Priceless

Airforce One to NYC…

$300,000

 

Helicopter ride from JFK to New York City…

$20,000

 

Dinner and show for two…

$600

 

 

Obama during the recession…

 

Priceless !!!!

 

GOP Strategy for Sotomayor

It is out of the bag; we all now know who the President has selected to serve on the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

She happens to also be the first Hispanic nominee. Unfortunately, that will be tomorrow's headlines, not her controversial opinions or statements of the past.

The nominee, if confirmed, will have the ability to challenge and redefine the constitution, although that isn't their purpose. These judges truly impact our lives in many ways. In a sense, they are in a position to shape the culture of America. This is a lifelong tenure. In the case of Judge Sotomayor, that means she can will likely serve on the Supreme Court for 30 or so years.

Therefore, any nominee should be scrutinized. Every nuance of their life inspected. Judges, after all, should be just; model citizens. Trustworthy. Honest. We have a right to know who they are, what they believe, how they conduct themselves on the bench and in their personal lives. These judges are appointed to serve the American people, and the American people have the right to know everything about them.

The GOP will be in a difficult position. It won't be easy to criticize the record of the first Hispanic nominee. I have just two pieces of advice for the GOP and our elected officials.

Firstly, do not attack Sotomayor. Talk policy. Talk ideology. Oppose her rulings and her thoughts, but do not attack her. The dialogue should be able to exist with or without the nominee. Remind America what conservatism and the GOP stands for. That seems obvious enough.

The second piece of advice is also pretty self apparent. Lately, our Party has been struggling to find a leader, a voice that can resonate throughout the country. In this case, the choice is simple: we need Sen. Mel Martinez to be the spokesperson, the leader of the opposition. He is Hispanic and he is not seeking re-election. This reality sets him free from public opinion and will make his opposition appear sincere than a typical career politician ( ask Veep Cheney described himself as such at the AEI conference).

With the right message and the right messenger, the GOP can dominate the battle to come and demonstrate to the American people the GOP's diversity and adequately paint a detailed image for America's future. We can oppose bad ideas, and still give our "tent" a welcoming vibe. After all, we are the Party of the "shinning city upon a hill".

Immune from GOP?

Today, the first African American President nominated the first Hispanic woman to the highest court in the land, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Noble. An achievement for racial equality. This president really truly is about change! Wow, hold on...not so fast there buckaroo.

While we all can and should applaud individuals who are successful despite obstacles and celebrate those who break racial and social barriers, President Obama's intentions may not be so sincere.

Judge Sotomayor is an accomplished person; perhaps not the most qualified in the land, but qualified nonetheless. She has without a doubt been an activist judge; utilizing the bench to create policy and push a specific agenda. She is the left ( some would say far left) leaning liberal that Obama has dreamed of nominating since the campaign. Could he find someone more liberal? Maybe. Could he have found a stronger legal powerhouse? Definitely. Will she be confirmed? Without a doubt.

Obama is a exceptionally shrewd politician and his cleverness even makes Bill Clinton look second rate at times. Forget slick Willy, we have Oily Obama.

If you question that, just look how far the man has come in such a short span of time. He didn't leap frog over his seniors, he catapulted. And, the president's brain team, mainly Axelrod and Emanuel, are cut-throat operatives. I can guarantee you that they all sat down and put their heads together about this one and their brainstorming gave birth to the perfect, and I mean perfect, candidate. This administration has won a two-way victory: 1. they will place a left-leaning liberal on the Supreme Court and 2. they will be able to slap the GOP around a bit in the process.

Obama knew that the GOP would oppose any activist judge he put forth. This was going to be another opportunity for the GOP to draw distinct ideological differences between the Democrats and the GOP. It was going to inevitably be a battle of ideas, morals, values; a battle for the very meaning of the constitution. The nomination would have presented the GOP with a phenomenal opportunity to define themselves for the nation. This would be a chance to once again display the president in a poor light while showing the American people concrete differences between the President's vision of this country's future and the GOP.

After the GITMO fiasco, the president could have none of that. He needed to find someone that fit his liberal criteria and, at the same time, would float above any ideological discussions.

With this nominee, the rhetoric will most likely be toned down. The GOP will fear that strong opposition will further alienate the Hispanic community; the fastest growing voting bloc and one that fled from the GOP in 2008. I can promise you that Obama and the Dems will manipulate and control the direction of the conversation. Every time a legitimate objection is raised by the GOP, the Dems will shout "racists".

This is a loose-loose situation. On one hand, the GOP must make a stand. On the other hand, Sotomayor will be immune to the attacks, protected under the banner of racial equality.

Obama isn't a pioneer for racial equality. Nope. But he is one hell of a slick fella. Oily Obama strikes again.

Testing the Untested: Biden Was Right???

Is it possible? Have all the planets aligned themselves in some obscure unique formation? Has the impossible become possible? Can it truly be? Can Biden have been right?

He gaffes; we all laugh. His colleagues, his Party, even his boss, the President of the United States, usually just smile, and brush off the far too common embarrassing comments of the Vice President, Joe Biden, and say "Ah, that's just good ole Joe!". I mean, it even happened last week. In case you ever wanted to know where the Secret Service would usher the Veep in case of a national calamity that threatened the safety and security of this nation, just ask Biden, and if you aren't that close to the Veep, Google it. He happened to mention it at a gathering for the press last week.

