Yes, the title of this blog post is taken from that old song by The Clash, and it's a song that Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York might be singing to himself over the next several days, or several weeks, or however long he is able to hold on to his congressional seat after yesterday's blockbuster revelation. A U.S. Congressman, an outspoken defender of liberal orthodoxy, a rising star aspiring to be Mayor of New York City, found to be sending sexually explicit photos of himself over the internet to women he had never met and barely knew. He had phone sex with some of these women as well, quite possibly from his congressional office. He had been lying for days about it, blaming the incident on a "hacker" or "prankster." And arguably worst of all, he was married just last year and continued to engage in this activity even after his marriage.
I was honestly pretty amazed at how much coverage the story received, but it seems as if Congressman Weiner had the misfortune of scheduling his apologetic news conference on a day when little else was going on in the world. As a result, it became the headline story for most media outlets, and sound bytes and images from that news conference were played over and over again on the evening and late night news.
As someone who has seen Weiner many, many times on television, it was surreal to see him at the podium yesterday. The brash, bold, Brooklyn attitude was nowhere to be found. His voice cracked; his eyes teared. The man who always makes it a point to look his interviewers right in the eye hung his head several times throughout the press conference. You can see that he was humiliated, and that inside he really was hurting. I actually almost felt sorry for him.
I say "almost" for two reasons. First of all, he made his bed and now has to lie in it. He has no one to blame for his actions but himself, so there is nothing unjust in that. But I also held back my sympathy because somehow, some way, in that dark pit of deep despair, via the slightest sparkle of light...his arrogance managed to shine through. For several times throughout the press conference, he made it a point to say that he would refuse to resign his congressional seat.
Weiner has lofty aspirations, always has and probably always will. I suppose he wasn't going to let them all slip away as the result of a few improper communications over the internet with strange women. And who could blame him? Several other politicians, including President Bill Clinton, survived worse. Did they not? I would even argue that his actions, though revile and reprehensible, are not as egregious as those of Charles Rangel. Yet Rangel was allowed to remain in his seat, though he was censured by the House Ethics Committee. So it comes as no surprise that Weiner plans to roll the dice with an ethics investigation.
It was interesting to see the array of viewpoints on whether Weiner should resign or whether he would be able to weather this storm. Pretty much every Democratic strategist or liberal pundit I saw on the news yesterday stated that Weiner should stay and that he would survive. The conservative commentators said that he should resign, and a number of them said he'd be lucky to last another week or two.
As for me, I say that every public servant who disgraces himself should resign out of respect for the office, the country, and the people he serves. But the reality is that most of them won't, because they're fighters by their very nature. You have to be a fighter to make it in politics, so very few of them are willing to give up that easy, even when the odds are against them.
Those who do resign usually do so only after being pressured by their colleagues. If their fellow congressmen can convince them that they are hurting the party by staying in office, then they will almost always give up their seat. The Republicans in the House have shown little tolerance for improper conduct, most recently with Congressman Chris Lee. But what will the Democrats do with Weiner?
Lee was a totally different animal because he was a virtual nobody. Few people ever even heard of him when news of his scandal broke. But Weiner has been an attack dog for the liberals, unleashed by the Democratic leadership to face off with the media and defend their big government, tax-and-spend agenda. Now that attack dog will have to be collared, leashed, and caged. You can be assured that this has already been done. Nancy Pelosi did call for an ethics investigation as well, but then again, what choice did she have?
I am not so sure that Weiner can survive this scandal for one major reason. Even as he is walled off by liberal brass and insulated from the media, his very presence in Congress remains a distraction. Yesterday's press conference wasn't the end of this story. It was just the beginning. One of the women involved has already come forward to tell her side, and you can bet that others will too. Pictures are still surfacing, and more juicy details are sure to be released at some point. It's just the nature of society in this day and age of digital technology and 24-hour press coverage.
The timing is particularly bad because the Democrats were starting to gain some momentum with their "Medi-scare" tactics. After Chris Lee resigned his seat, Democrats used the Ryan budget as a campaign tool in the special election. They even depicted Congressman Ryan wheeling an elderly woman off a cliff, implying that the Republicans' budget would ravage Medicare to the point that seniors would not be able to get the treatment they need. The sad part about it is that it worked. In a very Republican district, the Democrats scored a landslide victory.
But now, their momentum has been slowed, arguably even stopped dead, by the Weiner scandal. The story is not going away unless Weiner goes away, and Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer, et al. all know it. They may be initiating an ethics investigation, but those can take several months, even more than a year, to complete. And the longer this drags on, the worse it is for Democrats.
In my honest opinion, I think Pelosi and company are doing the right thing for now. They're going to take a wait-and-see approach to dealing with this situation before demanding Weiner's resignation. If the story dies a quick death and they can get things back on track, they'll let the investigation play out and allow Weiner to keep his seat, albeit with a diminished role in Congress. But if more and more sordid details emerge each day and the story lingers, they may have to cut their losses. Campaign season has already started, and 2012 is shaping up to be one of the most important elections in U.S. history. They can't afford to have something like this get in the way.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but regardless of the outcome, I have absolutely no compassion or respect for Weiner. He was ready to destroy Andrew Breitbart's reputation to save his own career, and only backed off when there were no other options. Once the story broke that women were coming forward, he had no choice but to confess. So it's not as if he did a noble thing by finally coming forward. I hope he is forced to resign, but I won't be shocked if he holds on.
I will say one thing: I'll miss his verbal spars on the air with Hannity, O'Reilly, and Kelly. Those were pretty fun to watch. Now, the Democrats will have to nominate someone else for that role. Whoever that person is, I doubt they'll be as colorful and combative as the Congressman from New York. Good luck with this one, Dems. You're going to need it.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Obama's Policy on Private For-Profit Colleges is Misguided and Unfair
Just yesterday, President Obama unveiled a plan to regulate private, for-profit colleges, saying the new rules were needed to protect students who were running up huge tuition bills but getting few practical job skills. According to the president, for-profits are taking advantage of students who fund their education with federal student loans, accepting them into programs that are highly unlikely to enable them to land gainful employment. As a result, the students are straddled with debt while the institutions make out like bandits.
On the surface, this may seem like it is a noble gesture. But in reality, it's just another example of President Obama forcing his big government philosophy on the private sector, disguised as an attempt to protect the poor students who are getting the short end of the stick.
One thing that has been really interesting about this new policy is the diversity of groups that are opposed to it. It should come as no surprise that the plan has been decried by several congressional Republicans, who are pushing for smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. Obviously, the for-profit colleges themselves have been very outspoken in expressing their opposition as well.
