How many times have we listened to people claiming Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq.  On January 6, 2011 the government declassified the status report given to Donald Rumsfeld by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 9, 2002.  This report was in response to a request from Rumsfeld to find out what the U.S. knew and didn’t know about the WMD in Iraq.  This memo reveals the truth about the intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq.

Naturally some people will quickly seize on this as lacking in hard core evidence.  But, that is hardly news.  Everyone agrees that the intelligence on Iraq was pathetic.  Iraq was a very secretive state and one of the problems for everyone was the lack of solid intelligence. 

George Bush undoubtedly used this report to help him evaluate the level of threat from Iraq.

It basically says the following:

1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that Iraq was making significant progress in WMD programs.
2. The U.S. had little or no hard intelligence with regard to the Iraqi nuclear programs.
3. Iraq was engaged in a program of Cover, Concealment, Denial and Deception (“CCD&D”) program that made it very difficult to evaluate their WMD program.
4. Iraq definitely had the knowledge needed to build a nuclear weapon.
5. The U.S. believed he already had a viable weapon designe.  They did not know how far Iraq had progressed with regard to enrichment.  They did not know the location of any nuclear weapons facilities.
6. Iraq definitely had the knowledge necessary to build biological weapons.
7. Iraq had all the processes required to produce biological weapons and had produced anthrax, ricin toxin, botulinum toxin and gas gangrene. 
8. The U.S. could not confirm the identity of any specific facilities.
9. They knew what biological weapons Iraq could produce, they did not know how and where they were produced.
10. Iraq definitely had the knowledge needed to build chemical weapons.
11. The U.S did not know if the processes required to produce a weapon were in place.  Iraq had already produced mustard gas and nerve agents. 
12. Iraq had facilities producing feedstock chemicals suitable for chemical warfare precursor.
13. The U.S. did not know the location of any Iraqi sites that could produce the final chemical agent.
14. Iraq had the knowledge to build ballistic missiles.
15. They could produce short range ballistic missiles.
16. The U.S. did know where most of the missile facilities were located.

In summary, intelligence showed that Iraq was an extremely dangerous state.  Iraq was actively promoting terrorism; Saddam Hussein was literally paying the families of suicide bombers.

There was a high risk of Iraq becoming a nuclear power with very little warning. We did not know the location of any nuclear weapon facilities.

Iraq had the capability to produce biological weapons and chemical weapons.  We did not know the location of any facilities.

Note:  In the past, intelligence had always been surprised to learn that Iraq had more than they suspected.  That was an opinion held by both Democrats and Republicans.  If the intelligence was wrong, most people experienced in intelligence suspected it was understating the problem.

Bush did not have the option of ordering air strikes or cruise missile attacks, because U.S. intelligence did not know where the facilities were located.

His choices were as follows:

1. Hope that the UN Sanctions that had not worked for over 8 years would suddenly start having an impact.
2. Attack Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and end the threat.
3. Do nothing and kick the problem down the road for someone else to handle.

What would you do?  What do you think most Presidents, including Bill Clinton and even Al Gore would do, particularly after 9-11?

This certainly explains all those speeches in support of the war by John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller and virtually every other Democratic leader.  It also explains why then Senator Barack Obama who had opposed the war said that if he had seen the intelligence available he might have made a different decision.  He danced around the issue during an interview with Tim Russert in 2007:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-speak.html

The main stream media owes George Bush a huge apology.  This memo should be the lead in every news broadcast and the headline should scream that “U.S. Intelligence confirmed that Iraq was a serious threat prior to the war.”  Instead they perpetuate the myth by saying that the intelligence was light.  It was light, as least in part because of drastic cuts to the defense budget under Clinton.  It was also light because in response to the Frank Church committee report, there were serious limitations to our ability to collect intelligence.  

The American people need to know the simple truth on this subject.  The memo is there for all to see.  Judge for yourself:

Iraq Intelligence Status Report

Somebody lied.  People died.  It wasn’t Bush.

TDM

We never really learn how great or bad, a leader is until a time of crisis.  Aaron Rodgers just showed that he is true leader with his performance in the Super Bowl.  Unfortunately, with regard to Egypt, Barak Obama has proved the opposite.  He is a PINO, President In Name Only. 

Obama followed the same pattern he does with every crisis.  He starts by doing nothing.  He tries to appear calm and composed, but in reality, just doesn’t know what to do.   He tries to appear Presidential, but never really IS Presidential.  Then he tries to figure out which way the politically correct winds are blowing so he can pretend to be in charge.  Finally, if things turn out bad he quickly shifts the blame and if things turn out good, he is even quicker to claim the credit.

His handling of the Egyptian crisis is beyond pathetic.  He started out pretending to be neutral.  Then when it looked like the Egyptian government was in trouble and the main stream media was showcasing the “pro-democracy” movement, he started giving the protestors more and more support.  While he never actually told Mubarak he had to go, he went publicly on the record saying the time to start the transition is now.  He even invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the table.  But the reality is that there is no current leader of any opposition group, including the Muslim Brotherhood, that could possibly govern Egypt.

