June 08, 2009

Cuban Expatriate: Why Obama Reminds Me of Castro

Headlines:

MSNBC 11/2008 -- Obama vows change in U.S. policy on Cuba
President-elect has indicated he's open to talks with Raul Castro

BBC 1/2009 -- Will Obama shift policy on Cuba?
The election of Barack Obama has energised those seeking a change in relations between the US and Cuba.

IPS News 1/2009 -- US-CUBA: Obama Urged to Take Bold Steps Toward Normalisation

Guardian 3/2009 -- Obama will use spring summit to bring Cuba in from the cold

Newsweek 3/2009 -- Why Obama Should Lift the Cuba Embargo

Reuters 5/2009 --  US-Cuba thaw in full swing in arts world

This site recently had the chance to talk to an America man whose family fled Castro's political oppression to come here. His thoughts include surprising observations regarding Cuba's history, and the state of Cuba today, as well as troubling parallels between Castro and Obama.

We'll call the interviewee, who does not want his name to appear, "Eduardo."

Take this as the verbal testimony of one man. I have obtained partial corroboration from one of Miami's top radio talk show hosts, Ninoska Pérez Castellón. Ninoska is quoted below, regarding some of his most surprising observations.

Per Eduardo's views Cuba is a place in which:

• Children are wards of the state - forcibly removed from their parents when they become teenagers.
• Some children are forced into state-sponsored prostitution.
• Free speech is punishable as a crime against the state.

In addition, Eduardo also sees striking parallels between Obama and Castro.

Let's get right into it.

Children in Cuba are Wards of the State; and,  the Child Prostitution Business

Vik: You mentioned that all children are wards of the state in Cuba?

Eduardo: Yes, when they get to a certain age, they all must report to the fields and cut cane, and they have sex camps over there where they train the good looking girls and the boys, they train them to have sex with each other and they also make boy prostitutes there and all that and when they have enough gas and resources and buses, well, then they will bring them to their parents on the weekends, sometimes it's every other weekend and sometimes it's once a month. So your child is taken from you. Your child is a ward of the state.

Vik: What age does this take place? What age does this..

Eduardo: I believe this happens around 12 or 13.

Vik: The state takes the children away from their families at the age of 12 or 13, today in Cuba?

Eduardo: Yes, today in Cuba, 90 miles away from United States, the most powerful nation of the world. It's a travesty, it's a travesty, we were painted as zealots, as people who are burning [American] flags and the fact of the matter is that Cuban-Americans if you know who we are, we will die for that flag.

...Vik: Now, these sex camps, this is to create prostitutes, is that the purpose of the sex camps?

Eduardo: Yes, because prostitution is an industry over there. They have child pornography and they use children, girls and boys for these deviants who go on these sex junkets to Cuba and that's the underlying reason why there is a lot of travel to Cuba, unfortunately. And there is a lot of people, lot of men and women who go over there and they don't want others to know about their sexual preferences, I imagine, so they would go over there. But there is a technique that Fidel uses on some of these people who he has been able to identify, who work with major corporations are instrumental to him. He will take videotapes of them at the resorts with these individuals and illicit activities and on the way out they will give them an envelope and say, here, there's a copy of a videotape in this envelope. When you to get to Miami, we want you to see it. Then, after that point, it is blackmail, so they get information from them that they need. So there's a whole sex lies and videotapes type of thing going on. It's pretty ugly. I don't know if it's as prominent as it once was, but it was common knowledge, nothing I'm telling you is nothing that can't be heard on the radio or in Spanish print or Spanish TV. It's all been discussed openly. However, it never reaches the mainstream media. That's 90 miles away, buddy.

History of Cuba: A Democracy Destroyed

Eduardo: My family fled in October of 1962 and I was three years old at that time and so, yes, I was born there and I became a naturalized citizen in this country.

...They were fleeing communism, Fidel Castro's communism. Apparently, Cuba had a troubled past with their leadership and President Batista, first, he was elected democratically and so you got to back up a little bit. Cuba's background is very similar to the United States. They had to fight for their independence from Spain, not from England. And Cuba was involved and helping United States as you well know, in fighting for their independence also. So, very, very similar types of paradigms on a much smaller scale, obviously.

So, fast forward to a country that finally fought for its independence from Spain and they were very much into fairness and freedom. It was all about freedom and they duly elected president Batista in a democratic way and he ran his first term that way and in the second term, he lost, I believe, that he took, he used the military to take the country by force. So he became like, sort of like a dictator, benevolent dictator so to speak. There was a lot of discord, because those weren't the rules, the rules were that we were to have free elections. So he took the country over by the use of the military and there were some firing squads and there were some short battles, one here and there.

So anyway, after that short term of turmoil, the country moved along and there was a lot of discord and lot of unhappiness about him but yet, the country seemed to continue to flourish because of the United States' presence there. You had the great companies, the oil, petrochemical companies, you had the pharmaceutical companies, and you had the Hershey's chocolate company. They were out there; they actually established a large suburb, sort of like a mini city with its own little township and everything out there.

...[Castro] sold himself as somebody who was very charismatic, somebody who really cared to rebel against the establishment, to take away from the rich, evil people who were governing the country by force and now he was going to give the young and the distraught and the poor people a chance to take ownership, their part of the fractional ownership of everything that belongs to the rich people in the country. In fact, after the big exodus, after Batista finally was, jumped on the plane and fled Cuba himself, then everybody felt, okay, this is it; this is going to change for some time to come, that -after the first wave left, they would start having parties at these mansions of the rich people who left. So now, all those properties belonged to the government so they would have parties and they would invite people over, come look, and there were certain beaches, that were private beaches, well now they were public beaches and that was a good thing. And initially there was a great deal of people who were on Fidel's side. They were totally, totally misguided thinking that they were going to get something that belonged to somebody else to their benefit and that everything was going to be fine, everybody was going to have this, so there is nobody who is going to be without anything and you would have everything that would be the basics of life and then some. So, the problem [when Castro came to power] was that anybody who was identified as not being compliant or in lock step with the revolution was either shot at a firing squad or put in a jail and their businesses were seized, their bank accounts were frozen. If you had to leave the country, you had to go through a very intricate process where you would have to basically leave with the clothes on your back and may be a suitcase with some clothes, to at least make it a few nights wherever you were gonna go. And that's exactly what happened in our case. We had a business, house, car, furniture, everything. My parents were, by no stretch of the imagination rich, but they were, you know, upper middle class. My dad was a businessman as were many who fled and he was jailed for a few months just because he had a friend that was involved in some anti-revolutionary activities. So they thought that may be he had something to do with it too, so they jailed him for a few months just in case. So, when he was let go, that's when he realized that things were very awry and so that's when, you know, my family, I guess, made their arrangements to leave and then my grandparents left and we left you know, piecemeal, but we were the first to leave. As far as similarities, a lot of demagoguery that you hear in the extreme left or the Democrat Party is very similar, and that the socialistic tendencies of wanting to share the wealth and wanting to control what you do and wanting to put extra eyes on your activities.

Why Obama's Messianic Public Image Reminds Eduardo of Castro's Rise to Power

Eduardo: The other thing was that Fidel, when he would do the presentations in an open plaza, he would have white doves around him. It was something, somewhat of a messianic type of persona that he was trying to put forth such as Barack Obama's. He had a lot of white doves around him and they wouldn't fly away because the message was that he was such a good person and so clean and holy that the doves wouldn't fly away. Well, it came to be known that those doves couldn't fly away because they had fed them steel pellets and they were too heavy to fly away. So those were special doves and some of them had their wings, slightly clipped, so they couldn't fly properly. Those were just, you know, I guess, props.

Concerns About Obama's Organizing of a Separate Political Organization

Background, from American Thinker:

...there is a new organization on the political scene -- "Organizing for America," announced by President Barack Obama in late January but officially unfurled last weekend.

Obama describes OFA as a "grass-roots movement" but OFA is a "project" of the Democratic Natrional Committee.

As Politico reported, OFA will take the 10 million person database built up by the Obama campaign "to mobilize support for the president's legislative agenda."

A visit to the OFA website reveals that supporters are not simply asked to sign up, they are asked to take a pledge. A pledge to support -- not the flag, not the constitution, not the country, not even the Democratic Party, but Obama and his "bold plan." OFA does not use the Democratic Party logo but the "O"-shaped logo of the Obama campaign in which the red white and blue of the flag are abstracted to soft pastel colors.

...You will not find any mention of OFA`s governing structure, their budget, their bylaws, or their officers at the OFA website. Donations to the website go to the DNC, but OFA is managed out of the White House. If you click on the comments button, you are taken to a link to the White House email.

Those who take the pledge are asked to "talk with people about the President's plan" and to "ask them to sign their names to the pledge" in support of Obama's policies.

So we have a Movement -- this is their term, not mine -- organized by, and loyal to, a sitting President. Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too. A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.

Why this alarms Eduardo:

Eduardo: Now, these committees of defense that Fidel set up. These were people who were empowered to turn you in and in exchange for turning you in for illegal activities, they would turn around and receive a little extra of whatever rations were given out for them. So it became - they're rats, everybody was ratting on everybody. You can well imagine, you're coming home from wherever and you've got a package. This individual is on the lookout, they see that you are driving up to your driveway and they'll go right up to you and you'd have to explain to them what was in the package, open it up if they wanted to see it, if they wanted to walk through your house because they had reason to believe that you had somebody living with you who was maybe identified as somebody who wasn't friendly with the cause. Because the whole ideology is my god, something this great, something that's going to finally bring in equality to somebody, to a nation and there's not going to be anymore poverty and we know there is going to be more pain before it gets better.

