Why I Can Live with Guantanamo

This is your author speaking. Some of you will find this offensive, but that is not my intent. This is not a test. I repeat: Some of you will find this offensive, but that is not my intent. This is not a test. You have been appropriately warned. I will now begin the article.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record or a one-trick pony, I am publishing this.

For some strange reason, I have been discussing the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a lot lately. Let me make this as plain as I possibly can: I am all in favor of Mitt Romney's suggestion to double the size of Guantanamo. That being said, let me make the following perfectly clear as well: Number One: I generally oppose torture. Should, however, a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda be known to have information about those who have attacked us in the past, or were found plotting against us, I believe that we can make exceptions.

Number Two: The detainees should be released if they can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are innocent. Otherwise, their disposition can wait until after the war just as actual prisoners of war have to wait. These detainees do not qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Practically everyone I meet whose opinion differs from mine hands me the excuse that we are in violation of the Geneva Conventions as though I should immediately become hysterical at their pronouncement. And they always seem shocked at my response: "According to the Geneva Conventions, they are not POWs." Kindly allow me to enlighten you if you were unaware of this.

There are "qualifications" to being declared a prisoner of war. According to Article 4, Section A, 1, Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. They do not meet that standard. Next.

Let's see if they meet the second condition: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil [sic] the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. They don't meet that one, either. The whole problem with terrorists is that they blend in with the general population and they hide their arms until the point of attack. Next.

I wonder if they meet the third: Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. They are still not "regular armed forces." Next.

Let's check out the fourth: Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. Still not seeing how they meet this definition. Next.

Maybe the fifth: Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. I am not really seeing how that is being met by members of Al Qaeda, either.

And, finally, number six: Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. This is not applicable as well.

I am just not getting how they would ever qualify as prisoners of war. And that's because they aren't. They cannot meet the definitions provided by the document which everyone demands that the government follow. Since they are not POWs, they are not entitled to those protections.

Back to the original topic…

Number Three: I believe that they are entitled to humane treatment: good shelter, decent food, clean clothing, good sanitation, necessary medical care, and the right to pursue their religious beliefs. I have no problem with any of this. They were made in the image of God, just like any other human being, and therefore must be afforded the dignity we owe to all humans.

Number Four: They have no protection from the United States Constitution due to a 1950 Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. Eisentrager. According to the ruling: "These nonresident enemy aliens, captured and imprisoned abroad, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States… The term 'any person' in the Fifth Amendment does not extend its protection to alien enemies everywhere in the world engaged in hostilities against us." (Source: 339 U.S. 763) Since the Fifth Amendment does not apply to them, then it's only logical to assume that the rest of the Constitution does not as well.

And for some odd reason, people assume that one can take the Constitution and somehow pull out the Bill of Rights and use it as though it can function on its own. Here's a hint: They are Amendments, not a document by their own right. They have to be joined to something, which they are: the Constitution.

Number Five: I'm pretty sure that we can deny them the same rights as American citizens. According to its own Preamble, this document was written by "the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union … and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." According to Webster's Dictionary, posterity has two meanings: 1) the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation; and 2)all future generations. Now, I'm not a mind reader, but I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers did not, in fact, include terrorists who wanted to kill us. Call me crazy if you want, but I'd probably swear to it.

Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment states plainly that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) I'm pretty sure these guys do not qualify there, either.

Further, 8 USC Sec. 1401, also passed in 2006, further qualifies the citizenship to persons who meet one of the following conditions: "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe…; a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States…; a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States...; a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States…; a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom… is a citizen of the United States…; a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. Now for some odd reason, I just don't think that any of the detainees at Guantanamo meets any of these requirements. Therefore, they are not citizens, because if they were, we'd more than likely try them for treason, as we did John Walker Lindh, who was caught on the battlefield opposing our troops.

Number Six: I do indeed believe that they will be tried in a court one day and that day is coming. According to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, they are unlawful enemy combatants: "The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means "(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense." Further, it defines the following: "In this paragraph, the term 'co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy."

And there we have it: the detainees at Guantanamo finally have a designation that they meet.

Number Seven: I think that keeping these men in a place like Guantanamo is morally superior to taking prisoners, torturing them, making them confess, forcing them to convert to Islam and then having them to confess to whatever you want, and then beheading them. Remember how Daniel Pearl died? That's how they're going to treat our guys when and if they are captured. I guarantee that the vast majority of our detainees will be returned to their home countries (or whoever will have them) in relatively good health, but I doubt if our men will make it out of their captivity alive. So tell me, which one do you find to be more moral: a stack of the corpses of American military personnel or a live bunch of unlawful enemy combatants with a future?

