Friday, May 18, 2007

What Happened to the Party of Lincoln?

Today we live in a country where some enjoy a good life with the practice of getting poor foreigners to work for them. Some people here just feel like they need to have these poor foreigners doing this work that no American worker wants to do. Some people justify this practice by arguing that bringing these poor foreigners is an act of kindness. They will be taken care of here better than any place else. If we really think about it this is not the first time some folks in this country were enjoying a good life with the practice of getting poor foreigners to work for them. Today the poor foreigners come from Mexico to pick tomatoes, pack meat, or clean livestock pens. Years ago the poor foreigners came from West Africa to pick cotton, cut sugar cane, or harvest tobacco.

I let Google be my friend, and I found an interesting little item that described the history of the Republican Party. An excerpt:

The Republican Party evolved during the 1850's when the issue of slavery forced divisions within the existing Whig and Democratic Republican parties. Faced with political turmoil, a new party -- dedicated to states rights and a restricted role of government in economic and social life -- began making history.

Alan Earl Bovay, one of the founders of the Republican Party, believed that a new party should be formed to represent the interests of the North and the abolitionists. He decided to call that party "Republican" because it was a simple, yet significant word synonymous with equality. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson had earlier chosen "Republican" to refer to his party, which gave the name respect borne of historical significance.

The first stirrings of the Republican Party came in February, 1854, when Whig Party defectors met privately in Crawfordsville, Iowa, to call for the creation of a new political party. The first public meeting was held one month later at a small church in Ripon, Wisconsin, when Alan Bovay rallied anti-slavery forces and adopted resolutions opposing the Kansas Nebraska Act.

A second meeting was held in a one story schoolhouse in Ripon on March 20, 1854. Fifty-four citizens, including three women, dissolved their local committees and chose five men to serve as the committee of the new party: Alan Bovay, Jebediah Bowen, Amos Loper, Abram Thomas, and Jacob Woodruff. Said Mr. Bovay: "We went into the little meeting Whigs, Free Soilers, and Democrats. We came out Republicans and...were the first Republicans in the Union."

In July of the same year, when the meeting hall was too small, the "Anti- Nebraska Convention" met in a grove of oak trees in Jackson, Michigan, to write a national platform and concentrate its efforts to counter the Democrats plan to extend slavery to new territories joining the Union. The new party adopted a platform, nominated candidates for state offices, and produced two anti-slavery resolutions, one of which stated, " view of the necessity of battling against the schemes of an aristocracy, the most revolting and oppressive with which the Earth was ever cursed or man debased, we will cooperate and be known as Republicans."

In 1856, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Freemont!" was the slogan of the Republican Party. At its first national convention in Philadelphia, the party nominated John C. Freemont for president (Abraham Lincoln was proposed for vice-president, but Senator William L. Dayton won the nomination). Although the party lost the election to the Democrats, it captured a third of the total vote, boosting its optimism for the 1860 elections.

"It is the eternal struggle between these two principles—right and wrong—throughout the world: They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes . . . it is the same tyrannical principle."

“Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.
Abraham Lincoln

Now I am certain that some wiseguy is going to tell me that I am all wet because illegal cheap labor is performed by poor foreigners who were not forced to enter this country like those poor foreigners from West Africa. The difference between then and now is not a change of heart. It is a change of strategy. The strategy then was to control poor foreigners through a brutal forceful master with a whip. The strategy now is to offer candy in the form of offering a paying job. Once they accept this deal, and come here they are told they have no rights, and they must toe the line and make no trouble. I hate this marriage of convenience between some rich guy who wants a pool of cheap labor and Democrats who want a pool of new voters. Abe, what happened to your party? I miss you. A LOT.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

I am giving Sam a second look

I have decided since the 2nd debate at South Carolina to give Sam Brownback a second look. I have not reached a decision about who I am going to support yet. My impression of Sam Brownback has been that he is just a “single issue” pro-life candidate. After the debate in South Carolina I decided to dig a little deeper into the background of Sam Brownback.

Sam is one of four candidates who have been interviewed and graded by Club for Growth. Reading their white paper I have learned this about Sam from Club for Growth President Pat Toomey:

"Over his year and a half in the House of Representatives and his ten years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Brownback has proven himself to be, on balance, a strong defender of limited government and pro-growth policies," said the Club's President, Pat Toomey. "On taxes, Social Security reform, school choice, and tort reform, Senator Brownback has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to fighting for American taxpayers. His record on trade, political speech, and government regulation of business is generally pro-freedom, with a few exceptions."

