nationally leading to more government dependence(if the size of labor pool larger than available jobs). More people addicted to drugs means less productivity and more dependence on the government. More hostile regimes in the world, the more fearful our population, and the more we rely on government to save us. More tyrannical regimes around the world and our own government’s size and power won’t seem all that bad. Just like a corporation strives to increase its profits, government strives to increase its power… and the people are the last line of defense. Let’s stay vigilant.

-AG

I was just thinking earlier today that the Honduran crisis is dragging out for too long. The powers of the world have lined up behind the socialists and are wasting time opposing the democratic process in Honduras. In the meantime, terrorists are attacking in Indonesia, Iraq, and the Afghan Taliban have not been defeated. I have a clear solution for the Honduran crisis and it has two parts.

Roberto Micheletti, Interim President of Honduras

The first part is simple, Mel Zelaya, the ousted president who is also a traitor to his country and is suspected of drug ties, has no legal basis to return to Honduras since he has already violated the Constitution of his country, he is only riding the wave of popular support. His violation was so severe that, Constitutionally, he is regarded a traitor to his own country. The reality of it is that the president was deposed by the military… and unfortunately, to socialists and liberals “military” is a four letter word. So this is a PR issue, not a legal one. With that in mind, the interim Honduras government needs to start winning the PR war. In the early days, they tried to do just that but for some reason have been failing… despite the fact that Venezuela threatened invasion, despite the fact that Zelaya called for violence in Honduras, despite the fact that Zelaya has issued ultimatums while the Honduran government has been willing to negotiate. So… the Honduras government should step up the efforts to investigate this man. Investigate his links to the drug trade. Investigate his motives behind calling for the legalization of drugs in the US. Investigate his improper relationship with Hugo Chavez. Investigate his efforts to extend his term limits. Then publish it all. Already I have been reading on blogs and in Spanish newspapers that investigators turned up computers with the results of the referendum vote already loaded, giving Zelaya a wide victory. The problem is that this vote-rigging discovery is not public enough, maybe it’s not confirmed, but at least it should be made public. Dig up every grain of dirt on this man, there is probably a lot, especially with this arrogant, eccentric guy who wears cowboy hats and sports a ridiculous mustache that puts Burt Reynolds’ to shame. Air out his dirty laundry so that the world has a clearer picture of who this man really is.

The second course of action to take is a little less simple, but certainly doable. Elections. Call for elections as soon as possible. The more votes and democratic actions taken the more difficult it will be for the international community to deny the will of the Honduran people. I know that right now elections are not possible, because not everyone has identification, but the sooner that elections can take place, the better. Each layer of democratic process will make Zelaya’s claim of being the rightful president, more and more hollow.

These two action will make it politically unfeasible for other countries to continue supporting Zelaya since the people of the world will not have their governments side with would-be dictators. The only countries that would continue supporting Zelaya would be the Anti-American Axis in Latin America, just as it should be. Otherwise, Honduras will continue to be threatened by Chavez of Venezuela, Hillary Clinton of the United States, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, and every other socialist out there.

-AG

I have tended to be overly critical of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, mainly for involving himself in bickering with other Republicans and not creating a clear message for the GOP. He also spent way too much time in front of the camera and not enough time crafting comeback strategy for the only major party that stands for fiscal discipline and free markets, at least in theory. He has redeemed himself in some respects over the last couple of months, and today on that road to redemption he blasted the president for pushing “a risky multitrillion dollar experiment with our health care.” Steele is right. This is a risk that increase the role of government, an entity that has been shown time and time again to decrease quality, reduce efficiency, and promote corruption. The cost is astronomical. The implications to our freedom in this country are frightening.

The truth is that Republicans need to put their own health care plan on the front page and create momentum behind it. Republicans during the last administration and during this one have done a poor job of communicating their message and the drubbings that the GOP has received at the polls are a direct result of this. It’s one thing to oppose bad policy and quite another to use good policy as a counter. I want to hear a point by point rebuttal of the Democrats’ plan with an explanation of how the Republican plan will be better. We need the party to fight with solutions not mere criticisms. When the president says that “we can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat” he is right, we cannot afford to delay a conservative solution to the health care problem and we cannot let the liberals defeat America’s free markets.

-AG

The stimulus package was 1,000 plus pages and it was voted on in record time. Few in Congress read it. The Cap-and-Trade bill was finalized just hours before the scheduled vote. Again, there was no time to read it all or confer with voters. Now the administration is pushing for another trillion dollar program that will end up increasing the government’s role in our lives significantly, mandating compliance with the government health care system. He insists that we have already talked this problem “to death” and we must “act now”… where are the alternatives? Where are America’s choices? Right now he offers only one solution to the problem of the spiraling cost of our health care: more government. Someone needs to step up and offer a better solution.

By Wednesday, the president wants the Senate Finance Committee to approve his program despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office reported that this plan would only weaken an already weakened economy. This presidency has been marked by an insistence that Congress, a branch of government supposed to act as a check on the executive, simply follow Obama’s orders blindly. Recently, I heard someone ask ‘what has Obama done that is so tyrannical?’ Obama has been instructing his party to pass legislation that he cooks up behind closed doors without reading it. Democracy cannot work if the legislature acts on orders from the president with minimal to no debate. The stimulus package forced certain changes in states’ laws for them to qualify for federal dollars. That was an attack on federalism. Like throwing a lifesaver to a drowning man only after he hands over his wallet. The administration’s tactic of rushing legislation using their party dominance of Congress is an attack on the separation of powers. Nominating an “empathetic” judge instead of a judge that follows the letter of the law was another attack on the Constitution. Placing an organization like ACORN, which has a history of voter fraud, in charge of the census is an attack on democracy itself. Does America benefit from a government that is directly controlled by the executive?

Tell Congress to read and debate bills before they pass them. Ask them to achieve more bipartisanship. We can’t let our democracy be hijacked. Americans need the right to choose their own future and their own government… we lose that right every time we allow the president to say “act now” and watch helplessly as Congress bends to his will.

-AG

While still on the subject of Cuba, it is good to look at Obama’s plan with that in mind. The first thing is to come to grips with the fact that the Obama plan will substantially increase the role of government in providing health care and will eventually lead to a takeover, see this post. At the very least, if some of you do not agree that it will lead to government takeover, you must agree that a significant percent of the population will be on government run health care… that is the explicit goal of the administration’s proposal, to insure everyone and let people choose the cheaper government program over their current private insurance. So now we can take a look at a health care system that is based on the fundamental premise that “health care is a right.”

The Cuban health care system is exceedingly inefficient, requiring patients to bring their own blankets, toilet paper, and drugs. The scarcity of antibiotics and drugs in general cannot be attributed to the embargo, since the United States does not restrict the sales of medical supplies to Cuba, it can only be attributed to politics. On the other hand, when it comes to tourist hospitals, where tourists pay in cash, or hospitals that serve party officials, these drugs are in abundance. For the Cuban citizen, the hospitals themselves lack maintenance and are dirty. For the privileged, the hospitals are immaculate. For both systems, there is one positive: there is never a lack of personnel. Cuba has one of the highest number of doctors per capita in the world… but this means little when you consider that they make about $15 a month, a small amount even in Cuban terms, and many people prefer to work in the tourist industry or as taxi drivers. The low pay drives away talent and thus reduces quality of care… a characteristic of most government programs.

Infant mortality is low… because abortions are widespread. In fact, the abortion rate in Cuba is the highest in the hemisphere even by official numbers. The total control of the media and strict government censorship does not allow us to know the full story of health care in Cuba, but there have been reports that old diseases that have been eradicated in many parts of the world have resurfaced in Cuba due to the poor state of their system.

So what does this have to do with our own government run health care system? While Cuba is an extreme example of government control, it highlights the problems with government run health care. The reality is that in this country we will be forced to create a system of separate and unequal health care. Expect the government to opt out of the “public option” and the ultra-rich to keep some form of expensive insurance. The government program must be rationed and while the rationing will not be as strict as Cuba’s, we can expect a decline in the quality of care. The question is, why do we assume that the answer to every problem is more government, more spending, and more bureaucracy?

Neither party has come up with a system that takes advantage of the most effective “program” that has ever existed in the history of mankind: free markets. Free markets reward efficiency and innovation. Bureaucracy rewards corruption and inefficiency. Let’s aim for a system that employs more of the former and less of the latter.

-AG

This post is about personal reflection. With today being the anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, it is fitting to talk about the achievements of man. While many consider this one to be among the greatest, as a society we have been more focused on the events down here than on how to continue developing human space travel. Humanity has yet to decide on which way to organize itself, so how can we expect humanity to decisively stretch its hand out into space? I hope that in the end, humanity will choose freedom over tyranny, and peace over war, but in this sense, America and the free world are but one small step. With tyrannical and homicidal regimes still out there seeking nuclear weapons, we still have a long way to go.

Which brings me to a certain individual in this human family. He is a person of African descent with lofty ideals and a history of serving his community. He became a community organizer in his neighborhood because the state was not representing its citizens adequately. One of his heroes is Abraham Lincoln. He would eventually start a campaign based on the idea of change from the status quo and gained the respect and admiration of many at home and even more overseas. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, and he is a strong believer in human rights, democracy, and he is pro-life. Still think it’s the same guy?

His name is Oscar Elías Biscet González, I have written about him before, and he is currently serving a prison term of 25-years for discussing human rights in his private residence. Right now there are many others in prison with him for the same reasons: for asking for freedom in Cuba. 90 miles away from the US there is a tropical gulag where its wardens, the Castro brothers, have enslaved 11 million people. Their oppressive ideology has spread to Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and now threatens to swallow Honduras. They have allied themselves with Iran, with China, with Russia, and with any and every other power that would challenge America and democracy.

The ones with the courage to oppose their brand of totalitarian communism are rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and exiled. It is important to remember them, for it is they who fight our fight, the fight for freedom, in their own countries. If ever there was any hope of regime change in countries like this one, it cannot come at the hands of the US military (we would have to invade half the world), it must come from the popular will of the people of that country. It wouldn’t hurt to give them support… and if we can’t give support, the least we could do is offer them a prayer and, as they languish in jail on their birthday for believing in liberty, ask the wind for their freedom.

The sooner we can learn to treat each other justly on Earth, the sooner we can reach for the stars.

-AG

Just like their promotion of a collectivist state at home, the Obama administration wants to restrict human rights in Israel, at least for the Jewish population. The administration has demanded that Israel stop planning a Jewish Housing project because it will be situated in a predominantly Arab East Jerusalem neighborhood. Israel has refused to comply with the administration’s demand. This marks the second time in a month or so that a democratic nation, presumably allied to the United States, has refused to bend to the will of the Obama administration (see Honduras).

The fact that the administration would try to restrict the rights of Jewish citizens of Israel to carry out legal construction in their capital city because of race reminds me of how they play the race and ethnic card here in the US (see Sotomayor). While Arab-Jewish relations can certainly improve, I would imagine that integrating the populations would actually do some good. Imagine that, Democrats advocating racial and ethnic segregation in Israel.

Will the administration also demand that Israel cease being an independent nation because it is situated in the “Arab neighborhood” called the Middle East? That should have been the president’s campaign slogan: “Exodus We Can Believe In.“

-AG

Throughout the history of the United States, we have faced many challenges and yet have remained faithful to our founding precepts: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. America’s struggle has been singular: the defense of freedom. Today is no different; the only thing that has changed is the amount of information at our fingertips. With the advent of new tools of mass communication, citizens have become more informed than ever before and the internet has only accelerated that process significantly. Unfortunately, all this information has led to a state that is almost as bad as censorship: excessive noise. This noise has detracted from the American narrative, placing theories as absurd as Marxism on an equal moral level as Capitalism, turning patriotic Americans into confused patriotic Americans. The way I see it, as do many people that I have come to know, America is currently in the midst of a struggle between two opposing ideologies: individual freedom versus authoritarian collectivism.

Every enemy we face today embodies an interpretation of collectivism, from a divine mandate denying individual rights represented by the Islamo-fascists to a “greater good” mandate justifying the concentration of power in the hands of a few represented by the socialists and communists. The West in general has moved away from these concepts and towards personal freedom. Maybe it emerges from our Judeo-Christian tradition that emphasizes the role of free choice in attaining salvation, especially since the collectivists tend to follow a more absolutist code or an amoral atheist doctrine.

In America, we are not immune to this conflict of ideologies. There are collectivist tendencies on both sides, but the Left is by far the most vocal in its promotion of the group to the detriment of the member. So while some people look at the world and see just isolated events, I see a clear philosophical tether linking an atomic test in North Korea with a Cap-and-Trade proposal here to the persecution of political opponents in Venezuela. While not a conspiracy per se, these actions and actors move in the same direction: toward authoritarian collectivism. This is why the Anti-American Axis in the world is composed of states and groups with different justifications for their authoritarianism, they agree in the one area that matters (for now): fighting against freedom.

Islamic Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ruler of Iran, with Atheist Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba

So, despite all the noise in our society, one situation clearly exists in America: the battle between individual freedom and collectivism. This is why I came up with the name NeoRepublica, because America needs a renewal of its republican spirit, a renewed understanding that representative democracy is the best defense against authoritarianism. Those who want to weaken our federal republic advocate a socialist or collectivist state run by a small elite who will not respect individual rights. America was founded on the rejection of that notion… and America can only survive if it continues defending the freedom that has made us great.

