For too long, it has been common knowledge in our society that leftist political philosophies contain within them the ingredients for an ideal state of affairs in the world. The perceived “humanism” and liberalism (in the classic sense) of the leftists emerged from the stark contrast between their ideas and that of the “establishment.” History is riddled with examples of how the “establishment” has wronged mankind, held back the spirit of progress, and led to countless atrocities. From religious wars to despotic rule to exploitative capitalism during the Industrial Revolution, the Old Order seemed to keep us all in a dark age where the few ruled over the many with an iron fist. In general, revolutionary forces tended to be “leftist” while Old Order proponents were called “rightist,” terms originating from the French Revolution. Yet as leftist philosophies matured in the 19th century and the vestiges of the Old Order of monarchies and all-powerful Churches subsided, the leftists started to refine their concepts and better define the future ideal societies they had in mind. This refinement led to schisms among the leftists and today we have socialists, communists, anarchists, social democrats, progressives, and so on. In the United States, the characterization of the Left as the progressive, common-man political ideology has firmly established it as the idealistic philosophy… but modern Leftism in America is very far from idealistic.

From its foundation, Leftism and Progressivism in the United States is an ideology that focuses on a peculiar type of equality: equality of outcome. In itself, this may seem to contain an idealistic character, but that is only on the surface. From matters of race to gender to economic status, the progressives wage war on any sort of inequality that they are conscious of. They aim to shatter distinctions in gender, reform public expression to make it more palatable for people of all backgrounds, institute racial and ethnic quotas to make the distribution of power, wealth, and influence more “equal,” and use government as a means of preventing any one individual or group from acquiring an “undue” share of wealth. Underlying this philosophy is the idea that man, when left to his devices, will always wage war on others, will always try to take from others, and must be told what is right and what is wrong. It is a philosophy that takes away from people the freedom to make their own decisions and empowers a central authority to redistribute all capital, be it economic or social, as it sees fit, all for the good of the whole. The progressive does not assume that people will act in the best interest of society on their own but rather that they will inherently do evil things and must be stopped. Leftism is pessimistic about the nature of humanity. To them, human beings are children who need constant supervision otherwise they will steal all of the other children’s toys and resort to bullying. This is evident in their approach to most social, political, and economic issues. They address gun violence with abolishing the right to bear arms. They address economic inequality by taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. They insist on price controls, market intervention, strict regulation, and are almost religiously opposed to making profit of any kind. Given this reality, the fact that Leftism is regarded as the “idealistic” ideology seems to be more a matter of tradition than a matter of careful analysis.

In America, there is another political philosophy which takes a different approach to the question of how society should be arranged. Specifically, this philosophy says that society should not be explicitly arranged, just allowed to live and prosper in freedom. This philosophy is Conservatism. While not as extreme as libertarianism, which advocates for even less power to be given to the state, conservatism advocates a sort of middle way where there exists a government limited to a certain role. In the United States, the Constitution provides a political framework whereby the government can operate through the consent of the people. The underlying principle of conservatism is freedom… and ultimately that human beings can and should make decisions for themselves, be responsible for those decisions, and be entitled to the fruit of their labor without heavy government interference. This idea is revolutionary in modern-day America where the continual expansion of the size, scope, and power of government is the paradigm. Not only is this idea revolutionary but at its core it posits that human beings have the capacity to run their own lives. It is a philosophy that is optimistic about man, while at the same time being realistic about the need for some sort of agreed upon authority to enforce contracts and rules. It is an idealism based on real conditions. The equality that conservatism guarantees is equality of opportunity, not outcome, because to enforce a uniform outcome is to deny the right of a person to benefit from or be held responsible for his or her actions. Modern-day conservatism represents the hopes and dreams of all Americans, to be free, to be successful, to have a voice in our government. This is why conservatives emphasize respect for state’s rights and the separation of powers in government, because history has shown that central authority has the propensity to abuse power. This is why conservatives demand that judges be neutral arbiters of the law and not activist “re-interpreters” of the Constitution. This is why conservatives are opposed to increasing government interference in the economy and in our everyday lives. Conservatives are the new idealists. We believe that a better society is possible if we free the creative and productive powers of human beings. We do not merely believe that we should be free, we believe that we have the fundamental right to liberty. There is no limit to this right. It is absolute. And if we fall as a people in our exercise of this liberty, then we will learn and we will do better… and by iterations, our society will move forward, will improve, and our world will be better off for it.

So when I hear people in positions of power explain to me and my fellow Americans that we need to be guided by the gentle hand of government bureaucrats, that our rights need to be limited for the common good, and that we cannot reap the rewards of our own sweat, I do not consider them idealistic in the least… I consider them despotic. Leftism has become, not a total repudiation of the Old Order tyranny, but as an alternative, more acceptable New Order tyranny. This is neither “progressive” nor ideal for any society. I hope that new idealistic souls will rise up and declare the old ideas over and done with. The sad part is that these idealists are attacked and portrayed as being part of that Old Order by the leftists, for they convince their followers in true Orwellian form that when we conservatives say “freedom” we mean slavery and when we say “individualism” we mean racism and class-ism. For the moment they control the major means of communication in our society, so revolution will be slower than we would like, but with new technology the message of optimism in our fellow man will breach the wall of disinformation that currently exists. To those conservatives out there who believe that we can live in a better world that is free, let everyone know that we are indeed the last idealists.

