Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

October 27, 2008 · 23 Comments

I cannot even believe this.  First of all, I heard the fact that Obama thought the Constitution was flawed being discussed on MSNBC of all places.  Most shocking since they are his biggest media cheering section.  Even more glaring are the words that Obama uttered in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM and here they are with my emphasis:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.  But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

 And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Keep in mind that Barack Obama has been a law professor on the Constitution.  This is a document he has spent alot of time studying and yet he completely misses the point.  Our Founding Fathers said that we are indowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.  Those are automatic and the Constitution and other founding documents merely defined those rights so that the government could never take those away.  It is not a document of “negative liberties”.  The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government.  Only someone who wants to lead a tyrannical government would say the above words.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Declaration speaks of has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.  And the courts are not meant to be radical.  Keep that in mind as you consider that Obama may get the chance to appoint three Supreme Court justices and countless local judges.  And keep in mind that the Warren Court has been the most liberal court this country ever had.

Obama’s spokesman Bill Burton had this to say, “In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It’s just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign.”  It truly is amazing how gullible the Obama campaign thinks Americans are by constantly calling truth that shines the light on a Marxist Obama “distractions”.  This is everything!  The economy, the wars, abortion…none of that matters if we lose our freedom.  What an Obama presidency will change those words to is: The economy becomes redistribution of wealth, wars become Martial Law here in America with boots on our streets and terrorists able to destroy us and abortion becomes Eugenics where only the best get to live.  Liberals love to compare President Bush to Hitler.  They’ve got the wrong man.

Mexico’s President Has Some Nerve Lecturing His U.S. ‘Amigos’

Mexico’s President Has Some Nerve Lecturing His U.S. ‘Amigos’

By Bradley Blakeman

 – FOXNews.com

 The fact that an American administration would invite and incite a head of state to disrespect our nation is unconscionable. 

Reuters

The Democrats thought that if they invited Mexican President Calderon to address a Joint Meeting of Congress this week that they could encourage him to use that solemn opportunity to take a swipe at Arizona’s new immigration law. Well it backfired.

The fact that an American administration would invite and incite a head of state to disrespect our nation is unconscionable. This is what the President of Mexico said about an American law from the podium of the United States House of Representatives:

“It introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.” He went on to say, “I agree with the president (Barack Obama) who says the new law carries a great amount of risk with the core values that we all care about are breached.”

It was no secret what President Calderon would say. Here is what Time Correspondent Tim Padgett wrote on Wednesday as he anticipated Thursday’s speech:

 

“So perhaps we deserve some of the lecturing we’re bound to get from President Felipe Calderón when he climbs Capitol Hill on Thursday. He’ll point out, as the Obama administration has conceded, that much of the blame for Mexico’s horrible narcoviolence lies with our insatiable demand for drugs and our lame-brained refusal in 2004 to renew a ban on assault weapons that are being smuggled into Mexico. He’ll insist, rightly, that we comply with NAFTA and give Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways. And he’ll rail at Arizona’s hysterical new anti-immigration law, which allows police to detain anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and which critics call carte blanche for racial profiling of Mexicans and other Hispanics. ‘It opens the door to intolerance, hate and discrimination,’ Calderon said recently.”

Calderon’s dissatisfaction with American immigration policy is as much an indictment on President Obama as it is with the House and Senate — all of which are controlled by Democrats, by the way. President Obama promised that in his first year he would make immigration reforms a top priority. Well, a year has come and gone and the president and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate did absolutely nothing with regard to immigration. Their inaction forced the State of Arizona, out of frustration, to take action through legislation.

Arizona law’s, (which our Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary seem to have no trouble criticizing even though they haven’t bothered to read it), mirrors federal law — almost verbatim.

How can Mexico’s president rail against American immigration law when Mexican law is almost identical to law in the United States and Arizona?

Mexico has become a narco-terrorist state. More than 15,000 people have been killed in drug- related violence since Calderon took office in 2006. President Calderon and his government are not in control. Who is he to come here and lecture to us when he has surrendered his nation to drug dealers and thugs? Mexico is rife with corruption and it has a jobless rate that dwarfs our own.

