LowDownCentral

Licking the Stamp of Big Government

LowDownCentral — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:00:22 +0000

by Rose Pedenko

The Washington Post, bastion of journalistic excellence that it is, recently reported what most Americans already know – that the United States Postal Service is a failed government enterprise. The Postal Service estimates $238 billion in losses in the next 10 years and a drop of 26 billion pieces of mail. As most federal estimates go, that figure will likely increase exponentially under the ever coercive lawmakers, postal regulators and labor unions that want even more flexibility to compel Americans to absorb the cost of their inefficiency. They seek impossible remedies in an effort to expand government control and ultimately stifle American incentive. It’s as if the bureaucrats and liberal leaning media are tone-deaf to the mounting anger of the citizenry that want to reduce government spending--and want to reduce it now.

There was once a commonly held belief that delivering the U.S. mail was too big or impossible for private enterprise to handle efficiently. It is clear that even the Postmaster General now acknowledges that the 13% drop in mail volume last year was a result of business migrating away to faster, cheaper and more dependable delivery via the internet or other more efficient, competitively-priced services. That, of course, begs the question, why do we need the USPS?

Delivery services, like UPS and Fed-X, have been fully capable of handling comprehensive domestic distribution for years. The fact they have been subject to corporation taxes, sales taxes, vehicle license taxes and other onerous regulations, means they have also effectively been subsidizing their biggest competitor--the U.S. Postal Service. What a great country!!

The postal service lost $2.4 billion from April through June of 2009, bringing the year’s losses to $4.7 billion. In spite of a bad economy, in the 4th quarter of 2009, UPS' domestic profits increased over 60% from the previously mentioned low point in the 2nd quarter.

Rather than Congress rationally evaluating the failures of this government entity to compete in the free marketplace, it has allowed Postmaster General John E. Potter to throw good money after no money by spending an additional $4.8 million for outside consultants to provide even more ideas to further rip-off American taxpayers. At a time when other (better) products and services mean a drop in prices to Americans, as we have witnessed with cellular, cable and satellite services, the Post Office will increase prices that exceed the rate of inflation.

Another question that begs a rational answer is why we permit federal/public employees to unionize and further drive up costs to American taxpayers. Labor unions not only complicate the agency’s path to a firm fiscal footing but will inevitably prevent it from ever achieving the kind of profits enjoyed by private enterprise. The Post Office does not need to reshape how Americans send and receive their letters and packages--Americans are doing that themselves. Perhaps this bad news from the post office will be accompanied by yet another attempt by government to regulate the chief competitor to the USPS--the internet.

Congress should be asking itself “what would happen if the Post Office failed?” The answer, of course, is nothing. Private enterprise is 100% capable of delivering all of the United States mail in a time and cost-effective manner. But rather than stop the fiscal bleeding, our elected misrepresentatives will probably enact further mind-numbing legislation to prevent what should be the complete and utter demise of a badly run business. Where else have we heard this lately?

Unlike consultants paid to blow smoke up the Postmaster General’s ass, I have no interest in the Post Office reducing its costs. Americans should strongly encourage their “elected” officials to shut down the Post Office, eliminate the Postal Regulatory Commission, and while we are at it, the handful of other useless and inefficient agencies whose sole purpose is to swindle and steal from a citizenry that is quickly going postal.

America in Neutral

LowDownCentral — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:00:32 +0000

by Lance Thompson

Nothing illustrates the lamentable state of the US and UK relationship better than the Obama administration’s recent betrayal of the Brits over the Falkland Islands. On March 2nd at a Buenos Aires press conference with Argentine President Kristina Kirchner, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said the United States favored a negotiated settlement over the Falkland Islands dispute working within the framework of United Nations resolutions. This sounds quite reasonable, and the appearance of reason from the Obama administration is no small feat. But Clinton’s words signaled a sharp retreat from our support for the United Kingdom, and is typical of a foreign policy that betrays allies on a whim.

The Falkland Islands, 300 miles east of Argentina, were first sighted by English sailors in the 16th Century. It was almost a century later that the first landing took place, again by an English ship seeking fresh water. The French established the first settlement in 1764. The English established a separate settlement in 1765. Both France and England claimed the Falklands, as did the Spanish, who had divided all islands in the Atlantic, discovered or not, between themselves and the Portugese in the 15th Century. The French relinquished their claim to the Spaniards in 1766, leaving the islands in dispute between England and Spain.

England withdrew its garrison in 1774, but still claimed sovereignty, as did Spain. In 1816, Argentina won its independence from Spain, and four years later claimed the Spanish colony as Argentinian territory. In 1823, Argentina granted a land concession to a Frenchman, Louis Vernet, who saw profit potential in the wild cattle of the Falklands. Aware of the British claim, Vernet also obtained permission from the British consulate in Buenos Aires.

Vernet and his partners established a colony and a successful business supplying fresh produce and meat (including seal) to ships that called in the Falklands. When North American sealers poached in the Falklands, Vernet asked for military aid from Argentina, which was unable to provide it. Vernet then sought help from the British, who established a military garrison in 1833. The British formalized their administration, established Port Stanley, brought in pioneers, businessmen and families, and built the Falkland Islands into a self-sufficient British colony.

