Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:

…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.

…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.

Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.

So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!

Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.

While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.

That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.

With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)

And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?

The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.

PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.

The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.

It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.

Ben Franklin warned government with his clever sayings. I expect several would apply to Obama devastating the military ground forces today. We may be saving a few billion dollars now, but is may cost us 100’s of billions in the near future.

The current administration currently plans to reduce US Army ground forces by as much as 20 Brigade Combat Teams. This is the equivalent of 5-6 Divisions. To put this in perspective, this is more combat power than the US had in Iraq at any one time.

So, what does this mean to non military people? It means we cannot sustain a ground battle like Iraq unless the US keeps the troops in theater until the fighting is complete. There will only be enough troops to replace them with no reserve. In the event there is fighting in Korea and somewhere in the middle east, the US will not have the capability to fight and win in both theaters.

While Obama explains he is planning on increasing air and sea power, history has showed that no war has ever been won without taking and holding the ground. Air and sea power project power but cannot by themselves win.

I remember the Carter military reductions. There was no money to maintain the bases. At FT Benning, there was money for painting buildings, but not repairing buildings. Remember the Clinton “peace dividend”? The Democratic Congress and Clinton made major force reductions to pay for domestic programs. A great number of excellent soldiers were released. After 9/11, their expertise was needed but absent.

If the US must fight a foreign war, will there be adequate assets left to defend the homeland? There are currently more than known 80 Hezbollah cells already in the US. Only God knows how many terrorist cells there really are in the US. Can we fight China’s expanding military and the terrorists at home? If the military is so greatly reduced, will there be the capability for them to “defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic”? Just like the Carter and Clinton administration, it looks like we again are using a strategy that is penny wise and pound foolish!

Worst. President. Ever.

In an ironic counterpoint to the extra-Constitutional power grab he used to get an unlimited new bureaucracy up and running, President Obama popped into the Pentagon on Thursday to announce massive military cuts – grabbing some new cash for social spending by cutting back on one of the few duties Washington is actually supposed to perform.  This will effectively spell the end of the traditional U.S. military doctrine that our armed forces must be able to fight two enemies at once, which is okay, because that has never ever happened before, and anyway the world is nice and peaceful now.

At least we can be confident that America’s potential enemies don’t factor the size of our military into their strategic calculations when they contemplate aggression.  Besides, if we need more troops, we can just hire them real quick, toss them some rifles, and load them into planes.  War is easy nowadays.

…It’s funny how liberals think the military is the one and only sector of the U.S. government that should get “leaner” and more “flexible” or “agile.”  Is there a single other endeavor of the government that Obama thinks could be improved by having fewer federal employees?  Doesn’t the urgency of eliminating men and women in uniform to hit that $450 billion target say something about the high cost of labor that liberals are usually uncomfortable discussing?

Reuters is reporting this is a cut of 10′s of thousands of troops. As John Hayward wrote above, Obama is so naive, so utterly clueless, he believes our wars (and there will be future ones) can be fought long distance….or does he?

In the president’s signing statement issued Saturday in passing into law the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill, Mr. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on U.S. Standard Missile-3 velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority.

As first disclosed in this space several weeks ago, U.S. officials are planning to provide Moscow with the SM-3 data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. The weapons are considered some of the most effective high-speed interceptors in the U.S. missile defense arsenal.

There are also concerns that Russia could share the secret data with China and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to help their missile programs defeat U.S. missile defenses.

Maybe not. I suppose he is just happy knowing we are now no longer a superpower. No longer a threat to anyone. Because then everyone will leave us alone right?

Where will that money go, the money that was supposed to go to the only real job a President has?

To pay for 110,000 unpaid jobs and other entitlement program he can muster up.

In Obama’s world higher taxes creates jobs, throwing free money around makes better citizens, and a smaller military makes stronger.

Worst. President. Ever.

In his latest signing statement Obama said:

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

Now why would he even need to say that were it not possible?

Does his signing statement make you feel safer? It ought not. After all, it was Obama who said unequivocally that he would not use signing statements to “get his way.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Obviously it is now possible for Obama to hold any American he deems a potential terrorist indefinitely without trial.