-AG

People new to this site or who are not familiar with communism in practice may not like some of my claims about big government and the leftist agenda in America… but this is probably because the idea of what government should be has never been fully thought through by regular folks out there. I mean, when times are good, when we are not being killed by enemies and our economy is humming along, no one really pays attention to politics… only when times are tough do we have a majority that start having real, hard opinions on what is happening in our country, but by the time they do start thinking critically, people start worrying about what the government should do and not questioning what the role of government should be. This is the most important question.

Ultimately, citizens must decide on how much government is best. Conservatives, true conservatives, believe that a society where government simply serves as an arbiter, as a protector of rights, contracts, and provider of national security is the best model. This belief stems from our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that provided our nation more than two hundred years ago with one of the most effective and free forms of government ever conceived. Mistakes were made along the way and mistakes are being made as we speak, but essentially, the dream of America is what made this country great and what, God willing, will make this country even greater in the future. Conservatives answer the question of the role of government by putting faith in a balanced idea of freedom and responsibility, faith in free market competition, and faith in the first principles upon which our nation was founded.

Other nations have answered this question differently. The extreme examples are the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba. Of these countries, most of them have teetered on the verge of starvation, one collapsed without a shot being fired, and one is growing because they have embraced a limited free market model. This is the (sadly) enduring legacy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the architects of the idea of communism, i.e. absolute central government power.

The modern liberals, since FDR, answer the question of government’s role in a similar fashion. They believe that the government should be placed in charge of things beyond what government was initially intended for and this belief makes them think of themselves as “progressives“… in charge of progress. They find disparity, in any sense, unnerving and therefore see government as the only vehicle to address such disparity. The answer to pressing needs, for liberals, tends to be “more government,” with the idea behind such a belief being: if it’s important, then government should be taking care of it. This is the liberal opinion of what government’s role is. Motivations and ulterior motives aside, I believe, as do conservatives in general, that such an approach puts us on the road to a more centrally planned society… a repudiation of the American Dream.

The idea of liberty is one that most Americans believe in. Most liberals I talk to are more put off by the “social issues” espoused by the right than the ideas of fiscal responsibility or limited role of government… but I often ask these liberals if we should ignore American culture outright? Is that the nature of our republic? To ignore the beliefs of a people and deny them their right to be heard? Whether the issue is abortion rights or prayer in school, shouldn’t American citizens get a say in these types of decisions? Theocracy is as terrible as communism and true conservatives do not believe in that type of society. Right now, with the leftward swing of government, conservatism is experiencing a sort of revival, a revival that does not necessarily include socially-based politics. This is a good thing. Politics should focus more on the political than on the spiritual especially because our founding fathers erred on the side of liberty rather than the side of morality when they thought up our great system. This also applies to the left, meaning we should not impose a particular secular moral code on America either. People can choose for themselves. Conservatives are reclaiming their political power in the wake of the leftist takeover of Washington and this is something that should be cheered by all parts of the political spectrum… if successful, conservatives will hold Republicans accountable for their mismanagement and for their complicity in the culture of corruption that engulfs both parties. Conservatives believe that the solution lies in reducing the scope and size of government, for if there is nothing for the special interests to pay for, no one will get paid off. Those that would nudge us in the direction of a Big Nanny State bring us dangerously closer to a society where government gives and government takes at its own discretion, where personal freedom gets taxed, mandated, and regulated, and where people start to lose the American spirit… this I call socialism, a society based on the collective that stamps out the individual, and those who advocate for “spreading the wealth around” I call socialists. It may seem extreme to those who think that socialism represents only those dictatorships with the goose-stepping military marches and large statues of stern-looking demagogues, but in truth many of those systems were put into place by people who thought that government was the answer for all their problems… until their own governments got so out of control that it became the problem. Socialism starts somewhere… and that somewhere is the minds of everyday Americans who place more trust in a central earthly authority than in the power and endless potential of human freedom.

-AG

I was thinking the other day that far left liberals in this country have an odd view of the world, as if they completely rebelled against the things that they were taught as children. This is a general statement of course and is completely subjective, taken from my own experiences when I was a young child and the lessons that I was taught. I understand that there are many differences in the way that people are raised, but in general there are some values that are pretty widespread, dare I say universal, in this country. Let’s call these American values. I will enumerate some and give their leftist liberal counterparts.