By the way, just so you know, their abuse of our people is sanctioned by Allah: "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages: Religious scholars have permitted beating. … In this tradition, we find permission to interrogate the hostage for the purpose of obtaining information. It is permitted to strike the nonbeliever who has no covenant until he reveals the news, information, and secrets of his people. The religious scholars have also permitted the killing of a hostage if he insists on withholding information from Moslems." (Al-Qaeda Training Manual, Available At: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/terrorism/alqaida_manual/, Accessed 9/5/06)

Number Eight: So long as we keep them in Guantanamo, they won't be killing anyone else. That keeps Americans safe as well as whomever else they would have killed closer to home. Should we release them now and have these suspected terrorists loose in the world? In my opinion, that makes us liable, morally and otherwise, for any terrorist act they may then commit and puts the blood of their victims on our hands. It would be akin to letting a person you are pretty sure is drunk get behind the wheel and drive.

Number Nine: Bringing them here, onto the U.S. mainland is one of the dumbest things that I have ever heard in my life, bar none. We would be bringing people who want to kill us closer to us. Are we trying to give them a better shot? If you are one of these bring-'em-here types, I have three questions for you. First, are you now or have you ever been, under the care of a mental health professional? (If not, check into it.) Second, are you willing to volunteer your hometown to house these guys? Finally, are you willing to face your neighbors after you do?

Number Ten: These people mean to kill us. I have said this before, but for those of you who are suffering from some sort of brain-killing liberalism or just in an awesome state of denial about the kind of nuts we are facing, try these on for size. Here is what these guys are saying about this conflict. They are pretty straightforward, but I will add emphasis to what I find most telling and I'll only use their own words. Hear them out; don't let me influence you. (Source for these quotes: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html)

"These attacks took off the skin of the American wolf and they have been left standing in their filthy, naked reality. Thus the whole World awoke from its sleep and the Muslims realized the importance of the belief of loving and hating for the sake of Allah; the ties of brotherhood between the Muslims have become stronger, which is a very good sign and a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous Islamic Khilafah insha-Allah." (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)

"O young people of Islam: Follow the orders of Almighty God and His messenger and kill those people. Follow the example of Muhammad Bin-Musallamah and his companions. Death is better than living on this earth with the unbelievers amongst us, making a mockery of our religion and prophet, God's peace and blessings upon him. Fear God, try to please Him, and do not consult with anyone regarding the killing of those unbelievers."(Translation Of Bin Laden's 52-Minute Audiotape, Posted On Jihadist Website, 4/27/06)

"Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun." (Al-Qaeda Training Manual, Available At: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/terrorism/alqaida_manual/, Accessed 9/5/06)

"Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan is absolute. … I conclude my speech with the slogan that will continue to reverberate on all occasions so that nobody will think that we have weakened. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America." (Hezbollah Leader Nasrallah Supports Intifadah, Vows 'Death to America,' Aired On Beirut Al-Manar Television, 9/27/02)

Is this not yet clear to you? Now, I realize that these came from a "government" website, but they were verified by other media, so deal with it. Once you read words like these, you can only come to one conclusion: They want us dead. Now we don't have want them dead in return, but I would definitely suggest keeping them exactly where they are, for the safety of the world in general.

Technorati : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Del.icio.us : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Ice Rocket : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Flickr : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Zooomr : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes
Buzznet : Al Qaeda, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Supreme Court, U.S.Code, detainees, terrorist quotes

To my dear South Carolinians

My ears have just deceived me: I thought that Mitt Romney just said that his inspiration comes from Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush. Maybe this ICD has affected me in ways I did not previously notice. And he has an Elvis song playing at his pep rally/victory party. Well, it's a remix of "A Little Less Conversation," but it's still Elvis...kinda. Wow! Nope, my senses are fine!

Anyway, as far as who will win the Republican nomination, Huckabee won Iowa, McCain won New Hampshire, and now Romney has taken the state of his birth, Michigan. Welcome to uncharted waters. Now a lot more is riding on South Carolina. My prediction is that Huckabee and Thompson will both do well there, but will soon start going at each other and McCain may even get some votes out of that, believe it or not. Being a Southerner and an Independent Baptist, I honestly the "Mormon thing" will hurt Romney there, despite the endorsement of Bob Jones University and its president. Advice to Ron Paul for South Carolina: You might be able to sit this one out, bud.