But the comments we laugh at aren't all as crazy as we might think.

I know that sounds weird coming from a Republican like me, but, a comment that "good ole Joe" made during the campaign, actually late in the campaign, is looking pretty darn accurate; and at our peril. So, listen up Dems.


In October, just before the election, Biden said:

"Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barak Obama."

Wow! Here we are, slowly closing in on that six month benchmark, and where are we on the international front?



Let's just look at today's events. A nuclear weapon tested in North Korea with the force comparable to Hiroshima. Shortly after that, Iran, who by the way has clearly said recently that the time to discuss their nuclear ambitions is over ( but willing to debate the President at the UN) sent their naval fleet in motion. In fact, it was a unprecedented maneuver and did more than raise eyebrows.

That is just today's news, let alone the upcoming elections in Lebanon, the home-grown terrorist plot in New York, the Taliban turning away from the afghan border and to fight the nuclear country of Pakistan, and the President pressuring Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

Evildoers are on the move. Nations who feared President Bush and his resolve, feel revitalized. Those who understood this country's commitment to freedom and liberty, now doubt it. Naivety swallows us whole and tyranny is strengthened.

Unfortunately, seems like good ole Joe's gaffe on the campaign trail wasn't such folly. Nations are testing Obama. And they are just warming up. This is the pre-game. How will the President respond?

Nuclear Muscle as a Preparation for Power Change

The nuke test in North Korea raises many questions as the country seems to be vamping up its nuclear efforts.

Many US officials and experts have explained that the recent aggressiveness of North Korea's efforts indicate that the country might be readying for a change of power.

If Kim Jong Ill's health is truly deteriorating, the country is trying to show the world that they are a power to be reckoned with. This might be a way for them to protect their own seats of power during what might be a extremely turbulent political change.

Check out this great article from Wall Street Journal:

President Obama and Diplomacy: Are We Too Daft to Learn the Lessons of Today?

By now, we have all heard that North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon late last night. This situation is grave, and threat of tyrannical regimes looking to hold the global community hostage is quickly becoming a new reality.

And, how has the Leader of the Free World responded?

Below are excerpts from President Obama's speech.

Today, North Korea said that it has conducted a nuclear test in violation of international law. It appears to also have attempted a short range missile launch. These actions, while not a surprise given its statements and actions to date, are a matter of grave concern to all nations. North Korea's attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, constitute a threat to international peace and security.

By acting in blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council, North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community. North Korea⿿s behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia. Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea's isolation. It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

The danger posed by North Korea's threatening activities warrants action by the international community. We have been and will continue working with our allies and partners in the Six-Party Talks as well as other members of the U.N. Security Council in the days ahead.

What disturbs me is when the President acknowledges that "these actions, while not a surprise given its statements and actions to date..."

North Korea has explicitly stated that it is relentlessly pursuing nuclear capabilities. They have tested the patience of the international community and snubbed the UN time and time again.The president wasn't shocked by the bomb test; after all, North Korea has given every indication that they will keep pursuing nukes.

Well, Mr. President, what about Iran?

Like North Korea, Iran has consistently blown off the demands of the international community. Like North Korea, Iran has demonstrated a strong desire to obtain nuclear power. However, unlike North Korea, Iran has been extremely explicit with its intentions: wipe out Israel, dominate the region, and bring the redemption with a full blown war against the culture of the West.

Violence. Destruction. Terror.

If the President isn't shocked by the actions of North Korea, will he be shocked if, god forbid, Iran lobs a nuke into Tel Aviv? I mean, they have indicated that they would, right?

What North Korea has shown us is simple: these tyrannical leaders who are seeking nuclear weapons are not merely spewing rhetoric.They aren't playing politics. They are serious. Their threat is real. And the President must lead. If we want America and her allies to remain safe, if we are to preserve civility in the world, we must take these people seriously. The time for diplomacy is over. The time for action has arrived. We cannot be weak, for, the weak shall perish and only the strong will survive.

Obama Blackmail

Tomorrow's meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will finally, at least to some degree, answer the question that has been floating around for the last week or so: will Obama blackmail Israel?

On the surface, the meeting will seem very diplomatic. Obviously, there will be the typical photo opp of the two leaders shaking hands or sitting by a fireplace or perhaps even in the Rose Garden (sorry, Bibi, lunch will not be served). But, more likely than not, this meeting is going to be confrontational and for very good reason.

Over the last few weeks, the Obama administration has made their position in regard to Israel clear: stopping Iran depends heavily if not solely on Israel acknowledging, legitimatizing and supporting a Palestinian state. Linkage is the term people are using lately. If Obama does make this a prerequisite to opposing Iran, it will show Israel, Americans and the world that this administration simply does not get it. This would rewrite America's foreign policy, redefine our approach to the War on Terror, and reshape the relationship America has with its strongest ally in the region. It is also dangerously simpleminded and demonstrates the president's naivety and inexperience when dealing with global issues.

Firstly, the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians has been underway for some time; nearly 15 years. There have been numerous summits, negotiations and attempts to reach a final solution that would appease both sides. Israel has been proactive in trying to establish a true peace with the neighbors in its midst.