In 1964, Argentina renewed its claim to the Falklands, but in 1968, the Falkland Islanders voted overwhelmingly to maintain their status as a territory of the United Kingdom. Great Britain and Argentina never settled the disagreement. Tensions rose throughout the 1970s, with some minor confrontations between civilian and military vessels of the two nations. In 1982, Argentinian troops made an amphibious landing on the island and captured Port Stanley. Diplomacy failed to defuse the situation, and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher assembled a naval force to drive the Argentinians out. During a brief but costly war in the spring of 1982, British troops recaptured the islands. The United States supplied critical intelligence to the United Kingdom during the conflict.

Relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina normalized in the ensuing years. But under Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner and his wife and successor, Kristin Kirchner, tensions have risen again. Argentina has issued increasingly bellicose statements (encouraged and supported by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez) about reclaiming the Falklands, and the Obama administration has remained at best neutral.

When Clinton and Obama mention a United Nations framework, they refer to resolutions from the 1960's. Resolution 1514, passed in 1960, urged that all states which have not achieved full self-government (in other words, colonies) should move toward independence. This was known as “decolonization.” True to form, the UN created a committee (Resolution 1654) to oversee decolonization the following year, whose title is longer than this sentence. Resolution 2065, passed by the UN Security Council in 1965, called specifically on Argentina and Great Britain to reach a settlement on the sovereignty of the islands.

Clinton and Obama are probably not referring to UN Resolution 502, from 3 April 1988, which calls for the immediate withdrawal of all Argentinian military forces from the Falklands after their invasion. The Argentines did not comply with the UN directive, and the British removed them by military force, at the cost of hundreds of lives.

The UN resolutions of the 1960s about decolonization rise from the principle of self-determination–that the people of any state have the right to choose their own government. This, of course, is applied only to free nations. It is a principle never pressed upon totalitarian regimes which make up a significant portion of the UN. Nevertheless, the people of the Falklands now and always have overwhelmingly favored British governance to Argentinian. Any application of force or influence by Argentina would be a violation not only of international law but of the human rights of the Falkland Islanders.

It is not reasonable for the United States to remain neutral in the current conflict. Argentina is making a claim on the established territory of another nation. To equate the demands of an aggressor with the resistance of a peaceful territory is a despicable act of appeasement that will only encourage more of the same. During the 1982 Falklands War, the United States tried diplomatically to avert armed conflict. But once the war started, the United States and President Reagan were steadfast allies of the United Kingdom. There was no question at that time who was in the right and who was in the wrong.

Today, twenty years later, determining right from wrong is an indecipherable conundrum for the Obama administration. They never hesitate to withdraw support from our closest allies, or to offer encouragement and sympathy to our most implacable foes. They find moral equivalency between Israel and Arab terrorists, between communist China and Taiwan, between Russia and former Soviet Republics. They believe neutrality is the highest moral position a nation can occupy, when in fact it is the most dangerous.

It is the moral responsibility of any nation, and particularly the greatest nations, to support and defend the less powerful against aggression, domination, and intimidation by the all too numerous enemies of freedom. When the United States is neutral, the rogue nations of the world have no authority to heed and no consequence to fear. As Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of our one-time close ally Great Britain, so succinctly put it before the House of Commons in 1927, “I decline utterly to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.”

US Debt Puts Taiwan in the Red

LowDownCentral — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:00:37 +0000

by Lance Thompson

The profligate spending and irresponsible borrowing of the Obama administration has left the United States over one trillion dollars in debt to communist China. Many have speculated on what will happen if China decides to alter the terms on that debt, call for immediate payment, stop lending, or use the leverage to influence American foreign policy. None of the scenarios are pleasant, but there is at least one further possibility that could have permanent global impact.

First, let’s examine the evidence. Why does communist China continue to buy up the debt of a nation in economic strife? It’s not because they believe that American economic policies of the past year are responsible. The Chinese themselves have lectured us on the danger of unsustainable debt. Still, the Chinese hold a trillion dollars of our IOU’s, and continue to increase that amount. They must have a reason.

Communist China has never recognized the island nation of Taiwan as independent. Red China has always claimed sovereignty over the island, which was the sanctuary of Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalists once the communists ran them off the mainland in the years after World War II. Taiwan has since grown into an Asian economic powerhouse, but the nation continues to exist under the threat of communist oppression.

The chief guarantor of Taiwan’s freedom and independence (other than Taiwan’s own military forces) has been the United States. We have resisted all moves by communist China to invade, reclaim or absorb Taiwan. We send naval forces into the area when tension are high, we sell Taiwan sophisticated weapon and defense systems, and we carry on a robust trade with the nation. We have failed them once, when in 1971 we allowed communist China to replace Taiwan as one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. This drastically reduced the status of Taiwan as an independent nation. Since then, the United States has supported Taiwan militarily and politically.

Taking over Taiwan would be a priceless coup for communist China, giving them a vast new chunk of real estate, industry, commercial infrastructure, and political power. The communist Chinese have made no secret of their desire to take Taiwan by any means necessary, but the cost of opposing the United States and an American-led coalition has always been too high.

The Obama administration has an almost unbroken record of abandoning our allies and strategic positions. Obama’s state department warned Israel against defending herself against Iran’s growing nuclear ambitions. Obama’s administration withdrew missile defense systems from the Czech Republic which would have shielded all of Europe from attacks by enemies to the east. Obama has denied that any special relationship exists between the United States and the United Kingdom. The current administration sells out friends regularly, but seldom misses an opportunity to appease, honor and legitimize the worst of the world’s bad actors–Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Putin, and Kim Jong Il.

Communist China knows all this, and cannot have overlooked the influence of these factors on the subject of Taiwan. There would never be a better time to make an irresistible offer to the debtor American nation: communist China will forgive America’s trillion dollar debt if the United States looks the other way when the Chinese invades and subjugates Taiwan.