Sam Brownback on free speech

"Groups that seek to advertise a point of view should not, and I believe constitutionally can not, be limited from their participation in the political system. If provisions to hinder constitutionally protected free speech issue advocacy are added to the bill, I will vote against the final bill" (10/12/99).”

Senator Brownback was also one of seven Republican senators to sign a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist in 2006 that threatened a filibuster against the House-passed bill to impose draconian speech restriction on certain nonprofit advocacy groups (Letter, 06/09/06). The letter played an important role in the demise of the House bill. In our interview with him, Senator Brownback continued to emphasize his support for free speech.

Compare Sam to John McCain wrt free speech

Over the ten-plus years since Senator McCain first introduced campaign finance reform legislation, he has pursued his trampling of the First Amendment with a vengeance. On a April 28, 2006 taping of The Don Imus Show, McCain cavalierly admitted as much: "He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform . . . I know that money corrupts . . . I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

In defense of the provision banning issue advocacy ads that mention a candidate 60 days before an election, McCain said, "These ads are almost always negative attack ads, and do little to further beneficial debate and healthy political dialogue." In his brief to the Supreme Court, Senator McCain continued along the same lines: "These ads are direct, blatant attacks on the candidates. We don't think that's right."

Thus, Senator McCain and his partner in crime, Senator Russ Feingold, have anointed themselves the arbiters of appropriate political speech, worthy of deciphering which speech is "right" and which should be permitted in American political debate. To this day, Senator McCain remains responsible for the greatest modern infringement of political free speech. While bestowing significant advantages upon incumbent office holders, this feat has created neither a less corrupt political domain nor a more democratic one.

Compare Sam to Rudy Giuliani wrt free speech

From a speech Mayor Giuliani gave:

“Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. [Interruption by someone in the audience.] “You have free speech so I can be heard.”

Sam Brownback quotes from 2nd debate:

9:09PM First question for Brownback, about his initial response to the troop surge. "I think we've got to pull together over here to win over there.... it's difficult for democracy for one party to be for a war and another party to be against a war." Smacks around Harry Reid for saying that we've lost.

9:24PM Brownback is asked about gasoline prices. Ethanol from Kansas (or Iowa) - drilling more at home - supports drilling in ANWR. More conservation here. Technology and increasing supply here.

9:49PM Brownback is asked about "difficult decisions" w/r/t abortion - How would you explain to a rape victim why her trauma should be compounded... "The basic question remains - is the child in the womb? Is it a viable life? And if it is a person, is it entitled to respect?... Abortion is a procedure, we're talking about a life... ending a life of this child. Will that make the woman in a better situation if that takes place?"

10:20PM Brownback is asked whether he would go to the United Nations for authorization - Brownback says "No." "Is your primary concern U.S. lives, or how you're going to be perceived in the world. And my standard is, U.S. lives."

Maybe Sam will do something I don’t like, but right now I am willing to give Sam a second look.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Sickos that support Mikey

<-Leslie Burger

Ellen Bernstein ->

<-Judith Krug

from the Chicago Sun-Times

Michael Moore
has always been controversial, but now he has the feds on his case.

The Oscar-winning filmmaker is being investigated by the Treasury Department for taking approximately 10 sick 9/11 Ground Zero rescue workers to Cuba to film a segment in his upcoming ''Sicko'' documentary -- expected to be a scathing indictment of the American health care system.

''Sicko'' is scheduled to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival May 19 and open June 29 in the United States.

Prior to the release of Mikey's latest propaganda film we have the Princeton Human Rights Film Festival going on this Mother's Day weekend. This festival includes a film about Cuba that is in the same style and manner as a Michael Moore film. It is titled 'Salud! What puts Cuba on the map in the quest for global health at the Princeton Human Rights Film Festival. A blogger name Fausta attended this weekend, and here are excerpts of her report.

Leslie Burger, head of the Princeton Public Library and the American Library Association, opened by saying that she'd rather be working at her garden ( we had very good weather) than be at the PHRFF - which was organized and sponsored by the PPL - but she was there because she knew this was a controversial subject. She then introduced Ellen Bernstein, of IFCO/Pastors for Peace., who urged us to keep an open mind for what we were about to watch.

