Category — National Security

You won’t here it often but I am happy Hillary won last night. Nothing pleases me more than the possibility of Hillary and Obama beating each other up for the next couple of months. I hope she ends up winning the nomination if only because I think she is more beatable in November.

As for the Republicans, I haven’t decided who to vote for yet but it was a definitely a disappointing night for Romney. Having said that, don’t believe the hype that he is severely wounded by this. He is actually leading the GOP delegate count at this point and has a lot more money than any of the other candidates. Even Michigan isn’t a make or break state considering it is an open primary where democrats and independents can skew the vote. In the end Republicans will decide who the nominee is and we will have a much clearer picture on February 5th.

Of course I will probably support whoever wins the nomination because almost any of the Republican candidates (excluding Ron Paul) would be better at defending this country than Hillary or Obama. As you can tell, National Security is the issue I care most about. Without that, the other issues don’t even exist.

Democratic voters look like a pretty homogeneous lot. The same nebulous themes of “hope” and “change” that elected Deval Patrick are now being bandied about on the national level by Barack Obama. And rather effectively at that given Obama’s comfortable Iowa win.

Obama has yet to impress me as a deep thinker, but his weak kneed themes make me wonder if he has the stones for the job. He voted “present” 130 times as an Illinois state senator. How many state issues can possibly be that vexing? But Obama partisans are quick to defend him:

They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy.

So the vote should have been “no” after all. He did take an oath to “defend” the constitution, not offer “protest” votes when it gets trampled on. And if merely voting to defend your beliefs is too daunting a challenge, what would a President Obama do if China invades Taiwan? You get the feeling he’d instruct our UN ambassador to vote “present” during the Security Council deliberations to maintain a Swiss like neutrality. Wouldn’t do to offend anyone after all.

This kind of rudderless indecision would be disastrous on the national and international levels. This man simply doesn’t have the experience to be president. His campaign slogan should really read—”Making change for changes sake and hoping for a plan”.

GOP voters in Iowa certainly aren’t!

There may not be any perfect choices among the GOP candidates, but other than Ron Paul, I think Mike Huckabee may be the worst choice of the bunch.

Thanks for nothing Iowa and don’t miss Vodka Pundit’s open letter to GOP Iowa voters:

Dear Iowa Republicans,

I’ll put this in language even your tiny little Iowa brains can understand: What the f*** is wrong with you people?

The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter — the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever — and declared, “That’s our man!”

Three decades later, and along comes Mike Huckabee. Same moral pretentiousness, same gullibility on foreign affairs, only-slightly-less toothy idiot’s grin. Then you so-called Republicans took a look at Carter’s clone and said, “That’s our man, too!”

And by a pretty wide margin.

I’ll give you some credit where it’s due: you guys had sense enough to give Fred Thompson a breather, and Ron Paul a pretty solid kick in the (ahem) nuts. But Mike Huckabee? Really? We’ve seen this game before, and its name is… every other single stupid, un-winnable candidate you’ve ever picked — which is most of them.

So I repeat the question: What is wrong with you people?

All my love, you corn-sucking idiots,

VodkaPundit

PS You’re making Iowa Democrats look like Albert freakin’ Einstein. How’s that feel?

As for the Democrats, it’s always nice to see a Clinton get smacked around but honestly I’m not sure which Democrat candidate scares me most. Both would be a freaking disaster for our national security if elected.

Unfortunately, I fear that Obama will win the nomination and will then run a Deval Patrick like campaign of nothingness to win the general election.

God help us.

Dubya: “Family values don’t stop at the border”. Maybe not, but when you don’t know who’s coming here, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS!

Los Angeles - In a murderous quest aimed at cleansing their turf of snitches and rival gangsters, member of one of Los Angeles’ County’s most vicious Latino gangs sometimes killed people just because of their race, an investigation found.

I’m shocked. Gangs connected to the Mexican Mafia aren’t motivated by simple avarice and a desire for a better life? You mean they’re bad people, racists, in the only way a lefty can understand “bad”?

Then there’s THIS BUNCH…Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13.

In the United States the gang’s strongholds have been in Washington, DC, Miami and Souther California and Northern Virginia…

Illegal immigration and human smuggling

According to The Washington Times, MS-13 is “thought to have established a major smuggling center” in Mexico. There were reports that MS-13 members were ordered to Arizona to target border guards and Minuteman Project volunteers…

But don’t worry, because….

FBI agent Robert Clifford said that the US intelligence community and governments of several Central American countries found there is no basis to believe that MS-13 is connected to Al Qaeda or other Islamic radicals although he did visit Central America to discuss the issue.