-AG

They just do not get it. To restore the criminal traitor Mel Zelaya to the presidency of Honduras is unacceptable. Yet that is exactly what the negotiators in Cost Rica are trying to do. Honduras has stood up to socialism and to dictatorship, they should not be forced to accept it simply because the international community wills it. The socialists are pushing hard to make Zelaya president of Honduras… to continue the Latin American Domino Effect that started 50 years ago in Cuba.

Zelaya simply a Chavez robot

The US has a responsibility to be on the side of democracy and not support any compromise that places Zelaya in power. Funny how the pro-Zelaya camp resorts to calling the new interim president “Gorileti” (as in “gorilla") and the pro-Honduras camp just calls Zelaya what he is: socialist. I guess socialists can only resort to name-calling since the spirit of freedom and the will of the people are not on their side.

-AG

Unemployment. Inflation. Terrorism. Sound familiar? Apparently, Obama never learned these lessons from Carter, but these things can sink a presidency, no matter how historically inspiring, faster than you can say “sustained recession” or “collapsing US dollar” or “resurgent Al Qaeda.” Obama’s numbers have fallen below 60% and will continue to drop as America slowly wakes up from the O-hypnosis that hit us last year. One thing is certain though, no one has put the pieces together: Al Qaeda is regaining strength.

Al-Shabaab militant, one of the many Al Qaeda affiliates

They have been launching attacks non-stop in Iraq since they learned that Obama was serious about withdrawal. Just today they killed members of a Sunni militia that helped us turn the tide in Iraq. Then you have the bombings in Indonesia that are believed to have been caused by a splinter group of Jemaah Islamiyah, a terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda. Once Al Qaeda strengthens, it will re-assume control over these splinter groups and reconstitute its global network. Right now, we still have the opportunity to destroy Al Qaeda, or at least keep them on the defensive… but the truth is that we will have to leave Afghanistan eventually and Pakistan will eventually ease its crackdown on the Taliban. If we leave before Al Qaeda and its benefactors are defeated decisively, we can bet that the threat against our nation will be more severe than ever in our history… especially in the age of nuclear rogue nations and with an Anti-American Axis that stretches from North Korea to Venezuela. As soon as the president stops playing politics and starts focusing on the long and short-term defense of the our country his numbers will improve… in other words, as soon as the president starts acting presidential.

-AG

Given that the news cycle is a bit slow, with excessive attention being given to the White House health care reform, something that I simply am not in the mood to get stressed out over, I was reading this article on an interesting UK-based blog “POLITICS | by scott” that I found (or rather, that found me). Though I disagree somewhat, I enjoy the way that the author logically approaches the issue. Here’s what troubled me:

He writes: “the real driver of anti-Americanism is dissatisfaction with American policy, not any deeper ideological or philosophical antipathy. On the extremes, of course, there is very real ideological hostility, but the great mass of people across the world retain a deep sense of affection and admiration both for the American system of government, and for its broader ideals.”

The portion I made bold is where I disagree… it may have to do with geo-historic differences between Mr. Scott Green, living in the UK, and myself, an American of Cuban descent living in Miami, FL. Then again, I don’t really know the man, so maybe not.

The real driver of anti-Americanism is the fact that the modern world is ideology, in the sense of the word “driver.” The second driver is the fact that we are the last remaining superpower, the Goliath to their David if you will. Of course I must qualify what I mean by anti-Americanism. The anti-American sentiment of the developed world and of “democratic” nations is one that emerges from our immediate policies, not from the fact that we are who we are, so therefore cannot be accurately referred to as anti-Americanism. Even friends have disagreements, see France or Germany during Bush. These nations simply oppose policies without opposing America itself, just like conservatives in this country may have renamed french fries to “freedom fries” but would be the first ones in line to defend France if it were attacked by Al Qaeda or invaded by Russia. I doubt the people or government of France would celebrate a second 911 simply because they hated Bush.

Which brings me to the real anti-Americanism in the world. From Russia to Saudi Arabia to Venezuela, anti-Americanism spreads for its own reasons, yet all are ideological. They use events in history to justify their interpretation of the world and even in a post-Bush era will not change the tone nor intensity of their rhetorical attacks. They control the media to convince their populations that we must be feared and/or hated. The error they make is perceiving US foreign policy to be a relentless imperial mission and not as one that changes as civilian leadership and ideas change. These regimes are threatened by the mere existence of a system that promotes the idea that the people, not individual leaders or demagogues, should have the right to choose their destinies. This runs contrary to communism. This runs contrary to religious fundamentalism. This runs contrary to authoritarianism in general.

The best example from both study and experience is Cuba under Castro. The Castro revolution benefited directly from US pressure (embargo and diplomatic isolation) on then-dictator Fulgencio Batista. Much aid for the revolution came from the US based exiles. The US was one of the first countries to formally recognize Fidel Castro’s government, which achieved power through acts of terror and violence, bombing theaters and killing civilians. We basically installed Castro! Yet for ideological reasons, at first it was a nationalistic populism and later it evolved into full-fledged communism, that Castro turned on the United States, seizing US assets. Subsequently, Cuba funded and trained guerrilla armies that would destabilize Latin America for decades simply to fulfill the international communist ambitions of Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, and Ernesto Che Guevara. To make the hatred of the United States permanent, total control of the media produced non-stop propaganda blaming America for everything that went wrong in Cuba, some accusations true and some not, yet all weaving the story that the “evil” American “empire” was plotting an invasion of Cuba.

Irony

This message has spread to all of Latin America, magnified in countries where state control of media is progressing, like Venezuela and Bolivia. Nothing that the Obama administration has done or will do can change the fact that anti-Americanism will play a central role in the politics of these demagogues. Obama extended a hand to Chavez and backed his ally Mel Zelaya, yet Chavez still accused Washington of orchestrating the Honduran coup. Obama softened the US embargo on Cuba and did not protests when the Organization of American States lifted their suspension of the communist controlled island, yet the Castro brothers have continued with their 50 year-old message of hating America.

Venezuelan mural

For these regimes to survive, they must reject the philosophy of liberal democracy and particularly the principal defender of this notion: the United States. It also works the other way around, freedom loving people cannot accept the existence of a totalitarian regime anywhere in the world. Americans cannot stand idly by while China or North Korea brutally crushes internal dissent, at least not indefinitely.

My disagreement with Mr. Green is simply labeling dissatisfaction with US policy as “anti-Americanism.” That is overly broad. Anti-Americanism is a reality in the world and will not be solved by any new administration or new policy. The only policy that the Anti-American Axis wants is complete withdrawal of the US from the world… so that they can have the space they need to fulfill their plans. For Venezuela, it is the Bolivarian Revolution to sweep Latin America (Simon Bolivar’s old Latin American superstate). For Russia is to reconstitute itself as a global power. For Al Qaeda, it is the re-establishment of the caliphate across Asia and Africa. America’s mission is much less aggressive: a more free and more just world for all. And this point is where I agree with Mr. Green: simply relying on hard power, on military might will never achieve this goal… smart power is needed. Democracy cannot be forced upon people, and should not. This is why conservatives flocked to Bush when he pledged “no nation building.” This is why conservatives winced when we were stuck doing just that in Iraq. America has many weapons in its arsenal: economic, diplomatic, military, etc. We must use them all. Bush’s initial reliance on the military was counterproductive… but to his credit, he was starting to correct his mistakes in his second term.

What we have now is not smart power… it is a near-complete about-face on foreign policy that assumes that everything done by Bush is wrong. This assumption is as foolish as the Bush administration’s assumption that stabilizing Iraq would be a cakewalk. We are not moving towards smart power as we should, we are moving towards soft power. From domestic spending that is weakening the dollar to a foreign policy that seems too timid, our enemies are taking note and will not waste this opportunity to make this “unipolar moment” in history a distant memory. So let us earnestly hope that the new administration will be shouted down, sniped at and second-guessed until they finally achieve that balance that America’s foreign policy needs.

While I may be challenging Mr. Green’s interpretation of anti-Americanism and the new administration, he should look on the bright side… I just gave him some free promo.

-AG

While the administration’s timid terror policies are tested abroad and at home, the leftists in this hemisphere are still up to no good. This time they have been caught in the act. Colombia recovered electronic evidence of ties between the Ecuadorian government, led by leftist president Rafael Correa, and FARC, the communist guerrilla army that has been waging war on Colombia for decades. A video that was released by the Colombian government shows that FARC gave money to the Correa 2006 election campaign. This video has been shown to be authentic.

For years, communist guerrillas have operated out of Ecuador and Venezuela with impunity due to the political inclinations of their presidents. So why does the administration want to install another leftist to power in Honduras? Are they not aware that the deposed leftist ex-president Mel Zelaya of Honduras was involved in drug trafficking? Did they not know that Zelaya publicly called for the US to legalize drugs? As usual, the administration is supporting a policy of extending a hand to the anti-American leaders in Latin America: Chavez, Castro, Zelaya, etc.

Latin Leftists: Evo Morales, Mel Zelaya, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Rafael Ortega

Many other blogs simply report and give opinions… I’ll go one step further and give you a better policy: economically and politically isolate governments that hurt US interests, support drug trafficking, and destabilize the region. With Chavez, reduce dependence on Venezuelan oil, cut economic ties further, ignore his meaningless antics, and mount international pressure to reduce his authoritarian, anti-democratic practices. With Correa, the same. With Bolivia’s Evo Morales, the same. With Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, the same. With Zelaya, keep him out of power in Honduras. With Castro, press for democratic reforms, make political prisoners famous, and continue a strict embargo on the government. In general, make these socialists famous for their crimes and for their damage to their own countries and people. On the flip side, support governments that fight socialism, promote stability, and fight the drug cartels. We should assist them with joint operations, cooperating on some intel, some international aid, and preferential trade relations. I could go on, but you get the idea. It is a simple philosophy: positive reinforcement for international cooperation and negative reinforcement for destabilizing and anti-democratic behavior. If only the administration had such clear thinking. They need a logic czar.

-AG

Ironically, just as 911 victims’ families got to look at one of America’s weapons against terrorists (Gitmo), there was a terrorist strike on two hotels in Jakarta, Indonesia killing at least six people and wounding more than fifty, eight of those wounded were Americans. As of now, authorities are not sure who carried out the attack and no one has claimed responsibility, but suspicion has fallen on Jemaah Islamiyah, an Al Qaeda linked terrorist group responsible for several high profile bombings in Indonesia over the years.

September 9, 2004 bombing of Australisn Embassy by Jemaah Islamiyah funded by Al Qaeda

Apparently, the CIA was blindsided by the attack even though just yesterday Australian officials warned that the group may still have the ability to carry out attacks. What this shows us is that we need better intel, more resolve, and a political establishment with the guts to fight these terrorists. Instead we get talk of giving them more rights, relocating detainees, and bringing suspected terrorists into the continental United States. We cannot start showing weakness to the terrorists. We need to let them know that our retaliation will be massive. We need to make their decision-making body understand that launching even one more attack means a wholesale retaliation on their cells everywhere. The administration has not made this clear and instead has given them the impression that we are wavering in our commitment to fighting terror. What we need to do is launch another drone attack in Pakistan, invade another Taliban-infested province of Afghanistan, pressure our allies to shut down known terror cells, and restart the trials of the terrorists we have in custody. That might make them more careful in weighing the potential benefits of terrorizing any country… anywhere. So far, the president has simply condemned the attacks… let’s hope he can also walk the walk.

-AG

Here’s the scenario: we are currently engaged in a war on terror as a response to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Some persons suspected of having participating in that crime and in other terrorist activities against the United States have been captured. The question is: where do we put these suspected terrorists? Do we bring them to the United States, where we risk escape and they may have access to the general prison population? Do we send them to other countries where they may also escape or be given amnesty by the government? Or do we put them in a relatively remote area outside the continental United States yet still under federal control? Technically speaking, that last option makes the most sense and risks the least.

The only complicated tasks are to make sure that they have the minimal protections under the law that any captured prisoner of war would have, being that the war on terror is currently raging on. Some details remain, such as if we can detain them indefinitely (as long as the war on terror continues) and how we can interrogate them, but in general it only makes sense to hold them in Guantanamo Bay, a US territory without major civilian centers and isolated from the United States. Escape to Cuba is almost impossible, given the major military presence on the border and in the territory in general (unless you’re Harold or Kumar).

What I do not understand is why the administration is so determined to close down this very convenient detention center in Guantanamo Bay. They talk about interrogation methods, but we have already stopped the controversial ones (from my understanding). They talk about more legal rights, but I do not see why they can’t have more legal rights in Guantanamo. They say that some are wrongly imprisoned, but what about the ones that are not wrongly imprisoned. We can release the innocent to whichever country accepts them, but to close down a perfectly situated detention center that can hold the suspected terrorists makes no sense. Just yesterday, families of 911 victims visited Gitmo and expressed their wish that the facility remain open. Why isn’t the administration listening? Why insist that we relocate them to the United States mainland? Why stop the trials altogether, can’t they simply revise the rules and get going?