Obama became frustrated and started pretending someone cared about what he was saying.  He pointed a finger at the camera and demanded that the transition to a new government in Egypt must start now.  Mubarak just ignored him.   He hasn’t been in power for 30 years because he is a push over.  In addition his friends in the Middle East from Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan and even Palestine are urging him to stay.  They agreed with Mubarak when he said that if he left he feared his country would descend into chaos and that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over.  At this point things appear to be calming down in Egypt, but that could change.  Mubarak may or may not leave, but it seems likely that the military will remain in control:    

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8307210/Egypt-uprising-falters-as-negotiations-with-government-begin.html

To make things worse, Obama made a big deal about appointing Frank Wisner to travel to Egypt to meet with both the Muslim Brotherhood and Mubarak. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/world/middleeast/03wisner.html

Apparently Wisner was supposed to negotiate a play nice agreement with the brothers and to tell Mubarak it was time to go.  But, Wisner came back with a strong message for Obama.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-administration-distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html

Wisner told anyone who would listen that; in his opinion, Mubarak needed to stay in office in order to oversee a responsible transition.  This, of course, was the exact opposite of what Obama was saying.  The Obama administration responded by desperately trying to explain how the guy Obama specifically appointed to speak for him, doesn’t actually speak for him.

To complete the insanity, today, there are reports that Obama has decided Wisner was right after all and perhaps Mubarak should stay:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/ss_egypt0108_02_07.asp

Of course now that Obama appears to have decided to support Mubarak, again, the latest rumors are that Mubarak may go anyway, on a medical leave.  (That is exactly the same maneuver recommended by Carter to get the Shah out of Iran and we all know how well that worked.)

 In the meantime the situation is Egypt is resolving itself without regard to anything said or done by Obama.  He just looks arrogant, silly, incompetent, naïve and irrelevant.  It is becoming difficult to find anyone who still takes Obama seriously.

We still don’t know the final outcome in Egypt.  The word is out that Obama has put the Marines on standby for an emergency deployment to evacuate Americans from Egypt.   Obviously someone is very concerned that things are going to deteriorate rapidly.

The only good news here is that even if Mubarak leaves it appears that Omar Suleiman will take his place, at least temporarily.   So far, Suleiman seems like a good choice.  He was in charge of the effort to keep the Muslim Brotherhood under control under the Mubarak regime.  The only negative I have heard on Suleiman is that Jimmy Carter thinks highly of him.  But since just about everyone else also likes him, that is probably insignificant.   Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

Obama has now lost credibility with both the left and the right.  He has now reduced the power of the Presidency to roughly the same as the English Monarchy.  He gets to stay in the White House and make speeches that people pretend matter, but no one seriously considers him to be the leader of the United States.   At a time when we desperately need leadership, we have Obama, the President In Name Only.

TDM

The Obama administration is condemning violence in Egypt, but only if it is done by the government.  Apparently violence by the protestors is ok.  Robert Gibbs:

“If any of the violence is instigated by the government it should stop immediately,”

Robert Gibbs is demanding that the government fold “yesterday” and Obama is openly embracing the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now we have vicious pro-Mubarak protestors fighting back against the “freedom and democracy crowd.”  What could possibly go wrong?

The rest of the world is stunned to learn that yes; Obama really is that naïve and incompetent.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142101

The Egyptian government, meaning the military, is underwhelmed by the anointed one.  They view his irresponsible comments as inciting violence.

http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt-protests/2011/02/02/egyptian-foreign-ministry-says-obama-inciting-violence

They also view his recommendations as hopelessly contradictory.  He is demanding a quick, immediate, orderly transition to representative democracy, by embracing the Muslim Brotherhood.  Right!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_us/us_us_egypt_cairo_view

Gibbs is literally throwing gas on the fires of rebellion.  The U.S. is now cheerleading for the protestors:

 http://www.latimes.com/news/la-egypt-obama-violence-20110202,0,3875781.story

In summary, the Obama administration has bet it all on the protestors overturning the Mubarak regime with the Muslim Brotherhood leading the way to freedom and democracy.  I am not even sure which is worse.  Obama being right, or wrong?.  At least from this angle, it would seem that if he is wrong, the Egyptian government maintains control and perhaps some stability is retained in the Middle East.  However, I wouldn’t count of them being willing to cooperate with Obama on anything.  It is really hard to believe that any government including the Muslim Brotherhood is going to turn out to be our BFF in the Middle East.

This is really dumb.  Does the Obama administration really think the Mubarak regime is just going to roll over and play dead because Obama doesn’t like them anymore?  For one thing, if the mob takes over at this point members of the current government will be lucky to escape with their lives.  For another, it would be wise to remember that the military has controlled Egypt for a long time.  While the military may be unhappy with Mubarak, they are unlikely to just willingly hand over the keys to their sworn enemies.  They are far more likely to do what they did before, replace Nassar with Sadat and replace Sadat with Mubarak.

