April 11-16, 2009
Apr 11 23:19 The Price Of Obama's Inaction Apr 13 00:39 The Rest of the Story Apr 14 07:59 Who Needs a Constitution, Part II? Apr 15 08:43 Bad News For Democrats? Apr 15 14:13 WOW!!! What An Event!!! Apr 16 10:40 Tea Party Afterthoughts Apr 16 15:59 TMLC Files FOIA Request on DHS 'Report'
The Price Of Obama's Inaction
We now know the price to be paid for President Obama's inaction with the Somali pirates. We know because they've hijacked another boat , this time capturing another 16 hostages:
Pirates captured a U.S.-owned and Italian-flagged tugboat with 16 crew including 10 Italians on Saturday in the latest hijacking in the busy Gulf of Aden.Why shouldn't they be daring? It's not like President
"We can confirm that 10 Italians were kidnapped but we have no further details," an Italian foreign ministry official said.
Andrew Mwangura, of the Mombasa-based East African Seafarers' Assistance Programme, said the crew were believed to be unharmed on the tugboat, which he added was operated from the United Arab Emirates. He said the tugboat was towing two barges at the time of capture but there were no details on their cargo. "This incident shows the pirates are becoming more daring and violent," Mwangura told Reuters by phone.
Had this happened under either President Bush, the response would've been predictable, swift and violent. They would've made examples of the pirates plying the waters, then they would've literally struck them where they live.
Doing nothing and hoping the problem disappears isn't a policy. It's a disaster waiting to happen. This is what happens when people elect someone who hasn't had time to think military strategies through. This is what happens when the commander-in-chief is reluctant to trust his officers.
That's why experienced foreign policy and national security experts think the Obama administration will be as ineffective and timid as the Carter administration. Based on what's happened thus far, there's no reason for them to change their minds.
Ed's analysis is right on the money:
This emphasizes the need to react swiftly, using the full might of our power, when piracy arises. In a real sense, this is asymmetrical warfare, only with a profit motive rather than theological extremism pushing it. If we scale down our response to the same level as theirs, or incrementally rather than overwhelmingly higher, then we play on their ground and not ours. If we expect to have a realistic deterrent in our navy, then we have to allow them to unleash their full fury on the pirates, all of the pirates, when they dare to attack American shipping, and Western shipping in general.The principle behind using overwhelming force in this situation is simple: Hitting the pirates and their home bases ups the ante. It tells them that for every cost they inflict on us, we'll inflict five times as much on them. Let's see how long they want to play under those terms.
The price for their piracy thus far has been minimal to nonexistent. It isn't dissimilar to southwest companies hiring illegal immigrants because they represented cheap labor. When raids were increased on those companies, the hiring of illegal aliens died because they no longer represented cheap labor anymore.
These pirates haven't paid a heavy price yet. How will they react if there's an actual cost in terms of blood and treasure? Perhaps they'd be brave enough to continue. If they were brave and we had a real commander-in-chief, a real commander-in-chief would give a simple order: As long as they attempt ship hijackings, their ships and their villages will get turned into rubble.
It's a shame we don't have a real commander-in-chief. It's a crying shame they didn't get the memo that nobody messes with our VP.
Posted Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:24 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-Apr-09 08:21 AM
this problem has been going on for at least a year. were any US boats attacked before this?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 13-Apr-09 07:07 AM
Seems to me that any President qualified for the job would immediately order US warships to shadow every US-flagged vessel through the area, and to destroy any pirate vessel that refused an order to steer clear. Let other nations do the same. And permit US warships to similarly protect any civilian vessel within range of their vessel. I can imagine the convoys springing up, a la WWII.
All of that, of course, is assuming you don't have the intel to simply sink every one of their boats and kill every one of the dirty dogs.
The Rest of the Story
While the AP plays errand boy for President Obama, Blackfive gets the story right . Here's what the AP reported:
Officials say Obama gave the OK on Friday and Saturday to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. Officials say both times the Pentagon believed Phillips' life was at risk.That's a nice-sounding story. Its only flaw is that it isn't factual. Here's what Blackfive is reporting:
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Administration officials say Obama was told Sunday of the rescue while he was in the White House residence. Officials also say Obama has phoned Phillips and Phillips' family.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP)-Administration officials say President Barack Obama approved the military operation that rescued a U.S. captain held hostage by Somali pirates. The officials say Obama ordered the Defense Department to use military resources to rescue Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. The officials discussed this information on the condition of anonymity because they were not yet authorized to disclose the president's decision-making process.
