If the shoe fits. . .

If the shoe fits. . .

 

Certain Democrats, including Barack Obama, are terribly bothered that President Bush made the following statement before the Israeli Knesset today:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Obama found it “sad” that Bush “would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack.” He added:

It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

It’s not clear why the occasion of Israel’s birthday is an inappropriate one on which to assure Israel that the American president does not favor negotiating with terrorists and radicals who are out to destroy Israel.

What’s telling here is Obama’s defensiveness. Bush didn’t say that Obama is among those who favor negotiating with terrorists. But it’s understandable that this is a sore point for Obama, inasmuch as, to cite just one problem, his former adviser Robert Malley not only favors negotiating with Hamas but apparently was actually “negotiating” with it.

Obama’s reference to former presidents by way of defending his plan to negotate with Iran is unpersuasive. Past presidents negotiated with the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War, but this is not the same thing as negotiating with a state like Iran that sponsors terrorism against both Israel and the U.S. Neither Kennedy nor Nixon did any such thing. It’s true that President Reagan made overtures to Iran (arms for hostages and all that), but for this he was widely and properly condemned. It was perhaps Reagan’s worst moment.

It’s also unprecedented, I believe, for a president to negotiate with an enemy state without pre-conditions, as Obama has promised to do, in order to persuade the world, as Obama puts it, that we aren’t “arrogant.” Even Hillary Clinton draws the line here. Obama’s claim that his diplomacy with terrorist-sponsoring states will be “tough” rings hollow when a purpose of the negotiations is to persuade the world that we’ve changed and now are suitably humble.

JOHN adds: I’m increasingly struck by the sheer incoherence of what Obama says. His statement accuses President Bush of an “extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear.” What on earth is this supposed to mean? Obama thinks we should be more willing to negotiate with terrorist states; Bush says we shouldn’t. If Bush is “politicizing foreign policy,” why isn’t Obama? In Obama’s eyes, it seems that anyone who disagrees with him about foreign policy has to keep his mouth shut, otherwise he’s “politicizing foreign policy.” But that doesn’t apply to Obama; he spends several hours a day attacking President Bush’s and John McCain’s foreign policy views in speeches where he’s trying to get people to vote for him. If that isn’t “politicizing foreign policy,” what is?

Likewise with the “politics of fear,” about which Paul did an excellent post yesterday. Obama says that President Bush’s policies have made us less safe and that al Qaeda is stronger than at any time since September 11. Why isn’t that the “politics of fear?”

It’s hard to imagine that any politician could get away with being as consistently incoherent and self-contradictory as Obama if he didn’t have the mainstream media running interference for him, non-stop.

UPDATE by JOHN: It’s probably foolish to apply a logical standard to Obama’s statement. He undoubtedly knew that it didn’t make any sense. His purpose, I suppose, was not to make a plausible argument, but rather to get credit for attacking President Bush. It may not be a bad political strategy: President Bush is unpopular, so if Obama pretends that Bush has attacked him (even if he didn’t) and responds with faux indignation, he’ll come out ahead politically even though his answer made no sense. It’s not exactly a noble approach to politics, but it’s typical Obama.

Posted by Paul at 1:05 PM

Flashback: 2006 McCain Rips Hussein A New One Over Slimy, Deceitful, Spineless Dealings With Him

Arizona Governor Fights Illegal Immigration Task Force

Arizona Governor Fights Illegal Immigration Task Force

J. James Estrada
Manuel Espinoza-Vasquez lives in Gilbert, Arizona and is a student at Arizona State University.  He is an illegal immigrant and he is facing deportation.  Espinoza-Vasquez was stopped by Gilbert police for making an “improper right turn.”  At the same time, three teenagers were deported to Mexico after they were stopped by Gilbert PD for drag racing. They admitted they were in the country illegally, just like Espinoza-Vasquez.

There are over 400,000 illegal aliens in the United States that have been ordered to leave the country, but remain here. Of that number, 80,000 are classified as violent criminals. 

 

It has been reported that illegal aliens generally commit crimes at the same rate, proportionately, as legal citizens.  If, however, they were not here to commit those crimes, the number of overall crimes committed would be reduced.  And, those who have lost their lives in an incident involving an illegal alien, would still be alive.  Think about the three Newark, New Jersey college students who were killed by an illegal from Peru.  If he weren’t in this country, they would be continuing their education and dreaming of future careers and family.

 

In many municipalities around the country, jaywalking is a crime.  Mainly characterized as a civil traffic offense, it usually brings with it a small fine and a misdemeanor designation.  Most law enforcement offices ignore jaywalking.  Police and sheriff departments in America are very busy day after day with larger issues.  So what if this one law is not enforced?  What harm could result?

 

Well, according to the National Safety Council, 1,770 pedestrians died in 1998 while crossing the street.  Thousands more were injured.  If those numbers hold consistently year over year, we would have lost over 16,000 to this kind of fatality between 1998 and today. 