“Work hard and you will be successful.” This was something that my parents instilled in me from a very young age and it applies to nearly everything in life. This was not a conservative viewpoint nor a political ideology, but a truism gleaned from experience… experiences such as the struggle against communism in Cuba where, despite having family members imprisoned for political reasons, my family earned a living, became educated, practiced their faith in defiance of the state, and ultimately came to this country against huge odds. What is interesting is that the leftist point of view is almost the polar opposite of this: “without government help, you can’t make it.” Just glossing through the Democrat party’s platform one reads thing like “giving people jobs,” “giving people health care,” and even a part where they say that they will “help” those who, and I quote, “no matter how hard they work - are seeing prices go up more than their incomes.” I always thought that the can-do spirit was part of the American character, not the idea that there is an upper bound to our success, a bound that only government can help you break through. Is it any wonder that conservatives sometimes brand liberals as un-patriotic or un-American when the left’s values are so out of sync with American values?

“Be your own boss” and “work in what you love.” These, to me, are related lessons that my family taught me. It affirms that one should seek independence, if possible, and that one should enjoy their vocation. It extols the virtues of owning a business, especially in an area that one loves. The leftists on the other hand believe that good jobs do not come from the independence of the citizen but rather through organizing unions to challenge companies. Don’t believe me? Just check out the “Good Jobs with Good Pay” section where, instead of talking about how entrepreneurship and innovation can spur job growth and good wages, they talk about ensuring the rights of unions. Their section on entrepreneurship was vague and probably the shortest in the whole document. This is because the leftists believe that “companies are evil.” No longer are businessmen considered “successful,” they are considered greedy and heartless… all of them. Democrats somehow believe that unions “pull people out of poverty” and “create a stronger middle class,” when in reality unions produce nothing, it is the entrepreneurs and a company’s employees that produce things, create wealth, and drive the economy. Unions only suck up membership fees from workers and make unrealistic demands of companies, making demands that do not reflect economic realities; just look at the auto industry. Furthermore, why is being a unionized worker the ideal status for Americans? Do we grow up thinking “man, when I grow up I want to be a SEIU member?” I, personally, am all for unions, I simply worry when they become big machines that usurp the rights of workers, instead of help protect them.

“Be responsible.” So simple and so true. It applies to everything, from the idea that one should not force others to take care of you (if possible) to facing the consequences of ones actions. Needless to say, the left finds this value to be complete nonsense. From their positions on health care to immigration to taxes, the left promotes a society where the few are responsible for the many. No longer is health a personal matter, all taxpayers, especially the wealthy, must contribute in order to “give” it to all. No longer is illegally crossing into the United States a crime according to the left, they say we must provide a path to citizenship… in essence rewarding them for doing something illegal. No longer are merit and actions important in our society, but rather the color of your skin or minority status influences decisions as varied as university acceptance or getting a job. The Democrats advocate the idea of “we will take care of you,” and whenever some political leader does not act like a nanny, they say that they are not doing their job, they are not taking care of you. Personally, I don’t want to be taken care of. I stand on my own two feet. I am an American and I will not be treated as a child. Sadly, not everyone shares this sentiment.

Just perusing through the Democrat platform, one finds a value system that seems alien and divorced from the American value system, as I was taught. To be fair, the document does say things like promoting competitiveness and the hard work is good and things like that, but these words ring hollow when you look at their entire agenda. Their brief mention of small businesses is drowned out by their tax schemes, emphasis on union power, and rich versus poor rhetoric. Their talk of the American dream is silenced by their insistence that only government can lead to a comfortable life, that no personal effort can achieve prosperity. They talk of “giving” Americans everything instead of letting Americans get it themselves, instead of freeing Americans… and dishonestly ignore the fact that in order to “give” something, the government must “take” something away, because the government produces nothing. There are many more examples of the disconnect between the far left and Americans in general, I simply outlined a few here. What I honestly believe is that regular Joe liberals do not agree with this stuff. I believe that they care about those who cannot do for themselves and worry that without some sort of safety net too many people will fail, many conservatives believe this too but they do not hold the opinion that government is the only answer. These regular Joe liberals ultimately flock to the party that seems to represent these views, when in fact the Democrat party has been hijacked by the far left and care only for power. If conservatives are to make a dent in the power and size of government, then we must make inroads among these regular liberals because many of them actually do share the American values that the Democrat party disdains.

-AG

A lot of persons of the elitist mentality deride toughness… so foolish they are. Elitism in America exists and existed because of individuals who shaped history after the events of December 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001 (to name a few). In each of these events, while led by two completely different persons, America did not choose to whimper in a corner but instead to harness American power in order to extinguish evil. Elitists see history differently, probably because elitists find it amusing or enlightening to twist the historical narrative to fit their own mind-set. This does not make this type of person more enlightened, it makes this type of person akin to the high school all-star athlete who ends up serving drinks at a bar: wasted potential. I see it constantly, at reunions with old friends and with people whose style is eloquent but whose content in vacuous. What I marvel at, in the midst of listening to their diatribes against the right, is their ability to use specious arguments and a smattering of facts, ill-interpreted, that make Dali look like a realist. What I take away every time is that true “enlightenment” comes not from the arrogance of believing oneself so clever, so wise, or so insightful but rather from having a true understanding of what matters and what one actually knows. I strive for that latter while elitists blindly thrive in the former.