Calderon’s country does not have Americans, by the millions, flooding into Mexico to take jobs, and use services they are not contributing to.
America needs to enforce its immigration laws, period. Arizona taxpayers, like those from other border states, are required to spend billions of dollars every year as a direct result of our nation’s failed immigration policy. It show up in higher costs for law enforcement, health care, schooling, housing, jobs, etc. States are not reimbursed from the federal government for the federal government’s inability or desire to enforce federal law. Enough is enough!

Now is the time to deal with immigration in a real, just and equitable way for all parties. Immigration reform starts with enforcing existing laws and securing our borders.

As far as President Calderon is concerned: Hasta la vista, sir.

Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox  News

Cultivating the Moderate Hezbos

Cultivating the Moderate Hezbos   [Andy McCarthy]

While the Obama administration’s foreign service team is out apologizing to Chinese Communist gulag-keepers over the human-rights violations of Arizona, the president’s crack national-security team is combing Lebanon in search of the Hezbollah moderates! WARNING: The following is not a parody but an actual news story (from Reuters — and thanks to Ruth King for bringing it to my attention):

The Obama administration is looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” within the Lebanese Hezbollah guerilla movement and to diminish the influence of hard-liners, a top White House official said on Tuesday.

“Hezbollah is a very interesting organization,” Brennan told a Washington conference, citing its evolution from “purely a terrorist organization” to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet.

“There is certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us what they’re doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements,” Brennan said.

He did not spell out how Washington hoped to promote “moderate elements” given that the organization is branded a “foreign terrorist organization” by the United States.

Morning Bell: Raising Arizona’s Defense

Morning Bell: Raising Arizona’s Defense

Posted By Mike Brownfield On May 21, 2010 @ 9:37 am In Ongoing Priorities, Protect America | 3 Comments

[1]

It isn’t easy being Arizona these days, especially when President Barack Obama puts politics before Americans’ interests, a foreign head of state before the United States, and an agenda of apology before much-needed, sensible reforms.

But that’s just what happened this week when Mexican President Felipe Calderon visited Washington, DC. President Obama extended a warm hand to Calderon and demagogued Arizona’s illegal immigration law all in the name of politics. Standing in the White House Rose Garden with Calderon, President Obama took the unprecedented step of publicly siding with Mexico against Arizona, saying [2]:

We also discussed the new law in Arizona, which is a misdirected effort — a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries…

And I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person — be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”

All of this centers around Arizona’s new law that directs law enforcement officers to ask about a person’s legal status if reasonable suspicion exists that they’re unlawfully in the country. And they’re to do that in a reasonable way only during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.

Enter the spin zone. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder took a swing at the new law, later admitting that they’ve neither studied nor even read it [3], let alone mentioned amendments [4] that prohibit using race, color or national origin even as a factor in executing it. And yesterday, Calderon spoke to a joint session of Congress, audaciously criticized Arizona’s law, and drew a standing ovation from Democratic members of Congress [5], Holder, Napolitano and Vice President Joe Biden.

Their attacks are in direct contradiction to the Obama Administration’s own policies [6], which have recognized an appropriate role for state and local governments in dealing with illegal immigration. In 2009, the Obama Administration spent $60 million on grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement in 13 states, all for the purpose of dealing with border-related issues.

But that’s not all. The Obama White House encourages state and local governments [6] to participate in the “Secure Communities” program, which promotes identifying and removing criminal aliens. Oh, and Homeland Security funds Border Enforcement Security Teams, which include state and local law enforcement. Tack on the longstanding constitutional principle that states have clear authority to act in the interests of their citizens’ public safety, and one wonders on what peg the White House is hanging its highly critical hat.

But the failure to make political hay while the sun shines is a wasted opportunity in the Obama White House, especially when this issue is a perfect entree for the President to champion one of his favorite causes – granting amnesty to millions unlawfully in the United States.

There’s a better incremental approach [6] the White House and Congress can take, including: responsible border security; the enforcement of immigration and workplace laws; workable temporary worker programs; and working with Mexico to address its desperate need for security and civil society and economic reforms.

As The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano writes [6]:

Congress should reject efforts by the White House to demonize the people of Arizona in a crass effort to further the President’s political agenda. The Congress should also insist on incremental, commonsense policies that will address the pressing need for immigration and border security reforms instead of the amnesty-first approach—which both the American people and the Congress roundly rejected the last time it was proposed in 2007.