Now, on to my advice for my South Carolinian brethren. Think of what will become of the nation and even the world as a whole. Centuries ago, Rome ruled the majority of the known world and secured its sphere of influence. So long as Rome was strong internally, the Empire and its populace, whatever their station, were secure and commerce flowed well. This was the Pax Romana. That was achieved by their strength. Since the end of World War II, we have been in the middle of the Pax Americana, but we are not an empire, though it is by virtue of our military might. Now stop with the empire-building rhetoric. These people are not paying us tribute nor are we requiring that they install puppet governments like, say, China did in Korea or Russia did in Poland, Hungary, Romania, East Germany, Albania… need I continue? I don't even see us making them design their flags to match Old Glory. For those of you who doubt that we are spreading freedom, go look at Eastern Europe. Those people were oppressed. When they speak of "the heel of Soviet oppression," they are speaking the truth. Now, exactly how many people did we enslave during the Cold War? Here's a hint: mathematically speaking, dividing by this number is undefined. That's right, it's zero, zilch, nada, pick your term.

If we were an empire, just where are our "colonies" located? Does Japan hate us for our military bases there? I'm not seeing that. How about Germany, since we are still there as well? No, I kind of think they like having us there because they are indeed safer, even economically, with our large military presence. How much does Italy hate us for removing their former dictator? Funny, I don't get a real "how-dare-you" feeling over the whole Mussolini thing from Italy - and I had a great-uncle who was mere feet from him when he was shot! The last time I checked, we never goose-stepped our way into anyone's hearts, but the Russians did.

The United States military always went in one of two ways: as a liberating force, like we did in France, or as a reliable ally, fighting at the side of a friend, like in England. Once the war was over, we prosecuted the guilty and started rebuilding that country. Look at Germany. We bombed the stuffing out of them in spite of very strong cultural ties to the Fatherland. (I'm German on both sides of my family!) But we helped bring them back to prosperity… at least the old Western part. Same story in Japan. We used two A-bombs on them. Talk about damage. But now they are an economic powerhouse. Both Germany and Japan are now our reliable allies, Gerhardt Schroeder notwithstanding. Didn't Germany object to the war in Iraq? If they were our colony, wouldn't we have smacked them around a bit? And why did we take any flack from France after we bailed them out twice within a few decades? Don't they pretty much owe us everything that makes them free? They'd be Frankenland if it weren't for us. Can anyone over there not remember D-Day and the sacrifices that were made, mostly in American lives, so that France would be free? I think that our new friend Nicholas Sarkozy does.

My whole point here is that only America can protect freedom worldwide. America is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it is by far the best force for freedom known to man. And it is my firm belief that only a solid conservative can keep America strong. The stronger America is, the safer the world in general is. I will never, ever grow weary of reminding people of what Pax Romana taught us: peace through strength. Our criminal justice system relies on the same principle. Law enforcement must be stronger than offenders if order is to be maintained.

I think Barry Goldwater said it best during his early Senate career: "To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." Only when we are strong enough to defend against those who would do us or others harm can we truly be free and be at peace as well. Do not get the wrong idea: I believe in diplomacy first. Will Rogers was right, though: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock." Should the doggie listen, one never needs the rock, but if the doggie doesn't, one might need several.

I am not a military man, and that option has been permanently removed from my reality. I respect retired U.S. Army General Norman Schwarzkopf a great deal and I have never forgotten his words on war: "A professional soldier understands that war means killing people, war means maiming people, war means families left without fathers and mothers. All you have to do is hold your first dying soldier in your arms, and have that terribly futile feeling that his life is flowing out and you can't do anything about it. Then you understand the horror of war. Any soldier worth his salt should be antiwar. And still, there are things worth fighting for." The general has been there and he knows these things better than almost anyone in the service, so he must be heard on this. War should always be the last resort. Violence is always expensive, monetarily, emotionally, psychologically, and almost any other scale we choose. Both the aggressor and target must pay a price for it, but the victim will pay at a much steeper rate.

Since I am on a quote roll, I have to throw one more in here. As Ann Coulter said, "Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they're against it." And that is exactly the problem. The military rarely ever gets to do its job under liberals. They feel guilty about using it, I think. They fret and whine over what the rest of the world will think of us if we actually use the military. What they still fail to realize is that our armed forces are the guarantee that we have our rights. And we only have those rights for which we are willing to fight. Conservatives understand all of this. If we are to be respected by our enemies and trusted by our friends, we must back up what we say with action, even violent action.