After sitting for 1 1/2 hrs of this there was a question-and-answer session with Ms Bernstein, who stated that she's travelled to Cuba "over fifty times", and urged us all to keep an open mind, again.

The most memorable member of the audience was Luis Abreu, a former political prisoner in Cuba, who spoke of how he had been sent to prison for trying to have the freedom to show films like this in Cuba. Mr. Abreu is executive director of the Commitee to Aid Human Rights Activists (CAHRA), and asked Ms Bernstein if she had met other Cuban doctors, like Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Ms Bernstein said she had heard of them.

A gentleman in the rear of the room pressured Ms Bernstein to answer whether she believed that Cuba was a democracy, something she apparently had stated in the past. She first avoided the question by saying, "In a democracy we all wait our chance to speak"; he then waited and the second time he pressed for a reply, she said that Cuba has had elections, and that we must study the situation with an open mind because it's not as bad as we think.

As a third-party observer I found it very insulting of Ms Bernstein to tell an audience where she knew there was at least one former Cuban political prisoner "to study the situation with an open mind". Obviously someone who spent over a decade in a concentration camp has had plenty of time to ponder the situation.

Of course, exiled Cubans in the audience (I'd say half the audience) were offended. One gentleman demanded that the film festival be called "the right to healthcare film festival" since Cuba and human rights have nothing in common.

I heard that a journalist, Nat Hentoff, turned down an award from the American Library Association. If you read one of his recent articles, then you'll understand why. Nat has a problem with the ALA refusing to protest against the treatment of librarians in Cuba. Here is an excerpt from Nat:

"The American Library Association — the largest organization of librarians in the world — continually declares that it fights for everyone’s “Freedom to Read!” and its Library Bill of Rights requires its members to “challenge censorship.” Yet the leadership of the ALA — not the rank and file — insistently refuses to call for the immediate release of the independent librarians in Cuba — designated as “prisoners of conscience” by Amnesty International. They are serving very long prison terms because they do believe in the freedom to read — especially in a dictatorship.

Among the many organizations demanding that Fidel Castro and his successors release these courageous Cubans — who have opened their homes and libraries to offer books censored in the Cuban state libraries — are such groups as the library associations of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. All these librarians, finally freed from Communism, agree with their colleagues in the Polish Library Association, who say in their declaration, “The actions of the Cuban authorities relate to the worst traditions of repressing the freedom of thought and expression.”

However, the top officials of the American Library Association — as well as the majority of its Governing Council — speak derisively of these “so-called librarians” in Castro’s gulags.

It’s true that these prisoners, many brutalized and in failing health, in their cells, don’t have master’s degrees in Library Science; but as poet-novelist-educator Andrei Codrescu told last year’s ALA Midwinter Conference: “These people have been imprisoned for BEING librarians!” Why dismiss them “as ‘so-called librarians’ when clearly there is no one (in that dictatorship) to certify them.”

A key ALA official, Judith Krug, heads its office of Intellectual Freedom. In my many years of reporting on the ALA’s sterling record of protecting American librarians from censorship, I often quoted her in admiration. But now, she said at an ALA meeting about supporters of the caged librarians, “I’ve dug in my heels ... I refuse to be governed by people with an agenda.” The Cuba issue, she continued, “wouldn’t die,” though she’d like to “drown it.”

The agenda, Ms. Krug, is freedom. “Every burned book,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson, “illuminates the world.” But ALA’s leadership refuses to bring light to the cages of these Cuban prisoners of conscience. The ALA’s membership booklet proclaims “the public’s right (everywhere) to explore in their libraries many points of view on all questions and issues facing them.

An issue facing all members of the ALA is their leaders’ shameful exception of the Cuban people’s freedom to read."

Leslie Burger, Ellen Bernstein, and Judith Krug are lefties that should not be called liberals. In fact calling them liberals is an insult to liberals. I remember liberals from the '60's. These were people who believed in liberty and freedom. They erred in believing that socialism and communism would bring the utopia they were looking for. The only ones left that come to mind are Nat Hentoff, Christopher Hitchens, and David Horowitz. Most of the lefties have morphed into this moral relativism and political correctness blather that blinds them from finding any fault in any leader or movement that HATES America. The buzzwords of people like this include 'keep an open mind', 'so-called librarians', and 'people with an agenda'. They keep their heads stuck deep in the sands like ostriches when they are challenged to stand up for freedom and liberty. These are the 'sickos' that support Mikey.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Cuba-Mitt doesn't get it...Fred does.