Frequently the protestors are seen begging Obama for help.  What do they expect?  Do they really think Obama is going to send in troops to fight a battle with the Egyptian military?  Or do they think Mubarak will be so inspired by the annointed one that he will just gleefuly dance away into a peaceful and happy retirement?  The truth is that Obama can’t do squat.  In the end, I suspect it will be a very close contest to see who hates America most when this is done:  The Egyptian government that was abandoned by Obama, or the protestors who discovered Obama’s support meant less than nothing.

If the military fights back, which seems more and more likely, they have a lot of advantages.  They have planes, tanks, guns, fuel, food, water, money and ammunition.  Latest reports even have the pro-Mubarak crowd riding in on horseback and camels.  The “freedom and democracy” group has primarily taunts and tonsils.  Unless a significant segment of the military switches sides, bet on the guys with the most guns.

The least likely result seems to be a wonderful new Egyptian democratically elected government that offers peace and prosperity for all.   If the Obama administration had allowed Mubarak to leave gracefully and to allow for a smooth transition over several months to a fair election, that might actually have been possible.  Now we seem to be headed toward one of two options, both of which are worse that before.  If the Egyptian miltitary maintains control they are likely to crackdown even more on dissidents.  On the other hand, if the mob wins, Egypt is likely to make Iran look good in comparison.  Nice!

TDM

Carter lost Iran.  Obama is very close to losing Egypt.  Losing Iran was a major mistake, but it was isolated to one country.  Losing Egypt will be far more damaging.  It will not stop in Egypt.

The difference between a strong leader and a weak leader is the ability to make the tough decision under pressure.  The strong leader will make a decision and act boldly.  The most recent example of that was when George Bush ordered the surge in Iraq.  He had widespread opposition from the Democrats and lack luster support from the Republicans.  Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not enthused.  But Bush decided he had to act, because failure to act would result in certain disaster.  He was right.  His bold leadership snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

The public demonstrations in Tunisia have now spread around the globe.  They quickly ignited a fire storm in Egypt.  Our only hope now is that the military takes control.  Any provisional government acceptable to this mob will be a disaster.  The provisional government in Iran lasted for about 30 days before the hard liners took over.

Our leaders would be wise to re-read Niccolo Machiavelle’s “The Prince.”  Machiavelli lived in Florence during the renaissance.  The following words are as true today as they were in 1505:

for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse.

The following words are stunning with regard to current events in Egypt:

there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.

The Obama administration and other liberals fail to understand this.  Being liberal is only possible if first you have control.  We would all like to see Egypt and every place else enjoy the same democracy and freedom we enjoy.  But the first step toward democracy is the establishment of a government with enough power to enable it to allow personal freedom.  Where there is no rule of law, the lawless rule.  That is why Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and shut down newspapers during the Civil War.  The following quote from a letter written by Lincoln says it all:

I did understand…that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government—that nation—of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation.

True leadership requires understanding the difference between a threat to the nation’s very survival and political correctness.  No one, in Egypt or anywhere else, will benefit by swapping the brutal regime of Mubarak for an even more brutal fundamental Islamic state.  President Bush was a strong advocate for reforms in Egypt, but he was very careful to not undermine a government that was an important pillar of security in a volatile world.  When this crisis broke, first Obama tried to remain totally neutral, which satisfied no one.  Then he began making statements that clearly undermined Mubarak.  His warning to Mubarak to not use brutal tactics to suppress a rebellion only increased the level of violence itself.  Now he is sitting in the Oval office wringing his hands and calling around the world asking for someone to tell him what to do.  The leaders in every Arab world are asking themselves the same question.  Who do we fear more, the United States under Barack Obama, or the Muslim Brotherhood.  Sadly, I think we already know the answer.

I fear we are going to pay a terrible price for electing a naïve radical when we needed an experienced and strong leader.

The following article by Andrew McCarthy does an excellent job of explaining what is at risk.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258419/fear-muslim-brotherhood-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

The only thing certain is that if the government in Egypt falls, it will not end there.  The world is on fire and the one country on earth that has any chance to put out the fire is paralyzed by lack of leadership.

TDM

The revolt in Tunisia appears to have set off a spark that is rapidly spreading around the world.  Lebanon was overtaken by Hezbollah.  There are reports of problems in Jordan, Albania, Yemen and Iran.  Now it appears that it will take a miracle for the Egyptian government to survive.   Unfortunately, unless we are very lucky, this is unlikely to end well. 

When there was wide spread resistance in Iran, Obama did absolutely nothing.  That was a situation where people were rebelling against a dangerous Islamic regime, but Obama never said a word in support.   Contrast that with the situation in Egypt where Obama is publicly warning Egypt to not use force to quell the protests.  Egypt has a repressive government, but there is a lot more freedom in Cairo than there is in Tehran.  While Obama did nothing to help the people in Iran, he is more than willing to push Mubarak into the night. 