Parallels Between Obama's Approach To The US Economy, And Castro's Approach To The Cuban Economy

Eduardo: That's another thing that Obama keeps going. It's going to get worse before it gets better. We're all going to have to share our, what's it, sacrifice. That was another thing, that's another parallel. We're all going to have to sacrifice for the better. So, everything's always today we are going to sacrifice for a better tomorrow. When tomorrow comes, well today, we're going to sacrifice for tomorrow and then the day after that, today we're going to have to sacrifice for tomorrow and it goes on and on and on and it turns out into a perennial sacrifice. You're always sacrificing for tomorrow. So, that's basically why we're very concerned about what we've seen recently, all this sacrificing and where is this going to lead.

Two days ago, from AP: "The Federal Reserve announced a $1.2 trillion plan three months ago designed to push down mortgage rates and breathe life into the housing market. But this and other big government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect. Rates for mortgages and U.S. Treasury debt are now marching higher as nervous bond investors fret about a resurgence of inflation."

Today, from AP: "Eager to show action on the ailing economy, President Barack Obama promised Monday to speed federal money into hundreds of public works projects this summer, vowing that 600,000 jobs will be created or saved. ..... [Obama] cautioned bluntly that "we're still in the middle of a very deep recession" and that "it's going to take a considerable amount of time for us to pull out of."

For Eduardo, Michelle Obama's Choice of Colors for Election Night is a Reminder of Communist Cuba

Eduardo: Something that may or not have had anything to do with it, but some people feel that it may have, was their garb on the night of the election when they won.

Vik: Yes.

Eduardo: They were wearing black and red…

Vik: Yeah.

Eduardo: …yeah and those colors signify, black is death and red is blood, death and blood, which are the colors of the movement of the July 26 in Cuba and that has also been used by that group of people in other efforts.

Vik: I believe I have heard that the designer who designed those clothes…

Eduardo: I was just gonna say that. She had a Cuban dress designer. I have not heard anything or read anything about that, about who he is but I am sure that any Cuban who is close to the Obamas, is definitely a friend of Fidel Castro's and a sympathizer of the philosophy on the left. So, I guarantee you it wasn't an original exiled Cuban who designed that dress for her.

Vik: There is no way any Cuban would be unaware of the meaning of the colors red and black.

Eduardo: Red and black is something we're kind of spooked by, because that's what we saw, in fact red and black is what Hugo Chavez wears and those were his colors when he does his presentations and everything.

Hugo Chavez

Flag of the Cuban Revolutionary Movement, Featuring the Same Colors Michelle Obama Chose for Election Night

Partial Corroboration

Seeking corroboration, I spoke to Miami radio talk show host, Ninoska Pérez Castellón. From Wikipedia:

Ninoska Pérez Castellón is a leading member of the Cuban exile community and opponent of the Castro brothers. She is a notable Spanish radio talk show host and political commentator who has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on numerous occasions. She is also an occasional columnist for the Miami Herald.

She was one of the founding member of the Cuban Liberty Council.

Background
Ninoska was born in Havana, Cuba on March 15, 1950. Her family was forced to leave the island following the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959. Ever since, she has resided in Miami where she has played an active role in promoting a democratic transition in Cuba.

She is a graduate of Miami-Dade College and the University of Miami.

Ninoska granted permission for me to quote her. While differing with Eduardo about some of the details, her views appear to confirm the substance of much of what Eduardo said on the treatment of children in Cuba today.

Vik: I understand that in Cuba children are wards of the state. Is this correct?

Ninoska: No, they are not legally wards of the state. Cuba doesn't tell you that at 10 years old they take your kids away. But once a child starts going to school, the communist ideology is imposed. Sometimes, not necessarily when they are 10, but maybe a little older, they have to go to schools in the countryside, to do farm work live in a community. More like 13 or 14. I'm not sure if its compulsory. Like nothing is compulsory in Cuba - but you know you have to agree to it. Unless they have a medical certificate regarding asthma or something like that. But otherwise they do have to go. it's part of their learning experience.

Vik: Is there a state-run prostitution business in Cuba?

Ninoska: No, there is no state run prostitution business. It's not true. What is happening is that a lot of kids, once they go away from control of their parents - and its very troubling for Cuban families - there's a lot of prostitution in the country.  A lot of young girls maybe 12 , 13 are prostituting themselves.  And there's a lot of concern about this that some tourists come from Europe to look for these girls. There's no state run prostitution, but the state sponsors it in the sense that they promote it in the tourism industry. There are arrangements that the foreigners can bring a girl to a hotel. The police participate.  It's not state-run  - but obviously the state looks the other way.