Meanwhile, for Arizona’s part, it has acted because the federal government has failed to secure America’s national borders. The state now has the obligation to act responsibly in the course of implementing the law.

Quick Hits:

Dems Stand and Cheer as Calderon Bashes Arizona Law

Dems Stand and Cheer as Calderon Bashes Arizona Law

By Doug Powers  •  May 20, 2010 04:02 PM

**Posted by guest-blogger Doug Powers 

If Jan Brewer had been the territorial governor of Hawaii in 1941 and these same Democrats were in charge, they would have applauded the Pearl Harbor attack, had a State Dinner for Hirohito, and the memorable quote from Obama’s post-attack speech would have been, “The only thing we have to fear is that the Hawaiian authorities will start profiling Japanese.” 

Think about it — a foreign leader comes to the U.S., bashes a state within the U.S. for doing something that it’s well within their constitutional rights to do, and Democrats stand and cheer. This isn’t surprising but it never ceases to be amazing. 

Also look for Attorney General Eric Holder at about the 23-second mark, who slowly stands up to applaud the President of Mexico for bashing an American law he hasn’t even read (h/t Freedom’s Lighthouse): 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuTA-mGg2PQ&feature=player_embedded

Any real American president would have shoved this guy out through the garbage exit yesterday, but not this bunch. 

Look at Plugs and Blinky, who were absolutely enamored. Pelosi looks like Calderon just handed her a complimentary fistful of Botox: 

null 

Of course, there was that one low-key part where Calderon had something nice to say about the United States: 

null 

I was told they wouldn’t introduce Calderon to Robert Byrd, because the last time they did, Byrd looked up and said, “Why aren’t you in the Rose Garden weedin’ the hostaces, son?” An international incident was barely avoided. 

So, sides have been chosen, and nothing should scare voters more than this kind of continual evidence that Democrats will stand for foreign leaders over one of the states in their own country. And to top it off, a state that did something that the vast majority of Americans agree with

Update: Rep. Tom McClintock responds to Calderone

**Posted by guest-blogger Doug Powers 

Sharia vs. Free Speech in Tennessee: CAIR Calls for Tea Party Group to Drop Speaker From Convention

Sharia vs. Free Speech in Tennessee: CAIR Calls for Tea Party Group to Drop Speaker From Convention

by Publius

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is attempting to bully the Tennessee Tea Party Convention into dropping Pamela Geller as one of their speakers for their event this weekend in Gatlinberg.

In a stirring piece of Orwellian propaganda, CAIR cautioned the group via press release:

“The Tea Party needs to decide whether it is a legitimate national political movement or just a safe haven for bigots and extremists,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “We ask that convention organizers not legitimize Geller’s extremist anti-Muslim rhetoric by offering her an official platform.”

And CAIR should know a little something about being a safe haven for bigots and extremists. After all, their former communications director sits in jail right now after pleading guilty to weapons and explosives charges. He also admitted helping terrorists gain entry to a training camp in Pakistan.

CAIRbusted-vi

While concerned about Ms. Geller’s exercise of free speech and the Tea Party’s exercise of free association, we missed CAIR’s press release denouncing the violation of human rights in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc… We’re sure they wrote one, it just wasn’t distributed as widely as this one.

Geller gives her initial response here, but we suspect this won’t be the last we hear on this one.

Obama’s Unexceptional Nation

Obama’s Unexceptional Nation

Posted By Alan W. Dowd On April 16, 2010 @ 12:15 am In FrontPage | Comments Disabled

America has had presidents who were realists and idealists and realistic, even cynical, about the world yet idealistic about America’s mission in the world, but Barack Obama is unique among this fraternity. For arguably the first time in 220 years, we have a president who is idealistic about the world but cynical about America’s role in it. Obama’s recent flurry of nuclear diplomacy and declarations is just the latest example.

First, his administration carried out a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR [1]) that, among other things, pledges that the United States:

  • “will not conduct nuclear testing, and will seek ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,”
  • “will not develop new nuclear warheads,” and
  • “will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.”