The Chinese know no other nation will resist the attack if the United States refuses to be involved. Taiwan cannot stand up to communist China by itself. The invasion would be costly, but only a fraction of the price the Chinese would pay if their move were opposed by the Americans. And once the Chinese hold territory, they do not surrender it.

Yes, this is an outrageous scenario. But it is no more outrageous than a nuclear-armed Iran, North Korean missiles flying over Japan, or Mexico becoming a narcoarchy. Every one of those situations is a distraction making the Chinese move even more plausible. We are stretched thin, and literally cannot afford another war on our hands.

Does anyone really think the feckless incompetents in the White House would think twice about erasing our debt by throwing Taiwan under the bus? Our enemies and allies certainly don’t. Over the past year, they have taken the measure of our president, and they know he can be bought. Taiwan may pay the price.

Mooning the American Spirit

LowDownCentral — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:00:49 +0000

by Lance Thompson

The last Americans to walk on the moon, Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt, did so in December 1972–thirty-seven years ago. If President Obama has his way, it’ll be 37 years before any more footprints are made in the lunar dust, and they probably won’t be made by an American.

That’s because Obama plans to cancel this nation’s manned space program. He will cut funding for the new Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles, the Orion crew capsule, and the Altair Lunar lander, on which over $8 billion has already been spent. There will be no money for a moon base, nor any reason for one, since the moon will no longer be a destination for NASA. Instead of reaching for the stars, NASA will cast its eyes downward, in a vain attempt to quantify the discredited myth of global warming. No better example of cosmic navel-gazing can be imagined.

Of course, the International Space Station will still roam the skies in low-Earth orbit, but Americans who want to get there will have to buy a seat on a Russian Soyuz capsule. That’s $51 million dollars per astronaut, not counting the baggage charge. We will thus be subsidizing the Russian aerospace program while dismantling ours.

Russia will not be the only player in the space game. Communist China’s space program has advanced significantly. North Korea and Iran are building rockets that will do double duty–lifting payloads into space or lofting warheads over their neighbors. India’s space program is just beginning. Only the United States is turning its back on the frontier that it conquered these many years ago.

In the early 1970's, when the country was facing tough economic times, the space program was a tempting target for budget cutters. We faced a recession, an unpopular war, rising unemployment, a languid stock market, an increasingly powerful Soviet Union. The shared national purpose that launched thousands of young people into science and inspired feats almost beyond imagination from our country’s aerospace and technology workers was no longer a unifying crusade. Having witnessed the ultimate fulfillment of the century’s greatest technological challenge and America’s ascendancy to undisputed master of the cosmos, all during his presidency, Richard Nixon cancelled the Apollo program.

We have a new century and a new President who doesn’t mind writing multi-trillion dollar bad checks on America’s taxpayers’ accounts to pay for thousand-page collections of earmarks, bribes and political kickbacks. But an investment that is less than what it cost for Obama to buy a controlling share of General Motors is too much to spend on keeping America first on the last frontier.

The issue isn’t money, because obviously the President doesn’t mind spending all that we have, or ever will have. It goes much deeper, into a vital aspect of the American character that Obama will never understand.

America started out as a frontier. Americans are drawn to the frontier. America needs a frontier. We are a nation of dreamers, strivers and achievers. We thrive on challenge, we grow strong in the endeavor, we redefine ourselves with each new summit conquered. Obama’s political agenda clearly demonstrates his core belief that Americans need to be taken care of. Universal health care, nationalization of private industry, redistribution of wealth all rise from the same conviction–the government must guide, regulate and manage America’s inherent restlessness, or we will face disappointment and disaster.

But Americans don’t need to be shown how to overcome adversity–that is our heritage. We have faced disappointment, disaster, and much worse in our past, and it has only deepened our resolve. All we need is a goal. Personal, public, local, or national, the great achievements of Americans fuel our continued progress. Americans conquered the air, joined the seas at Panama, split the atom, and put men on the moon. We are more than ready for the next challenge–we eagerly seek it, and desperately need it.

We are inspired by those who encourage us, support us, and join us in such efforts, because we know the journey defines our character as much as the destination. Those who fail to understand that fundamental aspect of the American character will seldom lead for long, and will never be remembered fondly.

Symbolism in Massachusetts

LowDownCentral — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:00:22 +0000

by Lance Thompson

Both sides have spun their versions of what Scott Brown’s decisive upset of Martha Coakley means in political terms. Conservatives cheer the end of the Democrat supermajority in the Senate, Democrats from the President on down characterize the victory of the Republican in true-blue Massachusetts as a symptom of Bush fatigue. But there are some interesting symbolic factors which may be significant for this election year.

First is the widely-discussed pickup truck, a GMC Canyon with 200,000 miles that was Scott Brown’s executive ride. The mere fact that Brown has put 200,000 miles on the vehicle shows that whenever it was new, it was not acquired as a conscious political symbol. Nonetheless, it is.

Trusty trucks with two hundred grand on the odometers are the transportation of choice for middle class working people. They are driven by Americans with mortgages to pay, groceries to buy, and private sector work to do. As Scott Brown has shown, people like this actually live in Massachusetts, much to the surprise of the Democrats in Congress. He is not just “in touch” with the middle class, he is one of them. He knows what they value, where they work, how the live, and how much they’re upset by the Democrats and their drive for nationalized health care.