For those who are operating under the "we-must-be-nice-so-they-will" fallacy, I have a suggestion for you. Go to a playground and watch little kids play. Eventually, some kid will want what someone else has, or will just be mean. It won't matter how nice the target is, the bully will not be nice in return. An adult might step in and resolve it, but if the little brat continues eventually he or she will have to be punished in order to learn the lesson. The bully wants, the bully sees, the bully takes. The target is not a person to the bully; the target is merely an obstacle to wish fulfillment. It's just that easy.

The field of international relations isn't much different. Look at Libya. "Colonel" Gaddafi was first brought to a heel by President Reagan more than twenty years ago and recently opened up to any and all who wanted to inspect his weaponry. He had a taste of punishment and then saw what happened to Saddam. No wonder he wanted to make nice.

Let's review for a minute. As far as conservatives go, Ronald Reagan attacked Libya and launched an operation against Grenada. George H. W. Bush went in and got Noriega and pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. (And by the way, had Kuwait been "not nice" to Iraq before they were invaded? Don't think so.) Our current President beat the crap out of the Taliban and is dragging Iraq into the "win" column and we have not been attacked since 9/11. And did I mention that we are keeping the world safer because of terrorists being detained at Guantanamo? What about the "moderate" liberal Bill Clinton, you ask? He had "don't ask, don't tell," the Bosnia quagmire, and a few half-hearted, "wag-the-dog" moments during the Lewinsky thing… oh, and the Blackhawk Down incident. But that was before he started cutting military spending. And we want to send his wife in now? She is much more liberal and she is not pro-military.

So, South Carolinians, go put a conservative in on the GOP ballot. Do it. The nation and the world need it. I give you Fred Thompson. He will defend us whole-heartedly and he will prosecute this war effort fully. Mr. Thompson realizes why we have a military and won't shy from employing them in their proper roles. He will negotiate, but he will know when the time is right to back from the table and start the bombing.

Technorati : "Mormon thing", Ann Coulter, Barry Goldwater, Bill Clinton, Bob Jones University, Fred Thompson, Gaddafi, George H. W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucuses, John McCain, Libya, Michigan primaries, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire primaries, Norman Schwarzkopf, Pax Americana, Pax Romana, Roman Empire, Rome, Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, South Carolina primaries, bullies, post-World War II

Hillary has "experience," but...

Hark; is that the death knell that I have heard over Senator Clinton's presidential bid? No, it was not, but I was so hoping that it was. Then again, it keeps it interesting. Besides, Hillary has had the stuffing kicked out of her recently and she did bust her hiney for this, so maybe I need to give the devil her due. Besides, this is just the beginning of this process. But there is something that keeps coming up on the campaign trail.

I really should be saving this up for when and if she is nominated, but I have grown oh-so-weary of hearing about Hillary's "experience" in politics. She has served in Congress (yes, the Senate is one of the two Houses of Congress, which some people honestly don't know) for eight years. That's it. Serving as First Lady, regardless of what the mainstream media is feeding us, is not political experience. She was not elected to jack-diddlin'-squat. The role, notice that I did not use the term office, of First Lady is not responsible to anyone for anything. Period. You don't campaign for it and no one votes for you. You just happen to be married to the guy who wins. It's a benefit of marrying the "right" guy all those years ago. So, exactly how is this "experience"? I once vacationed in Omaha (and I loved it there) with a very short trip into Iowa, so does that make me a former Midwesterner? I even went to the former Strategic Air Command Museum, so can I say that I have had military experience?

As Tony Blankley wrote in his blog in November, Hillary, release the records of what she did. As you know, Hillary, the government keeps a lot of records and your name will have to come up at some point, had you done as much as you now claim.[1] And, according to Dick Morris, who was actually there for the Clinton Administration, who even used your book and Bill's book to show how little you had to do with the heavy lifting of the nation's business, Bill doesn't remember your help.[2] Short answer to Mr. Morris' analysis: Not much. And, if she was so involved in the business of the Oval Office, why was she "surprised" when the Lewinsky scandal erupted?

Now, she was indeed elected to the Senate. Big deal! The poster boy for Prell, John Edwards, did that, and somehow from my state. And he couldn't even get re-elected. Clinton, however, was elected for the same reason that Ted Kennedy has a permanent job as the Senator from Massachusetts: the Name Factor. One of my best friends was born and raised in Boston and she told me that voting for the Kennedys is "just something that we all do. We see 'Kennedy' and we vote for them. It's like an involuntary reflex." I personally think it's partly genetic, but I could be wrong. The same thing will hold true for Democrats who are of the "deep blue" variety will always vote for her. She now has something that Presidents don't: job security. Funny how no one is touting these more recent Senate years as her experience, isn't it?