But, this is a extremely complicated issue with dozens of nuances, flaring emotions, varying interests and a long divisive history. To complicate matters further, the Palestinian territories are warring against each other as Hamas, a extremist terrorist group, is trying to take over the representation of the people. I believe making peace with the Palestinians first requires them to make peace with themselves.

On the other hand, Iran is a very simple issue and the choice cannot be more clear: they cannot, must not and will not be able to develop nuclear weapons and the world must summon all of its efforts to avoid that reality. There are no other options, choices are discussions. It is a rather simple call.

How can Obama link the two? The Israel-Palestinian peace process will and should take time to construct whereas Iran requires a immediate response.

Linking the two is dangerously unfair and risks the safety of Israel.

Israel faces a existential threat. Iran and its President have repeatedly called for the utter destruction of Israel. Much of the unrest and violence in Israel is sponsored by Iran. Obama and his administration understand the threat Iran poses to Israel and its citizens. They know how treacherous the situation truly is. So, what are they doing about it? Is the president and his administration standing strong with our ally? Nope. They are blackmailing the Israeli people: if you want our support against a tyrant who wants to annihilate you as soon as physically possible, start cutting a deal with the Palestinians (as if Iran's ideology of death and destruction will evaporate with the creation of a Palestinian state).


The process is, as we have seen in the past, long and tedious. There are endless negotiations in order to bridge the gap between the two nations. However, the decision with Iran must be quicker; abandon your nuclear program or face consequences. There is no logical link between the two challenges. Iran isn't pursuing nukes to provide Palestinians with leverage.

Iran wants to annihilate Israel and dominate the region all with the push of a little button. You cannot negotiate with someone who is motivated to annihilate a entire country and race and believes that it is his divine mission. Iran is a bully and there is only one way to deal with a bully: with united force.

So with this administration, Israel finds itself in a touch spot. America is blackmailing the Israeli people. How can Israel negotiate like that? If Israel must compromise with Palestinians while being pressured by America as Iran's doomsday clock keeps ticking down, Israel will inevitable get a raw deal.

So, what will be accomplished tomorrow? Will Obama try and show the strong minded Bibi who is boss? Will the president demand that Israel allow America to "test" its power of diplomacy at the risk of a nuclear Iran with Israel in its cross hairs? Or, will Netanyahu be strong, stand for what is right and show Americans what true leadership looks like?

I suppose we should not expect more from a president who, while campaigning, declared that the "Palestinian people are the most persecuted race on earth."

A nuclear Iran will change the world as we know it. Our last hope rests on the shoulders of Netanyahu and his ability to lead in the face of opposition.

Congressional Woes and 2010

http://www.blogger.com/


The Democratic House leadership was all smiles back in November. But, in DC, smiles can fade quickly.

A new Rasmussen poll shows signs that the electorate is shifting. Americans are disappointed in the "change" that has come, at least in congress (and this was before Speaker Pelosi began flopping in the wind and has become entangled in the lies of what she did and did not and did know about water boarding). This is obviously worrisome for the Democrats and provides some glimmer of hope for the GOP as they continue to stumble towards 2010.

Americans are emotional voters. While we are concerned with policy issues, we are deeply motivated by our hearts. The complete lack of substance in the last presidential election should be sufficient proof of that. After all, the Democrats won on the platform of change, although no one really knew what that meant or could even truly explain a single Obama policy position.

Over the last decade, Americans have become disenchanted with the Republican congress and its empty promises. We have all been disappointed and shook our heads in disgrace as spending skyrocketed, wars dragged on and corrption ran rampant in the House. So, in November 2008, the GOP took a “thumpin” and absolute control over the legislative branch was handed over to the Democrats with all the hope in the world that they could change the direction of country.

Change! Yes we can!

But, they didn’t and Americans are upset.

According to the poll, less than 15% of Americans trust Congress. Corruption in the House is a prime concern for more than most country; 79% of Americans think that it is the second most important issue to them.

The new congress came to power with a sinking economy. In November, things looked pretty darn bad. Voters hoped that a change in power would deliver the country from slipping into another Depression. Once again, people feel let down and confidence in the competence of congress has vanished.

It is fair to say that the economy dominated the conversation as the 2008 election came to a close. And most Americans voted for change; they voted for Obama to help save the American economy. That hope in change translated into victories down the ballot for Democrats across the nation. However, after three months of being in power, the American public isn't so sure that the vote for the Democrats has brought the change they hoped. Is there anything more painful than crushed hopes? Maybe Americans are having a slight case of buyer's remorse?

For the second month in a row now, Democrats and Republicans are in a dead heat over who is more trusted to handle the economy. For four straight months voters trust the Republicans more on taxes.

While the economy is still the top issue for most Americans, more and more are becoming concerned with our national security; 70% the highest level since September 2007. Obviously, Americans are concerned with the new administration's national security policies. Tomorrow's meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will clarify how serious this administration views the Iranian threat. While many people wanted to see the war in Iraq fought differently, for the first time since September 2007, the American people trust Republicans more on Iraq than the Democrats by two points.