Right now, it seems that the push to close Guantanamo has no logical basis. Seriously, the administration can turn it into a Disneyland if it wants… but instead they insist on letting them go or relocating them. The only people that benefit from relocation or release are the actual terrorists and the only effect that has is to increase the risk of terrorism around the world. The liberal administration is more interested in its power than the wishes of the people most directly affected by this tragedy. Why won’t Obama satisfy the wishes of the families of the victims of the most horrific terrorist attack on America in history? Who’s wishes is he satisfying?

-AG

Sometimes I use the term “liberal” without explaining it sufficiently. I apologize for that. Let me clarify what I mean by liberal. Technically, these are two types of liberals, I call them: classic liberals and leftist liberals. Classic liberals believe in individual rights, free markets, representative democracy, and limited government… in other words, the opposite of what Democrats represent in this country. What happened with liberalism is that it was perverted by a misunderstanding of what individual rights meant, a redefinition of rights that is leftist in nature. The leftist liberals believe that a central government should have more power, that rights and privileges must be given to and/or taken from racial or social groups, and that the inequalities caused by free market competition are undemocratic. This is what the Democrats in this country represent. This is what I refer to when I say the word liberal. Most liberals actually believe in the classical liberal philosophy but have stuck to the party that, dishonestly, still calls itself liberal. A more fitting description would be leftist.

John Locke, considered father of liberal philosophy, inspired the Declaration of Independence phrase “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”

So the question I pose to all liberals is: are you a classic liberal or a leftist liberal? If you are the former, I suggest you vote independent or conservative, because the Democrats have hijacked the classical philosophy of liberalism and twisted it beyond recognition.

-AG

Many in the West consider Iran to be a religiously conservative nation, the antithesis of liberal. This belief is mistaken. The error in this widespread belief exists because of a misunderstanding of how the Left and Religious Extremism actually complement each other. In the West, the Right is most commonly associated with religion because of our emphasis on the fact that our Creator endowed human beings the free will to choose between right and wrong and our tolerance of different faiths. Historically, religion has leaned more towards a more communal organization of human beings and so it is with Iran.

Let us begin with the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini, which sought to depose the US-backed Shah of Iran and impose a system of government with a religious, moral authority as the absolute power. In the United States, when it comes to the opposing ideologies, conservatism preaches the preservation of federalism, the division of powers, and states’ rights. Liberalism, on the other hand, posits that that central government has the right and obligation to decide uniform law for the entire nation, particularly when it comes to moral (amoral) matters. Liberals want power concentrated in the federal government and use spending, taxes, and federal law to impose their will on all states in the union. This is why the abortion debate rages on, because it applies an interpretation of privacy and what constitutes life that may not be shared by all states, so conservatives oppose it and liberals defend it. So what is the difference between Iran’s liberals and America’s liberals? The former are Islamic, interpreting divine law, and the latter are secular and amoral, adhering to a leftist ideology that denies religion and denies individual rights.

The biggest weakness of the Left has been the fact that the most notable socialists/communists have been atheists and regarded religion as the opiate of the masses. What they fail to recognize is that a society needs to be heavily drugged for them to willingly accept a socialist society, at least a long term one. Neo-socialism does not make this mistake. Castro has allowed some religious freedom. Chavez embraces his faith. Others are quickly following suit. The mainstream left in our country does not readily deny religion, it simply wants to remove it from the state completely. In the end though, absolute state power and faith in a higher power do not converge well, at least not in the modern day, due to the fact that the state must resort to force, incarceration, torture, and murder to retain its rule, while religion does not allow such immorality. This explains part of what is happening in Iran, where the state is acting un-Islamic by squashing protesters who march with Quran in hand demanding the democracy that the revolution promised. To return to the status quo in Iran will be difficult now that dictatorship is standing naked before the people, the very thing that their revolution was supposed to end. There are signs that some of the Iranian leadership may be sensitive to the will of the people, but the problem is the fact that the clerics hold absolute power.

Just like liberals oppose individual rights here at home, liberals crack down on them around the world. So is it any wonder that the liberal administration is so hesitant to oppose the liberal rulers of Iran?

-AG

One would think that the first biracial, African-American President of the United States would be interested in the civil rights of his citizens, but from the looks of it, he seems not to care about them all that much. He is being received by the NAACP on their 100th anniversary. To start, the gay community has been up in arms over the fact that president Obama is not fulfilling the promises and expectations of candidate Obama. Of course not, he’s a politician. Big surprise.

Second of all, the African-American community has criticized him for being condescending and talking down to African-Americans. Obama seems to put more emphasis on personal responsibility with the African-American community while campaigning on a platform of spreading the wealth and increased collective action. Apparently, he envisions an America that is more collective but wants to limit any past collective injustices perpetrated by one group against another. To be more direct, he has moved beyond wanting a state of divided groups vying for justice and rights to a more homogeneous collective society with heavy state involvement. [For the record, I support neither since in my belief it is individual rights that matter the most and the equality of individuals is superior to the equality of racial, ethnic, religious, or whichever social groups.]

Jackson expressed that Obama was talking down to black people

It is here where leftism and liberalism diverge… essentially, creating a society of equal rights between all people (and/or groups) does not mesh very well with creating a society of wealth redistribution and state control. The explanation for this is simple: Obama is not a product of the Civil Rights Movement in America, he is a product of a left-leaning liberal culture. The former emphasizes equal rights while the latter emphasizes equal outcomes. This is why he will increase taxes that affect rich (top brackets), middle class (capital gains, energy), and poor (tobacco, energy), not because he tries to balance the scales of social justice in one direction or another, but because he believes that the federal government should be able to dictate behavior. He will dictate to the African-American community that they need to be more responsible… of course, every race can benefit from being more responsible, so it is easy to say this without regard to the present state of race relations [which I think have improved significantly]. He will dictate to the rich that they must pay more money, not to poor people necessarily, but to the government programs that have become bloated bureaucracies. He will dictate that the auto industry needs to restructure as mandated by the state, giving majority stake to the unions while making significant concessions that end up punishing workers. He will dictate to the energy industry that they need to raise their prices, which will be passed on to the consumer, without addressing the biggest present and future polluter on Earth: China.

It is Obama’s idealism about the role of his government that makes him ignore the gritty realism of the Civil Rights Movement. When analyzed on a case by case basis, the president’s agenda benefits the expansion of the state more than any particular group… and when the state is exceedingly powerful, everyone’s rights suffer. So whenever I see Obama being hailed as a hero of civil rights in this country, I agree only insofar as he is a symbol of reaching a new level of “equality.” In practice, as president he does more to increase the power of the state to the detriment of individual rights. So as the veterans of the Civil Rights Movement applaud their symbolic victory, they should consider what he represents for the future of civil rights in this country… because Obama does not care about civil rights, he only cares for collective rights.

-AG

Identity politics. It is present in the rulings coming from the left-skewed mind of Sonia Sotomayor. It is present in the leftist tactic of classifying everyone by their social group and pandering to each separately. The problem with this approach is that once in power, the Democrats simply cannot please everyone. This is something that President Obama has learned the hard way.

I was reading this article called “Gay is not the new black” where the author makes clear that the gay community needs to stop criticizing Obama and that the African-American community’s plights have been worse than the gay community’s. Pretty silly if you ask me, given that they are supposedly on the same side, but it is a testament to what the left has done in this country. Since the majority of gay people are white in this country, it makes that community somewhat incompatible with the African-American community. Which leads me to some facts: Obama has not spent political capital on gays. That’s a fact. Gay people have all the right in the world to criticize him, as long as it’s civil. My second point is that the plights of gay people throughout history has not been pretty. There have historically never existed any safe havens for gay people, while there is an entire continent where the majority is black. To trivialize their suffering is a slap in the face to the spirit of the civil rights movement.

The lesson here is simple: identity politics cannot exist in a free and equal society. The Democrats’ vision of each racial group, ethnic group, group of similar sexual preference having a special consideration in the eyes of the government only further divides our society. We need to respect everyone’s rights regardless of “classification” otherwise one group’s gain due to race will be another group’s loss due to race. Conservatives would do well by using the inevitable rifts in the Democratic Party, rifts caused when a Gay candidate or Black candidate or Latino candidate serve their own constituencies or neglect a particular constituency. The only way that conservatives can win the votes of people interested in full participation in the American Dream is to make clear the message of conservatism. Conservatives already believe in individual freedom and human rights, we just need to cast off the image of intolerance that the mainstream media and the left has helped create. Individuals in these communities also need to realize that being seen as a category or a label only further divides us.

-AG

Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf said that the Democrats’ plan for reforming health care would drive this nation deeper into debt and substantially increase the government’s role in health care. More debt, more government. That’s all that the Democrats in Congress and the White House have to offer.

This is not a political attack. Simply look at what the Democrats have done now that they are in control of government. The Democrats have passed a largely ineffective stimulus package, a budget that has broken all historical records, increased taxes as much as politically possible, tucked an international bailout in an emergency military budget, pushed a cap-and-trade plan that will drive up energy costs and leave people without a job, and now they are trying to pass a health care plan that involves mandating citizens to comply with the government program and will lead to a weakening of the private sector. I remember the good old days when Democrats complained that Republicans spent too much money… and then as soon as they assumed power, the Democrats spent more money in the first few months than any government in history. America needs real fiscal discipline or our free spending ways will be the end of us. You would think that the recession would have taught us that.

-AG

Apparently, the Taliban captured a US soldier that wandered off base and was drunk. Now they are threatening to kill him if we do not end our military operations in two areas. What this shows is two things: try to be around fellow soldiers if you happen to get intoxicated in Afghanistan or some anti-American region and that the Taliban are hurting from our offensive operations.

The administration must spare no effort to save our soldier. We must also not surrender in the face of threats from the Taliban. We cannot yield to terror. We cannot leave a man behind. We have at our disposal satellites, drones, planes, and human resources. Let’s use them all to save this man. The image that the administration is timid and cannot stomach terror tactics has only emboldened the Taliban. Seeing the left in this country advocate a policy of reckless surrender because of, what is perceived to be, the fear of more terrorist attacks makes terrorist attacks much more valuable. Here is our opportunity to project strength and let the world know that we do not surrender to terrorist demands. The fate of countless other Americans is also at risk.

-AG

While the left in this country lures Hispanics into the socialist trap, that very same plot failed miserably in Honduras. It was there where a nation chose to defend their constitution and oppose the expansion of the power of their president. Since then, the leftists in this country have made it difficult for the Honduran people by cutting off aid, threatening international isolation, and failing to recognize the new interim government. The would-be dictator: the mustachioed Mel Zelaya. The new interim president: Roberto Micheletti. What is at stake? The future of encroaching Socialism in this hemisphere. We already know where the US administration stands.

In a sign that the socialist criminal Zelaya was not about to go down without a fight, literally, he urged Honduran citizens to take up arms against the government. This in turn caused the government to impose a curfew. Here are some more photos of Zelaya supporters:

Pro-Zelaya protesters in San Pedro Sula, Honduras

Of course, Obama, Chavez, and the Organization of American States demand the full restitution of the socialist Zelaya. While the new interim government is not willing to allow a person who has committed treason to be reinstated as president, in a show of good will, president Micheletti has offered to resign if Zelaya ends his claims to the presidency and, logically, his instigation of violence. It’s interesting to note that Zelaya, backed by Obama, Chavez, and Castro, is issuing ultimatums while Micheletti is willing to reach some compromise. Why does our government take sides with the unreasonable side, the side that demands that a criminal, a socialist, and a traitor be made president?

-AG

While many in this country tune in to the Sonia Sotomayor hearings, she brings to mind the relationship between liberalism and the Hispanic population in this country. I previously wrote about the two political philosophies and how neither of them benefited the Hispanic community completely. In my view, leftist liberalism does more to pander to Hispanics and does more long-term harm by promoting government dependence (Dems push this idea on all Americans) while conservatism too often alienates Hispanics by appealing to xenophobia. This is a general observation and by no means implies that all Democrats simply pander or that all Republicans are xenophobic, simply drawing attention to the image projected by both camps generally. This image obscures the severity of the damage caused by the Democratic Party to the Hispanic community and, more broadly, to the people of the Western hemisphere.

Let’s take the left’s position in totality. Too often, when we take into account one position or another position in isolation, we miss how a particular platform creates an actual social system and are not merely moral beliefs. Since immigration is a major topic, let us begin by considering the conditions in Latin American countries. First of all, immigration from Latin America is a complex issue but primarily can be categorized in two ways, sometimes overlapping: violence and poverty. The displacement of populations in this hemisphere has been brought about by different circumstances, in Colombia up to 3 million people have been displaced by a civil war started by communist guerrillas, in Cuba more than 2 million displaced by Castro’s communist revolution, 25% of El Salvador’s population left during the struggle between Castro-Soviet-backed communists and the government, and the list goes on. Right here in Miami, the Venezuelan community has doubled in size due to Chavez’s “socialist revolution” in their home country. The reality is that the rise of communism in Latin America and their attempts to take power by force have caused millions to leave their home countries, the majority heading right here. Of course, with instability comes a lack of investment and a rise in poverty. Unfortunately for people in the Western hemisphere, it is the Democratic Party of the United States that openly supports leftist regimes and movements. Carter is the obvious example, but recent actions taken by Obama in supporting the leftist wannabe dictator Zelaya, strengthening of diplomatic ties with Chavez in Venezuela, unilateral partial softening of the trade embargo on communist Cuba, Bill Clinton’s backing of leftist ex-president of Haiti Jean-Bertrand Aristide, etc. Historically, the Democratic Party has had a love-fest with anything remotely communist in the region (or the world, for that matter).

