Unanswered Questions, Disturbing Thoughts

Unanswered Questions, Disturbing Thoughts
November 2nd, 2006

Bob Herbert was, in a bygone age, tough-minded yet passionate, a doggedly objective reporter who seemed to embody the best traits of those incorruptible newshounds of the silver screen. Once capable of making sharp distinctions, of offering his readers the occasional penetrating insight, he has undergone a dreadful mutation into the single most tiresome and predictable hack in the New York Times stable of tiresomely dreary and predictable hacks.

Possibly the strain of operating within the confines of the paper’s stultifying orthodoxy sapped his creativity and blighted his capacity for nuance, but the result is a sad one. The same column gets endlessly recycled, its theme relentlessly unvarying. Bush is always wrong and ordinary human error is inadequate to account for the blunders, the miscalculations, the outright failures. No, this singularly disastrous administration is animated by malevolence, innate and irremediable, unprecedented in American politics.

Liberals gobble up this pap. They ought to know better, that such shallow, one-sided junk is Happy Meals for the mind. The total exclusion of nutritious food from the diet leads to stunted growth and premature loss of brain cells. In its promise of understanding without the necessity of acquiring knowledge, its projection of righteous anger unrestrained by logic, unthinking sanctimony is symptomatic of the malaise afflicting mainstream culture. Still, such a simplistic worldview, so smugly devoid of introspection, so grotesquely uncharitable and intellectually dishonest—is it any wonder that nowadays Herbert seems to embody the worst traits of the ideologized frauds currently passing for newshounds?

With the mid-term elections drawing close, and the Democrats braying incessantly about a Republican “culture of corruption,” what is certainly a wonder is that the campaign will end without anyone breathing a word about Hillary’s New Square shenanigans. As a sort of anti-homage to Bob Herbert, I will quote myself writing two years ago about a defining incident from her first run.

“Hillary Rodham Clinton began her protracted presidential campaign four years ago by claiming a Senate seat from a state she didn’t live in. Her pro-Palestinian sentiments caused problems with New York’s large Jewish population, and in particular, allowed her opponent, Rick Lazio, to trounce her in Hasidic communities. Except for one.

“New Square Community, in Rockland County, contained four prominent men who got very rich by applying for and receiving Federal scholarships for 1500 students. The students didn’t exist and the four men picked “Go Directly to Jail” cards. The Smartest Woman Who Ever Lived visited New Square in August of 2000. In November, she won that district by the tidy margin of 1400 to 12 (a cool 99.15%). In December, a delegation from New Square journeyed to Washington, D.C. and visited with America’s first Jewish President, who bit his lower lip and felt their pain. In January 2001, the four naughty Hasids were pardoned.

“All of this has a familiar ring. True, it’s the most spectacularly unambiguous example of vote-buying to come along the pike in a hound’s age, but the Clintons do lots of crooked things. There is much huffing and puffing; they dare anyone to do something about it; nobody does nuthin’.”

Unlike Herbert, when I take a shovel to an old piece, I feel honor bound to alert the reader through the use of quotation marks. The urge to revisit this sordid business is very strong, though; I feel the tug. That nobody gives a damn (apart from Dick Morris, whose scathing expose Rewriting History served as my source) about a crime so brazen simply amazes me.

Does anyone imagine that the obvious vote-trading was the extent of the wrongdoing, not the tip of the iceberg? I mean, Hillary won by a huge margin. The thousand or so votes involved can’t possibly be the key to whatever arrangement produced four presidential pardons. To lay the cards on the table, to spell it out in alphabet blocks, to—pick a cliché: Could any Clinton lapdog contend, while maintaining a straight face, that no contributions were made to the Bubba fund?

Let’s waste no time with the usual theater, the orchestrated displays of feigned indignation by the eternal First Couple’s professional enablers. We’ll all agree that I’ve made a terrible, awful, mean-spirited insinuation, typical of the right’s politics of personal destruction, and I can’t prove a thing. Of course I can’t. No one can ever prove anything where the HillBillies are concerned. But, purely as an exercise, suppose you’re a Clintonista, whether enthusiastic or merely dutiful, and you want to take a shot at explaining how the four swindlers escaped punishment: what approach looks promising? How would you try to pull this one off without assuming an exchange of beaucoup buckaroos? Take your time. The voters are pretty gullible.

Questions that never get asked of the Clintons—someone should write a book on the subject. Chris Wallace tried to buck the system by serving up a medium-speed breaking pitch to Bill on Fox News Sunday recently, and after the tumult died down, it became fairly obvious that Bill hadn’t missed entirely, but neither had he made solid contact. How would he have done if pressed for details on the four-day bombing campaign he authorized in December 1998? According to Kenneth M. Pollack, who twice served under him as director for Gulf affairs at the National Security Council.

“Altogether, the United States and Britain flew 650 aircraft sorties and fired 415 cruise missiles at Iraq. The ostensible goal of the attack was to ‘degrade’ Iraq’s WMD programs and ‘its ability to threaten its neighbors.’ However, the fact was that only eleven of the ninety-seven targets attacked were WMD facilities because the administration generally did not know where Iraq was concealing its WMD programs. This, of course, was why UNSCOM still has a job to do. Instead, for the first time, the United States principally struck a set of targets related to Saddam’s control over the country, including eighteen command-and-control facilities, eight Republican Guard barracks, six airfields, and nineteen sites related to the concealment mechanism—which actually consisted largely of Special republican Guard garrisons, internal security facilities, and other sites that were key components of Saddam’s police state.” [The Threatening Storm, Random House 2002, pp. 92-3]

Maybe I’m a little dense, and possibly I’m missing something obvious, but what Pollack presents so matter-of-factly should raise a few eyebrows. For starters, if the goal was to degrade Saddam’s WMD programs, can’t we reasonably conclude that, uh, they existed?! At the very least, we can conclude that everyone assumed they did, right?

Now, I find the part about bombing Republican Guard barracks troubling. Please don’t misunderstand: Saddam’s regime was loathsome and I strongly supported its overthrow. But the idea of slaughtering soldiers in their barracks when they are completely unaware that they are in a war—can someone explain why leftists, for whom everything Bush does constitutes a war crime, found themselves with absolutely nothing to say

As a conservative, I am extremely hesitant to condemn an American President’s use of force against a genocidal monster, but for people on my left, who can seriously claim that putting a bag over a prisoner’s head to humiliate him is a war crime, shouldn’t killing hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqi troops in a series of punitive strikes be recognized as more like the genuine article?

There is a gigantic hole in the ongoing disingenuous debate over the Iraq War. Weapons that everyone had reason to believe were being concealed by the Iraqis could not be found. So, the immediate reaction of the Democrats and their water carriers in the media was to scream that those weapons never existed. But no one, not one of the shrillest congressional Bush-bashers, held that opinion before the invasion. Imagine you call the police to report that your house has been burglarized and your television is missing. They set out to prove that you are delusional and you never owned a television. In a sane world, that’s where the investigation might end up. Surely, it’s not the place to begin.

Surely you remember the following?

An American military action receives the name, Operation Desert Fox. Several psychiatrists and pop psychologists make the rounds of the talk shows and write articles pointing out the hidden Nazi symbolism: Erwin Rommel, one of Hitler’s greatest generals was, after all, called the Desert Fox. Several newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times editorialize about the tone-deaf administration that, either through sheer ignorance or a darker design, evokes the memory of a hero of the Third Reich.

Nothing of the sort happened, you insist. The thought of such a feeding frenzy over an implausible, hopelessly strained Nazi message is madness. Hinting at connections between an American President and Nazis is beyond the pale, shameful.

You’re half-right. Nothing of the sort happened. Propriety, rationality, elementary fairness, and common decency, however, have nothing to do with the reason why this media firestorm didn’t occur. It didn’t occur because the commander-in-chief during Operation Desert Fox was Bill Clinton, and not George Bush.

Ronald Wieck today returns to American Thinker as an occasional contributor.

Hillary Clinton and socialism’s “common good” path to communism in America

  Hillary Clinton and socialism’s “common good” path to communism in America

Jan Ireland
July 6, 2004

The Bush tax cuts enabled America to climb out of the Clinton recession despite the financial devastations of 9/11 and stock market downturns. Ten straight months of economic progress and job creation have made the economy robust.So it is incongruous that Hillary Clinton would tell a San Francisco audience recently that Democrats will rescind the Bush tax cuts for the “common good.”

Mrs. Clinton’s plan is not only wrong, it’s socialist.

Ronald Reagan defeated communism, but we are still being leeched by creeping socialism. The 45 communist goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963 linger, and they were supposed to be for the “common good” also.

The phrase itself a few decades ago was anathema. It does not appear in the 1945 United Nations charter, though that institution is about nothing if not socialism. Mrs. Clinton’s rarely-mentioned very radical mentor, Saul Alinsky, revered it. “The radical is that unique person to whom the common good is the greatest personal value.”

The inscription on the Liberty Bell exhorts “Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” And Ronald Reagan reminded “…the guiding hand of Providence did not create this new nation of America for ourselves alone, but for a higher cause: the preservation and extension of the sacred fire of human liberty.”

In the coming presidential election America has a clear choice: Mrs. Clinton and universal socialism versus Ronald Reagan and universal freedom. George Bush has Ronald Reagan’s fire of freedom. John Kerry must bow to the Clintons, though his personal record certainly is socialist.

The rapacious Mrs. Clinton wants to empower the government to take what it wants. We see her proclivities in the monstrous HillaryCare attempt (“It’s time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals”), in the idea that the “village” (state) should raise the child, in the greedy timing of the eight million dollar book advance, in the shrill escalating rant similar to Dean’s and Gore’s. (Socialists always exempt themselves from the restrictions they place on others.)

Founder James Wilson wrote “Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression.” It is irrefutable. Government taking from one group to give to another approved group is socialism, Marxism, and/or communism.

The words “common good” are not of themselves evil of course. A group called Common Good works to reform the lawsuit culture in America. Bayer relaxed its Cipro patent during the anthrax scare for the “common good.”

But a religious group wants “…to develop religiously and politically informed advocates for the common good.” Another has a vote litany. Libertarian Socialist Noam Chomsky wrote about The Common Good. The European Union demands to manage markets for the “common good” despite the incomparable success of America’s capitalism and the obvious decline of socialist and communist systems in recent decades. Right under our noses in Congress is the Progressive Caucus, a group of about 50 legislators who are openly socialist.

Libertarian Ilana Mercer writes “The common good piety should raise as much suspicion as Hillary Clinton’s reference to ‘our children’ ought to. What is paraded by government and its lapdogs as the common good very often conceals an intention to override individual rights and interests.”

Objectivist Ayn Rand said “America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices for ‘the common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men …”

Socialism reaches into our pocketbooks and lives incrementally, always cloaked in some “common good” guise exhorting us to make America better, fairer, more equal. Life is not fair and equal. Socialism takes from producers what it cannot and will not produce itself.

George Washington warned “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

Mrs. Clinton courts socialism. We’ve defeated communism once in our lifetime, but “common good” socialism could revive the scourge. Patriotic Americans must actively reject the shill — at the ballot box this November. For the real common good.

Suggested Further Reading:

  • Albert Herlong, Jr., 45 Communist Goals read in to Congressional Record, 1963
  • Protestants for the Common Good
  • Baptist Editorial, “Support Common Good, but Keep State Out of Church”
  • BFW, “A Litany for an Election”
  • Noam Chomsky, “The Common Good”
  • Eliot Van Buskirk, “MP3 Insider: Preserving the common good to accelerate progress”
  • John Blundell, “Friend or Foe? What Americans should know about European Union”
  • Thomas Lenz, “Building a Force for the Common Good”
  • Ronald Reagan, 1991
  • Rush Limbaugh, June 29
  • Saul Alinsky, “Reveille for Radicals”
  • Barbara Olson, “Hell to Pay”
  • Common Good
  • Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead”
  • Ilana Mercer, “Business Has its Hand out to Government, Too”
  • www.newswithviews.com
  • www.conservativeforum.org
  • www.stophillarypac.com
  • Americans for Tax Reform
  • www.un.org

Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy — Bill Clinton’s back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to California voters. “If Brazil can do it, so can we,” he said, claiming an ethanol switch ended Brazil’s need for foreign oil. Once again, he’s telling whoppers.

Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 10/27/2006

Energy: Bill Clinton’s back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to California voters. “If Brazil can do it, so can we,” he said, claiming an ethanol switch ended Brazil’s need for foreign oil. Once again, he’s telling whoppers.

Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn’t quite recall the critical point showing how it was done.

Here’s a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk: Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva didn’t celebrate the oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.

No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of Brazil’s vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil’s oil independence had virtually nothing to do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.

Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads, seeks to pile taxes on.

Clinton is hawking the idea that taxing offshore oil drilling companies, from 1% to 6% — a 600% hike for some — and then turning the spoils into a new government bureaucracy for ethanol development is the way to end California’s dependence on imported oil.

“Imagine if we stop being dependent on foreign oil. Brazil did it. They made a simple switch to their cars. Switched to ethanol, grown from their own crops. And it’s 33% cheaper than gas,” Clinton said, neglecting one key detail: cars must use three times as much ethanol as gas.

“With Proposition 87, we can switch to cleaner fuels, wind and solar power,” he says in a political ad, “and free ourselves from foreign oil. If Brazil can do it, so can California.”

But as a matter of fact, that’s not what Brazil did.

It launched a crash program of offshore oil drilling in the late 1990s, working with a Manhattan Project-like determination to develop its own natural resources.

In 1997, Brazil opened its oil sector to foreign competition, encouraging companies like Royal Dutch Shell to explore and drill for oil in its offshore waters for the first time. It offered incentives — like tax cuts. It also turned its inefficient state oil company, Petrobras, into a for-profit company run like a real business instead of a government cash cow, forcing it to compete on an international-standard level. In short, it got out of the way.

Net result, lots more oil for Brazil — enough to enable the once-oil-dependent country to actually export some, all from fewer energy reserves than the U.S.

Brazil’s new P-50 rig has boosted output to an average 1.9 million barrels of oil a day, a bit more than the 1.85 million Brazil consumes.

By contrast, ethanol output in Brazil, the world’s biggest producer, is only a small share of its energy consumption.

Last year, the country squeezed out just 282,000 barrels a day mostly using sugar, a more efficient and clean-burning energy source than the corn-based stuff produced in the U.S. But sugar-based ethanol still isn’t as efficient as gasoline.

Not surprisingly, Brazil’s ethanol production began as a big government project in 1975, curiously similar to what Clinton is touting. It was run by the military junta, and was costly — the junta pumped in about $16 billion in loans and price supports to sugar companies over two decades. The output still was meager.

Ethanol output didn’t take off until government fetters were lifted in 1989 and the market was free to develop it without government involvement. It became a far more viable energy source after that.

Clinton has had a long history of raising political funds from agri-biz giants — like Archer Daniels Midland — interested in government contracts. As Brazil’s example shows, taxing oil to subsidize ag firms is exactly the wrong way to produce ethanol — or oil. If Clinton were really sincere about ethanol itself, he’d be lobbying for an end to tariffs on cheap ethanol from Brazil.

But it looks like he’d rather repeat Brazil’s decades of energy mistakes instead of cutting to the real reason for Brazil’s success: its decision to drill offshore for oil.


–>

This Explains a Lot of Things — this was a hoax but it’s still funny — Gore was born mar. 1948

This Explains a Lot of Things

Many will recall that on July 8, 1947, witnesses claim an unidentified object with five aliens aboard crashed on a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico.

This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by the US Air Force and the federal government.

However, you may well NOT know that in the month of March 1948, exactly nine months after that historic day, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.; Hillary Rodham; John F. Kerry; William Jefferson Clinton; Howard Dean; Nancy Pelosi; Dianne Feinstein; Charles E. Schumer; and Barbara Boxer were born.

That piece of information has now cleared up a lot of things.

Why you must vote in November Pass this on to your Republican friends The Dems are on thier own

Terror suspect contributed to school ‘religion guidelines’ Issued by Clinton, rules let students pray to Allah, but banish Christmas = Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was president of the American Muslim Council and a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, worked with President Clinton and the American Civil Liberties Union when the guidelines, launched by Clinton in 1995, were being developed, according to reports.

The Shadow Party — Notice John McCains role with this group

The Shadow Party
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 29, 2006

A new book by David Horowitz and Richard Poe has enraged the Left and alarmed many conservatives.  It exposes the machinations of a radical clique working at the highest levels of government and finance to undermine American power.  That book is The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.  It hit the New York Times bestseller list in its first week in print. Here to tell us about The Shadow Party is co-author Richard Poe, our esteemed colleague at the David
Horowitz
Freedom
Center, where he serves as director of research.  Mr. Poe has written a number of bestselling books.  His last two releases were Hillary’s Secret War and The Seven Myths of Gun Control.Preview Image
FP: Richard Poe, welcome to Frontpage Interview.Poe: Thank you, Jamie. FP: So what exactly is the Shadow Party? 

Poe: The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine.  It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The leader of these radicals is multibillionaire George Soros.  He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control.  The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control. FP:  How does it work? Poe:  It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros.  He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit.     

In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party.  It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth.  However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money.  By controlling the Democrat pursestrings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, “Now it’s our party.  We bought it, we own it…” FP: Everyone knows that Soros has poured money into MoveOn.  Can you name some other Shadow Party groups? 

Poe: The Shadow Party is always changing.  New groups form and old ones dissolve. For instance, America Coming Together — which raised $135 million for Democrat get-out-the-vote drives in 2004 – has been mothballed, at least for now.  The most active Shadow Party groups today are probably the Center for American Progress, America Votes, Democracy Alliance, the New Democrat Network, the New Politics Institute, ACORN and, of course, MoveOn.org. FP: How does Soros use his influence over the Party? Poe: He uses it to push the Party leftward.  He is systematically purging the Party of moderates and packing it with radicals. For instance, the Shadow Party ousted Senator Joseph Lieberman in favor of Ned Lamont, because Lieberman refused to support a “cut-and-run” policy in
Iraq.
 FP: Isn’t that just politics as usual, though – wealthy fat cats funding their favorite candidates? 

Poe:  Funding ordinary candidates, be they Democrats or Republicans, would be politics as usual.  Funding radical candidates who seek
America’s destruction is not.  Money is a tool.  It can be used for good or evil.  The Shadow Party is using it for evil.
 FP:  Does the Shadow Party really seek to destroy
America?
 
Poe: Judge for yourself.  In his new book The Age of Fallibility, Soros writes, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the
United States.”  He announced in 2003 that it is necessary to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.”  Soros is working systematically to achieve that goal.
 On the economic front, he is shorting the dollar in global currency markets, trying to force a devaluation.  At the same time, Soros is orchestrating a nationwide movement to encourage mass immigration into the
United States, and to mandate the provision of free social services to illegal immigrants.  These measures alone have the potential to bankrupt the nation.  However, if they fail, Soros has another program that will certainly finish the job.  A long-time Soros operative named Jeffrey Sachs has been placed in charge of the United Nations Millennium Project – a global war on poverty designed to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor ones.  Sachs is currently demanding that American taxpayers turn over $140 billion per year to his global welfare bureaucracy.
 

On the political front, Soros has poured massive funding into such groups as the ACLU, which uses lawsuits to hamstring the War on Terror.  Soros also funds Amnesty International, whose
US executive director has called for the arrest of President Bush as a war criminal.  Another Soros-funded group, The Center for Constitutional Rights, has drawn up detailed articles of impeachment against the President.
 FP:  Why don’t more Americans know that Soros is pushing these destructive policies? Poe: The Shadow Party operates through deception.  It uses the Democratic Party as camouflage. By posing as ordinary Democrats, Shadow Party candidates trick mainstream voters into supporting them.  Their true agenda remains concealed.  As Soros writes in The Age of Fallibility, “[T]he Democratic Party does not stand for the policies that I advocate; indeed, if it did, it could not be elected.” The fact is, Soros aspires to establish a neo-socialist order in
America.  In the Atlantic Monthly of February 1997, he wrote, “The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.” 
 

FP: Tell me about Soros’ efforts to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Poe: Mr. Soros advocates deep structural change in our system of government.  In April 2005, Yale
Law
School hosted an event called, “The Constitution in 2020”, whose stated goal was to formulate “a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.”  Of the event’s five institutional sponsors, one was Soros’ flagship foundation The Open Society Institute, and two others were Soros-funded Shadow Party groups; the Center for American Progress and the American Constitution Society.  We nicknamed that event the Shadow Constitutional Convention.
 FP: What parts of our Constitution does Soros want to change? 

Poe: He appears to have a special animus against the Bill of Rights. Take freedom of worship, for instance.  Soros seems to favor some sort of religious apartheid, with fundamentalist Christians banished to a socio-political
Bantustan.  For example, in a New Yorker interview of October 18, 2004, he said of President Bush, “The separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again President.”
 Then there’s the Second Amendment.  Soros has provided massive funding to anti-gun groups and anti-gun litigators.  The unprecedented assault on gun rights during the 1990s was largely bankrolled by Soros. FP: You and David Horowitz have also accused Soros of promoting political censorship in
America.
 Poe: Most Americans do not realize that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was a Trojan Horse.  Its stated purpose was to reform campaign finance law. Its actual effect is to regulate political speech.  McCain-Feingold was a Shadow Party initiative. Soros and a group of leftwing foundations spent over $140 million to get it passed.   

Here’s how it works.  McCain-Feingold authorizes federal election officials to decide who may or may not run political advertisements during election season, and what sorts of ads they may run.  In September 2004, a federal judge expanded McCain-Feingold’s reach by ordering the FEC to begin censoring the Internet.  Blogger outrage forced the FEC to back down, but McCain-Feingold remains on the books. Sooner or later, it will be enforced, to the full extent its creators envisioned.  We can thank Mr. Soros for these developments. FP: Of course, we can also thank Republican Senator John McCain, who co-sponsored the bill. Poe: Yes, but McCain has a long history of collusion with the Shadow Party. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Soros sponsored two so-called “Shadow Conventions,” held at the same time and in the same cities as the Republican and Democratic Conventions, in
Philadelphia and
Los Angeles respectively. Their purpose was to promote campaign finance reform. John McCain gave the keynote speech at the
Philadelphia “Soros Convention” (as columnist Robert Novak dubbed it), while Russ Feingold did so at the LA event.
 

McCain’s service to the Shadow Party brought him financial benefits. In 2001, McCain founded the Reform Institute for Campaign and Election Issues.  The Institute’s major funders were mostly leftwing foundations.  Prominent among them was George Soros’ Open Society Institute. FP: It seems ironic that Soros spent ten years lobbying for campaign finance reform, only to emerge as one of the biggest influence buyers in
Washington.
 
Poe: As I said, the McCain-Feingold Act was a Trojan Horse.  It made the Shadow Party possible.  Among other things, it forced the Democratic Party into a financial crisis, enabling Soros to swoop in and buy up the Party at a bargain-basement price. Democrats have traditionally relied on large, soft-money donations from unions, while Republicans relied more on small, “hard-money” donations from mom-and-pop donors.  When McCain-Feingold outlawed soft-money donations to the parties, Republicans were not unduly hampered, but Democrats flew into a panic.  They faced the real possibility of bankruptcy. 

Enter  George Soros.  After forcing the Democrats into a fiscal crisis, he then offered to rescue them.  He set up a network of non-profit, “issue-advocacy” groups – the Shadow Party – and invited all the big Democrat donors to contribute to his network.  Thus they could still contribute to the Democrat cause, but without giving directly to the Party.  The Party became dependent on Soros to raise campaign contributions which the law now forbade the Party itself to raise. FP: You and David Horowitz charge that Hillary Clinton has a secret alliance with Soros. Poe: That’s right.  They have to keep their alliance secret because any political coordination between them would violate federal election law. Soros’s Shadow Party is barred by law from coordinating its activities with official Democratic Party candidates, such as Hillary. It’s a poorly-kept secret, however.  At the annual Take Back
America conference on June 3, 2004, Hillary gave Soros a glowing introduction, saying, “We need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts.” More importantly, her right hand man, Harold Ickes – who served the Clinton White House as deputy chief of staff – now serves Soros as de facto CEO of the Shadow Party. Ickes plays a significant role in running Hillary’s political machine and Soros’ Shadow Party simultaneously. This is arguably illegal, but no controlling authority seems willing to intervene.
 

The institutional manifestation of the Hillary-Soros axis is a group called the Center for American Progress, whose president John Podesta formerly served as chief of staff to the Clinton White House.  Hillary has no official connection to the Center.  However, her dominance of the organization seems to be something of an open secret among leftists.  One insider told a UPI reporter that the Center is “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.”  Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation wrote of the Center, “It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White House-in-exile – or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.”  The Center for American Progress received its start-up funding from Soros and was, in fact,  Soros’ brainchild. FP: You and Mr. Horowitz have said that the Shadow Party purged Joseph Lieberman, in retaliation for his pro-war stance.  How do you square that with the fact that Hillary supported Lieberman? Poe:  Hillary supported Lieberman only with lip service.  She was just hedging her bets.  What mattered was her announcement that she would support whomever won, be it Lieberman or Lamont.  Please note that, within 24 hours of Lamont’s victory over Lieberman, HILLPAC became the first Democrat political action committee to pledge money to Lamont’s campaign.  With friends like that, Lieberman doesn’t need enemies. FP: Some conservatives welcome Soros’ intervention.  They say that the farther left he pushes the Democrats, the fewer people will vote Democrat. 

Poe:  It would certainly be nice if we could just sit back and wait for the Shadow Party to fizzle out of its own accord. Given what is at stake, however, I think a more energetic approach is in order. In my view, the farther left Soros pushes the Democrats, the more dangerous they grow.  The Party is becoming more cult-like and fanatical by the day.  History teaches that a fanatical minority can prevail over a moderate majority.  The Bolsheviks proved that in 1917.  Before our eyes, the Democratic Party is transforming into a totalitarian cult, bent on seizing power by any means necessary.  This is a time for vigilance, not complacency. FP: Are we talking Red Guards in the streets?  That’s a little hard to imagine. Poe: Actually, the Shadow Party funds a number of groups which specialize in street action.  Last March, about half a million protesters brought Los Angeles to a standstill, calling for open borders and free immigration.  Some burned American flags and fought with police. Similar protests occurred simultaneously in many cities.  The whole extravaganza was a Shadow Party operation.  Virtually every sponsor was a Soros-funded group – at least eight organizations – including ACORN, La Raza, MALDEF and others.  One of the organizers, the Center for Community Change, has received $5.2 million from Soros’s Open Society Institute. 

FP: What is their plan?  How does the Shadow Party intend to take power in America? Poe: They appear to be pursuing a three-phase plan.  The first two phases are based upon the successful strategy which the left used to force regime change in America during the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.   Phase One is to impeach President Bush for allegedly deceiving the nation into war.  We call this phase Watergate II. Phase Two is to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and to cut off aid to the Iraqi Republic, just as Democrats cut off aid to South Vietnam after Nixon resigned.  We call this phase Vietnam II. 

Phase Three is velvet revolution.  This is a term used in Eastern Europe to describe the sort of bloodless coup for which Soros is well-known in that part of the world.  He has used these methods to topple regimes in many countries, such as Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia. Soros’ velvet revolutions always follow the same pattern.  The rebels wait for an election, then precipitate a crisis by charging voter fraud. We believe the Shadow Party may attempt something similar in the USA. If they fail to win legitimately in 2008, they will likely cry voter fraud, fomenting an electoral crisis similar to the Bush-Gore deadlock of 2000. We must expect, however, that the left has learned a few lessons since 2000.  It seems doubtful that they will stake their revolution on a decision of John Roberts’ Supreme Court.  More likely, they will press for international arbitration this time, possibly under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This group actually monitored our elections in 2004.  Its relations with Soros – and with the Democratic Party – are extremely cordial, to say the least. 

In normal times, Americans would never accept foreign arbitration of an election, but a destabilized America,  demoralized by military defeat, discouraged by the fall of a president, and alarmed by orchestrated unrest in the streets, might just go along with any plan that promised to restore order. The 2004 election almost seemed like a dress rehearsal for such a maneuver, given the raucous demand by some Congressional Democrats for UN election monitors, and the so-called Boxer Rebellion, in which Senate Democrats challenged Bush’s electoral vote count.  FP: Will Hillary be the Shadow Party candidate? Poe: That is likely, but not inevitable.  Even a “velvet” candidate needs the illusion of mass support.  That could prove difficult for Hillary to conjure up.  Even so, Hillary can only benefit from these machinations.  If the Democrats win, we can rest assured that Soros and Hillary will be pulling the strings behind the scenes, no matter which figurehead they choose to sit on the throne. FP: How can we fight these kinds of radical tactics? Poe: In the short time left before 2008, we need to learn everything we can about the Shadow Party and open the eyes of as many Americans as possible to its plans. FP: Richard Poe thank you for joining us. 

Poe: My pleasure.

The Left’s Diplomacy Pays Off

The Left’s Diplomacy Pays Off
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 9, 2006

SCORE ONE FOR BILL CLINTON and Jimmy Carter.

As of this writing in the early morning hours of October 9, President Bush is expected to announce that North Korea has conducted an underground nuclear test. Unlike the abortive launch in July, last night’s explosion netted the Stalinist gulag valuable information and packed a lethal impact. At 9:35 p.m. EST, the U.S. Geological Survey measured a 4.2 magnitude disturbance approximately 240 miles northeast of Pyongyang.

The Left quickly attempted the shopworn tactic of pinning the blame on the Bush administration’s rhetoric or unwillingness to bribe Kim Jong-il. Early this morning, Joseph Cirincione of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress told CNN, “They had numerous opportunities to negotiate a deal…They did not.” He concluded, “I think the North Koreans came to that conclusion: that there is no deal to be had with this administration, and they decided they had nothing to lose.”

By way of commentary, the popular left-wing blog The Daily Kos quoted Selig S. Harrison from the international edition of Newsweek:

North Korea’s missile tests in July and its threat last week to conduct a nuclear test explosion at an unspecified date “in the future” were directly provoked by the U.S. sanctions. In North Korean eyes, pressure must be met with pressure to maintain national honor and, hopefully, to jump-start new bilateral negotiations with Washington that could ease the financial squeeze. When I warned against a nuclear test, saying that it would only strengthen opponents of negotiations in Washington, several top officials replied that “soft” tactics had not worked and they had nothing to lose.

 The Kos feels no need to explain which U.S. provocation justified the birth of the North Korean nuclear program in 1994 – during Bill Clinton’s presidency – nor that the DPRK’s “‘soft’ tactics” entailed firing a missile over the Japanese mainland and threatening to strike the United States.  Worse yet, Kim Jong-il’s methods have paid off handsomely. Each act of brinksmanship has brought cash, supplies, oil, nuclear reactors, or additional concessions from the West. Within two months of the Taepo Dong missile scraping across Nippon in August 1998, President Clinton sent North Korea a multi-million dollar aid package and reopened bilateral negotiations.  

The Dear Leader’s nuclear test could not have occurred without Bill Clinton’s decade of dalliance. Clinton could have obliterated the Yongbyong reactor with one strike when he first learned of North Korea’s covert nuclear program in 1994. Instead, he allowed Jimmy Carter’s private foreign policy to preempt him. Upon completing the “Agreed Framework” in 1994, Clinton stated, “This agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula.” We now know the $4.6 billion bribe gave the Communists the two nuclear reactors they used to create their current arsenal.

If the Left’s policies allowed Stalinists to arm, they left Americans defenseless. The Democratic Party has defined its defense policy in opposition to the concept of defense. For more than two decades, the Democratic Party has worked in concert to block any missile defense program and castigated those who tried to shield the United States from a doomsday device. When President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, Ted Kennedy promptly denounced it as “Star Wars.” The New York Times called it “a projection of fantasy into policy,” and other outlets fretted the abandonment of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would encourage the United States to pre-emptively attack the Soviet Union. Bill Clinton pledged his support for a missile shield in theory during his 1996 re-election campaign, then withheld critical funds and scheduled deployments in his second term. When George W. Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty – negotiated in the 1970’s with a nation that no longer exists – the Left branded him a “unilateralist.” During the 2004 campaign, John Kerry adviser Rand Beers said North Korea was able to acquire a nuclear weapon, not because naïve leftists insisted on bribing its playboy despot, but because “Bush and his closest advisers were preoccupied with missile defense.” Twenty-three years after President Reagan’s vision of “rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete,” the United States remains vulnerable to madmen like Kim Jong-il…or whoever purchases his wares. Ironically, the Left’s got it wrong on SDI twice: the mere idea of missile defense caused the Soviet Union to spend itself into bankruptcy, and the fact that it remains merely an idea emboldens tinhorn dictators to engage in nuclear blackmail.

 The Left has specialized in sidelining those who would conduct a vigorous foreign policy, so impugning this president’s integrity as to render anything he says suspect. When the media dubbed the assessment of every intelligence agency in the world that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs “wrong,” it could not merely acknowledge that statesmen must act on the best information available to them at the time. Instead, they had to brand the commander-in-chief a “liar” and “fraud.” Ted Kennedy famously thundered, “Week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie.” Congressional Democrats demanded an investigation into whether President Bush coerced intelligence agents into “sexing up” Iraqi intelligence. (Multiple reports proved he did not.) Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid then shut down the Senate last November 1st to demand investigations into whether the Bush administration twisted intel ex post facto. Sen. Pat Roberts’ Senate Intelligence Committee recently released two documents that exonorated him on that point, as well. Yet the current cover story of Mother Jones magazine is, “Lie by Lie: How Our Leaders Used Fear and Falsehood to Dupe us Into a Mideast Quagmire: A Timeline.” Having claimed Bush “lied” about Iraqi WMDs, he finds himself circumscribed in dealing with other rogue regimes; after all, who would follow a “liar” into war twice? 

Even this has been insufficient for today’s partisans, who demand Bush’s full demonization. Comparisons to Hitler early became ubiquitous. Al Gore bellowed, “He buhtrayeed Amurrucuh”; Howard Dean referred to Bush-43 as “Big Brother”; and Air America, the British Guardian newspaper, and a new motion picture have pined for his assassination. If Kim Jong-il is insane, in the Left’s view, he is not materially worse than our president.

Not all blame can be placed on the Left, though. This administration’s foreign policy has sent an uncertain message in its second term. The Bush team has offered Kim Jong-il bilateral relations, the Dear Leader’s penultimate goal. (The ultimate goal being U.S. aid. Such prominent Democrats as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton also advocate rewarding Korean belligerence with direct talks.) Having dealt with the result of the Clinton-Carter Agreed Framework of 1994, President Bush offered Iran essentially the same deal. At stages, the war in Iraq has been carried out half-heartedly: backing off Fallujah, allowing anti-Americans prominent governing positions, doing little to stop supplies and terrorists from crossing the Syrian and Iranian borders, etc. There are even reports Yemen “will generate power through nuclear energy in cooperation with the United States and Canada.”

And there are troubling signs of a creeping failure of nerve. Chief of Staff Andy Card, brought in to “shake things up,” has publicly advocated firing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in favor of James A. Baker III. Jim “F-ck the Jews” Baker’s Iraq Study Group will soon release a study reported to call, in broad strokes, for the president to back down in Iraq, “the central front in the War on Terror.”

Today’s crisis has also raised eyebrows. According to early leaks of today’s UN Security Council proposal, the administration’s requested sanctions would exclude China’s oil trade, which provides some 85 percent of Pyongyang’s fuel.

The Bush administration could present a robust plan of action to the United Nations Security Council today as its needed rebound. China will likely veto any measure to curtail its oil exports, but the U.S. could support Japan’s desires to build an appropriate defense. We could and should do the same for Taiwan, as well. In addition to providing a counterweight to Pyongyang, this would apply long-term geopolitical pressure to Beijing. The president would also be well advised to use the crisis to push through greater funding for missile defense, the only ultimate hope of “rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.” 

Or he could acquiesce to Foggy Bottom’s wisdom and issue yet another empty threat or ineffective sanctions package, followed by offers of diplomatic carrots, which would reinforce the growing perception that, rhetoric aside, the United States is too paralyzed by internal debate to prevent apocalyptic madmen from acquiring nuclear weapons. Like a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, backing down before Kim Jong-il’s pressure will send a clear message to people like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and other aspiring tyrants.

 Before making such a move, President Bush must remember there is something worse than meeting the advance of evil with inaction: that is resisting evil only strenuously enough to give the enemy the thrill of victory.

The Real Difference Between the Parties

 

Thursday, October 05, 2006

The Real Difference Between the Parties

Claims and Counterclaims

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEYWALL  STREET JOURNAL ONLINE Commentary
October 5, 2006; Page A20

Tocqueville’s trenchant observation, that sooner or later all political issues in America are “resolved” into legal questions, has certainly withstood the test of time. Our policy disputes are regularly fought out on “legal” or “constitutional” grounds, both in and out of the courts, and nowhere is this more evident than in the debates over the war against al Qaeda.

The national “dialogue” over how the U.S. should respond to the threat of radical Islam is replete with claims and counterclaims about whether the Bush administration has violated the law by holding captured jihadist prisoners without trial, by intercepting al Qaeda communications without judicial warrants, by subjecting detainees to stressful interrogations, and so forth. In fact, almost all of this clamor arises from a basic dispute over whether the U.S. is — or should be considered — at war with al Qaeda and its allies, or whether it should address the threat of transnational terrorism as a law-enforcement matter — as most of its
European allies have done.

There is little doubt that the Democratic Party leadership, and no small portion of the rank-and-file, find the president’s rhetoric of war distasteful — and more than a little embarrassing — and reject the underlying notion that the U.S. is, or could be, engaged in a legally cognizable armed conflict with al Qaeda and other jihadists. Nowhere was this better displayed than in Bill Clinton’s recent meltdown during his interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News. Mr. Clinton protested (rather too much) that he really had been committed to killing Osama bin Laden, and insisted that he did his best to accomplish this goal.

That may well be true. But then as now, Mr. Clinton views the relevant policy choices through a law-enforcement prism. Granting the former president’s ardent desire to see off bin Laden, his administration was mired for years in arguments over whether, consistent with a Cold War executive order forbidding “assassinations,” the CIA could kill bin Laden, or whether U.S. agents would instead have to attempt a practically impossible capture — i.e., an arrest.

Paralyzing concerns were also expressed by Clinton administration officials that any attempt to kill bin Laden might cause civilian casualties, even though wartime collateral damage is permissible, provided it is not disproportionate to the military advantage being gained. This rejection of the laws-of-war model continued even after bin Laden proved his belligerent intentions in a series of attacks on American citizens and U.S. military assets overseas.

In the aftermath of 9/11 — and despite the fact that congressional Democrats joined Republicans in passing an “authorization for the use of military force” against those responsible for the attacks — most continued to operate in a “law enforcement” mode. Democratic critics of the Bush administration have opposed virtually every measure the president has taken to guard against new attacks on American soil, including the USA Patriot Act, the National Security Agency’s warrantless electronic surveillance program, data mining, access to international banking data, and the use of traditional military commissions to try and punish captured terrorists. During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry made clear his belief that al Qaeda was a law-enforcement problem.

The Democratic message was, and remains, that the peacetime balance of individual rights and community interests is sufficient to meet the threat — along with additional passive, and uncontroversial, defenses such as hardening cockpit doors and giving more monies to first responders. There have, of course, been notable exceptions to this rule — such as Sen. Joe Lieberman — but his steadfast support for both the war on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq cost him the Democratic nomination for re-election to his seat.

By contrast, President Bush immediately recognized that al Qaeda, and the larger jihadist movement it represents, is not simply a new and especially violent street gang or drug cartel that could be handled by more and better policing. Only the government’s full complement of war powers would be sufficient to meet the immediate threat to American lives and interests, and to take the fight to the enemy. He sought and obtained Congress’s express authorization for military action, and has not looked back. For his pains, the president has been ruthlessly vilified by his political opponents and maligned as everything from the idiot tool of big-oil interests (and his own vice president), to a devious crypto-autocrat determined to transform the presidency into some kind of late Roman emperorship.

The president’s critics, and especially those in Congress now running for re-election, should honestly admit that their differences are, by and large, matters of policy which can and should be debated as such. The question is not whether the president has broken the law, whether domestic or international, but which legal paradigm — war or law enforcement — makes the most sense in meeting the threat.

Those who believe that captured al Qaeda operatives should be treated as ordinary criminal defendants (rather than unlawful enemy combatants), entitled to all of rights enjoyed by civilians in the federal and state courts, should stop pretending that this result is compelled by the Geneva Conventions or the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they should acknowledge making a policy choice that advantages jihadists beyond the legally required level, explain why they believe this to be right and just, and how they think it will checkmate al Qaeda.

In particular, they must answer key questions, such as how a law enforcement system designed to punish and deter, rather than prevent, criminal conduct can hope to discover and pre-empt future suicide attacks before they take place — especially after 50 years during which progressives have demanded, and achieved, increasingly greater protections for criminal defendants.

Since the Democrats are certainly not suggesting our criminal justice system return to the pre-Warren Court’s days, the pros and cons of the law-enforcement model need to be laid out explicitly, and with particulars, before the American people.

Similarly, supporters of the law-enforcement model must explain on what legal basis
American forces could attack al Qaeda bases overseas, and any “criminal suspects” who may be present at those sites, if the U.S. is not engaged in a war. It was, of course, that very dilemma that prevented President Clinton from killing Osama bin Laden when he may well have had the opportunity.

Sadly, the Democratic voices in Congress, like Talleyrand’s Bourbons, have learned nothing. They continue to attack President Bush’s policies at every turn and have never answered these questions. They rightly fear that the American people will not agree that jihadists, who recognize no law but their own religious convictions, should be granted the due-process rights of ordinary citizens accused of criminal conduct, or that our own civilian population must accept greater risk of attack to vindicate a vision of personal privacy and individual autonomy that may be laudable in peacetime, but which no state could preserve during war — and hope to win.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, lawyers in Washington, served in the Department of Justice under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

 

I strongly support the war on terrorism, even though my son died fighting in it. — This was an email I recieved feel free to copy it and send it

I strongly support the war on terrorism, even though my son died fighting in it.  For a lot of people, the war against Islamic terrorism is something they see reported on television, or read about in the newspaper.  However, for me it’s much more real and personal. My son, Captain Derek Argel, died in Operation Iraqi Freedom on Memorial Day – May 30, 2005.  Derek was a proud and honorable young man who had a giant heart that made him such a joy to be around. He was a decorated member of the United States Air Force, and he loved our country and all it stood for.  If you had had the chance to know him you would have been immeasurably proud of his dedication to this nation and our freedoms.  After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Derek had a tattoo placed on his back that read “Never Forget.” What I’ve asked of this nation is that as Americans, please let us never forget what happened to us – the non-stop stream of terrorist attacks that culminated in the worst attack against us in our nation’s history. September 11, 2001 was a day that changed all of our lives.  Don’t you remember how we all stood as one, committed to fighting back and eradicating the terrorist network that was determined to bring “Death to America” – as they so often chanted in the streets? Don’t you remember how our leaders in Congress, both Republican and Democrats, stood united and sang “God Bless America,” because they recognized that the enemy was not one political party or another.  The enemy was, and is, those who seek to destroy the United States of America and all that our nation stands for. Some people now seem to want to forget that and instead seem intent on undermining our nation’s fight against terrorism – in exchange for advancing their own personal agendas.  At least that’s what I think former President Bill Clinton has been doing the past few weeks. And so, as a Gold Star Mother, I have decided to step forward and serve as Move America Forward’s spokesperson in their effort to rebut Mr. Clinton’s recent conduct – his dishonest statements, and his shameful behavior of trying to create opposition to the war effort. In the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Clinton was strongly supportive of the mission American troops were serving there.  During that time, Move America Forward, produced and broadcast 4 television ads that praised Mr. Clinton for rallying together with other Americans in supporting the current fight against terrorism. Bill Clinton seems to have changed his tune now, and he’s more interested in his own personal glorification than the good of this nation, or showing honor and respect to the young men and women serving in the military to keep our nation safe. I believe I join many other Americans who are outraged by President Clinton’s recent conduct.  America is at war with Islamic terrorists.  The threat is real and serious, and yet instead of rallying behind our troops and their missions in far away lands, Mr. Clinton decides to wag his finger, drop his jaw, and speak to us with mock incredulity. We’ve seen that skit before, Mr. President, and we didn’t buy it then and we aren’t buying it now either. Move America Forward has produced a new television ad that takes Mr. Clinton to task and asks Americans to rally together – as a united nation – to fight the terrorist threat. Please watch it.  Please forward it to your friends. CLICK HERE TO WATCH THIS NEW AD And most importantly, help us purchase the airtime to get this story told to millions of Americans via the television airwaves. Please contribute online to this effort: http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org/Contribution Or mail in a contribution to: Move America Forward
ATTN:: Defending Freedom Ad Campaign
P.O. Box 1497
Sacramento, CA 95812
Thank you so much for your support. – Debra Argel Bastian
Lompoc, California
P.S.  Derek was a proud father and husband.  His son’s name was Logan, and he is just as handsome as his father.  Derek  gave his life so that his wife and son, along with all other Americans, would enjoy the freedoms and liberties that have made this nation all that it is today. I ask that you take a moment to learn more about Derek and see for yourself why we loved this young man so very much.