But one might be surprised to find out that several minority groups have joined forces with the for-profits and Republicans in criticizing this move. Why? If for-profit colleges fail the new litmus test, then they are at risk of no longer being able to accept students paying with federal money. This is a restriction that could force some institutions to close their doors, and several of these institutions enroll a high percentage of minority students. Translation: it would mean less educational opportunities and less career options for minority students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
I understand all of these arguments, and I obviously oppose the new regulation imposed on the for-profits. Being a diehard conservative, it is no secret that I believe in smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. But quite honestly, there are other reasons, far more pressing ones in fact, that cause me to label these new regulations as misguided and unfair.
As a seasoned college administrator with over a decade of experience working at non-profit colleges, I can attest to the fact that their practices are no different. I have blogged about this topic before, but allow me to go over it again so that you can see the hypocrisy in President Obama's approach to this problem.
In all institutions of higher education, enrollment projections are set for the following academic year in order to prepare the budget. Once the projections are set, the task is clear: administrators are pressured to do what needs to be done in order to meet those projections. Failure to meet your enrollment projections is equivalent to a sales rep at a corporate institution failing to meet his sales quota. The results too are often the same. Fail to meet the goals that have been set for you, and it's grounds for being terminated. In this way, higher education, even non-profit, is no different than Wall Street.
As crunch time approaches, college administrators monitor their enrollments closely to see if they're "on target." At some point leading up to the deadline, a competent administrator will be able to project whether or not he is going to meet his enrollment goal. If he does, then he can breathe a sigh of relief. But if it becomes crystal clear that the enrollment projections will not be met, then a difficult choice comes into play.
That choice is this: do you lower your admissions standards to boost enrollment and meet your projections, or stand firm and risk not meeting them? Almost every college administrator, at least those in charge of academic programs, have faced this situation at one time or another. Unfortunately, sometimes this choice could be the determining factor in saving your job. If you've already been warned by your dean or vice president that enrollment projections MUST be met, then what would you do?
It should therefore come as no surprise that many programs lower their admissions standards to meet enrollment requirements. I've seen this happen at a private, non-profit college. I've seen it happen at a public, non-profit university. I know for a fact that it goes on at several other non-profits as well. That being the case, the president can't pull the wool over my eyes. I see what he's doing, and it's anything but noble.
Obama had his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, explain the plan to the media. Essentially, they're going to force for-profit colleges to be "at least 35 percent effective" in getting their students to start repaying their student loans within three years. Also, the estimated loan payment of a typical graduate cannot exceed 30 percent of discretionary income. Nor can it exceed 12 percent of total earnings. If an institution fails in all three of these categories, then it will no longer be permitted to receive federal student loan money.
So the measure of success is 35 percent, hey? Well, let's take a look at what has been going on at the non-profit colleges and universities in the great state of New Jersey. According to the most recent statistics, only 4 out of 27 graduate more than 50 percent of their students in 4 years. Twelve of these institutions have graduation rates less than 35 percent. Even if you extend the length of time to six years, there are still 9 colleges that graduate less than 50 percent of their students. So you tell me: do you think that many of these institutions would pass the litmus test being applied to the for-profits? I highly doubt it.
Why is this happening? Granted, there are several reasons. But no one can tell me that one of the biggest reasons has to do with institutions lowering admissions standards to meet enrollment goals. Are these non-profits thus not taking advantage of low-income, minority students by admitting them and taking their student loan money even when their chances of succeeding in college are very slim? It's all done in the name of "universal access to higher education." But in reality, this practice is no different than that for which the for-profits are being indicted by President Obama.
Mr. President, if you really do believe in this policy, then hold the non-profits accountable as well. Picking on the for-profits is, as I've already said, misguided, hypocritical, and unfair. Hold everyone to the same standard, and then you'll see where the incompetence and unscrupulous practices really do reside. The results may surprise you.
On the surface, this may seem like it is a noble gesture. But in reality, it's just another example of President Obama forcing his big government philosophy on the private sector, disguised as an attempt to protect the poor students who are getting the short end of the stick.
One thing that has been really interesting about this new policy is the diversity of groups that are opposed to it. It should come as no surprise that the plan has been decried by several congressional Republicans, who are pushing for smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. Obviously, the for-profit colleges themselves have been very outspoken in expressing their opposition as well.
But one might be surprised to find out that several minority groups have joined forces with the for-profits and Republicans in criticizing this move. Why? If for-profit colleges fail the new litmus test, then they are at risk of no longer being able to accept students paying with federal money. This is a restriction that could force some institutions to close their doors, and several of these institutions enroll a high percentage of minority students. Translation: it would mean less educational opportunities and less career options for minority students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
I understand all of these arguments, and I obviously oppose the new regulation imposed on the for-profits. Being a diehard conservative, it is no secret that I believe in smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. But quite honestly, there are other reasons, far more pressing ones in fact, that cause me to label these new regulations as misguided and unfair.
As a seasoned college administrator with over a decade of experience working at non-profit colleges, I can attest to the fact that their practices are no different. I have blogged about this topic before, but allow me to go over it again so that you can see the hypocrisy in President Obama's approach to this problem.
In all institutions of higher education, enrollment projections are set for the following academic year in order to prepare the budget. Once the projections are set, the task is clear: administrators are pressured to do what needs to be done in order to meet those projections. Failure to meet your enrollment projections is equivalent to a sales rep at a corporate institution failing to meet his sales quota. The results too are often the same. Fail to meet the goals that have been set for you, and it's grounds for being terminated. In this way, higher education, even non-profit, is no different than Wall Street.
As crunch time approaches, college administrators monitor their enrollments closely to see if they're "on target." At some point leading up to the deadline, a competent administrator will be able to project whether or not he is going to meet his enrollment goal. If he does, then he can breathe a sigh of relief. But if it becomes crystal clear that the enrollment projections will not be met, then a difficult choice comes into play.
That choice is this: do you lower your admissions standards to boost enrollment and meet your projections, or stand firm and risk not meeting them? Almost every college administrator, at least those in charge of academic programs, have faced this situation at one time or another. Unfortunately, sometimes this choice could be the determining factor in saving your job. If you've already been warned by your dean or vice president that enrollment projections MUST be met, then what would you do?
It should therefore come as no surprise that many programs lower their admissions standards to meet enrollment requirements. I've seen this happen at a private, non-profit college. I've seen it happen at a public, non-profit university. I know for a fact that it goes on at several other non-profits as well. That being the case, the president can't pull the wool over my eyes. I see what he's doing, and it's anything but noble.
Obama had his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, explain the plan to the media. Essentially, they're going to force for-profit colleges to be "at least 35 percent effective" in getting their students to start repaying their student loans within three years. Also, the estimated loan payment of a typical graduate cannot exceed 30 percent of discretionary income. Nor can it exceed 12 percent of total earnings. If an institution fails in all three of these categories, then it will no longer be permitted to receive federal student loan money.