Toughness, on the other hand, holds its nose up to no one. Toughness sees a necessity and pursues a course of action, be it perfect or imperfect, vigorously. That is not to say that many times ignorance does not accompany toughness, but toughness itself, what I term that visceral “gut” reaction that makes us stand up to an enemy or to bite our tongues in preparation for some necessary torture, is pure and beneficial to man. Without it, the Spartans who held back the Persian Empire, glorified in history books and Hollywood alike, would not have safeguarded Western Civilization. Without it, those who resisted the Nazi war machine would have succumbed to it and we would be celebrating our new years with book burnings and lynchings of “undesirables.” So when I hear people say that such toughness is a quality that leaders should not have, I fear for my country. To imagine a world run by Chamberlains, waving pieces of paper while enemies polish their bayonets, fills me with dismay… yet this is precisely what they want. Idealists, unfortunately for all of us, do not elect Chamberlains anymore, they elect Lenins, who argue for peace but deliver national holocausts. Therefore, let us not sue for an end to American toughness, for there exist two great evils that emerge upon its extinction: the vultures who await our moment of weakness and the parasites who promise us utopian dreams but end up sucking us dry. For all of history, only toughness has kept them at bay. In the future, we will need no less to guide us forward… which makes those who cherish toughness, in my eyes, wiser than those who disparage it.

-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:

Ladies and gentlemen, this is insanity! See this short video below:

I had not seen this before, but he was already planning his “change” and telling us to our faces about the radical direction he wanted to take this country. Is this what Organizing for America and ACORN are about, the seeds of a future paramilitary organization? This was done in Germany by Adolph Hitler: the Schutzstaffel (SS). It exists in Venezuela under Chavez: the Bolivarian National Militia. It exists in Iran under the Ayatollahs: the Basij militia. Will it now come to be, right under our noses, here in the United States? I thought this was America, people!

-AG

With the recent declaration from Cuban dictator Raul Castro that he will not end ’socialism’ in Cuba but rather ‘defend, maintain and continue perfecting’ it, I realized that my position with respect to Cuba is diametrically opposed to this administration’s approach. Castro, either Fidel or Raul, cannot be negotiated with, Castro must be killed. Of course, I am no extremist, so when I say ‘kill’ I mean that the dictators should be put on trial and given the death penalty… in other words, there is a legal process, but the crimes are already known, there is not much wiggle room. By Cuba’s very laws, the crimes that the regime has perpetrated at the direction of both Castros are punishable by death. There have been forced deportations, denial of basic human rights, mass executions, disappearances of political opponents, widespread torture, and untold other crimes that the Castros have authorized with impunity.

In a more objective sense, international law calls the Castro regime a perpetrator of “crimes against humanity.” People like Wilhem Frick, a Nazi who ran the concentration camps, was sentenced to death even though his participation was institutional, i.e. he wasn’t personally killing people. The Castros on the other hand were and are the ultimate architects of the daily criminal acts against the Cuban people and they know exactly what they are doing. Just like the Nazis, these enemies of humanity will not just surrender to international authorities, they need to be arrested and put on trial. Apparently, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674 makes the UN Security Council responsible for the prevention of crimes against humanity and also for the protection of populations from these crimes. This means that Castro, according to international law and the UN, needs to either surrender to the authorities or be forcibly arrested, and given that the United States is the closest and most able member of the UN Security Council, it only makes sense that the US be the nation that carries out this mission. In fact, I will volunteer to join the group that is sent to arrest the Castros… gladly in fact. So, let’s not mince words, the United Nations needs to live up to its mission and obligation to the world and order the arrest of Fidel Castro and Raul Castro (and anyone else that is guilty in the regime)… dictators around the world will be put on notice if the Castros are given the death penalty.

I hope that makes my position on Cuba crystal clear. The Castros need to die.

-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

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

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

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

When the United States pounded Al Qaeda after 911, the terrorist organization was essentially neutralized, forced to issue only a few statements from their mountain hideouts, forced to serve as simply the “inspirational” focus of would-be terrorists instead of actively supporting them, and forced to keep their organization small in order to prevent infiltration. They were fighting a relentless US-led campaign to wipe them out of existence for their crimes against thousands of innocent civilians and finally caught a break when Pakistan started negotiating with the Taliban and granting them quasi-autonomy in certain regions. It was in Pakistan’s ungovernable mountainous regions that Al Qaeda could exist with some form of security since the United States would not violate Pakistani sovereignty by invading or attacking the area. The recent Pakistani crackdown on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the terrorist-controlled region has been the most serious effort against the terror group in years, killing hundreds of militants and targeting terrorist hideouts. Despite the Pakistani government’s offensive operation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the terrorists have not been defeated but instead have launched multiple terrorist strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has also strengthened its presence in Algeria where it has carried out 10 attacks in the last month or so, Yemen where they are suspected of establishing a new base, Somalia where the government says that Al Qaeda-linked groups are too much for the government to handle, Iraq where terror attacks have increased substantially this year, and other countries. What is most troubling is that the mainstream media has not been devoting enough time to this troubling global trend.