As the GOP is gaining confidence on the the policy front, it is clearly translating into votes. The same poll shows that Republican congressional candidates lead the Democrats on a generic ballot for the second straight week in a row.

However, don't get on your high horse just yet. This isn't all good news for the Republicans.


With all these numbers, it would seem that the mood of the country is shifting. While Americans thought that Obama and a Democrat run congress would offer the policies needed to help save the economy, put more money in our pockets, and bring dignity back to image of America, it has become clear that that simply isn't the case. Change has arrived and Americans aren't pleased.

This is a positive sign for Republican candidates heading into 2010. As the political pieces are lining up, a opportunity to regain seats in the House is within reach. However, it will not be easy.

While confidence in the Democratic run congress is slipping, faith in the Grand Old Party has not improved. The Democrats had a solid 6-7 point lead over the Republicans as 2009 kicked off. Basically, the faith in the Democrats is dwindling and it has yet to convert the American people into Republican voters. I believe that the Republicans have yet to offer a significant and clear alternative to the Democrats. If the GOP begins to lead the conversation with articulate opposition and sensible policies you will see the gap between those numbers begin to increase substantially.

It is critical for the GOP to have a vocal, articulate and robust leadership. They must recruit effective candidates and they must target every seat. If the Republicans fail to seize this opportunity, they might be doomed to roam the wilderness for longer than anyone would like, and rightfully so.

Forgetting Reagan at Our Peril

The WSJ had a opinion piece this week title: “Should the GOP forget Reagan?”, in response to comments made by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush over the weekend. The article was great and insightful, but I thought I would throw my own two cents in.
Since last November, Republicans have been stuck in the mud. Not only have they been thrown into the wilderness, but they seem to be lost and still unsure which direction points out and eventually lead them to regain at least some power in the House.

The Republican Party seems to be lingering on one question: What now? Go back to more conservative values or become more moderate? Big tent or little tent? Books, radio pundits and journalist have been running wild offering their own ideas in an attempt to answer this question; and it was exactly what prompted Bush to question the role Reagan plays in the present-day GOP. In my mind, the idea of forgetting Reagan would condemn the GOP to an even longer stay in the wilderness. The real question we should be answering is: what would Reagan do?

First, it is important for Republicans to understand that the wilderness we currently find ourselves sorrowfully wallowing in, pales in comparison to the treacherous jungle that the GOP was flung into after Barry Goldwater’s campaign in 1964, the election that first threw Reagan into the political spotlight. Goldwater was not merely defeated, he was demolished, and many thought - and the Liberals hoped - the conservative movement along with him. Goldwater only received 52 electoral votes compared to Johnson’s 486; that was an 80 percent spread. In the popular vote, Johnson destroyed Goldwater with a 22.7 percent margin.

In 2008, despite the spin, John McCain didn’t get blown out of the water. Barak Obama only received 7 percent more of the popular vote and 35 percent more of the electoral votes. Don’t get me wrong, I am not delusional. It was a decisive victory for the Democrats and the Republicans have limped away badly battered.

While the GOP is facing serious challenges ahead, the leadership and grassroots alike must realize that we have been in worse predicaments in the past and the lessons of history should serve as a guiding light.

The wilderness that created Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Revolution was far more violent towards GOP ideas. What did Reagan do while in the wilderness of the 60s and 70s? What approaches worked? Did he become more moderate after Mr. Conservative was demolished, or did he cling tightly to Conservative values?
While the answers to these questions have and can take up volumes of scholarly work, there is one fact that remains constant and it is exactly what Henniger was referring to: Reagan was a man deeply committed to a set of basic principles. He had an optimistic vision for the country, he believed in freedom, liberty and the amazing abilities of this country and its people. These principles were the backbone of his policies; they were the soil that brought forth the fruit, the ideas that were flushed out into action. A man is defined by his principles; and Reagan was clearly defined.

Reagan knew the party had to grow, but he would not sacrifice Republicanism in order to accomplish that end. Barry Goldwater in “With No Apologies”, quotes Reagan saying, “What we needed was a restatement of fundamental facts of republicanism…we had lost elections because we lacked leadership, because the presence of such radical liberals as (and he lists a slew of Republican senators) ….all wearing the Republican label, made it impossible for the voters to find any significant difference between two major parties. “

There were those in 1964, like today, who want to see the GOP head more centrists. To that, Reagan replied, “I don’t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election (1972) rushed into say, ‘We must broaden the base of our party’ when what they meant to say was to fuzz up and blur even more the difference between ourselves and our opponents.” On another occasion, Reagan said “a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers…if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles then let them go away.”

Sounds pretty “small tent” minded, doesn’t it? But, I would venture to say that Reagan expanded the GOP base more than any other Republican in history. Young voters flocked to him; they actually spearheaded his run against Ford. Regan carried every state but one in ’84. To me, that sounds like the largest small tent I have ever heard of.

Reagan knew that in order for the GOP to succeed, it needed to differentiate itself from its opponents; it needed to offer a clear alternative to the Democrats. If the GOP wanted to be a viable Party in the future, it needed to build itself upon a set of principles that defined the conservative movement: individual liberties, freedom and the ability to pursue happiness any way a person saw fit. Nowadays, everyone is scrambling for every last vote, that the identity of the parties have been lost. Who would have thought, in 2008, the Democrats would be the champions of tax cuts? In fact, the optimism of Obama sounded very Reaganish.