So the measure of success is 35 percent, hey? Well, let's take a look at what has been going on at the non-profit colleges and universities in the great state of New Jersey. According to the most recent statistics, only 4 out of 27 graduate more than 50 percent of their students in 4 years. Twelve of these institutions have graduation rates less than 35 percent. Even if you extend the length of time to six years, there are still 9 colleges that graduate less than 50 percent of their students. So you tell me: do you think that many of these institutions would pass the litmus test being applied to the for-profits? I highly doubt it.
Why is this happening? Granted, there are several reasons. But no one can tell me that one of the biggest reasons has to do with institutions lowering admissions standards to meet enrollment goals. Are these non-profits thus not taking advantage of low-income, minority students by admitting them and taking their student loan money even when their chances of succeeding in college are very slim? It's all done in the name of "universal access to higher education." But in reality, this practice is no different than that for which the for-profits are being indicted by President Obama.
Mr. President, if you really do believe in this policy, then hold the non-profits accountable as well. Picking on the for-profits is, as I've already said, misguided, hypocritical, and unfair. Hold everyone to the same standard, and then you'll see where the incompetence and unscrupulous practices really do reside. The results may surprise you.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Foreign Aid: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question
In the wake of another disaster here at home, Americans are again asking themselves the question of whether we ought to be sending our tax money overseas when it could be used to help Americans in need. As far as I'm concerned, the question is becoming more pertinent every day.
The latest catastrophe occurred in Joplin, Missouri, where a huge tornado devastated an entire town. It destroyed vehicles, razed homes to the ground, and most tragically, claimed dozens of lives. The storm came on the heels of arguably the worst flooding in the history of our nation, with the Mississippi River cresting to near-record levels. Even worse, it was only mere weeks ago that the southern United States was hit by a series of tornadoes almost as severe as the one that hit Joplin.
President Obama visited the areas that were hardest hit by the storms, and promised residents that federal aid was on the way. I'm sure most Americans would agree that this is an effective way to use our tax dollars, and I know of no one who opposes the action. But in this difficult economy, with our people struggling, our nation's debt increasing exponentially, and our budget shortfall growing by the day, it's not as if we have a ton of disposable income to throw around. While we want to help out our fellow Americans, we have to ask ourselves whether we are going to reach the point where we will no longer be able to. And that, my friends, is a scary thought.
One fair question to ask in the wake of these natural disasters is whether we should be sending billions of dollars overseas when that money could be used to help our own. Before I go any further, allow me to state that I am in no way an isolationist. I have long believed in the saying, "No man is an island," and I believe that the saying applies to nations as well. America simply must look out for its interests abroad. If we wall ourselves in, then the rest of the world could go to pot and eventually it will all catch up to us. We need to stay engaged, foster friendships with other countries, and protect our friends when they need our help.
That said, we have to choose our friends wisely. We need to support those who support us. Are we doing that? When you look at the current situation, one would have to say that we're not.
Consider that of all the proposed U.S. assistance for 2012, almost two-thirds is earmarked for Muslim nations and one-third goes to Arab countries.Yet, despite those billions in aid, opinion polls show most Arab citizens still have an unfavorable view of America and most Muslim nations routinely vote against U.S. interests in the United Nations. Are these really the countries we should be supporting?
Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) is answering that question with a definitive "no." He is calling for our government to show some backbone and stop giving money to those countries that consistently vote against our interests. But will his colleagues respond to the call? That remains to be seen, though I firmly believe it won't happen. At least not with this Senate and with this president.
The idea is actually nothing new. Years ago, John Bolton, former U.N. Ambassador, called for cutting off aid to at least 30 countries that always voted against U.S. interests. To this day, he laments that America is making a terrible mistake in supplying these nations with billions and billions of dollars.
Let's take a look at some of the numbers. Over the past 5 years, the United States has provided $74 million in aid to Turkey, a country where only 10% of citizens have a favorable view of America. Turkey voted against U.S. interests in the U.N. approximately 60% of the time. From here, it only gets worse. Look at the aid we've provided to the following countries during this same span: Indonesia ($1.3 billion), Lebanon ($1.4 billion), Jordan ($4.5 billion), and Egypt ($9.5 billion).
How often do they vote against U.S. interests, you ask? Take a look: Indonesia (73%), Lebanon (70%), Jordan (60%), and Egypt (75%). Interesting how the country that received far and away the most aid voted against our interests more often than any other, isn't it?
When will this madness end? Let's look at this from a personal standpoint. If you consistently gave (not lent, GAVE) money to a "friend," but they openly went against your interests anywhere from 60% to 75% of the time, would you continue to give them money? If you did, would you not be considered a doormat?
In my book, this is exactly what our great nation has become: a doormat. We let foreign countries continue to walk all over us. We provide the Saudis with troops whenever they call for them, only to have them gouge us on oil prices. We maintain an open trade agreement with China, only to have them screw us by manipulating their currency. We provide billions in aid to Pakistan, only to find out they're helping our most wanted terrorist to escape our clutches. Why???
Again, I am not an isolationist and I believe firmly in securing our national interests around the globe. But our leaders in Washington need to wake up and stop supporting the countries that don't support us. We are still the world's one dominant superpower, but we don't use that status to our advantage. We hold all the cards, but don't play them. Instead, we allow the snakes of the Arab world to play us.
This is the platform Donald Trump was going to run on, and in my opinion it was the reason he was at the top or near the top of the polls in the race for the GOP Presidential Nomination. Americans are tired of watching other countries rob us while our leaders idly stand by. The time has come for action, and I believe that now more than ever, the American people realize that.
So where do we go from here? Do you think President Obama will ever cut off aid to Muslim countries? If so, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Unless a Republican wins the White House in 2012, we will continue to ship billions of dollars overseas to nations whose people hate us and who openly go against our interests. All in the face of a terrible economy where millions of Americans remain unemployed, many others who are working struggle to get by, and still others lose everything they have to the capricious cruelty of Mother Nature.
I can only hope and pray that the candidate who secures the GOP nomination will see the light on these issues and defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Should that happen, I'd have a solid piece of advice for the new president: appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State. He would be the right man at the right time. Given his past experience at the U.N., Bolton would know who to go after and how to hit them. Then the message would be sent loud and clear: namely that the United States is fed up and we're not going to take it any more.
That, in my view, is the only way we're going to win the war on oil prices in the short term. It's the only way we're going to get China to stop manipulating their currency and playing us for fools. It's the only way we're going to get more cooperation from Muslims throughout the world. And it's the only way to get our foreign policy headed back in the right direction.
So who would you rather help? The blue-blooded Americans struggling to get by, find work, or rebuild their lives after losing everything to a flood or devastating storm...or the Muslims who hate our country and consistently advocate against us at the United Nations? If that isn't a no-brainer, then I don't know what is.
