Obama Sides With Chavez & Castro

In true Carter-esque fashion, el-Presidente Obama condemned the "coup" in Honduras. While Obama was slow to criticize the brutal repression and killing of demonstrators in Iran, he wasted no time coming to the vocal defence of radically left wing President Manuel Zelaya. Zelaya was removed from power by the military with the support of the Congress and the judiciary for trying to unconstitutionally extend his presidential term.

FNS reports: "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," Obama said in the Oval Office after meeting with Colombian President Alviro Uribe. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past."

The past he refers to of course is the past that he and other far leftists see as one where "evil" America intervened and meddled in South America to the detriment of the proletariat. Obama subscribes to a historical realm of thought that views America as an agent of evil and oppression in the world rather than one that promotes liberty, justice, and individual rights.

Obama's criticism of the events in Honduras rings hollow. He was cowardly in his statements on Iran when students and democratic activists were dying in the streets at the hands of the Basij, not unlike his lefty appeaser soul mate, Jimmy Carter.

So what really happened in Honduras? The WSJ reports:

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
...The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors."

Obama takes his stand alongside Chavez and Castro. What has happened to America?

Ontario PC Boredom

I couldn't get excited about the Ontario PC's. Christine Elliot and Frank Klees are simply Liberals dressed in blue. I don't really understand what differentiates them from Dear Leader Dalton in any substantive way.

Hudak seems alright, but it's not like the guy really generates any excitement or bold ideas. I'm happy to hear he wants to get rid of half of the Human Rights Racket, but why he wants to keep the other half is either cowardly or nonsensical. Randy Hillier has given me some hope, but he's not going to win. Nevertheless, his policies are decidedly conservative and market friendly.

I'd like to hear a strong statement regarding the privatization of the LCBO. It is absolutely backwards and Soviet that the government monopolizes this legal industry. The threats of striking by retail workers at the LCBO is reason enough to privatize the whole liquor sales system immediately.

If Frank Klees does pull out a win, I absolutely will not vote for him. He doesn't know what freedom is and he doesn't represent any meaningful difference from Dalton McGuinty. If he does pull out a win, he may cause the Balkanization of the Ontario PC Party. In the short term that would be unfortunate, but if you can't differentiate yourself from the Grits, what's the point anyway.

Settled Politics Not Settled Science

"[A]ctual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled."(IBD)

As the House rams through Waxman-Markey to regulate the air you exhale and the bubbles in beer, the "consensus" on global warming is decaying quickly. The fact is, there has been no global warming since 1998. The last two winters in North America have been incredibly cold by historical standards. There is no evidence of rising sea levels, declining polar bear populations, or human deaths as a result of global warming.

Scientists and governments around the world are waking up to the reality that politics, not science is driving the issue. Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, cap and tax, and every other program does not stop "climate change", their supporters have to admit that, at best, these programs only slow carbon production.

The WSJ reports: "In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program."

President Obama's rush to pass every bill because of each new weekly "crisis" is evidence of how weak the arguments are for climate change bills. The Congressmen who vote on these measures won't even read the bill, it's over 1,000 pages and is riddled with complexities, pork for various districts, and exceptions for "friends" of the Democrats. The Republican criticism of this bill as a "tax on everything" is spot on. If you tax energy, you tax the engine of every economic, social, and political activity in society. You essential tax growth, productivity, economic expansion, and work. How can that create a new economy of green jobs? Since when has the government ever created anything, let alone a market.

The basic premise of "global warming" is, in fact, deeply flawed. That CO2 is a pollutant is almost laughable. Even more unreasonable is the idea that human caused CO2 is the driver of climate change, just look at the above chart to see what a minute percentage anthropogenic carbon output actually is.

The EPA has even been suppressing information that provides evidence that the carbon worries are massively over hyped.

"A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West," the report says, "suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their report suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth's global temperatures."
The report was the product of Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). He's been with the EPA for 38 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled.
Thomas Fuller, environmental policy blogger with the San Francisco Examiner, wrote Thursday in a story developed in conjunction with Anthony Watts' Web site wattsupwiththat.com: "A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2."

The truth about global warming is increasingly clear. The politics are settled, but not the science. Evidence and public opinion are increasingly skeptical of Al Gore's claims. The global warming believers are primarily interested in control and power: the control of what is considered "green", the kind of light bulbs you must purchase, the kind of car you must drive, the kind of food you eat, the way in which we power our appliances, and on and on.

Every directive and regulation is one less choice you can make. Every choice the government makes for you, is another freedom we have ceded to the government. At what point do we say "enough". If government progressively enlarges, we will not be free. If government continues to grow we will be subservient to the state. Freedom is not easier, it is much harder because it requires responsibility and choice.

Every tyrant from Nero to Castro has claimed to act for "the collective good". But the far more important value is the respect and dignity of the individual who is protected by law from the collective and the government. We must say "no" to government growth or we will be slaves to the state.

RIP Michael

As strange as he was and as peculiar as antics were, Michael Jackson was a man of immense talent. Michael Jackson certainly had his flaws and faults, don't we all. However, Jacko never had a childhood, he was abused, he was bullied by his brothers, he was taken for granted, he was used for his ability to entertain. Michael Jackson was loved by his fans, but he may never have been loved for who he was.

He sang, he danced, he wowed the world and he grew increasingly detached from reality the older he was. The world will never forget MJ, and it is unlikely we'll see a talent like his ever again. May the King of Pop rest in peace.

Massive Protest Scheduled in Iran

On Thursday, a massive protest called for by Mir Hossein Mousavi will likely result in tens of thousands of Iranians demanding a recount, reform, and ultimately a challenge to the ruling theocracy. This could be Iran's "solidarity" moment. Sadly, it seems Obama is intent on letting the moment pass when he could be encouraging the growth of liberty in the Middle East. Even more, the present situation could present opportunities for covert action which could undermine the current oppressive regime and pave the way for a revolution of freedom in a nation that has long been the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism.