This is reminiscent of the way Jimmy Carter handled Iran.  Jimmy Carter was determined to spread “human rights” around the world.  Naturally places like China and the Soviet Union weren’t listening, so he only put pressure on “our friends.”  He warned the Shah of Iran to avoid using violence to suppress the resistance.  The Shah tried to warn Carter that he was dealing with Islamic fundamentalist and that the Shah would likely be replaced with something far worse.  Carter did not listen.  Instead Carter pushed the Shah to show restraint toward those who only understand brute force.  Ultimately, the Shah was over-thrown and he was replaced with the most radical and dangerous Islamic regime in the world.  That regime quickly thanked Carter by attacking our embassy and humiliating the U.S. in front of the world. 

Obama is following the exact same strategy in Egypt.  Egypt is the closest thing we have to a friend in the Arab world.  It is, after all, the Arab country that signed a peace treaty with Israel.   Now Obama not only seems reconciled to letting Mubarak fail, he is giving him advice that makes this a near certainty.   Mubarak has warned Obama that if he loses control Egypt could be dominated by Muslim extremists, just like in Iran, but Obama is not listening.

The following article explains the problem:

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/01/bbc-egyptian-tanks-surround-us-uk.html

Perhaps Obama does not get it, but clearly the Government of Egypt does.  Those tanks are surrounding our embassy and the UK embassy because they know what will happen if they are not there.  Ironically, Mubarak appears to be more interested in protecting our interests than our own President.  Obama has only been encouraging Mubarak to show restraint: 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/axelrod-president-obama-has-on-several-occasions-directly-confronted-mubarak-on-human-rights-for-the.html

But the question is restraint with regard to whom?  The major opposition party in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood.  The roots of al Qaeda can be traced directly to the Muslim Brotherhood.  The stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is as follows:

The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state”.

There are some people who believe that the Muslim Brotherhood has moved past its history of violence and that we should learn to get along with them.  But, where in this statement is there the slightest hint that these people are willing to tolerate anything other than radical Islam?  Whether they achieve this goal through violence or the ballot box, the outcome is the same, a society that has zero tolerance for other ideas.  This is why no Muslim country embraces freedom of religion.  Freedom of religion is incomparable with Islam itself.   

The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt for years, but it obviously still exists.  Recently its leaders have run for office as “independents.”  The opposition leader in Egypt who was recently imprisoned may fall into that category.  Mohamed ElBaradei gave an interview with Der Spiegel a few days ago saying: 

We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. … [They] have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them,”

He is represented in the main stream media as a Nobel Peace Prize winning reformist.   But he is also an activist who strongly opposed the Bush administration with regard to Iraq.  He tried to convince the world that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions were not a serious threat.  We now know that Saddam Hussein had a lust for nuclear weapons that was only restrained by his inability to obtain sufficient enriched uranium.  One thing is certain, Mohammed ElBaradei was no friend of the U.S. in the past and it would be foolish to assume he would be a friend now. 

Iran clearly sees this situation as perfect for turning Egypt into another Islamic fundamentalist state:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?_r=2&hp

Obama told Mubarak that: “suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.”  That sounds good, but it is incredibly naïve.  It assumes that all ideas are equal.  But the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood is to force everyone to become Muslims.  They believe only in tolerance of them, not tolerance by them.  If someone says that their mission is to take away your freedom, you either fight or you lose your freedom.  Compromise leads only to slavery.  Suppressing ideas may never make them go away, but it can sure prevent them from enslaving you.

Some people believe in the rule of law and fair play.  But others reject the rule of law and are unconcerned about the interests of anyone but themselves.  Every civilized society got that way by first squelching the ideas of criminals.  It is really quite simple.  If good people do not intervene, evil people always rule.  Evil is never silenced by good intentions, it is silenced by good people willing to fight for what is right.  Contrary to what Obama said in one of his speeches, German, Italy and Japan were not defeated by good intentions and ideals.  They were defeated by overwhelming military force.  Only after the military victory was it possible to allow our former enemies to enjoy the chance at true democracy.

Egypt is on the verge of meltdown.  Regardless of who remains in power, if the mob rules the result is unlikely to be good.   I hope and pray that the end result will be a more democratic and free Egypt.  I fear that the opposite is more likely. 

At a time like this it is important to remind ourselves of the contrast between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.  The American Revolution was let by men who knew the importance of having a government powerful enough to maintain control, but balanced enough to facilitate freedom.  The French revolution was an angry mob that descended into anarchy and ultimately led to Napoleon.  Angry mobs may destroy governments, but they rarely create democracies.  Right now Obama seems to be primarily focused on seeing Mubarak out of power.  He is cautioning Mubarak to not use violence to suppress protest.  But, EVERY government has a right to maintain civil order.  Tonight the police in Cairo have withdrawn and citizens are being told they need to defend themselves.  That should be a stark reminder that there is a huge difference between peaceful protest and mob rule.  Obama has no right to ask Mubarak to stand by and watch his country disintegrate into anarchy. 