Violence in Latin America is also caused by drug cartels and paramilitary groups that benefit from the drug trade and the fact is that Democrats have long supported policies y that weakens the war on drugs. This is another way that the left, knowingly or unknowingly, foments violence leading to further immigration. “Most moderate and liberal Democrats have favored an approach that emphasizes prevention and treatment over interdiction and enforcement” according to this article. On the other hand, more centrist and right politicians favor a policy that tries to reduce the supply of drugs by favoring governments that fight the cartels and try to curtail the demand through law enforcement. Changes need to be made, but not in the direction of giving drug lords more freedom.

The second part of the Democratic Hispanic vote plot is their approach to the US border. The first mistake that the mainstream media and many politicians make is that they regard the issue of our borders to be an immigration issue. This is not the case. Border security is a national security issue, plain and simply. A sovereign state has the right to defend its borders against any unauthorized intrusion. Rational people in this country are more worried about violent thugs, terrorists, and drug gangs that cross the border illegally than an immigrant trying to get a job in this country. Both are concerns, but the former is a larger one. Therefore, Republicans and Democrats need to stop talking about the border as if it was an immigration issue. It is a national security issue. Unfortunately, the Democrats have undermined efforts to beef up border security. As of late, they have taken a pro-border security stand but only in rhetoric. The Democrats’ historical opposition to border security actually benefits them politically because a porous border makes it more likely that Latin American immigrants will come into this country, inflating a voter base that is firmly in their hands.

Leftist anti-sovereignty slogans have dominated the conversation

Which brings me to my third and final point, the Democrats support policies that grant more privileges to illegal immigrants. From given illegal immigrants drivers licenses to stopping the enforcement of immigration law, the Democrats want to create conditions where illegal immigrants can partake in the benefits of American society without being citizens of America society.

The rights and privileges that the left strives to give illegal immigrants makes the existence of cultural enclaves possible and only makes America that much more attractive to potential illegal immigrants. If you do not believe me, here is a summary of the Democratic Party’s platform. Living in Miami and being part of two cultures, one American and Cuban, gives me a unique perspective on what it means to incentivize the establishment of cultural enclaves. For one, those immigrants who do not wish to integrate into the system can simply choose to not learn English and work illegally while enjoying the benefits of a secure society, something that is lacking in many parts of Latin America. This creates a society that is “separate but equal” and makes not only America less cohesive but also is a burden on the illegal immigrants who must live in the shadows at all times.

“No human being is illegal” but actions that violate the law ARE

So there we have it. Collectively, the Democrats’ policies of helping Latin American communists and drug cartels, advocating for porous borders and minimal law enforcement, and then helping establish cultural enclaves where parallel, “separate but equal” sub-societies can emerge all serve to increase a reliably Democratic voter base. The problem is that most Hispanics view the Democrats as this benevolent faction looking out for their “rights” instead of seeing the truth that Democrats are drawing Hispanics into the trap of individual stagnation… from the violent streets of Latin America to the stagnant cultural enclaves of the United States, never truly becoming part of the American Dream. The left has done a great job at hiding the ugly truth and the right has done a terrible job of offering a viable alternative. The left’s “success” with Hispanics is what they try to apply to all other cultural or racial groups: keep Americans divided by highlighting the collective ethnic identity of a person, not individual identity of a person. According to the left, there are Black rights, Gay rights, Hispanic rights, Asian rights while in reality there should be only one set of rights for all: Human Rights. I urge all people, regardless of their race of ethnicity, to resist the Democratic Party’s efforts at dividing America.

-AG

Day in and day out, I hear the administration and their lackeys give interviews and write columns saying that fixing the economy is impossible without health care reform. That’s the type of talk the gets me mad. Here is an article by Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services. I understand the very loose logic they are using here, that increasing health care costs are an added burden on the economy, but to fix the economy, people need jobs, credit needs to start flowing, and small businesses need a boost. We did not get in a recession because of a health care crisis, but because of a housing crisis. Obama and company have turned their art of PR into something much more dangerous: flat out lying to the American people.

To fix the economy, we need less regulation by government on small business, less quasi-government-run firms like Fannie Mae, more oversight for government-run firms, fairer taxes, and policies that make America more competitive globally. Instead we get platitudes. Instead we get lies like “without health care reform the economy will not make it.” Apparently they had not lived a single day in America prior to the recession, where our lack of health care reform never stopped our collective prosperity. I agree that health care costs are a big problem, but that is because the government has taken it upon themselves to tax every American and create a bloated government health care subsidy system that will be unfeasible in the future. On the flip side, the free market has done what it does best, improve quality and settle on an equilibrium price that covers most people (only about 46 million uninsured, out of a population of 300 million). This means that the solution to excessive, bloated, inefficient government programs should be one that backs away from a public system solution. Instead, the Leftist-in-Chief is using this economic crisis, exacerbated by a stimulus package that simply deepened US debt without providing the jobs bonanza that they promised, to scare people into passing another government-run health care system. The definition of insanity has been on display since 1/20. A recession caused by excessive borrowing, they try to solve by borrowing even more on the federal level. An unworkable government-run health care system, they try to solve by creating yet another government program.

The solution to health care is to unleash the benefits of a free market approach while using government in a very limited fashion to make sure everyone plays fair and that no one is left behind. Mandates, more spending, and more taxing are exactly the wrong way to do things. Dishonestly lumping together the recession with health care reform is the only way the Democrats can scare Americans into accepting this type of plan.

-AG

In the land of the free, House Democrats unveiled a health care plan that will penalize the individual for not participating in the government health care plan for the collective. This is on top of the necessary tax increases that will accompany this $1 trillion plan (Democrats say that actually the bill is half that, but half of a trillion is huge regardless). Of course, Democrats made sure not to leave out the mandatory participation of small businesses that will have to contribute at least 8% of their payroll on behalf of their employees, yet another burden on the small businesses of America. The most significant issue is, of course, the government-run health insurance option which will ultimately destroy small health insurers and lead us straight to a universal government-controlled ad administered health care system.

Is this the best we can do? Tax more, spend more, and punish individuals for not complying with the state? We are losing our way. We, as a society, have decided to throw our hands up in the air and say “we need the government to take care of our every need.” The worst part about it is that not everyone knows that this push for the “public option” is really an attempt by government to take over health insurance completely. Already they have talked about mandated compliance, even before they fully control the system. A government is only justified in existing insofar as it has a public duty, so in order to increase the “purpose” of government Democrats are regulating even more personal areas of a one’s life and creating a bureaucratic framework by which to control those parts of one’s life as a means to expand their government, their power.

Of course, the president is asking that Congress put the bill on his desk by the end of the year, because if his artificially high popularity wanes, then the average American will come to realize that the government has become too powerful and must be reined in. At that point we can be sure that no such plan would pass and instead we would look for ways to let the abundant competitive and creative spirit of America help make health care affordable, not the bureaucrats and politicians who thirst for power. To awaken the still unstirred people of this country to the truth would quickly put an end to all efforts to make government bigger and more intrusive.

-AG

Just watch.

Where policy is made? So what do we trust, her supposed conversion during the hearings where she said that her judicial philosophy was “fidelity to the law?” Or her own words where she said that court was the place where policy is made? Looks like her words are coming back to haunt her, again. In a representative democracy, this would actually matter, but in the one-party state we now live in, we can be all but certain that this sort of judge will be confirmed. Surreal.

-AG

It is commendable that Sotomayor admitted that what she said was wrong and that it was not her intent, but on the case that involved the firefighters who were denied a promotion because minorities performed poorly and the white firefighters performed well, Ricci v. DeStefano, I question her judgment. For those who do not recall, her ruling on this case, which was that the city was legally justified in denying the promotions based on poor minority performance, was overturned by the Supreme Court. The problem I have with the ruling is that it looked at the “effects” of the test, particularly the written portion which was the area where minorities performed poorly, instead of the test itself. Let me be clear: a written test cannot be racially biased unless there is some racial or ethnic component to it, i.e. if there are white-only nursery rhyme lyrics that minorities do not know about. The English language should not be regarded a “racial” component. I am Hispanic. I speak English and Spanish fluently. During my entire period in school, the English language was not an obstacle and I tested, across the board, very well in all subjects. If little old me (a minority) can do this, any minorities can do this, it’s called studying. Here she is answering the question:

She says that the city could decide to deny the promotions if they believed that they could come up with a “better” test that would not show such disparities. This is absurd. In other words, the city can decide to change the test in order to skew the results in whatever direction they want in order to stave off some potential lawsuit. What about performance or qualification? The problem here with her ruling and the law in general is that it judges the fairness of the test by the outcome and not by the actual composition of the test. This means that if it was “Cuban Heritage Day” or something like that the day before the test and all of the Cuban-American test-takers were not well rested and performed poorly, then the government could re-administer the test just so that the hard-partying Cuban-Americans could get better scores. Is this fair to those who studied and were responsible? [I use Cuban-Americans as an example because I am Cuban-American] It is absurd that “disparate impact” is used to judge the validity of an inherently neutral written test. Sotomayor showed either that she blindly ruled using precedent without reviewing the facts or that she actually believes that justice is best served by judging outcome and not the neutrality of the test. Given that she considers herself to not be a “robot,” using her words, she probably falls in the latter category… which means something much more troubling for America: her interpretation of equal justice before the law focuses on outcome, not opportunity. American “equality” has never meant that all Americans must have “equal outcomes” in life, or “equal outcomes” between social classes, but rather that every American be given “equal opportunity.” The concept of “equal outcome” is the fundamental basis of socialism and, its stricter form, communism. The concept of “equal opportunity” is the fundamental basis of the American Dream.

So when I wrote before that Sotomayor figured into the larger conflict being played out in America between socialism and freedom, her own opinion, which holds that laws that promote equal outcome are what serve America best, makes my point. I wholeheartedly disagree with this vision of a socialist America, and therefore wholeheartedly disagree with her confirmation. Unfortunately, the complexity of this issue and the mainstream media focus on her being a woman and a Hispanic will not relate to the American public the grave threat to democratic values that she represents. Modern society teaches us a very important lesson here: abundance of meaningless information is as dangerous to democracy as the utter lack of information. Her race, ethnicity, and gender are meaningless with respect to the position she seeks. We need to remember that.

-AG

While right now Al Qaeda linked terrorist group Al-Shabaab seems more intent on taking over Somalia than on attacking us, a real possibility now that they control parts of the capital, the administration needs to get serious about cracking down on the group before they decide to turn their sights on us. For years I have worried that Al Qaeda sleeper cells and recruiters were infiltrated in the United States waiting for the right moment to strike, a moment of weakness when we would put our guard down. While I think that the administration is trying to create that sense of false security, Al Qaeda still has not recovered from the undeniable punishment it received in Afghanistan… but for terrorism to succeed, only a few fanatics are required. Little would I expect that Al Qaeda and its affiliates were actually recruiting in America in order to ship their terrorists to other countries, it makes sense though: knowing that they could not attack America without risking massive retaliation, they instead decided to use American citizens, the least likely to be terrorists, to conduct their missions all over the world. The ease with which Americans can get visas and travel to countries that Al Qaeda hates also makes this strategy very effective.

The two men in Minnesota who have been indicted for recruiting and assisting Al-Shabaab are a clear sign that Al Qaeda has not left our country, and since they have not left, we can only attribute the fact that we have not been attacked on the actions America has been taking since 911, the majority of that time with President Bush at the helm. While the mainstream media has thoroughly attacked the concept that Bush “kept us safe” because it did not fit with their liberal bias, the actual terrorists have kept to themselves fearing what we might do to the remains of the once robust Al Qaeda organization, a strength that only now they are recovering under the new administration’s talk-first-act-never foreign policy.

Honestly, I did not expect Al Qaeda to turn up in Minnesota, though I did hear rumors that the terrorist group had infiltrated another Midwestern state and was planning to carry out an attack on our financial institutions that would bankrupt us and then cause us to surrender to their demands: withdrawal and negotiation. But when I heard that their operative’s name sounded almost exactly like the name of their leader I thought “no way that we can’t stop this guy.” I guess I was wrong.

-AG

I try not to cover one subject excessively in one day, but the Sotomayor situation has me interested and disturbed. Her statement that her judicial philosophy is simply “fidelity to the law” was grossly insufficient. Her textbook answer of a judge’s role being not a maker of law but an applier of law revealed absolutely nothing about her. Since law can be “applied” as a judge sees fit, the real question is: how will she interpret law? Does she believe, as she implied with her ruling on the firefighters, that the existence of inequality in society due to effort and achievement needs to be undone on a racial or ethnic basis? In other words, does she believe that the “advantage” of being a member of the majority class in the United States be offset through judicial action? Should a judge’s worldview be allowed to distort the intended purpose of law?