If the GOP wants to find a way back from the wilderness, it first must find itself again. The GOP is in need of some good old soul searching, and that always begins by looking inwards. It must become a Party built on fundamental principles and let their policies flow from there. If Republicans want to start winning, they must clearly contrast their sets of beliefs with the opposition. Obama is giving the GOP a golden opportunity to do this. The President is seeking to drastically overhaul the American government and the American way of life: taxes, socialized health care, massive government, appeasement with our enemies; all ideas that the GOP can effectively challenge on principle.

At the moment, it is ok to be the “Party of No” and it is fine for Rep. Cantor to be nicknamed “Dr. No”; but, at least show the Americans why, at least offer them a principled alternative. We cannot forget Reagan or the lessons he taught us during his time in the wilderness. Not because we are trapped in the “heyday” of Republicanism or because we are nostalgic for an era long past, but, because it worked.

Do yo know what cap and trade is?

Well, this is what it will do to your pocket book. Not a smart policy as well are all struggling to get through these tough times.

The Wrong Lessons About Churchill

President Obama is no history buff. On the campaign trail he was wrong about who actually liberated Auschwitz (nope, it wasn’t a troop of African Americans or any Americans for that matter, it was the Russians). And now, in large televised press conference to discuss the “enchanting” first 100 days, Obama was wrong on Churchill.
When pushed on the interrogation techniques used during the Bush administration, Obama said that we cannot sacrifice our country’s values and morals. As a example of how a civilized nation conducts war, Obama cited Churchill as an shining example: despite nightly bombings that nearly leveled London, good old Winston would not allow the torture of captured Germans.

Firstly, Obama, despite his cool composure, he is a ideologue, and like every ideologue he’s motivated by passion and emotions. For personal reasons, Obama is no fan of Churchill. For the last 8 years, a bust of old Winston was in the Oval Office. Obama had it removed, because, as theNew York Post reported, British authorities roughly interrogated Obama's Kenyan grandfather in the Mau Mau rebellion, during Churchill's second tour as prime minister. Roughly interrogated? Sounds a tad like torture Mr. Obama.

Historically, Obama has no proof to back up his statement on Churchill. Richard Langworth, a scholar on Churchill, wrote on April 30th:
“While Churchill did express such sentiments with regard to prison inmates, he said no such thing about prisoners of war, enemy combatants or terrorists, who were in fact tortured by British interrogators during World War II. Churchill spoke frequently about torture, mostly enemy murders of civilians. His daughter once told me, “He would have done anything to win the war, and I daresay he had to do some pretty rough things—but they didn’t unman him.” But if Churchill is on record about “enhanced interrogation,” his words have yet to surface. (Obama, Churchill Torture (http://richardlangworth.com/2009/04/obama-misquotes-churchill/)”

History is more than a mere record of a series of dates and events all strung together. It is a living example and lessons can and must be drawn from the past. Getting a date wrong or even a name is not as significant as misunderstanding profound personalities character. Obama wasn’t just inaccurate in his Churchill example; he showed a total ignorance in regard to the character of Winston Churchill and who the man was as a leader, and more importantly, a war time leader.
Churchill was a confident, strong leader. He stood up against tyranny and Nazism while the rest of the world was trying to cut a deal with Hitler, even his own Prime Minister and the British. Give him what he wants as long as peace is eventually reached was the world’s sentiment at the time. Even as Hitler’s armies marched through Europe, world leaders sought diplomacy. In America, the feelings were no different. In 1939, as tanks crossed into Poland, Sen. William Borah said, “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” However, one world leader, one man, stood up and spoke out against Hitler. One man, at risk of losing all credibility with his colleagues, demanded that Britain prepare for war. He mocked appeasement. He brought the horrors of Hitler’s Germany to light every time he stood to speak in the House of Commons. Churchill was the lone voice of reasoning.

Churchill was a man who deeply loved his country. He had a never-ending compassion for his fellow countryman. He had a clear understanding of wrong and right. He was brutally honest. He knew Hitler was a murdering, aggressive, tyrant and no peace can be made. Churchill was tough and he was civilization’s only hope. Winston was a lion who, when faced with utter demise, reach deep inside and roared as loud as possible.

Churchill was a pillar of strength and believed with the utmost devotion that freedom and liberty will and must conquer Nazism and tyranny. Even as London was bombarded to a pile of smoldering ashes, Winston stayed the course. Even as his army was nearly pushed into the sea at Dunkirk, Winston stood the course. Even when allies surrendered, Churchill stood the course. Even as ship after ship was sunk in to the dark seas, Churchill stayed the course. Even when his pleadings to America for assistance came unanswered, Churchill stood the course. Alone he stood, on his little island of Britain and battled it out with the world’s strongest army.
He understood what the war meant, what Hitler represented, and the entire world owes Mr. Churchill their undying gratitude. For, our freedom is his gift.