And why would she ever be elected President by these same people? The Name Factor again. These faithful followers of all things Clinton are looking "to get the band back together." In the late eighties, someone in Rolling Stone once wrote that people weren't going to see Paul McCartney and his new band; they were "going to see the Beatles by proxy." I really get that feeling here. Some people are pushing Hillary into the role of President, so that Bill will return to power, as though they have found a way to circumvent the Twenty-Second Amendment. These folks were absolutely giddy at the thought of Wesley Clark, Madeline Albright, and the Clintons appearing together again. From "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" to what? "Forget about the Future" by Sting, maybe. They could put the "Let's get on with the past" lyric on a loop at their pep rallies.

And this might be a bit off-topic, but as those of you who are only voting for Hillary "because she's a woman," think about it logically: Is that really a qualification for President of the United States? Is there anything else you'd like in a candidate? A certain eye or hair color? Perhaps you'd like them to have a certain amount of syllables in their name or enjoy long walks on the beach and love dogs. Do you care if they prefer crunchy peanut butter to creamy or Coke to Pepsi? Those are not reasons for voting for a candidate. We are selecting leaders, not dates. And don't you realize that voting for her solely because of her gender is as stupid as the opposite, not voting for her for the same reason? But it does make as much sense as backing her because of her "experience."

---

[1]http://www.townhall.com/ columnists/ TonyBlankley/ 2007/ 11/ 21/ hillarys_faux_experience

[2]http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?p=31

Technorati : Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Lewinsky scandal, Madeline Albright, Oval Office, Ted Kennedy, Tony Blankley, Wesley Clark, experience

Why Hillary Really (Almost) Cried

So, Hillary Clinton cried or at least teared up. Wow, she is human. I admit that I had doubted that fact for some time. Probably for the last fifteen years or so. OK, I get it… she almost cried. The question is why she cried. And, of course, I have a theory.

The long and the short of it is that Senator Barack Obama has stolen her thunder. Her dismal showing in Iowa is still fresh in her mind and now her lead in New Hampshire has evaporated. She is going inching closer to a full-on freefall, nose-diving in several polls and losing momentum and she is not used to this, not at all. Team Clinton is usually a winning one, especially in races for national office. Hillary has watched her husband charm the country twice, taking the nation's top spot both times. She took her Senate seat, easily defeating her GOP rival. Now, another reality, one that she doesn't particularly like has set in: She can be beaten and South Carolina looks bad as well. (Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/2008_election_primaries/democratic_primaries_chart.html)

She looked uncomfortable during her "Muskie moment" yesterday. And she should have. Hillary has only ever looked strong and determined in her public appearances. Remember the "I'm-not-Tammy-Wynette" statement or her "vast right-wing conspiracy" speech on Today? She was in a media-friendly place when she was First Lady and even in her role as the junior Senator from New York, but now, in pursuit of the Democratic nomination, not so much.

Do I think her tears were genuine? Surprisingly enough, yes. But not for the reasons she stated: "I have so many ideas for this country; I just don't want to see us fall backwards. It's about our country; it's about our kids' futures." Sorry, Mrs. Clinton, I'm just not buying it. Now I did believe what she said just seconds earlier: "It's very personal to me." (Source: http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/teary-eyed-clinton-vows-to-fight-on/20080107142809990001)

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that sure that she believes in her heart of hearts that we, as a country, are headed in the wrong direction. I fully believe that she has ideas on how to put us on the track that she thinks is better, but the tears and the emotion were not about that. They were for her. She is determined to be President of the United States. She doesn't understand why people don't like her. She is so emotionally invested in her role as a political leader that this is a major issue for her. This has become her identity.

As far as I am concerned the plan for a Clinton dynasty was set into motion several years ago. Bill would serve two terms, with Hillary as a virtual Co-President and from there launch her own political career. Everything was moving along according to plan, with some of her "presidential" duties being curtailed for the sake of appearance, but she would be President eventually, so it wasn't that big a deal. But now that her aura of inevitability isn't holding up to the script and she is having trouble fixing it.

What we are probably witnessing here is the death of her lifelong dream. She also may be realizing that she is not quite as likable as she may have thought. Early on in the race, her thought process probably went along these lines: They liked him, so they'll like me, too. And when she began to lose ground, which she is still doing, her thoughts became more of: Why? Why don't they love me like they did Bill? What does Obama have that I don't? What about my turn to be President?

Watching a dream die is painful. I know. I've done it. Hillary, I truly can empathize with you on that point. But trying to make it seem like you're crying over America's future is a cheap trick. People aren't looking for political theatre, they're looking for authenticity. Unfortunately, you may be discovering that people's choice of anyone but you is authentic as well.