Brown’s truck is a product of General Motors, a company that once dominated the American market. Barack Obama, during a last-minute campaign stop in Massachusetts before the election, mentioned Brown’s truck often, exhorting voters to pay no attention to the it. “Anybody can buy a truck,” he famously concluded, to cheers from his supporters and derision from his opponents. In fact, since Barack Obama’s administration took billions of taxpayer dollars to buy a controlling chunk of General Motors stock last year, it’s not that “anybody can buy a truck.” The truth is, “Everybody has bought a truck.” Theoretically, all Americans own small portions of General Motors trucks, thanks to Obama’s government takeover of private industry. This symbol was not lost on Massachusetts voters.

Another symbol dismissed by the MSM is Scott Brown’s military service. Brown served thirty years in the Massachusetts National Guard. He has the rank of lieutenant colonel, and serves as the 26th Brigade’s Staff Judge Advocate General. He has experience as an infantry officer and quartermaster officer, is jump qualified, and earned the Army Commendation Medal. All of that requires the dedication and selflessness that characterizes Americans in military service. Brown’s military record was not a focus of his campaign, but it does reveal character.

Pollsters have told us that Americans are rejecting the liberal agenda of the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean they are rushing back to embrace Republicans. Americans have been burned by both parties. They are searching for leaders they can believe in. The same pollsters tell us that while the President’s approval is below 50%, and Congress’ approval is about half that, Americans rate our military as the most highly trusted and regarded of our institutions.

All Senators and congressmen and presidents take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. So does every American who serves in uniform. The difference is that our troops back up their oath with their lives. This fall, there are over two dozen congressional seats where candidates with proud military records are in contention. If American voters are looking for people they can trust and believe in, they may find a record of military service very convincing.

The last symbol is Scott Brown’s bullhorn. While the President, who has given over 400 interviews and over a hundred press appearances–more than any other president in the first year of an administration–bemoans the fact that he hasn’t spoken directly to the American people, Scott Brown did exactly that. He stood up in the bed of his pickup truck, and spoke to the crowds without handlers, without teleprompters, without elaborate Greek revival backdrops. He took his plain-spoken case directly to the voters, and they liked what he said. A bullhorn may sound like an impersonal communication device, but it spoke louder and more convincingly than Coakley and her powerful surrogates.

It also reminded me of the bullhorn George W. Bush used when he stood on the pile of rubble that was once the World Trade Center after September 11th, 2001. The President had borrowed the bullhorn from a veteran firefighter who had spent countless hours digging through the debris in a search for survivors, to commend the crowd of volunteers who were doing the same thing. Someone in the crowd yelled, “I can’t hear you.” Bush replied, “I can hear you. The world can hear you. And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from all of us soon.”

That’s how to talk directly to the people.

Democrat Success Story

LowDownCentral — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:00:04 +0000

by Lance Thompson

Even though “Democrat Achievements of 2009” would fall into the category of titles of the world’s shortest books, such a book would not be entirely empty. In fact, Democrats can legitimately claim that in the last year, they have accomplished something that the GOP has repeatedly failed to do for at least two decades. The Democrats have managed thoroughly to discredit liberal political philosophy and governance. This is no small achievement.

In the years after Reagan, Republican politicians warned against liberals; run against liberals; chastised, ridiculed and accused liberals in order to gain political advantage. Liberals even changed their name–to “progressives”–to avoid the feared liberal label. But the charges began to ring hollow as big-government Republicans raised taxes, increased spending, expanded entitlements, and argued for lenient immigration policies. Were liberal politics only bad when practiced by Democrats, and tolerable when enacted by Republicans? Evidently not, because the GOP lost control of Congress in the past decade when they offered no clear alternative to liberal Democrats. In 2008, they lost the White House, too.

Suddenly, the Democrats had a commanding majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, and one of their own in the White House. They enjoyed an adoringly uncritical media and a wave of electoral bliss seldom equaled. In effect, they had a brand new credit card with almost unlimited political capital. How did they spend it?

President Obama began by assembling a cabinet and administration full of tax cheats, liars, strong-arm political operatives and communists–many of whom were amateurs at national politics, but almost all of whom had more experience than their boss. Democrats funded bail-outs and stimulus bills that were full of earmarks, political pay-backs and liberal pet projects that doubled the already swelling debt. As terrorists attacks again struck American soil–in Little Rock, Fort Hood, and on a Detroit-bound plane--Obama fought to empty Guantanamo and give terrorists the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Obama’s team nationalized private industry, abandoned long-time allies, bowed in supplication before our enemies, and embarked on passing massively expensive and unintelligible health care reform that would multiply our debt yet again.

As details and cost analysis of all these plans filtered down to the American people, the Democrat agenda became less and less popular. So, as it happens, did Democrats. The approval ratings of Congress continued to slide downward from even the low marks legislators earned during the Bush administration. But even more surprising, the historic, unprecedented, hope-and-changeling in the White House also saw his numbers fall. And the more he tried to sell the liberal package of multi-trillion dollar big government programs, the further he dropped.

None of this could have happened if the Democrats did not have the power to enact their agenda over the protests of conservatives and common sense. Democrats believe that the answer to bloated government is more government. The answer to ballooning debt is more spending. The answer to high taxes is even higher taxes. The answer to international threats is to apologize for our past, betray our allies, and promise to look the other way when rogue nations go on the warpath.