In Africa, Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the death of an American aid worker in Mauritania, 39-year-old Christopher Ervin Leggett.

Christopher Ervin Leggett

Algeria is willing to offer amnesty to Al Qaeda terrorists, who recently killed a British hostage and launched attacks against Algerian soldiers, in an effort to reduce attacks in that country, a move that will only benefit Al Qaeda by making Algeria into a safe haven and a base from which terrorists can threaten Europe. In Mali, armed forces took over an Al Qaeda base near the Algerian border killing twelve militants, indicating that the terror group’s infrastructure in the region is pretty far advanced. Furthermore, as the pressure mounts on the Afghan-Pakistani border regions, Al Qaeda is now relocating to the Horn of Africa and setting up terrorist training camps. For example in Somalia, Al Qaeda is threatening to take over Mogadishu, engaging in a series of clashes with government forces recently.

Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, Al Qaeda commander of operations in Afghanistan

Unfortunately, this does not mean that Al Qaeda is giving up in Pakistan or Afghanistan, in fact there are signs that they and their Taliban-allies are getting stronger. First is the fact that they have launched several terror attacks across Pakistan since the offensive began. Second, in a recent interview with Al Jazeera, Al Qaeda spokesman said that they would soon win the battle in Pakistan and that they would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons against the United States. The Pakistani forces have reportedly made significant gains against the Taliban, but the group seems to continue resisting and carrying out attacks around the country. In a sign that the Taliban is reasserting itself decisively in Afghanistan, Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar has reestablished direct control of the Taliban resistance. Previously, the Taliban were a decentralized resistance group that carried out attacks according to the decisions of individual commanders. The Taliban recently launched a rocket attack on the US Bagram Air Base killing two soldiers and injuring six Americans, showing their resolve to continue fighting despite the upcoming increase in US troops in the region.

Baitullah Mehsud, Leader of Pakistani Taliban

Which brings us to Iraq, where recent bombings and terror attacks have increased as US forces have pulled out of Iraqi cities and back to US bases. In that same interviewed with Al Jazeera, the spokesman pointed to the US withdrawal as Al Qaeda’s victory in Iraq and that they have not launched major attacks on the US because they have been too busy fighting in the Middle East and Central Asia. Interestingly enough, this last point was the previous administration’s rationale for going to war, i.e. to bring the fight to the enemy so they do not attack us here.

Possible Aftermath of US Withdrawal

Of course, with a resurgent Al Qaeda that is able to project its power around the world and engage in terror in both Iraq and Afghanistan, countries where Al Qaeda was previously on the run, they will resume their plans to attack the United States mainland. An terrifying example is a recent video released by Al Qaeda that explains how they plan to exploit the security weaknesses of the US-Mexico border and sneak in a biological weapon. For those unconvinced of Al Qaeda’s sophistication in the development of biological weapons, early this year an Al Qaeda cell died of “the plague” at an Algerian terror base reportedly from their attempts to weaponize the disease. The threat from Al Qaeda is now more real than any time since 911.

With the current US strategy of withdrawing from Iraq, Al Qaeda will be able to fully challenge the Iraqi government by fomenting sectarian conflict and try to establish a base there, not to mention the propaganda value of having the US withdraw from Iraq in the midst of heightened terrorism. With the current behind-the-scenes talks with the Taliban, any sort of deal drawn up between the US-led coalition forces and the Taliban will result in the strengthening of the Taliban and subsequently the strengthening of their guests: Al Qaeda. With the current trend of politicization of terrorist groups occurring throughout the region and the US aversion to the deployment of troops anywhere else in the world, the possibility of the rise of an Islamic state-within-a-state with ties to Al Qaeda seems pretty inevitable. Only a sustained offensive policy towards Al Qaeda can stop them from gaining the capability to strike at the United States again. Our failure to address the growing Al Qaeda threat in Africa, inability to motivate Pakistan to crack down on terror, and the unraveling of last year’s security gains in Iraq have contributed to the resurgence of this threat. When one also considers that the eventual release of hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees, Iraqi detainees, and Afghan detainees will only swells Al Qaeda’s ranks with newly radicalized or re-radicalized recruits, it becomes apparent that the United States needs to adopt a better strategy in dealing with the terror group.

A world united against terror would certainly help

Hopefully, the cooperation we have been receiving from other nations and the operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan will be able to keep Al Qaeda from returning… but as of now, our “Overseas Contingency Operations” do not seem to be reducing Al Qaeda’s power. Let’s hope this changes.