 

Is enforcing the jaywalking law important?  Would it have saved every life that was lost?  Not every life, but perhaps a fairly significant number of them.  A deterrent would have been established if any municipality let in be known that this particular law would be strictly followed, or, tickets and fines would follow.

 

How many lives have been lost due to illegal immigration?  Tragically, the news is replete with incidences of crimes, including murder (see above), that involve illegal aliens.  Are all illegal aliens dangerous criminals?  No.  Do most illegal aliens commit minor offences or relatively petty crimes?  No.  However, all of them broke the law at least once.  That is the truth of the matter. 

 

Legislatures at the local, state and Federal levels, are debating how best to handle this situation.  One way is to start enforcing unfailingly the laws already on the books.  Perhaps a life will be saved if we do.  And that includes the lives of those who risk peril by coming to this country by a treacherous desert crossing, or, by resting a dangerous faith in a coyote to smuggle them across the border.

 

This leads us to the decision this week by Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to pull the funding designated by the State’s legislature to Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s illegal immigration task force.  Napolitano buckled to political pressure to stop Arpaio’s crime suppression sweeps and bow before the forces of the pro-illegal immigrant crowd in Arizona.  It seems that the Sheriff’s sweeps have netted more than a couple of illegal immigrants as his deputies enforce the law by pulling over motorists for broken tail-lights and expired car registration tags. 

 

Her excuse for pulling the Sheriff’s money is that 40,000 felony warrants are outstanding in the greater Phoenix area (that number has somehow blossomed to 60,000 in newspaper accounts this week), and the money is better spent chasing down these warrants.  She also says his sweeps have caused “trepidation” in the “immigrant community.” So, via executive order, the money has been re-directed to the Department of Public Safety.  The DPS, curiously enough, has been recently chastised in the state by an ACLU allegation that has charged them with racial profiling during their traffic stops.  No wonder the Governor has selected them to receive Joe’s money.
A long range question for Napolitano is this: if she were to become a President Barack Obama’s Attorney General (as rumored — she supported him over Hillary Clinton), would she direct money and resources to round up the 80,000 criminally violent illegal immigrants now roaming free all throughout these United States?  Doubtful.

Bush Throws, Obama Yelps

Bush Throws, Obama Yelps

Lee Cary

“When a stone is thrown into a pack of wolves, the one that yelps is the one that is hit.” 
  – Popular saying. Source unknown.

 

The mystery concerning President Bush’s remarks before Israel’s Knesset wherein he quoted a World War II era isolationist Senator, William E. Borah (R. Idaho), is this:  Was it an attack on Barack Obama. Or, was it a trap into which Obama, and other Democrat politicians, stepped?

 

Did the Bush administration take a page out of Obamatactics and intentionally wrap credible denial (as in Obama being oblivious to his pastor’s statements) around the entire episode? Unnamed White House sources leaked the claim that Bush meant to refer to Obama. Then, Bush’s spokesperson denied that the quote was aimed at Obama.  So what really happened here?

 

Let’s consider two options.

 

President Bush meant to provoke an Obama response.

 

Perhaps, but Obama could have just ducked.  In that case, when other Democrat luminaries protest that their alpha wolf has been hit, Obama, staying above it all, just shrugs it off saying,

 

President Bush knows that I have no intention of negotiating with terrorists when I’m president.  So, I’m sure he wasn’t talking about me.

 

After some patented Joe Biden (he actually said “bovine feces,” the hard way) and Nancy Pelosi huffing-n-puffing, the story dies, since Obama doesn’t need defending.  On their way out of the dust-up, they accuse Bush of insulting our European allies.  That always plays with the MSM.   

 

In that case, McCain has no opportunity to remind voters of Obama’s comments about face-to-face meetings with the leaders of several bad-actor nations.  And, by the way, neither does Hillary Clinton, if she cares to use it.  Plus, the media doesn’t salivate over a story that, on balance, will not end up working in Obama’s favor.

 

All that begs the question: So what does Obama have to gain by taking offense at a stone not clearly aimed at him?  A chance to confront Bush?  Maybe.  But is the gain in doing that greater than the risk of reminding voters of his well-established position on direct talks with bad boys? 

 

President Bush threw a stone and waited for yelps from whoever felt hit.   

 

The pack has many domestic wolves. Pelosi toured Syria. Jimmy Carter dated Hamas. Rob Malley, one of Obama’s foreign affairs advisors, recently resigned from the Obama campaign in the wake of his pow-wows with Hamas.   

 

Pelosi yelped, delivering a predictable response feinting righteous indignation. In a similar vein, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said,

 

“This is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It’s, quite frankly, sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack.”

 

Unprecedented? Hardly. “Sad?”  For whom? 

 

So, while the wolves yelp, Bush need only shrug, smile, and say, “Hey, when a stone is thrown.”

Top Ten Skeletons in the Left’s Closet

Top Ten Skeletons in the Left’s Closet

By Daniel J. Flynn
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/16/2008

When the Left writes its own history, the past gets rewritten to suit the needs of the present. This is why I wrote A Conservative History of the American Left, to conserve not only fascinating figures now forgotten but to retrieve from the memory hole all that the Left has tossed down it. What is the history of the American Left that leftists want you to forget?