At this Tuesday night Republican debate I hope Mitt is asked a question about Cuba. Mitt went to Miami to give a speech to some Cuban-Americans, and he quoted a line Fidel uses in his speeches. This was a huge mistake by Mitt. He has tried to blame the media for taking things out of context, and say that he speaks Spanish poorly. These excuses are not helping. He needs to convince the Cuban-Americans that he understands the myths about Castro, and understands how nothing created by Castro should be embraced including a slogan.

Fred Thompson does get it. Val Prieto of Babalu Blog definitely hopes that Fred runs in2008. He has an article that Fred Thompson recently wrote concerning the myth of Castro's 'Health Care'. Fred writes about a new Michael Moore on the subject. Here's an excerpt:

"The other thing that irks me about Moore and his cohort in Hollywood is their complete lack of sympathy for fellow artists persecuted for opposing the Castro regime. Pro-democracy activists are routinely threatened and imprisoned, but Castro remains a hero to many here. According to human rights organizations, these prisoners of conscience are often beaten and denied medical treatment, sanitation or even adequate nutrition.

If Moore wants a subject for a real documentary, I would suggest looking into the life of Cuban painter and award-winning documentarian Nicolás Guillén Landrián. He was denied the right to practice his art for using the Beatles' song, "The Fool on the Hill," as background music behind footage of Castro climbing a mountain. Later, he was given plenty of free Cuban health care when he was confined for years in a "mental institution" and given devastating, repeated electroshock "treatments."

There are many other artists and activists who have enjoyed similar treatment. I suspect we'll see movies with sympathetic portrayals of terrorists held in Guantanamo before we ever hear about the torture of true Cuban heroes. Even Andy Garcia's brilliant fictionalized movie about the real Cuban experience, "The Lost City," was given the Hollywood silent treatment. My bet, though, is that we'll hear lots about how Michael Moore showed that Cuba's socialized medicine is better than ours.

So go ahead and start working on the Oscar speech, Michael."

Val Prieto understands how Fidel's running of Cuba should be talked about, and he appreciates that Fred Thompson gets it too. I agree with Val.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

A new symbol for the Democratic Party

I was born during the Truman presidency, and I have seen both Republican and Democratic administrations at the White House. The current Democratic Party symbol of the donkey just simply does not match the spirit of today's party. The donkey is a beast of burden, and a reliable support for getting work done. This stubborn spirit was seen best in the words of President John F. Kennedy:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

That kind of spirit is not around nowadays in the Democratic Party. They don't care about liberty. They only care about getting power by getting elected. They put their finger to the wind, closely watch the polling numbers, and choose their actions accordingly.

Victor Davis Hanson writes an article describing this behavior. An excerpt:

"When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false.

But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead that they were hoodwinked by sneaky, warmongering neocons or sexed-up, partisan intelligence reports.

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind — especially in matters as serious as war. But the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.

So why not come clean about their changes of heart?

Many Democrats apparently think that claiming they were victimized by Bush and the neocons is more palatable than confessing to their own demoralization with the news from the front.

Bob Novak has written another article as an example of this behavior with respect to support of a friend of the United States in the 'war on drugs'. An excerpt:

"Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Washington to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as "catastrophic." Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.

Uribe got nothing from his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. Military aid remains stalled, overall assistance is reduced, and the vital U.S.-Colombian trade bill looks dead. The first Colombian president to crack down on his country's corrupt army officer hierarchy, and to assault both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas, last week confronted Democrats wedded to out-of-date claims of civil rights abuses and to rigidly protectionist dogma.

In the wake of Uribe's visit, two prominent House Republicans -- former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee -- made a quick trip to Colombia. Visiting there for the first time in many years, they were struck by the progress. They met with Colombian national police who had just returned from Afghanistan, where they advised NATO forces in techniques for dealing with narco-terrorists.

Democrats in Congress seem oblivious to such help or such progress. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee dealing with foreign aid, last month held up $55.2 million in military aid to Colombia because of "human rights" concerns. While Pelosi and her colleagues could not find a kind word for Uribe, Leahy insisted that he "supports" the Colombian. As Lenin once put it, he supports him as a rope supports a hanged man."