Obama praised the captain for his bravery and courage. The president also said the United States needs help from other countries to deal with the threat of piracy and to hold pirates accountable.
I just finished listening to the press conference w/ ADM Gortney about the rescue of Captain Phillips. At the time it happened the USS Bainbridge was towing the lifeboat to calmer waters as the sea state was deteriorating. One of the pirates was on board the Bainbridge as the talks about obtaining Phillip's release continued. The lifeboat was approx. 25 m behind the Bainbridge when snipers on the fantail observed one of the pirates in the pilot house of the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 at the back of a tied up Phillips and the other two pirates on board were visible (at least shoulders and heads). The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger. The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire. All three bad guys were taken out and then a rigid inflatable boat went to the lifeboat to retrieve Phillips. Iti is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available. This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage.If I'm forced to pick between believing Adm. Gortney's statements and the AP's reporting, I'll trust Adm. Gortney's statements. In fact, that isn't even a fair fight.
The AP is reporting that President Obama gave the order to use military force to rescue the hostage, that is misleading.
It's time that the AP stopped carrying the Obama administration's water. Instead, it's time that they should start worrying about getting the facts right.
Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 12:44 AM
Comment 1 by Freealonzo Lives! at 13-Apr-09 07:14 PM
God I love this blog! (and appear to be its only reader).
Saturday you were already to blame President Obama for the death of the kidnapped captain. But oops, brave Special Ops forces free the captain and kill three terrorists to boot, all based on order from of all people Obama!
Now Obama deserves about 1% of the credit in this whole deal, but you and other conservatives were ready to blame him 100% if something went wrong. And boy talk about wanting the terrorists to win... conservatives all were all over themselves salivating at the prospect of hitting Obama with the death of the kidnapped captain.
I swear sometimes I have to bring hot mustard when I read this blog, given the logic pretzels you weave.
I hope you read this comment before deleting it.
Who Needs a Constitution, Part II?
George Will's column is great reading if you care about the liberties that state and federal governments are destroying. Mr. Will's argument is so logical, it's likely that liberals won't understand or appreciate it:
Rampant redistribution of wealth by government is now the norm. So is this: It inflames government's natural rapaciousness and subverts the rule of law. This degeneration of governance is illustrated by the Illinois Legislature's transfer of income from some disfavored riverboat casinos to racetracks.The notion that private property still has meaning is quaint but it isn't reality. Kelo v. New London took care of that. Thanks to that ruling, the threshold that people have to meet is minimal at best. Here's how Mr. Will illustrates that:
Illinois has nine licensed riverboat casinos and five horse-racing tracks. In 2006, supposedly to "address the negative impact that riverboat gaming has had" on Illinois horse racing, the Legislature, racing interests made huge contributions to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, mandated a transfer of 3 percent of the gross receipts of the four most profitable casinos, those in the Chicago area, to the state's horse-racing tracks. This levy, subsequently extended to run until 2011, will confiscate substantially more than $100 million.
What is to prevent legislators from taking revenues from Wal-Mart and giving them to local retailers? Or from chain drugstores to local pharmacies? Not the tattered remnant of the Constitution's takings clause.
In a brief opposing the Illinois Legislature, the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization of state legislators, makes this argument against "predatory taxation": Suppose Congress, eager to aid newspapers hurt by competition from new information technologies, decides to take a percentage of the assets of Bill Gates and half a dozen other beneficiaries of those technologies, and give the money to newspapers. Would not this "take and transfer" scheme be unconstitutional? Targeting specific, identifiable persons or entities for unfavorable treatment, and transferring their assets to equally identifiable persons or entities, surely also raises equal protection issues.I even recall an instance where Oakland took the commercial property that a business was planning on developing and gave the land to another commercial developer whose plan they liked more. That's the type of thing an out-of-control government does. That's what people who don't care about the Constitution do.