Technorati : Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primaries, South Carolina primaries, tears
Del.icio.us : Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primaries, South Carolina primaries, tears
Ice Rocket : Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primaries, South Carolina primaries, tears
Flickr : Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primaries, South Carolina primaries, tears
Zooomr : Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primaries, South Carolina primaries, tears
Buzznet : Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primaries, South Carolina primaries, tears
Riya : Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primaries, South Carolina primaries, tears
43 Things : Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primaries, South Carolina primaries, tears

Disgusting Rhetoric from "Azzam the (un)American" Gadahn

In a video message released earlier today, Adam Gadahn (or Adam Pearlman, if you want his birth name) threatened the life of our President. President Bush will be going to the Middle East very soon. To endear himself to us even more, he also has renounced his American citizenship as of today, which actually means nothing until he becomes a recognized citizen of another nation. "Azzam the American" has been "indicted in the Central District of California for treason and material support to Al Qaeda. The charges are related to Gadahn's alleged involvement in a number of terrorist activities, including providing aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and services for Al Qaeda." (Source: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/gadahn_a.htm)

Now why would I consider this important? Number one, I'd love to read of his capture and trial. He is an American citizen and, unlike my feelings for the Guantanamo detainees, I cannot wait to here about his trial. I will camp out in front of my television like I used to when O.J. and the Menendez brothers had their respective days in the California courts, oddly enough where "Gadahn" is headed. But this time, it's not just my California cousins and friends who are in on the deal; it's the entire United States. The reason I want this to happen is so that we can show the world that we will abide by our Constitution and adhere to the rule of law. And I hope that he is sentenced to death (as should have happened to John Walker Lindh, regardless of the fact that his parents think that he's still a good person). He has called for our deaths if we, as a country, do not turn to Islam. (Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/02/convert-or-die/)

Further, "Azzam" is now making theological pronouncements: "Islam is the only religion acceptable to God and came with the revealed book, the Koran, which abrogates all previous revelations, like the Torah and Evangel… God recognizes no separation between religion and state…" As a Christian, I take a great deal of offense at his words, but he is free to say that, even on American soil. What he is not free to do is this: "To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent [(your)] misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next…" (Source: Ibid.) He is threatening Christians -- and specifically those who happen to Americans -- with punishment if they do not accept the faith of Islam. Now, I've never been to law school, but I do believe that he is now guilty of terroristic threatening. Just a suggestion to the U.S. Attorney handling this case: Could we add that to his charges? I mean, you do have him on tape here -- twice. And a note to Ramsey Clark: You have a new client and I bet he'll remind you of your late buddy Saddam!

The reason I bring all of this up is that several people -- even among the GOP -- seem to be overly concerned with how Guantanamo makes us as Americans look to the rest of the world. Here's a hint as to my feelings on this issue: I will lose more sleep over my beloved Statler Brothers' decision to retire (albeit five years ago) than over how the rest of the world views America. There are groups who are going to hate us no matter what we do, for whatever reason they choose. Guantanamo does little to influence that sort of thing. Do we really think that closing Guantanamo will suddenly cause some people to love us or revive a long-dormant -- even secret -- love for the United States? If you do think that, you might want to seek professional help. And, besides, hating America is chic! It's the new "in" thing, even amongst the people who make their money here. Just ask George Soros or Mark Cuban or Michael Moore, if you can understand him with his mouth full. (Hey, I'm fat, so I can make fat jokes! Live with it.)

To all of those who claim that Guantanamo causes our soldiers to be tortured, do you really believe that they'll stop if we close Guantanamo? I can see the headline now, and in the New York Times, no less: "Al Qaeda Announces Moratorium on Torture in Response to Gitmo Closure." That sounds more like something Oliver Stone might have in a movie one day when we get his version of history. And Aaron Sorkin gets to write it, of course. According to those two, Republicans had some dark connection to the many assassinations in the 1960s and they didn't actually win the Cold War, either. I wonder what color the sky is in their world. I'm betting on the same shade of blue as Monica Lewinsky's dress.

What will change the way the world sees us is what real conservatives like Barry Goldwater (circa 1964, not his later years) and Ronald Reagan always said: "peace through strength." That includes our being strong enough to resist and even fight people who want to harm us, regardless of their motive. Another important part of that is being strong enough to mean what we say and to back up what we say. The reason the Russians backed down on several issues is that they knew that Ronald Reagan would stand up to them and so would George H. W. Bush. We should never take the "one-more-chance" route as the United Nations did with Saddam. Time after time, he ignored the sanctions and, time after time, the U.N. gave him "one more chance." The result was that he soon learned that the U.N. was a paper tiger. We should never wind up in that role. America also needs to show that we will defend ourselves, even if it means trying one of our own citizens for treason and executing him if he is guilty. The world will lose respect for us if we do not live up to our word and cannot defend ourselves.