In cases that make it to the Supreme Court, where many are not clear-cut situations, it will be these worldviews by people who pledge to be impartial that will skew law in one direction or another. Do we want justices who interpret the second amendment as not a personal right, but a collective right to be usurped by the state? Do we want justices who deny the sanctity of life and interpret that certain laws excuse some forms of murder (or what can be considered murder)? Or justices that define separation of church and state in extremely strictly secular terms, where the mere mention of a religious or moral conviction would be criminalized and sections referring to some greater power in our political documents would be stricken? It is these views that will end up shaping our society and possibly redefining our government if we are not careful. These are the issues that need to be brought up during the “roast of Sotomayor” that is supposed to take place tomorrow. While she may be confirmed regardless of what happens during these hearings, at the very least it may help bring up subjects that are often ignored in the public discourse.

-AG

Kim Jong Il is looking thin, possibly due to pancreatic cancer. While his health is in question and the issue of succession looms large, I find it fitting that the cruel dictator of North Korea, who sacrificed up to 10% of his country’s population by funding a nuclear program instead of buying the food necessary to prevent a 4 plus years long famine, now looks a little more like his subjects.

While seeing this dictator in poor health brings up conflicting emotions of pity and elation, objectively speaking, the death of a dictator who jailed, tortured, starved, and murdered millions of human beings in order to retain absolute power may prevent more death in North Korea and also prevent a possible confrontation with the rest of the civilized world if in fact his successor is, at the very least, sane. It is sad that North Korea had to endure so much pain under the boot of Kim Jong Il and his father, let’s hope that, one way or another, their suffering ends soon.

-AG

Watching the coverage of Sonia Sotomayor’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I could not help but notice that her Hispanic heritage took center stage. As a Hispanic myself, this is very insulting. While it is useful to note the biographical component of Sotomayor, what is truly in question is her fitness to serve as Supreme Court justice, not for cultural attache at the United Nations. Being poor once, being a woman, or being Hispanic do not qualify her for being a justice. Her legal judgment and experience do. The fact that Schumer, Gillibrand, and Sotomayor herself cite her heritage as such a prominent reason to consider her for this position bothers me and should bother every American. Just like no one should be denied on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and so on, no one should be given preference on that very same basis. She is an American, just like Irish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and Indian-Americans, and therefore should score zero extra points for being Hispanic or a woman. Everyone has a heritage and the promise of American equality means that no one class or group gets an advantage over another because they belong to that class or group. It is her judgment we care about.

From the looks of it, her resume seems rather unremarkable, decidedly “un-supreme.” Is the pool of candidates so shallow that we must reach into the “minority bag” and pull out the first acceptable individual? I do not know enough about this person to fully judge her, though I will be following the process more closely now that it is all but certain that the Democrats will push her confirmation through, regardless of her fitness for the job. One thing that is clear, and was mentioned by Lindsey Graham, is that if any white politician would have uttered the words that she had, their public career would have probably been finished. Imagine some white, male politician with a thorough southern drawl say:

“I would hope that a wise WHITE MAN, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a LATINA WOMAN who hasn’t lived that life.”

The uproar would have been deafening. I reject regarding one race or ethnicity or gender as superior to any other, whether from a majority perspective or a minority one. Let’s keep true to that American value that says that we are all equal before the eyes of our Creator and not, in the name of some hypocritical interpretation of “equality,” say that the minority is superior to a majority by merit of simply being a minority.

-AG

While our brave men and women fight overseas to defend our freedoms, the radical Left in this country continue trying to curb those very freedoms. America is called the land of opportunity because we have the freedom to gain from our work and not have to give it up to an oppressive central government. House Democrats are on a mission to change that. In an attempt to fund a government-run national health insurance program that will end up destroying the small businesses in this industry, the Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee took a page right out of the Communist Manifesto and proposed taxing “the wealthy” to pay for it. We already know that the administration’s definition of “wealthy” includes the middle class, see here, but the interesting thing about this proposal is that it attacks prosperity through taxation in order to fund an attack on the free market (government-run health insurance). In the name of “equality,” liberals will create a society of unequal classes: central government bureaucrats and powerless subjects. A society of crabs in a bucket.

This is the Democrats’ vision for America

The economic engine of America is not the government but the basic principle behind free markets: rewarding productivity. Democrats are openly in favor of taxing that very reward. This is yet another attempt by the ruling Democratic elite to reduce America to a society of uniform mediocrity. Will America wake up in time?

-AG

-fghan Taliban behind. While the administration thinks about negotiating with terrorists, it is important to see what we are negotiating over. First off, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, recently said that “the Taliban cannot militarily defeat us – but we can defeat ourselves.” I interpret this to mean not only that our actions can alienate the local population if there is too much collateral damage, but also that the timid administration and the similarly soft liberals in Congress are the only people who can give the terrorists a victory by leaving early, negotiating, and allowing Al Qaeda to reconstitute itself.

The victories of our troops in Afghanistan cannot be sacrificed in the name of making political points. For example, a few days ago, the Afghan flag flew over southern Helmand province, something that would never have been possible if not for our Marines driving out the Taliban. We did not negotiate with the Taliban and ask them to leave. We came in with guns drawn and defeated an enemy that specializes in running away. What our troops need is more support from everyone here in the United States, especially the Commander-in-Chief, so that we can wrap up the mission in Afghanistan, get justice for 911, and free the Afghan people from the brutal Taliban regime.

If we let our troops do their job, the Taliban and Al Qaeda won’t simply be asking to talk, they’ll be begging for mercy. To our soldiers in the field, keep up the good work.

-AG

Just as I thought that the administration and the Pakistani military were getting serious about the war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I read this article. In exchange for brokering the talks, Pakistan wants the United States to take some action with respect to India. It has long been known that Pakistani intelligence was in contact with the Taliban, the surprising thing is that “senior US officials” are actually willing to negotiate with the Taliban and make concessions to Pakistan over India. I have no problem with talking with the Taliban, just as long as the message we deliver to them is: “SURRENDER NOW.”

Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban

Ladies and gentlemen, negotiating with the Taliban essentially means negotiating with their guests, Al Qaeda. The only terms we should be willing to accept is to surrender and to stop protecting Al Qaeda. Nothing less. No power sharing deal. No amnesty. No concessions. First they need to surrender, be disarmed, and then some sort of post-war reconstruction program needs to be set up. CNN’s Michael Ware disgusts me when he says that the US cannot win. To win this, the US and Pakistan need to continue the pincer offensive until the Taliban and Al Qaeda surrender. We cannot allow Al Qaeda and the brutal Taliban regime to reconstitute themselves.

The second issue is that we should not be playing around or taking sides with two antagonistic nuclear powers. Our role in the region should be security first. To give India the impression that we are siding with Pakistan because we are weary of war with the Taliban, a group that came into power because of Pakistan to begin with, will have negative repercussions in the short and long term. I would go ahead and hear out what the Pakistanis want, but I would be very careful in adopting a posture that would destabilize South Asia.

We cannot forget that these people that the administration nonchalantly wishes to “negotiate” with harbored and protected the terrorists that orchestrated 911. 911, people! We cannot accept anything less than total surrender unless we want to show the terrorists of the world that attacking the US will only result in eight years of war. To agree to a ceasefire and pull out of Afghanistan without defeating Al Qaeda would mean that this administration would have put America in retreat around the world. Americans cannot stand for this. For those of you who have forgotten about what happened that day, please play the video below.

Never Forget. Never Surrender.

-AG

I was recently taking a walk at night in a Little Havana neighborhood smoking a cigar, something I do to relax sometimes, and I started thinking about the state of Hispanics in the United States.

To start, I need to make clear that the Miami Hispanic community is different from most other Hispanic communities because Cubans form the majority. In New York there are many Puerto Ricans and Dominicans. In most of the country, Mexicans and Central Americans make up the majority. By and large, Hispanics tend to be Democrats… but is this really in our best interest?

For those following this blog, I am obviously not a Democrat and I am of Cuban descent, so many might expect my opinion to be skewed to the right. I will not be so predictable.

Hispanics come from many different countries with many pronounced differences in culture and way of thinking. Some elements are universal and those are the ones I will address. First off, the Hispanic community is very family oriented, tends to be very religious (Catholic), and very proud of its heritage. Oddly enough, Republicans tend to identify themselves as defenders of traditional family values yet have been unable to attract a majority of Hispanics. Republicans also tend to regard faith as an important part of our society, including public life, something that most Hispanics would also agree with, yet liberal “we” remain.

On the issue of heritage, liberals have an advantage on conservatives with respect to this community. Liberals believe that government should respect and promote diversity while some conservatives believe that Hispanics should assimilate and adapt to their new surroundings. Here is where both right and left get it wrong. Government should not infringe on the rights of anyone to have any culture, but they also should not try to, in the name of equality, force anyone to do anything or adopt another culture. This means that government should not pass laws requiring private businesses to make all of their materials bilingual, trilingual, etc. it should be up to the owner(s) of that company. Hispanic immigrants come to United States knowing full well that they would eventually need to learn English and integrate themselves into the system. At the same time, this system does not require a cultural assimilation… meaning that if Mexican-Americans want to open restaurants where it is Spanish speaking only, they can do so, even if it limits their business. Diversity is a right and should be tolerated. More importantly, a hyphenated American, be they Hispanic or otherwise, can be as patriotic as a non-hyphenated one. Take me as an example, I wave the American flag like no tomorrow and my pride is hurt whenever someone disrespects it, at the same time my Cuban heritage enriches my understanding of American freedom, because my family endured communism and the complete denial of their liberty. The concept that a person is either American or not is an antiquated one. The first Americans were the native Americans, everyone else is an immigrant of some sort and everyone has a different heritage. The first political party that understands how Hispanics’ heritage enriches America will be the most successful… and the Democrats appear to be winning in this respect.

Second, when it comes to the economy, Hispanics have a strong work ethic and are very entrepreneurial, especially because they are expected to contribute to the family here and/or back in the country of origin. Hispanic small business has been growing at three times the rate of the national average in recent years. This means that the Hispanic community would best be served by the party that protects small business, Republicans, instead of taxes it, Democrats.

Yet the Democrats have been consistently able to control the message and cast Republicans as being uninterested in the Hispanic community. They say that Republicans should give Hispanics more tax “credits” that basically amount to welfare instead of creating a generally low tax environment across the board. Read this where the Democrats decry Republican policies recommending what amounts to ethnically based subsidies. I guess no one informed the 1.6 million Hispanic small businesses in existence during the Bush years that Republican policies were hurting them rather than helping them. This approach of giving a man a fish versus teaching a man how to fish may win some votes, but the entrepreneurial spirit of the community is very strong and simply needs some encouragement, not a handout. At the same time, the Democrats, self-appointed defenders of the Hispanic community, just slapped a huge tax increase on smokers, 15% of the documented Hispanic population. When it comes to business and the economy, Republicans have an edge.

Third, in terms of foreign policy, liberals have tended to side with the socialist/communist elements that have destabilized the region for so long. While Hispanics agree with some progressive ideas, in general, it is communism that has caused massive exoduses from Cuba, Colombia, Peru, Nicaragua, and the list goes on. Communism has ruined the lives of countless in Latin America and the liberals’ insistence on supporting them has only worsened Latin people’s plight. On the issue of foreign policy, Republicans, who tend to side with the free market and democratic governments of the region (at least for the last two decades or so), score more points with Hispanics. Or at least they should.

Democratic former President Carter embraces Socialist Hugo Chavez

While there are other issues to consider as well, I am going to fast-forward to immigration. Along with the issue of heritage, the Democrats’ message of some type of amnesty and granting concessions to illegal immigrants sounds more humanitarian than the Republican message of no amnesty and closed borders. At times it seems like the xenophobic elements have hijacked the party, especially when Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) speaks, a person whose every comment in one way or another offends Hispanics.

Seriously, the Republicans need to ignore most of his advice… Latin American immigrants want to come to the US, they/we want to become part of this grand experiment in democracy, not undermine it, so it makes no sense to take a hard stance against an entire ethnic group. People like Tancredo have been around throughout the entire history of this country, fearful of all types of immigrants of all colors, faiths, and cultures… only to eventually have these groups regarded as part of the American cultural quilt that is unique in this world. Ironically enough, Tancredo is Italian and is only a second-generation American, one up on me. I wonder if his xenophobia is more a product of self-loathing than anything else.

In sum, while Hispanics agree with many conservative principles, the Republican Party has failed to capture this community’s vote because it seems that it has rejected the very identity of Hispanics, calling for assimilation, closed borders, and no amnesty. Democrats, on the other hand, have done a great job of portraying themselves as in touch with the Hispanic community.

In general, neither party offers Hispanics a great choice and the main reason is that the left wants to promote class and ethnic divisions while the right plays into this by allowing xenophobia to play a central role in its policies. Both parties are treating our community like Hispanic-Americans, when in reality they should just be treating us like plain old Americans.