So far it looks like the Egyptian government, particularly the military remains in control.  It appears that the Egyptian people are willing to accept the presence of the military and there is a chance that there will be a peaceful transition of power.  I suspect that most Egyptians are not interested in living in a state dominated by Islamic fundamentalists.  If given a choice, they are likely to choose freedom and democracy.  But if the decision is made by an angry mob, such an opportunity for choice is extremely unlikely.  Instead of Obama warning Mubarak to not resort to force to control angry mobs, he should be encouraging the citizens to keep the protests peaceful so that no force is necessary. 

Shortly after 9-11 there was an eye opening experience for me.  Vladimir Putin called George Bush and gave support.  He said:  “now you understand what we are dealing with in Chechnya.”  I did some research I found out that I had been incredibly naïve about Chechnya.  If you want to check this out for yourself, read the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/2565049.stm

 I had assumed this was people just wanting to be free from the dominance of Russia.  That was certainly true to a large degree.  But, there was also a problem with Chechnya rebels who wanted to turn Chechnya into an Islamic fundamentalist state.  Putin used the 9-11 attack as an excuse to subdue the Chechnya separatists.   The Chechnya Separatists were not interested in a peaceful resolution.  The point is that there is a big difference between those who believe in freedom and those who only believe in freedom to force everyone to follow their bidding.

The opposite of tyranny is not democracy, it is anarchy.  Democracy is only possible by suppression of evil so that good can live in peace.   Tolerating intolerance is a recipe for disaster.

TDM

The main stream media has a consistent dream.  It is the dream of Republicans and Democrats working together harmoniously and putting partisan politics aside for the good of the country.  Of course this dream only surfaces when Republicans are in power.  When Democrats are in power, there are no calls for bi-partisanship, unless that is defined as Republicans sacrificing their values on the altar of Political Correction.  But, there is no virtue in flirting with disaster. 

When the American people stupidly gave Democrats a huge majority in the House and a veto proof and filibuster majority in the Senate, the result was the most hyper-partisan congress in history.  Democrats showed zero interest in Republican input.  Major legislation was passed without a single Republican vote, even from the traditional core of liberal RINOs.  This legislation was so unbalanced that Democrats had difficulty getting it passed even though no Republican votes were necessary.  Obama care literally required flagrant bribes like the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback to gain sufficient support in the Democratic Party.  There was never support for this legislation from a majority of the voting public.  Very few people in the main stream media noticed.

Now, Republicans have gained control of the House and have regained functional control of the Senate.  The main stream media is suddenly, once again, cooing about the need for both parties to work together for the greater good.  However, this is actually a good time to recall the words of Barry Goldwater:

• I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
  • The Conscience of A Conservative (1960), p. 15

• I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Acceptance
  • Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.

Paul Ryan gave a good speech in response to the State of the Union speech.  But Michele Bachmann gave a great speech.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012507844.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

The difference was that Paul Ryan spoke with the assumption that President Obama is capable of leading us in an acceptable direction.  He tried to appear reasonable and respectful in a way that would be impressive to the main stream media.  That may be good politics, but the problem is that President Obama’s world view is irreconcilable with conservative values and so far he has guided us on the path to destruction.  The goal of the Republican Party should be to stop Obama’s agenda, not to modify it.  Our country cannot afford to continue along any path that is consistent with Obama’s naïve and irresponsible world view. 

As Barry Goldwater warned us over 40 years ago, compromise with those who do not share your values is no virtue.  Extremism in stopping the agenda that is destroying our country is no vice.

Sometimes you simply have to choose which path you are going to follow.  Suppose there is a fork in the road.  You know that if you take the left fork you will end up in a blind canyon, from which there is no exit, and you know there is a bridge out ahead.  You also know that the right fork will lead you back to civilization and safety.  Your leader, who does not know the area, insists on taking the left fork.  Other members of the group strongly encourage you to agree to take the left fork, because they feel that the most important thing is to support the leader.  They are wrong.  There is no merit in blindly following a leader on the path to disaster.  Obama is leading this country on a path to destruction.  We obviously should try to give him guidance on which way to go.  And if he starts leading us in the right direction, we should let him do so.   But, if he insists on continuing to follow the path to destruction, we must not follow him, we have a duty to force a change in course.    

Michele Bachman gets that.  I worry that the main stream Republican leadership does not. Winning an election is 2012 would be nice, but it will be a pyrrhic victory if we have to endure two more years of wholesale destruction to our country during the interim.   Pretending that Obama has somehow morphed from a naïve, arrogant, incompetent radical into a skilled leader just because he lost a mid-term election requires willing suspension of disbelief.  We cannot afford to wait until 2012 to turn this ship around.  We are already too close to the rocks.

TDM

I once handled a liability claim where the plaintiff refused to identify himself.  This involved an automobile accident and our driver was clearly at fault.  Our driver recognized the plaintiff as the person in the other automobile.  But, the plaintiff absolute refused to provide any documentation verifying his identity.  I advised his attorney that I could not pay him, because I didn’t have anyone to pay.  At some point, all of us are required to prove our existence.  For most of us, that starts with a birth certificate.

The recent case of the woman who was kidnapped shortly after birth tracking down her birth parents was an example of this problem.  She only learned there was an issue when she could not get a drivers license because her “parents” could not produce a birth certificate.  Ultimately she was able to prove that she had been kidnapped as a baby.  A birth certificate is not a minor detail, it is a bare necessity.

The Obama “birther” movement has gone main stream.  It is becoming increasingly difficult for the main stream media to casually dismiss this as a non-issue.  Prior to this time birthers were routinely discounted in the main stream media, including Fox News, as Don Quixote characters chasing rainbows.  There was wide spread acknowledgement that this was settled.  Obama had produced his birth certificate and that was that.

They ALMOST got away with it.  Perhaps they would have got away with it if the citizens of Hawaii had not elected Neil Abercrombe as their new Governor.  The old Governor, a Republican, was willing to just let well enough alone.  But the new Governor is a full-fledged KoolAid drinking Obama supporter so he huffed and puffed his way into office promising to stop the birther movement once and for all.

Here is what we know.  In spite of all the promises the Governor hasn’t been able to produce squat.  The best he has is some “vague” indication that there is a record of Obama’s birth certificate in the archives, but no actual copy of the birth certificate.  That creates some serious problems. 

In June of 2008, the Obama campaign released the following “copy” of Obama’s birth certificate:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

This “certificate” was intended to end the controversy once and for all, but some people were not impressed.  It was, after all, a digital copy.  To the best of my knowledge no one outside of the Obama administration has ever laid hands on the real document.  So Dr. Chiyome Fukino from the Department of Health released the following statement on October 31, 2008. 

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”

Then, in July of 2009, she issued another statement:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

It is important to note that Dr. Fukino refused numerous requests for clarification of her original statement between October of 2008 and 2009.  There are reports, probably accurate, that Dr. Fukino’s responses were carefully crafted by legal counsel. 

Under these circumstances it is important to realize what these statements do not say.  The first statement does not say that Dr. Fukino personally saw Obama’s birth certificate, instead it says that she verified that: “the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record.”  This, in retrospect, is interesting wording.  It does not say they have the document, but rather than they have a record of the document. 

The second statement also fails to say that the original birth certificate is on file.  Instead it says that she has seen the original vital records verifying that Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and he is a natural –born American citizen.”  Again, she did not say that she saw the actual birth certificate, but that she saw the “record.”  This is totally consistent with the recent report from Governor Abercrombe that there is a “record” of Obama’s birth, but no copy of the certificate itself.  In addition, he was forced to admit that he couldn’t locate a record of live birth from any medical provider or hospital.

The Obama campaign produced a “copy” of his birth certificate.  Where, exactly, did that come from?  It now seems clear that it didn’t come from the Hawaii Department of Health since they don’t appear to have one.  It seems possible that someone in the Obama campaign manufactured this document.  In other words, it may have been a forgery.  It is quite possible that even Obama thought this certificate presented accurate information.  He may actually believe that he was born in Hawaii and that his father was Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. because that is what he was told.  The only thing certain is that there is no currently available documentation verifying this.

When Obama was born a birth certificate could be filed even for someone born outside of the state of Hawaii, perhaps even outside of the country.

State of Hawaii Statute §338-17.8  Certificates for children born out of State.  [[or out of country]]
(a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

This reminds me of Rahm Emanuel trying to establish his Chicago residency.  He inconveniently moved to Washington D.C., apparently failing to anticipate the opportunity to run for Mayor of Chicago.  Now he is having difficult convincing the courts that he really lived in Chicago all along.  In the case of Obama it appears that his parents didn’t need to actually live in Hawaii, they just needed to state that Hawaii was their legal residence.  In addition, apparently Obama did not need to actually be born in Hawaii, or even the United States, in order to qualify for a Hawaiian birth certificate in accordance with these regulations.  

The problems for Obama are more significant than I realized. This starts to fill in a lot of blanks.  It helps explain why Obama has refused to release any records from Occidental, Columbia, Harvard or even high school.  Since there is no evidence that he ever had a certified Hawaii birth certificate to present, it begs the question of what documentation Obama did use.  It would be hard to explain the use of Indonesian identity records.  It would be even harder to explain the use of Hawaii identity records that cannot be verified.  They certainly can’t be verified now.

So far everyone has been focused on whether or not Obama was born in the U.S. and whether or not he is a natural born U.S. citizen.  But perhaps the more important question not where Obama was born, but  rather what documentation did Obama use to enroll in school, to register to vote, to get a drivers’ license, to apply to the Illinois bar and to file for public office?    If Hawaii can’t find his birth certificate, where did Obama get his copy?  Ultimately, who is Barack Hussein Obama?  So far, the only thing certain is that he has never presented even the bare necessities to verify his own identity.

TDM

The new Governor of Hawaii, an Obama KoolAid drinking Democrat, promised to end the “birther” controversy as soon as he took office.  Apparently he went over to the state archives to see the actual documents, with his own eyes, so he could verify the truth once and for all.  But there was a problem.  When he opened the cupboard, the cupboard was bare:

 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=252833

 This story was dead and buried, until the new Governor stupidly resurrected it.  The only thing we know for sure is that he personally lied about things.  For example he claimed to have met Obama’s parents along with the child.  The problem is that this story could not possibly be true.  Of course a lot of politicians invent exciting pasts.  Hillary Clinton claimed she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary, in recognition of his climbing Mt Everest.  If he hadn’t waited until she was five years old before achieving this goal, this story might have more credibility.

 http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/24/2541347/hawaiis-new-governor-says-discrediting.html

 Obama was allegedly born on Aug 4, 1961, in Hawaii.  His mother showed up in Seattle and enrolled in the University of Washington on August 19, 1961. 

 http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=pf_output.cfm&file_id=8897

 It would appear that, at a minimum, she relocated from Hawaii to Seattle, Washington, shortly after Obama was born.  There is no evidence that Barack Obama Sr. cared.  He moved from Hawaii to Harvard before Obama’s mother ever moved back to Hawaii.  It does not appear that Obama’s parents EVER lived together as husband and wife after he was born.  If they did, it was only for a couple of days, shortly after he was born.

 http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/obama_government/news.php?q=1249498923

  I think the Governor assumed he would waltz over to the archives, heroically produce Obama’s long form birth certificate and put this all to rest.  But, clearly, he could not do that.  The following report, from WND has never been proven incorrect:

 WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.

 Read more: Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833#ixzz1BSmINJt9

 This is turning out exactly as I expected.  So far, no long-form hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii has been verified.  So far, neither Honolulu hospital, Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center has produced any record verifying that Obama was born there. 

 In spite of a lot of stink and steam, the ultimate result is that there is no definite proof of where Obama was born.  Absence of documentation is not proof of anything, but a lack of documentation.  In other words, the absence of documents does not prove, per sea, that Obama was not born in Hawaii.  Absent some evidence proving that he was born someplace else, the best evidence available, is still the record on file with the State of Hawaii.  While this may be more than a little squishy, it appears to be all there is.  All of the participants, other than Obama, are conveniently dead.  I know this is not very satisfying, but it is what it is.  The bottom line is that while this will prove to be embarrassing for Obama and the story will generate stink and steam, but nothing will change.  In other words it does not matter where Obama was actually born, unless someone has solid evidence that he was born some place other than Hawaii.  Even if he was born in Kenya, I suspect those documents are long gone.  His “Kenya” grandmother allegedly remembers him being born in Kenya, but that is far from well documented and it was a translated conversation subject to dispute. 

 I am predicting that this story will get more and more attention, but ultimately it will solve nothing and change nothing.  What it will show is that this is far from the totally documented case closed reported in the main stream media. 

 In summary, sometimes the truth, is, well the truth.   All we know is that we don’t know and while the only evidence appears to be questionable, it remains the only evidence.  Those who believe Obama was born in the U.S. have just cause for their opinion. Those who believe he was born in Kenya also have grounds for their opinion.  In the end, the only thing certain is uncertainty.  The question is whether, under the circumstance, anyone in either party will care enough to do anything.  My prediction is that Obama will produce no documentation and no one will challenge him on the issue.

 TDM

It is now crystal clear that the Obama administration is totally clueless with regard to the duty and responsibility of a President.  The occasion called for a memorial service.  Instead we got the kick-off to Obama’s 2012 Presidential campaign.  The Obama administration clearly recruited a crowd of avid supporters and directed them to fill the hall with loud applause.  It was pathetic demonstration of supercilious sanctimony. 

On October 25, 2002, Senator Paul Wellstone was killed in an airplane crash.  Democrats, who simply cannot resist exploiting any tragedy replaced him as a candidate with Walter Mondale.  They then took over his memorial service to run a Campaign Rally.   While Democrats thought this went really well, the people in Minnesota were appalled and it backfired.  Mondale was trounced.  Of course left wing blogs continue to report conspiracy theories of how Republicans killed Senator Wellstone.  They fail to acknowledge that one of the reasons Wellstone was flying in such bad weather is that he was way behind in the polls.  They had no reason to kill him, he was destined to lose.

It is too early to get the full impact of Obama’s performance at the Tucson Memorial service, but it sure looked like a repeat of the Wellstone fiasco.  I was stunned and appalled.  The wild cheering and rapturous introductions of the Democratic participants was just plain awful.  No matter how the main stream media tries to spin it, the memorial service was turned into a campaign rally.  It was beyond poor taste.  It was just another shameless exploitation of tragedy.  I would feel exactly the same if the participants had been Republicans.  The contrast between this pep rally and the national prayer service put together by Bush after 9-11 could not be starker. 

The main stream media is trying to spin this as a great performance by Obama.  But, my guess is that a high percentage of people were just as disgusted as me.  The campaign slogan tee shirts draped over each chair added a whole new level of weirdness.  Have any of you been to a funeral lately where they handed out tee shirts with campaign slogans?

Obama also droned on and on and on.  He repeated himself several times and he was his usual arrogant self.  The man cannot give a speech without thrusting his jaw out every time he pauses, in breathless anticipation of the adoration he deserves.  I suspect that the KoolAid drinkers will continue to drink it in, but everyone else will be unimpressed.  There were no great moments, no soaring rhetoric, just the same boring monotone Obama reading predictable clichés.  His greatest moment turned out to be a lie.  Gabrielle Giffords opened her eyes Sunday, long before Obama got around to visiting her.  Perhaps Obama really believed she had only opened her eyes after his visit, but it sure looked like a staged theatrical stunt.  The problem is that this was obviously not true.  Dr. Rhee reported on Sunday that she could open her eyes, but could not speak.  The Sonoran Chronicle carried the story, but pulled it down after Obama’s speech.  Fortunate an alert blogger kept a screen print of the article:

 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bkjADo9S7qcJ:sonoranchronicle.com/2011/01/09/giffords-survives-the-night-can-open-eyes/+giffords+survives+the+night,+can+open+eyes&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Naturally the main stream media continues to report the miraculous eye opening shortly after Obama’s visit.  Some have even stooped to referring him as the great healer.  Please!  I am very glad she can open her eyes, but the exploitation of this woman is mindboggling.

Obama did say that political rhetoric had nothing to do with this incident.  Some broadcasters felt that was a brave thing for him to do.  That is nonsense.  It was the very least he could have done.  What he should have done is said that it is a national disgrace that people viciously attacked Sarah Palin when there was no evidence to support those attacks. 

Since Democrats have already demonstrated a total lack of shame, I predict that soon we will have some kind of gun control legislation proposed by Democrats with Gabrielle Giffords name attached.  Does anyone remember the “Brady bill?”  The Giffords bill is soon to follow.  Any legislation proposed by Republicans will be challenged by Democrats as failing to honor the tragedy.  I Democrat will demand that the health care repeal vote and any other “controversial” legislation be suspended until she is able to return to office.  Bills proposed by Democrats will be done in her honor.  Of course when a Republican is temporarily unavailable Democrats just try to cram through legislation without them.  The most recent example was with Senator Kirk from Illinois.  Democrats tried to delay swearing him in until the last possible moment so they could shove more legislation through the lame duck congress.

After watching Obama’s performance one thought went through my mind, in addition to pure disgust:  “If the American people are too stupid to see through this garbage, we are doomed.”

TDM

The following video from Sarah Palin is a stark reminder of why no one should underestimate her:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41036993/ns/politics-more_politics/?GT1=43001

Obama’s performance has been robotic and uninspiring. The liberal left has been virtually foaming at the mouth with obviously false charges regarding Sarah Palin, even though they admit there is zero evidence supporting these charges.  Some leading Republicans have tried to avoid saying something controversial, so they now look defensive in response.  John Boehner has handled this very professionally.  Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have been fighting back very effectively.   But Sarah Palin, with this video, directly challenged the main stream media in a way they cannot ignore.  She not only let them know their charges are absurd; she correctly challenged them on their own dangerous rhetoric.

The main stream media immediately responded by smearing Sarah Palin for responding to their attacks:

ABC criticized her for responding at all, when earlier they criticized her for not responding:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/the-note-obama-palin-and-arizona-a-tale-of-two-speeches.html

CBS says she is playing the victim card:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028275-503544.html

MSNBC says she is ignorant for using the “Blood Libel” term:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/12/nbc_andrea_mitchell_palin_ignorant_for_using_term_blood_libel.html

The important thing to note is that the main stream media felt compelled to immediately respond to Sarah Palin.  There is a reason for that.  They FEAR her.  They should.  The term “blood libel” was well chosen, and in contrast to the unfounded smears by the main stream media, it is accurate.  The liberal left’s assault on Sarah Palin did put her and other conservatives in grave danger.  The speed and strength of their reaction is direct evidence of how sharply she stung them with her response.

The liberal left should start praying desperately that no one takes a shot at Sarah Palin or her family, because if that happens the political backlash will be unprecedented.  So far the American public is not buying the “angry right rhetoric” drumbeat from the liberal left.  Sarah Palin’s video is stunningly well done.  I suspect that a lot of people will be moved and inspired by her.  The liberal left has good reason to fear her.  They look very small in comparison.

TDM