The latest catastrophe occurred in Joplin, Missouri, where a huge tornado devastated an entire town. It destroyed vehicles, razed homes to the ground, and most tragically, claimed dozens of lives. The storm came on the heels of arguably the worst flooding in the history of our nation, with the Mississippi River cresting to near-record levels. Even worse, it was only mere weeks ago that the southern United States was hit by a series of tornadoes almost as severe as the one that hit Joplin.
President Obama visited the areas that were hardest hit by the storms, and promised residents that federal aid was on the way. I'm sure most Americans would agree that this is an effective way to use our tax dollars, and I know of no one who opposes the action. But in this difficult economy, with our people struggling, our nation's debt increasing exponentially, and our budget shortfall growing by the day, it's not as if we have a ton of disposable income to throw around. While we want to help out our fellow Americans, we have to ask ourselves whether we are going to reach the point where we will no longer be able to. And that, my friends, is a scary thought.
One fair question to ask in the wake of these natural disasters is whether we should be sending billions of dollars overseas when that money could be used to help our own. Before I go any further, allow me to state that I am in no way an isolationist. I have long believed in the saying, "No man is an island," and I believe that the saying applies to nations as well. America simply must look out for its interests abroad. If we wall ourselves in, then the rest of the world could go to pot and eventually it will all catch up to us. We need to stay engaged, foster friendships with other countries, and protect our friends when they need our help.
That said, we have to choose our friends wisely. We need to support those who support us. Are we doing that? When you look at the current situation, one would have to say that we're not.
Consider that of all the proposed U.S. assistance for 2012, almost two-thirds is earmarked for Muslim nations and one-third goes to Arab countries.Yet, despite those billions in aid, opinion polls show most Arab citizens still have an unfavorable view of America and most Muslim nations routinely vote against U.S. interests in the United Nations. Are these really the countries we should be supporting?
Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) is answering that question with a definitive "no." He is calling for our government to show some backbone and stop giving money to those countries that consistently vote against our interests. But will his colleagues respond to the call? That remains to be seen, though I firmly believe it won't happen. At least not with this Senate and with this president.
The idea is actually nothing new. Years ago, John Bolton, former U.N. Ambassador, called for cutting off aid to at least 30 countries that always voted against U.S. interests. To this day, he laments that America is making a terrible mistake in supplying these nations with billions and billions of dollars.
Let's take a look at some of the numbers. Over the past 5 years, the United States has provided $74 million in aid to Turkey, a country where only 10% of citizens have a favorable view of America. Turkey voted against U.S. interests in the U.N. approximately 60% of the time. From here, it only gets worse. Look at the aid we've provided to the following countries during this same span: Indonesia ($1.3 billion), Lebanon ($1.4 billion), Jordan ($4.5 billion), and Egypt ($9.5 billion).
How often do they vote against U.S. interests, you ask? Take a look: Indonesia (73%), Lebanon (70%), Jordan (60%), and Egypt (75%). Interesting how the country that received far and away the most aid voted against our interests more often than any other, isn't it?
When will this madness end? Let's look at this from a personal standpoint. If you consistently gave (not lent, GAVE) money to a "friend," but they openly went against your interests anywhere from 60% to 75% of the time, would you continue to give them money? If you did, would you not be considered a doormat?
In my book, this is exactly what our great nation has become: a doormat. We let foreign countries continue to walk all over us. We provide the Saudis with troops whenever they call for them, only to have them gouge us on oil prices. We maintain an open trade agreement with China, only to have them screw us by manipulating their currency. We provide billions in aid to Pakistan, only to find out they're helping our most wanted terrorist to escape our clutches. Why???
Again, I am not an isolationist and I believe firmly in securing our national interests around the globe. But our leaders in Washington need to wake up and stop supporting the countries that don't support us. We are still the world's one dominant superpower, but we don't use that status to our advantage. We hold all the cards, but don't play them. Instead, we allow the snakes of the Arab world to play us.
This is the platform Donald Trump was going to run on, and in my opinion it was the reason he was at the top or near the top of the polls in the race for the GOP Presidential Nomination. Americans are tired of watching other countries rob us while our leaders idly stand by. The time has come for action, and I believe that now more than ever, the American people realize that.
So where do we go from here? Do you think President Obama will ever cut off aid to Muslim countries? If so, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Unless a Republican wins the White House in 2012, we will continue to ship billions of dollars overseas to nations whose people hate us and who openly go against our interests. All in the face of a terrible economy where millions of Americans remain unemployed, many others who are working struggle to get by, and still others lose everything they have to the capricious cruelty of Mother Nature.
I can only hope and pray that the candidate who secures the GOP nomination will see the light on these issues and defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Should that happen, I'd have a solid piece of advice for the new president: appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State. He would be the right man at the right time. Given his past experience at the U.N., Bolton would know who to go after and how to hit them. Then the message would be sent loud and clear: namely that the United States is fed up and we're not going to take it any more.
That, in my view, is the only way we're going to win the war on oil prices in the short term. It's the only way we're going to get China to stop manipulating their currency and playing us for fools. It's the only way we're going to get more cooperation from Muslims throughout the world. And it's the only way to get our foreign policy headed back in the right direction.
So who would you rather help? The blue-blooded Americans struggling to get by, find work, or rebuild their lives after losing everything to a flood or devastating storm...or the Muslims who hate our country and consistently advocate against us at the United Nations? If that isn't a no-brainer, then I don't know what is.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Newt Cuts His Own Throat By Breaking the Eleventh Commandment
In my last blog post, I predicted that Newt Gingrich would get a big bump in the polls as a result of Mike Huckabee withdrawing from the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Regrettably, I now have to retract that statement entirely. For the former Speaker of the House committed the equivalent of political suicide by breaking a strict code of honor that Ronald Reagan once referred to as "The Eleventh Commandment:" Thou shalt not attack thy fellow Republicans.
In an interview on "Meet the Press," Gingrich actually went so far as to criticize Paul Ryan's budget plan and refer to his suggestions for Medicare reform as "right-wing social engineering." It was an unbelievable political blunder, and to think that someone so intelligent could commit such a grave error is almost unfathomable to me.
Needless to say, Ryan was not happy about it. In an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show, Ryan said, "With friends like that, who needs liberals?" He was clearly as dumbfounded and caught off guard as everybody else who was still scratching their heads over Gingrich's attack.
The backlash against Newt has already started. As he arrived in Iowa to hit the campaign trail, a Republican voter went over to greet him and extended his hand. Gingrich smiled and accepted the friendly gesture, but during the handshake he received a tongue lashing from the constituent. Basically, this man told Gingrich that he was a disgrace to the Republican party for attacking Ryan's plan and suggested that he withdraw from the race. Ouch.
