I was discussing today with my father the conversation I had with the libertarian and the liberal a few days back and it took the usual turn with him accusing the liberals in America of being communists. For those of you who do not have Cuban parents, it may be a bit difficult to understand that everything gets related back to their experiences (actually traumas) back in Cuba under socialism, you know, the system that gets praise from Michael Moore for providing “free” education and “free” health care (and free oppression) for all.

I like listening to older Cubans (and younger ones too) speak with absolute clarity about American politics, for the movie we are watching they have seen before… but there is a small flaw in their thinking: ideas are mired in specific experiences and not fully applicable to our situation in the US. People who experienced communism/socialism in other countries have heard this rhetoric and have seen these actions before, so they know it is communism/socialism… they know what it is, but they don’t really know why… and the why is the important part. So, in the midst of the conversation, I asked who and what he thought was the reason behind it all, behind our movement towards a government-run society? His answer was a smattering of leftist personalities and can be summed up by saying the far left wing of the Democrat party. In a sense, I agree that this is part the who… but then again it is the why that matters. So I presented my argument, that went something like this:

There are three types of people who move this leftist “conspiracy” forward: the idealistic useful idiots, the power-hungry communists, and the corporate opportunists. As an aside, the term “useful idiots” while attributed to Lenin was also used amongst the underground anti-Castro movement within Cuba to deride those who actively participated in the organized mobs, in the “chivaton” culture (ratting out your neighbors for “thought crimes” against the regime, amongst other things), and those involved with the general repressive machinery of the state. I found this interesting.

Anyways, back to the three classes of Leftists. The first group is the easiest to describe for it includes those people who truly believe that the poor masses of people cannot make decisions for themselves and need a big government to run their lives for them. These are the people who believe that inherently man is evil, egotistical, and ignorant and that they need to be reformed and re-educated so that they will be happy living in a collectivist state. It is elitism that comes from their belief that “they” know best what is good for us. These people are everywhere in society and help push along this agenda. We can refer to them as “progressives.”

The second class of people that I believe drive this agenda furiously are the power-hungry communists, but unfortunately, communists is not a good term to use, because the actors in this class have different motives for advocating the mass redistribution of wealth. This group of people are the ones who actually set the agenda for the progressive movement, the type of people that make their way onto some sort of Glenn Beck list of pinkos. Most of the people who have met and shaken hands with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or any of these other sociopaths are included. The reason that simply meeting these people is indicative of their aspirations and worldview is straightforward: once you come into physical contact with evil, you know that they are evil. There is no way that the people who meet mass murderers somehow believe that they are innocent; I cannot believe that people are so stupid; I cannot believe that Sean Penn and his ilk have not seen that cold evil in the eyes of their “role models.” Those who actively support evil people, including Jimmy Carter, are part of this “conspiracy” not merely because they believe that only a well-engineered society, from top down, is the answer for humanity but because they want to be the vehicles for that change… they want history to record their names as the leaders of this abomination they call “progress.” In the name of progress they link any and every social cause they can think of, from climate change to immigration to the anti-war movement to gay “rights” to animal rights, etc. but in almost each and every case, they require that the state interfere in society and advocate some form of wealth redistribution. By state interference I refer to government-engineering of everything from economy to culture, that citizens can no longer choose for themselves but must be told what to think, what to believe, and what how much they can make. In the Cuban case, and the Venezuelan case, and the countless other cases, the oppressor was clearly identified as Castro, as Chavez, as Stalin, etc. but in America it is not so clear cut. This is probably part of the plan, so that we cannot ascribe this philosophy to ONE individual or one specific group, because it would be too easy for freedom-loving people to attack that one group and that one individual… just look at what concerned citizens have been able to reveal about ACORN. I ultimately wonder if they have conferences among the top actors, coordinating their plays in a dark room somewhere, setting the media talking points, planning how to generate crises and how they will take advantage of them. These are the power-hungry communists.

The third group is integral for the success of socialist agenda… but in a contradictory way. The Left in America has realized, since the days of the Soviet Union, that bucks are more powerful than bombs. The only way to introduce socialism into the United States is to do it by degrees and in a system that was once a free market economy, it cannot be done without business. So what we have in America is a government that takes capitalism and perverts it beyond recognition while still calling it capitalism. So when it was the Democrat-run government that flooded Wall Street with easy money, the Leftists did not hesitate in blaming the free market system for the crisis. So when it was the Democrat-run government that inflated the pockets of “fat cat” bankers, the Leftists did not hesitate in pointing their crooked, accusing fingers at banks for paying out huge bonuses. People do not understand that the Left’s war on the free market comes from two sides: the anti-business front and the pro-business front. The anti-business front is the open strategy, the one that they are proud of, the one where they raise taxes, fees, increase unnecessary regulations, and the like… of course, all of the penalties that they impose on business trickle down to the consumers who pay higher prices and have poorer quality. The pro-business front is the one where they favor some big corporations over small business, giving them implicit government guarantees, giving them preferential treatment, and giving them bailouts… this, until recently, was more secret than their anti-business policies. What is deceiving about their “pro-business” policies is the fact that they do not in fact promote capitalism, they handicap capitalism by marrying big business with government and giving a ridiculously unfair advantage to the “connected” companies. This is not capitalism. In capitalism, it is competition, supply and demand, and innovation that keep the economy humming and prices fair. In corporate socialism, the current system in America, the government picks and chooses the winners and loser and distorts the markets. This is part of the plan. The Leftists aspire to establish a society where the state controls all of the means of production, but since this cannot be accomplished through direct government action, they settle for propping up a few choice corporations. Once small business has been destroyed and few firms control all industries, then the government with step in and take control of these de facto monopolies. In the meantime, businessmen stand to make a fortune by cooperating with the Leftist pro-government policies. They raid the US budget, courtesy of the US taxpayer and the Leftists who hold the purse strings. Once government has grown large enough, they will have Scrooge McDuck-like vaults of money back at home and will be in positions of power in the newly established government-run monopolies. Who wins at the end? Pro-leftist businessmen and the power-hungry communists.

Unfortunately, the decentralization of the Leftist power structure makes it harder to fight them. For example, tearing down Al Gore will do nothing to stop the train, especially while George Soros is pumping hundreds of millions into that very cause. There are too many people who stand to benefit from the violent financial rape of the US taxpayer… and every day more are lining up for a piece of the action. It disgusts me. Government is out of control… taxes only go up. Locally, property values have plummeted while property tax rates have gone up across the nation. Imagine that, while the net worth of citizens falls, the government decides to tax them more, thousands more… so much for “tax cuts.” In the meantime, government bailouts have held gas prices at the same level (due to depreciating dollar and despite lower demand), car prices are comparable to years past, and home prices are still inflated. Corporate Socialism is in full effect and the current administration and Congress are cementing its position in our society. The triumvirate of forces that is pushing America into socialism can only be stopped by limiting the power of government and voting out the useful idiots who are making this all possible. This shows that the complexity of the problem in the United States cannot be summed up by saying “they are all communists,” some are communists, some are fools, and some are opportunists and the why stems from a combination of idealistic stupidity, thirst for power, and plain-old greed. It is telling that many of us would prefer the existence of some cohesive communist bloc under the guidance of some Castro figure instead of the spider web of special interests and groups that work towards the enslavement of the American citizen, because at least in the former case, we know who we need to stop… in our current system, it is not so clear. That’s why we need to reject their ENTIRE program for America and get back to rational policies based on our founding principles.