Fox News reports: "A crackdown on dissent continued, with more arrests of opposition figures reported, and the country's most powerful military force — the Revolutionary Guard — saying that Iranian Web sites and bloggers must remove any materials that "create tension" or face legal action."

Interestingly, Mousavi has called for an end to the "moral police" which would reduce the power of the mullahs to enforce strict Islamic code that treats women like property and metes out vicious punishments on homosexuals, religious minorities, and other "undesirable" behaviour.

Protesting students have repeatedly changed "death to the dictator" and have even brandished slogans like "live free or die", a far cry from the rapid anti-Americanism displayed by President Ahmadinejad and the Ruling Council of autocrats.

All support, prayers, and effort should be made to encourage the protesters in their struggle for freedom.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories". Thomas Jefferson (HEAR THAT OBAMA?)

Is Obama taking the side of the ruling regime? Robert Kagan makes some pointed observations in the WaPo: "Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis."

Seeing how Obama is from the "Alinsky" school of government and the "Soros" school of management, perhaps this is not surprising.

Iran Stirs For Freedom

Freedom is stirring in Iran. "Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear." Who said that? George W. Bush. For all his faults, Bush had it right on the spread of freedom and representative government in the Middle East. Indeed, the Iranian people rising up against theocracy may be a consequence of freedom taking root in Iraq.President Obama should be providing encouragement to the protesters loudly just as Reagan did for the Solidarity (Sarnecki) movement in Poland.

Alas, the President is a post-modernist to whom truth is relative. I mean, who are we to say that freedom is better than tyranny? Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Iranians are taking to their streets in defiance of oppression and despotism to demand liberty and representation. They seek what all people seek: liberty. Liberty is not a western idea that only some are worthy of, rather it is the common inheritance of all mankind. Only with liberty can their be equality and only with equality can the rule of law truly exist.

Obama should boldly give support by words and deeds to the protesters in Tehran, Beijing, Havana, Riyadh, Pyongyang, and ever corner on earth yearning for the warm sunlight of freedom. In seeking to bring hope to Iraq, President Bush may well have started a trend that will revolutionize the Muslim world. All those who cherish freedom should hope Bush was right on the issue of freedom.

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

Obama Gets a History Lesson

The Future of the GOP

Newt Gingrich discusses winning back America, returning to conservative values, and making the government work for the people and not the other way around.

Reagan's Words Still Ring True

America needs a leader like Mr. Reagan once more.

Obama's Un-American Presidency

Never mind that the President feels the need to apologize for America's past at every turn, never mind that he doesn't know American history (despite statements to the contrary), and try to forget that he never had a real job before being elected in Illinois. Obama is now taking aim at a core American principle: "the pursuit of happiness".

These four words encapsulate the entire concept freedom, the ability to make choices free from coercion and oppression. Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. By what section of the Constitution is government empowered to limit the pay of private businesses or individuals?

The administration named Kenneth Feinberg, a lawyer who oversaw payments to families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as a "special master" with power to reject pay plans he deems excessive at the seven companies with the biggest injections of public money. Feinberg also would have authority to review compensation for the top 100 salaried employees at those firms.

For now, the administration will only apply this dominance to companies who received TARP money. But if the business plans and compensation arrangements of these companies were so terrible, why would the government intervene to save them in the first place?

It is hardly a stretch to imagine Obama wanting to limit the pay of other executives in oil companies, coal producers, mining companies, anyone who doesn't have the UAW eating away at the integrity of the corporation, or a company that has spoken out against government intervention into the economy.

Obama is eroding freedom by limiting the ability of corporations to choose how they want to pay their employees. He is even destroying contracts arbitrarily to move his agenda of government control forward. He wants to tax the gas you exhale, the kind of energy you choose to use, the income you earn, and tell you what kind of light bulbs you must buy to light your home. This is hardly what the authors of the Constitution or the other great American leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan had in mind.

Abraham Lincoln said, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Reagan said, "Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty."

Jefferson said, "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

America is losing herself.

Remember Tiananmen Square

In the spring of 1989, Chinese students and protesters rose up to demand freedom and elections from the Communist government. On June 4, 1989, the government responded with violence killing thousands of students and demonstrators. Hundreds more arrests took place and many of those were executed for their "crimes". The bravery of those students and protesters cannot be forgotten. Their actions remind us that freedom comes with the highest of costs.





To honour their memory, we must ask ourselves: are we becoming more free or less? Are we vigilant in our defence of individual liberty? Will we leave our children a future more free or less free?

Equality Before the Law

US Constitution - 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's statement regarding her "Latina" heritage and the law: "I...accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. ... Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that wise old men and wise old--and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am...not so sure that I agree with the statement. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who wasn't lived that life. ... Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Sotomayor's statement is revealing. Impartiality under the law is not an "aspiration", it is a Constitutional requirement according to the 14th Amendment.

Slavery and segregation are the most egregious sins of the United States. Their existence was completely inconsistent with the very words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which recognized that "all men are created equal". The framers saw this truth as self evident, a truly powerful recognition. But America fell short of it's values. All nations and all individuals do. We live in an imperfect world and are imperfect creations.

Yet despite this, heroes like Martin Luther King had faith that America would one day live up to its values and her true self, that a future lay ahead where his children would not be judged by the colour of their sin, but by the content of their character.

It seems undeniable that if Samuel Alito or John Roberts had said "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black/Latino/Italian/Chinese woman who wasn't lived that life." And rightly so. Why then is Ms. Sotomayor being held to a different standard than a white man would be? Is this equality under the law? Is this the future that King dreamed of?