That isn't what the Constitution's Takings Clause was intended to mean, however. That isn't the type of thing that happened when when the cliche "A man's home is his castle" meant something. Following Kelo, that cliche now essentially means "A man's home is his castle except if the government gets a better offer for the use of that land."
It's time that SCOTUS revisited Kelo and got it right this time. America can't afford to have our constitutional protections eroded any further.
Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:16 AM
No comments.
Bad News For Democrats?
After quickly perusing Glenn Reynolds' WSJ op-ed , several things jumped out at me. Here's the thing that jumped out most:
There are no national rules, and organizers of each protest are doing things the way they want. And that's the good news and the bad news for Democrats. It's not a big Republican effort. It's a big popular effort. But a mass movement of ordinary people who don't feel that their voices are being heard doesn't bode well for the party that positioned itself as the organ of hope and change.It can't be good news for Democrats that the Tax Day tea parties are spontaneous, grassroots-oriented events. It can't be heartwarming that the Sandusky, OH tea party is an anti-spending binge protest :
There's a tea party coming to Sandusky this week but you can leave your kettle and your tea bags at home. The event, slated for 5:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Washington Park Gazebo, is meant as a political protest against "big government" and excessive government spending. Young people in their 20s in the Sandusky area took the lead in organizing the Washington Park protest.The fact that young people organized the event through Facebook and word-of-mouth is disturbing enough for Democratic strategists. The likelihood that many of these young people voted for then-Cadidate Obama should make this news doubly troubling for Democratic strategists.
They sent e-mails out to their friends, urging people who support the protest to forward the messages to other friends. They also used Facebook and word-of-mouth advertising, said Bridget Harrington, 26, a BGSU Firelands student who plans to become a kindergarten teacher. "It's been quite easy because people are quite interested in it," Harrington said.
This tidbit from Mr. Reynolds' op-ed is getting attention, too:
What's most striking about the tea-party movement is that most of the organizers haven't ever organized, or even participated, in a protest rally before. General disgust has drawn a lot of people off the sidelines and into the political arena, and they are already planning for political action after today.A few years ago, Glenn Reynolds , Rob Neppell , Ed Morrissey and other prominent bloggers tried putting the spotlight on the Bush administration's runaway spending with an organization called Porkbusters. The outrage they expressed was genuine but it did't light a fire with enough people.
Cincinnati organizer Mike Wilson, a novice organizer who drew 5,000 people to a rally on March 15, is now planning to create a political action committee and a permanent political organization to press for lower taxes and reduced spending. Tucson tea party organizer Robert Mayer told me that his organization will focus on city council elections in the fall as its next priority. And there's lots of Internet chatter about ways of taking things further after today's protests.
Little did they know that the Bush administration's spending would look modest compared with the next administration's out-of-control spending spree. Little did these fiscal conservatives know that a Democratic administration would overreach as badly as this administration has overspent on one bailout after another.
The Obama administration's proposed spending trillions of dollars on bailouts lit the fuse that the triumvirate of Reynolds, Neppell and Morrissey tried lighting.
The Tea Party movement is likely at least partially responsible for the DHS's putting out their right wing extremist memo . That's the memo that said this:
The department said it "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits" who could someday resort to attacks.Ms. Napolitano apparently thinks that there are lots of right wing crazies:
"The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers fo rightwing radicalization and recruitment," according to the report.
BLITZER: Is it a bigger threat from your perspective and other [ed. - another?] al Qaeda and foreign related terror attack against the United States or domestic terrorism along the lines of an Oklahoma City bombing?Apparently, DHS is lead by a paranoid person who isn't in touch with the people.
NAPOLITANO: That's difficult to say because both are risks that are with us and will be with us and so what the American people need to know is that the Department of Homeland Security, as the secretary of Homeland Security, we're thinking all the time about these issues. We're working all these times on what we can do realistically to prevent, to interfere but also to prepare should something happen.
As much as anything, that's what's driving this movement. People didn't think they were voting for irresponsible spending. People didn't think this administration would be as bailout-happy as they've been. People thought that the Senate would listen when we railed against the stimulus bill. People are convinced that they've been ignored by the man who promised that he'd be a postpartisan politician.
After the final article is written about the Tax Day Tea Parties has been written, it's feasible that the animating factors were overspending and the Democrat's betrayal of Main Street America.