The FBI and the “US intelligence community” are below The Keystone Cops on the competency scale. There are an estimated 10,000 MS-13 members in the US, out of 100,000 worldwide.

Get this straight. 10,000 Central American gang members are in the US, up and down the Eastern Seaboard, and the buffoon Robert Clifford visits Central America to discuss an issue related to MS-13 for which “there is no basis”. Clifford expects you to believe twelve impossible things before breakfast.

Illegal immigration will define the Bush Administration a generation from now. Not Iraq

Dubya’s Illegal Immigrant “Family Values”  in LA

The Report attached, from The Counterterrorism blog, describes Operation Bell Bottoms,  “where a special task force collared a dozen Arab-American and Latino suspects involved in a seemingly small-time drug and counterfeit clothing ring”.  

Court affidavits “are signed by prosecutors from the Justice Department’s National Security Division and by an FBI assigned to “Counterterrorism Squad-4″ in LA, a task force brimming with agents from the FBI, DEA, IRS, Department of Homeland Security and local cops. CT-4 isn’t known for making drug and counterfeiting cases”.

The US Attorney’s press release for the arrests didn’t mention terrorism at all, or the involvement of Federal officials normally assigned to these matters.  I’m shocked! Shocked!  Terrorists in LA?  Impossible!

True, the connection to Hezbollah mentioned in the links seems tenuous, but not unreasonable.  Chertoff has claimed publically in an interview with Geraldo (I can’t recall the date, but recent), that not a single terrorism arrest has been made in connection with illegal border crossings.

I don’t believe him.

Speaker Pelosi is firmly against the border fence:

“I have been against the fence, I thought it’s a bad idea even when it was just a matter of discussion,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “These are communities where you have a border going through them, they are not communities where you have a fence splitting them.” 

There’s Nancy demonstrating a keen grasp of national security issues.  According to the speaker, border town convenience and “community” outweigh the threat of terrorists and dirty bombs sneaking across the border.  

And Democrats have the nerve to wonder why the public sees them as weak on national defense.

A big thank you to Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York for making our entire nation less secure today:

Fulfilling a campaign promise, Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced today that residents will be able to apply for state driver’s licenses without regard to immigration status. Applicants for driver’s licenses will no longer be required to provide a Social Security number or show that they are eligible for one. Instead, they will be allowed to provide foreign passports, previous state driver’s licenses and “other valid and verifiable documents” to prove their identity. 

Fantastic!  Eliott takes the de facto national ID system and junks it overnight.  The next Mohamed Atta can now get a valid NY drivers license with no questions asked.  We’re all a lot less secure tonight thanks to this mental midget.

Remember Bush saying,

“We can’t deport all…!” Wrong again.

With city shelters filled and a surge of further refugee claimants expected to flood into Windsor, Mayor Eddie Francis is pleading for financial help from Ottawa.

“When there is a possibility of adding thousands to the local social assistance system as a result of refugee claimants crossing the border into Windsor, we will become overwhelmed and our current resources will not suffice,” Francis wrote in a letter sent Wednesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. [snip]

Come on, Canada is veerrrry progressive so they should absolutely love having the companionship. They’ll stay indoors, out of the way, for 10 months of the year.

“I don’t believe that Windsor’s residents and taxpayers should have to foot the bill for U.S. immigration policy,” Francis told The Star. He was referring to the suspected source of the problem — a recently begun crackdown on illegal immigrants in economically struggling regions of the U.S. South. [snip]

But a group operating out of Naples, Fla., vowed to continue sending the so-called economic refugees to Windsor.

“They ask, ‘Is Canada an option?’ and I say, ‘Yes, it is an option,’” Jacques Sinjuste of the Jerusalem Haitian Community Center said in a phone interview Wednesday. For a US$300 “donation” (most of those interviewed in Windsor claim they paid US$400), [snip]

That is far less than they pay to the Coyotes escorting them into the US. Ha! It’s a bargain and they can cross in the daylight.

“This is a problem the U.S. has allowed to create. It’s really unfair for Canada to have to face this,” said MP Joe Comartin (NDP — Windsor-Tecumseh), his Party’s public safety and national security critic.

“This is very much being driven by (the U.S. Department of) Homeland Security,” he said, predicting that, “with few exceptions,” most of these “economic claimants” will eventually be sent back.

When Canada sends them packing, make sure it’s via Air Pancho non-stop direct to Mexico City. That way Calderon can be there to embrace the prodigal peons when they get off the plane. Possibly, he will even give them back their travel expenses.