Conclusion

Eduardo: So, it is the same M.O., it is the same tired M.O., they've come up with nothing new. The only thing new is that in this country there is a certain elements who feel that everything is so well in the bounds of powers and they are so well-guarded and oh, well, that happened in the little Banana republic, just south of us, but that would never happen here and there's a lot of denial. There's a lot of denial and maybe justifiably so but in our case, you know, we lost one country already and we'll be damned if we lose another one.

...The only embargo that is worth even speaking of is the embargo that the Castro regime has on its own people to keep them broke and poor and needy so that they can't revolt and they can't express their own political freedom and human rights.

Postscript

According to the State Department:

Cuba, with a population of 11 million, is a totalitarian state led by a president, Fidel Castro, whose regime controls all aspects of life through the Communist Party (CP) and its affiliated mass organizations, the government bureaucracy, and the state security apparatus. Although civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, the Ministry of Interior is the principal instrument of state security and control, and officers of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, which are led by the president's brother, have occupied most key positions in the ministry during the past 15 years.

The government's human rights record remained poor, and the government continued to commit numerous, serious abuses. At least 333 Cuban political prisoners and detainees were held at year's end. The following human rights problems were reported:

• denial of citizens' rights to change their government
• beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners, including human rights activists, carried out with impunity
• transfers of mentally healthy prisoners to psychiatric facilities for political reasons
• frequent harassment of political opponents by government-recruited mobs
• extremely harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including denial of medical care
• arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights advocates and members of independent professional organizations
• denial of fair trial, particularly to political prisoners
• interference with privacy, including pervasive monitoring of private communications
• severe limitations on freedom of speech and press
• denial of peaceful assembly and association
• restrictions on freedom of movement, including selective denial of exit permits to thousands of citizens
• refusal to recognize domestic human rights groups or to permit them to function legally
• domestic violence, underage prostitution, and sex tourism
• discrimination against persons of African descent
• severe restrictions on worker rights, including the right to form independent unions

May 27, 2009

A Revolutionary Way Of Looking At The Illogic Of The Left

BACKGROUND
Most conservatives have noticed with confounded puzzlement that the majority of the arguments of the left are wildly in contradiction to logic.

• Carrie Prejean is to be attacked viciously for saying marriage is between a man and a woman, when Obama espouses the same view.
• Obama argues that a tax policy that harms the economy and lowers tax revenues is preferable to one that raises revenues and strengthens the economy.
• Pelosi calls waterboarding torture after previously approving it.
• Cultures that bring health and prosperity are no better than those that bring death and misery.
• ...and on and on and on and on.
  

We have all bashed our heads against the wall, as it were, trying to explain it. We have plumbed the depths of the thinking of the left, only to find that beneath the surface illogic, is only more profound illogic. (See especially Evan Sayet and Victor Davis Hanson).

But the leaders of the left aren't dumb.  They surely know that their arguments are illogical and not based on the facts. This has only puzzled us more. What is the explanation?

A NEW WAY OF LOOKING AT IT
I suggest that the apparent illogic of the left is not based on a differing worldview with its own rules and rationalities - but is in fact an intentional use of illogic as a weapon.  By intentionally using illogic in debate with the opposing side, meaningful debate is destroyed.  The public, unable to tell who's winning the argument, is puzzled.  The benefit to the left is that they are saying to all, "Join us and win power and money. Nothing else is relevant."

Yes, there are those who are fooled by the illogic of the arguments - e.g. many high schoolers and college students to whom these arguments have been preached by liberal teachers - and who fall for it. But that's not the case with the intellectual leadership of the left, many of whom are too smart to be fooled. The more profound thinkers on the left understand that the illogic is being used intentionally, to achieve a given goal, namely to confound all logical debate, and issue a siren call saying, "join us, and we will help you, and nothing else matters."

HOW TO FIGHT BACK
The counter strategy may be to reach out to Republicans and Democrats who are less active in the party.  On a grass roots level, Americans are approachable and interested in separating sense from nonsense. We have to cut into the communication channels between the liberal leadership and the American people - providing the people with all the good info and documentation that the conservative blogosphere produces; revealing to them what is being hidden from them by the MSM; and offering them a choice between logic and illogic, between fact and fiction, between what strengthens the economy and what weakens it, between what keeps America safe and strong and what endangers it.

This can be a grass roots action, conducted in every city.

I propose that the winning approach is to organize cross-party events focused on key issues like the economy, big government, national security, health care - events that welcome people regardless of party affiliation, and just seek to examine the facts. Small rooms in houses and restaurants can be used to bring in guest speakers.  Larger political issues should not be discussed - only the facts of the issues at hand - with the goal of making Americans safer, stronger, healthier, and more prosperous. Like Obama or dislike him? Leave that at the door. These days Republican leadership is also not acceptable on many of these issues. E Pluribus Unum should be the motto - out of many, one. It can all be hooked up with, and perhaps even organized by, the burgeoning Tea Party movement, which also rejects current Republican leaders in many instances.