And who can be declared a terrorist? Among the possibilities are these:

People or groups who:

* Provide identification that is inconsistent or suspect or demand identity “privacy”
* Insist on paying with cash or uses credit card(s) in different names
* Make suspicious comments regarding anti-US, radical theology, vague or cryptic warnings that suggests or appear to endorse the use of violence in support of a cause
* Demonstrate interest in uses that do not seem consistent with the intended use of the item being purchased
* Possess little knowledge of intended purchase items
* Make bulk purchases of items to include:
-Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers
-Meals Ready to Eat
-Night Vision Devices; night flashlights; gas masks
-High capacity magazines
-Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles

I am not comforted by Obama’s assurance that he would not detain an American indefinitely. Not one bit, especially given the bona fide idiots who are in charge of the Department of Injustice and Homeland Insecurity. And considering this- my brother-in-law and I formed a partnership to buy and rent a condo at a ski resort. We were notified that we had subsequently been placed on a terrorist watch list.

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

While we’re waiting for Iowa to make up their minds as to a possible Obama opponent, it may behoove us to examine just what repercussions of Obama’s Pakistan foreign policy lie in store for the US and our national security. Yes yes… I’m well aware that foreign policy is triaged way down in the electorate’s mind in import. At least when it comes to specific day-to-day events. But there is no doubt that our national security does still remain an important campaign issue… even if not at the top of the voters’ radar. So this is a worthy debate, even if not as “sexy” a topic these days.

The summary? Zardari is on his way out – early – and there’s a three way frontal assault for new leadership of the nuke-armed nation. Pakistan has grown extremely anti-American with the average of a drone strike over Pakistani soil every four days – 291 total, and 236 of them under this POTUS alone, the invasion of sovereign territory – sans permission – to get UBL (as promised by candidate Obama), and the pièce de résistance, the NATO “oops” attack that killed 24 Pakistan soldiers. And as CJ, FA’s boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan reports, they’ve already begun exacting their revenge by slashing US supply lines to our troops in Afghanistan.

So exactly who is Pakistan’s future potential leadership, and are they a potential enemy, or ally of the US? Sorry to report that the outlook isn’t good, with two out of the three declaring, in advance, that the US is no friend to that nation and promising no cooperation as part of their elective appeal. Considering the above referenced events, Obama’s ill-thought foreign policies have left the US extremely unpopular with Pakistanis who will not welcome any input… just as “new and improved” Egypt now states. In fact, it may be quite likely that any functional relationship with Pakistan will be coming to an end.

I’ll start this crash course in a current events perspective with an little noticed press release over the holidays that former Pakistan army chief, General Ziauddin Butt, has charged the Musharraf regime with deliberately harboring Usama Bin Laden, away from the US’s intelligence eyes, in the past holiday week.

Musharraf and Rick Perry, July 2011

Needless to say, Pakistan has all the makings of a Middle East, Islamic psuedo-ally in intel, and offers absolutely no appeal as an enemy. Post Sept 11th, they became that ally under Musharraf…until they were provoked and abused beyond the pale under this POTUS, that is.

Judging by the Commander in Chief’s three years of policy choices, I’d say that Obama does not share my view of Pakistan as a more valuable ally than enemy. While I welcomed the death of UBL, I am on record (and taking much heat for…) my opinion that “…there would be a seriously hefty price for this nation to pay for Bin Laden’s head, if one weighs the cascading repercussions.”

Today, those repercussions are painfully obvious – at least to those paying attention.

Using my approach of Pakistan as more valuable as a friend than enemy, I happened to find this Musharraf accusation of particular interest for many reasons. First, because General Ziauddin – oft referred to as the “genius general” in Pakistan circles – has not been in power in the Pakistani Army since 1999…prior to when UBL would have been in Abbottabad.

So where is his inside scuttlebutt – post power and position – supposedly coming from?

And more importantly, why… now, today…is he deciding to confess this to the free world? If this hiding of UBL by Musharraf’s regime was so important to Ziauddin, what the heck took him so long to come forward?

Nawaz Sharif

And when it comes to Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf, there is even less love lost between those two. I’ll skip that rich-in-detail history for now, but suffice it to say Sharif’s revenge for Musharraf springs eternal.

I will also add any sane American, who stays abreast of Pakistani politics and their repetitive players, knows very well that Nawaz Sharif was, is and remains, a clear and present danger to the US.

Sharif represents some of Pakistan’s most populous areas. Along with that is his alliance and representation of Pakistan’s most radical elements. When Bhutto’s co-architect of the Afghanistan Mullah Omar Talliban – Fazlur Rehman – needed to convey a “truce” offer for the Afghan Taliban, who did he take it to? Nawaz Sharif.

Who is it that cannot bear to criticize the Taliban in the Pakistani press? Nawaz Sharif.

Who supports and has overtly fought for Islam as the rule of the land for Pakistan, and has a “soft corner” for his terrorist/radical base? Nawaz Sharif.

And when Obama’s admin wanted a carrier pigeon/negotiator with the Afghanistan terrorists, who did they woo? Nawaz Sharif.

Fact is, if anyone would know where Osama Bin Laden was hiding out, it would be more likely to be Sharif and his crowd, as Sharif met with Bin Laden three times, requesting financial assistance to hold power in the late 90s.

In September 1999, government officials said, the director general of I.S.I., Lt. Gen. Ziauddin and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was summoned to Washington. American officials told them Pakistan should force the Taliban to moderate their positions and turn over Osama bin Laden. Nawaz Sharif sent General Ziauddin to Kandahar to deliver the American message to Mullah Omar, who refused and next month, on Oct. 12, 1999, Nawaz Sharif was overthrown in a military coup.

Adnkronos International (AKI) reported that former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif did meet al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at least three times in order to get financial help, according to Khalid Khawaja, the former official with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In an exclusive interview with AKI, Khawaja, once a close friend of Osama bin Laden, rejected the statements by a spokesperson for Sharif’s political party, denying that Sharif had sought political cooperation from bin Laden in the past.

“Nawaz Sharif met Osama Bin Laden on at least three occasions and was desperately seeking his financial assistance,” Khawaja told AKI in response to recent news reports regarding a possible meeting between the two.

In an interview with a national Urdu daily, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), and of the six party religious alliance MMA, said that Nawaz Sharif had repeatedly met Osama bin Laden who offered him money to buy the loyalties of parliamentarians in the late 1980s in order to topple the government of then prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Qazi also said that bin Laden was a big supporter of Nawaz Sharif’s bid to be prime minister in 1990.

Khalid Khawaja’s name resurfaced when US reporter Daniel Pearl was abducted and subsequently killed. Pearl had come to Pakistan and met Khalid Khawaja in order to investigate the jihadi network of revered sufi, Syed Mubarak Ali Gailani.

“Now after Benazir Bhutto formed her government and the opposition parties moved for a vote of no-confidence, Osama Bin Laden comes in a picture,” Khawaja recalled.

“I still remember that Osama bin Laden provided me with funds, which I handed over to Nawaz Sharif, then the chief minister of Punjab [and later premier], to dislodge Benazir Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with the “Sheikh”, which I did in Saudi Arabia. Nawaz met thrice with Osama in Saudi Arabia.

Tho Sharif, himself, doesn’t currently hold an office in Pakistan’s government today, he is President of the anti-US/pro Islamic fundamentalist party that, along with himself, have been rapidly gaining in popularity since the Zardari election – the Pakistan Muslim League-N. Nor has he shed the desire to again ascend to power, as one could easily derive from his Dec 21st, 2011 demand that Pakistan hold elections early. Considering he’s been pressuring the public for a revolution for months, this can’t come as a surprise.

Is it just mere coincidence that Sharif’s rising popularity, and his demand for early elections, pre’dates General Ziauddin’s accusation against Musharraf by only 2-3 days?

Whether because of health, scandals, or public displeasure with the current elected ones, Pakistan is on the precipice of selecting a new leader. Bhutto’s ex-hubby… President Asif Zardari, who catapulted to victory literally on the grave of his media-sainted wife post assassination… is out of favor, and on his way out prior to the ending of his term. Mourn not… never in the history of that nation has a democratically elected civilian government served out its full term and then been replaced by another one, as we do here in the US. Does that give you a clue as to how susceptible to influences – both internally and internationally – they are?

So why the resurgence of the “dump on Musharraf” mentality by fundamentalist Sharif – via Ziauddin – at a time when few Americans would take notice? That, I believe, is the question that takes precedence over the accusation itself.

And the answer is – Sharif fully intends to use historically stupid western media to influence Pakistan’s future, and imminent, new leader…himself. And it just so happens that two of the three potential leaders includes this unappetizing prospect of a Pakistan, headed up by Sharif. The second of the three is the return of Musharraf, enjoying a resurgence in his own popularity.

Piling on with the coincidence if this timely accusation is Musharraf’s announcement he was returning to Pakistan in January, made just two days before Sharif’s demand for early elections.

Of these two, Musharraf offered the only leader who, in the past, cooperated with the US in HUMINT, and tactitly approved Bush drone strikes. Considering the sheer volume of a US war, waged against Pakistan, by unmanned drones by Obama, I can’t see even Musharraf exercising the cooperation he extended to the Bush administration in the future.