Any conservative who tried to warn us that this would be the result of Democrat control of two branches of government would have been dismissed as an extremist. Eighteen months ago, the idea of the United States in economic, diplomatic, and moral decline would have been unthinkable. Today, it’s an undeniable trend.

The Democrats have proved that, given no checks and balances, they are determined to bring this nation to its knees and saddle us with enough debt to keep us there. They have given the American people a year’s preview of a future under Democratic governance, and a majority of us want no part of it. Suddenly, the iron grip Democrats had on Congress is slipping away, with each new announcement of retiring legislators or party-switching representatives. Barack Obama is no longer a messenger of hope and change, but a huckster peddling an increasingly unpopular line of hokum. Conservative principles are defining the debate, only a year after so many pundits pronounced conservatism dead.

Moreover, the media that waved its pom-poms for Barack Obama is no longer cheering from the press box. It began with a few respectful questions that were ignored, avoided, or ridiculed by the party in power. But now, as the media senses weakness, they will become more aggressive, more insistent, more adversarial. Reporters read the polls, too, and no news outlet wants to be behind the trend. As they see Obama, Reid and Pelosi faltering, the press will turn on them, hound them, savage them, and participate in their downfall. Because if an outcome seems inevitable, the media likes us to believe that we heard it from them first.

So let us give thanks to the Democrats who governed in 2009. These true believers have done to the liberal religion what no heretic could manage. They have exposed their impotent idols and false gods for all the world to see, and have quickened their own demise.

Man-Made Disaster Prevention

LowDownCentral — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:00:45 +0000

By Lance Thompson

Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano has retreated from her controversial statement on the would-be Detroit airline bomber. Having initially characterized the fortuitous intervention of airline passengers in the mid-air bombing attempt by terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as proof that “the system worked,” she now must face another unpleasant fact. Terrorist acts, or, to use Napolitano’s term, “man-caused disasters,” remain a threat. In response to the attempted destruction of a passenger jet, DHS came up with clever countermeasures such as limiting carry-on luggage, locking passengers out of airliner restrooms, confining passengers to their seats, and outlawing paperback books.

The Department of Homeland Security must study past man-caused disasters to predict future threats, and devise measures to thwart them. Looking back on 2009, it seems clear that there was no more debilitating man-caused disaster than the Obama administration’s national security policy. One could quibble that it should be a “men- and women-caused disaster,” giving equal credit to the ineptitude not only of Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, but also to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and DHS Chief Napolitano. But none of these people would have any authority if it hadn’t been for Obama’s presidency, so let’s just designate him as the man who caused the disaster.

Democrats and the mainstream media showed tasteful reserve in all but eradicating images of that other famous man-caused disaster that occurred on September 11th, 2001. To respond in kind, we will not dwell on a detailed review of the devastation of the Obama-caused disasters in foreign policy. We will gloss over Obama’s refusal to call the Fort Hood murders acts of terror, the transferring of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed to the United States for trial, and the granting of the rights of American citizens to all and sundry foreign terrorists. Let’s further avoid mentioning the unilateral cancellation of anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe, the warnings to Israel not to defend itself against the Iranian offensive nuclear program, and the tacit endorsement of the acts of international villains from Hugo Chavez to Kim Jong-il.

Still, the DHS must devise and employ countermeasures against such man-caused disasters. Here are a few suggestions:

Just as we now require background checks for some firearms purchases, we should likewise require background checks on any American voter who cast one (or more) ballots in Barack Obama’s presidential election. Such a voting record would immediately cast suspicion on that voter’s sanity and judgment, and would place him in a “high risk” category subject to full body search. And yes, this might include a cavity search. Security officers might want to start in the brain cavity that–in Obama voters–would likely contain much dangerous material.

Just as the Transportation Security Agency keeps a “No-Fly List” (even if unenforced against likely terrorists), the federal government should keep a “No Hire List.” This list would be populated by operatives from the Democrat political machine in Chicago, long-term congregants of the Trinity United Church of Chicago, and anyone who owns a Che Guevara t-shirt. Additional persons to be included in the federal “No-Hire List” would be anyone appointed, pardoned, praised, bowed to or admitted without invitation to a White House party by the Obama administration.

As the TSA limits carry-on luggage, we should also limit the ability of any member of the Obama administration to carry on. They must be prevented from pontificating, speechifying and carrying on about how they won’t rest till our enemies are brought to justice. This sort of rhetoric is contradicted by an administration that permits terrorists and murderers to engage the highest-paid lawyers the ACLU can provide and expose the secrets of our national security to anyone trying to discover them. When this administration mouths the lyrics of patriotism and sings the praises of the men and women who defend us, every word is false and every note is sour.

Most important of all, every American must undertake to remain alert, vigilant and proactive as we guard against more man-caused disasters in the future. What can an ordinary citizen do to keep us safe? You will find the most effective means at your polling place. If Americans show more sense than their leaders next November, both the disasters and the men who cause them can be forever removed from authority. It won’t keep us safe from every enemy–but it will reduce the threat from the internal ones.

Honoring KSM

LowDownCentral — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:00:06 +0000

By Lance Thompson

The Obama administration’s decision to try Kalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in a civilian court rather than before a military tribunal left many Americans mystified. Since Attorney General Eric Holder’s old law firm defends terrorists held in Gitmo (and did so while he was a senior partner there), we can assume that a Justice Department under his control will not successfully or even vigorously prosecute this confessed mastermind of the September 11th attacks. Much time and money will be wasted in parading KSM through the legal process. There is, however, a way to serve justice swiftly and, one might even say, diplomatically.