-AG

When it comes to dealing with the thugs, terrorists, and tyrants of the world, direct talks without preconditions is naive, a betrayal of American values, and a threat to the security of the world. Just take the new administration’s approach to historical enemies of the United States, what the president calls “tough diplomacy” has, in 5 short months, increased the influence, strength, and belligerence of dictators and terrorists across the board. The amount of damage caused by the mere promise of holding direct talks with countries regardless of their human rights records, regardless of their complicity and participation in the deaths of Americans, regardless of their direct support of terrorism, and regardless of their nuclear aspirations has already been substantial. The examples are numerous and the effects of the administration’s new naive foreign policy have been felt on every continent.

To start off we have communist North Korea, a country that prior to Obama’s election was vilified as a member of the Axis of Evil and was in the process of suspending its nuclear program (at least in theory). During the election they favored the Democratic candidate because of his overt stance in favor of engaging with rogue states. Once the herald-of-change was elected, North Korea also changed. They threatened the destruction of South Korea, as they have in the past. They carried out illegal missile tests, as they have in the past. They pulled out of the six-party negotiations and resumed nuclear development. They conducted a new nuclear test. They launched medium-range missiles. They regarded the new United Nations resolution that tightened the arms embargo on North Korea as an act of war. They declared that they could not guarantee the safety of ships in disputed waters. They are currently preparing for the launch of a long-range missile, possibly towards Hawaii. The US response has been to urge them to return to the negotiation table. The State Department and the President have been repeating that North Korea’s actions will lead to further isolation and that the world will not tolerate these threats. In other words, the new administration has decided that the best course of action is diplomacy and each round of empty threats from the US have been met with new weapons tests and new provocations. Obama recently warned that North Korea “must respond to diplomacy” and warned that tougher actions would be taken otherwise. The reason that North Korea has not taken Obama seriously is that the president has made every indication that he would exhaust diplomatic venues before even considering a military response. While Obama waits for a response, North Korea will accelerate its weapons development programs and figure out how to best use their new weapons to blackmail the United States. While Obama waits for a response, Alaskans and Hawaiians worry a little more every day despite assurances from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that we are prepared for any potential missile attack from North Korea. While Obama waits for a response, the peoples of Japan and South Korea anxiously hope that the last bastion of freedom, the United States of America, will be able to solve this problem, which to them is an existential one. This is what the promise of negotiating with a madman like Kim Jong Il has brought us.

Which brings us to another nation that aspires to possess a nuclear capability: Iran. Run by a council of Islamic clerics and a hardline elected government headed by the Holocaust-denier, unstable Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When Obama offered to extend a hand if they unclenched their fist, Iran’s leaders immediately seized upon this as an excuse to demand an apology for all of our past actions. Iran’s efforts to increase their influence and power in the region after 30 years have led them to support sophisticated and well-organized terrorist organizations, interfere with US forces by arming and training insurgents, and develop a nuclear capability. Recognition by the United States and the world has been one of its primary goals, one that Obama went far to help them reach by offering to talk to them. The problem with recognizing this rogue state as a regional or world power is that it legitimizes their actions. It incentivizes sponsoring terrorism. It incentivizes pursuing nuclear weapons. It incentivizes military action against the United States. As I wrote before, Iran-sponsored terrorist organization Hezbollah recently met with officials from the European Union. In the last election they garnered the support of 55% of the Lebanese population. Actions that lead to the legitimization of terrorist organizations or regimes that vow the destruction of other countries, like Ahmadinejad has vowed to do to Israel, only lead to the spread of their murderous ideologies and their success at gaining political power. If Obama’s overtures to Iran did anything, it was to show the Iranian people that taking a hard stance against the United States will eventually cause us to back down and sue for peace. Even now, with demonstrations against Ahmadinejad, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spoke about accepting the election results as people chanted “Death to America”. The message that the US will respond to threats and attacks only helps terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Taliban gain and retain power. Right now, patriotic Iraqis are in fear of an Iranian-controlled government taking power as soon as the US withdraws its forces. Many Lebanese people fear that a disagreement between the central government and the terrorist organization Hezbollah will lead to another civil war. They also fear that Syria and Iran (Hezbollah’s sponsors) will come to wield undue influence in their country and that Hezbollah might launch another attack on Israel, dragging them into war yet again, or worse yet, another dose of Israeli occupation. Israel itself is afraid that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, which is now all but assured due to US insistence on dialogue which just gives them more time to finish their nuclear development, might bring about a nuclear Holocaust. Were Hamas to be more legitimized by the United States and the world, they would have the ability to smuggle more weapons into Gaza and continue their terrorist campaign against Israel. The US already has pledged hundreds of millions to help Gaza while insincerely reassuring the world that these funds would not make their way into terrorist hands. Ultimately though, the legitimization of Iran as a regional power in the Middle East makes it a perfect model of an Islamic fundamentalist state to be emulated by any other terrorist movement in any other country. By offering recognition the United States has just made extremism into a form of mainstream-ism in the world.