Not long ago, liberals lambasted Donald Rumsfeld for his 1983 handshake and meeting with Saddam Hussein. How could the US deal with and arm such a brutal dictator? Why would they let themselves get used for propaganda by the Butcher of Baghdad? But in an ironic twist, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to repeat the now infamous Rumsfeld shake with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong Il.

In responding to a Democratic debate question about the candidates’ willingness to meet with rogue states during their 1^st year in office, Obama said this at last night’s debate:

“I would,” he said without hesitation. “And the reason is that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding principle of this administration — is ridiculous….

And why is Mr. Obama willing to give these brutal dictators such an enormous coup:

“… And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.”

It sounds an awful lot like what Mr. Rumsfeld was trying to do with Saddam Hussein in 1983, no? And although Obama notes President Reagan’s discussions with the Soviets as precedent, President Reagan also knew when it was time to send an envoy, like Rumsfeld, instead. Doing business with Saddam Hussein was bad enough. The president certainly didn’t want to compound the problem by loaning Saddam the credibility of the presidency.

It was definitely a rookie answer, but one that also betrays some inherent contradictions in liberal foreign policy. On one hand, liberals point to our previous meddling and propping up of dictatorships as one of the chief reasons the world “hates” us. On the other hand, they want to initiate ways to “potentially move forward” with the very same people when they’re in power.

Oddly enough, when President Bush declared the “axis of evil”, he was overturning our previous policy of propping up dictatorships. It was a policy that a true liberal should have embraced, but not when they’re out of power, which is the true answer to the riddle here.

Liberal policies shift when they’re out of power. The ends justify the means when you need to get a good liberal into the White House.  President Bush embraced nation building and spreading Democracy because it was a means of addressing the national security threat of radical Islamic terrorism.  And although spreading freedom and the Iraq War may not work, at least the policy was designed to help the country and not a product of naked ambition.

The unintentionally funny and nearly defunct LA Times reported on July 15th that about “45% of all foreign militants in Iraq……are from Saudi Arabia”.  15% are from Syria and Lebanon, with 10% from North Africa.  The stats came from “US military figures, and were made available to the Times by the senior officer”.   Nearly half of the 135 detainees in US military custody are Saudis. 

What can we deduce from a sample of 135 cage-hangers?  Thousands of troublemakers are in Iraqi custody, many of whom might even lie about their names and country of origin. So the LA Times report is based on a sample of 135 guys, half of whom have Riyadh Planet Hollywood ID cards.  I have information from a reliable participant in the war that Chechens even fall out for morning terrorist formation, and stray Pakistanis, Westerners and lots of others.   Iranians, too, are a small but vocal minority shouting  “HERE!”.

The same enigmatic “US military figure” said that 50% of all  Saudi fighters in Iraq go there as suicide bombers.  An interesting statistic, to say the least. To derive it, one needs to poll all of the free-range “Saudi fighters” about their life plans, and whether they have round-trip tickets.   It’s fair to say they don’t show up for interviews.

But the Times  raised two worthy questions, probably intentionally.  We are “allied” with the Saudis in the inaptly-named War on Terror, and Bush Herbert Walker and Bush George Dubya are unashamedly friendly with figures in the disgusting monarchical House of Saud.  Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the royal’s “national security advisor” is a pal of the House of Bush, as is King Abdullah.   

Then there’s The Carlyle Group, in which Bush Herbert Walker is a  prospering partner.  Those interested can investigate it on their own.  It’s the most powerful ethical missile in the left’s arsenal of accusations about the Bush family’s relationship with the Saudis.   The Carlyle Group has wide access to Saud investment funds.  There’s also Herbie’s lecture tours in Arab lands, paid for by the Saudis, and generous gits to his Presidential Library for scholarships to Andover, Dubya’s prep school.

It is, at this point, obligatory to mention that 15 of 19 hijackers on 911 were Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi.  Saudi Arabia has lots of sand and oil (although the oil power might be shaky).  Saudi Arabia is profligate with walking-around money, and has a national strategy of buying off enemies and buying up friends.  There’s a lot more, none of which is particularly damning for the Bush family, but appearances are everything.   The Saudis are low, self-seeking, and devious; relationships are contaminated by their presence in them, and our leaders should know it.

True, the Saudis have been fighting Al Qaeda, but for reasons of personal survival.   The ethical issues associated with advancing Wahabbism by subversion and Madrassa remain.  True, also, that the Saudis are troubled by Dubya’s strategies, worred about their extensive Iraq border and Persian ambitions.  This is a convergence of interests, ours and theirs.   They are not our friends. 