Obama’s NPR also removes the protection afforded by what Defense Secretary Robert Gates [2] calls “calculated ambiguity.” “If a non-nuclear-weapon state is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and its obligations,” Gates explains, “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” Instead, such an enemy “would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response”—even if that enemy “were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners.”

“Calculated ambiguity” has kept America’s enemies on notice and off balance for decades—and, not coincidentally, kept America and American forces safe from nuclear, biological or chemical attack. Recall Secretary of State James Baker’s implied threat to his Iraqi counterpart regarding how the U.S. would respond to Iraq’s use of chemical or biological weapons. Or consider Eisenhower’s counsel:

“One of America’s great tacticians, Stonewall Jackson, said ‘Always surprise, mystify and mislead the enemy.’”

Ike had quite a surprise in store for North Korea’s patron and protector in China. As historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote years after Ike’s presidency, “Eisenhower began by invoking the nuclear threat to end the fighting in Korea,” letting the Chinese know that, in Eisenhower’s own words, he “would not be constrained about crossing the Yalu or using nuclear weapons.”

Fifty-seven years later, we have a president eager to constrain American power—and willing to surrender the strategic deterrent advantage of ambiguity—in hopes that thugs, dictators and outlaws can be reasoned with.

And yet there appear to be no constraints on the bad guys. North Korea, for instance, tested a nuclear weapon and long-range missiles during Obama’s first year in office, just as it had during the Bush administration. Likewise, when evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear-fuel manufacturing plant came to light in September 2009, there was no punishment or sanction. French president Nicolas Sarkozy [3] was so furious that he detailed for the UN Security Council everything the UN Security Council has allowed Iran to get away with:

“Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions…An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009…What did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges.”

Finally, after signing a deal with Russia to cut America’s arsenal of nuclear warheads by 30 percent—thankfully in exchange for reciprocal cuts on Moscow’s part—Obama convened a summit in Washington “dedicated to nuclear security and the threat of nuclear terrorism,” in the words of Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. Obama’s goal is “to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four years.”

That’s a worthwhile objective. Of course, two of the gravest nuclear threats we face—Iran and North Korea—were not at Obama’s nuclear summit. In fact, they weren’t invited [4]. Given that both are known terrorist states, given that Iran is racing to build a nuke, and given that North Korea already has nukes, it seems likely that this shameless pair would be prime candidates for nuclear terrorism.

But perhaps it’s good that they weren’t at Obama’s conference. After all, international summits and conferences are only as dependable as the parties participating in them. Again, Ike’s words are instructive. Always dubious of what he called “the conference method” to foreign policy, he noted that

“We have had a lot of talks and some of them have produced very disappointing results…The pact of Munich was a more fell blow to humanity than the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.”

It is doubtful that Obama—the product of a postmodern, relativistic era that views American power as something to constrain and America’s role in the world as something to apologize for—would agree with that.

In this regard, it pays to recall that Obama himself concedes, with a shrug, “I believe in American exceptionalism…just as the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, every nation is exceptional, which means no nation is exceptional.

Now, contrast that with Woodrow Wilson’s idealism and liberal internationalism. Sure, Wilson envisioned a gauzy, global federalism that made—and still makes—American nationalists uncomfortable. But Wilson’s idealism was couched in a strong belief in American exceptionalism. It was America’s duty, Wilson argued, to make the world “safe for democracy…to vindicate the principles of peace and justice.”

Our current president simply doesn’t believe that. As Johns Hopkins scholar Foaud Ajami has observed, there is an “ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom.”

And there is a sad relativism about America’s place and purpose in the world at the heart of this president’s foreign policy. It pays to recall that under the Obama administration, for the first time ever, the United States will conduct a human rights review of itself, hand it over to the UN Human Rights Council, and then “submit itself to a process in which America’s record might be judged by some of the world’s worst human rights abusers,” as Foreign Policy [5] magazine reports.

In a similar vein, the United States is edging closer to the International Criminal Court. “That we are not a signatory,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said of the ICC, “is a great regret.” UN Ambassador Susan Rice has called the ICC “an important and credible instrument.”