-AG

If you’re a far left liberal that is. If you’re a regular American citizen, more invested in pragmatism than ideology, Obama has certainly put us on the road to tremendous change. The White House has defended its chang-y agenda, saying things like “we’ve seen is a dramatic difference in terms of how the United States is perceived around the world.” Yes indeed, now our enemies think we are weak and our allies worry about our resolve. They say that Obama laid “a foundation for keeping America safe and making us a partner around the world,” comments made less than a month after the terror attack by the would-be underwear bomber, the suicide bombing of the CIA in Afghanistan, and the brazen Taliban attack on Afghanistan’s capital city. Security we can believe in.

Obama making friends with our “ally” Pakistan

Economically, despite spending trillions of taxpayer dollars, unemployment marches on, small businesses continue to go out of business, and the national debt is soaring. Not enough change? Not if you’re Dean, Kucinich, or the leftist anti-war fringe who have blasted Obama for not going far enough with his promise of change. I said this before, and I’ll say it again: “In Obama, we got exactly what he promised us: redistribution of wealth, weakness abroad, and more government intrusion.” The left, the rabid left that believes that this is their chance to somehow create a society where Marxism, environmentalism, defeatism, and atheism are the foundational principles is unhappy with Obama for not pushing harder, for not ordering the National Guard to arrest Congress for not passing his bills, for not outlawing opposition parties. The truth is that Obama is much smarter than the far far left gives him credit for because a too sudden move towards socialism and American people will revolt, so instead the president is giving us socialism by increments. The question should not be whether Obama has brought change to America, he has, but rather if the change he has brought has helped or hurt our country. Just recently, the answer to that question was given by Massachusetts and that answer will echo throughout the country later this year.

-AG

This happened a few days ago, but I have not had a chance to comment. The Danish newspaper Politiken published an editorial that proclaims Obama to be, “of course,” greater than Jesus. This is not so surprising when you take into account the infatuation that Europeans and the media in general have with Barack Hussein Obama, but I find that comparing him to Jesus Christ right after Christmas is a low-blow. While it is perfectly within their right to say such blasphemy, it goes to show that the mass-hypnotic effect of the president has not yet faded completely. Comparing him to Him is not all that new (see previous post), but in this case the Danish newspaper takes it one step further, going from “like” to “greater” (greater as in “Akbar“). While I enjoy the fact that people around the world admire a (supposed) American, what bothers me is that we, Western Civilization, are still willing to characterize our leaders as deities instead of progressing to a stage of practical realism. Is human development supposed to move in the direction of less reason or more? Why does this not worry everyone?

-AG

Back during the dot-com bubble’s bursting, to my colleagues and family members I said that the economy would not explode but that money would flee from these high-risk securities which were “new” and exciting and seek greater stability. This occurred with the eventual rise in speculation on home prices and other asset-backed securities. At the time I openly worried about what would happen if the housing market crashed given that the economic power of the middle class, especially here in South Florida, was 100% founded on home values. Refinancing mortgages, taking out credit lines on one’s home, and easier access to credit due to home ownership increased consumption without a concurrent increase in average incomes. It was clear to me that a crash in the housing market would leave the America economy and money in general with little place to “go,” i.e. that I did not see where the market could make up its losses. Apparently, my concerns played out… but the government answered my question, the “new money” would come out of thin air, by printing money with reckless abandon. This, my friends, is something that seemed unfathomable to me because of how bad this idea was and is. What our economy has become is one that relies on government moves almost exclusively. Just take a look at the survival of US financial firms and automakers. Just take a look at the commodities markets that are being buoyed by a weakening dollar and lower interest rates. To all those investors out there, be warned, this is a bubble! The US dollar will not crash anytime soon and interests rates are destined to rise in the short- to medium-term. So the question is: what will the effects be of an economic system where the government picks and chooses (in a process that MUST be corrupt) what to inflate with bailout dollars and what not to? This is a question that is most interesting to me and I wondered if there was anything in history that resembled the sort of band-aid-bailout-economy where the temporary inflation of one industry or another would skew markets, hurt the dollar long-term, and keep dying companies alive. Actually there is a historical example: Japan.

While a lot has already been written about Japan’s Lost Decade and comparisons to the current recession, I am more interested in the medium to long-term effects of a bailout-driven economy since it is clear that the current administration has no intention of using this money to pay down our debt. An interesting article on Time focused on the idea of “too big to fail” and also spotlighted Japan’s bailout policies. On the former, the article highlights that South Korea let Daewoo fail, a company that was larger relative their economy than any company in the US, and their economy not only survived but grew, but that’s another topic. On the latter, the article talks about how Japan pumped money into companies that were failing and just continued to lose money, to quote:

“In a pathetic attempt to avoid losses, Japanese banks kept pumping fresh funds into debt-ridden, unprofitable firms to keep them afloat. These companies came to be known as zombie firms — they appeared to be living but were actually dead, too burdened by debt to do much more than live off further handouts.”

This exact scenario will not play out in our government’s own effort because US firms are doing things to turn themselves around and will continue to. Unfortunately, human nature plays against us here: people and groups of people win by the smallest margin they need. This means that it is possible that a lot of these huge companies, if they cannot make good profits for whatever reason, will exploit the lack of moral hazard that exists in American pseudo-capitalism and that an infinite loop of bailouts will continue. Ultimately, it is both moral hazard and competition that ensure innovation and economic independence… a bailout economy only dampens innovation and increases dependence.

The similarity with Japan is in the fact that with government pumping money into failing entities, the entities themselves actually did not improve in a real sense, they simply survived. In America’s case, we are pumping money into sectors that are not doing so well. The question that comes to mind is: once we pump money into some sector in the short-term, what happens then? Do we expect that private investors take over? Do we expect that demand for said sector’s products go up, just because the government pumped money into it? There are a few ways to create wealth, but borrowing from the taxpayer of the future to pay the government handout recipient of the present is not one of them. The market, on the other hand, eager to make profits will invest in “stimulated” industries and then take their money out as soon as the stimulus money moves elsewhere. This skews the market and does not create real wealth.

While this topic deserves much investigation and discussion I wanted to simply present the problem of a bailout-driven economy and what it means to capitalism in general. I do not believe that the dollar will be destroyed by a bailout economy, but I do believe that it will hurt the dollar long term. I truly wonder how such an economy can compete in the world and whether or not it is compatible with a global economy. One thing is certain, the ever-increasing debt that will exist as a result of such an economy will do nothing to help us. I will admit one thing, no candidate for any office will have my vote if they wish to perpetuate a bailout-economy because the only feasible result of such a system is full-fledged Socialism, be it of a corporatist flavor or a straight up nanny-state flavor. We need to retire this bailout by paying down the debt as soon as possible.