Conservative pundits sounded off on Gingrich's comments, though surprisingly there was a range of opinions on the issue. Charles Krauthammer said of Gingrich, "He's done." Krauthammer blasted Gingrich for giving the Democrats fodder to campaign against Ryan's budget and the Republicans' plan for reforming Medicare. He said that he could see the negative advertisements now: "Even Newt Gingrich lambasted this extreme plan as right-wing social engineering."
Brit Hume didn't go quite as far as Krauthammer, but he called the statements "inexplicable" and clearly stated that this controversy was not going to disappear any time soon. The only one who remained firmly in Gingrich's corner was Dick Morris, who actually said that he agreed with Gingrich's comments. Morris dismissed the notion that this would hurt his campaign and believes that the former House Speaker will start picking up steam when the debates begin next month.
When I heard about his comments on Meet the Press, I immediately posted on my Facebook page that Gingrich was done. Thus it is evident that I agree with Krauthammer on his prospects of winning the nomination. I think Newt will take a beating in Iowa as a result of this massive mistake, and that his campaign will be very short-lived. So much for having an intelligent, experienced, and supposedly conservative Catholic in the hunt for the Republican nomination. Why, Newt? Why?
The hot news topic being discussed all day yesterday was how two high-profile Republicans withdrew from pursuing the 2012 presidential nomination. But in reality, it was three. It's just that the third one did so involuntarily. Good-bye, Mr. Speaker, from a diehard conservative who once considered supporting you.
In an interview on "Meet the Press," Gingrich actually went so far as to criticize Paul Ryan's budget plan and refer to his suggestions for Medicare reform as "right-wing social engineering." It was an unbelievable political blunder, and to think that someone so intelligent could commit such a grave error is almost unfathomable to me.
Needless to say, Ryan was not happy about it. In an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show, Ryan said, "With friends like that, who needs liberals?" He was clearly as dumbfounded and caught off guard as everybody else who was still scratching their heads over Gingrich's attack.
The backlash against Newt has already started. As he arrived in Iowa to hit the campaign trail, a Republican voter went over to greet him and extended his hand. Gingrich smiled and accepted the friendly gesture, but during the handshake he received a tongue lashing from the constituent. Basically, this man told Gingrich that he was a disgrace to the Republican party for attacking Ryan's plan and suggested that he withdraw from the race. Ouch.
Conservative pundits sounded off on Gingrich's comments, though surprisingly there was a range of opinions on the issue. Charles Krauthammer said of Gingrich, "He's done." Krauthammer blasted Gingrich for giving the Democrats fodder to campaign against Ryan's budget and the Republicans' plan for reforming Medicare. He said that he could see the negative advertisements now: "Even Newt Gingrich lambasted this extreme plan as right-wing social engineering."
Brit Hume didn't go quite as far as Krauthammer, but he called the statements "inexplicable" and clearly stated that this controversy was not going to disappear any time soon. The only one who remained firmly in Gingrich's corner was Dick Morris, who actually said that he agreed with Gingrich's comments. Morris dismissed the notion that this would hurt his campaign and believes that the former House Speaker will start picking up steam when the debates begin next month.
When I heard about his comments on Meet the Press, I immediately posted on my Facebook page that Gingrich was done. Thus it is evident that I agree with Krauthammer on his prospects of winning the nomination. I think Newt will take a beating in Iowa as a result of this massive mistake, and that his campaign will be very short-lived. So much for having an intelligent, experienced, and supposedly conservative Catholic in the hunt for the Republican nomination. Why, Newt? Why?
The hot news topic being discussed all day yesterday was how two high-profile Republicans withdrew from pursuing the 2012 presidential nomination. But in reality, it was three. It's just that the third one did so involuntarily. Good-bye, Mr. Speaker, from a diehard conservative who once considered supporting you.
Monday, May 16, 2011
With Huckabee Out, Who Gets the Biggest Bump?
I have to give credit to Charles Krauthammer. A while back I wrote a blog post criticizing his handicap of the race for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. But he was spot on regarding Mike Huckabee. Krauthammer noted that the former Arkansas governor had a successful television show, was making lots of money, and was in the process of building a dream home in Florida. Thus the conservative columnist predicted that Huckabee would not run in 2012, and that prediction came true over the weekend. For Huckabee announced live on his Saturday night TV show that he had decided not to pursue the Republican nomination.
We found out after the fact that he was keeping everyone in suspense, including Fox News brass and even his closest personal advisers. And though he was still considering a run as late as last week, in the end he came to realize that the fire in the belly just wasn't there.
Now, another race begins. You can bet that even as I'm writing this, the campaign teams for all of the candidates who are pursuing the nomination are devising strategies to draw Huckabee's supporters to their camps.
So who has the best chance of getting a big bump in the polls with Huckabee out of the equation? I'd have to think that Huckabee's devout Christian values and his reputation as a hardcore social conservative would go a long way in determining that. Once they get over their disappointment, Huckabee supporters will be looking to those candidates who have the strongest platform on social conservative values.
One who immediately comes to mind is Rick Santorum. Anyone who is bold enough to draw up a connection between abortion and Social Security has to be considered a darling in the eyes of the religious right. I think it's fair to say that Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann could also receive additional support. If she decides to run, it also might be a golden opportunity for Sarah Palin, who has always been very outspoken on abortion and other social moral issues.
I think most analysts would agree that the two biggest losers in this could be Mitt Romney and Donald Trump. Huckabee is no friend of Romney, and he even said as much publicly after making his announcement. As always, he was a gentleman in merely stating that they don't socialize together. "We're not close, you know, in personal ways," Huckabee said. A sharp contrast was drawn between his relationship with Romney and his close friendships with many others who are in the race. Still, Huckabee wanted everyone to know that he would support Romney if he were chosen as the candidate.
But in my eyes, his comments could be translated in this way. "Those of you who would have supported me should transfer that support to one of my friends, not to Romney. But in the end, if you do choose Romney, I'll support him over Obama because he's the lesser of two evils." That's how I see it.
Trump too could be a big loser in this because he is hardly a champion of social causes. The Donald is running on his expertise in finance and the hardline foreign policy he would adopt as Commander in Chief. No doubt his views are resonating with voters as they eat up his rhetoric on China, Pakistan, Libya, and the Middle East. In many ways, he seems to be the right candidate at the right time.
But his odds of drawing support from those who would have voted for Huckabee are slim to none. Unless of course, he can somehow sell the notion that he has had a major conversion and now sees the light when it comes to religion and family values. Probably not going to happen.
I can't wait until the next poll numbers come out and we begin to see how things are going to take shape with one less horse in the race, and a heavy favorite at that. My humble prediction is that Gingrich will get the biggest bump, and that Romney will suffer the most from Huckabee's decision. Hold on to your hats, my fellow conservatives. Things are about to get very interesting.