Just listen to some of his word spoke in House of Commons in 1940:

“The whole of the warring nations are engaged, not only soldiers, but the entire population, men, women, and children. The fronts are everywhere. The trenches are dug in the towns and streets. Every village is fortified. Every road is barred. The front line runs through the factories. The workmen are soldiers with different weapons but the same courage. These are great and distinctive changes from what many of us saw in the struggle of a quarter of a century ago.
If it is a case of the whole nation fighting and suffering together, that ought to suit us, because we are the most united of all the nations, because we entered the war upon the national will and with our eyes open, and because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity but of tolerance and variety.
We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle, nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.”

President Obama should choose more wisely what he wishes to learn from history. Instead of trying to use Churchill to demonize American policy on interrogations, which is inconclusive at best, there are far more important lessons to be learned from Churchill; lessons about integrity, character, bravery, sensibility, courage and leadership. The guts to call our enemies by their name. The insight to know when a battle is inevitable and when appeasement is useless. America is at war. It has engaged “our entire population.” If we surrender in this struggle, if we buy into false appeasement that only empowers and emboldens our enemies, we will lose everything Churchill fought to protect and everything this country stands for. So, Mr. Obama, back to the books, sir.

Israel Is Up Against the Wall -

The President’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has made it abundantly clear this week that efforts to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons depended heavily on Israel pursuing peace talks with the Palestinians. Apparently, this was said during a closed door meeting at the AIPAC convention on Sunday (Its unclear if any dead fish were in the room when Rahmbo made this statement).
The White House scrambled to kill this story and for the second time in a week, Press Secretary Gibbs had to elaborate on the meaning behind the words uttered by the Administration officials (first was when Veep Biden warned that people should avoid all means of public transportation – to which Gibbs explained that he meant anyone feeling sick should avoid public transportation.). Gibbs explained that Emanuel meant that one didn’t hinge upon the other; rather, both goals can be achieved simultaneously. Truthfully, stopping Iran would be easier if a larger coalition was brought together; a coalition that consisted of Arab and Western nations alike. However, peace with Palestinians should not be the motivational factor for these countries. There are so many others - survival, for instance. After all, every Arab country in the region along with Israel and the US would be threatened by a nuclear Iran. However, despite attempts to make Emanuel’s words more moderate, there seems to be an undeniable much harsher tone in the Obama Administration, which in fact has pinned Israel between a rock and a hard place.
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton ( as you might recall, when she was First Lady representing our country in the Middle East, she gave Arafat’s wife a loving embrace) said, “ For Israel to get the kind of strong support (I assume she means US support) it is looking for, vis-à-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand.”
When has Israel ever stood on the sideline, Mrs. Clinton? Time and time again, Israel makes concessions in hope of peace, and time and time again the Palestinians have rejected the proposals. They wanted more land, Israel gave them more land. They wanted the Jews out of their newly acquired territories, Israel moved its citizens, whole towns, from their homes and neighborhoods, in some cases by force. Israel has not been on the sidelines. Israel has been in the thick of it from the beginning, and from the beginning the Palestinians keep taking, and walking, taking and walking.
Palestinians have their own territories, but no real government. It remains a terrorist state. They have done very little to move their people towards a more stable and economically free existence. With so many uncertainties, who exactly are the Israelis suppose to talk to? If the Palestinians can’t control their own turf, if they can’t guarantee safety, if they cannot acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, how can a peace process begin? While America tries to figure that out, Iran is arming.
When it comes to Iran, Israel needs America’s strong support. America can offer Israel support in the international community. They can help with military logistics. Israel and its leaders know that they cannot make an aggressive move to stop Iran without the nod to go ahead from the US. Without that nod, without that support, Israel would be in a very difficult position. They would be standing alone for the first time in a very long time.
President Bush understood the importance of a strong friendship between Israel and America. In 2008 he said, “Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you." And, Bush understood the threat of Iran. During the same trip he said, “Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations," the president said. "For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Let quote that again, “For the sake of peace the world must not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons”
The tone of this administration is vastly different. It would appear that the Obama administration is drastically changing its foreign policy in regard to Israel and the peace process. In fact, their new policy seems to be simple: If you want our support when it comes to stopping Iran, begin cutting deals with the Palestinians. It is blackmail, or an ultimatum at the very least. Now is that how friends behave?
Israel is facing a very existential threat. Iran threatens the very existence of Israel every chance it gets. They want to annihilate Israel; to kill every man, woman and child. In fact, they believe it is their divine purpose! Israel and America, in fact the world, must keep a close eye on Iran. Stopping Iran’s nuclear program, either by force or diplomacy (sure, if your delusional, give it a shot), is critical. A nuclear Iran would throw the region into utter chaos; a vicious war would erupt as Iran tries to capture control of the entire region. Generations to follow will suffer if Iran has the ability to threaten the global community with a nuclear arsenal. But, I don’t think Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons to use them as leverage on the world stage. They aren’t here to bargain. No, no, no. Iran will use them, and their first target will be Israel.
While, America seems to be pressuring Israel to focus on a peace process before committing support in regard to Iran, what is Iran up to?
Well, hate doesn’t die easily and a madman doesn’t become sane overnight. While visiting Syria, one of Israel’s most critical allies, on Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described Zionism (he is referring to Israelis, not an ideology, by the way) as "occupation" and "aggression". And he continued, “The Zionist occupiers are destructive microbes, because Zionism itself is occupation, aggression, the use of assassination and annihilation.” Wait, there is more, "Zionism was created to threaten us. To support the Palestinian resistance is a humanitarian and popular obligation. Syria and Iran are united in supporting the Palestinian resistance."