By the way, among those currently under indictment and/or investigation by the ICC are warlords in Uganda, genocidal generals in Sudan, and, apparently, U.S. troops trying to rebuild Afghanistan: According to a Wall Street Journal report [6], the ICC is conducting a “preliminary examination into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.”

That’s the inevitable destination of a foreign policy that is idealistic about the world but cynical about America’s role in it.

Alan W. Dowd writes on defense and security issues.

Courageous Restraint?

Courageous Restraint?

Posted By Alan W. Dowd On May 21, 2010 @ 12:42 am In FrontPage | 5 Comments

Hoping to win more hearts and minds in Afghanistan, the U.S. and its NATO allies are planning a commendation to recognize “courageous restraint” among troops in the field. According to a NATO statement [1], the goal would be to “celebrate the troops who exhibit extraordinary courage and self-control by not using their weapons.”

What an apt metaphor for the Age of Obama. If there is a coherent theme to President Obama’s foreign policy, it seems to be constraining and restraining American power.

Consider the “New START” agreement. From Moscow’s perspective, New START [2] will constrain the U.S. from building and deploying additional missile defenses. New START, according to the Russian interpretation, will “be viable if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.”

Where would the Russians get that idea, if not from the administration? And if this is so, then it means the administration is unable to recognize that missile defense is, by definition, defensive. In other words, the goal of missile defense is to constrain America’s enemies.

Then there’s the related issue of the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR [3]), which is all about constraining the United States. Among other things, the NPR pledges that the United States:

Will not conduct nuclear testing, and will seek ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,

will not develop new nuclear warheads, and

will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.

Obama’s NPR also removes the protection afforded by what Defense Secretary Robert Gates [4] calls “calculated ambiguity.” “If a non-nuclear-weapon state is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and its obligations,” Gates explains, “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” Instead, such an enemy “would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response”—even if that enemy “were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners.”

“Calculated ambiguity” has kept America’s enemies on notice and off balance for decades—and, not coincidentally, has kept America and American forces safe from nuclear, biological or chemical attack. As Eisenhower counseled at the beginning of the nuclear age, quoting Gen. Stonewall Jackson, “Always surprise, mystify and mislead the enemy.”

Obama clearly doesn’t subscribe to that commonsense view. In fact, he recently took a huge step in the opposite direction by revealing [5] the size of America’s nuclear arsenal.

Meanwhile, the likes of North Korea and Iran play games with the world—and appear to be under no constraints whatsoever.  For instance, in the past 12 months, North Korea has detonated a nuclear weapon, test-fired long-range missiles and blown a South Korean ship out of the water, killing 46 sailors.

Likewise, Iran has shown no restraint in response to Washington’s restraint. Last summer, as the Iranian people rose up against a sham election and as Ahmadinejad’s henchmen crushed the popular revolt, the President was virtually silent. The sad irony of the President’s restrained reaction to the Twitter Revolution was that it answered his own rhetorical question [6] of a year before, albeit in a manner his supporters would never have imagined. “Will we stand for the human rights of…the blogger in Iran?” he asked during his 2008 rock-concert speech in Berlin. Last summer provided the answer.

And it gets worse. When evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear-fuel plant came to light last autumn, there was no reaction from the White House. In fact, it was French president Nicolas Sarkozy [7] who spoke up: “Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions…An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009…What did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

Perhaps nowhere is the policy of restraint and constraint on better display than in Afghanistan itself. German forces, for instance, refer to a seven-page guidebook [8] before engaging the enemy. Until mid-2009, they were even required to shout warnings to enemy forces—in three languages—before opening fire. The joys of coalition warfare.

The president has told us, over and over, that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity.” It was so important, as the New York Times [9] reported, that the president gave his military commander “extraordinary leeway” and “carte blanche” control to choose “a dream team of subordinates.”

But when Gen. McChrystal asked for the resources necessary to win this war of necessity, the president balked. Then, after a lengthy re-review of his own policy, the president concluded that “it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan,” before promising [10] that “after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.”

Of course, vital national interests don’t have expiration dates, and letting the Taliban know when the U.S. military will end its offensive won’t make victory any easier to achieve. But victory is probably not the goal in this era of constraint and restraint. As the constrainer-in-chief himself [11] puts it, “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory.’”

That brings us back to NATO’s “courageous restraint” idea.