This strategy can separate the illogic of liberal leaders, from the support of the people.

May 14, 2009

Attention Los Angeles: Evan Sayet’s Right to Laugh Show, Live at the Laugh Factory, Tuesday May 19th

My friend, the very funny Evan Sayet, whose YouTube videos have been seen 500,000 times, is at the Laugh Factory this coming Tuesday, May 19th.

May 11, 2009

What’s *Really* Shocking About the White House Correspondent’s Dinner

Mike Lupien has an excellent article in today's Daily News talking about the tasteless jokes at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. But the tastelessness of the jokes isn't the real shocker about this.

In the past this dinner has always been a roast, i.e. an occasion where people make good-natured, self-deprecating jokes about the guest of honor (in this case Obama).

For example, from 2007:

Before Bush and Little spoke, CBS star David Letterman made a video appearance from his studio with a Top 10 list of taped vignettes showing some of the funniest Bush flubs of the last year.

From 2002:

President Bush gave reporters here a look Saturday at "what life is really like inside the Bush White House," showing off his collection of "actual, never-seen-before photos."

Bush and top members of his administration mingled with reporters and other Washington insiders at the annual White House Correspondents dinner.

The correspondents dinner, in its 88th year, has become an occasion for self-deprecating humor from presidents. Last year, Bush presented a slide show of his family accompanied by a joke-riddled speech about the 2000 presidential election recount.

What's really shocking isn't just the tastelessness of the jokes - it's that Obama used these jokes and this platform to attack his  political opponents:

Obama Likes Wanda Sykes Joke About Rush Limbaugh — ‘I Hope His Kidneys Fail’

Wanda Sykes Makes Fun Of Absent Sarah Palin With Abstinence Joke

Obama Mocks GOP Chair Michael Steele’s Use Of ‘Street Slang’

Far from being a uniter, the divisive Obama misuses the power of his office to bully all those who oppose him.

April 17, 2009

Why Obama Picked Today to Damage U.S. National Security by Releasing the Interrogation Memos

Today Obama released previously secret details of U.S. interrogation techniques:

Reporting from Washington -- Prisoners could be kept awake for more than a week. They could be stripped of their clothes, fed nothing but liquid and thrown against a wall 30 consecutive times.

In one case, the CIA was told it could prey on a top Al Qaeda prisoner's fear of insects by stuffing him into a box with a bug. When all else failed, the CIA could turn to what a Justice Department memo described as "the most traumatic" interrogation technique of all -- waterboarding.

Baring what he called a "dark and painful chapter in our history," President Obama on Thursday released a collection of secret Justice Department documents that provided graphic guidance to the CIA on how far it could go to extract information from terrorism suspects.

By releasing these memos, Obama insures that these techniques will never be effective again in obtaining information that could protect American lives.

A former top official in the administration of President George W. Bush called the publication of the memos "unbelievable."

"It's damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama's action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are," the official said. "We have laid it all out for our enemies. This is totally unnecessary. … Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again - even in a ticking-time- bomb scenario where thousands or even millions of American lives are at stake."

"I don't believe Obama would intentionally endanger the nation, so it must be that he thinks either 1. the previous administration, including the CIA professionals who have defended this program, is lying about its importance and effectiveness, or 2. he believes we are no longer really at war and no longer face the kind of grave threat to our national security this program has protected against."

It appears extremely likely that Obama released this information today to in order distract Americans from the outrage over the Dept. of Homeland Security report. I have had a look at the report, which can be found here. Reviewing the text of this report leaves no doubt that this report is intended to cause those who disagree with Obama to be viewed as potentially violent criminals. From the report:

Key Findings

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

- Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn-including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit-could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

.....Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

.....Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.

This language states specifically that people who disagree with the president on federal vs. state authority, on immigration, on abortion, and other views, even though they have never been associated with any intention of committing violent acts, are to be considered "antigovernment," "rightwing extremists," who are potentially dangerous. This language is of the kind employed by authoritarian governments who seek to stigmatize and/or outlaw political opposition.

We likely saw one result of this report almost immediately, on Wednesday, when its term, "antigovernment," bizarrely cropped up in Susan Roesgen's now-famous tea party report:

CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen rudely interrupted one of the protestors and slammed the event for being "anti-government," "anti-CNN," and "not really family viewing."

Roesgen asked a man holding his toddler, "Why are you here today?" The man started to respond saying, "Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed people had the right to liberty and they had the right..."

But Roesgen cut him off him, saying, "But sir, what does that have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?" She continued asking questions over his as he asked her to "let me finish my point." One crowd member was heard to yell "shut up" to the Roesgen.