10. Ayatollah Khomeini, Leftist Hero

Reflexive anti-Americanism initially moved the Left to embrace the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Mother Jones, for instance, in 1979 predicted that “if Khomeini or his followers take power” then “democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government” would follow. The Nation, Michel Foucault, and other pillars of the Left similarly projected their ideals upon Khomeini and company.

9. Manson Family Values

“I fell in love with Charlie Manson the first time I saw his cherub face and sparkling eyes on TV,” hippie guru Jerry Rubin professed. “His words and courage inspired us.” Weatherman hoisted “Charles Manson Power” banners, adopted a spread-fingered greeting to symbolize the fork with which the Manson murderers impaled a victim’s stomach, and even boasted a cell nicknamed “The Fork.” Weatherman matriarch Bernardine Dohrn infamously proclaimed: “Dig it: first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!”

8. Gay Activists Sue to Block AIDS Test

Today, homosexual activists blame Ronald Reagan and the clergy for the spread of AIDS. But in the mid-1980s, the National Gay Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense, citing civil-liberties concerns, actually sued the federal government to stop the AIDS test. Thankfully, they lost and scores of lives have been saved as a result.

7. Murder Chic

The easiest way to become a hero on the Left is to kill another human being. John Brown, the Molly Maguires, the Haymarket Square Bombers, Joe Hill, Huey Newton, and Mumia Abu-Jamal—murderers all—have been venerated by the Left in song and on screen. The people they murdered are not even an afterthought.

6. Jonestown Kool-Aid

Before orchestrating the murder/suicides 900+ people in Guyana, Jim Jones was the darling of the San Francisco Left. Huey Newton, Angela Davis, and Willie Brown embraced a man who killed more blacks than the KKK. Democrats Rosalynn Carter, Walter Mondale, and Gerry Brown made campaign visits to the Peoples Temple’s “comrade leader.” The mayor of San Francisco even rewarded Jones for his activism by appointing him chairman of the city’s housing commission. “The temple was as much a left-wing political crusade as a church,” The Nation reported in 1978. Unfortunately, as the years progressed, more Americans gulped down the Left’s Kool-Aid that Jones was of the religious Right and not an atheist leftist.  

5. Concentration Camps, American Style

A year before Hitler came to power in Germany, Margaret Sanger called for a vast system of concentration camps for the United States. The Planned Parenthood founder demanded “a stern and rigid policy of segregation or sterilization” for “dysgenic” Americans who “would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” The 1932 speech concluded that “fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense—defending the unborn against their own disabilities.”

4. Heaven on Earth

American intellectuals looked upon the hell on earth that was post-revolutionary Russia and saw a heaven on earth. The New Republic credited the Russian Revolution with providing “the most democratic franchise yet devised in our world,” while The Nation found that “the franchise is more democratic in Russia than in England or in the United States.” Lincoln Steffens marveled after a visit to the Soviet Union, “The revolution in Russia is to establish the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth.”

3. Eugenics

Even before the progressive era when most states instituted eugenics laws, the American Left had agitated for state controls over procreation. John Humphrey Noyes’ Bible Communists lamented that freedom of marital choice “leaves mating to be determined by a general scramble, without attempt at scientific direction” and devised the first eugenic experiment in the U.S.—“stirpiculture”—that produced dozens of children and prevented hundreds more. In Looking Backward, Edward Bellamy dreamed of “race purification” to “preserve and transmit the better types of the race, and let the inferior types drop out.” Other proponents included Margaret Sanger, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who famously decreed in Buck v. Bell, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” State governments ultimately sterilized upwards of 60,000.

2. Assassinating Presidents

Three of the four presidential assassins have been left-wing radicals. Bible Communist Charles Guiteau murdered President Garfield, anarcho-communist Leon Czolgosz murdered President McKinley, and Soviet Communist Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John F. Kennedy. Rather than own that history, the Left has invented conspiracy theories that absolve leftists from responsibility.

1. Nazi-Soviet Pact

The Left switched from pacifists to warmongers overnight once the Nazi attack upon the Communists dissolved the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Communist Party USA chief Earl Browder, who had dubbed WWII “the second imperialist war” during the pact, so thoroughly switched course when the Nazis attacked the Communists that he embraced conscription (after his opposition to it led to jail in WWI), endorsed a ‘no-strike’ pledge for labor unions (after encouraging strikes to impede the war effort), and kicked out Japanese Americans from the CP (after ostensibly championing civil rights). The Hollywood Anti-Nazi League ceased operations during the pact. The Communists’ New Masses panned the anti-Nazi Watch on the Rhine when it appeared as a play during the pact only to praise it when it appeared as a movie when Hitler and Stalin were again enemies.


Daniel J. Flynn is the author of Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas and A Conservative History of the American Left. He is also the editor of www.flynnfiles.com.