-AG

When the previous administration was in power, the United States could be expected to behave a certain way with respect to the War on Terror: stubbornly. This was both a good thing and a bad thing, leading to the uprooting of Al Qaeda, destruction of Hussein’s dictatorial regime, and keeping America safe while at the same time giving more moderate Muslims another excuse to hate us and having us follow a bad strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. When dealing with fanatics, it is necessary to have the resolve to fight. Al Qaeda could do nothing but hope that we would withdraw prematurely or hope that some sociopaths would carry out an attack in the West while calling themselves Al Qaeda. In general, the United States kept Al Qaeda on the defense, albeit not in an ideal fashion.

Enter the new administration. While we are still engaged in wars abroad, the intensity in Iraq has gone down and the tone in Afghanistan has changed. Al Qaeda leadership, in all probability, has decided that dealing with the Obama administration will be easier than dealing with the intransigent Bush administration. By looking at Obama’s proposed policies and reasons behind them, such as his plans to withdraw from Iraq because “it is a distraction,” or change our language with respect to the war on terror, it is abundantly clear to our enemies that this administration is more mindful of “how something looks” and of casualties. This means that, while they survive, our enemies will adopt a strategy that exploits this new reality, a new reality that some would call a weakness. Lucky for them (unlucky for us), terrorists have long used terror as a political tool rather than a military tool. Since Bush forced them to use it as a military tool, they have been unsuccessful; with Obama insistence on dialogue instead of conflict, they hope to go back to doing the thing they do best: sucker punches to make a point.

Terrorists view their terror attacks as a conditioning of the behavior of the target population. Many terror attacks come followed by some sort of terror group list of reasons for the attacks and with some demands. The demands of terrorists do not always come about, but the intention is not necessarily to score a win immediately, instead they aim to condition the enemy. Rewind back to 2004, when Spain was the victim of an Al Qaeda attack on March 11 and 191 people were killed. Did this condition the Spanish government? Yes sir, because shortly thereafter the Spanish withdraw their troops from Iraq. Fast-forward to 2009, when Pakistan invaded the Swat valley where Al Qaeda and the Taliban were holed up, a terror campaign swept the country in retaliation. Did this condition the Pakistani government? You betcha, because when the United States asked for help against the Haqqani Network in northern Pakistan, the Pakistani government refused. So when the United States and Yemen started cooperating more closely over Al Qaeda, they sent a lone Nigerian kid to take down a passenger plane, which he failed to do. Their aim is simply to condition the administration, saying without words “if you stop helping Yemen, we’ll stop sending terrorists.” The reality is that the spectacular attacks favored by old-school Al Qaeda are no longer possible because they have been weakened by war and now they are willing to engage in low level terror, because they have no choice. While spectacular attacks are out of the question, low level attacks will do two things: not pose a significant threat politically to the administration (keeping a condition-able leader in power) while simultaneously conditioning their behavior. Will Obama be conditioned by terror any more than he already has been? That is the question that both Americans and Al Qaeda are asking… the former are hoping that he won’t be… the latter truly believe that he will be.

-AG

With the withdrawal of United States support for freedom in Latin America (see Obama administration), citizens of nations that are threatened with socialist takeovers are rising up against their dictators and would-be dictators. From Honduras to Venezuela to Cuba, the political landscape in these countries and others is starting to change. After years of socialist advances in the region, opposition in these countries is starting to organize from the bottom-up, as opposed to top-down which was for a long time the norm.

New Conservative President of Honduras

In Honduras, elections were held in order to bring an end to the crisis that started when the courts deposed and exiled the then president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya, who was trying to hold an illegal referendum vote. Remember that it was Mel Zelaya who was following in Hugo Chavez’s footsteps, trying to turn the country into another socialist stronghold until the Congress, the courts, and the military put an end to his designs. In the November election, Hondurans were asked to choose between Zelaya’s former vice president, Elvin Santos, from the Liberal Party and Porfirio Lobo from the conservative National Party. Despite near-constant bombings carried out by pro-Zelaya supporters, voter turnout was estimated as being from 49% to 61% and Hondurans elected the conservative Lobo by 56% of the vote versus 38% for the liberal candidate, clearly an indication of the Honduran people’s will to move on from the Zelaya debacle and put their country back on a prosperous path. While the leftist governments of Latin America have all refused to recognize the new government, the United States and other nations have started to re-establish ties with Honduras. In the face of international pressure demanding the return of the socialist Zelaya (including pressure from the Obama administration), Honduras remained firm and stopped the socialist advance on their country. Hopefully, things will improve for them from here on.

Moving on to the nearly socialist state of Venezuela, where strongman/clown Hugo Chavez has made political opposition a highly stressful career choice and we see that the Venezuelan people have had enough. Despite the Obama-Chavez embrace heard round the world and with the Obama administration generally unresponsive to Chavez’s actions, Chavez has not toned down his anti-American rhetoric, in fact, he has increased it on many occasions. Basing his “presidency” on anti-Americanism and socialist redistribution of wealth has brought his country an increase in poverty, violence, and authoritarianism. I am talking about Chavez in this instance, not Obama. While in the past the traditional political structure was Chavez’s only challenger, a new movement is springing up in Venezuela that may prove more successful in kicking him out. A political party by the name Popular Will Movement led by Leopoldo Lopez, an ex-mayor of a Caracas district, has started gaining support across the nation, even with former Chavez supporters. Chavez seems to be getting worried saying that his opponents “are getting into the barrios. They are trying to organize coordinated movements, and they are going to try to win a majority in the National Assembly.” Apparently, he finds this to be a sinister plot. Funny thing is that this strategy is straight out of Chavez’s playbook, reaching out to areas that previously did not participate in politics as much (read “poor areas").

Popular Will Rally

The movement in Venezuela can only succeed if the old-school politicians decide to stay on the sidelines and let fresh new leaders with new ideas come out as the face of the opposition. (I think there is something that American conservatives can learn from the Venezuelan experience here… the Democrats did it in 2008, they put a fresh new face to their old political agenda and voila! Democrats now control Washington.) Let us hope that the opposition will not be rounded up by Chavez’s repressive machinery which has already arrested and exiled many opposition figures.

This brings me to Cuba, the Godfather of Latin American socialism. Unlike what many people predicted, the end of Fidel Castro’s (direct) rule did not bring about any significant changes in Cuba’s communist system. It has been kept almost totally intact by Raul Castro, whose only “shakeups” have been internal, a reshuffling of the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, if you will. Obama’s policy of reaching out to Cuba which culminated in an easing US policy towards them (more travel, more remittances) have produced no improvement in the Cuban situation. In fact, the anti-Americanism continues unabated. The Cuban situation can be explained simply: America’s enemies have a guaranteed foothold in the western hemisphere as long as this Cuban regime exists and Cuba is actively exports its brand of authoritarianism by aiding socialists/communists everywhere it can in anyway it can. Cut off the Castro regime and the benefits are obvious: you save many countries from the ravages of communist dictatorship and you ease a national security threat that exists just ninety miles from the coast of Florida. Since the current administration is unwilling to stand up the communist regime, the only people who have been posing a threat to Castro are the internal pro-democracy dissidents. These are individuals have lived most of their lives in the “revolution” and yearn for a change, either an abrupt change or a modest incremental change, towards democracy. Recently, an American citizen was arrested for giving away cellphones and laptops, only in a communist dictatorship can this be a crime, but it shows two things. The first is that the Castro regime does not want the normalization of relations and will go out of its way to set back any progress with provocative acts like this one. The second is that the regime understands that the new empowerment of democratic activists on the island with access to video cameras and the internet is the greatest threat to the communist system. Dictatorships thrive in the shadows and while the US government cuts funds for radio broadcasts into Cuba, it is the Cuban people that are taking initiative, using technology, and risking their lives to shine a light on the realities on that island.