We have to choose the next president carefully. People like those in Al Qaeda want us dead. Those who want peace at any price will give away things we cannot afford to lose: our faith, our sovereignty, and our commitment to a democratic way of life. For those of you who still suffer from some sort of brain-killing liberalism or just are really stubborn in your willful oblivion, do yourself a favor and go to this site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html. Yes, I know that it's from the White House, but it's fully documented and other sources have reported the same thing. These people are committed to our defeat and we cannot afford to lose this battle. The future is up to how we vote and I hope the future is with a true conservative in the White House.

Technorati : Adam Gadahn, Adam Pearlman, Azzam the American, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Islam, Ronald Reagan, terrorist, treason

Note to Iowans and New Hampshirites

I am going to take my time to pick apart what I see as reasons not to vote for certain Republicans contending for the party nomination for the Presidency. This goes out primarily (small pun intended) to the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire, but I offer it to everyone voting in this election. To simplify things, I will utilize the Real Clear Politics average of the polls (dated 12/26/07 – 01/01/08) and only use the top four Republicans, who are the only ones in the double digits: Mike Huckabee (29.0%), Mitt Romney (28.3%), John McCain (12.8%), and Fred Thompson (11.8%). I will also use this order in the analysis.

(Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html)

Huckabee, who has a narrow lead of 0.7% in this average of the polls, is wrong on the following issues and I will state my reasons for each one. My personal beef with him on his Guantanamo stance: he wants to close it! "I’ve been to Guantanamo… I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing." This is, by the way, also the official ACLU position as well. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a conservative.

(Source:http://dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/mike-huckabee-stands-with-the-aclu-on-guantanamo/)

This is an extremely bad idea, to say the least. What Huckabee does not say is what he would do with the detainees there. Would he release them to return home, where I’m sure they would merely wind up as recruiters for Al Qaeda and most assuredly resume their nasty habits like, say… trying to kill us again? Would Governor Huckabee bring them here? Has he not yet realized that – as the situation currently stands – in bringing them onto American soil, he will then effectively grant them protection of our Constitution? Sure, Mike, bring them on over. I’m sure that we can afford to give sworn enemies of our country a life in our correctional facilities and their own lawyers as well.

Unbelievably, Mike Huckabee also likes the idea of letting illegal aliens pay in-state rates at Arkansas colleges, as well as giving them voting rights and helping them get public assistance as well, according to a report by the AP in February 2005. He referred to those who opposed the plan as "bigots who think there's a real problem." Somehow, illegal aliens voting is now okay, Mike? And I guess they’ll vote for you if you give them those rights. That smacks of a cheap political stunt like the one he just pulled at the news conference on the topic of “look at what I’m not releasing.” That was not a good move and I think most Iowans agree with me on this one.

Now for Mitt Romney. A lot of you may know that I am a seminarian at Liberty University and am a Baptist as well. Since this is not a blog on religious issues, I will leave our perspectives on theology out of this. Sorry to disappoint those of you who wanted to see that here, though I might address that in my religious blog later. My big problem with Governor Romney is what I can only call flip-flopping. He is now running as a Reaganesque conservative, but he did “not want a return to Reagan-Bush.” (Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxHjLx_kCDk)

Then there is the problem of abortion. Where exactly does he stand? I really can’t tell. When he was running for governor and senator, he was pro-choice. But he claimed that every decision he made as governor was to preserve the sanctity of life, regardless of his actions on emergency contraception. But now he has “evolved” (Ah… Mitt, just so you know, this is not really a good choice of words for a conservative Republican.) and is now pro-life. Will he remain pro-life? Only time will tell.

(Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/mitt_romneys_flip_flop_flip.html)

As if to lead me further into doubt, Mitt has an interesting habit of supporting rather liberal Democrats like Mayor Rocky Anderson, the anti-war nut. Liberal judges were appointed by him to the Massachusetts courts as well. He has also donated to Planned Parenthood. He also voted for Paul Tsongas and has donated to other liberal Democrats. I am left wondering exactly where his ideological stance is on anything.

(Source: http://politicomafioso.blogspot.com/2007/12/romneys-liberal-past-and-his-liberal.html)

Now, I take on my dad’s choice for President, the Lazarus of this campaign season, John McCain. Let me start by saying that I have a great deal of personal regard for him and nothing but the highest respect for his military service and the high price that he himself paid for his defense of our democratic way of life. I personally can only find a problem with him: his attempt at granting what is effectively amnesty to people who do not belong here.