When the man finished his statement about people having the "right to the fruits of their own labor" and "government should not take it," Roesgen began arguing with him again and other protesters began to get upset.

Roesgen backed away claiming that "you get the general tenor of this," tea party. "Anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox and since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing. Toss it back to you Kyra," Roesgen concluded.

Her language: "rightwing," "anti-government" -- strange terms to apply to Americans peacefully using their rights of free speech and free assembly -- appears to have been taken directly from the DHS report.

Per Michael Savage, the DHS report "would have the admiration of any current or past dictator." This report must not be permitted to stand.

April 02, 2009

Obama Govt. Treachery… Step 1: “Take This Money, No Strings Attached”… Step 2: “Now We Own You”

American businesses who accepted bailout money didn't know they were potentially selling control of their businesses to the U.S. government. The rage this must be causing to executives all over this country - many of whom are likely to have been Democrats - will hopefully threaten tremendous damage to the Democratic party, so that the Dems will have to stop Obama's blatant attempt to turn our economy into a planned economy like the economies of the Soviet Union, China, Afghanistan, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea.

If AP is correct, it appears that Democrats are feeling pressure to abort Obama's attempt to turn the economy of the U.S. into that of a third-world nation:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in Congress are taking only baby steps with his budget, putting off crucial decisions on his ambitious plans to expand health care, curb global warming and raise taxes on the wealthy.

...Risk-averse Democrats, however, are merely kicking the can down the road rather than using the budget to give a real push to the president's agenda. On health care, global warming and even Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" tax cut, the pending House and Senate budget plans offer no clues as to how those big ideas might advance.

Hopefully Obama's treachery will ensure that no company that can avoid it will take bailout money in the future -- now that they know the strings that are attached.

March 22, 2009

Obama Wants to Turn the U.S. Into a Government-Managed “Planned Economy”

Obama is proving that some of the change he wants is to replace our market-driven economy, with one in which business decisions are made by the government and forced by law on we, the people. He wants greatly increased government control over health care, education, and energy. And here's the latest example:

Administration seeks increase in oversight of executive pay

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

Obama wants the government to control executive pay at all these financial firms. This kind of central planning of business decisions, controlled by the state, is called a "Planned Economy." From Wikipedia:

A planned economy or directed economy is an economic system in which the government or workers' councils manages the economy. It is an economic system in which the central government makes all decisions on the production and consumption of goods and services. Its most extensive form is referred to as a command economy, centrally planned economy, or command and control economy. In such economies, central economic planning by the state or government is so extensive that it controls all major sectors of the economy and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income. The planners decide what should be produced and direct enterprises to produce those goods. Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, such as a market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their own and their customers' interests rather than upon furthering some overarching macroeconomic plan.

Want to know what countries have, or have had, "planned economies"?

Important planned economies that existed in the past include the economy of the Soviet Union, which was for a time the world's second-largest economy[citation needed], China during its Great Leap Forward, and India, prior to its economic reforms in 1991, Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation and under the Taliban, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 1979 to 2003. ...Although most economies today are market economies or mixed economies (which are partially planned), planned economies exist in some countries such as Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma.

Yeah, baby! Let's turn the United States' economy into one like those of the Soviet Union, China, Afghanistan, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea!

Frankly, that's change that nobody can believe in.

But that's what Obama is going for.

Update 3-24-09:

From the Washington Post:

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

March 21, 2009

America to Congress: You’re Acting Hysterical. Take a Deep Breath. Calm Down.

Here's a proposed open letter to Congress:

Dear Congress,

Take a deep breath. Calm down.

You passed the $787-billion stimulus bill without even reading it in the hopes that it would fix the economy. We know, you were in a hurry to try to do something, but we can all see now that it didn't work. The banks still are afraid to make loans, the stock market is still in the tank, and unemployment hasn't dropped - but the risk of inflation is now dangerously high.

You passed the $410-billion omnibus spending bill, in less than 48 hours, despite that it was jammed with 8,000+ pork items.

As you move with increasing speed, you are passing bills not only without reading them, but also without even thinking about the consequences. Because you are worried about the AIG bonuses, the House just passed a bill that would:

...impose a 90% levy on bonuses paid to workers whose household incomes top $250,000 by firms that received more than $5 billion under the government's financial rescue package. That would encompass much of Wall Street, including such marquee-name firms as JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

What you're not realizing is that this would be a massive attack on the entire U.S. financial industry - the very industry you are trying to protect.

...alarm spread across Wall Street that the government's sudden taxation fervor could ensnare thousands of workers and affect every major financial firm.

Although the fast-moving legislative campaign was born of frustration with the bonuses paid to workers at ailing American International Group Inc., employees at comparatively healthy investment banks fretted about the steep tax hikes they could face if the legislation became law.