We found out after the fact that he was keeping everyone in suspense, including Fox News brass and even his closest personal advisers. And though he was still considering a run as late as last week, in the end he came to realize that the fire in the belly just wasn't there.
Now, another race begins. You can bet that even as I'm writing this, the campaign teams for all of the candidates who are pursuing the nomination are devising strategies to draw Huckabee's supporters to their camps.
So who has the best chance of getting a big bump in the polls with Huckabee out of the equation? I'd have to think that Huckabee's devout Christian values and his reputation as a hardcore social conservative would go a long way in determining that. Once they get over their disappointment, Huckabee supporters will be looking to those candidates who have the strongest platform on social conservative values.
One who immediately comes to mind is Rick Santorum. Anyone who is bold enough to draw up a connection between abortion and Social Security has to be considered a darling in the eyes of the religious right. I think it's fair to say that Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann could also receive additional support. If she decides to run, it also might be a golden opportunity for Sarah Palin, who has always been very outspoken on abortion and other social moral issues.
I think most analysts would agree that the two biggest losers in this could be Mitt Romney and Donald Trump. Huckabee is no friend of Romney, and he even said as much publicly after making his announcement. As always, he was a gentleman in merely stating that they don't socialize together. "We're not close, you know, in personal ways," Huckabee said. A sharp contrast was drawn between his relationship with Romney and his close friendships with many others who are in the race. Still, Huckabee wanted everyone to know that he would support Romney if he were chosen as the candidate.
But in my eyes, his comments could be translated in this way. "Those of you who would have supported me should transfer that support to one of my friends, not to Romney. But in the end, if you do choose Romney, I'll support him over Obama because he's the lesser of two evils." That's how I see it.
Trump too could be a big loser in this because he is hardly a champion of social causes. The Donald is running on his expertise in finance and the hardline foreign policy he would adopt as Commander in Chief. No doubt his views are resonating with voters as they eat up his rhetoric on China, Pakistan, Libya, and the Middle East. In many ways, he seems to be the right candidate at the right time.
But his odds of drawing support from those who would have voted for Huckabee are slim to none. Unless of course, he can somehow sell the notion that he has had a major conversion and now sees the light when it comes to religion and family values. Probably not going to happen.
I can't wait until the next poll numbers come out and we begin to see how things are going to take shape with one less horse in the race, and a heavy favorite at that. My humble prediction is that Gingrich will get the biggest bump, and that Romney will suffer the most from Huckabee's decision. Hold on to your hats, my fellow conservatives. Things are about to get very interesting.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Welcome to the Party, Dr. Gingrich
It's now official. Newt Gingrich announced yesterday that he is running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. In what will be the ultimate game of Texas Hold 'Em, Dr. Gingrich is all in.
You may already be wondering why I'm referring to the former Speaker of the House as "Dr. Gingrich." No, he's not a medical doctor, but Newt does have a Ph.D. in history from Tulane University. In fact, he worked as a college professor for eight years before making the transition into politics. His immense knowledge of history and his ability to articulate it will no doubt come in very handy as he campaigns around the country.
I welcome his candidacy because I do believe very strongly that Gingrich would be a formidable opponent for Barack Obama. Gingrich is far more experienced, far more seasoned, and I would go so far as to say he is more intelligent and articulate than the president. I have no doubts that he'd wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, and as polished as Obama may be as an orator, he has not mastered the art of brevity to the degree that Gingrich has. To me, this is what separates Newt from all the rest. I haven't heard anyone who can convey such a strong, clear message in as few words as he is able to, and that goes a long way when you're communicating your platform to the American people.
But ultimately, that is not what would enable him to win the election. Everyone knows that elections always come down to two things: peace and prosperity. Nothing is more dear to Americans than feeling safe and doing well. Given today's world climate, one where wars are raging and economies are tanking, the effects of peace and prosperity upon the 2012 election can only become greater. Trust me: they will.
Obama himself has already admitted that next year's election will be a crossroads for America. We are now at a point where Americans need to decide which path we are going to take to get our house back in order. Will it be the entitlement culture that is consistently advocated by the Democrats, one where wealth is re-distributed by taxing the rich and giving more in the way of handouts to the poor? One of big government and big spending? Or will it be the Republican vision of free markets, smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending and entitlements?
These are two very different philosophies of governance, and Gingrich predicted that throughout the course of the campaign, the voters will come to learn the specific details of just how different they are. By November of 2012, they will have the information they need to make their preferred choice when they head to the polls.
Last night on "Hannity," Gingrich drew up an interesting analogy to demonstrate the discrepancies between the two approaches. He commented that the economy of Texas has grown more than that of any other U.S. state over the past decade. Then he mentioned that no U.S. city has fallen farther than Detroit. Texas is a very conservative state, governed by Republicans and run according to conservative principles. Detroit has long been a haven for Democrats who were in bed with the unions (specifically the United Auto Workers and the teachers' union) and promised all sorts of entitlements in order to stay in power. Well, when you look at the blocks and blocks of abandoned, run-down houses throughout Detroit today, one need not be a rocket scientist to realize that this method of governing did not turn out too well.
Thus the question will be, "Do we want our country to look more like Detroit or more like Texas?" History has shown us that the socialist doctrine of re-distribution of wealth does not work. The fall of the Soviet Union and European socialism proves that point beyond any reasonable doubt. And so, I don't know about you, but the answer to this question is pretty evident to me.
So as Gingrich prepares to run, it is clear that he has many assets that will work in his favor. But he does have one major liability: his sordid past. Gingrich has been married several times and was even guilty of infidelity, making him an easy target for the liberal media and a pariah to hard-line social conservatives.
But he already knows this going in, and he's prepared to take his lumps. Speaking last night, Gingrich conceded that his past would be magnified a thousand times by the liberal press. But he reframed it in a positive way. What he said was, "Doesn't any conservative candidate already know that they're not going to get an even break from the mass media?" In other words, regardless of what your past may be, you're already at a disadvantage when you're running on the Republican ticket.
There is no question that Obama will be difficult to beat in 2012. As mentioned above, he'll have the full support of the mass media (aside from Fox News). He'll have liberal billionaires like George Soros in his corner, along with the vast majority of Hollywood celebrities. He'll have the unions backing him, and tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook will provide far more financial support for him than for anyone who might oppose him. All in all, the goal is to raise one billion dollars for Obama's re-election campaign. Personally, I don't doubt that he'll be able to achieve it.
And so the Republican candidate, whoever it may be, will clearly be at a disadvantage. But again, Gingrich is well aware of this going in and he's prepared to deal with it. The former Speaker of the House is solely focused on beating Obama, and at no point was this more evident than when Hannity asked him about his competition in the Republican field. Gingrich smartly responded that he had a number of friends running against him and that he was looking forward to a very positive campaign. "The only opponent I have my sights on is President Obama," Gingrich said.