Which brings us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. After being almost totally routed in Afghanistan, the Taliban and their Al Qaeda guests relocated to Pakistan’s ungovernable tribal regions. In that area, due to the Pakistani government’s unwillingness to crack down on the terrorists, these organizations regrouped and rearmed. Upon assuming office, Obama has repeatedly proclaimed that the war in Afghanistan is being lost in spite of the fact that the Taliban have been ousted, they are forced to blend into the local population, and rarely engage in anything other than guerrilla attacks. To his credit, even General David D. McKiernan, the Commander of NATO and US forces in Afghanistan, agree with him. Among the solutions proposed by the commander-in-chief was to engage in dialogue with the Taliban. The United Nations also says that we must talk with the Taliban, including “alleged war criminals.” Another country that repeatedly has advocated talking to the Taliban is Pakistan, a country that is currently engaged in an offensive operation and in the midst of a terror wave. Apparently, the multitude of cease-fires, agreements, and negotiations did not prevent the Taliban and Al Qaeda from gaining strength in the region, so why does the Obama administration believe that some form of dialogue with the Taliban would do us any good? It is unknown why they believe that discussions with the Taliban would benefit US security, but since February, such secret talks with the Taliban have been underway. Of course they are secret, because if the American public was made aware that backers of the criminal terrorist Osama bin Laden are being offered immunity and other concessions, then there would be a great public outcry. To this date, negotiations are taking place in Saudi Arabia. While the Taliban are engaged in talks with the US, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Taliban terror attacks in Pakistan have been escalating. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have learned that if they continue to pressure these governments, they will eventually try to negotiate a way to end the conflict. Talking to the Taliban has only emboldened them. Right now, the citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan are in fear for their lives while their governments and ours is legitimizing the Taliban terror campaign by engaging in talks. The security of the world will be severely jeopardized if Al Qaeda is once again allowed to use Afghanistan as its training camp or if the Taliban once again assume control of the country. If this occurs, then Al Qaeda can claim victory over the United States and the memory of 911 will be betrayed. Obama’s policy of appeasement will only lead to more terror.

Which brings us to the western hemisphere. On Obama’s watch, the Organization of American States has lifted its suspension of communist Cuba after 47 years and now Cuba is well on its way to being recognized as a legitimate state. While Cuba has rejected OAS membership because of the stipulations that Cuba must re-apply to the organization and meet certain human rights standards, what this move signifies is that regardless of a regime’s crimes it will be accepted by the international community and the United States in particular. It also means that Castro-imitators will be accepted by the international community. Thus, to legitimize Castro by unilaterally easing restrictions on the embargo and lifting its suspension from an international organization of mainly democratic states is to legitimize Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela that has been, by increments, consolidating power in his and his party’s hands. Not to mention the fact that Obama has said that he is open to direct talks with Chavez, further legitimizing the socialist movement that has gripped the governments of many countries in Latin America. For example, Chavez recently has been cracking down on his political opponents and stripping them of power without the US saying a word, nor the media even mentioning it. When one also considers that these “socialist” governments are united mainly by their opposition to the United States and that they have been reaching out to anti-American nations around the world, it makes it clear that the threat to our country is closer than the new administration seems to believe. Chavez and Raul Castro have reached out to Iran.

Reports abound that Hezbollah has infiltrated Latin America. Bolivia’s ties with Iran have also increased substantially since the assumption of office by Evo Morales, Chavez’s good friend and fellow socialist. Some fear that this new relationship between these two America haters will lead to or has already led to the establishment of a terrorist cell or camp in Bolivia.

Ahmadinejad and Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, getting really friendly

Obama has treated these anti-American thugs with kindness. The president has not addressed their ties with Iran, probably because he is trying to engage with Iran. The policy of offering direct diplomacy without preconditions to these leaders only helps strengthen these regimes by giving them international legitimacy, even while the plot, prepare, and participate in attacks against America. In Latin America, an emerging socialist bloc threatens to reawaken the communist guerrilla armies that wreaked havoc in Colombia, Peru, and Nicaragua to name a few Latin American countries that have been affected by socialism/communism. In turn, civil wars in these countries will lead to a greater displacement of people and increase in the drug production and trafficking.

In the short time that this new administration has been in power, the seeds for regional destabilization have been sown and the enemies of the United States have been strengthened. It is now almost impossible to isolate Iran or North Korea. It is now expected that we negotiate with the Taliban and take a softer stance on the war on terror. It is now a fact of life that Latin America will consider the emerging socialist internationalist movements as a preferable alternative to free markets and trade with the United States. All of these states, organizations, and movements have one thing in common: anti-Americanism. They are reacting to the fact that America represents the eventual universal emancipation of people around the world. America represents the model for a government of, by, and for the people… a model where any person, including those who will undermine our national security due to poorly-conceived idealism, can become president. Thus, the idea that direct talks with our enemies without preconditions will lead to an era of dictators acting nicely and terrorists renouncing their ways only empowers both… our enemies have smelled weakness in our new government and although they have been united in purpose for some time now, they are increasingly uniting in action… they are forming an Anti-American Axis that is dramatically different from the Evil Empire that we faced in the last century. The potential loss of their entire country and people kept them from using weapons of mass destruction on the United States. Suicidal extremists have no such constraints.