The notion that there needs to be a commendation for restraint is based on the false and faulty premise that U.S. forces haven’t used restraint to date. In fact, as Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis told Navy Times, “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians.”

Indeed, the U.S. military is so self-restrained that the world doesn’t even notice. Just think about what happens when the U.S. military makes what we civilians, from 7,000 miles away, call a mistake: It court-martials people, changes target sets, scrubs missions, orders bombing pauses, investigates, apologizes and invests in ever-more precise weapons to prevent mistakes.

The fact is, the American military of today is the most lethal force in history, which makes its self-restraint so impressive. U.S. forces could flatten Kandahar, kill anything that moves in Waziristan, erase all the Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden and all the terror camps in Syria, eliminate the North Korean and Iranian thugocracies, and turn Mosul into glass—all in less than 24 hours. But they don’t do those things. The reason? Thankfully, the means are as important as the ends to Americans and their military.

This is not an argument for shooting first and asking questions later or for countenancing battlefield brutality. Rather, it’s a reminder that U.S. forces in Afghanistan are already holding their fire enough. They already think twice before squeezing the trigger. We shouldn’t expect them to think three times.

The people who know best—those who have served—worry about the unintended consequences of rewarding and thereby encouraging “courageous restraint.” As Clarence Hill, national commander of the American Legion, observes, “Too much restraint will get our own people killed.”

Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis adds, ominously and presciently, “The creation of such an award will only…put more American and noncombatant lives in jeopardy. Let’s not rush to create something that no one wants to present posthumously.”

Alan W. Dowd writes on defense and security issues.

Obama clamors for federal fix to immigration woes

Obama clamors for federal fix to immigration woes

May 20th, 2010

By Ben Fuller, AP

 Obama wants Republicans to help him overhaul immigration

Confronting soaring frustration over illegal immigration, President Barack Obama on Wednesday condemned Arizona’s crackdown and pushed instead for a federal fix the nation could embrace. He said that will never happen without Republican support, pleading: “I need some help.”

In asking anew for an immigration overhaul, Obama showed solidarity with his guest of honor, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who called Arizona’s law discriminatory and warned Mexico would reject any effort to “criminalize migration.” The United States and Mexico share a significant economic and political relationship that stands to be damaged the more the nations are at odds over immigration, which affects millions of people on both sides of the border.

Obama sought to show that he, too, is fed up with his own government’s failure to fix a system widely seen as broken. He said that would require solving border security, employment and citizenship issues all at once – the kind of effort that collapsed in Congress just three years ago.

The president’s stand underscored the forces working against him in this election year: the need for help from Republican critics, the impatience of states like Arizona after federal inaction, the pressure to show movement on a campaign promise, and the mood of the public disgusted by porous borders.

The Arizona law requires police to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally, and it makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. People may be questioned about their status if they’ve been stopped by police who are in the process of enforcing another law.

Read More:

Obama Dishonors Memory of Murdered Rancher Rob Krentz

Obama Dishonors Memory of Murdered Rancher Rob Krentz

May 21st, 2010

By John Lillpop, Canada Free Press

 by standing with Calderon as he hypocritically condemned Arizona’s law Obama slaps law abiding Americans in the face

By all accounts, Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was a decent man who had the awful misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time when he was murdered in cold blood.

The wrong place was on his own private property in Arizona.

Wrong, because Krentz, an American citizen, was shot and killed by an illegal alien (allegedly) from Mexico. The wrong time was close to midnight on March 27.

According to authorities, the motive for this cold-blooded slaughter may have something to do with the fact that the victim’s brother, Phil Krentz, reported drug smuggling activity on the ranch to the Border Patrol.

That ranch, the Krentz Ranch, has been in the Krentz family for more than 100 years.

Despite the murder of Robert Krentz and the general drug-smuggling and killing carnage taking place at the U.S.-Mexico border, President Obama welcomed Mexican President Felipe Calderon to the White House on May 19 by stating that the relationship between America and third-world Mexico is not defined by the border.

Obama’s outrageous lack of respect for Americans who have suffered at the hands of Mexican illegal aliens is yet another extraordinary example of why this man lacks the moral and intellectual credentials to serve as president.

Read More: