I’ve been seeing references to this around my usual web-stalking-grounds and finally just went to Fox News to read the whole thing.

This is something I should’ve said - several times - by now.

Since I didn’t, it gets play here - in its entirety
====================================

America Betrayed President Bush

President Bush deserves our respect not our scorn.

It’s almost hard to believe but Wednesday, January 20 marks exactly one year since President Bush left the White House.

During his last public ceremony as commander in chief, he was booed by thousands of Americans who simutaneously cheered for Barack Obama as he was sworn into office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

Except for a June 17 speech in Erie, Pennsylvania in which Bush defended his policies and criticized Obama’s, the former president has been remarkably silent about his successor. He has not fired back at Obama despite the new administration inappropriately blaming Bush for all of their failures.

One year after taking office however, Obama has done a total reversal on his isolationist, non-interventionist foreign policy, and is now pushing President Bush’s neo-conservative philosophy as a justification for starting a new war in Afghanistan. What the Democratic Party once criticized as an over-simplified good vs. evil argument has become the cornerstone of Obama’s reasoning.
“Evil does exist in the world,” Obama recently admitted. “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of man.”

In the wake of this stunning adoption of the Bush foreign policy doctrine, there is little, if any dissent. The same people who crucified Bush for liberating Iraq are hardly criticizing Obama for using force to promote democracy in Afghanistan.

Recent Gallup polls find that 62 percent of Americans think Obama’s war in Afghanistan “is the right thing” whereas only 39 percent of Americans think Bush made the right decision by sending troops to Iraq.

Any American who thinks that Bush was misdirected when he sent troops to Iraq in 2003 can’t possibly deny that renewing war in Afghanistan in 2009 to hunt Al Qaeda, eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks is, at the least, equally fallible.

Still, Obama is receiving the kind of public support that an American president, any president, deserves during wartime. Many anti-war activists, journalists and elected officials have been remarkably quiet, affording the new commander in chief the opportunity to launch a successful war campaign.

Very few Americans showed the same faithfulness to President Bush, including members of his own party. Republicans who favored non-interventionism to nation building abandoned Bush, and Democratic senators like John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton who voted for the war turned against it before the 2004 elections so they would have the ammunition they needed to criticize their incumbent opponent.

America quickly forgot about how President Bush charismatically lifted our spirits during some of the darkest moments of our nation’s history when the Twin Towers collapsed. After all, even Senator Kerry admitted Bush’s handling of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was “terrific,” during the 2004 presidential debates.

But after President Bush successfully secured America in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, he was rewarded with accusations of committing human rights violations and war crimes – an incredible irony since his policies were responsible for liberating tens of millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some Americans accused Bush of lying and starting a war under false pretenses simply because our troops never found actual weapons of mass destruction.

Despite what Michael Moore implied in his film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Congress did not base their 2002 authorization for the Iraq War solely on the premise that Saddam Hussein either had or was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Their legislation reads very clearly that America’s purpose in sending troops back to Iraq was to enforce U.N. resolutions, some of which were violated in the 1990’s and probably should have been enforced by President Clinton. Whether actual weapons were found or not, the war in Iraq was legally and morally justifiable, and necessary.

In addition to enduring criticism for his war policies, millions of Americans demanded the new Obama administration prosecute Bush for his decision to indefinitely holding detainees charged with war crimes. When President Obama signed an executive order in May that reinforced that same Bush policy, the far left was mute.

Almost no one said a word. Apparently, its acceptable for Obama to indefinitely hold detainees, just not Bush.

As Obama continues to make decisions that mirror the Bush doctrine, it is becoming apparent that the former president was not ignorant or irrational in his foreign policy decisions despite the harsh criticism and disloyalty he endured. He was in fact, ahead of his time, a visionary who understood politics and warfare in the modern age of terrorism.

That is why Obama is now following his lead.

It should be obvious now, even to Obama’s most passionate supporters that shielding the free world requires more than mere words like “hope” and “change.” Bush’s detractors should be embarrassed having arrogantly thought they could do it better, and those Republicans who abandoned Bush when he needed them most should take a moment to reflect on their fortitude or lack thereof.

Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in Afghanistan.

George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for promoting democracy abroad.

President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal.

(Amen, Brother - Ron)

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a journalist and lawyer who served on Senator John F. Kerry’s legal team during the 2004 election. He is currently organizing a nationwide effort called “Honor Freedom” to correct the historical record about President Bush and the Bush foreign policy doctrine, which can be reached at www.honorfreedom.com and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=41317929699&ref=ts or Twitter at http://twitter.com/honorfreedom.

Well, for starters we know that the actual outcome of Tuesday’s Senate election in Massachusetts…

…didn’t come out the way the Boston Globe tried to ‘Quantum Theory’ into existence…

Also we know that President Obama has gone from making fun of Scott Brown and his truck…

…to claiming kinship with him – blaming Bush (which somehow never seems to get old) for Brown’s victory and tacitly admitting that Coakley was part of the ‘establishment problem’, even though he stumped for her. (not quite sure if that makes him wrong, lying or foolish)

Okay, so that’s the ‘fun’ stuff that we know.

Then there’s the less-fun stuff that we’re going to admit we ALSO know…

The RNC still doesn’t get it.

If there could be a better example of a decentralized election campaign, driven by the enthusiasm of an attentive electorate than Scott Brown’s campaign, I would have a hard time imagining it.

From his success with online contributions, to the Tea Party support , to the simple fact of Brown’s impressive 120K-vote-margin win in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3:1

From the start, the RNC level of ‘support’ for Brown has been little-and-late , despite the obvious and glaring opportunity to win the Senate seat held by Ted “Swimmer” Kennedy for the past 47 years, in a race against an unmotivated Dem with delusions of entitlement and a lock-step approach to Barack Obama’s increasingly-unpopular Socialized Healthcare scheme.

Given the way the RNC got it’s helping of insult-and-injury from Dede Scozzafava - AFTER pumping upward of $1 Million into her NY-23 congressional campaign, I personally would have expected them to be eager to put that beclowning behind them and throw their efforts into – I dunno – an actually-conservative candidate for a change… but apparently, Steele & Co. saw that Senate seat with the same glow-of-Democrat-entitlement that had Martha Coakley wearing shades.

Scott Brown’s response to the GOP’s “hey-good-luck-with-that”?

‘Okay – No-Big’

“But even Brown has downplayed his lack of national GOP firepower in his race against Democrat Martha Coakley, saying, “We’re doing very, very well on our own, and I don’t want to be beholden to anybody at this point.”

“Don’t want to be beholden” – it has a nice ring to it, no?

Ah… but Michael Steele doesn’t think so:

”In a memo to RNC members today, Steele said the national committee has been “working very diligently behind the scenes” with the Massachusetts Republican Party for the past three months to make the race what it is today…”

“We have stayed out of the limelight while supporting the Brown campaign and the Massachusetts Republican Party,””

So, funding Brown to the tune of 1/20th of what they coughed up for the Margaret-Sanger-award-recipient is “Working Diligently Behind the Scenes”…

Leaving public support of Scott Brown to Sarah Palin (whose support I’d rather have any day & twice on Sunday) – that’s just “Staying Out of the Limelight”…

And watching the wind and polls and waiting until the momentum seems unstoppable, to come out and say “If-it’s-a-win-or-even-close-it’s-all-because-of-us”…

What is that, then?

I do have to admit that the Good Chairman is right about one thing though:

”This is a model for campaigns of the future.”

Yes - Yes Sir,  it is…

Campaigns by conservative candidates, supported Tea Party Groups, 912 Coalitions and groups of alert, engaged citizens working in support of their country and economy…

…and left free of the influence of a paralyzed, confused, feckless and wind-testing RNC.

You’re absolutely right, Mr. Steele – this IS the model for campaigns of the future…. which begs the question:

Why do we need you?

- Ron

Tom in FL dropped me this one…

Ga. activists kick off push for immigration reform

By The Associated Press
NORCROSS, Ga. - Immigration activists in Georgia have kicked off a week of activities to signal the start of a concentrated push for immigration reform.

Leaders of several activist groups on Tuesday announced a “week of action” to draw attention to immigration reform.

Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, said they plan to visit and make phone calls to the district office of each member of Congress from Georgia over the next week. They also plan community roundtables around the state, a rally at the Capitol and a prayer service.

The Georgia effort comes as immigration advocates nationwide try to gather support for a bill introduced last month in Congress by Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a Chicago Democrat.

Okay now, nevermind that “Immigration Reform” really means ‘Amnesty for Illegals’ since no-one is seriously proposing real reform to the existing immigration-system (unless you count ‘Fling-Open-The-Gates’ as ’serious reform’) - honestly, take “Amnesty” completely off the table, and their interest in ‘Reform’ will dissolve into screams.

…and nevermind that these are people whose chosen side in this debate demonstrates an intent & desire for the dismissal of the Rule of Law in our country.

Here’s the part I have a problem with :

“Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials”

…this demonstrates one of the most insidious societal problems we face in the US today.

Now, maybe I’m missing something, so please - someone help me out here - Do these Elected Officials preside over constituencies made up ENTIRELY of Latinos, so that their overt display of loyalty to their ancestral ethnicity should not interfere with their decision making in their Elected capacity?

On the other hand, if the people in this ‘Association’ are going to self-identify like this, it seems like that any ‘racial profiling’ on anyone else’s part would be redundant - since they’ve proudly pasted the label on themselves, it seems only obvious, reasonable and prudent that everyone should treat with them from the position of understanding that their loyalties are to their ‘race’ first and to the duties of their Elected Office only Second, and base expectations accordingly.

I still hold with this simple rule-of-thumb:

If your organization would become ‘offensive’ by replacing your self-identifying-modifier with the word “White” - then it’s inherently bigoted and should not exist…

…and especially not in public office.

- Ron

Okay – let me lead in with the following disclaimer:

I don’t care for Harry Reid… at all.

I find him to be petty, small, vindictive and far, FAR too quick to call other people out publicly as ‘Racist’ when it suits his political whims, and even when the stretch to do so turns into a full-on sprain.

I think he’s completely wrong-headed on the role of government and its relation to FAR too many of the basic premises upon which our country was founded - and largely clueless when it comes to understanding the bedrock morals, principles and priorities held by the majority of US citizens.

That said, I am having a little trouble getting my head around this whole ‘Reid-Is-Racist’ thing.

Let’s Review:

The Atlantic hit this first, so let’s pull Reid’s quote from over there:

”He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.”

So – because Reid feels that Obama’s light-skin and White-Grandparents-and-Harvard-University diction would make him more acceptable to the American voting public than if he were darker and tended toward ebonics …

That makes him a racist?

I thought it sounded more like an indictment of the American people than any sort of slam on blacks-in-general-or–Obama-specifically.

Seriously – let’s walk that back – so what Reid said was that if Obama had been Darker and prone to fits of Ebonics, the racist American voters would have been less likely to vote for him.

I think that makes him an ass, but I can’t see how it makes him racist… unless you mean racist against White people, in the sense of ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’.

(…”racist against white people” - *snort* seriously, sometimes I just crack myself up…)

So those are the “Reid” and “Racism” parts, so let’s get on to the ‘Double Standards’ section…

I was in the truck this afternoon and I happened to catch part of Sean Hannity’s show on the radio, and he was talking about this ‘Reid is a Racist’ thing.

The word “Offensive” seemed to have been stuck to his soft-palate – “offensive words”, “offensive comments” “offensive sentiments” etc. etc. etc.

“Offensive Words”

The closest thing to an ‘offensive word’ that I can dredge out of his comment is ‘Negro’… and that’s just archaic, not something used as a racial slur – and, like Joe Biden not knowing the “website number” to Recovery.gov , Harry Reid is roughly 500 years old and might actually be expected to refer to things in an archaic fashion.

Hell, I’m a little surprised we haven’t heard of Reid having trouble parking his palanquin in front of the Senate.

Hilarity aside, when did Conservatives formally jump onto the Political Correctness train?

Don’t we usually roll our eyes and say ‘Get a Life, Loser’ whenever Al & Jesse fly into town and start a riot-edged protest over the use of the word ‘niggardly’ in the odd budget meeting?

Weren’t more than a few of us bewildered when Trent Lott was forced to resign over what was (if we’re being honest) nothing more than some kind words to an old man on his 100th birthday (‘We’da’ been better off if you got to be president, old fella – happy retirement!’)

Aren’t we the ones who close our eyes, shake our heads and sigh “Get over yourselves” when people start seeing ‘Racism’ in movies about blue-skinned aliens?

“Offensive Words”

Why is it ‘mean-spirited’, ‘thin-skinned’ or ‘blatant politicizing’ when Reid & the gang start shouting ‘RACISM’ over – really – nothing…

But somehow, not stooping-to-their-level when our side does it?

How do Hannity, et al. manage to avoid the ‘chilling effect on discourse’ when they force people to tiptoe around their own words, for fear of giving ‘Offense’? (answer: They Don’t)

“Offensive Words”

Guys – Words aren’t offensive, People are offensive.

We really, really need to NOT lose sight of that.

WE are not supposed to be the proponents of “Shut Up”

- Ron

This is absolutely the best, most powerful video message since the Day of Great Darkness began our downward spiral on 04NOV2008.

…and even moreso, because it was clearly produced by the PUMAs and other Dem-leaning independents that helped elect The One in the first place.

Are you paying attention Harry? Nancy? Barney? Bob? Barack?

I sure hope all those backroom-deals are letting you feather those nests of yours - thick & deep - because it’s really looking like that’s all you’re going to have left, come this time next year.

- Ron

P.S. - I’ve embedded this from my Youtube page because it’s a bit big for a straight download to the C-A site library all-at-once.

I have the video as a WMV-file - if you want it, use the ‘Contact Me’ link @ the top of the page and I’ll send it to you - Ron

On December 16th, 2009 President Barack Obama wrote into existence an amendment to Executive Order 12425, which was written by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 and had been subsequently amended by President Bill Clinton in 1996, by way of Executive Order 12971 .

See? Simple…

Okay – no, not really.

In order to make any sense of this we first have to acknowledge that all of the Executive Orders referenced above were really ‘amendments’ of one sort or another – including Reagan’s – all in reference to the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) of 1945, the purpose of which was to provide a diplomatic vehicle (by way of executive order) “to extend certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to international organizations and to the officers and employees thereof, and for other purposes.”

Bear in mind that this was immediately following The Great War, when everyone in the world was trying to get regular international trade and communications back on track and get back to their lives.

Following the 1981 case of Steinberg v International Criminal Police Organization, where the District of Columbia Federal Appellate Court upheld its jurisdiction over Interpol because of doubts about the status of Interpol as an International Organization and because it had not yet had specific IOIA immunities conferred upon it,… as well as in an apparent move to demonstrate better international cooperation and perhaps grant an extra level of legitimacy following their time-of-dark-associations, in 1983 Ronald Reagan used his Presidential Executive-Order power to grant IOIA-status to INTERPOL.

BUT…

Because of the nature of INTERPOL’s structure “Each INTERPOL member country (including the US – Ron) maintains a National Central Bureau staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the General Secretariat, regional offices and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives.”

- so what you have are effectively American Law Enforcement agents – working within the US – with all associated local LE rights and privileges … but working for INTERPOL.

Mindful of both the legal (see: taxation) conflicts and the potential for abuse inherent in granting various ‘international immunities’ to a law enforcement agency existing and possessed of the freedom to operate within the US, President Reagan built into Executive Order 12425, the following limitations:

“…exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act.”

This ensured that, while INTERPOL would be an officially-recognized International Organization, local INTERPOL agents & operations would not be granted Immunity from US law under those sections, to wit:

Section 2(c) – “Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”

The portions of Section 2(d) relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes – “Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in connection therewith… the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which international organizations shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign governments.”

And Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes – “…the baggage and effects of alien officers and employees of international organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of internal revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.”

Sections 4&5 – These address the minutia of exemptions/amendments to the US Tax code for the purpose of exempting non-US-citizens, working for a recognized foreign organization, from taxation or Social Security payments on gross income, either from US investments or job/wages.
(It’s long, just trust me on this…or go read it from the link. – Ron)

…and Section 6 – “International organizations shall be exempt from all property taxes imposed by, or under the authority of, any Act of Congress, including such Acts as are applicable solely to the District of Columbia or the Territories.”

Okay, now stop – take a deep breath – and say to yourself ‘Those are the immunities/exemptions that Reagan chose NOT to extend to INTERPOL.’

- Immunity from search and confiscation
- Immunity/exemption from customs/importation taxes
- Immunity from income taxes

Onward…

In 1995 President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12971, which amended President Reagan’s 12425, to the extent that :

”…conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act.”

- Became –

”…conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act.”

- which granted recognized International Organization INTERPOL exemption from customs-duties and importation taxes under the IOIA.

And there it sat for the next 15 years – until December 16th, 2009 – when President Barack Obama drew up Executive Order 13524 , which states:

“it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words ‘‘except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act’’ and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.”

Thereby sweeping away those checks and protections originally placed by Ronald Reagan (to whom President Obama has likened himself on any number of occasions).

Now, while I believe that the tax exemptions now granted to employees of INTERPOL in the US will be a sources of debate, division and litigation for years to come, the vast majority of what you’re going to read on the blogs for the foreseeable future (and the part with the greatest potential for abuse) concerns the granting of immunity/exemption under “Section 2(c)”:

“Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”

Keeping in mind that INTERPOL is the ONLY law enforcement agency recognized under the IOIA, let’s restate that sentence, the way Barack Obama intended in his Executive Order:

‘Property and assets of INTERPOL, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless INTERPOL decides otherwise, and from confiscation. The archives of INTERPOL shall be inviolable.’

Consider what exists now:

An International Law Enforcement Agency…

That uses US Law Enforcement Officers and their US police powers…

That is beholden ONLY to their own multi-national General Assembly and Executive Committee (on which the US has no representation)…

And regularly acts on behalf of the International Criminal Court (with which Presidents Clinton and Bush have both declined to participate)

…and the records, files, evidence, etc., etc of that Law Enforcement Agency….

- Are now completely beyond the reach of US Law – search, seizure, subpoena, Freedom of Information Act – NONE of it now applies to the operational records of INTERPOL operating in the US.

Which (as ever) leads us to the question of ‘Why?’

Why would Barack Obama suddenly decide to use an otherwise obscure, 26-year-old Order to place an international law enforcement agency above-and-beyond US Law?

The answer is plain to anyone listening – consider:

- Barack Obama’s first year in Office - a great deal of it spent travelling the world, apologizing for America’s tendency to be …American.

- Barack Obama’s stated support for CIFTA – a proposed treaty I’ve written about before, that would erode the sovereignty of US Law.

- Barack Obama’s desire to subject the US to the rule of “international law” under the ICC - which would give that body the authority to try Americans in instances where the US court system has declined to do so

Barack Obama has, time and time again, demonstrated his desire to see American sovereignty capitulate to some utopian vision of a ‘world-government’ – to move the US from the position of Exceptional World Leader to a go-along-to-get-along, one-among-many ‘World Citizen’ – to bend America’s knee in apology for what he sees as our ‘sins’ and ‘crimes’ – has even entertained the notion of putting the prior administration on trial to ingratiate himself to world leaders who have long held America in contempt for her actions, while being simultaneously unwilling to commit to any actions themselves.

His intentions to subject the US to ‘international authority’ are clear – he has spoken them over and over.

How better to move toward his goal, than to start by place the enforcement-arm of that ‘international authority’ beyond the reach and accounting of US Law – and then offer up America to the body that directs them?

- Ron

After that last post on the Obama Administration’s “System” for reacting to terrorist attacks (apparently with newly Downgraded features since 9/11), I started thinking about the many nonsensical fronts on which the President and his payback-crony administration seem to be laboring to do the polar-opposite of what they keep saying they are going to do – at least as far as that relates to national security.

In the last post, I alluded to the terrorist-recidivism rate among released Gitmo detainees – but later, it occurred to me that I was running on information 7-8 months out of date, and that’s the sort of thing that will bug me once I’ve started thinking about it.

Then I started poking around on the interwebnets – and guess what I found…

- Back in May of ’09, when the NYT leaked an unreleased Government report on terrorist recidivism after-Gitmo, the number of catch-and-release terrorists who had gone back to slaughtering innocent people was somewhere on the order of 1-in-7 of the 534 prisoners released by that time – or, about 76 who had re-taken up the AK or gone back to doling out exploding belts. (a partial list of these stellar human beings can be found here)

- While the good folks at Seton Hall Law School (who seem to see ‘gulags’ any place other people see ‘fences’, and have been strangely… silent on constitutional questions surrounding the policy decisions of the past 11 months – hmmm…) have made an industry out of pooh-poohing the notion of post-Gitmo recidivism, they now seem absent on the small matter of one recent revelation …

- That 2 of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s (yes, the Christmas-bomber of flight 253) trainers/suppliers were apparently (wait for it…) Released. Gitmo. Detainees.

(talk about your ‘Inconvenient Truth’, no?)

- From the Weekly Standard - It turns out that:
1) There is an updated post-Gitmo recidivism report (the report leaked in May ’09 was actually dated in ’08) and
2) The rate of terrorist recidivism has not only increased, but is also “significant” and “deeply troubling.”

– BUT the Obama Administration is refusing to release it, keeping it “classified”, despite prior versions having been released to the public by the Bush Administration.

(On December 18, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair asking for release of the report – predictably there has been no response)

Now, combine these situations with the recent decision to release still more of the ‘Worst of the Worst’ from Gitmo to Yemen, Afghanistan & Somalia AND Attorney General Eric Holder’s completely unfathomable decision to move Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s trial to a Federal court in New York (granting him all of the jurisprudence rights & privileges of an American citizen)

…and then try and square them with these in-public, iron-clad statements by our President of The United States:

“Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,”
                                    Barack Obama - January 22, 2009

So that was ‘simply’ – later he went for ‘plainly’…

“Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security”
                                Barack Obama – May21, 2009

As I’ve said before…

There’s a point where you have to stop attributing Wrong Decisions and foresworn promises to ignorance and stupidity, and start just calling it malfeasance.

- Ron

Okay, so another day dawns and Matt Lauer at the ‘Today Show’ punches the clock for the Obama administration, leading DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano (Mark Steyn has dubbed her “Incompitano” *snort*) gently through an ‘interview’, so that she can blame her “The System Worked”-comment on being ‘taken out of context’.

…doubtlessly, by the VRWC.

Now she’s saying that what she MEANT was that “the comment referred to the reaction in the 60-90 minutes after the suspect attempted to blow up the plane.” - and that THAT was when “The System Worked”.

Okay - Let’s Review:

On 9-11, within 60-90 minutes of the Administration being made aware that there was, in fact, a terrorist attack on/using a commercial airliner(s), every single commercial flight in the air was accounted for and grounded - wherever they happened to be.

Did that happen the other day, and I just missed it?

….no, I didn’t think so.

So far, Ms. Napolitano has stated authoritatively to CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ that “Right now, we have no indication that it is part of anything larger.”

…but it turns out that she was either lying or clueless, since Abdulmutallab had told investigators al Qaeda operatives in Yemen had given him the device and told him how to detonate it.

…and then there’s that small matter (since then) of Al Qaeda having taken credit for the attempted terrorist attack.

But, lying-or-clueless notwithstanding, we (and, unfortunately, Al Qaeda) have learned something from this:

Along with the dark, dark, Pre-Hope-N-Change days of the Bush Administration - gone also are the days when a terrorist attack using a commercial airliner (don’t forget, Abdulmutallab ignited his device during the flight’s northerly-descent into Detroit - consider what that would have looked like if it had worked) - would prompt the immediate cclearing of US airspace, effectively preempting any additional/coordinated attacks.

Calls were made. People were notified.

“The System Worked”

Unfortunately, it’s apparently a system neither built nor intended to actually stop an attack - or several, for that matter - if you take Abdulmutallab’s promise of Yemen’s latest export at face value.

…and yes, that’s “Yemen” - as in ‘Obama releasing 6-Gitmo-enemy-combatants to Yemen’…

Which, given the rate of released-terrorist recidivism seems will pretty clearly more than replace the one they lost on Christmas.

That’s our President, though - always looking to lend a hand to poor, downtrodden third-world countries who only have limited exports.

What a guy.

- Ron

(Just jumping in for a quick-hit, here.)

By now you’ve heard about the failed ‘Christmas Day Bombing’, attempted by one Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab aboard Northwest flight 253 bound from Copenhagen to Detroit.

As you can read all over the interwebnetubes…

- AFTER Abdulmutallab was issued a temporary Visa by the US State Department (despite having no ties that would compel him to return after it had expired)

- AFTER not having that Visa revoked (despite the small detail of Abdulmutallab having been banned from entering the UK)

- AFTER not having that Visa revoked (despite Abdulmutallab’s father calling the American consulate to report the likelihood of his son being a terrorist)

- AFTER both the airline AND airport security failed to ‘flag’ Abdulmutallab as 1) a young Muslim man, 2) carrying no luggage and 3) having bought a one-way ticket into the US – 4) with cash.

- AFTER Abdulmutallab managed to get onto a US-Based airline bound for Detroit with a package of pentaerythritol sewn into his underwear – incidentally, that’s the very same chemical that ‘shoe-bomber’ Richard Reid used to instigate the smell of FEET in airport security forever-after - (remind me why my big, white, redneck-looking self is unfailingly directed through the bomb-sniffing machine?)

Dutch hero-passenger Jasper Schuringa was able to jump over several rows of seats and subdue Abdulmutallab as he tried to detonate his explosive.

…which prompted Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to declare that “the system worked”

Let’s Review:

State Department – Fail
State Department – Fail
State Department – Fail
Airline/Airport Security – Fail
Airline/Airport Security – Fail

Heroic Passenger lays the beat-down on would-be airline bomber = DHS: “The System Worked”

Okay.

So, now that we have yet another glaring example of how even the Nanny-State-Government recognizes that the Nanny-State-Government is useless at ensuring safety/security – even to the extent that it considers ‘Passengers Acting In Their Own Defense’ to be the backbone of ‘The System’ – I have an idea for improving said ‘System’ even further:

1) Allow those among us who have gone through the application/background/safety process to obtain their CCW – to carry on commercial flights.

2) Have the airline evenly-space the carrying-passengers throughout the cabin, to ensure overlapping fields-of-fire in the event of a terrorist attack.

3) Instead of having the flight attendants go through the spiel about ‘how to buckle a seatbelt’ (honestly, if the passengers don’t already know, you’re not going to inspire the popping-sound in those last couple of seconds) , have them make a general announcement thanking “those passengers who are carrying” for helping see to the security of the other passengers, while making sure to give Abdullah, Achmed, and Mohammed a warm smile.

Friendly ‘deterrent’ + follow-through-in-case = ‘The System Works’…even better!

No need to thank me – just doing my bit to make sure more of us can be ‘home for Christmas’.

- Ron

I know, I know - “Where the hell have you been?”

No excuses - just insane buried-ness @ work - I promise, I’ll try to get here more often.

In the meantime - here’s a transcript of a Glenn Beck roundup I heard on my way into work this morning (I cleaned up the formatting a little).
==========================

GLENN: Just came up on Stu’s calendar. I said it was at this time that I said a year from now, by Christmas, you will not recognize this country. And we were talking about it this morning. And Stu said, I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know if that’s right.

PAT: The buildings look about the same, the freeway on ramps are exactly where they used to be.

GLENN: That’s exactly right.

PAT: They’re still crowded on most of the major thoroughfares.

GLENN: I started making a list, just rattling off a list of the things that if I would have told you were happening in this country a year ago, there’s no way you would have believed, no way. Not a chance. We’ll give you that list, and I’d like you to help me add to that list. Do we have the list now? We’re just printing it out because I … I just rattled off the list. Oh, it’s how many? One, one, two, three, four, five, six pages. That’s it, though. It’s only six pages, okay? And this is just off the top of our heads.

You ready?

Won’t recognize the country a year ago, you will not recognize America a year from now. Ready?

If I would have told you last year at this time that the government would own General Motors, Chrysler, and many of the banks and financial institutions and AIG, that they would fire the CEOs, that they would threaten the banks, that they would shut them down unless they would take that money, that they would hire good people for places like AIG and pay them a dollar to fix the problem, a dollar a year, these people would volunteer; but they would also promise them, the government would, that they would promise them bonuses if they would just work for that dollar a year to fix the problem. - When that year came up, they would not only not give them that bonus, they would vilify them, send their minions out to protest in front of their homes for even wanting the bonus that they were … that they were promised by the government and then people in Washington would then set out to have a specific tax drawn up just for those people, would you have believed it? (that’s a Bill of Attainder - specifically forbidden in Article1, Section9, Clause3 of the US Constitution - Ron)

PAT: I don’t think so.

GLENN: Not only would they take over GM and fire the first guy, the president would fire a CEO but then the second individual that they put in place of the first guy, he would be fired and the guy they replaced, this is the third now person under Barack Obama’s term, the third CEO of General Motors. No one in the media would report that that guy is the man who helped Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in one deal.

If I told you a year ago, which I did, you won’t recognize the country, you will not recognize America a year from now, I said that a year ago;

If I told you instead that there would be a 9/11 Truther (Van Jones - Ron), a guy who said the United States government blew up those buildings, a self avowed communist, a guy who, a guy who is speaking in prison anticop, who defended a guy who point blank shot a cop in the head (Mumia - Ron), if I said he would be a high level advisor to the president of the United States, would you believe it?

If I said the president would come out in a speech and say ‘I have absolutely no information but the cops acted stupidly‘ because they caught a friend of the president appearing to break into his own home, the cops didn’t act stupidly, they just did their job and the president would never apologize, instead he would invite them all for a beer summit and use it as a learning experience about diversity, would you believe it?

If I would have told you instead of saying you won’t recognize this country a year from now, if I instead told you I’m going to be on the cover of Time magazine, would you have believed it? That I’m going to be one of the ten most fascinating people in 2009, you’ve got to ask yourself what the hell happened to this country.

If I would have told you instead that the most frequent visitor of the White House, over the Secretary of State and everybody else, is a labor union president who has repeatedly said “workers of the world unite”; and ‘we know we’ve got a lot of illegal members, illegal aliens in our membership’, and who chief guy said, ‘yeah, but we also represent American workers’, end quote, that he would be the most frequent visitor at the White House, would you have believed it?

That the president of the EU would say that 2009 was the year of establishing a global government through the EU and that the climate change treaty would be the next step in one world government.

That there would be a call for the end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency by several massive countries and that the leader of Russia would hold up a coin in front of the cameras and say ‘here’s a prototype of the new global currency’.

That in government structured bailouts, bondholders would lose their legal status and their investments in favor of labor union payoffs and the courts would say, “Hmmm, yeah, okay.”

That you could lose your home and property through eminent domain and eminent domain would expand in staggering ways.

That California would decide to levy a 10% tax on its people and insist ‘It’s not a tax; it’s just a forced loan’. - That they would issue IOUs instead of tax refunds.

That New York would say by the end of the year they would be broke.

That New York would issue retroactive taxes.

That a tax refund for the poorest of Americans would not really be a tax refund. Instead those poorest of Americans would find out many months later that they had to pay income tax on that tax refund.

If I told you that the symbol of capitalism, the Empire State building, would be lit in colors of communist China, would you have believed me?

That the hockey stick chart would be discredited as would its founder along with another leader of the global climate change movement who manipulated data, that they deleted e mails and information to avoid Freedom of Information Act, that these same scientists would do everything they could to discredit the peer review process to make sure it remained pure for their ideological purposes, and yet the media wouldn’t report on it and we’d still be headed to Copenhagen with a president the who was going to present a 17% reduction in carbon - for our country.

That our science czar, John Holdren, our science czar would be someone who called for forced abortions and sterilization through the drinking water, who said that the redistribution of wealth would be necessary and it would happen through the environmental movement.

That the diversity czar at the FCC, *** if I just told you a year ago there would be a diversity czar at the FCC, would you have believed me***? That the diversity czar at the FCC would say Americans have to decide soon which Americans would have to step down from their positions in order to give others a chance,

That this same man said the revolution in Venezuela was incredible and that we should model our FCC and our programs after Venezuela and the revolution.

That the U.S. would have a two day summit to discuss the role of government in journalism and be discussing a government takeover of journalism and that no journalist would actually report on that.

That they would hold a job summit and not invite the Chamber of Commerce,

That two uninvited people could get into the White House state dinner, chat with the president, be near the prime minister of the largest democracy on the planet and that the response from the White House would be, ‘yeah, we need to do a better job with security’.

That a U.S. congressman would tell the American people that it’s unreasonable to expect people in congress to read bills, and he would say that because our congress would pass two bills over 1,000 pages, that no one in congress had read. One of them was over 2,000 pages.

That a job creating stimulus bill would be written, not read by congress but not even written by congress. It would be co written by the Apollo Alliance, a special interest group whose New York chief was a co founder of the Weather Underground and no one would care!

That people in congress would openly be praising Castro, Chavez, that the president would receive an … if I said to you a year ago, “You know what’s going to happen next year: The president is going to receive an anti American book and a photo op from Hugo Chavez and then he would have a one hour private meeting with Vladimir Putin where Vladimir Putin, quoting, would teach the president the history of the Cold War.

That our president would give an iPod of his speeches to the queen of England.

That he would send the bust of Winston Churchill, which was a gift from the people of England; when the prime minister came over that our president would say to him, ‘hey, by the way thanks, but you can take this back to him now’ and the prime minister would say to him, ‘No, no, no, that was a gift from the people of England to you and you can keep it in one of your museums; we gave it to you on September 11th’. - No, no, that’s okay, and box it up and ship it back!

If I told you that there would be hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered in a true grassroots event in a National Mall in D.C. and the media would not only dismiss them but the government, the president and the media would deem them a danger to the United States.

That healthcare would be at 36% approval rating, which is lower than Hillary Care but that those in congress and the White House would still be jamming it down your throats.

That the chief of the treasury who oversees the IRS cheated on his taxes as would almost everyone else in the cabinet.

If I told you a year ago when gold was about $800 an ounce that it would be at $1200 an ounce, would you have believed it?

That Dubai which a year ago was bailing out our banks would be on the edge of bankruptcy.

If I told you we’re going to lose 4 million jobs and the media would report that the White House has created or saved a million jobs even though in their evidence you have to find their evidence on a $20 million redesigned website where it would show that a good portion of these jobs were in about 400 districts that don’t even exist.

If I told you that, would you have believed it?

Looking at that list, do you recognize the country that you live in?
Is this the same country that you lived in a year ago today?

I don’t think so. I don’t recognize it.

If I would have told you that there would be a Muslim terrorist and that he would shoot and kill soldiers at Fort Hood, would you have believed it?

If I told you then that, yes, the president will make a statement but he will spend two minutes prior to giving a shoutout and talking about the conference he had with the American Indian, would you have believed it?

If I then told you after that two minutes he would then say then, ‘Oh, and also there’s been a shooting of our military ‘but let’s not jump to conclusions‘.

And then his Homeland Security director would be over in the Middle East and she would say, ‘Don’t worry, we’re working on things to stop the violence against Muslims in America’, would you have believed it?

I can be wrong on an awful lot of things and I have been wrong on an awful lot of things. But when will people in this country, when will the media at least say, gosh, it looks like the direction of our country and the one this guy keeps laying out, gee, some of those things seem to be happening.

When will anyone in the media even notice how far we have come?

====================

Right now, my thought is ‘No’.

- Ron