It is well known that KSM revealed vital information about the al Qaeda organization that enabled Americans to interdict terrorist attacks against our country. This information was obtained with the help of interrogation methods that included waterboarding. These methods, many believe, are the real target of the Obama administration in this trial, since KSM has already confessed to his integral role in the 9/11 attacks. In a civilian court, the methods of interrogation are as much on trail as the defendant, especially when the defendant’s prosecutors are sympathetic to and indistinguishable from the defendant’s defenders.

If Obama and Holder’s Justice Department do not really wish to prosecute KSM, and the defendant’s release is expected if not desired, then let’s not waste time with a civilian court or a military tribunal.

Instead of dragging KSM to New York for a months-long terrorist trial circus, let President Obama simply pardon him. And not in a quiet, weekend ceremony in the middle of the night, as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid handle controversial votes on health care. Arrange a reception in the White House Rose Garden, with a band, supportive members of the media, and a 70-virgin choir vocalizing Islamic chants.

Let Obama present KSM with some sort of award (too bad the Nobel Peace Prize is already taken for the year) recognizing his service to America. A cash stipend might not be out of order either–a million or two would hardly be missed in the federal spending spree currently underway. Obama could even claim that Paid Islamic Informant is one of the 60,000 phantom jobs created or saved by the stimulus bill.

Such accolades may seem excessive to those of us who view KSM as a confessed enemy of our nation and murderer of our countrymen. But consider how he will be received by his fellow terrorists once he is publicly congratulated and rewarded for the information he provided to the Great Satan. Who knows how many Predator missile strikes, covert assaults, and dead terrorists resulted from information KSM provided to his interrogators? He can hardly claim a hero’s welcome after ratting out his fellow rats.

Thus, I think al Qaeda will mete out the proper punishment to this blabbermouth with much less of the delay, hand-wringing and endless appeal that a US civil court trial would guarantee. If we’re lucky, maybe al Jazeera or some enterprising Islamist youtuber will post a grainy video of KSM losing his head at the hands of some sword-wielding fanatic.

This is the best way to punish KSM. But the real target of this trial is not the entity identified by those three initials. The real targets are the entities identified by the initials FBI, CIA, and USA.
Those are the enemies of the Obama administration. But in three years, we’ll have a chance to vote for president again. Then we can get rid of the ultimate three-letter enemy: BHO.

If It Quacks, It Must Be A Marxist

LowDownCentral — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:00:52 +0000

by Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

In American politics, the fringe groups of the left, right and center sooner or later end up accusing the sitting President of the United States of being a Nazi, a Marxist or a Communist. Such references are usually punctuated by cartoons of the luckless leader sporting a Hitlerian moustache, a fuzzy beard and wild smoky hair, or perhaps even a handlebar moustache below a leering look. By way of example, if you Google “Bush and Hitler” you get well over nine million hits.

Until now, it was semi-amusing to blow off steam with this kind of partisan ram-rodding. It seemed harmless because “everyone does it.” And we would laugh it off because we knew in our hearts that all the jabbing was no more than satire run amok. That was then.

This is now:

In the frenetic months leading up to the 2008 presidential election, conservative pundits railed against Barack Obama’s questionable alliances, specifically Bill Ayers, Tony Rezco, George Soros, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Sean Hannity of FoxNews initiated an unrelenting and unyielding charge against the candidate’s suspicious leftist associations, tracing the dubious connections as far back as Obama’s childhood. But the powerful and fawning mainstream media were able to block, distort, distract, and disengage from what Hannity and others tried to present as nothing more than a smear campaign against their chosen one. They were blinded by Obama’s shining smile and the opportunity to make politically correct history. History has been made, but it’s been extraordinarily incorrect.

Try as they might, the conservative talking heads barely put a chink in the armor the MSM had dressed Obama in since his rousing 2004 speech at the DNC. That was the day, nigh, the moment, when the lights went on in the heads of the leftist power elite -- that here was the malleable shining star who could and would make the changes they so desperately tried to effect since the last Great Depression. “Last” you say? Yes, because creating the second Great Depression is the aim of this administration: to crush the hearts and minds of the citizenry until we accept their brand of redistributive change.

Conservatives in both public and private life who speak on behalf of our Constitutional rights and against this maelstrom have been ruthlessly branded by lefties, liberal journalists, RINOs, and the press with just about every hostile and threatening moniker. It’s not unlike the way the Nazis slapped the yellow cut-out Star of David on Jews throughout Germany and in countries overrun by the Third Reich. The Jews of Europe had no one to speak freely on their behalf without fear of retribution, and that silence contributed to the destruction of European Jews.

Today, an American – a white knight – has charged forth to expose the brutish attempts to wreck our country. He is working hard to help with the recovery of conservatism and lead the counterattack to save the former “United” States of America. That knight is Glenn Beck.

Practically from his debut he has been the object of extreme ridicule (the usual thread-worn defense mechanism of liberals). He’s been called a circus clown, a raging alcoholic, a moron, or, as Stephen King referred to him, “Satan’s mentally challenged younger brother.” But this time the sticks and stones are bouncing off his proud chest like the proverbial shit hitting the fan -- and it’s landing square on the smug faces of Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and David Letterman. And the sludge is coming in the form of stratospheric ratings for Glenn Beck and Fox News.

Beck has repeatedly pointed out that Obama’s message has been unambiguous with respect to his revolutionary intentions. Beck’s exhortations were not innuendo or speculation but direct, factual quotes and video footage of then candidate Obama which would hold up in any court of law. But Americans, largely shielded by the utopian fantasies of the leftist media, did not, or wished not, to hear or see the truth.