So what are his chances of winning? I actually think he can go far throughout the primaries. I know that he hasn't exactly been at or near the top of the polls, but he's much higher than candidates like Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels, who have been singled out as possible spoilers. It's still very early, and several possible candidates (like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee) haven't made their formal announcements yet. But as he travels around the country and speaks to the throngs of Republican voters, I believe that Newt's message will resonate. I'd be shocked if he didn't turn out to be a force to be reckoned with throughout the campaign.
Good luck, Dr. Gingrich, from a fiscal and social conservative who believes in you, forgives you for your past mistakes, and only wants what's best for our country. It's time to turn things around and get America back on track, and there's no doubt in my mind that if you turn out to be the candidate, you can get the job done.
You may already be wondering why I'm referring to the former Speaker of the House as "Dr. Gingrich." No, he's not a medical doctor, but Newt does have a Ph.D. in history from Tulane University. In fact, he worked as a college professor for eight years before making the transition into politics. His immense knowledge of history and his ability to articulate it will no doubt come in very handy as he campaigns around the country.
I welcome his candidacy because I do believe very strongly that Gingrich would be a formidable opponent for Barack Obama. Gingrich is far more experienced, far more seasoned, and I would go so far as to say he is more intelligent and articulate than the president. I have no doubts that he'd wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, and as polished as Obama may be as an orator, he has not mastered the art of brevity to the degree that Gingrich has. To me, this is what separates Newt from all the rest. I haven't heard anyone who can convey such a strong, clear message in as few words as he is able to, and that goes a long way when you're communicating your platform to the American people.
But ultimately, that is not what would enable him to win the election. Everyone knows that elections always come down to two things: peace and prosperity. Nothing is more dear to Americans than feeling safe and doing well. Given today's world climate, one where wars are raging and economies are tanking, the effects of peace and prosperity upon the 2012 election can only become greater. Trust me: they will.
Obama himself has already admitted that next year's election will be a crossroads for America. We are now at a point where Americans need to decide which path we are going to take to get our house back in order. Will it be the entitlement culture that is consistently advocated by the Democrats, one where wealth is re-distributed by taxing the rich and giving more in the way of handouts to the poor? One of big government and big spending? Or will it be the Republican vision of free markets, smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending and entitlements?
These are two very different philosophies of governance, and Gingrich predicted that throughout the course of the campaign, the voters will come to learn the specific details of just how different they are. By November of 2012, they will have the information they need to make their preferred choice when they head to the polls.
Last night on "Hannity," Gingrich drew up an interesting analogy to demonstrate the discrepancies between the two approaches. He commented that the economy of Texas has grown more than that of any other U.S. state over the past decade. Then he mentioned that no U.S. city has fallen farther than Detroit. Texas is a very conservative state, governed by Republicans and run according to conservative principles. Detroit has long been a haven for Democrats who were in bed with the unions (specifically the United Auto Workers and the teachers' union) and promised all sorts of entitlements in order to stay in power. Well, when you look at the blocks and blocks of abandoned, run-down houses throughout Detroit today, one need not be a rocket scientist to realize that this method of governing did not turn out too well.
Thus the question will be, "Do we want our country to look more like Detroit or more like Texas?" History has shown us that the socialist doctrine of re-distribution of wealth does not work. The fall of the Soviet Union and European socialism proves that point beyond any reasonable doubt. And so, I don't know about you, but the answer to this question is pretty evident to me.
So as Gingrich prepares to run, it is clear that he has many assets that will work in his favor. But he does have one major liability: his sordid past. Gingrich has been married several times and was even guilty of infidelity, making him an easy target for the liberal media and a pariah to hard-line social conservatives.
But he already knows this going in, and he's prepared to take his lumps. Speaking last night, Gingrich conceded that his past would be magnified a thousand times by the liberal press. But he reframed it in a positive way. What he said was, "Doesn't any conservative candidate already know that they're not going to get an even break from the mass media?" In other words, regardless of what your past may be, you're already at a disadvantage when you're running on the Republican ticket.
There is no question that Obama will be difficult to beat in 2012. As mentioned above, he'll have the full support of the mass media (aside from Fox News). He'll have liberal billionaires like George Soros in his corner, along with the vast majority of Hollywood celebrities. He'll have the unions backing him, and tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook will provide far more financial support for him than for anyone who might oppose him. All in all, the goal is to raise one billion dollars for Obama's re-election campaign. Personally, I don't doubt that he'll be able to achieve it.
And so the Republican candidate, whoever it may be, will clearly be at a disadvantage. But again, Gingrich is well aware of this going in and he's prepared to deal with it. The former Speaker of the House is solely focused on beating Obama, and at no point was this more evident than when Hannity asked him about his competition in the Republican field. Gingrich smartly responded that he had a number of friends running against him and that he was looking forward to a very positive campaign. "The only opponent I have my sights on is President Obama," Gingrich said.
So what are his chances of winning? I actually think he can go far throughout the primaries. I know that he hasn't exactly been at or near the top of the polls, but he's much higher than candidates like Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels, who have been singled out as possible spoilers. It's still very early, and several possible candidates (like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee) haven't made their formal announcements yet. But as he travels around the country and speaks to the throngs of Republican voters, I believe that Newt's message will resonate. I'd be shocked if he didn't turn out to be a force to be reckoned with throughout the campaign.
Good luck, Dr. Gingrich, from a fiscal and social conservative who believes in you, forgives you for your past mistakes, and only wants what's best for our country. It's time to turn things around and get America back on track, and there's no doubt in my mind that if you turn out to be the candidate, you can get the job done.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Stop the Insanity! Allow Enhanced Interrogation!
Last week, after President Obama laid a wreath in honor of the 9/11 victims at Ground Zero, he met with several family members of those who died on that dark day. One of those family members confronted the president and asked him whether he would now change his stance on enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists. It was clear at that point that the information we gleaned from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during waterboarding helped lead us to bin Laden's courier, which in turn led us to bin Laden himself. Specifically, she wanted to know if the president would ask Eric Holder to stop investigating CIA agents who had carried out enhanced interrogation in compliance with the orders that were given to them. Obama responded with a curt "I won't" before turning his back on her and walking away.
Clearly, the president was not at all interested in having this discussion. And one could hardly blame him, since his position has now been shown to be indefensible. Moreover, he appears more hypocritical now than at any other time during his presidency. Considering how he has changed positions on everything from Gitmo to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals, that is saying an awful lot.
Here is why he's hypocritical. He sent our most elite special forces unit into a sovereign country and gave the order that if any of them got a clear shot at bin Laden, they were to take it. There was no consideration of bin Laden's rights to due process, or whether he was unable to defend himself during the raid. Just do what you have to do to take him out, our president clearly stated.
