A Glimps of Future Democrat Foreign Policy?

Robert Novak in his column today discusses how the Democrats have snubbed Colombia by ignoring president Alvaro Uribe during his trip to Washington:

Colombia's president, Álvaro Uribe, returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Capitol Hill to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as "catastrophic." Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.

Colombia is one of the few remaining friends the US has in Latin America, even more important when Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is working to turn nations against the US.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters also covers this.

If the Democrats do this to our southern allies, where our attention, unfortunately, has not been very great, what would/will they do to our other allies we have across the globe?

----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Our Southern Boarders and National Security

Roger Simon wrote at The Politico that we have not suffered any terrorist attacks from Mexicans, other Latinos, or anyone who got into the US through the southern boarder. So why all the hubub about securing our boarders? He finishes his piece with:

And you get the feeling that immigration reform is something both parties wish would just go away.

Building bigger fences is so much easier -- and more popular -- right now.

Well, now we are hearing more about Al Queda and Hezbollah, the Iranian backed terrorist group, working on smuggling in terrorists through the southern boarder.

There are too many relevant portions of the article to excerpt, so I urge you to read the article yourself. But as an example of what you'll see:

At this stage, G2 Bulletin sources say, the growing danger is that of militant Islam penetrating Mexico, a country with an increasing Muslim community, including Muslim converts. Some of them have ties to the Mexican community and to illegal immigrants' smugglers operating in American states bordering Mexico, especially those with connections in the greater Los Angeles area and other major cities.

Anti-terrorism experts say extremist cells tied to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida network are operating in Argentina, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Uruguay. Although cooperation between al-Qaida and Hezbollah has been known for some time, the two groups have formed a much closer relationship since al-Qaida was evicted from its base in Afghanistan, according to G2 Bulletin.

This should be a wake up call for everyone in the country.

UPDATE:

Victor Davis Hanson discusses the messages that our immigration problems sends to terrorists. And Andy McCarthy follows up with some more points

-----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Authorization to Use Military Force

Victor Davis Hanson has a piece at Real Clear Politics today discussing how Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the war, even though many of them voted for the AUMF. He cites that in the AUMF there were 23 reasons cited, but because we did not find any WMD, only one of the 23 reasons, the war should never have been fought.

So I decided to post the 23 reasons to remove Saddam from power, just as a refresher:

• Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

• Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

• Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

• Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

• Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

• Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

• Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

• Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

• Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

• Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

• Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

• Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

• Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

• Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

• Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

• Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

• Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

• Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

• Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

• Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

• Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

• Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

• Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Global Warming Trumps Al-Queda

Byron York at National Review Online has a good round-up of what the Democrats want to do with our intelligence services. Under a bill being voted on today, intelligence money being spent on North Korea, Iran, etc, will be diverted to study GLOBAL WARMING!

Whether you believe in global warming, and if its man-made or not, this is ridiculous. It has happened before, and as a result, the focus was taken off of our enemies:

Hoekstra and other Republicans worry that Democrats want to return intelligence policy to a time in the 1990s when the Clinton administration established what was known as the DCI Environmental Center within the CIA. The Center used satellite spying resources to track environmental matters. “They took pictures of volcanoes and sea turtle nests and took air samples of air pollution, as opposed to checking for traces of biological or chemical weapons, and it was all done at the behest of Al Gore,” says one Republican knowledgeable about intelligence affairs.

Former CIA director George Tenet mentions Gore’s environmental emphasis in his new book, At the Center of the Storm. “True to his interests, [Gore] had a fascination for wonkish issues,” Tenet writes. “He asked lots of questions about the impact on national security of water shortages, disease and environmental concerns.” Tenet reveals that some inside the CIA derided Gore’s priorities as “bugs and bunnies.”

“We started allocating precious intelligence resources to environmental issues just as al Qaeda was on the upswing,” says Rep. Hoekstra. “We were becoming politically correct. My fear is that we’re going back to the same place.”

One can only wonder how things would have been different if our intelligence services were able to focus on the growing terrorist threats during the 1990s instead of the environment.

And the Democrats want to be taken seriously when it comes to national security.


-------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

John McCain Visits Fort Dodge

John McCain was in Fort Dodge Tuesday for a town hall meeting. This will be just bits and pieces about the event. I wasn't able to take notes, but you can find out more about that here, here, and here. The DesMoines Register also has photos on their website, and both WHO TV and KCCI have video on their website.

• There was around 150 people who filled the Opera House to hear the Senator. The campaign provided a free lunch of ham or turkey sandwiches, chips, cookies and pink lemonade for everyone.

• While he was about 20 minutes late, several people were impressed that McCain stuck around afterwards until everyone had a chance to meet him and get an autograph or a picture. I'm not sure how many people there were, but it was a good number of people. Everyone is used to candidates hurrying to get to the door in order to stay on schedule, so this was refreshing.
  

• McCain's jokes were well received. Its hard to say which one went over the best, but I always enjoy the one about the drunken sailor. There were two exchanges with the audience that stick out in my mind. One was the discussion over ethanol. The gentleman asked McCain about his stance on ethanol, and how it differed from his stance in 2000. He went to return the mic, when McCain told the handler to give the mic back because he wanted to hear the gentleman's reaction. The two went back and forth 3 or 4 times, discussing the effects of ethanol on cattlemen and hog farmers, as well as comparing ethanol with other forms of renewable and non-fossil fuel energy. There was another gentleman who stood up and said how touched he was about how McCain, after going through what he did in the Hanoi Hilton, was able to forgive his captors. The Senator responded that it was a case that you have to move on in life, even though there are a couple of his captors he wouldn't mind seeing again.

• As everyone knows, McCain's number one issue is the war, and he hit on that topic several times during the event. He fully supports the troop surge and said that we were starting to see results, and asks that everyone gives it time to succeed. He also hit on the fact that by picking up and leaving now, we leave the door open to genocide and chaos.

The campaign should be very happy with the event. Webster and surrounding counties have done a great job in turning out for presidential candidates, so lets keep it up. It's areas like ours where candidates love to flock to and spend time.

----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

America's Car Problem?

Henry Payne at National Review Online today has an article called "Obama's Energy Vision" where he discusses Obama's speech to a Detroit auto group, and blamed them for out oil crises.

Ignoring the extraordinary freedom and mobility that the gas engine has delivered, Obama instead outlined a dark picture of a civilization on Armageddon’s doorstep. Our “oil addiction,” he said, has empowered Osama bin Laden and corrupt Latin dictators, and has set “off a chain of dangerous weather patterns that would condemn future generations to global catastrophe.” Hurricanes, drought, famine, and forest fires are ravaging the globe today with the result that “people are dying. . . and species are becoming extinct.”

He laid blame at the American auto industry’s feet.

Payne provided some facts about what kinds of vehicles American and foreign companies are producing:

That would be news to foreign competitors. In fact, Japanese carmakers have penetrated the U.S. market in the last 30 years by selling consumers what they want: quality, and big, sedans and trucks. In 1985, for example, 96 percent of the nearly one million cars Toyota sold were small cars. Today, at 2.5 million in sales, only 28 percent of its fleet is small vehicles, while 20 percent are light trucks. Meanwhile, General Motors leads the industry with 23 different models that get over 30 miles per gallon — hardly the resistance to reform that, the senator says, “could’ve saved the industry.”

He also talked about the CAFE standards:

First, he would strengthen federal fuel efficiency (so-called CAFE) laws by an arbitrary four percent a year. Since 1975, CAFE laws requiring that auto fleets average 27.5 mpg have failed miserably. Oil imports as a share of U.S. oil consumption have risen from 35 to 59 percent, and Americans today consume 20-percent more fuel driving twice as many miles.

I have always found this statistic interesting. It falls into the category of "unforeseen consequences of good intentions." But it also leads to another thing--in order to get CAFE standards up, auto makers have had to make cars lighter. I have lost track of the number of complaint's I have heard about plastic bumpers. I would love to see a report or study about the lifespan and safety of our vehicles today as opposed to 20,30 or 40 years ago.

Aside from all of this, I sometimes feel that what is being left out of stories like this is the ultimate question--what is a car? Yes, it sounds like a stupid question, but think about it. Is a car simply a means for transportation, like a bicycle? Or is it something that identifies and describes you personally? When you go and purchase a vehicle, you are likely going to consider things like gas mileage, reliability, etc. But you are also going to take into account the look and feel of the vehicle. Finances not being an issue, you are unlikely to drive a car if your personality fits more with a truck, and vice versa.

Like it or not, the car is a part of American culture. From the Model-T, to the muscle cars of the '60s and '70s, to the SUVs and trucks of today, the car identifies us. It represents the independence that America provides for its citizens. It represents the freedom of movement that is America. Obama and others like him talk about the "responsibility" of the auto dealers and the American people to drive cars that get 45 miles a gallon. But what of the responsibility of the auto dealers, as a business, to make cars that Americans truly want to drive? That's one of the reasons environmentalists create a lot of anger---they're trying to force us to drive ugly cars.

Why can't we keep the "American" car, and work on solutions around that? Instead of "encouraging" Americans to buy brand new vehicles to be responsible, why can't politicians demand a way to convert the cars we have and we like now be more fuel efficient and cut down on the use of fossil fuels? Groups try to push hybrids and low(or under) powered vehicles, but do you think Americans will willfully buy these when they lack power under the hood? Groups try to push cars that run on electricity, and all you have to do is plug your car in at night. But do we really think that Americans are going to want a car they have to plug in at night like they would a cell phone or an iPod? Why not create a prize for the first person/company to find a way to easily and cheaply convert our present cars to run on hydrogen, or methane, or our garbage?

No matter what your opinions are on global warming and the use of fossil fuels, I think everyone can agree about the national security aspect and concerns about oil revenues in the middle east. I'm all for finding alternative fuels, but for American's to follow, cars will need to continue to have power, speed and come in styles that Americans will want to drive.

-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Presidential Candidates Are a'Commin'

Next week will provide an excellent opportunity for Republicans learning more about our Presidential candidates.

Sen. John McCain will be at the Fort Dodge Opera House for a town hall meeting on May 8th at 11:30 AM, and will provide a free lunch. Please call Grant Young at 515-402-6715 to RSVP.

Gov. Mitt Romney will be at the Starlight Village Best Western (1518 3rd Ave NW) in Fort Dodge on Wed., May 9th at 12:15pm for a town hall meeting and free lunch. Please RSVP at (888) 722-4704, ext 200.

I encourage everyone to attend and let the candidates know that we are interested in what they have to say. We will try to get event wrap-ups on the blog as soon as possible afterwards.

-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote