Shampoo and Conditioning

British illusionist, Derren Brown, has made a career out of his obsession with subliminal messaging. In the video below he displays a stunning example of how easily we can be influenced. I don’t want to spoil the video for you so I will let you see for yourself. It is amazing…

Now that you have watched the video; I have one word for you, “Islamophobia”. For years we have been conditioned into believing that attacks on Al Qaeda, Baathists, and the Taliban are heavily influenced by our prejudice against Islamic people. We are continually taught that terrorists attack us because of our prejudices.

It was no accident that the Obama Administration bizarrely obsessed over a false narrative regarding the Benghazi attacks on a US “diplomatic compound” in that city. Against a mountain of evidence the Administration continued to insist that the attacks were the result of a fabricated protest against a video that made fun of the Prophet Mohammed.

The YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims”, was made by an Egyptian-American. It led to violent protests in Cairo that later spread around the world. Even though the Pentagon, the State Department, CIA, FBI and the President of Libya disagreed, the Obama Administration continued to mislead the American people.

In order to promote this absurd view point Obama stated;

…What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

NATURAL PROTESTS?! If there had been similar protests against the “Piss Christ” there is no way Obama would have described them as “natural”. (The Piss Christ was a federally funded artwork that shows a crucifix with Jesus Christ immersed in a glass of the artist’s urine.) Obama is conditioned to embrace the belligerent anger of Muslims and ignore or condemn any similar Christian sentiment (you know, the ones who “cling to guns and religion”).

On September 16th, 2012 Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf confirmed on the CBS show ‘Face the Nation’ that the Benghazi attack was a planned operation and it was organized months before the video protests.  He stated;

It was planned definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who … entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their… arrival.”

Yet Susan Rice continued the Obama Administration’s lie on the same show.  She declared;

…based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy.”

Libyan President El-Magariaf was a Sunni Muslim, but still felt no need to attack American Islamophobia and link it to this attack. Like most Americans he clearly understood that the attack was an organized operation that had nothing to do with the Cairo protests, while the Obama Administration continued to push a false narrative.

Missing in Action

In view of Obama’s preoccupation with Islamophobia, it was no surprise that he was not interested in one of the largest political rallies in French history. On Sunday, January 11th 3.7 million people and over 40 world leaders marched in Paris and other French cities to condemn recent terrorist attacks on a French newspaper and a kosher supermarket.

Despite the large scale attendance of Muslims and Muslim religious leaders, Obama had little interest in promoting moderate Islam on this occasion. Instead he stayed home and watched football.

The White House claimed that since planning for the event had begun only 36 hours before, there wasn’t enough time to organize security for the President. However, over 40 presidents and prime ministers (including Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu) attended the event. Are we to believe that the Secret Service could not match the security services of 40 other countries, including Israel?

This bald-faced lie is completely in character for the Obama Administration. To understand what really happened take a good look at one of the targets of the terrorist attack, Charlie Hedbo magazine.

God Damn the 1st Amendment

In 2006 Charlie Hedbo republished the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons that had previously ignited deadly riots around the world. The magazine’s right to free speech was upheld by a French court when the editor was acquitted of the crime of “abusing a group on the grounds of their religion”.

This sort of free speech does not fit President Obama’s vision of the “future”. Around the time he was falsely blaming the Benghazi attack on an imaginary protest, Obama pushed his cherished talking point on the UN General Assembly.  He infamously proclaimed:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

In the space of one minute he placed Americans who exercise their freedom of speech on the same level of 1) the terrorists who kill Coptic Christians in Egypt and 2) the dictator of Syria, who slaughters his own people with crude chemical weapons. Obama said:

1) “The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt.”
2) “In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people.”

I’m sorry. My future shouldn’t be threatened because I don’t believe that Mohammed was a prophet. It is my right not to believe and my right to express my right not to believe. I am not an “obstructionist”.  I am exercising my right to free speech.

Obama has allies in his fight against the defamation of the prophet of Islam. In Pakistan a Christian mother of five, Asia Bibi, was sentenced to death for “defiling the name of the Prophet Mohammed”.

It is interesting to note that the charges were brought against her by Pakistanis who were discriminating against her faith. Bibi’s fellow field workers refused to drink out of a bucket of water that she touched because she wasn’t Muslim. An argument ensued and now she is condemned to death. Several prominent politicians in Pakistan have been assassinated for speaking out on Bibi’s behalf (including the only Christian member of the Cabinet).

In Bangladesh a cartoonist, Arifur Rahman, was jailed for six months because he made an innocent, a-political joke naming a cat “Mohammed”. Under pressure from Islamists Bangladesh has also persecuted bloggers for insulting Mohammed. Writer, Asif Mohiuddin, was murdered last week for defending them. This has become a regular pattern in that country.

When an Egyptian social studies teacher, Demiana Emad, said that the former Coptic Christian Pope Shenuda III was a better man than Mohammed she was jailed for six months and forced to pay a heavy fine.

We can go down the list such as; Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, UAE, Yemen, etc… but you get the idea. The most relevant case is the death sentence for seven Egyptian Christians for their roles in the movie “Innocence of Muslims”.

As his allies in Egypt were busy building a death penalty case, Obama was trying to persuade Google and YouTube to pull down the video. Although he failed, the video was later taken down for reasons that had nothing to do with insulting the Prophet.

The funny thing about some Americans is that they really do treasure the freedom of speech. It’s not just words…

The Future of Those Who Slander the USA

When a bully is looking for an excuse he will always find another one.  So if we surrender our freedom of speech Islamic terrorism will still continue. The conspiracy theories that fuel the hatred of Islamists are not even the sole domain of just Islamists. Westerners themselves are often the first to blame western imperialism.  We give them the reasons to justify their holy war against us.

On the other hand, I refuse to censor 9/11 Truthers and other conspiracy nuts no matter how much they offend me.  I also reserve the right to criticize them in return.

In protests we have turned a blind eye towards those who urge soldiers to assassinate their officers.

Anti-war activists protested at Walter Reed Medical Center, where injured soldiers were recovering from their wounds. They carried signs such as, “Enlist Here and Die for Halliburton” and “Maimed for Lies”.

However, there is no way in the world that I would demand that they be censored.  I will condemn their hateful propaganda until my last breath, but I am proud that my country tolerates such foolishness so that we can protect EVERYONE who expresses unpopular opinions.

Almost everyone “condemns” the violence of Islamists, but we often hear the caveat that cartoonists and amateur movie makers should behave themselves. So if a sacrilegious artwork such as the Piss Christ can be federally funded, how can anyone who approves of that object to publishing privately funded artwork such as the Mohammed cartoons? (Or is government approved blasphemy OK? Just kidding comrades)

The Elephant in the Room

Thanks to “Islamophobia” and our self-loathing bias we are blind to what is really happening in the world.  We know very little outside of anti-American talking points. The only reason we are familiar with the opposing point of view is because we are very familiar with the talking points that form the criticisms of them.

As an example, Gwen Ifill conducted a PBS interview of an author who traveled to the Islamic State to report on what is happening there. It was almost amusing to watch her confusion over the fact that the author was not beheaded when he traveled to ISIS territory.

It stands to reason that if you are a journalist covering international events you would understand the motivations of the subjects of your interview. Even before I pressed play to watch the video I knew the answer to Ifill’s lack of understanding.

The author that Ifill interviewed is a German named “Jürgen Todenhöfer”. Without any research I immediately realized that he was an anti-war activist. How is it possible that she can’t figure this out?

Todenhöfer was proud to criticize the ICC indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for genocide in the Darfur region of western Sudan. The Sudanese government and its Janjaweed militias destroyed 400 villages, displaced 2.5 million people and instigated a genocide that cost 400,000 lives (and countless rapes).

In an open letter to the ICC prosecutor, Todenhöfer argued that if President Bush or Prime Minister Blair has not been indicted by the court then they should not indict the Sudanese President. So HELLO Gwen Ifill, it’s obvious why the Islamic State let this man into their territory without beheading him.

We Are Useful Tools

Todenhöfer seems like a really nice guy, like a friendly grandpa... But very friendly with terrorists and dictators and a complete tool. The problem is that he knows this. That is why he reiterates over and over that he criticizes the Islamic State. I’m sure he does, but he didn’t make too many criticisms during the interview.

Regardless, the Islamic State doesn’t care when Todenhöfer criticizes their brutality or their dictatorial nature. They actually want him to report those things. They rule through terror so they don’t want the message to go out that they are reasonable and accommodating liberals.

Most of all they want Todenhöfer and other likeminded Westerners to continue their propaganda. He has no sense of history outside of anti-Americanism. Only a pronounced bias can lead to this claim by Todenhöfer;

If you send your troops, even your best troops, I think they would have little chance to fight in a guerilla war in a big city. Because an American soldier, even your best soldiers the Marines or Special Forces, they want to come home, they want to survive. But these people want to die. They want to win and they are ready to die.”

He conveniently forgets the tenacity that US troops have shown over the years. This is nothing new to our soldiers.  In the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II the Japanese commander, General Kuribayashi, issued an order forbidding his troops to commit suicidal Banzai charges because they always failed against US firepower. The Banzai charge was replaced by kamikazes, but the US still defeated the Japanese Empire.

During the Battle of the Surge US Marines also used superior firepower against a suicidal enemy with success. Al Qaeda suffered a great defeat. Todenhöfer knows this, but he feels that he needs to propagandize against the US to help prevent us from being what he considers to be warlike and foolish.  The Islamic State counted on that when they issued him a guarantee of protection.

That is why they offered Todenhöfer the opportunity to try on a suicide belt. During another interview with CNN he blurted out that, “…these belts are very small, very easy to wear… I wore one… it’s a horrible feeling…”

In the video you can see that Todenhöfer realized he shouldn’t have admitted that on camera. He becomes visibly uncomfortable and looks down away from the camera as he grasps for words. Thankfully for him it is CNN and the interviewer bails him out by changing the subject. Soft interviews are a given when you have the right talking points.

In actuality the Islamic State doesn’t really need Todenhöfer.  There is enough anti-American propaganda in the Western world. However, he posed no threat for them and they felt they could use him anyway.

As long as we tell the world that Americans are racist warmongers and that is why we invade other countries, they will never believe anything we say (other than when we say bad things about ourselves). When Obama suffers from the Karzai Dilemma and tells the UN that the US is racist, the Muslim world will not believe him when he claims to be bombing the Middle East for humanitarian reasons.

To them it’s no different than a bank robber who rats on his accomplices. And just imagine if the leader of the gang tries to blame the other robbers. Who is going to believe him?

The cognitive dissonance will only be overlooked by those who claim to be American patriots, but are conditioned to believe that America’s foreign policy has always been primarily motivated by bigotry and greed.

Stuck In The Karzai Dilemma

More and more people are finally beginning to see the truth about Islamist terrorism. Recent attacks against our “intellectual superiors” in Europe have created a backlash. No matter how much our biased media wants to blame the West for terrorism, they cannot allow a threat to their livelihood to go unanswered.

Chris Matthews had a fascinating interview with State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf. As a member of the “Obama Department” and a former campaign advisor, Harf is completely insulated against reality. She repeatedly demonstrated her ignorance during the interview.

This ignorance exists from the top to bottom. President Obama recently said,

“…I reject a notion that somehow that (Islamist extremism) creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam. I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge it is very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9% of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we are looking for…”

So if al-Zawahiri and al-Baghdadi are not Muslim, what religion do they belong to? It’s not just wishful thinking, Obama is really just a compulsive propagandist. .1% doesn’t come anywhere near the support base for Islamist extremism. The Pew Research Center did a study which revealed that 15% of US Muslims between 18 to 29 years old thought that suicide bombing was justified. Keep in mind that the average age of a suicide bomber is in the early twenties.

Regardless, Obama would never say that the term “White Supremacy” is a problem because it is supported by only .1% of whites. Such an argument could be used to justify the rebranding of the term “White Supremacy” to something like “Misrepresentative Cross Section of Unnamed Master Race”.

You can see the hollowness of this rhetoric when Chris Matthews asked Marie Harf how can we stop terrorism. She replied;

“…We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…” Harf then doubled down on this nonsense by saying, “We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people…”

This lack of understanding by intelligent people can only be explained by denial. The resulting rationalizations just cloud any attempt to define solutions.

The Myth of Oppressed Terrorists

Over a dozen years ago I had a Jewish business associate who traveled extensively in the Middle East. I made a comment that since he dealt with educated people he probably didn’t have to worry that much about religious prejudice. His reply stunned me. He said that educated people in the Middle East were more indoctrinated than the uneducated.

Newsweek supports this observation with a quote from terrorism expert, Walter Laqueur, who stated that terrorists are, “relatively well educated and gainfully employed”.

At the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Marc Sageman, was concerned about our lack of knowledge concerning terrorism. He conducted a survey of 162 terrorists. His study (that was conducted over a decade ago) would stun the ill-informed Obama Administration today.

• About two-thirds of the terrorists went to college, in an area of the world where only about 10 percent of young men get a post-secondary education


• About 87 percent came from generally secular backgrounds (most of the other 13 percent, who studied at the Muslim schools known as madrassas, were Indonesians)


• Most came from middle or upper-middle class households

We can still help Muslim countries build their economies, BUT WE WILL ALSO NEED A PLAN TO COMBAT TERRORISM!!!

The Trap of the Karzai Dilemma

Former Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, owed his political power to the United States. Operation Enduring Freedom helped him gain political office. During his presidency our country was his primary financial and military supporter.

Yet Karzai’s relationship with the US was very strained, particularly with President Obama. Back in 2011 Karzai had a public meltdown. US air strikes (the preferred military reaction of the Obama Administration) had killed and wounded some innocent Afghan civilians.

(Before continuing I would like to make it clear that while I am criticizing the Obama Administration, I am not attacking our military. Airstrikes in a warzone against armed combatants are legal under the Geneva Conventions. However, friendly fire incidents show that if friendly military units can be accidently targeted, then innocent civilians are also at risk. Their deaths are not necessarily intentional and are often caused by the fog of war.)

Getting back to the point, Karzai reacted to American air strikes by declaring;

“With great honor and with great respect, and humbly rather than with arrogance, I request that NATO and America should stop these operations on our soil… …This war is not on our soil. If this war is against terror, then this war is not here, terror is not here.”

Despite his dependence on the US, this was just one of many anti-American tirades by Karzai. It betrays another dependency. In order to stay relevant to his people Karzai had to use Anti-Americanism to distance himself from his ally.

Anti-Americanism is the Problem

President Obama rose to prominence thanks to the political power of his church, Trinity United Church of Christ. It was led by his mentor; Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who is infamous for his anti-American sermons. His declaration of, “God Damn America”, is a testament to how deeply Pastor Wright felt he could pay tribute to anti-Americanism.

Obama’s debt to anti-Americanism is constantly being repaid. Last September Obama made a speech to the UN urging them to fight against ISIS. He switched gears for a moment in an amazing display of the Karzai Dilemma.

“I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.”

I would like to translate that into plain English for you. He is basically saying that, “I may sound like a George Bush warmonger, but I am as anti-American as you”.

In the Middle East the media and schools teach only that America killed the Indians, oppresses minorities, props up Israel and colonizes the planet. They know nothing but the bad that our country has done (or what they claim we have done). Populist Democrats preach the same thing. Islamist and Populist propaganda converge in Anti-Americanism.

President Obama would like to destroy ISIS, but leave anti-Americanism intact. That is impossible.

The only way to defeat Islamic Terrorism is to disarm the reason for its existence. Anti-Americanism helps to radicalize and recruit new members. It also helped to rationalize the justifications for the beheadings of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig.

The Karzai Dilemma leaves President Obama powerless because he must always kowtow to anti-Americanism while fighting America’s enemies.

• Whenever President Bush was responsible for an airstrike that resulted in collateral damage (real or imagined), Obama could ride his high horse.


• Whenever President Obama is responsible for a similar airstrike it raises uncomfortable questions. So he fishes for sympathy by slyly insinuating to the listener that he is a black man and the US oppresses his race. His UN speech was a classic example of unstated assumptions used as propaganda. 

It gives me no pleasure to watch him squirm. These airstrikes are often necessary. I wish collateral damage did not exist, but I do not subscribe to a populist ideology that promises a perfect world. I support President Obama’s war on ISIS, but I know the truth. His anti-American populist ideology is a part of the problem.

If you really want to win the war against ISIS you must change Mr. President. You can still preach about the racism of America’s past, but do not forget that it is not just America’s history. It is the history of the world and a part of human nature.

Blaming the sins of the world on the US ignores the great history of our representative democracy and the present day triumphs of civil rights. The solution can’t be found by fabricating white racism, when the problem is truly black racism against whites. (White racism does exist, but it was not a factor in the violence between police officer Darren Wilson and Blood gangster Mike Brown.)

Many countries in Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East don’t have the diversity from global immigration that we have. For many of them free speech and equal rights are only a dream. And they often suffer from terrible corruption that snuffs out struggling businesses. We are a white majority country with a black President and more equality than any populist hustler will ever sincerely admit.

Mr. President you rode the tiger and don’t want to get off. If you really want a great legacy here is your chance. Work to destroy anti-Americanism and the associated victimhood rackets. That will help rot away the foundation of Islamic terrorism…

Time to Make a Stand

President Obama Fiddles While the World Burns

In Iran the most amazing things are happening. Every year on the anniversary of the 1979 storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran, pro-government demonstrators march in front of the embassy to denounce America. This year Democracy activists are counter-protesting and appealing to the U.S. for help. It is an amazing turn of events which reveals that Obama Administration has been neglecting Iran’s Democracy movement for too long.

Many protesters gathered in chants of, “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us”. Obama’s culture of self-loathing anti-Americanism is being challenged like never before. His foreign policy of playing nice with our enemies and tough with our friends is not paying off. The leftwing ideology of anti-Americanism is cracking at the seams.

President Obama has been dithering for too long. His policy of ignoring the truth about the Iranian regime in order to foster dialog with them is angering Iranians who long for freedom. While the Mullahs of Iran are helping to kill American troops, support further instability in the Levant, oppress their citizens and stall efforts to prevent its nuclear proliferation… Obama does nothing.

Obama and His Generals

It is an all too familiar pattern. After some early hope that Obama would live up to his hawkish campaign promise to focus on the battle against terrorism in Afghanistan, the President has become negligent towards what he once referred to as the “central front” in the War on Terror (or rather what used to be called the War on Terror). Judging by the way he has always shunned our top generals in the field, it was inevitable.

On January 10, 2007, Obama was quoted on MSNBC as saying the following about the Iraq Troop Surge:

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality - we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

Considering the success of the Surge it would be logical to wonder which military officers Obama was talking to.

In May of 2008 Vets for Freedom released an ad challenging Presidential candidate Barack Obama to meet one on one with General Petraeus, whom he had been reluctant to consult with. It was a part of a firestorm of criticism that forced Obama to visit Iraq and meet directly with Petraeus.

So Obama didn’t sit down to meet with General Petraeus, one on one, until July 2008. Therefore he never properly consulted Petraeus (the principal architect of the Surge) before condemning the operation. Furthermore, he had to be shamed into directly meeting with the general through determined political pressure. Obama didn’t speak privately with any military officer who believed that the Surge would make a substantial difference on the ground because he was not interested in meeting with military leaders that would express such sentiments. His consultations with military leaders were dictated by his desire to shape his military policy according to his own political agenda and so he consulted only with military leaders who he felt would support his preconceived conclusions.

This is not an isolated trend. In August of this year the Obama Administration shelved a report from General Stanley McChrystal asking for a troop increase in Afghanistan. By the end of September it became known that the President didn’t meet with McChrystal in person since the general took over command of Afghanistan in June and only spoke to him on one occasion during that time. Once again, after concerted political pressure, Obama was shamed into meeting our top commander who was in charge of our most critical war zone.

President Obama is not as interested in winning the war in Afghanistan as much as he is interested in promoting himself politically. I don’t doubt that he would like to win the war, but he has other priorities ahead of that goal. His non-stop political campaigning takes precedence. Obama is running for the 2012 presidential election now, just like he spent much of his only term in the U.S. Senate running for President in the 2008 election.

When Obama finally met McChrystal, the general had to fly to Denmark where the President was campaigning to have the 2016 Olympics hosted in his hometown! McChrystal was lucky that Obama was able to squeeze in 25 minutes to meet him. He was third down in the list of the President’s priorities.

Associated Press related that Obama originally turned down several requests by the Chicago bid committee when they asked him to take part in Chicago’s presentation to the IOC. Despite Obama’s long commitment to Chicago’s bid, he professed that he was too deeply involved with the debate on health care. Ultimately the lure of Chicago politics won out and Obama decided that one day wouldn’t jeopardize his work on health care “reform”. The meeting with McChrystal was added at the last minute to a schedule that was put together at the last minute. It was a measure of Obama’s appreciation for his top general in Afghanistan.

Note: You have to cringe at the first paragraph of the AP article… (sorry the link is already dead and I can't find another respectable link.)

In a quick dash of salesmanship, President Barack Obama is in the Danish capital, putting his personal powers of persuasion on the line to boost Chicago’s Olympics bid.

Without the colorful embellishments of the American media, Obama’s exaggerated powers of persuasion really don’t amount to much in the real world.

With the haphazard meeting out of the way, the media could now turn its attention to attacking McChrystal. The same tired arguments that were shown to be false during the Iraq Troop Surge are being regurgitated in Afghanistan.

As mentioned above, Obama predicted at the beginning of the Surge that it would fail. The popular sentiment was that an increase of American troops in Iraq would lead to more violence. Yet the opposite was true. This is because ever since the Vietnam War our society has cultivated a misconception of war and occupation. There is no evidence after the success of the Surge that the sentiment of the Iraqi public dramatically changed to the point that they overwhelmingly “loved” their occupier. What happened was more realistic and is the cornerstone of COIN strategy. Our allies in Iraq felt more protected and our enemies felt more threatened. This was how the Surge was so successful.

Where is our Afghan Strategy?

When the Obama Administration ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in February 2009, the increased troop levels were expected to last three to four years. Yet in September Obama said that we need an Afghan strategy before sending more troops. He stated, “I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you don’t make decisions about resources before you have the strategy ready.”

So why did he order troops to go to Afghanistan in February if he didn’t have a strategy? Its bad enough that President Obama neglects to consult with his top commanders and has to be shamed into meeting with them one on one... but he just completely neglects our troops in Afghanistan so he can campaign for healthcare “reform”, promote Chicago’s Olympic bid, play golf and fight a war against Fox News.

This was his greatest mistake. By using his Alinsky tactics of attacking and attempting to isolate Fox News, Obama has offended his most prized ally, the media. Now they are starting to see the Obama Administration for what it is.

So President Obama... You have no choice, but to abandon your rhetoric of self-loathing anti-Americanism. Iranian protesters need you. Your top generals deserve your ear. Afghanistan has to have more troops to defend its people who are isolated by mountainous terrain and victimized by a terrorist enemy who can slip through a porous border. Do something… you are the leader of the free world and you cannot sit on the fence any longer.

Dawn of a Glorious New Age

The retired dictator of Cuba is encouraged that Obama is committed to destroying the economy of the United States. As a responsible democratic republic we can be pressured into a feverishly heavy burden of anti-carbon legislation. This is despite the fact that our environmental laws are draconian compared to countries such as India and China.

Fidel Castro gushes like a childish American journalist, “The President of the United States has conceded that the developed nations have caused most of the damage and should take responsibility for it. It was certainly a brave gesture.”

Thanks to Obama the definition of brave these days means to denigrate the United States.

This nonsense of wealthy nations versus poor nations unites Socialists in an orgy of envy and hatred.

Meanwhile the world’s number one polluter, China, reels from anti-pollution protests. In the Shaanxi province Chinese authorities ignored hundreds of protesters who complained that their children were being poisoned by industrial waste. The situation turned into running battles between police and protesters. Reporters had to sneak past roadblocks that were set up by the authorities to prevent news coverage of the riots. Local doctors have been ordered to restrict testing children for lead poisoning and now such tests can only be done when an official brings in a child.

Here is a brief list from Times Online of some recent environmental protests and scandals in China:

- Ten thousand demonstrators took hostages and fought police at a $5 billion petrochemical project in Fujian on the east coast. The battles forced the local government to promise strict anti-pollution measures at the plant.

- Authorities closed a chemical plant in central China after two locals died of cadmium poisoning. Chinese newspapers exposed a long-running scandal of political collusion that had allowed the plant to flout environmental standards.

- Mass protests broke out over “cancer villages” near polluted waterways in eastern China. A series of campaigns followed to win compensation for villagers who became ill living next to filthy canals and rivers full of factory discharge and effluent.

In recent decades the United States has made dramatic improvements in its air quality thanks to the Clean Air Act, however scientists are concerned about the effects of pollution from Asia that travels across the pacific in the upper atmosphere.

Estimates state that “Asia contributes 27% of the mercury deposition in Colorado” and the primary source of that mercury comes from the burning of coal, a heavy carbon emitter.

So Hey Obama… Perhaps developing nations should take responsibility for the environmental damage that they are creating right now. Please stop living in the past and digging for ways to bash your own country.

Irony Express

After Obama’s arrival in Saudi Arabia in his first stop of a trip designed to appease Islamist arrogance, CNN had this little tidbit for us:

Middle East expert Mamoun Fandy, (a senior fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Policy), said Muslims want more than talk; they want action.

They want to hear “that he is very serious about solving the Israeli-Arabian problem, that he is very serious about engaging the Muslim world on the basis of recognizing the equality,” Fandy said.

In addition to Saudi Arabia’s status as the most religiously segregated country on the planet, as well as being home to Wahhabism (the ideology that inspired Saudi Arabia to contribute the most suicide bombers to kill Americans)… Saudi Arabia (a Muslim country!) is also the country that the United States defended for over a decade against the aggression of Saddam Hussein.

So it’s a poor choice for the first stop on this trip.

Then Obama is off to another Muslim country, Egypt, a recipient of almost 60 billion dollars in U.S. aid since 1975. Oh, the oppression!

Enjoy the show. Lets HOPE that Muslims get the equality that they deserve when they take their wives and non-Muslim friends on their Hajj to Mecca.

Iran Offers Conditions for U.S. Surrender

To chants of “Death to America” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed President Obama’s recent overtures to his country.

In between heaping praise on Iranian culture and expressing verses of poetic love that, “the United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations” – Obama emphasized that, “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.

It was instantly declared to be a master stroke of diplomacy that would diplomatically isolate the Iranian Mullahs. Instead Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the occasion to rally his base and denounce Obama as a liar. The Ayatollah challenged the Obama Administration to back up his flowery words with acts of appeasement when he stated, “Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged.”

However, other news that could have diplomatically isolated Iran went unmentioned during Obama’s message. Iranian blogger, Omidreza Mirsayafi, died in prison on the same day as Obama’s rainbow-colored speech. Mirsayafi was jailed for allegedly insulting Iran’s leadership and he died amid claims that the Iranian government was at fault for his death. Bloggers are routinely harassed and jailed in Iran.

Ironically, the blogger was held in Evin Prison, which is the same prison that Iranian-American journalist, Roxana Saberi, is being held. Of course Obama also neglected to mention her in his mating call to the Iranian Mullahs.

Saberi is a brave reporter who defied the Iranian regime when it took away her press credentials in an attempt to silence her. After she was arrested her family didn’t know what happened to her until 10 days later when she finally was able to make a phone call to them. The arrest of Saberi came as the regime began another series of crackdowns on university students. Such oppression may be connected with the upcoming Presidential elections in June.

Saberi’s father publicly stated that, “We told her to hang on, and not give in. The whole world is with her.” Evidently, Obama is not with the whole world on this point. She is an obstacle to his diplomatic overtures.



The Master of Disaster

The Obama Administration is just stumbling around like a chicken without a head. When the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, addressed pseudo-economist Jim Cramer’s critical stance towards the White House’s economic policy he stated, “I think you can go back and look at any number of statements (Jim Cramer) made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too”.

Robert Gibbs has a valid point. During the 2008 Presidential Election Cramer was enthusiastic about Obama’s campaign.

On June 22nd of 2008 Jim Cramer appeared on NBC’s, “The Chris Matthews Show”. During that time the show was stumping for Obama’s presidential campaign and so this episode was a veritable Obama-lovefest. During the show Cramer heaped praise on Obama’s economic plans and the following exchange was recorded;

“MATTHEWS: So the Election Day is over, the morning after election, if Obama wins, does the stock market go up?

Mr. CRAMER: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Even though capital gains go up?

Mr. CRAMER: Absolutely. We’re sick of it.

MATTHEWS: Whoa, what a--this is news we’ve made here. Jim Cramer says the market will resound positively to an election by--of Barack Obama.”

Interesting enough, on the day of Obama’s inauguration, the Dow fell in the most dramatic freefall of any other inauguration day in history. Then on March 5th stocks fell to their lowest level in 12 years.

Even as late as December of 2008 Cramer raved about the “Obama Factor”. His ridiculous pro-Obama rants are now quite embarrassing. He boasted that, “When Obama speaks, the market buys, it doesn’t just listen, so listen to Cramer to know where to spend the money!”

The euphoria of the Obama personality cult led to the election of a woefully inexperienced and radically leftwing president. Diplomacy was often held up to be Obama’s strength, but after a comedy of errors the president has been revealed to be too overwhelmed to conduct routine diplomatic affairs.

When British Prime Minster Gordon Brown came for a state visit the Obama Administration neglected to offer a customary press conference and formal dinner as our closest ally is accustomed to. The Administration’s reaction was indignant to the outrage of Britons. A State Department official who was involved in planning Brown’s visit angrily responded that, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment”.

The thoughtlessness of the Obama Administration seeped into every aspect of poor PM Brown’s visit (it’s a good thing that Great Britain really needs us, my apologies to our friends there). As many bloggers are aware, it is customary on such occasions for leaders to offer each other presents that show good will towards each other. Brown gave Obama a pen crafted from the wood of the 19th Century anti-slave trade ship (which is the sister ship of the vessel that the wood of the president’s Oval Office desk is made of).

Yet Obama gave his counterpart a set of 25 DVD movies, which turned out to be nothing but the first 25 of the American Film Institute’s list of the top-100 American movies. As if that isn’t thoughtless enough… when Brown went home and settled down to watch one of the movies, he discovered that the DVDs were formatted for North American DVD players and cannot be played on DVD players sold in Europe. A message stating, “Wrong Region”, appeared when Brown tried to play them.

Does it get any worse? Incredibly it does… Britons were outraged that two days after snubbing Prime Minister Brown, Obama lavishly hosted former IRA terrorist, Martin McGuinness. British blogger Archbishop Cranmer complained:

“Gordon brown entered the White House through a side entrance and was granted a half-hour chat with the President followed by a working lunch. There was no press conference and the British delegation was limited in numbers.

Mr. McGuinness will walk in through the front door of the White House and be given the full red carpet treatment. It is a de facto State Visit with full retinue and a joint press conference. There shall be two hours of talks and a lavish gala reception at which Mr. McGuinness shall be a guest of honour, seated on the top table.”

And this came after a rare spat of violence in Northern Ireland in which a policeman and two soldiers were murdered in separate incidents.

But don’t forget our illustrious Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her recent diplomatic blunders…

As if it wasn’t enough to botch her first official visit as Secretary of State to the European Parliament by mispronouncing her counterparts’ names, insulting European sensibilities by saying that American Democracy is older than Europe’s and mocking multiparty democracy... She followed up this embarrassing episode with an “enlightened” visit to Russia.

Complete incompetence was the order of the day when Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a gift meant to symbolize Obama’s diplomatic overtures to the Russian government. She gave him a button that she believed stated “reset” in Russian and expressed her hopes that we could “reset” our relationship with Russia. As she handed Lavrov the gift she said, “We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” He replied that it was incorrect and the button actually stated “overcharged”. So how hard did they work to get one word wrong?

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

I think that it is fair to end this post with the full video footage of our Teleprompter President’s fantasy message to Iran…



The video starts off with Obama saying, “Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world. This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with family and friends”…

One thing is for certain… Roxana Saberi, an American citizen, could not spend Nowruz with her family and friends because she was locked up in an Iranian prison while her president flirted with her captors.

To Surge or Not to Surge

Sunni Arab politicians ended a yearlong boycott of the Iraqi Parliament. This is a major breakthrough for reconciliation in Iraq. Despite the huge significance of this event, it occurred with little notice.

The boycott was a reaction of the Sunnis to the sentiment of their leadership that the government was not addressing the violence of Shiite militias. A solution was implemented when the Iraqi government launched a military operation against the Shiite Mahdi Army in the wake of the vast military successes of the U.S. Troop Surge. While the government offensive met with some initial setbacks in the city of Basra, the operation ultimately turned out to be a decisive victory.

So despite the findings of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), military operations like the Surge and recent operations against the Mahdi Army have led to serious political gains in addition to security. A report by the ISG that was released in December of 2006 stated the following, which was widely accepted as conventional wisdom at the time:

“Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation.”

Back in January of 2007 current presidential candidate Barack Obama went even farther than the report and insisted that sending additional troops to Iraq would actually increase sectarian violence. Obama refused to acknowledge the Surge’s success, even as the evidence was piling up. Powerline has an excellent post that tracks the history of Obama’s stubborn adherence to his disinformation agenda:

Obama said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality - we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

(What kind of experts was he talking to?)

On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:

“[E]ven those who are supporting - but here’s the thing, Larry - even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.”

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

“And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.”

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

“My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.”

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration’s new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

“Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”

…If we had listened to Barack Obama, all U.S. combat forces would have left Iraq in a phased withdrawal that would have began on May 1, 2007. So the Surge would have been crippled before it fully got off the ground on June 15, 2007.

When Obama introduced a failed piece of legislation entitled, “The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007”, his office had already declared the Surge a failure before it even began.

“The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President’s failed policy of escalation.”

It brings to mind the ear screeching protests of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who stated; “I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.” Reid’s premature declaration came almost two months before Surge operations would fully get under way.

A vital component in any decision making process is to compute your findings based on reliable data. By declaring the Surge a failure before it officially began, Harry Reid and Barack Obama showed an eagerness to rush to a hasty judgment based on either on a critical lack of analytical skills or political expediency.

While we should give them some benefit of the doubt that they could be honest morons instead of deceitful politicians, I just can’t see these people reaching such high places without the ability to think analytically on such a basic level. The facts reveal that it is much more likely that they just view the Iraq conflict through the narrow prism of political gain.

How can we believe someone who lies so effortlessly as Barack Obama does? Take a look at the quotes from Powerline above. There is a long paper trail that documents Obama’s continual claims that the Surge would fail to reduce violence and actually make it worse. Then read his more recent statement from January of 2008 in which Obama whitewashed his previous stance;

“Now, I had no doubt, and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.”

Obama’s aborted visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his world campaign tour sheds a lot of light on the subject. When the Pentagon told Obama that he couldn’t bring his campaign staff with him while visiting the medical center, he just bowed out. Obama was only interested in using this visit as a campaign event although the Defense Department has a directive prohibiting “the use of military installations for campaign events or speeches”. What a typical politician.

Lets not forget the Democratic Party’s rough treatment of our greatest general, David Petraeus. In the circus surrounding his testimony to Congress on the progress of the Surge in September 2007, the Democratic Party issued a storm of disinformation:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated the following about General Petraeus;

“He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual. I have every belief that this good man will give us what he feels is the right thing to do in his report, but it’s not his report anymore. It’s Bush’s report.”

Senator Dick Durbin declared;

“By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong.”

Representative Rahm Emanuel, claimed;

“Instead of a new strategy for Iraq, the Bush administration is cherry-picking the data to support their political objectives and preparing a report that will offer another defense of the president’s strategy. We don’t need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction.”

Representative Robert Wexler grilled General Petraeus during his testimony;

“In your testimony today, you claim that the surge is working and that you need more time. With all due respect, General, among unbiased, nonpartisan experts, the consensus is stark. The surge has failed, based on most parameters… Cherry-picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth.”

Then there was Senator Hillary Clinton’s classic accusation against General Petraeus;

“Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside.”

The Democratic Party has done everything it can to force a retreat and it failed. Instead of relying on defeatism, we implemented a military solution that made the difference when our intellectual elite said it wasn’t possible.



Eli Pariser, a spokesman for MoveOn.org, defended their anti-Petraeus debacle: “We stand by our ad — every major independent study and many major news organizations cast serious doubt on Petraeus’ claims”.

Defender of the Fifth Republic – Part 2

Anniversary Party with Hugo Chavez

In England and the United States many prominent figures have praised Hugo Chavez for the great strides that he has made for democracy in Venezuela. They have even pointed out that he was victorious in elections that they claim were more legitimate than that of U.S. President George W. Bush.

So let’s savor some choice quotes that pay homage to this highly regarded democracy in Venezuela…

1. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, wrote a heartfelt plea to support Chavez. It was originally published in the Guardian, a British newspaper that many of my readers are familiar with;

“Not a Difficult Choice at All.
Chavez and Venezuela deserve the support of all who believe in social justice and democracy.”

“For many years people have demanded that social progress and democracy go hand in hand, and that is exactly what is now taking place in Venezuela. It therefore deserves the unequivocal support of not only every supporter of social progress, but every genuine believer in democracy in the world.

…Sometimes it is necessary to choose the lesser of two evils. Britain fought with Stalin against Hitler. But with Chavez the choice is not difficult at all. He is both carrying out a progressive programme and doing so through the mandate of the ballot box.

George Bush’s refusal to respect the choices of the Venezuelan people shows that his administration has no real interest in promoting democracy at all.”

2. In an open letter published on August 12, 2004 (several days before Chavez faced a very important recall vote) prominent Americans including Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Reverend Jesse Jackson wrote the following…

“Dear President Chavez,

We are writing to express our solidarity during this important moment in Venezuela’s history. It is our hope and expectation that, on August 15, you will once again win an electoral mandate from the Venezuelan people to be their president…

…We are committed to doing what we can, as U.S. citizens, to heal those relationships and encourage Congress and the White House to see Venezuela not only as a model democracy but also as a model of how a country’s oil wealth can be used to benefit all of its people.”

Weeks before this letter was released there was a similar letter produced by a group of 69 intellectuals, artists, politicians and Nobel laureates from around the world. It was entitled, “If We Were Venezuelan, on August 15th, 2004, We Would Vote for Hugo Chavez.” They wrote an inspiring piece and I’d like to share some of its highlights with you;

“…we wish to denounce the disinformation campaign that is being orchestrated by the major media and that attempts to characterize as a tyrant, a President who has consistently respected the rule of law and the country’s Constitution…

…We are certain that, on August 15th, the Venezuelan people will celebrate a new victory that will allow them to continue building a freer and fairer society; the country that Simon Bolivar dreamt of.”

3. In January of 2006 a delegation of Americans including singer Harry Belafonte, actor Danny Glover, Princeton scholar Cornel West and several others visited Venezuela to show their support for Chavez. Harry Belafonte led the way by heaping praises on the dictator and bashing President Bush.

“No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution”

So while Belafonte portrayed Bush as a tyrant, he also lashed out against the US media for portraying Chavez as a dictator. Instead he insisted that Venezuela is a democracy and that the Venezuelans are “optimistic about their future”.

4. It seems that Caracas is a prime port of call for many Americans who are seeking out the bold leadership of President Chavez. Activist, Cindy Sheehan, who has been the most vocal critic of the Bush Administration over the last couple of years, embarked on an all expenses paid excursion to the 6th Annual World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. She took the opportunity to promote Chavez’s fear mongering that the US is ready to destroy the Venezuelan democracy and invade the country.

“I have talked to many citizens of Venezuela who are understandably nervous about a US invasion and they know that it is not about the idea that President Chavez is a “dictator”, which he is not, he is a democratically elected leader who is very popular in his country. The people of Venezuela are very savvy and they know that if the US invades their country that it won’t be because we are spreading “freedom and democracy” to them. They know they already have it.”

---

As these intellectual powerhouses have spent the last couple of years defending the democracy of Presidente Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has been steadily sliding into a dictatorship in the model of Nazi Germany … another democratically elected government that used the rule of law to install a totalitarian dictatorship.

I apologize for using the dreaded Hitler comparison, but it is very appropriate.

First, because Bush is continually compared to the Nazi dictator.

Second, because the parallels between Chavez and Hitler are uncanny.

The Quest for Power

As many have pointed out, Chavez and Hitler both attempted a coup d’etat before using democratic means to seize power. When the supporters of Chavez decry the 2002 coup against the Venezuelan “democracy” I have to laugh. If Chavez didn’t receive a pardon he would have been in jail instead of being sworn in as president on February 2nd, 1999. While Hitler used his time in jail to write Mein Kampf, Chavez used his time behind bars to plot a second failed coup.

Although Hitler ruled by decree through an Enabling Act when he first came to power, Chavez actually has him beat by implementing an Enabling Act twice (I love how Chavez frequently one-ups Hitler). Over a week ago Venezuelan legislators voted unanimously to grant Chavez initial approval to rule by decree for a year and a half. As if marking the 74th anniversary of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany, January 30th 2007, the latest Venezuelan Enabling Act will be formally approved.

Actually a second vote will be held tomorrow, but it is expected to easily pass because the Venezuelan National Assembly is completely controlled by Chavez loyalists. The opposition holds no seats in the Assembly due to a boycott that marred the parliamentary election of 2005. Only Chavez’s party, The Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR) and its allies are represented. I should point out that this may not last for very long.

To celebrate last month’s reelection victory Chavez announced his intention to unite all political parties allied to the MVR into one consolidated party. This will effectively turn Venezuela into a One Party State. Chavez was really serious about forcing his subordinate parties to consolidate. He addressed the fact that some parties may oppose submitting to his will so he put his foot down saying, “I don’t have time to bury myself in a debate … they are entirely free to pursue their course. Obviously, they will leave the government.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. The quote is taken from The Socialist Voice, a Marxist website that is fanatically pro-Chavez. When Chavez proclaims that he will allow no debate on this issue and forbids any political party that is not under his control to share power in Venezuela’s government, they are actually pleased.

Now this behavior by Chavez is nothing new. Upon assuming his office in 1999 he has embarked on a ruthless campaign to remake the Venezuelan government so that it primarily serves his ambitions. He added a dozen loyal justices to the Supreme Court and fired hundreds of lower-court judges so that he could replace them with more of his cronies.

To add insult to injury, he has now added three additional years to his presidency. He rewrote the constitution to add one year per term and he has been elected to two terms for a total of two additional years. After passing the constitution he was “reelected”. Since he was originally elected in December of 1998 and he was “reelected” according to the new constitution in 2000, he was able to squeeze a free year out of the deal. I pointed this out before, but it is worth repeating... Can you imagine if President Bush extended his term of office by three additional years? Furthermore, Chavez has announced that he plans to change the constitution again in order to allow him to run for reelection in 2012.

Freedom of Speech

Some of the most serious criticisms of Chavez don’t relate to the vast amount of power that he is accumulating, but to the disturbing violations of civil rights that he is presiding over. Under Chavez a number of new legislative restrictions on the freedom of speech have been adopted into law.

The first outrage was the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. Groups that promote Human Rights and the Freedom of Press have harshly criticized this law, especially Human Rights Watch (HRW) and The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The measure was justified to protect minors, but was written so broadly that advocates of freedom of speech say that it is really geared towards stifling dissent. One of its articles states that, “Any program or news containing moderate violence - such as the fall of the Twin Towers in New York or a street confrontation between police and political demonstrators - is banned from 5:00am until 11:00pm”.

In the aftermath of massive amounts of public unrest this was a very effective tool for keeping the coverage of opposition rallies off the air. The fact that Venezuelans are not allowed to have access to such information is a blatant act of censorship. It is also incredibly unfair to compare the protests for democracy to the world’s most horrific act of terrorism in our history. Socialists may be the most incompetent economists, but their grasp of propaganda surpasses even the Nazis and as a result perverts the core of their institutions.

In 2005 The Inter-American Press Association (Socidad Interamericana de Prensa) related how badly the situation had become;

“Every day violence against journalists and media outlets that are critical of the government increases, threatening them with the possibility of being taken over or disappearing. The International Association of Broadcasting reported that on September 14 the National Telecommunications Committee (CONATEL) opened administrative proceedings against seven private television stations, including Globovision for alleged failure to use assigned frequencies. On September 20, the same proceeding was brought against 22 private radio stations for alleged infractions or offenses against the Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television.

This situation is aggravated by the fact that President Chavez has granted himself all power by putting the National Assembly, the judiciary and the electoral system under his supervision. In this way, he was able to impose laws and regulations that allow him to attack those who dare to dissent.

Given this situation it would be utopian to believe that press freedom exists.”

According to the CPJ the law also stipulates that television and radio stations which broadcast programs that “promote, defend, or incite breaches of public order” may be suspended for up to 72 hours. If a media outlet repeats the infraction within the next five years, its broadcasting concession may be suspended for up to five years. As a result news networks curtailed their coverage of civil unrest in fear of violating this vaguely-worded law.

On the heels of the Law of Social Responsibility there were more media content laws that were passed a month later. Jackson Diehl from the Washington Post outlined some of the more disturbing articles. He stated that it was a new penal code that criminalizes virtually any expression to which the government objects - not only in public but also in private:

Article 147: “Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light.” That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who “disrespect” the president or his functionaries in private; “the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly.”

Article 444 says that comments that “expose another person to contempt or public hatred” can bring a prison sentence of one to three years; Article 297a says that someone who “causes public panic or anxiety” with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications.

In response to criticism from international human rights groups the Chavez-controlled Supreme Court upheld such legislation by saying that, “The recommendations of international organizations, particularly those of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights … are not binding … Freedom of speech is not an absolute right of human beings”. In reality this is true because hate speech is not always protected, but it is an ominous choice of words. The Chavez regime has repeatedly used such language to trample legitimate speech.

These measures have strengthened the ability of the regime to leverage the country’s legal system in its attempt to silence its opposition. There are currently more than 200 political prisoners in Venezuela. According to The Freedom House, out of all the countries in the Western Hemisphere Venezuela now ranks 34th out of 35 countries in press freedom. Only Cuba, Chavez’s closest ally, is ranked as more repressive. The hostility to free speech stems from the fact that most news agencies are opposed to the regime. Chavez Supporters claim that this is evidence that Venezuela is a healthy democracy. The truth is that these news agencies are the legacy of Latin America’s most long-lived democracy, which has been led by civilians without interruption since 1958 (a rarity in Latin America).

Radio Caracas Television (RCT) was formed in 1953 as the nation’s third television network. Since the station gave positive coverage to a strike against Chavez in 2003, the President has declared that he will shut them down when their license is up for renewal. Chavez contemptuously stated, “It runs out in March. So it’s better that you go and prepare your suitcase and look around for what you’re going to do in March.” Since Chavez has inherited a democratic press he has done everything he can to silence it. In addition to the legislation mentioned above, his supporters have used the Chavez-controlled judiciary to persecute journalists that are only doing their job. Journalists that criticize the regime have also been killed, abused and had their property attacked.

Below is an incomplete list of Journalists that have faced legal action in response to their criticism of the regime and its allies. Each name contains a link to an article that describes the repression that they are facing. Since the attacks on journalists have been so extensive, I do not have the space to address each one of them. Please visit the linked sites for more information. I regret not including a list of those that have been killed or assaulted, but I had to limit myself because I feared that I would never be able to finish this post otherwise. However, the links below do include quite a bit of information on the violence that these reporters have also had to face.

Julio Balza

Napoleon Bravo

Leopoldo Castillo

Marta Colomina

Ben Ami Fihman

Carlos Gibson

Ivan Martinez

Faitha Marina Nahmens

Marianella Salazar

Pablo Aure Sanchez

Jose Angel Ocanto

Ibeyse Pacheco

Patricia Poleo

Alberto Federico Ravell

Pablo Lopez Ulacio

Mireya Zurita

---

Big Brother

George Orwell’s novel 1984 is famous for the slogan, “Big Brother is Watching You”. In Venezuela the Tascon and Maisantas Lists have made it a reality. The Tascon List was originally compiled by a pro-Chavez politician, Luis Tascon. On his website he published a full database of all those Venezuelans who signed the recall petition against Chavez in 2004. A threat was issued by President Chavez claiming that, “Whoever signs against Chavez, will have their names recorded for history”. Public dissemination of this blacklist resulted in widespread discrimination against those listed. Some lost their government jobs, or were denied government services and/or were denied access to employment. It took a year, but widespread criticism led to the removal of the list from Tascon’s website and a full repudiation of it.

However, since that time the Tascon List has been expanded into the Maisantas List. Maria Uzcategui, Director of International Affairs for Ciudadania Activa, relates that the new list contains records of the country’s 12 million voters. It is used at street corner checkpoints to screen those wishing to enter public buildings. Those classified on the list as a “radical” face retaliation like the loss of their jobs, denial of credit, access to education, passports, fair trials and health care. The list can be purchased from street vendors in Caracas for ten dollars.

Influence for Oil

Here in the United States politicians from the Democratic Party have benefited from sweetheart oil deals given to their constituents by the dictator. In return Chavez has found words of praise from prominent Massachusetts Democrats like Senator Chris Dodd, Congressman Bill Delahunt and former Congressman Joe Kennedy II. While they have mildly denounced a few of Chavez’s more outrageous publicity stunts, all of those involved in the dictator’s “oil for influence scheme” have defended him in one way or another.

Chavez has been throwing around his country’s oil wealth to purchase influence all over the globe. He has destroyed his country’s democracy and seeks to undermine our own as well. Subsidizing oil deliveries to the poor is a noble pursuit, but it comes at too high of a cost. If our leaders are serious about subsidizing oil for the poor they should do so out of their own pockets or from the coffers of our government. Reliance on a dictator that seeks influence in our country is not a good idea.

One Democratic politician has tripped all over himself to seek out bribes for his supporters. Congressman Jose Serrano drank straight from the tap of the Chavez oil machine, without any apologies for the dictator’s inflammatory behavior. On one of Chavez’s trips to the UN Serrano sought out his hero to offer his services as a tour guide to his district in the Bronx. Chavez was delighted for the propaganda coup that it would offer him. When the time came to give the tour Serrano set up display booths for local activist groups to greet the dictator. To pay his debt Chavez had an aide take down as much information as possible about Serrano’s pet projects so that the Venezuelan embassy could make donations to them.

In Defense of A Dictator

A common theme among Democrats when defending their ties to El Presidente is to say that Chavez is democratically elected. Senator Dodd expressed such sentiments in a letter to the Washington Post. He wrote, “There is no question in my mind that many of Mr. Chavez’s actions have been provocative. But the reality is that he was democratically elected - a fact The Post seems to ignore… I believe that the institutions of democracy must be nurtured and encouraged, regardless of who is in office”.

If this kind of twisted logic seems familiar to you, then perhaps you recall those Leftists that triumphantly defended the terrorist group Hamas when they were victorious in last year’s Palestinian elections. We have now had some time to reflect upon their influence on their peoples’ experiment with democracy, but that’s another story.

Being elected, even in the fairest election possible, does not guarantee the winner a blanket of immunity. No sane person ever said that democracy is perfect. It is only as healthy as the people who participate in it. Besides, an attack on a democratically elected politician is not the same as an attack on democracy itself. To suggest otherwise is intellectually misleading.

In the period between the two World Wars, if critics of Adolph Hitler’s democratically elected government felt that they should refrain from criticizing the regime out of respect for democracy - they would have been badly mistaken. The opposite was true, if they really cared about democracy they would have spoken out against the corruption of such a noble institution. I am grateful for the warnings that were issued by brave people like William Shirer, Ernest Hemingway, Tom Hopkinson and Freda Kirchwey. If only more people listened to them before it was too late.

Besides apologizing for the authoritarian abuses by Chavez there is one other trait that self-professed progressives like Mayor Ken Livingstone, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Congressman Jose Serrano, Jesse Jackson, Harry Belafonte and Cindy Sheehan all share in common. They unanimously condemn the struggle to bring democracy to Iraq. If they have misled us about democracy in Venezuela, are they misleading us in Iraq as well? This is a question to ponder on the anniversary of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany and the formal approval of Venezuela’s Second Enabling Act.

Defender of the Fifth Republic

Supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Shoot at the Opposition

Sometimes false or misleading statements can jump out of a webpage like pop-up figures in a Winnie the Pooh book. Common Dreams, a “Progressive” news site, specializes in those kinds of gross distortions that are an endless source of amusement to me. I’m not saying that they are talented writers. It’s just that they exaggerate and contort reality so far beyond recognition that it can easily drive any intelligent person into a belly ache full of laughter.

Yesterday’s webpage at Common Dreams contains an article that brings together two extremely rich comic book characters.

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone

– and –

Venezuela’s Presidente, Hugo Chavez.

In these days of pretentiously false propaganda figures who can ask for anything more? Basically the article is an open letter from Livingstone praising the Venezuelan pseudo-dictator. Titled, “Not a Difficult Choice At All - Chavez and Venezuela deserve the support of all who believe in social justice and democracy”.

I get a kick out of how Livingstone hysterically portrays Chavez as the champion of democracy!

Ohhhh where to begin? The list of anti-democratic actions by Chavez is long and the prospect of documenting them is very intimidating. I just don’t have the time to go through A to Z. Let’s just skip over the basics.

Upon assuming power Chavez fired hundreds of judges. His critics have accused him of replacing them with loyal judges who have served as his henchmen, while Chavez counters with the valid point that the justice system was in urgent need of reform. However, over the course of time the facts favor the view that Chavez is packing the courts for his own political gain.

In 2004 Chavez pushed through legislation to expand the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices. This allowed him to obtain a majority of Chavez supporters on the court. When the head of Human Rights Watch Americas division, Jose Miguel Vivanco, spoke out against this maneuver he was briefly detained by the Venezuelan government who condemned him of, “open and unpardonable meddling in the internal affairs of our country” and threatened to make him a “persona non grata” in Venezuela. Can you imagine if the Bush Administration performed a similar action against a human rights activist? The anti-American bias in the world’s press and public opinion becomes painfully obvious when reflecting upon this question. Not to mention the fact that it was hard enough to replace two Supreme Court judges, Bush couldn’t possibly dream of adding 12 more additional judges.

The plight of Venezuelan Judge Miguel Angel Luna is particularly illuminating. In February 2004 two truck drivers were dragged in front of him, but were not charged with any crime. The prosecutors demanded that they be jailed because they had been parked near an anti-government demonstration. Instead Judge Luna set the two men free and three days later he was fired by the president of the Supreme Court without any explanation. Upon a written appeal Luna was reinstated, only to be fired again when upholding the right of a Chavez opponent to appoint two new lawyers to represent himself.

This is just the tip of the iceberg folks. Upon assuming the Presidency, Chavez quickly consolidated his power by conducting referendums in order to completely redraft the country’s constitution in his favor. Using the state funded media; his allies were able to campaign for the Constitutional Assembly and won 120 of the 131 assembly seats.

The assembly then gave itself absolute power by setting up a judicial emergency committee with the ability to remove judges without consulting any other branch of government. When they finally got to work on the constitution they extended Chavez’s term of office by a year. Again, can you imagine the uproar if President Bush had his term of office extended?

A key provision of the new constitution allowed Chavez to centralize a vast amount of power under his control. The document set up a one-chamber legislative body that gives him the ability to dissolve congress as he wishes and to remove congressional review of military appointments.


Chavez’s new super powers allowed him to pass the infamous Enabling Act of 2000, giving him the strength that even Superman would be jealous of. For a year Chavez ruled by decree as a king or dictator would. He was invested with the authority to pass any mandate into law without approval from the National Assembly. The champion of democracy donned a suit of magical armor and bullets just bounced right off of him. He needed that magic to combat the extreme displeasure of the Venezuelan opposition.

Actually I am exaggerating, there was no magic involved. It was a three-step process.

1. Seize enormous power
2. Enrich your cronies and bribe the poor
3. Attack the freedom of speech

Chavez has many leftwing supporters in the western world. A particularly amusing website called VHeadline.com caught my eye because of its similar tone to Common Dreams. It is based in the US but dedicated to praising the Venezuelan revolution and glorifying Chavez. In an outlandish anti-Bush rant, columnist Mary MacElveen compared our President to the rise of Adolph Hitler (she saw it in a movie,... I'm serious).

MacElveen actually lowers the bar for political commentary (if that is even possible). She compares the persecution of German reporter Fritz Gerlich to Bush’s objection to the leak of the National Security Agency story by the NY Times. Gerlich was a reporter that dedicated himself to exposing how dangerous Hitler was. When Hitler seized power he imprisoned Gerlich in Dachau, the German concentration camp. About a year later Gerlich was murdered and his bloodied glasses were callously sent to his wife as proof of his death. So how could MacElveen compare Gerlich to the NY Times? The only thing that the reporters at the Times have to worry about is whether or not their press passes can get them into the Bronx Zoo free of charge.

If you recall the website she writes for is called VHeadline and they publish pro-Chavez articles like;

Chavez does not take crap from the USA. You want to play hardball, go ahead!

US State Department looking for a fight in which it might get a black eye!

Treating Venezuela as if it were the enemy does not make any sense at all

So when I began reading MacElveen’s article comparing Hitler to Bush I thought my eyes were deceiving me. Just read this quote;

“…One has only to look at the Patriot Act to know this to be true.

When Hitler came to power, he pushed for an Enabling Act which, as I have stated before, is strikingly similar and during his reign of terror he also pressured the press.”

In complete disbelief of what I was reading, I had to re-read this paragraph. After reading it a second time I thought that maybe a hacker defaced her article. I couldn’t believe that anyone could be so ignorant, she is really describing her beloved Presidente Chavez! After all, he passed his own Enabling Act to seize more power. Did she forget that he abused his office to extend his term of office, rewriting the constitution and packing the courts with his cronies?! What was this woman thinking when she wrote this article?

She goes on to describe how Gerlich witnessed the Munich Beer Hall Putsch in which Hitler attempted a coup to seize control of the Bavarian government. Did she forget that Chavez also attempted a coup against his government? Is she mad? The similarity between the two is undeniable. They both rose to national prominence as a result of their attempts to seize power by force and they both changed their strategy to take control of their governments through legal means after the failures of their coups. I guess this is to be expected from someone who bases their historical research on a made for TV movie (“Hitler: The Rise of Evil”). While Fritz Gerlich risked his life to confront Hitler’s fascist lust for power, Mary MacElveen risks her reputation to compare Bush to such nonsense. How can she be blind to the fact that her hero, Hugo Chavez, represents everything that she accuses Bush of?

The Left rallies around Chavez because they are superficial and sheep-like. They love a strong anti-American leader who can hit each and every leftwing political talking point. Chavez’s totalitarian outrages are lost in the cheer of his political rhetoric.

Getting back to the Common Dreams article, Ken Livingstone concludes by saying, “Today Venezuela is being “opposed” largely on the basis of lies...It is the duty of all people who support progress, justice and democracy to stand with Venezuela.” I would agree with his statement if he changed one word, delete opposed and replace it with “supported” and you have yourself a truthful sentence.