The reality is this:  We are allied with a vicious, reactionary, repressive Arab regime in our pursuit of liberalization of the Middle East.  We should be troubled by the first proposition in that last sentence, because they Saudis are troubled by the second.  The two can’t come together, and Dubya appears not to know it.

The EU Gospel

“Come on people now
smile on your brother
everybody get together
and try to love one another right now”

“Get Together” by the Youngbloods, a classic example of ditzy idiocy from 1970.

In a style that seems a cross between Big Brother and Forrest Bumpf, the EU is preaching love. In fact they even have special You Tube videos to make their point. Unfortunately, things like “Bridal Night” and “Cara Finally Gets Some” are a bit explicit for a PG 13 blog like Gates of Vienna, so you’ll have to click over there to see them.

According to Brussels Journal these charming bits of pornography are the brainchildren of Margot Walstrom, head of “communications” for the EU. She had them made in order to —

…boost interest in the workings of the EU. […] Wallstrom’s spokesman […] denied it was in questionable taste. “[…] It’s a question of taste. It doesn’t always have to be about press releases. These clips explain better what the EU is doing.”

Importing Trouble

Apparently the Finns are not satisfied with the amount of ethnic unrest they already have; the government wants to import some more.

KGS of Tundra Tabloids brought this article to my attention:

The government is worried about a labour shortage — and Finland’s first Migration Minister (Ms. Thors) wants quick legislative changes to make the country more welcoming to foreigners. She says that the Aliens’ Act will be updated in bits and pieces, as a complete overhaul would take too long. [snip]

The government now plans to revise many parts of the Aliens’ Act in an effort to make Finland more attractive to immigrants and simplify bureaucracy.

Translation: We will bring them in by the boatload with virtually no background checks.

Minister of Migration Astrid Thors says parts of the law must be changed to speed up immigration. However it will be done piecemeal, as a rewrite of the whole act would take years — time that Finland simply cannot afford to waste.

The interesting thing is that Ms. Thors is a member of Finland’s ethnic Swedish minority. The Swedish Finns are not discriminated against — on the contrary, they feel very “welcome”. According to my Finnish sources, they are over-represented in government, the academy, and the financial institutions.

EU tells Britain: “Don’t say ‘Muslims’” were involved in terror plots

The EU is far more anxious to pronounce takfir against the jihadists — that is, declare that they are not Muslims — than are the jihadists’ fellow Muslims. And that’s just one reason why this intellectual straitjacket is stupid, and suicidal, unless it is thrown off in time. But right now, Gordon Brown is happy to oblige the EU dhimmicrats.

Emerson: The White House, CAIR and the OIC

… another entry in the “What the Hell is Wrong with the Bush Administration?” …suggestions that a US envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (a terrible idea in itself) should be approved by CAIR: The White House, CAIR and the OIC.

The White House has admitted to a senior government official that it did not vet the audience members in attendance at President Bush’s speech last week at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., despite having been warned of the potential presence of individuals who might have triggered national security concerns.

An informed source has told me that the White House was completely unaware that a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) …[snip]

Since everyone is on the same page all is well in the world. We must have a dialogue of love to get our warm fuzzies. Reciprocal love will flow, I’m sure.

Is anybody listening to President Bush on immigration anymore? In fact, with a 64% disapproval rating, the president looks like a lame duck. With unfavorable ratings like these, it’s not hard to imagine support for the bill dropping every time he talks about it. But he’ll keep pushing anyway:

President Bush urged lawmakers today to “summon the political courage” to support his top domestic priority, an immigration overhaul that is hanging by a thread in Congress.

FDR wanting to enter WW II before Pearl Harbor was courageous. Pushing a flawed, unworkable bill that compromises national security, weakens our sovereignty, and makes a mockery of the rule of law in exchange for border security we already have a right to is more akin to the logic Jack initially used in trading the cow for “magic beans”.

Real courage would be listening to the American people and providing them with border security. You had ample time in office to address this vital national security issue, but you didn’t have the courage to attack it. If our borders were sealed after 9/11, you’d have a host of policy initiatives open to you today. Your guest worker program and path to citizenship would appear reasonable and boost your popularity.  Instead, you confirmed what everybody knew about you anyway—you have no intention of enforcing our laws or borders when it comes to illegal immigration.

The political landscape would be a lot different if you’d stood up to the special interests and sealed the borders after 9/11. Don’t blame conservatives and Republicans for your lack of courage, Mr. Bush.

The Soviet Union had a national ID card; they called an internal passport. Making it a requirement sets up the citizenry for control by a secret police.