However, he does want to close Guantanamo as well. I give him a pass here, though. This is a war hero was held captive in brutal conditions and personally experienced torture. More than any other Presidential contender – more than most other Americans, for that matter – he can identify with the detainees, but only so far. They are kept in clean cells, given good food and decent covering, their own copy of the Koran, and good medical care. Senator McCain had exactly none of that. I believe that he is just making sure that this is an end to potential torture occurring for someone else. And part of me respects his stance for that reason, but I still can’t get behind closure of Guantanamo. I believe that places like Gitmo make the world a safer place because of the confinement factor. Other than that, I like him. Except for the Bush tax cuts being wrong.

And now onto “my pick”: Senator Fred Thompson. My only question here is: Will the late start kill him? I think he should have announced on July 4^th and taken over the reins of the campaign and strongly rode it on to the first phase, where we are at present. But he is a committed conservative and I respect that a great deal. And that whole fire-in-the-belly thing is just a distraction, so far as I’m concerned.

Just please consider all of this carefully as you make your decision, all you New Hampshirites and Iowans. Yours will be the first stage of this race. Let’s give America a strong conservative to support in 2008. I am praying for you all.

We've lost rights?

I have really been bothered lately by people who keep saying that we are "losing our rights" under the current administration. I don't see from where these folks are getting this impression. Had the Constitution been suspended, I do believe that we would have had at least a minor insurrection somewhere in this country, I'm sure. As an example, the following is a quote from a comment made by Duane on the "Belief, Suspended" blog:

"The Founding Fathers left us a country united in the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and we've turned it into a unitary state run by an imperial executive... And we will all look back on the days when the federal government suspended our liberties, and borrowed trillions of dollars to support a global empire, and we will shudder with dread."

(Source: http://beliefsuspended.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-and-dissolution-of-united.html)


So, intrigued, I responded, both to the original post and to Duane:

"And, by the way, Duane, the imperial executive was actually more descriptive of Bill Clinton's rule by Executive Order -- which is similar to Royal Edict -- or "because I am the President and I said so." And exactly what rights have we been denied? I still see the anti-war groups protesting and pretty much doing what they want. We still have habeas corpus and trial by jury and our Miranda rights. So where exactly have we lost any of our rights?"(Source: Ibid.)

I honestly see no difference in the rights that we enjoy now and that we had before the War on Terror truly began. As I said above, we still have a rather active, though rather ineffective, anti-war movement in our country. They seem to be free to move about the country sharing their views. Anti-American films like Lions for Lambs, Rendition, and Redacted are still freely made and financed with American money. Newspapers are free to print their own opinions freely. Ignorant has-beens such as Rosie O'Donnell can call our President "a war criminal."
(Source: www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050502.asp)

These are not the acts of a populace who have been stripped of their rights. So, exactly what rights have we lost? Everyone I ask this question always gives me the same answer: "Well, we have lost some rights. The government can spy on us now." So I surmise that they are talking about the famed "right to privacy."

I ask them what right do we have to privacy? The answer comes up the same each time: "Roe v. Wade guarantees a right to privacy."

And my answer is always the same: "In the words of former Senator Fred Thompson, 'I think Roe [v. Wade] was fabricated out of whole cloth.'"
(Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/15/thompson-choice/)

See, that landmark case was based on the aforementioned right to privacy, but there is one problem and it is a bit of a problem when one argues with me on this point. There is no constitutional right to privacy. (Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy)

Where are the stories about libraries being raided and jack-booted thugs running into the houses of those who dare to study the Koran or check out books on terrorists? Where is it that we have people in jail for saying awful things about our country or its leaders? Where are the American gulags for our political dissidents, our refuseniks? Isn't Air America still on the air, convulsively spouting out the we-hate-Bush mantra, with CNBC joining in on cable TV?

Come on, tell me, where are the rights we are losing? Aren't the mosques still open? Are we not still the freest population on God's green Earth in the political sense?

And as to the "global empire" comment, we will do nothing more at the end of this conflict -- and I pray that it does soon -- than we did after World War II. Or are we now no longer exercising benevolent mercy to former enemies? Germany and Japan are now our prosperous, democratic allies. The Arab world may never be democratic or truly an ally, but it will never be an American colony. Despite the fact that we may have a presence there, we are not building an empire; we are defending freedom and will continue to do so. Some people just can't seem to tell the two apart.