Another example of today's Democratic party departure from that clarion call to 'assure the survival and the success of liberty' is an article by Daniel Pipes titled 'A million moderated Muslims on the march' . He reports good news of protest marches in Turkey and Pakistan by moderate Muslims. The Democratic party of Clinton do not want to hear this stuff. They think that the existence of moderate Muslims is a myth. The Clinton administration went out of its way to bring Islamist extremists into power in the Balkans. The Iranians are Bill Clinton's 'guys'.

Really though, the idea of this new symbol came to me from reading an article by Mohammed Fadhil of the 'Iraq the Model' website. Maybe somebody can explain to me the errors in my thinking. Until then I believe the new symbol best represents today's Democratic Party.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

A Culture That Demands Special Treatment

The United States of America is a young country in comparison to other parts of the world. In the 200 plus years many have come from many different places in the world to the USA. They come here for new opportunities to live long and prosper. The United States is a melting pot because the children of these new arrivals do not continue to follow their parents' ways. Rather, the children adapted to the fashions, manners, and attitudes of American ways. It is called assimilation. There is a new wind blowing that is troubling, and its name is multicultural diversity. The children and society at large is not allowed to be proud of an American Way. Now, it is politically correct to not question any other culture in the world. Political correctness means that your culture is no better than another person's culture. This political correctness in my opinion is BS. We do not need to be ashamed of our American culture. The children of immigrants should not be forced to be exactly like their parents. This is the United States of America.

Over at, Mary Graber has an excellent article about her American experience as the daughter of Slovenians.

O'Reilly had a segment of his show about public funding for an Arabic school in New York City. As a former teacher he was aware of students with English not their primary language, but he was unaware of an entire public school being constructed for any other ethnic group in New York City. I let google be my friend, and I found another similar school in Bridgeview, Illinois.
I don' think the Illinois school is publicly funded.

Coast Guard drops ban on religious headgear in photos ID

A town council is a small Michigan village was persuaded to change their 'noise laws' to accommodate area mosques to broadcast over loudspeakers tape recordings of the Islamic call to daily prayers.

A New Orleans cabbie assaulted his fare for getting in his taxi with a dog. CAIR replied by pointing out that "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer" and left it to the scholars of Islam to decide whether a guide dog should be allowed in a cab. The judge, after researching Islamic attitudes and finding no support for the driver's claims, called his behavior "a total disgrace."

A group of law enforcement officers go to a convention in Delaware, and a speaker at the convention urges them to indulge Muslim misbehavior.

A lady in Florida pursues a legal court battle to wear a veil in her Driver's License photo ID.

This Sunday's election in France gives me hope for France. I just worry more now about what will happen in the United States.

Fred Thompson KNOWS US History

Recently I wrote a blog here at RedState that asked one simple little question. Who is the first foreign government to declare war on the United States of America, and why did they do it? I got some wrong answers until Raven posted the answer I was looking for. Now, Tuesday, May 8th, Fred Thompson has provided the very best answer to this simple question. Many questions still surround Fred Thompson, but for me today he answered one important question.
Does Fred Thompson know US history? Yes, he does know US history quite well. I recommend
checking out the article on the web site.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

I'm shocked. 60 minutes runs Good News story

I'm shocked I tell ya shocked. I click over to see what 60 Minutes is running, and they have this story about a former Mujahideen jihadist, Nasir Abas. This dude from Indonesia. Excerpts from this story:

(CBS) It's not often you get a chance to talk to someone who was a key player inside a terrorist organization for twenty years, but 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon did just that when he interviewed Nasir Abas, one of the most valuable members of a terrorist group ever to change sides and work for the authorities. Abas is from Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. And he was a top commander in Jemaah Islamiyah, al Qaeda's franchise operation in Southeast Asia.

Like so many terrorists around the world, he learned his trade in Afghanistan. Hundreds of militants from Southeast Asia traveled there in the 1980's to defend Islam against the Soviet occupiers. They trained as Mujahideen in a rugged camp, which Abas calls a military academy.

Abas graduated with honors in artillery and ended up giving weapons training to scores of young men from Southeast Asia.

Nasir Abas had become a very serious player in the movement. He established a military camp for Jemaah Islamiyah, where he trained hundreds of young believers to become fighters. He was promoted to be one of the four regional commanders.