Yoani Sánchez, Cuban blogger

The change is bottom-up with people like blogger Yoani Sánchez, recently beaten and detained for typing the harsh reality she lives, and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, serving a 25 year sentence for speaking out against Cuba’s policy of free abortions and talking about human rights in public (gasp!), leading the charge and taking hits along the way. What this goes to show is that, even without a clear beacon for freedom, the human spirit will continue to fight against tyranny no matter what.

These developments to the south, ranging from a victory against socialism to a campaign that is certain to result in thousands more tragedies before any real change comes about, can provide a blueprint for how we, as Americans currently facing a government that ignores the people, can start changing the system. Change (to borrow that slogan from the demagogues) cannot come from the top-down anymore, it must come from an energized, grassroots movement that takes on the establishment from the bottom-up. Sometimes these popular movements are hijacked by personalities who pervert the original intentions and use this momentum for personal gain. The great advantage of the Tea Party movement in America is that there is no one leader but relies on one great commonality: our desire to make and keep America great. When the 2010 elections roll around, I expect some of the more savvy politicians to try and hijack the movement… let us guard against this. Americans, historically, do not blindly follow leaders, we are individuals. Let’s never forget this as we keep fighting on.

-AG

On September 11th, 2001, the United States was attacked by a terrorist network that operated out of Afghanistan. What ensued is what should have happened: the United States issued an ultimatum to surrender the terrorists deemed responsible and invaded once that ultimatum was ignored. Thus was born the War in Afghanistan. The conflict focused on two particular groups: Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. The idea was simple enough, to dismantle Al Qaeda, uproot the Taliban regime, and essentially give the country back to the Northern Alliance rebels.

Somewhere along the way, the clarity of our mission dissipated and we got stuck in nation-building. It did not happen overnight especially because of the Bush administration’s initial resistance to the idea, but as of now, we are knee deep in sending not only troops but specialists and advisers. The Obama administration has made it a point that success in our campaign cannot come only through military means, but through other factors:

“We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development … those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical,” Obama told ABC News.

This is the very definition of nation-building, though it seems that the administration will be content with leaving some shell of a “sustainable society” as opposed to making sure that the institutions we help establish will last. Which brings me to my point, how does “terrorist attack on American soil” eventually lead to “providing security, political stability, and economic development to Afghanistan?” In a bar fight, how many times does the winner drive the loser to the hospital, pay their bar tab, and make sure their car gets driven home safely? Yet this is exactly what we are doing and plan to continue doing in Afghanistan, a place that has never had a strong national identity nor strong civil institutions to match. Afghanistan is a made-up place whose national character has not developed yet and, in truth, may never develop. The problem with nation-building in Afghanistan is that we must build the nation out of whole cloth, not simply prop up or re-inflate certain parts of it like we did in Iraq. In Iraq there existed more of a “nation” than in Afghanistan and so we only needed to reinforce those parts of it that were necessary for stability. So when people wonder why the conflict in Afghanistan has taken so long, the answer is right before our eyes: insurgencies are a way of life for the Afghans and when regular Afghans see the Afghan flag, not enough of their eyes fill up with proud tears.

To reach victory in Afghanistan, we must not insist that whatever government take its place be democratic or ideal, it might be corrupt (like it is now), it might be a little authoritarian, heck, it might be a little bit of a militant Islamic state, but the absolute truth is that we cannot impose the centuries of political and philosophic development of the Western world on this “country.” What we need is to be pragmatists in foreign policy, unlike Bush and unlike Obama. This means that maybe we tolerate their opium economy but make sure that it is not in the wrong hands. This means we make the tough choices, the choices that a morally repugnant, the choices that lead to other problems in the short-term, because at the end of the day we must choose our battles. Do we fight the evil that killed almost 3,000 that September day and their allies, or do we worry about drug trade, the corruption, the human rights abuses, etc. prevalent in Afghan society? My vote is to stomp out Al Qaeda and the Taliban first and worry about the stability of their society second… ultimately, their national shortfalls will be regional threats but to leave Al Qaeda a safe haven would be an international threat.

The best way for America to spread freedom around the world is two-fold, defend freedom when under attack and serve as a role model for the world. We currently have an administration that is not so keen on doing either. My positions above are a bit cold, but in the end, they are the best ways to defend against Al Qaeda and get us out of long-term counterinsurgency campaigns that only cost blood and treasure. For a bit of perspective, the Colombian armed guerrilla conflict started in 1964 and only now is showing signs of abating… guerrilla wars are a long-term proposition, McCain knew that and seemed to have the stomach for it, but I do not want more Americans to die needlessly. We can accomplish our goals and come home, we just have to cast aside those silly ideas about nation-building that may take centuries to work.

-AG

The Obama administration, known for leaving its enemies cowering in fear (note sarcasm), has recently asked Pakistan to crack down on the Haqqani network, a Taliban group that resides in the lawless regions near the Pakistani-Afghan border. The Pakistani government has flatly refused. Here is where the Obama foreign policy of appease-apologize-retreat comes into plain view and where the “with us or against us” foreign policy of the previous administration starts to makes more sense. The Haqqani network uses Pakistan as a safe haven to launch attacks on coalition troops in Afghanistan and has contact with senior Al Qaeda leaders, in other words, this group has attacked and killed US servicemen and women and is allied with the perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in our history. Unfortunately, with the current administration hell-bent on a quick surge and a quick withdrawal, it is unlikely that they will take any serious action against this group. In the meantime, while Pakistan “deals” with its own Taliban elements, a terror campaign has swept across the country (as I predicted before the whole Pakistani offensive started) with bombs hitting metropolitan areas and killing in excess of 500 Pakistanis. Just recently, a bomb ripped through a Punjabi town killing 33 as a display of the terrorists’ reach. Pakistan’s refusal to deal the Haqqani network foreshadows a possible cease-fire or peace treaty with the militants, at least some of them, and indicates that the terror attacks are dampening support for the recent Taliban crackdown. Democracies often cannot sustain wars very long, especially when bombs are going off in local markets around the country.

The real problem is the Obama administration’s strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clearly, if we do not have access to the command center of the Taliban because it is being offered safe haven by a neighboring country that we will not invade, then we cannot easily win the war. In such a scenario, we can only play defense for an indefinite amount of time until we either get lucky or the enemy gets tired. The other option is withdrawal and the president has made it clear that this is his intention. A winning strategy would not have us be held hostage by a neighboring country, but would, through sticks and carrots, have the Pakistanis either let us eliminate these targets within their territory or have the Pakistanis actively eliminate the insurgents themselves (all of them). A winning strategy will not set an arbitrary withdrawal date and publicize it for our enemies to see. A winning strategy requires bold action and listening to our commanders in the field. Already, our quick-paced withdrawal from Iraq has left the country open to terrorist attacks, which, contrary to what the media silence would have you believe, have been unleashed around the country, including within the Green Zone, the ultra-highly defended government area of Baghdad. Arbitrary timelines for withdrawal only embolden the enemy and, as I have heard people say, our surge begins this year while the Taliban-Al Qaeda surge beings in 18 months, when we are scheduled to withdraw. It is sad to see the world’s last superpower retreating before the rise of militant, nihilistic Islamic extremists. We are truly being defeated from the inside out… the irrational idealism of our so-called leaders has given way to the cold hatred of our enemies. We CAN defeat our enemies, if only Obama would let us.