-AG

I was reading about the president’s visit to Africa, Ghana specifically, and it came to mind that Obama is still being accused of not being a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore ineligible to be President of the Union. This article sums up the myriad of inconsistencies when it comes to accounts of Obama’s birth. The birth certificate he offered seems to be a fake, he was described as a Muslim in official papers from Indonesia, two different hospitals have been identified as where he was born, he has dual citizenship and is therefore not a “natural born” citizen, etc.; the list is exhaustive. Personally, I thought that these accusations would be put to rest a long time ago; I assumed that Obama would release some real documents or something, but apparently the questions still remain and there are motions before the courts that are trying to get to the truth. At this moment, it seems that the establishment is sticking to its guns and will not waste time looking into these accusations. So, to all the people out there who think that Obama is the Manchurian Candidate: sorry guys, it doesn’t look like he’s going to be disqualified due to his birth circumstances any time soon.

Since the birth issue seems to be a dead end, what we really have to ask ourselves is whether the current president is defending America, our values, and our Constitution or not. Even if he were not natural born but were nonetheless very patriotic and put America first, I would have no problem… just like if he were natural born but bashed America at every turn, then that is unacceptable. Ultimately, every American must judge for themselves whether Obama is the type of person who waves the flag proudly or not.

One thing is peculiar though: while some conservatives question whether Obama was natural born, most liberals ardently believe that Obama was not born at all… he simply descended from on high. At least that’s how they act.

-AG

This post might make some people mad, but it is logical and that’s what really matters. I was discussing same-sex marriage with a friend of mine about a week ago and I boiled down what it truly meant to make it “legal.” I am not going to throw around the usual “social conservative” arguments about undermining traditional marriage, promotion of homosexuality, etc. because I actually do not believe those reasons. What worries me the most about same-sex marriage is the oft-cited justifications behind it.

Let’s start by understanding the problem that some liberals and some social conservatives have with government, oddly enough a place they converge: they do not want the government setting a social agenda for the country. The difference is that these liberals are opposed to imposing a Christian moral code on the country and social conservatives are opposed to imposing a strict amoral secular code on the country. Where they agree is where most Americans agree: government should not tell us what to do. This is where the problem with the whole same-sex marriage comes in. Proponents of same-sex marriage tend to think that the government should “defend” the right of people of the same sex to “marry,” at the very least to have rights equal to those conferred on those who are already legally “allowed” to marry. There are two ways that this can happen: either government gives certain couples special rights or the government simply recognize inherent equal rights of all people to marry whoever they choose.

By and large, from what I have read, proponents of same-sex marriage do not believe that this type of union is a special right, but rather a natural human right. In fact, just google it and read the pro-gay-marriage sites. Neither proponents of gay marriage in general nor opponents believe that the government should create special rights for particular classes of people. Same-sex marriage proponents preach “equal rights.” Which brings me to the meat of the argument.

Since proponents of same sex marriage argue that a person should be free to marry whoever they want, the extension of the definition of marriage from the previously “socially assumed limits” of heterosexual couples means that other “socially assumed limits” can be and, in fact, should be disregarded. What this means is that to accept the freedom for anyone to marry anyone opens the door to incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships. So here we get stuck: if we accept the premise that anyone has the right to marry anyone, then we are open to incestuous relationships; if we believe that some people should not be allowed to marry in our society, like close relatives, then it means that society has the right to restrict same-sex marriage if it so chooses. That’s what it comes down to. If same-sex marriage proponents do not wish to open the Pandora’s Box of any type of marriage imaginable, then they must be open to some sort of government restriction, and if they are open to giving government the power to restrict marriage, then they open the door to restrict same-sex marriage. So the more consistent proponent of same-sex marriage that believes that government should not restrict the right of people to marry should take the full-blown libertarian plunge and say that “yes, we envision a society that permits incest, polygamy, incestuous polygamy, homosexual incestuous polygamy, etc.“

What a possible pro-gay-incest marriage button will look like

This is just food for thought. It’s an argument I came up with a while back but is shared by many other people across the political spectrum. Here’s an interesting article I just read. Sometimes this argument is called the “slippery slope” argument or reductio ad absurdum, but the reality is simple: either a person is free to choose any other consenting adult or a person can be restricted. It is no stretch to say that logically and legally this type of argument for any type of marriage can be used. Here is where I need to clarify though: same-sex marriage itself will not lead to homosexual incestuous polygamous marriage but rather the explicit “freedom” to marry anyone will. So this is not inherently an argument about same-sex marriage, it is an argument about our willingness to let government decide the rules for marriage, e.g. rules possibly restricting gay marriage. So now the question is: do we want to live in a society where we can collectively choose to restrict some forms of marriage or not?

-AG

A swim club in Pennsylvania is accused of discriminating against a group of minority children. The swim club denies it saying that their membership is racially diverse and saying that they simply did not have enough capacity. But members of the swim club were heard, by the children, saying racial comments. The NAACP and the Human Relations Commission will investigate to see whether or not racial discrimination occurred.

Seriously, how is this news? There has been absolutely no confirmation of whether the swim club discriminated against the kids or not. The racist comments came from members of the club, not from the swim club personnel. Even Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, Republican turned Democrat, said this was disturbing, but nothing has been confirmed except that the kids heard racist comments. Kids should not be subjected to racism, but I am certain that this sort of thing happens everywhere on Earth. It is parents’ duty to prepare children for intolerance in the world. What this does show is that racism will not be tolerated, so in a sense, the non-newsworthiness of this story is somewhat of a good thing… but the president is multiracial, I think that racial tolerance is a national creed already… so… before people get all crazy, investigate first.

-AG

While Iranians fight for their rights, Honduras is in the midst on an international political crisis. Since the last post was about what Iranians can learn from Cuban history, it is also fitting to reflect on parallels between what is currently happening in Honduras and what already happened in Cuba.

“Commandant Cowboy, the Constitution is FIRST”

The first thing I want to express before I continue is an opinion of mine, and a fact, that breaks with the orthodoxy of the pro-democracy minded people who support the new Honduran government and the ouster of ex-president Mel Zelaya: the forced expulsion of Zelaya was technically illegal. Before you go ahead and close this browser window or tab, hear me out. According to Article 102 of the Honduran Constitution, no Honduran citizen can be expatriated or taken to a foreign country by the authorities. It is one of their rights. Now, let’s put this in context: Zelaya was violating the Constitution and the will of the people in order to acquire more power for himself… the flagrant violation of the Constitution for the end of consolidating power in the hands of one man, namely Zelaya, would lead to authoritarianism. So if you weigh the violation of one man’s right to remain in his country versus the right of millions to be free, the choice is clear. The only thing I insist is that when a people take action to preserve freedom, they do so with both eyes open and recognize what they are doing right and what we are doing wrong. That being said, history teaches us that the expulsion of Mel Zelaya was the necessary and right thing to do.

Let’s take a little trip back to July 26th, 1953. The place is Cuba. It was that day that a young lawyer known as Fidel Castro led a pathetic and failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in the city of Santiago de Cuba. Castro was captured and sent to prison. It was in prison where he gave a speech where he declared that history would “absolve” him. Less than two years later, Cuban strongman Fulgencio Batista granted him amnesty and so began a chain of events that would lead to the victory of a communist revolution that has inflicted incalculable amounts of suffering on the Cuban people… all because they freed Fidel Castro.

Castro’s reign of terror

The lesson here is clear, when the Cuban government had the chance to stop a wannabe dictator, they gave him freedom instead. So now that the powers of the world are aligned against the Honduran people and demand for the restitution of the wannabe dictator Mel Zelaya, Hondurans must not give in. To allow him back in the country will give him, his foreign backers, and the socialist elements the opportunity to destabilize Honduras, dissolve Congress, and start dismantling democracy just like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has done.

History is following a similar pattern here. Castro claimed to fight for democracy, just like Zelaya claims. Castro went from country to country getting support for his “revolution,” just like Zelaya is doing. Castro was immediately recognized by the United States after taking power, just like Zelaya is being backed by the US government now. The only difference is that the Honduran people still have a chance to stop him… let’s hope that the meeting in Costa Rica does not lead to a restitution of Zelaya. He must answer for his crimes against the Honduran Constitution and people, otherwise he will emerge as a self-proclaimed “hero” who will not stop trying to undermine democracy. The freedom of a people must not be sacrificed on the altar of international opinion.

¡Viva Honduras Libre!

-AG

I have been reading about the continuing protests in Iran and thought that maybe Cubans could offer some advice. The Cuban people, on the island and in exile, have a unique experience when it comes to “revolution” and maybe its lessons can be of use to people protesting against dictatorship in Iran. Personally, my family had/has people on both sides, communist and democratic, and we (mistakenly) fought for Fidel Castro and (correctly) against Fidel Castro, a common phenomenon.

The first lesson of the Cuban revolution is, if you want to preserve the democratic character of your movement, do not create a cult of personality around a single person. Mousavi is not the chosen one. Men cannot choose amongst themselves who will be the one. I think that Iranians understand this already, given that they backed Khomeini and ended up with the system they are fighting against today.

The second lesson is that the use of force against a regime that is willing to use even more force against you is foolish. Non-violence is preferable. This was a miscalculation of the Cuban exiles who landed in Bay of Pigs, in order to fight the Castro regime, and made the erroneous assumption that the United States would stick by their pledge and assist the anti-communist forces. In the end, the US did not assist the Cubans and communism became further entrenched. Since then, no violent action has been able to match or beat the regime’s repressiveness. So, especially in a mass movement in the modern age, do not engage in violence else the state will crush the pro-democracy movement and even more people will die.

The third lesson is briefly mentioned in the second: do not rely on foreign powers. This is Iran’s democratic “revolution,” not any other country’s. No one has Iran’s interests at heart, except Iranians. The problem with the Cuban exile community is an over-dependence on the United States, something that, after decades of broken promises, has made modern-day Cubans realize that the future of their country is in their own hands. Relying on the US only wasted their time… and with this administration in power, Iranians should not expect any help whatsoever. The current president wants to deal with the current government, not the people of Iran. It’s a sad fact.

The fourth lesson is: do not leave Iran. Too many Cubans left Cuba for America, thinking that they would return once communism failed or was defeated. This never happened, specifically because the only people who could or would be able to defeat communism ended up dispersed around the world, with the highest concentration in Miami. It was the erroneous belief that the United States would fix everything that drew everyone who could leave away from the island. This ended up strengthening the communist regime and denying the pro-democracy movement talent, manpower, and funds. My own family left, the vast majority in eighties, after more than twenty years of “revolution” destroyed their country. Iranians cannot afford to leave, though I suspect that they weren’t even considering that.

The fifth and final lesson is: be brave. Since leaving is out of the question and violence against the state is not advisable, the only thing left for the Iranian people is to stand up to the regime, courageously demand democracy, and report everything that happens. The truth is the only weapon that can defeat governments that survive by controlling information… but this means that protesters will be naked before the repressive machine of the state. Iranians must be brave. From what I have read, they already are.

So in a nutshell, these are some lessons that the new pro-democracy protesters can learn from the Cuban experience. Hopefully, they will be able to create a society that truly respects the will of the people and not the will of a small elite that interpret law how they see fit. While the official position of the United States is not firmly in support of the protesters, the unofficial position of American citizens is always on the side of freedom. We pray for Iranian freedom and safety.

-AG

A recent CNN poll about President Obama shows us that confidence in the chief executive has been dropping, particularly when it comes to toughness. [Insert sarcastic inflection here] How surprising. First of all, it should not have been so high to begin with, something I blame on the mainstream media, the emerging subculture of dependency in this country, and the general disinterest in politics from your average citizen who is too busy studying, working, etc. to worry about the national beauty pageant that presidential elections have become. Second of all, the approval ratings are still way too high. Some measures dropped significantly, but most just slightly went down. The one that bothers me the most is the question that asked whether the president agrees with them on the issues they care about and 56% said yes. Even though this figure is down 7% from February, I would think that by now the American public would have realized what Obama “cares” about.

First on the list: himself. Evidence: He re-enacted 911 by flying planes dangerously close to skyscrapers and the Statue of Liberty simply for a photo-op. He later joked that his daughters are grounded for taking Air Force One on a joy ride.

Second: Anti-Americanism. Evidence: Making concessions to our enemies, apologizing for defending our interests and allies around the world, betraying democracies, siding with tyrants over pro-democracy demonstrators, abandoning allies, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.

Third: Socialism. Evidence: He said that “spreading the wealth” around was good, increased taxes on small businesses, higher capital gains taxes, increased spending of taxpayer money, increased national debt, bigger government, nationalization of GM, Chrysler and other companies, creation of a nanny-state, etc.

Fourth: himself.

So… there you have it… 56% of Americans believe in Obama’s cult of personality, anti-Americanism, and Socialism according to this poll. I do not believe that this is the case. I believe that the mainstream media has done a fantastic job at promoting the Rockstar-in-Chief… though to be fair, I think that the media has started to be a little bit more objective lately (emphasis on little). What this shows is that disinformation is more prevalent than information, something that needs to change. This should be another wake up call for Americans… if we want to be defined, as a people, by our blind adoration of a mortal man, then we can continue being followers. If we want to be independent-minded, free people, then we need to hold our elected officials accountable and question everything. Let’s hope we haven’t grown tired of our rugged individualism yet.