On this, he was right. I applaud the president for finally showing some guts in battling radical Muslim terrorists. I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured that he was finally coming to his senses. I thought he would set aside once and for all the insane views of the liberal moral elitists. You know, the ones who actually believe that this scum of the earth was entitled to due process. The ones who still insist that we as Americans are above carrying out these sorts of operations. The Michael Moores and Rosie O'Donnell's of the world. Those people.
But of course, I was wrong. For despite the fact that we have now seen firsthand what enhanced interrogation can do for us in the war on terror, Obama has made it clear that he will not change his stance on the issue. On this, he's decided to fall right back in line with the liberal moral elitists who say that it was wrong to place Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on a board and pour water over his face. This is a horrible practice that tramples on the rights of the terrorists and makes us look like barbarians, so they say.
Instead, they'd rather we sit down with bad guys like KSM and try to have a nice, civil conversation. Maybe we should serve cake and sing "kumbaya" while we're at it. Perhaps we can bribe them. Sure, why not give the terrorists millions of taxpayer dollars in this time of economic crisis so they can re-use that money to support terrorist acts against us. That makes sense. Or we can even follow Joy Behar's suggestion and offer them a book deal. Are you kidding me? If this isn't insanity, then I don't know what is.
The fact is that enhanced interrogation works. In this case it led us right to bin Laden, despite how the liberal politicians and pundits want to spin it. It is not the same as torture, though again that is what the liberals want us all to believe. I applaud Bill O'Reilly for calling out his own colleague, Juan Williams, on this issue. Williams continually made references to things like pulling out fingernails and poking eyes out when discussing enhanced interrogation. O'Reilly was quick to distinguish between these extreme tactics and the practice of waterboarding, and promptly put Williams in his place.
The CIA agents who Holder is currently investigating were merely carrying out their orders. President Bush, in collaboration with his security advisers, made the decision to waterboard the terrorists. The men who carried it out were only guilty of one thing: doing their jobs. If that's a crime, then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system.
I don't get myself too worked up over the ongoing investigation because I am quite certain that nothing will come of it. It will be nothing short of political suicide if Obama gives the go-ahead to prosecute these men. Skilled politician that he is, the president will never make that mistake. But what I do get worked up over is the fact that we are not currently using enhanced interrogation tactics, because it is putting the lives of Americans at risk.
I will never understand how anyone could place the welfare of suspected terrorists ahead of the safety of innocent Americans. But I suppose it's easy to do that when you didn't lose a loved one on 9/11. It's easy to think this way if one of your family members was not killed or maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's all well and good as long as someone close to you isn't being held as a prisoner by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Well, it's time for all of these people, especially our president, to wake up. There is no way that President Obama can look anyone in the eye and say that he wouldn't order enhanced interrogation on a suspect who had information on where one of his family members was being held. God forbid this should happen, but if the terrorists ever succeeded in kidnapping one of his daughters, he would order waterboarding in a heartbeat on a prisoner who we believed might have key information. But sad as it is, this may be the only way that he'll ever change his mind on enhanced interrogation. Until then, we'll have to live with whatever comes and dream of what could have been if we had only used waterboarding on the bad guys.
Clearly, the president was not at all interested in having this discussion. And one could hardly blame him, since his position has now been shown to be indefensible. Moreover, he appears more hypocritical now than at any other time during his presidency. Considering how he has changed positions on everything from Gitmo to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals, that is saying an awful lot.
Here is why he's hypocritical. He sent our most elite special forces unit into a sovereign country and gave the order that if any of them got a clear shot at bin Laden, they were to take it. There was no consideration of bin Laden's rights to due process, or whether he was unable to defend himself during the raid. Just do what you have to do to take him out, our president clearly stated.
On this, he was right. I applaud the president for finally showing some guts in battling radical Muslim terrorists. I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured that he was finally coming to his senses. I thought he would set aside once and for all the insane views of the liberal moral elitists. You know, the ones who actually believe that this scum of the earth was entitled to due process. The ones who still insist that we as Americans are above carrying out these sorts of operations. The Michael Moores and Rosie O'Donnell's of the world. Those people.
But of course, I was wrong. For despite the fact that we have now seen firsthand what enhanced interrogation can do for us in the war on terror, Obama has made it clear that he will not change his stance on the issue. On this, he's decided to fall right back in line with the liberal moral elitists who say that it was wrong to place Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on a board and pour water over his face. This is a horrible practice that tramples on the rights of the terrorists and makes us look like barbarians, so they say.
Instead, they'd rather we sit down with bad guys like KSM and try to have a nice, civil conversation. Maybe we should serve cake and sing "kumbaya" while we're at it. Perhaps we can bribe them. Sure, why not give the terrorists millions of taxpayer dollars in this time of economic crisis so they can re-use that money to support terrorist acts against us. That makes sense. Or we can even follow Joy Behar's suggestion and offer them a book deal. Are you kidding me? If this isn't insanity, then I don't know what is.
The fact is that enhanced interrogation works. In this case it led us right to bin Laden, despite how the liberal politicians and pundits want to spin it. It is not the same as torture, though again that is what the liberals want us all to believe. I applaud Bill O'Reilly for calling out his own colleague, Juan Williams, on this issue. Williams continually made references to things like pulling out fingernails and poking eyes out when discussing enhanced interrogation. O'Reilly was quick to distinguish between these extreme tactics and the practice of waterboarding, and promptly put Williams in his place.
The CIA agents who Holder is currently investigating were merely carrying out their orders. President Bush, in collaboration with his security advisers, made the decision to waterboard the terrorists. The men who carried it out were only guilty of one thing: doing their jobs. If that's a crime, then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system.
I don't get myself too worked up over the ongoing investigation because I am quite certain that nothing will come of it. It will be nothing short of political suicide if Obama gives the go-ahead to prosecute these men. Skilled politician that he is, the president will never make that mistake. But what I do get worked up over is the fact that we are not currently using enhanced interrogation tactics, because it is putting the lives of Americans at risk.
I will never understand how anyone could place the welfare of suspected terrorists ahead of the safety of innocent Americans. But I suppose it's easy to do that when you didn't lose a loved one on 9/11. It's easy to think this way if one of your family members was not killed or maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's all well and good as long as someone close to you isn't being held as a prisoner by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Well, it's time for all of these people, especially our president, to wake up. There is no way that President Obama can look anyone in the eye and say that he wouldn't order enhanced interrogation on a suspect who had information on where one of his family members was being held. God forbid this should happen, but if the terrorists ever succeeded in kidnapping one of his daughters, he would order waterboarding in a heartbeat on a prisoner who we believed might have key information. But sad as it is, this may be the only way that he'll ever change his mind on enhanced interrogation. Until then, we'll have to live with whatever comes and dream of what could have been if we had only used waterboarding on the bad guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)