Palestinian resistance? Doesn’t sound like much of a peace process to me? If only America was as committed to Israel’s future as Iran seems to be to the Palestinians.


For the last eight years, Israel had a strong ally and friend with then President Bush. When confronted with the Israel/Iran question, President Bush said during his last trip there, “If I were an Israeli, I would take the words of the Iranian president seriously, and as president of the United States I take them seriously,"

“If Iran were to strike Israel, Bush said, "We will defend our ally, no ands, ifs or buts."
That was the way President Bush felt. What about Obama?
Time will tell, but, it seems that President Obama and his administration views the Iran threat as an opportunity to force Israel into a peace process. To quote Emanuel’s famous line “Never let a crisis go to waste”. What exactly do they hope to gain from the Iranian crisis as it escalates? Perhaps, a weak Israel and strong Palestine ( on the campaign trail Obama called the Palestinians the most persecuted nation on earth which would mean that Israel are most persecuting nation on earth)? Or maybe they seek an incoherent, nonviable, unsustainable peace?
Either way, Israel is being pushed into a very uncomfortable position. How effectively can Israel negotiate under these conditions? Imagine a person who has fallen off a subway platform and landed on the tracks. His shoes are untied and there is only one person standing at the platform who can help pull him out. The train is rumbling down the track and is seconds away from where he stands. He desperately extends his hand up and asks the man to help him out. “Tie your shoes first, and then I will pull you out,” says the man. With his very life on the line, how easily do you think this guy is going to be able to tie his shoes?

Bush; Forget Reagan? Obama Didn't

As you might know, over the weekend, the Republican Party began a listening tour. This is a fantastic idea and a innovative way to begin the crawl back to majority power. Congressman Eric Cantor was there along with Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. While I truly believe that some great ideas were discussed, one comment by Bush doesn’t sit well with me.

Bush said that it is time for the Party to leave behind its “nostalgia” for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the strategy deployed by the Democrats in 2008. “You can’t beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don’t like it, but they have it and we have to be respectful and mindful of that,” Jeb said. He continued to say that President Obama’s message of hope and change really resonated with Americans.

Everything so far is true and accurate. However, letting go of the Reagan era is something that is not necessarily the answer.

As time continues, and generations fade into the sunset of their lives and younger generation sprout up, old ideas tend to become irrelevant. Out with the old and in with the new, right? Fashion changes. Cars change. Technology changes. Sure enough, as time slips into the future, everything changes. However, some ideas, some people are iconic and in the sense they are everlasting; they are eternal. When something is true, it can withstand the trial and tribulations of time; this is especially the case with ideas. Ronald Reagan is iconic. There are volumes written about Ronald Reagan, both as a man and as a president. Articles upon articles try to define his legacy. If you had to sum up his legacy, if you had to point your finger on the one ideal that defined him, it would have to be his unwavering optimism. His strong belief in America and in Americans. In his words and actions, Ronald Reagan was the iconic optimist.

In 1980, America was dark times. Americans were taken hostage in Tehran. Prime interest rates averaged 15.26%, inflation was at 15.5% and unemployment was at an alarming 7.1%. Times were tough and Americans were feeling it. They were being worn thin. They lost confidence in their President, they lost hope, and their belief in the American dream began to dwindle. Then, there was Ronald Reagan. A governor from California and former actor. He came crashing through like a whirlwind offering Americans hope and optimism. He made Americans feel like things are going to get better, that not all is lost. He made them believe in themselves once again. He restored their love of this country and all it stood for.

His campaign slogan in 1980 was “Let’s Make America Great Again”. His battle cry was “Are you better off than four years ago?” If not, the time has come for change. Words like hope, change, greatness, a better future, sprinkled through many of his speeches. When he accepted the Republican nomination on July 17th 1980 at the RNC convention in Detroit, Reagan stood before the American people and scoffed the idea that, “the united states has had its days in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith.” Reagan delivered the message that America’s best days lay ahead. “The American people, the most generous on earth, who create the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves.”

“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose,” he said in June of that year. “The time is now, my fellow Americans, to recapture our destiny, to take it into our own hands.”

And he stormed forward with that sense of optimism, with that dream of returning America to its former glory. His campaign theme was to restore America’s faith in itself once again, to rebuild its morale. Americans were inspired. Young voters swarmed to his campaign. This was just a campaign tactic or rhetoric. His presidency was defined by hope, optimism, change and strength. In 1984, Ronald Reagan’s campaign continued the message with the slogan: It Is Morning in America Again.
Reagan in 1984

When Jeb Bush said we might need to start to move on from the nostalgia of the Reagan era, he was right in a certain sense. We cannot scratch our heads and say “I can remember when…those were the days”. Thinking like that accomplishes nothing. That is the defeatist’s attitude. It is everything President Reagan wasn’t; that attitude was the disease he fought to uproot from the American mindset.