[snip] Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts has reintroduced his immigration bill (along with Senator Specter of Pennsylvania). The new bill, S. 1639, contains…[snip]

NATIONAL ID CARD POSES DANGERS FOR GUN OWNERS What the National ID Card requirement will do, instead, is to give an Attorney General (such as, for instance, former Attorney General Janet Reno) the unfettered discretion to make it dramatically more difficult and time consuming to get a driver’s license. This would apply equally to new applicants and to Americans who have had their drivers’ licenses for fifty years.

Thus, if an anti-gun administration determined that members of the militia constituted a threat to national security — and placed them on one of its “watch lists” — many gun owners could soon lose the ability to travel, open a bank account, drive, check into a hotel, cash a check, get a job, or PURCHASE A GUN from a dealer.

Seniors who could not locate their fifty-year-old Social Security cards or birth certificates (or persons who had had those documents lost or stolen) could face the same fate.

The law would also allow the federal government to determine the information which must be digitally encoded on the license. Therefore, an anti-gun administration could theoretically require that your license contain information about your concealed carry status. This will make it, to say the least, “interesting” when you are traveling in parts of the country which are antagonistic to gun rights.

Further, all of this personal information on you will be available nationally and internationally on a computer database LEGALLY accessible to millions of people… and illegally accessible to virtually anyone.

The good news is that a single non-compliant state — such as Montana — is probably enough to destroy the entire National ID Card system. But the immigration bill increases the consequences for a state like Montana by threatening to deny every citizen the opportunity to find a job.

IMMIGRATION BILL THREATENS JOBS AND GUNS

Here’s how. S. 1639 will require all private sector employees to be screened by an “electronic employee eligibility verification system” (Section 1(a)(5)(A)). And Title III of the bill stipulates that no employer will be able to hire you unless you possess identification that amounts to a National ID card.

Get the picture? No National ID card… no job.

The fact that section 302(c)(6) asserts that the required identification is not a “national identification card” is more a testimony to the lack of honesty of the supporters than it is to the actuality of federal requirements under the 2005 REAL ID Act. (We have seen these promises before. Remember when Social Security Cards used to explicitly state the number and card were never to be used for identification purposes?)

So Congress is threatening to retaliate against Montana, Washington, New Hampshire, South Carolina or any other state which has the temerity to resist its will. That’s why the Baucus amendment is so important. A vote for the Baucus amendment is a vote for privacy — especially the privacy of gun owners.

For those who don’t care to get an ID card, you can become a “Running Man.”

Even though I don’t agree with Democratic policies, I’m getting a new appreciation for their frustration with President Bush: 

“I believe we can get it done,” Bush said of the immigration bill that has run into deep trouble on Capitol Hill. “I’ll see you at the bill signing.”

The president is confusing obstinacy with leadership.  While a president should not continually be seeking public approval by triangulating every issue, neither can they completely ignore the American people. 

Exuding false confidence and repeating the same talking points isn’t going to retrieve the credibility the president frittered away with inaction on this vital national security issue.  We need to keep up the pressure to make sure the president never gets the opportunity to sign that bill.

Our politicians are still championing amnesty. Take John McCain’s comments for example:

“The status quo is de facto amnesty — fact,” the Arizona senator said. “So for us to do nothing and celebrate the fact that we stopped this legislation, well then those who have a better idea can give it to us. We can consider it and move forward.”

Let me see if I can put this in terms that even a politician can understand. The current amnesty bill is referred to as the “grand bargain”. Let’s define the word bargain, so we can all be on the same sheet of music:

Bargain-noun-an agreement between parties settling what each gives or receives in a transaction between them or what course of action or policy each pursues in respect to the other

Now as I understand the “bargain”, conservatives are supposed to be overjoyed with the bill’s border security measures. In exchange for this, the taxpayers are suppose to fund a generous package of benefits—including citizenship, education, health care, and other social programs—for the existing 12-20 million illegal immigrants and millions more who are going to come here through guest worker programs and the like.

But let’s go back to the definition of bargain again. What you’re telling me is that border security is an option that you have the right to exchange for concessions. It’s not a part of national security, which you’ve already taken an oath to uphold.

And that’s really the crux of the issue here. Politicians are pretending that border security is optional while Americans see it as their responsibility. Agreeing to stop ignoring your responsibilities in exchange for dumping our sovereignty, weak border enforcement, and rewriting the laws for criminals isn’t bargaining. That’s more colloquially known as extortion.

You aren’t giving us anything we shouldn’t be expecting right now.  Secure the borders, and enforce our laws. It’s what you swore to do. Then we can have a discussion about what to do with those who unfairly jumped the line to enter this country.