-AG

Text of letter that President Obama sent to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il

Dear Dear Leader Kim Jong Il,

First of all, I want to express my deep disappointment with your behavior over the last year or so. Since my election I have been reaching out to leaders, friend and foe alike, in order to bring change not only to America but to the world. You do not seem to understand how important this is… not only to world peace but for me, personally. I have long dreamed of the day that I could stand before you and deeply genuflect until my forehead touches the ground. It is a great shame that I have been able to bow before the Saudi king, the Japanese Emperor, and put my arms around Hugo Chavez but not be able to express my feelings to you, arguable more powerful than all of these other leaders put together.

I have many reasons to bow before you, not merely because it is my custom when first meeting tyrants, real and symbolic. You have truly impressed me with your big missiles and your nuclear explosions, but your most impressive feat is keeping those North Koreans in line for years. How do you do it? I, like you, have complete control of the press in my country, yet my poll numbers keep going down. Should I decree that polls should be illegal? I, like you, have works of art of me on display around the country (and the world) but I still have an opposition party that will just not stop opposing my plans to take over private industry. I suppose I could send the army to eliminate my political opponents, what do you suggest? I, like you, use fear to pacify my subjects, particularly fear of economic collapse, fear of swine flu, fear of environmental catastrophe around the corner, and fear of enemy weapons development. That last one is where you come in. I personally have no problem with you having nuclear weapons, just look at what I did after your tests… nothing. Actually, I said that I would tighten sanctions but seriously, we have no commerce, so I was merely trying to please the crowd. Anyways, “dealing” with your nuclear program will make it easier for me to exert influence (maybe even absolute power) in my own country. I need results. That said, I propose that you do what you have done in the past with my predecessors: come join the six-party talks, agree to very little in exchange for halting nuclear/missile development, and then just continue working on your nuclear/missiles programs “behind my back.” This way, I can continue with my program at home, you can continue with yours, and we both look like heroes. It’s a win-win!

I am sorry if it has looked like I was ignoring North Korea, that was not my intention. I simply believed that you, like most other world leaders, would come to summits and meetings so that I could apologize for America’s behavior over the years and promise that I would do better by not bothering so much with human rights and terrorism issues. Also, I have been so busy devaluing my country’s currency and gaining favor by throwing money at special interests and organizations that helped me get elected that it would have been impossible to devote my time to you, time that you truly deserve. I heard you had some health problems, I would advise that you travel to the US in disguise before my health reform plan kicks in… I couldn’t bear the thought of losing you. I’m tearing up just reading the teleprompter that is telling me what to write in this letter. Well, I hope you get better and most importantly, I hope to one day wrap my arms around your frail body and tell you how deeply sorry I am for America so that one day you could forgive me…

I Love You,
Barack Hussein Obama

PS I have enclose a photo of me bowing to a person of the same physical build as you so that you could imagine what it would be like at our first meeting:

I was just reading that a CNN poll shows that 57% of Americans are opposed to the war in Afghanistan, a war that even the tremendously timid Obama has called necessary. Surprisingly, only about three quarters of Democrats oppose the war, I was expecting something nearer to 100%. The numbers are frightening because they show us two different thing about Americans: we do not understand the stakes in Afghanistan and that it takes a catastrophic terrorist attack to make us understand the stakes. That’s right, on cue I bring up 9-11. Now, don’t ever forget it. It is well worth repeating that what America faces in the world is not a rag-tag team of terrorists here and there, we face a well-organized, well-financed, and relentless offensive campaign against freedom. They are connected… no not in the neoconservatives’ imagination, but rather in real-cold-as-ice-life. Ask yourself why North Korea was building a nuclear reactor in Syria? Why Russia is doing naval exercises in the Caribbean? What we face is an Anti-American Axis that stretches across the globe constituted by nations and groups that want to destroy the type of world we have brought about.

At present, Islamo-fascists, communists, and dictatorships of all types are arrayed in a relatively well-strung-together coalition against all of our interests. Where does Afghanistan figure in all of this? It (and Pakistan) is the epicenter of the most well-organized and anti-American international terrorist organization in the world. Hezbollah is actually better organized, but they are not as virulently anti-American as Al Qaeda… yet. We are fighting two wings, the domestic wing and the international terrorist wing. The former is the Taliban and the latter is Al Qaeda. The former secures a safe haven for the training, arming, recruiting, and planning of the latter. The latter is dedicated to our destruction and/or the re-establishing of the Caliphate or “true Islamic state(s).” If we withdraw at this point, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will make short work of the current Afghan government and reinstate a terror sponsoring state. What person in their right mind would want to let this happen? Do the majority of Democrats truly believe that Al Qaeda was just joking with us that one time in 2001? Do they not understand the threat? To my more libertarian friends I say this: if you believe that blowback was the reason for their attacks against us, consider the near-impossible task of complying with their demands that we leave Muslim lands forever and abandon our ally Israel. What we need to do is complete our mission in Afghanistan and get Pakistan to keep cooperating with us on the War on Terror, I mean Overseas Contingency Operations. We cannot surrender now, just look at Iraq, a partial withdrawal has already increased the frequency and intensity of Al Qaeda’s attacks and now they await our full withdrawal.

The far Left has hijacked the Democratic Party, insisting on socialism at home and surrender abroad. We cannot let the world think that only catastrophes like 9-11 can wake us from our naive slumber, even if it might be true for the majority of the current dominant political party.

-AG

Today, California Rep. Maxine Waters called on president Obama to keep pushing for public option and called some anti-public option “Neanderthals.” Maxine Waters is a profound disappointment. She is the person who publicly called for the nationalization of, actually for “socializing,” oil companies for the prices to come down. Here’s the video:

Can we call her a socialist? Yes we can! It should come as no surprise to conservatives everywhere that any time there is some financial problem, the Democrats, and sometimes the Republicans too, offer the same-old, tired prescription that they have always offered: more government control. But I digress. Waters is a piece of work. I guess that whenever a Senator exercises their God-given, Constitutional right to disagree with the President, according to Maxine Waters, that Senator is a “Neanderthal.” Or maybe it’s something else?