-AG

Gun control. It is a subject that comes up every time there is gun violence in America. It is usually brought up by people who believe that the human being has no right to decide anything for themselves. They believe that people are children who must be denied and granted certain things, told what to do, and told what to think. It is a system of belief that rejects the basic American value: freedom. Recently, NFL star Steve McNair was killed by his girlfriend, Saleh Kazemi, apparently because she thought he was cheating on her and was distraught over her financial situation. She shot him several times. On cue, the reactionary anti-second amendment crowd start hinting at more gun control laws and restrictions. The problem was that Kazemi was under the legal age to buy a gun, but she was able to buy it anyways from “an undisclosed private source.”

The idea is that, somehow, it was the ability to buy the gun and not the person who murdered McNair. This makes no sense… which brings me to the story of my former best-friend.

My former best-friend was killed by his girlfriend years ago for the same reasons described above. Even the circumstances were similar since my friend was also killed in his sleep. Well, here in Florida, where gun laws are not as strict as other places, this girl decided that she would kill my friend… only she would not use a gun. Instead, she used a heavy electric guitar and a knife. She ended up smashing his head in with the guitar and then immediately afterward stabbed him more than a dozen times in the face and chest. Blood was everywhere. Guns were nowhere. My friend died regardless. Now, do we write to Congress to outlaw electric guitars? Or knives? Or crazy girlfriends? Of course we don’t. The reality is that this girl, who shall remain nameless, killed my friend, just like Kazemi killed McNair… it was not the weapon, but the wielder.

Attacking the second amendment simply because some people abuse it would leave other such freedoms defenseless before government power. Using tragedy to further this political agenda is despicable. Using the illogical assertion that weapons, not people, kill people is just as bad. It is under the guise of security and well-meaning legislation the we most quickly will lose our rights.

-AG

Sending messages to the world that the United States is more about talk than action is a dangerous thing. Yet the administration continues to do just this. In a surprising about-face, American and Afghan forces initiated an offensive operation (Operation Khanjar) against the Taliban last week. Thus far, the operation has been “relatively successful.” I applaud the decision to fight our enemies instead of begging them to talk to us. Unfortunately, the scope of this operation is limited (Helmand province) and if the Taliban are going to be defeated, we will need more than the 4,000 we are sending to clear and hold specific areas. A US commander has already expressed that we need more Afghan troops to supplement our troops that are making up the majority of the forces taking part in the operation.

As a first step, this offensive is a good move, but we need to get serious about fighting the Taliban. We need to vastly increase the pressure on the Taliban and press on other parts of the country before the Taliban get too entrenched. The administration must make it a priority to use as much force as necessary as quickly as possible to totally defeat the Taliban. Until that time, half-measures and incomplete action will end up giving the enemy the breathing room they need to prolong this war and continue attacking American troops. Let’s pray that the administration realizes the need for swift and decisive action sooner rather than later. Let’s also pray for the safety our the brave men and women defending America from the suicidal extremists that hit us on 911 and their benefactors.

-AG

While Obama insists that democratic Honduras make a socialist would-be dictator the president of their country and denies our ally, democratic Israel, the ability to stop a nuclear attack by Iran, he openly embraces the country formerly known as the Evil Empire as it becomes less and less democratic. On Monday as I relaxed in a Key West bar, I watched the mainstream media herald the “peace-in-our-time” agreement reached between US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. First of all, let’s put this new agreement in context. Former presidents Bush and Putin previously worked out a deal to reduce warheads to 1,700-2,200 to be concluded by 2013 while in this agreement Obama and Medvedev agreed to cut them by 1,500 to 1,675… making the new agreement only slightly lower, contrary what the mainstream media would like us to think.

Second, if we want to talk about serious nuclear disarmament, then George W. Bush is your man. The former president cut our nuclear weapons stockpile by 50% of 2001 levels by the year 2007. Of course, don’t expect the anti-Bush liberals to embrace the former president because of this. Even Republicans criticized Bush for his actions. I, for one, do not think that huge arsenals of nuclear weapons are necessary if we can get Russia to reduce their own stockpiles… and the idea of weapons that can blow up the world many times over gives me pause. We already have other weapons in our arsenal that can totally annihilate the enemy without bringing about a nuclear apocalypse.

Third, the true result of the meeting with Medvedev was the reduction of our influence in the former Soviet republics. Obama explicitly pointed out that he wishes to negotiate both nuclear weapons and anti-missile defense programs. At least he did not completely scrap plans for the missile shield, but he has put the plans in jeopardy at a time when North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons and missiles. At the same time, Russia has allowed for NATO to transport supplies through its territory for the war in Afghanistan which is more of a liability than anything else. Once we start using Russian-territory supply routes for our troops in Afghanistan, it will be much easier for Russia to demand that NATO back off from extending its alliance to Ukraine and Georgia, countries that Russia considers to be within its sphere of influence. So far, Obama has not made any commitments except to say that the sovereignty of those countries should be respected and that NATO should not be confronting Russia. We must remember that Russia just invaded Georgia late last year on the premise that it was “protecting Russian citizens” in Georgia. The truth is that NATO cannot afford to act without US leadership and with the ever-so-timid Obama at the helm, Georgian inclusion in NATO may lead to direct war with Russia. Obama will not risk war nor will he risk his supply route through Russia.

Like almost everything Obama has done, US “gains” in this negotiation actually make Russia stronger and America weaker. While I originally set out to praise Obama for not “giving away the store” in Moscow, the fact that the bar is so low made me put this meeting with Medvedev in perspective. All in all, reducing nukes is a good thing as long as no other country has an advantage, while dismantling missile defense programs and letting Russia gobble up its neighbors is a terrible thing. We came out losing on this one, but not as much as I thought. Sadly, if foreign policy negotiations were like poker, Obama would lose every match… despite always having a Royal Flush.

-AG

In the United States, if a person is faced with mortal danger, they can take deadly action in self-defense. Only as self-defense. This means that if a person takes a shot at you while screaming “I’m going to eliminate you” and then you can use reasonable force to stop him/her, including deadly force. I’m no lawyer, but that’s more or less how the law goes… unless the aggressor is Iran and the judge is Obama. Apparently, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States believes that it is prudent to give Iran an indefinite amount of time to develop nuclear weapons by asking, pleading, and begging for direct talks without preconditions. Worse still, the POTUS believes that despite Iran’s repeated calls for the annihilation of Israel, the Jewish state does not have the right to defend itself from an eventual nuclear-armed Iran. So, ladies and gentlemen, if a person adopts a policy that enables the development of nuclear weapons by a country that wants to destroy Israel and then tells Israel that it does not have a “green light” to stop said country from developing nuclear weapons, is that person helping defend Israel or enabling a nuclear attack on Israel? And as a second question, what would a nuclear attack on a nation of about 6 million Jewish people be called?

-AG

While Americans recover from the Independence Day festivities, the international community has continues its relentless assault on Honduran sovereignty and democracy. With the mainstream media and international organizations calling the court-ordered arrest and expulsion of ex-president Mel Zelaya a coup d’etat, Honduras has had to withstand threats of invasion, threats of sanctions, the cutting off of US aid, the cutting off of World Bank aid, demands to violate the Honduran Constitution, demands to restore the criminal Mel Zelaya to power, and threats of further isolation.

Let’s be absolutely clear: Mel Zelaya was, according the the Honduran Constitution, their Supreme Court, their legislature, his own political party, the Catholic Church in Honduras, and the military, attempting a power-grab that is 1) illegal and 2) treasonous. The Honduran Constitution calls the succession process from one president to the next an integral and inviolable part of said document, something that Zelaya was trying to change. The Honduran Constitution explicitly calls for the defense of the Constitution as the principal duty of all branches of government and of the military. Constitutionally, the courts, the legislature, and the military were obligated to stop Zelaya.

Despite this fact, the Organization of American States issued an ultimatum to restore Zelaya to the presidency by today. Honduras resisted. The president of the United States demanded the restitution of the socialist criminal Zelaya. Honduras resisted. Zelaya was attempting to re-enter Honduras accompanied by the UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto, the head of the OAS, the leftist Presidents Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, and Fernando Lugo of Paraguay. Honduras resisted. They, as a sovereign nation, limited access to their airspace and national territory in order to avoid the inevitable bloodshed that would ensue if Zelaya could rally his extremist supporters, pictured below, to riot.

What is the world coming to when a sovereign nation that has not threatened anyone, cannot choose, via elected representatives of the people, to defend their own Constitution? I hope that the situation in Honduras gets resolved soon and I denounce every single person and institution that is taking the side of communist dictatorship under Zelaya over the will of the free and proud people of Honduras. To surrender their national sovereignty to the whims of unelected, foreign, and international powers is to invite the very thing that Zelaya’s removal intended to prevent: dictatorship over the Honduran people. Socialism is spreading in the Americas and it is about time that someone stood up and declared “NO MORE.”

-AG

I’m sure that many of you have had the (dis)pleasure of debating with ideologues of the leftist variety, especially given their prevalence in the revisionism-saturated society in which we live today where current presidents extol the virtues of appeasement and reach out to holocaust-denying demagogues bent on acquiring nuclear arms. The problem with these individuals is that they hold on to their political beliefs as absolute fact and twist and bend truth in order to fit their world-view. It happens on the right too. In my life, I have argued with my own father, a victim of the communist Castro regime, who ardently supported the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet simply because he was not a left-wing dictator while I denounced him for simply being the other side of the coin of despotism. The denial of freedom, whether by a right-wing or left-wing dictators, results in the same thing. While it is a fact that left-wing ideologies, particularly communism, have killed more human beings in the history of our species than any other ideologies, the right-wing varieties also have their fair share of bodies. But even Hitler, often called a right-wing dictator, was the leader of the Nazi party, the National Socialist Party of Germany, which has many similarities to communism: race conflict (class conflict), authoritarianism, militarism, primacy of the collective rather than the individual, etc. Historically, it seems that Communists are those that embraced Marx and Fascists simply reject Marx, while creating very similar types of authoritarian governments. The danger of these ideologies is simple: the disregard for individual rights eventually leads to the violation of individual rights in the name of the collective good or some grandiose goal or destiny.

This brings me to the issue of ideology in general. A dogmatic view of how the world should be is the fastest way to remove logic from a discussion. This is an important lesson for conservatives. Conservatives in America must become more pragmatic, especially since conservative principles are more in line with practicality than liberal ones. Conservatives must reject an approach that posits the absolute infallibility of one argument. An example is free markets, to merely claim that a free market system is superior to a centrally planned economy because it is “free” does a disservice to the philosophy of freedom. A historical account of capitalist success plus a common-sense economic approach can easily destroy any argument from the Left that posits that only a large bureaucratic government can adequately manage the distribution of goods and satisfaction of individual needs. This is why the Left must use slogans instead of arguments. They say “change,” “choice,” “hope,” “progressive,” and a slew of other terms that mean very little. On the other hand, we conservatives use words like “freedom,” “limited government,” “national security,” “fiscal responsibility,” “life,” etc. to describe our positions, words that mean much more to nearly everyone. Of course, party slogans themselves are not enough, a rational explanation of the policy we advocate is what people need; at least in a representative democracy where the voter is, ideally, informed. Often, ideology is the enemy of representative democracy and reasoned argument.

The reason I speak of ideology is because in my personal life, I have known individuals whose perception of the world has been hijacked by certain circumstances and experiences in their lives. In my life, my family’s experience with communist totalitarianism has influenced my view of the world by providing me a clear example of how communism destroys lives (as would fascism), but this example has not influence me enough to denounce any liberal as a cold-blooded murderer nor to denounce any left of center person/government as criminal. I simply believe that they are doing a disservice to individual liberties and should be nudged in the right direction. I believe that a reasoned discussion can persuade the reasonable elements of the Left to see the benefits of protecting the individual and realize that a bloated government simply costs Americans more money and gets very little done. I believe that the inherent optimism of a philosophy of freedom, the optimism that anyone can achieve anything if they try hard enough, can save people from the alternative: the pessimism that people cannot do anything for themselves and need a nanny or big brother to take care of them. Other people, though, are too far gone to be reasoned with.