When faced with such an enemy, the popular refrain seems most fitting: Talk is Cheap.

-AG

It is a problem that has plagued presidents for decades and it is a problem that Barack Hussein Obama has inherited. For the last two administrations, our government’s prescription for the problem of the North Korean threat has been appeasement; I say appeasement and not compromise because while we gave them billions in aid in exchange for a suspension of their nuclear program, they never stopped developing nuclear weapons or missiles. It turned out that we were giving in to blackmail and the North Korean dictator understood the success of this formula: threats + weapons tests = billions in aid. What is different today compared to the last administration is the way we are treating North Korea. The last administration, for all its faults, made it absolutely clear to the world that North Korea’s dictator is EVIL. Can’t get more clear than that. Unfortunately, with our war on terror and the Iraq invasion, our ability to seriously consider the military option was diminished, especially when one takes into account the fact that many countries of the world made it a sport to oppose any US policy. So the Bush administration followed in the completely discredited footsteps of his predecessor, Bill, and adopted a policy of negotiations. Of course, few in the world gave him any credit for his multilateral diplomatic approach, like the Democrats were/are preaching, and in addition to being a failed policy, it was not even applauded (like Obama’s every move is applauded).

Which brings us to the Obama administration, whose foreign policy strategy was touted as “tough diplomacy.” The thing about “diplomacy” is that North Korea considers itself an expert at negotiation and therefore saw this president as a golden ticket to all of their desires. Once we understand this fact, we can understand the logic of North Korea’s moves and ultimately their motives. Like Carter before him, a soft approach to the Anti-American Axis that exists in the world only emboldens the enemy.

When Obama met with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, he reaffirmed America’s commitment to South Korea’s security as well as saying that the goal is the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Obama said that he would not reward North Korea for their threats and that their nuclear development was unacceptable. Bold words from a mild man… but, to North Korea’s rulers, they are utterly hollow. They know that Obama will not risk a war and that South Korea will not want to be wiped off the map. So North Korea will continue their tests, improving the range of their missiles so that they can hit the contiguous US mainland, improving their nuclear weapons, developing warheads, etc.

North Korean Poster

In the meantime, North Korea is holding two American journalists on the charges that they were participating in a “smear campaign.” They were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for their slandering the North Korean regime. Obama did not make a mention of them in his remarks after meeting the South Korean president. Way to root for the team, Barack! While the president was talking tough about Korea, the Pentagon recently capped the number of interceptor missiles in Alaska and California, saying that there are enough in place already… but how do we accurately know how many long-range missiles North Korea has produced and hidden? If anything, this indicates to the North Koreans that we are truly not interested in any sort of conflict… just talk.

The more pressing threat of course is not merely the development of their conventional weapons, since we have been preparing for such a threat for most of the last century, it is the threat of nuclear technology and weapons falling in the hands of a nihilistic group, e.g. Al Qaeda. While we know that North Korea had help from the Pakistani nuclear program, what we do not know is how far does North Korea’s contact in the Middle East, Central Asia, or South Asia goes. Right now, the US is tracking a North Korean ship suspected of carrying weapons or technology. They insist that they will not forcibly board the ship because North Korea would view that as an act of war… so I wonder, what would we consider the transfer of North Korean nuclear weapons technology to Al Qaeda? An act of peace? We need to have the option of forcibly boarding and inspecting the ship… this is for the purpose of mankind’s security, not merely our own interests. Our policy of treating our enemies with kid gloves will only allow them to strengthen and eventually strike at us. For the Obama administration, the possibility of a mushroom cloud over an American city is not enough to persuade him to get a little tougher.

What I do not understand is how the current president Obama and former president Carter can nonchalantly express the desire that we negotiate with terrorists and tyrants when these terrorists and tyrants are actively looking for ways to kill Americans. Americans are being imprisoned abroad, used as bargaining chips, while world peace is threatened and the president offers us only words. Just words. Nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to fall in the hands of a suicidal terrorist group, not from North Korea nor Iran nor anywhere else. How far is the current president willing to go in order to ensure the survival of our nation and our civilization? From the looks of it, not far enough.

-AG

While I usually could care less about the opinions of actors and actresses, Jon Voight really hit it out of the park recently. At a Republican fundraiser he asked Republicans to “bring an end to this false prophet: Obama.” He went on to say that everything that Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous and that his weak foreign policy is based on the naive assumption that our enemies will back down if we act nicely towards them. In fact, here is a clip:

America needs to wake up and stop this false prophet before it is too late.

-AG