Here is a letter from Maxine Waters to the leader of Communism in the western hemisphere, Fidel Castro, where she apologizes for voting on a resolution that requests the extradition of a Black Panther fugitive who is wanted for murder, bank robbery, and kidnapping who is currently being granted asylum in Cuba. What is amazing about this letter is that she humbles herself before a mass murdering dictator, complaining about the Republican Party, and defends someone who is accused of multiple federal crimes, including murder. Her excuse is that sovereign nations have the legitimate right to grant political asylum (she regards murder a “political” act it seems) and she does not want to infringe on that… but is she being honest? During the whole Elian Gonzalez fiasco, I don’t remember her saying that the United States had the right to grant the child asylum, in fact, she said the opposite, that the Elian issue needed to be decided by parental rights and not any “right” of a sovereign nation to grant asylum. So she believes that a child escaping Castro’s gulag needs to be sent back to be re-educated while a suspected bank robber, kidnapper, and murderer should remain living in safety. Makes sense, don’t it?

Elian looks happy right?

It makes sense if you understand why Maxine Waters thinks that anti-public option senators are Neanderthals while she goes on repeated visits to see Fidel Castro in Cuba. Seriously, of what worth is her opinion if she believes that the totalitarian, mass murdering leader of communist Cuba is a decent human being, while senators that are opposed to increased government intrusion in the economy, senators opposed to socialism, are supposedly subhuman? From Stalin’s war on kulaks to Hitler’s rampant antisemitism to Castro’s demonization of exile “gusanos” (worms), totalitarian regimes use dehumanization as a technique to oppress particular segments of their populations and this is the very technique that Waters is currently employing by branding opposition senators as subhuman. Socialists and communists have used these tactics for more than a century, name-calling and dehumanization. I am sick and tired of liberals genuflecting before portraits of Castro and Che Guevara while they try to trample over the Constitution en masse. I am sick and tired of Maxine Waters, Castro apologist and socialist. Maxine Waters needs to look in the mirror and consider who the real Neanderthal is…

-AG

Today, I was very busy and I was not planning to post anything else on NeoRepublica, but after reading this article on slavery I could not help myself. First off, as I often do for the benefit of those who care about class, race, ethnicity, etc. I am a mixed race American of Cuban descent. Cubans, on the island, can be broken down racially as 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 mulato or mixed (this is for simplicity’s sake, accurate statistics are unknown). Enough of that though, it is not that relevant. This article was written by a self-described “white” American who is the descendant of slave-traders and from reading this article it looks like the guilt of participating in the slave-trade has spilled across the generations.

Katrina Browne

What she writes is one part liberalism at its finest and another part absolute irrationality (some may say that I am being redundant). Essentially, she concludes that because of the ripples in history caused by America’s history of racially-based slavery and discrimination, apologies are not enough and she “believe[s] [that] we do need more reckoning.” She wrote that equal rights and affirmative action are not enough. This is one of the myriad of reasons that people cite to make the case for some sort of economic redistribution or class preference and all that it does is undermine American freedom.

First let’s talk about the racial part. As a member of a minority group, more importantly, as a dark person (compared to “white” people) in America, I can attest that there is nothing in this world except the degree of my personal effort that has held me down or allowed me to succeed. Even my father, who spoke no English and whose Afro hairstyle would make Ludacris cringe, was able to pick himself up form his bootstraps without worrying about the “privileges” of the “white guy” next door.

Luda

No white privilege stopped me from reading books. No white privilege stopped me from rejecting a culture of mediocrity (these subcultures exist in all communities, “white punks", “black gangsters,” “latin thugs,” etc.) No white privilege stopped me from gaining an education. I could go on, but Katrina Browne personally insults me when she wraps her real condescension in “white guilt” by expressing that the poor “brown people” of the world cannot do anything because “the man” has held them down. If anything, Katrina Browne holds my ethnic “brothers” down with their hand-outs and their affirmative action by allowing us to profit from our race or ethnicity and not our sweat and intellect. So let’s first be clear, race is not a handicap.

Second, if people want to make the case that historical circumstance must be taken into account in the present in order to truly create better society, then we cannot stop with slavery… the list of actions taken by this nation and others against particular racial or ethnic groups is ridiculously extensive. What should we do about the Native Americans who were killed by both disease and military action at the hands of the United States? Should we surrender our entire civilization to them, given that this land was “theirs” before it was “ours"? How about the country of Cuba, where the entire native Taino people were destroyed? How do they distribute “reparations” or whatever other form of compensation? Technically speaking, US crimes against Native Americans and their descendants were very terrible and the inequalities that persist to this day are a result of “our” actions.

But why stop at the United States? Why not go back to Great Britain where the persecution of heretics was prevalent during the 16th and 17th centuries? Or Spain, for their treatment of Jews and Muslims during the Inquisition? Or to any country that ever engaged in any form of discrimination? Why not go back as far as all of documented history and if ever, any nation has discriminated against any race or ethnicity that a person is descended from, why not give that person some form of reparations? Adjusted for inflation, this will make a lot of random individuals in the present very rich for crimes committed by people in the past, a past now represented by certain countries and people in the present. As for me, I will be super-rich. I am certain I have African, Spanish, Native, and maybe even Arab heritage which, depending if they ever lived as a discriminated minority in any country that still exists today, means that I may be getting a good number of checks in the mail. Add to that the fact that I am also of Italian descent that I may get a check for the US internment of Italian-Americans during WWII. Hurray for racial reparations!

This Armenian-American received this chain from the Turkish gov’t as Reparations(jk)

Third, what about immigrants who arrived at this country after slavery was abolished? Are they exempt from having to “do more"? Or are they only exempt if they are not white, given that “white” people have “benefited” from the oppression of African-Americans? I wonder if I have to surrender some of my hard earned money or if my children will have to sit in the back of the bus because other people we are not related to oppressed some other people we are not related to many years ago. Collective punishment for a collective crime will punish people who did not benefit at all from the crime, people who benefited marginally, people who did benefit most, and ironically enough it will punish the people who were oppressed to begin with. The promotion of redistribution of wealth only drives away wealth and rewards people (in the present) on the basis of some genetic coincidence and not effort. The overall effect on America will be to make everyone poorer: less wealthy people, less investment, less businesses, less jobs, less overall opportunity for those poor oppressed minorities.

Fourth, Browne’s insistence that “love” of our fellow man should drive this redistributive experiment is misleading. If she means that out of personal affection we reach out to our fellow man, sure why not, if it’s our free choice? But this is not her intent. She insists that the state take the responsibility of fixing these “disparate outcomes” that exist today in society. The only way that government taking away one person’s wealth and giving it to another on the basis of race won’t be considered robbery is if we love the government for it. How Orwellian. Forced redistribution is “love.”

In totality, what she expresses here is a view of history that would have us look backwards forever until all historical grievances are addressed. Should the Christians continue to persecute the Jews for their complicity in Jesus Christ’s death? This is similar logic: collective punishment for a particular grievance carried out by particular people who are already dead. Luckily, reality is much different. The only way for humanity to progress (yes, that lefty word) is for societies to be forward looking (within reason, some introspection and retrospection is sometimes necessary). We must strive to create conditions and institutions so that the mistakes and crimes of the past are not allowed to occur ever again. We must make sure that there are no more Holocausts, no more slave trades, no more political persecution… and one day we will also realize that there should be no more ever-intrusive governments. If the crime of slavery was giving benefit to one race to the detriment of another, then the solution cannot be the same action in the opposite direction… the solution must be to abolish any system that is NOT colorblind. We can only start setting the foundation for a better world today… otherwise we will forever be condemned to answer for crimes and inequalities perpetrated by people who no longer exist and who have no relation to many in the present.