Even David Von Drehle has proffered in Time Magazine, albeit in a backhanded way, “…Whom do you trust? Either the corrupt, communist-loving traitors on the left are causing this, or it's the racist, greedy warmongers on the right, or maybe the dishonest, incompetent, conniving media, which refuse to tell the truth about whomever you personally happen to despise.”

At the Huffington Post, Camille Paglia recently wrote, “The mainstream media's failure to honestly cover last month's mass demonstration in Washington, D.C. was a disgrace. The focus on anti-Obama placards (which were no worse than the rabid anti-LBJ, anti-Reagan or anti-Bush placards of leftist protests), combined with the grotesque attempt to equate criticism of Obama with racism, simply illustrated why the old guard TV networks and major urban daily newspapers are slowly dying. Only a simpleton would believe what they say.”

Green jobs adviser, Van “Republicans are a bunch of assholes” Jones, resigned purportedly so as not to distract from Obama’s agenda. Gosh, we wonder why. And then this past week, Obama’s Mao-worshipping Communications Director, Anita Dunn, has also resigned. Two down, and several Marxists (dots that Beck has already connected) to go, are waiting in the wings, eager to sacrifice themselves for their greater god, uh, good.

Over the last few months, Beck has ingenuously presented facts and pointed questions about everyone surrounding Barack Obama and those within his inner sanctum. You just can’t make this stuff up, and everyone knows it. Beck is smart, but even he could not concoct the shocking pyramid of leftists with direct access to the most powerful man on earth. The presidential minions have been given ample opportunity to refute possible misstatements of fact or opinion, but they have instead chosen to ignore the commentary in the mistaken belief that their silence would be interpreted as not lending credence to those facts and opinions.

It is no secret – and no surprise to conservatives – that Obama & Co. (the duplicitous Democrat-controlled Congress) are forging the chains of socialistic enslavement of the American People, and pulling our country apart at the seams. But Beck’s relentless search for the truth is growing exponentially, so much so that the upcoming American Revolt of 2010 already is being felt around the world.

The freedom that we cherish, which was born from the precepts and principles of our sacred Constitution, is a “one size fits all” gift from our founding fathers – from those individuals who put their lives on the line and holding that line against oppression. No one person or group is granted either more or less — everyone is equal in freedom.

And so we conclude: “If it walks like a Marxist, quacks like a Marxist, looks like a Marxist, you can bet it’s not a duck.”

Gitmo Hero

LowDownCentral — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:00:28 +0000

by Lance Thompson

The American naval base at Guantanamo Bay has received plenty of attention in recent years, ever since we started hosting terrorists in pleasant Carribean detention there. Liberals and wobbly conservatives have called for shutting down the terrorist-holding facilities there for some sort of vague public relations purpose. I’m all for relieving the United States Navy of the responsibility of running a tropical retreat for our enemies, as long as they can be moved to some place more fitting–like Devil’s Island.

Whenever I hear about Guantanamo, I always wonder how the US Navy ended up with such a perfect natural harbor on one end of the most brutal, oppressive and dangerous communist island in the world. Moreover, how does the United States maintain its position there while the Castro family has spent half a century trying to devise ways to get rid of us? To satisfy my curiosity, I did some research. Like so many other world-changing aspects of history, the security of our base at Guantanamo can be traced to one man–determined, aggressive, and fearless.

United States Marines planted the first American flag at Guantanamo Bay during the Spanish-American War in 1898, in which Cuba gained independence from Spain. The new Cuban government, in 1903, signed a treaty that leased Guantanamo Bay to the United States to use as a coaling station for American naval forces. The United States was to have complete jurisdiction and control over Guantanamo Bay in perpetuity. Only by abandoning the base could the United States abrogate the treaty.

For many years, the landlord-tenant relationship was mutually beneficial. In exchange for an excellent harbor on the west coast of Cuba, the United States pumped money into the Cuban economy, paying rent; buying food, water, building supplies and other goods from Cuba; and employing thousands of Cubans in the base civilian work force.

In 1959, the situation changed radically. Fidel Castro, briefly imprisoned for a previous attempt at insurrection, finally succeeded in overthrowing the government of dictator Fulgencio Batista, and instituted a communist system increasingly dependent on Soviet aid. Castro nationalized hundreds of millions of dollars worth of American private property on the island, and the United States responded with a trade embargo. The Eisenhower and subsequent Kennedy administrations both wanted Castro out.

In April, 1961, an American-sponsored invasion by Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs failed when President Kennedy refused to authorize American air support. In October, 1962, an American U-2 reconnaissance plane detected Soviet missile launchers being erected in Cuba. A tense diplomatic showdown ensued, escalating to an American blockade against Soviet ships, and the world stood at the brink of war between nuclear superpowers. Ultimately, the Soviets agreed to dismantle their launchers, take back their missiles, and uneasy peace was restored.

Yet Castro, recently exposed as an enthusiastic and bellicose Soviet client, still had a large American naval base on the western end of his island nation, reminding him that he was not master of his domain. He was determined to rid himself of the American military presence.

Into this highly-charged atmosphere came the new Guantanamo Bay base commander, newly-minted rear admiral John D. Bulkeley. It was December, 1963, two weeks after the assassination of President Kennedy showed the world that its fate is never certain. Admiral Bulkeley commanded a garrison of 5,000 marines, sailors and Seabees and a squadron of Crusader jets with which to defend his 45 square miles of Cuban real estate from Castro’s 250,000-man military equipped with modern Soviet weapons, tanks, and MiG fighters. Of course, Guantanamo was backed up by military forces on the American mainland, but Bulkeley’s position was hardly favorable.