A perfect example is a recent discussion I was having with a colleague about issues of constitutionality, democracy, and socialism. This colleague of mine comes from a family that lived in a country that was under right-wing military rule for decades, at least one of this person’s family members was persecuted by the government for exercising their right to criticize the government. Due to this family history, my colleague now equates “military” and “right-wing” with “evil” and regards American foreign policy, historically, as being equally “evil.” My colleague has even expressed that if forced to choose between living in a fascist or communist state, that the communist would be preferable. The fact that the crimes of one authoritarian regime that was “right-wing” would make left-wing totalitarianism “preferable” is offensive to logic, especially given their body counts. What bothers me is that there are many individuals like this who have made Blame America First or anti-right-ism a way of life and would stand next to terrorists, criminals, and tyrants simply to make political points. They are indoctrinated early in life, disregard fact and reason and go on to become lawyers, politicians, teachers, and journalists. They take advantage of a free society to advocate for a society that would deny freedom in the name of historical justice or some abstract concept of “equality.” They do not realize that if they lived under a communist regime, their counter-establishment mentality would lead to incarceration, exile, torture, and/or death. They hide behind the first amendment while taking shots at every human right. They denounce our servicemen and women who risk life and limb to defend the very freedoms they enjoy and try to eradicate. They seek to destroy the achievement of the individual for the sake of the mediocrity of the collective. They mistake our freedoms for tyranny and mistake real tyranny for freedom. They are unreasonably convinced of a worldview that will take facts out of context and subject others to a uniformity of opinion. As a conservative who tends towards pragmatism first, as we all ultimately do, I welcome dissent, for it is through the fires of debate that truth can arise. Liberals wish to squash dissent (see the(un)Fairness Doctrine). Liberals have, as of late, become even more entrenched in Leftist ideology openly advocating policies that weaken America abroad and damage the economic engine that has made us a Superpower. This leftward movement of American liberalism has made me increasingly worried over the state of our republic… and to be able to counter this threat, we must be willing to call this political movement its true name: COMMUNISM. So what would that make the politicians and officials that are moving America toward a state of increased government and reduced freedoms?

-AG

North Korea fired off 7 ballistic short-range missiles today in an attempt to send a message to the United States. That message? “Your president is unwilling to take any serious action against us.” But Americans across the country are too busy celebrating our country’s independence from tyranny to care at the moment. Hopefully, the administration will address the North Korea threats before they perfect their technology and build more nuclear weapons… I don’t know what it will take for Obama to realize that a rogue nation armed to the teeth with nuclear bombs is bad for our national security and for world peace.

-AG

While the Defense Department eyes North Korea, nearby in Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has announced that she will be resigning this month and will not be seeking another term as governor. People are speculating that she is doing this in order to run for President in 2012. My take on this is pretty straightforward: I don’t like it. One reason I opposed Obama was his utter lack of experience, something that the nation is now witnessing as he fumbles from not meddling in despotic Iran to meddling in democratic Honduras. Not completing a single term as Governor reminds me of Obama not completing one term as Senator. To be clear though, I believe that Sarah Palin’s instincts reflect American values more so than Obama’s. Also, if Palin decides to run for president without even completing one term as the chief executive of her state, then her opponents will charge that she is simply a political animal willing to leave things undone for her own personal gain. Personally, I think that she should finish out her term and then not run for re-election, so she can point to a completed term as governor as evidence of her leadership. The question that the media will ask is: what kind of leader leaves before her term is up? Hopefully, Palin will be able to answer questions raised by her early retirement.

Though I disagree with her move, I understand her decision to leave early since she seems to do better on the national stage that in her own state. Given the relentless attacks she endured from the media which engaged in “gotcha” questioning while giving Obama a pass on nearly everything, she definitely has the stones to deal with an anti-Palin mainstream media. Now she just needs to clarify what she has in mind for America.

One thing is a fact though, if HALF of a term as senator qualifies someone for the presidency, then Palin’s near-full term as governor makes her a shoo-in.

-AG

As Americans get ready to celebrate the Fourth of July by shooting off some fireworks, North Korea seems intent on firing off some rockets of its own around the same time. Yesterday they fired off some short-range missiles off its east coast, trying to perfect their technology and defying world opinion at the same time. At the same time, the British ambassador to North Korea reported that the communist regime refuses to engage in negotiations over its nuclear program, one of the biggest threats to our national security.

Ironic that while the president of the world’s most powerful nation begs dictators and terrorists around the world for direct talks without preconditions, the North Korean regime rejects such talks. Actually, it makes sense: the longer that the US wastes time in pushing for more talks, the more time they have to produce more nuclear weapons and fine-tune their missiles. The administration better start putting on their serious faces when dealing with the enemy, otherwise they will continue to threaten us and defy the will of the civilized world. I don’t understand how the administration came up with the idea that projecting weakness around the world would keep America safe.

-AG

Seriously, he didn’t see this coming? Colin Powell, the “Republican” who broke ranks and endorsed Barack Obama over war-veteran, former Vietnam prisoner-of-war, fiscal-disciplinarian John McCain, today expressed “concern” over the new administration’s excessive spending and the expansion of government that all of these programs will bring about. What part of Obama’s liberal campaigning did Powell not understand? Obama promised to raise taxes, promised to raise energy prices, promised to appease America’s enemies, promised to “redistribute” America’s wealth, promised to spend us into oblivion and yet Powell still endorsed him. Obama explained himself pretty thoroughly during the campaign, was Powell not listening, and if he wasn’t listening then why did he endorse him? This, unfortunately, gives credence to the Rush Limbaugh accusation that Powell only endorsed Obama because of race. Of course, I think that he endorsed Obama for the same reason that many other Americans voted for Obama: to reject Bush. Oddly enough, McCain, who considers probably considers himself nothing like Bush, was fighting against an anti-Bush sentiment that was being incessantly pushed by the mainstream media. But back to the issue, for Powell’s sake, I hope he realizes the gravity of his mistake in endorsing such a liberal for the post of leader of the free world and I hope he comes back to the party reformed and repentant. Republicans should forgive his momentary, though infinitely damaging, lapse of judgment… else they alienate all the other Obama voters who will eventually come to their senses.

-AG

The Dow falls 223 points, 2.6%, because of unemployment numbers that just do not stop worsening. Since the passing of the “job-creating” and “job-preserving” Stimulus package, Americans have been getting laid off consistently. One reason is that the Stimulus spending has been merely a trickle, with most of the heavy spending to be done next year… the problem with that is this: this recession will eventually end due to the cyclical nature of the free market, it has always happened and it is expected. To initiate heavy stimulus spending during a “natural” upswing in the market will do two equally disturbing things: it will make the general public erroneously believe that it was the government’s economic intervention that led to the recovery and it will unnaturally improve the performance of the market leading to bubbles that will eventually bring us back into a recessionary period down the road. Even if the recovery comes later, the public will still be given the impression that the stimulus was effective while leaving the national debt at the highest levels in history. How do we measure the effectiveness of the stimulus and differentiate it from the normal US business cycle? The only thing that can be accurately measured from this stimulus is the inflation of the federal government and the cost to the taxpayer, two things that will end up burdening the economy in the long run and may lead to worse recessions in the future.

The problem with future recessions in a country where we have more than doubled the national debt and where the value of the dollar has gone down is that any future attempts at “stimulus” will not be possible or effective. This is what happened in Europe, where government spending has been at such high levels that they were unwilling and unable to pass stimulus packages like we did, and guess what? Europe’s recovery is proceeding just fine without excessive stimulus spending. Even though their unemployment levels are worsening, Europe’s unemployment is still decidedly lower than ours. What the government should be trying to do is avoid burdening the taxpayer with more expensive government, more taxes, and more free market restrictions. Taxing future America excessively is no solution for “saving” present America.

-AG

When the Obama campaign promised to put more money in people’s hands, except for the top earners of course, he was not kidding. For those who have been following the blog, you may be asking: “Doesn’t he already have another post with a similar title?” Yes I do, this one. But while my previous rant was based on the fact that the government was simply printing more and more money as the solution to the financial crisis, now I have graphs. See below how the value of the dollar has dropped since the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama:

The currencies are the Australian Dollar, Canadian Dollar, Swiss Franc, Euro, British Pound, and Russian Ruble. I did not include the yen, because they have been doing even worse than we have, the Hong Kong Dollar, nor the Chinese Yuan because these last two are linked to the dollar, so the exchange rate is flat. With a weaker dollar, this means that people will now need much more money to buy basic goods… in fact they will need thousands… in fact they will need the Obama Thousand Dollar Bill!

I suggest that the Treasury start printing these bills as soon as possible so that they can begin phasing out the extremely outdated “one-dollar-bill.” Maybe later they can mint the sought-after Clinton Silver Ten Thousand Dollar Coin, made of pure environmentally-safe, biodegradable plastic. Sure it will decompose in a few weeks, but by then you’ll be using much higher denominations, like the proposed Kennedy-Obama Hybrid Hundred Thousand Dollar Bill, here’s the artist’s rendering:

Anyways, as China continues to push for a new global currency and the dollar continues looking as shaky at it does, the above scenario may be in our near future as long as this administration continues to push for more printing, more borrowing, and excessive spending. So, as the anti-Federal Reservists and Ron Paul “revolutionaries” have been preaching, buy gold… at least until we get a fiscally competent government at the helm. And to all those people who have searched for “1000 dollar bill” on google, search no more, I am here.

-AG

I am adding the song “For the Love of Money” by the O’Jays… enjoy

The administration warns of economic catastrophe if Congress does not pass astronomically huge spending proposals. The administration proposes a budget that will end up costing the taxpayers $10 trillion. Now the president is pitching his plans to create a government-run health insurance programs that will end up costing $1 trillion or more. The effects of a government-run health insurance program, from here on to be called ObamaCare, are obvious: ObamaCare will directly compete with private insurers, causing some or all of them to fail, leaving more people uninsured, leading to more people relying on ObamaCare. The exodus of people leaving private insurance for ObamaCare will leave the entire health insurance industry in the hands of a few major corporations and the government. Of course, with more and more people under the direct care of the government, the costs of such a system will increase, in other words: the taxpayer will end up paying for it. Luckily, not all Americans are convinced that ObamaCare is the right answer, though a majority are still drinking the O-kool-aid.

With the skyrocketing cost of running a government that will be charged with taking care of more people, taxes must go up. The net effect of all of these changes being introduced by the Obama administration changes only one thing in America, the rate at which Americans become more indebted to the state, or more specifically to the quasi-private Federal Reserve and foreign governments that own US debt. While the people of America heralded the end of an old order by electing the first multiracial president, this agent of “change” has, through empty party slogans and sweet-talk, rammed irresponsible spending through Congress and opened America up to negotiating with terrorists and dictators. The Democrats, in their supposedly “noble” attempts to redistribute wealth and despite their assurances that only the rich would be taxed, have started creating a system that taxes universally. Already they have increased the price of tobacco products which affect the poor disproportionately and the House passed the cap-and-trade bill that will substantially increase the cost of every product in the name of “environmentalism,” when in actuality it will not help the environment all that much. The Republicans have not done much better, being unable to clarify their message or retain party unity in the Senate and House and losing election after election to the appeasement/spending-minded Democrats. Republicans became mired in the culture wars, in an inability to properly communicate the pressing need for interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, and the “general consensus” that Bush mismanaged everything he touched. At this point in American history, Republicans and specifically conservatives have the best chance at reversing the national emergency that is the Obama domestic policy and to do so, they need to reach out to the more fiscally conservative Democrats and to independents. If they fail, then a system where the state redistributes wealth wholesale and starts the rationing of goods and services (such as healthcare) will rise in America. Be not fooled by the rationalizing of the administration or the “well-meaning intentions” of the government: this is called Socialism. The outrageous policy of increasing the national debt will end up turning all Americans into indentured servants… how ironic that the president who claims the mantle of Lincoln would have such an effect. I can’t wait to hear the “Subjugation Proclamation.”

-AG

The opposition leader who lost the Iranian presidential elections two weeks ago, Mir Hossein Mousavi, further urged his supporters today to keep up the fight for the people’s rights. This comes after the Iranian authorities validated the outcome of the election, after thousands have been arrested, after an indeterminate number of deaths at the hands of the state sponsored militia, the Basij, after an opposition newspaper was shut down by the government, and after the Iran National Security Council told Mousavi to back off.

The greatest hope for an end to state sponsored terrorism and authoritarianism is when the people unite behind a clear cause, one that defends the rights of a people to determine their own future and their own government. Unfortunately, the Iranian people are faced with a government that is willing to use force to defend itself, even against its own people, and whose rule is “justified” by claims of divine authority. The best weapon against such oppression is the truth. The more that the Iranian people can transmit news about what is occurring, the more photos they upload, the more videos the distribute, the better the chances that this popular uprising against dictatorship can achieve some measure of success. The more irrefutable proof that the government is engaging in behavior that is against morality, by murdering innocents, denying the truth, etc. the more that the regime will lose legitimacy among its supporters. Already, more and more elements of Iranian society are rejecting the regime’s legitimacy. Furthermore, help from the US and the free world will only help the protesters. Contrary to what this article says, money from the US will not undermine the resistance movement because the Iranian people have been listening to the constant denunciations of the US and are numb to further accusations. Just like Americans are now largely unaffected by advertisements because of their near universal presence in our society, Iranians will not care so much about yet another accusation hurled at the US or the west, after all, it is not the west that rigged the elections. The US needs its own revolution against the ever-expanding federal government and ever-worsening national debt… else we all become slaves to the institutions that own that debt, foreign governments and the Federal Reserve.

-AG

France is debating whether or not the wearing of a burqa, the traditional Islamic woman’s “tent,” violates their laws. Apparently, this is a provocation to the extremists known as al Qaeda and they have vowed revenge on France for the “harassment” of their people. It is times like these, when a piece of clothing is enough to declare holy war on a country, that I realize that the idea that we can somehow reason with this type of enemy, or engage in direct talks without preconditions, is completely foolish. So when any proponent of infinite diplomacy and zero action posits that negotiation is the only way, the rational response to those starry-eyed idealists is “you can’t reason with the unreasonable.”

-AG