But then in 2000, well before his arrest, something happened which would make Abas question everything he believed in: a fatwa, a religious edict, was issued by Osama bin Laden.

"It should be understood that killing Americans and Jews anywhere found are the highest act of worship and the highest form of good deeds in the eyes of Allah," Simon quotes bin Laden.

Abas and his fellow commanders were ordered to read the fatwa to their men and make sure they carried it out. The others obeyed, but Abas refused. It was his moment of truth. He firmly believed that jihad was to be fought only on the battlefield in defense of Islam; he had always been taught that the killing of civilians had nothing to do with holy war and that it was forbidden.

The fatwa justified killing non-Muslim civilians everywhere.

Abas stopped participating in the violent activities of Jemaah Islamiyah and started withdrawing from the organization that had been his life. He has provided a wealth of information, helping the Indonesian authorities unravel the inner workings Jemaah Islamiyah.

According to Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group, who has been tracking Jemaah Islamiyah for the last ten years, Nasir Abas has been a huge resource.

Asked how valuable Abas has been to police, Jones said, "I think he's been invaluable. I think he understands the network of jihadists in Indonesia in a way that nobody who's outside that network could possibly ever hope to understand."

The man who lived his life in the shadows, as an insider in a secret organization, will now tell you that what’s most important is to bring things into the light of day, and that the most important weapon is education.

"Yes. We need to educate people. We need to give more explanation. Yeah, about what was is right, what is wrong," Abas says.

"And this is what you're trying to do?" Simon asks.

Says Abas, "Yeah. This is what I’m saying, that this is my new jihad."

The only problem with the way CBS presented this story has to do with what they chose to emphasize. CBS just had to make the emphasis of the story about how Indonesia captures terrorists and holds trials in public to convict them instead of holding them indefinitely like the US does at Gitmo. Sorry CBS that is not the important part of this story.

The good news is this dude used REASON in his thought processes. Just because Osama says something doesn't mean you have to believe it. It is good news to me when a person from the world's most populous Muslim nation can refuse to follow a command from a Muslim leader. The conventional wisdom is that Islam is such a top-down structurally based system that nobody can question what the leaders say. This guy is an example of somebody who did question a command, and refused to follow it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is another example of somebody who is brought up in this Islamist way of life, and then turns away later on. Although Hirsi Ali turned away to a larger extent than this dude I think they are similar. Abas and Hirsi Ali both believe education is the most important weapon.

Saturday, May 05, 2007

Never Again. Clinton should not occupy WH

On March 25, 1997, President Alija Izetbegovic (at microphone) of Bosnia and Herzegovina receives the International Democracy Award at a ceremony at the United Nations. Allen Weinstein (left) President and CEO of the Center for Democracy made the presentation; centre background is Ambassador Bill Richardson, Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations.

The Republican candidates’ event at the Reagan Library was painful for me to watch because of the dumb questions that they were asked. One of the dumbest questions was ‘Should Bill Clinton occupy the White House again?’ But it got me to thinking about looking back again to the time when Clinton occupied the White House. I wanted to look back at those years from a foreign entanglements POV instead of intern/bimbo-eruption POV. I let Google be my friend, and I learned a little about Clinton and foreign policy.

Where is the country that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home? Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

And here is what Clinton had to say in an interview with Charlie Rose:

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”

During Clinton’s Presidency the US fought wars against Serbians. The wars resulted in the establishment of a new country, Bosnia, and the creation of a new UN area of Serbia, Kosovo. I have heard some that think we should do to Iraq what we did in the Balkans. What we did in Bosnia is we threw out a Serbian ruthless butcher, Milosovich. We backed an Islamic fundamentalist strong man, Alija Izetbegovic. Here is an excerpt from one a book he wrote:

"... the Islamic movement may, or rather should, begin by seizing power as soon as it possesses a good measure of moral and numerical strength, allowing it not only to overthrow the non-Islamic power, but also to establish the new Islamic power."

Alija Izetbegovic, leader of the Bosnian Muslim faction backed by the US and NATO during Bosnia’s civil war. And the book he wrote, and from which all the lines quoted above were taken, is entitled "Islamic Declaration". (This is sometimes translated, "Islamic Manifesto").