The truth is that the Left will look for any and every excuse to place the “collective good” or, as Browne writes, “the public good” above individual achievement and individual rights. Race is one of these excuses. I’ll let the Brownes of the world know that while they worry about their historical guilt and historical “disparate outcomes” I will make sure that I live my American Dream… I will live it without worrying about anyone else’s privileges… and I will live it because I have the freedom and the right to. I will not have it derailed by the ancient crimes of people who have neither benefited me through “privilege” nor have any relation to me… and I would hope that no American would have their dreams derailed by the irrational arguments I read in that article.

-AG

Obama has had a tough time with foreign policy. No single event has captured the full attention of the nation yet and let us hope that nothing catastrophic happens, but in all truth, Obama has fumbled nearly everything beyond our shores. He goes to Europe and apologizes. He gives a speech on disarmament the same day that North Korea fires a rocket over Japan. He claims that the United States is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world during his Islamic appeasement speech. He chastises allies like Israel and Honduras while reaching out to communist Cuba, Chavez’s Venezuela, and terror-sponsor Iran. In other words, he has turned US foreign policy on its head… remember people, the US is the world superpower and our foreign policy had at least a ‘little’ to do with that. Even during the campaign, it was equal parts comical and worrisome when then-candidate Obama vowed quick retreat from Iraq and brashly declared that he would invade our ally Pakistan if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights. So is he a pacifist or a war hawk?

This is Obama’s problem: he doesn’t know what, exactly, to do. So he sends more troops into Afghanistan while started a phased withdrawal from Iraq. The bad part is that our reduced presence in Iraq has only emboldened Al Qaeda while our increased presence in Afghanistan has similarly emboldened the Taliban. Commanders on the ground say that they need more troops, but Obama cannot commit many more troops because it would alienate his far left base, a group that is already mad at him for extending the Iraq withdrawal timetable and not withdrawing from Afghanistan. If he keeps this level of troops or reduces it, then he risks losing significant ground to the Taliban. The president needs to seriously consider increasing our presence, but because of politics he probably will not increase it by much. That is one good thing about former president George W. Bush, he did not care about politics when it came to the war, he took flak for sending more troops into what was starting to turn into a civil war in Iraq, and the surge succeeded. Obama, on the other hand, has his “popularity” and liberal base to take care of. He is between a rock (no pun intended) and a hard place.

Obama’s Far Left Base

Today, he is going to address the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention which will bring this issue to the forefront. Right now, most people are more worried about health care reform and the economy than the threat posed by a resurgent Al Qaeda and Taliban, so he has been getting a pass on his foreign policy blusters. This will eventually change. We cannot turn a blind eye to the events taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan… bombings are occurring over there on a nearly daily basis. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not taking a break for us to debate health care… and with Obama, they smell blood in the water. We should drop the bulk of American military power on their heads, not go in halfway.

-AG

In nearby Cuba, we see it happen time after time. The Castro regime takes some action that the United States does not like such as mass arrests of political prisoners or sending mass waves of immigrants in order to use that manufactured crisis to their advantage. They then start releasing some prisoners or try swapping them. They then stop the flow of immigrants and rafters from reaching our shores. All in exchange for two things: recognition for engaging in “reasonable” diplomacy and for whatever concessions they can get from developed, democratic nations. In North Korea, the same strategy applies, but with higher stakes.

What we see in North Korea is a regime that escalation after escalation showed no signs of wanting to cooperate in earnest. There are two reasons for this. The first is that by not cooperating, they could further develop their weapons technologies, knowing full-well that neither the United States nor anyone else would take any serious action to stop them. The second reason is that only by generating a crisis serious enough does North Korea have anything that it can barter with. After that point, it can start de-escalating and try extracting concessions from the rest of the world. Make no mistake though, they want both: nuclear/missile capabilities and concessions.

This is why North Korea even accepted Bill Clinton’s visit and released the two American journalists, it gave Kim Jong Il international diplomatic capital by demonstrating that they are willing to negotiate. The mere fact that former President of the United States Bill Clinton visited one of the most impoverished nations in the world gave North Korea more legitimacy. Of course, I applaud his success in getting back our citizens. Unfortunately, right now, the more timid elements of the State Department and the Obama administration are seeing this as a sign that Kim Jong Il just wanted attention from the beginning, attention that Obama was focusing more on the Islamic world, Europe, Russia, and the economic crisis. This is the wrong lesson, but North Korea is wasting no time in exploiting this opening. Now, North Korea has expressed that it is willing to resume family reunifications and cross-border tourism once again, a far cry from the North Korea of just a little over a month ago that was firing missiles toward Hawaii in a show of strength.

On their side, North Korea points to continued US espionage, sanctions, and joint South Korean and US military exercises as the provocations that have led to this tense moment in relations. They now portray themselves as the good guys, reaching out to the US by granting amnesty for the two journalists, reaching out to South Korea by granting family reunification and tourism, turning around a ship that was suspected of transporting weapons to Myanmar, and we can expect their weapons tests to be suspended for the time being. It was a manufactured crisis that they are now trying to exploit by reducing tensions and trying to lure the United States to the negotiating table. The Obama administration’s naivete and the Left’s burning desire to engage with communists and enemies of America will all but guarantee another round of concessions. These concessions will be followed by a period of relative calm only to be followed by more North Korean belligerence. This is the unchanged cycle of things. The single, most pressing global security issue is the proliferation of nuclear weapons because of the possibility that they may land in the hands of terrorist organizations. Appeasement of a regime that is determined to make themselves a potent nuclear power will only make things worse. Clinton did it and they became nuclearized. Bush did it and they became even more nuclearized. What do you think will happen when Obama does it?

-AG

Last month, I wrote a post about Nigeria and how Al Qaeda may be looking to extend its reach to that part of Africa. Just today, Hillary Clinton visited Nigeria and warned about the very same thing: Nigeria may be within Al Qaeda’s sights. Like I said before, the conditions in Nigeria are all favorable for Al Qaeda, especially since there are already terrorist groups with sufficient organization that have been launching attacks for some time now. Recently, a group named Boko Haram (meaning “western education is forbidden") was involved in clashes that killed hundreds in their fight to establish an Islamic State. The most important factors that Al Qaeda looks for in potential host nations is the presence of local militant groups in line with their ideology and a government that is willing to negotiate with them; the Nigerian government has shown a willingness to negotiate with the already-present terrorist groups there, making this country a suitable place to set up shop. This admission by the State Department shows that while Americans look inward at the government’s efforts to insert itself into health care, Al Qaeda and terrorist organizations are still not resting.

Boko Haram militants

The Obama administration has been overly focused on domestic issues while Al Qaeda has been running rampant. Other than the drone strike that supposedly killed Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan that was blamed for killing Benazir Bhutto and that has been threatening to strike at the United States(as I wrote abou t before), Al Qaeda has not been greatly hindered nor has it slowed its activities. Since our semi-withdrawal from Iraqi cities, Al Qaeda has upped the ante, launching terrorist attacks in their signature style: multiple simultaneous bombings, mainly in Shiite areas. In Kuwait, Al Qaeda terrorists were stopped from bombing and American base. Even more seriously, a leading British expert on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal reported that Al Qaeda has attacked Pakistan’s nuclear facilities three times in the last two years. Al Qaeda is not resting… we mustn’t either.