This influx of new energy and new talent is likely to inject new life into small-government politics around the nation.If the GOP plans on staying relevant, it better recognize that old-style politics are worthless. If the GOP wants to remain relevant, it better understand that ideas, not gotcha attacks, animate people.
Posted Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:52 AM
Comment 1 by suntravel at 16-Apr-09 03:21 AM
with Obama portraying himself to be the most intelligent person in Washington then no wonder we're in trouble. He knows nothing. Seems that the Obama lovers got taken for a ride. They've been had'
Tom Davis
North Carolina
WOW!!! What An Event!!!
Having just returned from St. Cloud's Tea Party, the best way to summarize the event is simple:
WOW!!!
I went to the event figuring that 200 people would've constituted a good event. We didn't just surpass that figure; we shattered that amount. Ine of the last estimates I heard from someone who wandered through the crowd was that there were "easily over 400 people" in attendance. A later figure put it closer to 500 than 400.
While that's astonishing in its own right, that only tells part of the story. I manned a table collecting signatures of people who attended the event and who wanted to be notified of future events. Saying that business was brisk at that table is understatement.
After people dispersed to wave their signs on St. Germain St. & Division, I spoke with KNSI radio talk show host Dan Ochsner about the event. Dan asked me if I knew which organizations were involved. I told him that I didn't know. We agreed, though, that today's turnout was a true grassroots event, that it wasn't organized. This was a We The People-, Main Street oriented-event.
Outside of Dan and former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jim Knoblach, there weren't alot of high profile speakers at the event. That didn't mean much to the assembled crowd, though. If we could've harnessed the energy in that crowd, we would've lit every lightbulb in St. Cloud for a week.
It'll be interesting to see how big the crowds are at today's high profile events. I won't be surprised if they're substantially bigger than they're forecasting.
It wouldn't be accurate to say that people didn't bring a feisty attitude to the event. It is accurate to say that people were respectful and, more importantly, passionate about their anti-bailout, low taxes, pro Second Amendment, limited government beliefs.
UPDATE: My friend Leo has a great read on Wednesday's Tea Party rally in St. Cloud. Follow this link to read Leo's observations and take in the pictures he took at the event. It's great reading.
Originally posted Wednesday, April 15, 2009, revised 16-Aug 10:26 PM
No comments.
Tea Party Afterthoughts
I spent Wednesday night watching FNC's coverage of the Tea Parties. The primary event locations were Atlanta and DC. Wednesday afternoon, Neil Cavuto did his show from Sacramento, CA. It was there that Mr. Cavuto made an important observation.
What Mr. Cavuto said was that these rallies weren't only about taxes, that they were driven as much by people feeling that their money was being spent on low priority items or on pork. That's something I agree with but it isn't the only subplot to these rallies.
While it's true that these rallies had alot of things that conservative could rally around, there were lots of things that appeal to John Q. Public, too. Anti-bailout signs were plentiful at the St. Cloud rally. Anti-stimulus bill signs were plentiful, too. In fact, I saw signs mocking Congress for voting for the stimulus bill without reading it.
Two messages came from these events, with equal amounts of passion. Both were directed at Washington. One of those messages was that We The People are upset that legislators vote on bills spending hundreds of dollars that they didn't bother to read. People are telling legislators that they demand they do their job, including doing their due diligence.
Another message that we sent to Washington and to our political leaders was that it was time that they shut up and listen to us for a change. I'm not expecting this to change overnight. I'm not that naive. I expect people to start listening after large numbers of incumbents who voted for the bailouts and the stimulus bill get ushered into early retirement.
The first rule of getting the politicians' attentions is defeating his allies. A politician's first instinct is their re-election instinct. Harnessing the energy from yesterday's event hinges on core principles.
If we're a country of people that believes government should listen to We The People rather than government dictating to us, that will be a great first step in harnessing the energy from yesterday's events.
If we decide that we're a country of people that thinks that Washington listening to us is a demandment rather than a quaint notion, that's a major step in the right direction.
If we decide that we're a country of people that thinks that the Founding Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said, that's another major step in harnessing the energy from yesterday's event.
If you're interested in continuing the fight that started with the stimulus bill, that accelerated with the introduction of this year's bailoutmania and that continues with politicians not listening to us, leave a comment at this blog.
If you're fighting mad and want to help change this nation, the ball's now in your court.
Posted Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:59 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 17-Apr-09 07:39 AM
Gary:
One reason why Neil picked California is because California is such sad shape. Those people have been victimized by sales tax increases the return of high car taxes because their spending is out of control.
Everybody says they want to invest in Minnesota. Take a look at what the investments (much higher taxes) have done to California.
California is the warning sign. Democrats might start losing big there in 2010 at the rate things are going. And keep in mind Arnold is technically a liberal democrat!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
TMLC Files FOIA Request on DHS 'Report'
According to the statement I received from the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), their organization has filed a FOIA request with the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know if there was a basis for their recent intelligence assessment against "right wing extremists." Here's a portion of their statement:
The Thomas More Law Center announced today that is has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know the basis for their recent intelligence assessment targeting as "rightwing extremists" those who oppose abortion, gun control, lax immigration laws, and a myriad of other policies supported by President Obama's administration. The Law Center filed its request after consultation with conservative talk show host Michael Savage.While I think it's a stretch to say that it's "a declaration of war against the American people" and the Constitution, it isn't unreasonable to think that this administration isn't interested in ignoring the Constitution when it gets in the way of their agenda.
The Department of Homeland Security's document in question, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" was released to law enforcement agencies throughout the country. Of particular concern was the report's singling out of military veterans as vulnerable to rightwing extremism.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, "This is not an intelligence report but a diatribe against those who oppose the policies of the Obama administration. It is a declaration of war against the American people and our constitution. It is a prelude to extreme gun control legislation and hate speech laws targeting Christian churches and others who oppose abortion and same sex marriage. The federal government should be focusing its attention on the 35 radical Muslim compounds in the U.S. training its followers on how to kidnap and kill Americans."
What's clear is that this isn't an intelligence report based on observations. Instead, it's more likely that it's a statement issued by a paranoid hard-left ideologue. According to this AP article , House Republicans are sitting on their hands about this outrage:
"To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable," said Boehner, R-Ohio.Prior to St. Cloud's Tea Party, I chatted briefly with a Vietnam vet about the DHS statement. To say that he was upset is understatement. He asked the question that I was thinking: Why would anyone think that a person that just risked their life to protect this nation then want to do something that would destroy or, at minimum, hurt this nation?
That's the question that Ms. Napolitano should be forced to answer. If she won't answer that question, then President Obama should fire her ASAP.
"Let me be very clear-we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States," Napolitano said in a statement. "We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."Ms. Napolitano says that DHS monitors "the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States." What proof is there that returning Iraqi war vets present a threat? Let's remember that this wasn't meant for public consumption, which increases the likelihood that it's what DHS employees really think.
Napolitano said the department respects and honors veterans and that she intends to meet with Rehbein next week after she returns from a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border and meetings in Mexico City.
Ms. Napolitano's statement that "the department respects and honors veterans" is suspicious at best, especially considering Jim Hoft's reminding us of this :
BLITZER: And so do you still consider the United States be engaged in the war on terror?UPDATE: I literally just got another statement from TMLC announcing their filing a lawsuit in federal court against DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano:
NAPOLITANO: I consider the United States, yes, to be very engaged in and working with our international partners and others in preventing terrorist acts from occurring.
BLITZER: Is it a bigger threat from your perspective and other [ed. - another?] al Qaeda and foreign related terror attack against the United States or domestic terrorism along the lines of an Oklahoma City bombing?
NAPOLITANO: That's difficult to say because both are risks that are with us and will be with us and so what the American people need to know is that the Department of Homeland Security, as the secretary of Homeland Security, we're thinking all the time about these issues. We're working all these times on what we can do realistically to prevent, to interfere but also to prepare should something happen.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department's "Rightwing Extremism Policy," as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of the political beliefs. Click here to read the Law Center's complaint .Richard Thompson nails Ms. Napolitano perfectly with this statement:
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano's Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
Thompson added, "Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents."The notion that this report wasn't ideology-driven is insulting. Without that insidious ideology, this 'report' wouldn't exist.
Ms. Napolitano is embarassing. Like President Obama himself, her words don't match her actions. She should resign immediately for letting her employees have this anti-military attitude.
Posted Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:09 PM
No comments.