Upon his death what the US State Dept. said about the man:

"President Izetbegovic's personal courage helped the Bosnian people endure one of Europe's greatest tragedies since World War II. His determined leadership was instrumental in Bosnia and Herzegovina remaining a unified multiethnic country."

What Iranian Foreign Ministry said about the man:

"…the late president's serious attempts to defend the identity and territorial integrity of his homeland as well as the unity among the residents and various ethnic races of the country."

The State Department's reference to "Bosnia and Herzegovina remaining a unified multiethnic country" has one problem: Bosnia was never a country. It was an administrative unit within the internationally recognized state of Yugoslavia. Rather than protecting the multiethnic state of Yugoslavia, Izetbegovic’s fundamentalists fought to secede with the aim of creating an Islamist republic on this piece of Yugoslav territory. This was opposed by virtually all the Serbs and probably most Muslims. But it was backed by the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Islamist states.

Despite the hype in the Western media, Izetbegovic was not fighting to affirm (let alone reaffirm!) some supposed Bosnian nationhood. Rather, he called for:
"…the implementation of Islam in all fields of individuals' personal lives, in family and in society, by renewal of the Islamic religious thought and creating a uniform Muslim community from Morocco to Indonesia. ..."

In other words, the Islamist takeover of Bosnia was intended as a step towards the creation of a unified Muslim world-state. Quite the opposite of preserving the nonexistent 'Bosnian nation'! And yet the fiction of a Bosnian nation, threatened by supposed Serb secessionists (the Serbs were in fact the people who didn't want to secede from Yugoslavia) was sold to ordinary people in the West.

Professor Cees Wiebes, a senior lecturer in the Department of International Relations at Amsterdam University, caused a storm with his book Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992-1995.

One of the most sensational sections of the book - and the bit which grabbed the headlines ('temporarily' says Wiebes) when it first came out in 2002 - details the role of the Clinton administration in giving the 'green light' to Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims. Wiebes catalogues how, from 1992 to January 1996, there was an influx of Iranian weapons and advisers into Bosnia. He describes how Iran, and other Muslim states, helped to bring Mujihadeen fighters into Bosnia to fight with the Muslims against the Serbs, 'holy warriors' from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen and Algeria, some of whom had suspected links with Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. And all of this took place under the watchful eye of a Clintonian policy of 'no instruction' - that is, that US officials should do nothing to prevent such movements into Bosnia; that, in fact, they should covertly give them the 'green light'.

Yet this is also the bit of the book that seems to have won Wiebes few friends. He says that some of his findings and conclusions, especially on the arming of the Bosnian Muslims, have been ignored. 'If you do not have a black and white picture of the Bosnian war, then something is apparently wrong with you', he says. 'I found there was much sympathy for the Bosnian Muslims, especially among journalists; and sometimes I think there is an inclination to silence things that do not fit with their view of the war.'

I am not an apologists for Milosevich and his cronies, and I’m glad he’s dead and his followers aren’t continuing the mass murders they started. I just think a more moderate solution was available than the backing an islamist to fill in the power vacuum the Milosovich departure created. This solution that Clinton used is akin today to the US backing al Sadr to fill the power vacuum the Saddam departure created in Iraq.

Back to Clinton and the country that he feels most ideologically at home with Iran…But who are “the guys” Clinton identifies with?

There is, of course, President Muhammad Khatami who, speaking at a conference of provincial governors last week, called for the whole world to convert to Islam.

“Human beings understand different affairs within the global framework that they live in,” he said. “But when we say that Islam belongs to all times and places, it is implied that the very essence of Islam is such that despite changes (in time and place) it is always valid.”

Perhaps another one of his kind of guys is Omar M. Ahmad.

Omar M. Ahmad, chairman of the board of CAIR speaking before a packed crowd at the Flamingo Palace banquet hall in Fremont, California on July 4, 1998.

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

When I look now at the efforts by the Democratic Congress to end the war after learning how Clinton operated, then I am more resolved than ever that a Clinton should not occupy the White House again.

Never again.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

A single question pop quiz

Let me first say that I believe this is not just a trivial pursuit of history. I think the answer to this question is important for one to understand why the United States finds itself now on the road it is on. So without further ado the pop quiz is:

Who is the first foreign government to declare war on the United States of America, and why did they do it?

I will provide the answer in reply to this post. I will first wait and see if anybody wants to take a shot at the answer.