The threat from Islamo-fascism is as important as the threat from creeping socialism. We would do well in remembering back in the nineties that we were so focused on domestic and internal affairs that Osama Bin Laden was given the breathing room necessary to build up Al Qaeda right under our noses and plan the tragic events of 9-11. We cannot make this same mistake. Recent Al Qaeda bombings and video messages haven’t caught our attention as a nation… we are distracted and that is exactly what Al Qaeda wants.

-AG

At first, people around the country were simply doubting the legitimacy of the president. Some called him a fraud and others a usurper. Later, frustrated citizens were demanding proof of his legitimacy but the government simply kept repeating that they were not lying. The government accused the people who questioned their authority of being organized mobs paid for by political enemies, completely disregarding the protesters’ legitimate grievances. The president’s political opponents were branded as domestic terrorists and extremists… This is not merely happening here in the United States, it’s also happening in Iran.

The Iranian regime, which has rounded up and arrested scores of people for their protests questioning the fairness of the last election, is putting about 100 people on trial for their involvement in the protests. Among these people on trial are French and British embassy workers and notable people within Iranian society. It is important that we not lose sight of what happens overseas, because so many of the elements are the same, the only thing missing is government’s use of force, mass arrest, and kangaroo courts to silence opposition. What is worrisome is that fact that there are several independent reports of SEIU “activists” that have been threatening, manhandling, and assaulting people at town hall meetings who oppose the Obama plan to expand the government’s role in health care (examples here and here). We already have seen that the case of voter intimidation by New Black Panther Party members in the last election is being dropped by the Justice Department… I guess that to the victor go the spoils.

Black Panther members intimidating voters

Add to that the Department of Homeland Security report that labeled conservatives, libertarians, military veterans, and anyone considered “rightwing” as potential terrorists, and what you have is an administration that is increasingly using its political and executive muscle to bully political opponents. This is happening in Iran. This is happening in Venezuela. This already happened in Cuba. Americans must be wary: big government and political intimidation never lead to positive outcomes… at the same time, we must not allow ourselves to be goaded into a violent response, that is exactly the excuse that the administration needs to openly persecute patriots who oppose Obama’s expansion of government. Once that happens… let’s just try to make sure that never happens.

-AG

Today is August 5th and for the Cuban people and lovers of freedom everywhere is a date that shows that decades of totalitarian oppression cannot extinguish the spirit of freedom. On August 5th 1994, the people of Havana, Cuba spontaneously took to the streets demanding a free Cuba and shouting “Down with Fidel!” It was an event that came to be known as the “Maleconazo” named after the place where it all started, Havan’s famous Malecon. This act was not widely reported because of the Cuban regime’s censorship, but it showed that there was massive discontent with a government that brutally represses its own people. It resulted in thousands of arrests and a realization by the Castro regime that they needed to appease the population before a popular revolution overthrew them. This discontent continues to exist to this day and the Castro regime will routinely smash opposition figures, peaceful dissenters, and anything that smells like being pro-democracy or pro-human rights in order to preempt any popular uprising.

Currently, the administration is moving towards easing its policy on the Cuban regime, but it is not aware that, like in Iran, the people are fed up with decades of non-representation, decades of arbitrary imprisonment, decades of oppression, and decades of living in the darkness. All that the Cuban people need is a little bit of help, a little bit of organization, and a little bit of moral support for them to finally rise up once and for all and put an end to the totalitarian nightmare that is currently threatening Venezuela, Bolivia, and the other Latin American nations that have been hijacked by socialism. So this day, we should commemorate the Maleconazo and realize that while we enjoy freedom in this country, there are millions around the world that fight for it every day. Let’s not abandon them.

Viva Cuba Libre!

-AG

Notice the big smile on Kim Jong Il’s face, could it be that he just took his happy pills or that he’s overjoyed that the man who helped him develop nuclear weapons under the world’s noses is back for a second round? William Jefferson Clinton, former president of the United States, was the man who assured us at the end of his second term that he would stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for billions in aid from the US. Apparently, peace-in-our-time Bill was under the impression that Kim Jong Il actually cared about his people or peace… how wrong he was. Fortunately, there seems to be a good chance that Clinton will secure the release of two US journalists being held there. Unfortunately, Clinton’s visit may also be the precursor to a strategy of direct diplomacy that will result in more appeasement of the communist regime. So far the official line is that this visit is a private affair. I highly doubt that. Slick Willy met his match in Slick Kim Jong Il-ly last time, let’s hope that this time he brought his poker face.

-AG

I am adding the song “Dream On” by Aerosmith to the songs on the left (scroll through the songs to find it) in honor of this visit.

Update: North Korea grants amnesty to the two journalists. Bravo. Only bad thing is that North Korea wins PR victory, but the lives of two Americans are much more valuable. “Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it.” I guess that being a journalist is a “hostile action.” Let’s hope that Clinton or the administration did not make any other concessions to the communist regime… this goes to show that even Democrats can do good things, but at what cost?

I was just reading this article on how Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda’s second in command, was criticizing Obama for trying to advocate for a Palestinian state that does Israel’s bidding. It is funny that Al Qaeda is trying to slam Obama’s efforts far not going far enough in helping the Palestinian cause. It shows us that appeasement does not work and that extremists will blame us for anything and everything that is wrong in the world, even if we are doing something that they agree with. While some may consider this to be a sign that Obama is succeeding in capturing some Muslim goodwill, the reality is that terrorists are still capitalizing on anti-American sentiment in the region, with groups such as the Taliban, Hezbollah, and Hamas showing no signs of subsiding. They hate us for being a free and democratic superpower, only abandoning our ideals, our allies, and our interests will be enough to appease them.

He also said that Obama’s new nice-guy policy towards the Islamic world was the direct result of the “heavy losses” we have suffered because of them (and other terrorists/insurgents). This was my point from the beginning, Obama is perceived as one who cannot stomach a fight and will surrender and withdraw at the sight of terrorist attacks. Repeated communications from Al Qaeda only further prove this point. It is this very sentiment with regard to the mujihadeens’ fight against the USSR in Afghanistan that made the Taliban and Al Qaeda so appealing to terrorists and would-be terrorists. Beating Goliath is as much a motivator as being beaten by Goliath.

Another interesting thing is that Al Qaeda took the time to criticize Iran for not fighting directly against Israel when they invaded Gaza. Zawahiri called the Iranians sell-outs… which makes it official: even terrorists, our sworn enemies, will stand up to Iran but our president won’t. When Iranian protesters were on the street getting beaten, arrested, and killed as they demanded democracy, Obama said nothing and did nothing. When the abuses became more and more apparent and the international community condemned Iran’s regime nearly unanimously, only then did the president come out and condemn them for their oppressiveness. When Iran publicly expressed their support for international terrorism, the administration again did and said nothing. This is the pattern for the administration and it only enables Iran’s destabilization of the region.

Since Obama will probably do little to defend America from these two threats, Al Qaeda and Iran, I certainly do not mind if Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime go at it… and destroy themselves both in the process.

-AG