Bulkeley was not intimidated. During World War II her served in the Pacific, Atlantic and Mediterranean. Among other achievements, Bulkeley engaged and sunk Japanese and German warships, conducted secret missions on the coast of Fortress Europe, and was the PT boat skipper who delivered General Douglas MacArthur from Corregidor, through a cordon of Japanese ships and planes, to safety on Mindanao. By the end of the war, Bulkeley had been awarded a Silver Star, three Distinguished Service Medals, two Distinguished Service Crosses, the Navy Cross and the Medal of Honor. He was not the type to back down from a fight.

Castro tested Bulkeley in the first few days. Cuban engineers bulldozed 1100 feet of chain link fence on the perimeter, and Castro’s minister of state security sent Bulkeley a threatening message advising the Americans it would be “imprudent” to repair the fence. The reason for this incursion was that failing to repair the fence was considered “abandonment” by the treaty, and Castro could lay claim to Guantanamo if the Americans abandoned the base. If Bulkeley heeded the Cuban warning and did nothing, the United States could lose legal claim to the base. If he defied the Cubans, he could incite a shooting war with a Soviet ally.

Bulkeley ordered the fence repaired the next morning. The admiral, dressed in fatigues, stood shoulder to shoulder with two thousand well-armed marines at the break in the fence. His Crusaders were overhead, and four destroyers were in the bay, armed and ready for any Cuban reaction. There was none, and navy Seabees had the fence repaired before dark. Bulkeley had stood tall and Castro had backed down.

The Cuban government repeatedly incited the population with fabrications about American atrocities, incursions, and provocations–none of which were true, and none of which caused a popular uprising against the Americans. So in February, 1964, Castro seized control of the pumping station for Guantanamo’s fresh water supply (which was outside the Guantanamo perimeter) and shut off the tap. The Americans had been paying the Cuban government for the water since 1939, and Castro had kept the pipeline open even through the Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis to get the $14,00 monthly payment. But now Castro intended to drive the Americans out by drought.

Bulkeley instituted severe water restrictions for the ten thousand Americans (military personnel, their families, and civilian workers) on base, cutting the two million gallons used per day in half. Water tankers and barges shuttling back and forth from the United States and Jamaica brought millions of gallons per visit, and a desalination unit on one vessel supplied further water, but the base was far from self-sufficient. The crisis made American headlines, and during this presidential election year, there was plenty of bipartisan support for the base commander. President Johnson authorized immediate construction of a permanent desalination plant at Guantanamo.

With Bulkeley and Guantanamo holding out even without Cuban fresh water, Castro was on the verge of a public relations embarrassment–the Americans didn’t need his water. So he fabricated another scandal–he accused the Americans of stealing Cuban water through the old pipeline. Immediately, inquiries from the international press and the American State Department flooded Bulkeley’s office–“Are you stealing Cuban water?”

What neither Castro nor the gullible press knew was that Bulkeley had sealed off the old pipeline as a precaution against Castro restoring the flow with tainted or poisoned water. Bulkeley sensed a public relations victory of his own. He invited members of the press to Guantanamo, and had his engineers cut open the pipeline at the perimeter. It was bone dry, as it had been for at least a week. Castro was publicly caught in a lie, Bulkeley had again outsmarted him, and the world press was there to witness it.

Guantanamo’s desalination plant was completed by July, ensuring water self-sufficiency in perpetuity. Castro was furious–Bulkeley outmaneuvered him at every turn. When Cuban soldiers set up searchlights across the fence from a marine strong point, shining the intense beams into the eyes of the sentries to blind them, Bulkeley had a giant Marine Corps emblem placed on the front of the strong point. When the Cubans realized they were just lighting up the emblem of their enemies, they removed the searchlights.

Castro’s schemes continued, but Bulkeley frustrated them all. The Cubans even shot one of their own deceased soldiers and blamed the death on trigger-happy marines, but Bulkeley had clear evidence that the shot did not come from an American weapon. Castro’s frustration finally led him to put a $50,000 bounty on Bulkeley, dead or alive. It was never collected.

At any one of the crisis points in the first years of Castro’s reign, a less resolute officer might have buckled under the pressure. John D. Bulkeley was not prone to buckling. He steadfastly defended American interests with demonstrations (but never use of) of force, by ingenuity, and by exposing communist lies and propaganda.

Bulkeley had one advantage over contemporary officers. He enjoyed the full support of the American press, public and president. In the mid-sixties, American military victories, whether moral or martial, were celebrated by our nation. Presidents still honored officers who performed well under pressure, rather than second-guessing them. Citizens still cheered heroes, rather than questioning their motives. The press still trumpeted our triumphs, rather than questioning our principles.

Admiral John D. Bulkeley made it clear that America would never willingly give up Guantanamo Bay, and would fight to keep it. The legacy of his courage ensured our possession of Guantanamo Bay today. According to the treaty, only abandonment will return this important American base to the communists. If he were still around, Admiral Bulkeley would be astonished at how many Americans want to do just that.

---

For the full story on Admiral Bulkeley and his lifelong service to this nation, see “Sea Wolf, the Daring Exploits of a Navy Legend,” by William A. Breuer, Presidio Press, Novato, California, 1989