Bush is right, Obama had something in 2008; a solid message that inspired Americans. His campaign was organized; floating in cash and his message of hope and change captured the nation. Everyone, Democrat or Republican, admits that. However, they didn’t invent these ideas. It wasn’t original or groundbreaking. What Obama had, he took from us. It was pure Reaganism. It was the same message that Reagan used 20 years earlier to begin the revolution that would lead to a GOP majority. Hope. Change. A better tomorrow. All ideas and themes that Ronald Reagan celebrated during his career. However, the difference between President Obama and a Reagan is simple: Ronald Reagan’s policies and ideas enabled the idealist’s vision to become a reality while Obama’s change and hope will create an America that most Americans don’t want. Obama’s vision of America will not be the vision that most Americans thought they were voting for. Reagan helped move the country into a brighter, more promising tomorrow. Obama, unless we are all wrong, will lead us down a path that very few Americans are expecting or are waiting for. The tomorrow that Obama desperately wants to deliver will not embody the American dream. In 2012, when Americans are asked, “Are you better off today than four years ago,” I find it extremely difficult to believe that most people will say “yes”. Hopefully, that reality will sink in by 2010.

Republicans need to learn two things from the icon Ronald Reagan: 1. people need hope and they need to be optimistic that the darkness will dispense and light will eventually shine through and prevail, and 2. GOP policies must speak to that vision, must deliver on that vision, must make Americans believe that you can accomplish that vision and deliver on that hope.

Obama was an indescribable force in 2008. However, has time continues, and we see more of him as a leader of the free world, Americans will begin to define him rather quickly. And, like Jimmy Carter, iconic status will be beyond his reach. Americans will feel lost and searching for answers, longing for hope. If the GOP wants to survive, they will be the true agents of change, the true deliverers of hope. They will follow in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and bring the country to the sunrise of a better tomorrow. That is a massive task, and they better get ready.

Obama in 2008

We are fighting a...uh..what do you call it?

Since a fateful day in September in 2001, this country has been at war with a fraction of radical Islamic terrorist who are driven by the hope of destroying America, our way of life, and everything this country intended to represent - freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - at its founding. In all truth, this war began long before 9/11. We were routinely attacked throughout the 90s. During this decade, the terrorist grew stronger in numbers and influence, became more organized and designed more horrific attacks.

These aren't soldiers defending a sovereign nation from an aggressor nor are they representing a specific country. They are rogue; they are terrorist. They aren't trained in military tactics or strategy. They don’t wear uniforms (besides cowardly hiding behind masks) or carry a flag (but they burn them often). They train to kill; to kill innocents and as many of them as possible. Their aim is to create fear and to annihilate Western civilization (you and me). They wake in the morning with this end on their mind. They eat, train, think and live with this mission to kill, perpetuate terror in the world, and bring down the establishments of the Western world. This is an enemy who lurks in the shadows.

On 9/11, Americans and the President declared in a unified voice: We will not sit idle while terrorist plan our demise. We will fight back. We will fight our enemies; follow them to the gates of hell and beyond, if necessary. We will find you and destroy you. This country was ready and prepared to do whatever was necessary to keep America secure and our civilians safe.

Names. Everything is in a name. A name defines what something is and what it is not. A name clearly states an entities existence. Over the last eight years, we were all accustomed to calling this the "Global War on Terror" or, less common, “A long war". A Global War on Terror: this was true. Western civilizations as a whole are threatened by these terrorist. If someone doubts that, look at the horrible attacks that took place in Spain and India and the attempts that were made in England. This is a war that threatens the stability of democracies throughout the world. Every nation who treasures freedom and liberty is a target and therefore is engaged in this conflict. And, yes, this is a war against terror and those who live under that banner. We are not fighting a country or nation, but those who adhere to the ideology of terror.

A long war: This is true. This will be a long war. It is a battle of ideology, much like the Cold War. And, like the Cold War, it will take generations to succeed. It is never easy to change a people’s ideology. There are many facets: political, cultural, economic, religious etc.

Until now, we were engaged in a conflict with a clear objective. However, things have recently changed.
President Obama has sent out a mass memo: forget the Global War on Terror or the Long War. We are now fighting an Overseas Contingency Operation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html). I have no clue what that means.

Overseas: Ok, fine, that fits.
Contingency: What? I looked at a few definitions to try and figure this out. Most of the definitions were the same: 1. a possible event, occurrence or result 2. the state of being contingent on something. Again, what? It kind of sounds like we are not exactly sure, confident or clear about what we are involved in, what we are trying to accomplish or what the purpose of all this is.
Operation: Sounds like this is an isolated effort without a long term goal.

This is a tremendous error in judgment. This is a time when we must be confident, we must be vigilant, we must be willing to see this to the end (even if that is long), and we must be willing to wage a war that will be waged with or without us.

If you aren't willing to call it the way it is, how on earth are you going to be able to do what must be done? You won't. And, our enemies know that.

Good Afternnon

To all readers -

This was a random idea put into my head by a pushy, but convincing old Friend. So, here I am blindly joining the realm of bloggers. I am not sure what the content of this blog will look like, but I assume it will morph a few times before settling into a groove. If you have any suggestions or ideas, please send a shout out. In the meantime, for those that might be offended, I apologize, not for the content, but for your sensitives. And for those who enjoy it, cheers!

Look for my first real posting later tonight.