It's clear now that you are acting hysterical.  It's easy to fix that. Just take a deep breath. Calm down. Take your time. Read the bills before you vote on them. Give the American people time to read the bills and discuss them before you vote on them. Promote free and open debate, because that will help you identify the strengths and weaknesses of the bills you are considering. Find the bills that will make our country safe, add jobs, and responsibly address the financial dangers our country is in.

Just. Calm. Down.

Sincerely,

The American People

March 06, 2009

Ramirez: Why You Can’t Take Democrats Seriously

From Ramirez:

Obama’s Stated Goals Are Nothing More than a Deception

Last October I observed that Obama's actual policies were opposed to his stated goals:

...leaders who announce their support for an innovative and popular goal are often trusted to provide means that can reasonably be expected to achieve that goal. A popular and innovative goal, provides the leader with a glamor, that blinds many people to any consideration of whether the means provided are in fact suitable to achieving the goal.

...It is therefore essential in all cases to examine the means provided by a leader to see if they in fact are suitable to the purpose of achieving the stated goal.

We can call this approach the Matrushka Doll analysis, following the nesting Russian "Matrushka" doll shown on the poster for the Museum of Communism, since what matters in this analysis is not what's on the outside, i.e. the stated goal, but what's on the inside, i.e. the actions to be actually taken, hopefully in pursuit of that goal.

Which brings us to Obama. His stated goal is "hope and change." The goal is innovative and popular and has in part earned him the nomination of his party. It is therefore essential to examine the means he has provided for achieving this goal, to see if the means are suitable to the purpose of achieving the goal.

Here is a Matrushka Doll Analysis for Obama - a review of a number of the programs Obama supports on two of the issues that are of the most importance to American voters: the economy, and national security.

[...]

...The policies of Barack Obama reviewed here are not suitable for achieving his stated goal of "hope and change." They would bring about changes, but the changes would reduce, rather than increase, the hope of Americans for a more successful future. Instead of increasing Americans' hope for a more successful future, Obama's policies would have harmful consequences:

• His opposition to oil drilling would continue to strangle our economy with high oil prices.
• His support for the so-called"Global Poverty Act" would transfer close to a trillion dollars over 15 years away from U.S. taxpayers and into the hands of the corrupt U.N.
• His plans for vastly increasing U.S. government control over the decision-making of U.S. companies would paralyze U.S. business decision-making.
• His proposed near-trillion-dollar increase in U.S. government spending would lead to higher taxes and increase the power of the government over U.S. citizens.
• His insistence on reducing U.S. military power would reduce our ability to defend our nation.
• His proposed "civilian national security force" would reduce money available for our military to use for defense of our nation, and would vastly increase government control over U.S. citizens.
• His insistence on ending the war in Iraq without victory would turn our soldiers' achievements into defeat.

Obama is in the tradition of leaders who benefit from the glamor of an innovative and popular goal, which blinds many people to the nature of the policies they propose. As the above examination shows, Obama's policies are not suitable to achieving his stated goal of "hope and change." Instead, his policies would have harmful effects on the nation.

Today, with the horrifying, market-killing experience of Obama's first six weeks in office as established history, Charles Krauthammer makes the nearly identical observation:

Deception at Core of Obama Plans

...The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.

Obama's stated goals are nothing more than a deception. His policies pursue an agenda which is unrelated to his stated goals. The result so far is massive damage to our economy and markets.

 

Update 3-10-09:

From Newsweek:

Presidential Double-Talk

Uncertainty (too much) and confidence (too little) define this crisis. Investors have surely noted the gap between Obama's rhetoric and his actions.

From Bloomberg:

‘Manchurian Candidate’ Starts War on Business

Update 3-11-09:

From McClatchy Newspapers via Yahoo News:

Obama decries earmarks, signs law with 9,000 of them

January 06, 2009

The Red-Hot New Mega-Blog, “Big Hollywood”

Don't miss the fantastic new web site, Big Hollywood. It's a mega-blog (in the tradition of the Huffington Post), containing brilliant posts written by conservatives, libertarians and Republicans from all over the country. It's the creation of Andrew Breitbart of Breitbart.com, who also has been a key player in the Drudge Report and in the launch of the Huffington Post. The editor of the site is John Nolte, possibly the most compelling writer of movie reviews and related opinion in the country. 

This site is hot. It's going to make a significant contribution to our culture. 

Full disclosure: Nolte and Breitbart are both friends of mine.

December 12, 2008

“I believe he would have [committed murder] because he was praying for Allah to help him…”

It has gotten to the point that no one is surprised when an Islamist prays to Allah to seek guidance to commit a murder, rather than to turn away from evil.

In Oklahoma City, Patrol Troooper Sheldon Robinson has been honored. He saved the lives of many by wrestling and arresting a gunman who had entered a Burger King and threatened to kill everyone.

Robinson, wearing his trooper badge around his neck and carrying his weapon, parked his truck and peered in the window of the Burger King.

Inside was a man dressed in black. A Glock .40-caliber handgun and a full box of ammunition sat on the tabletop next to him.

Three other people were looking for a way out when Robinson passed them as he entered the restaurant.

When the man briefly removed his hand from his gun, Robinson, who had approached from the man's blind side, grabbed his arm.

Now alone in the restaurant, the two men wrestled on the floor before Robinson got one of his handcuffs around the man's arm.

"The second one didn't lock in place, so we went down again," Robinson said. "He was a pretty stout guy."

Robinson had the man fully cuffed by the time Tulsa police officers arrived.

And here's the quote that is so significant:

"It was one of those deals of being in the right place at the right time," Robinson said. "I believe he would have loaded up that gun and gone to town because he was praying for Allah to help him carry out his mission."

Note that there is no longer any surprise to anyone that an Islamic would-be killer would pray to Allah. The public has lots of experience with Islamists praying to Allah to help them commit murder - and near-zero experience with Islamists praying to Allah for any other purpose.

The public has no such history with followers of any other religion. There is no other religion with an equivalent to Islam's worldwide cult of followers who seek out non-Muslims to kill in public places, in the name of their religion.

Clearly Islam is unlike the world's other religions. It isn't the same as other religions and should not be treated the same as other religions.

November 22, 2008

Celebrating Victory in Iraq Day

Hundreds of blogs are celebrating Victory in Iraq day today. This site is proud to be among them. Our brave troops freed a nation from tyranny - created a new ally for the U.S. - and brought democracy to the heart of the mid-east.

November 06, 2008

It’s Time to Find the Next Generation of Conservative Leaders

CONSIDERING that McCain was a very uninspiring candidate to the Republic base - many of his views were similar to Obama's - and that he ran a terrible campaign - he really did quite well, getting 46% of the popular vote.

Many of McCain's views were as Liberal as Obama's. From Ann Coulter:

How could Republicans go after B. Hussein Obama (as he is now known) on planning to bankrupt the coal companies when McCain supports the exact same cap and trade policies and earnestly believes in global warming?

How could we go after Obama for his illegal alien aunt and for supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens when McCain fanatically pushed amnesty along with his good friend Teddy Kennedy?

How could we go after Obama for Jeremiah Wright when McCain denounced any Republicans who did so?

How could we go after Obama for planning to hike taxes on the "rich," when McCain was the only Republican to vote against both of Bush's tax cuts on the grounds that they were tax cuts for the rich?

McCain led a poorly-managed campaign. Jennifer Rubin has a list of "Top Thirty Errors that Doomed McCain," including:

1. Not pursuing the Reverend Wright connection, as an issue of judgment and then credibility. Even Jerry Nadler knew it was a sign that Barack Obama lacked political courage, i.e., character.

2. Waiting until September to raise Barack Obama's other troubling connections (e.g., Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi).

3. Failing to devise a comprehensive economic message until the final weeks of the campaign.

4. Failure to explain the Democrats' role in the financial meltdown.

5. Not enough talk about "friends of Angelo" and Democratic corruption.

6. Wasting his convention speech on "bipartisanship" and biography instead of pounding home a core economic message.

7. Frittering away time and money in Iowa.

8. Losing time in the spring when McCain had sewn up the nomination but Obama had not. An ideal time to begin defining the contrast in messages.

9. Appallingly deficient "oppo" research and timing. Why didn't the "bankrupt the coal industry" tape come out before the final weekend?

10. Going to war with the MSM without an effective plan to use alternate media to get their message out.

11. Cutting off McCain's daily access to the traveling press corps.

12. The frenetic response to the financial meltdown. (Fire Chris Cox! Cancel the debate - no, hold the debate!) All that was missing was juggling knives on a tightrope above a fire pit.

13. The roll-out of Sarah Palin.

14. The internal trashing of Sarah Palin.

15. The failure to put Sarah Palin on every radio and TV outlet they could find in the final two weeks of the campaign.

16. The failure to find a top-flight economic advisor.

17. Shutting down McCain's regular contact with new media outlets.

Yet McCain still got 46% of the popular vote. From an additional article by Jennifer Rubin:

It is no consolation to Republicans who lost to say it could have been worse. But it really could have. This suggests that if the Republicans manage to get their act together, by recruiting better candidates and coming up with a competitive and distinctive message, they can get back in the game. That's what Republicans did between 1976 and 1980 and between 1964 and 1968. And in each of those cases they were even further in the hole than they are now.

Conservatives: it's time to find the next generation of Conservative leaders.

November 05, 2008

Congratulations to the Democrats

Congrats to all of the readers of this site who voted for Obama. He is a very talented man, and it would be fantastic if he shows himself to be a leader who does great good for this nation.