Also worrisome for Sharif is the fact that he’s starting to lose ground in his own backyard, as the former splinter PML-Q, who left Sharif’s PML-N to back Musharraf, are starting to bond with Musharraf’s 2010 political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML). Together, they are forging a relationship with another upcoming party, the PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) to oppose not only Sharif’s, party, but Zardari’s PPP as well. While Zardari and his party may be history as a majority, this alliance is likely to give Sharif’s support serious trouble in Punjah, and most especially in Lahore.

Imran Khan - moderate?

In the much misreported ta doo that surrounded Musharraf’s declaration emergency rule, Khan was under house arrest, and called for Musharraf’s prosecution with the death penalty. Khan escaped, went into a short period of hiding, then showed up in Punjab for a protest rally, and was captured by students and turned over to the police. He was incarcerated for a few days before he was released, along with 3000 others, who had been detained but not yet charged as part of the emergency rule declaration. A few days following Khan’s release, with the others, Musharraf resigned as army chief.

Despite the rocky past of support and adversity, an October report that Khan and Musharraf have been forging this political alliance for the upcoming, and likely early elections. Since Khan has recently surpassed Nawaz Sharif as being the most popular politician in Pakistan (for the moment…), and Khan considers Sharif another politician not to be trusted, any alliance between the two creates yet another obstacle for Sharif.

This potential alliance also has credibility after a splinter group, the PML-Quaid (who had split from the PML-Q) have lent their support to Khan’s PTI this past October as well.

But what is Khan’s, and the PTI’s, ideology, and their views towards the US? For Christian, Sikhs, and Hndu Pakistanis, the PTI’s religious tolerance is appealing. Social, government and educational reform is also high on the party’s priorities. The rising numbers are evident in the huge rallies of 100s of thousands in the streets of Karachi recently, protesting the current Pakistan government.

For the US? Not so much to celebrate. Khan and the PTI promise to end all cooperation with the US in fighting extremists, put a halt to all drone bombings, and refuse all US foreign aid. In short, the intent is to cut all US ties, which, as Khan believes, contributes to the instability between Pakistanis themselves. He’s also promised to end all Pakistan military activity in the terrorist invested tribal regions… not so good for the US either.

Sir David Frost’s interview this month with Khan, who he calls the likely next PM of Pakistan, casts Khan as Pakistan’s knight in shining armor who can end the Pakistan and Afghanistan wars in just 30 days.

If you listen carefully, Imran Khan will tell American and, in particular, his British audience in this Al Jazeera special, exactly how to end the war in Afghanistan. On the “Pakistan side of the border,” in what is called “the tribal areas” Khan says the war can be ended, not in 2 years, not 11 years but 30 days.

To end the war, you end the Jihad. To end “Jihad,” you have to understand what a Jihad is. Go back and listen again, he will put it in plain language. It is amusing, watching the “paid press” try to picture Khan as anti-American and extremist. What is extreme is honesty, something rare.

Good luck with that “ending of jihad”, and finding peace and harmony amongst all men, bit. But perhaps it’s the season to believe in fairy tales and unicorns.

On the other hand, his extreme distaste for aiding the US in quelling terrorist has also earned him the nickname of Taliban Khan.. somewhat ironic since you’d think that Nawaz Sharif would have that position sewn up for himself.

As far as Pakistan turning into a country ruled by Shariah law, both Khan and the PTI support a Pakistan that is “truly Islamic” In February 2009, he held talks with the SWAT militants, and urged “… the government to allow for sharia law not just in the tribal areas and the northwest, but throughout the country.”

While it’s undeniable that Khan supports Islam as rule of the land, his western education background makes him superficially attractive to many in the western world – perhaps envisioning that he can be considered a “moderate”, walking that fine line between turning Pakistan into a stone agent mentality for women and other religions, yet still keeping the peace between radical religious fanatics. Or else the case can be made we haven’t got a clue what he’d do. But there are sites that dedicate themselves to exposing him as a radical himself.

This grey area Shariah supporter becomes even more ironic when Khan’s own 1995 marriage to English socialite, Jemima Goldsmith Khan – a Jewess who converted to Islam – produced two sons (who also converted), but ended up in divorce nine years later because Ms. Khan just could not adapt to a life in Pakistan as a female Muslim with western upbringing. She still holds dual citizenship, and goes by the name of Khan because of her two Islamic sons, approximate ages 12 and 15.

In another bizarre twist, Ms. Khan – who dated actor Hugh Grant (now there’s a switch in companions…) is now a journalist, who was just recently appointed associate editor of the New Statesman… a publication in the Guardian’s publishing family.

In the past, Khan had been woo’ed by both Musharraf and Sharif for high level political positions. But it seems that his vacillating relationship with both has resulted in an even more lucrative position as being the possible PM head of power himself.

Those are the players. Hard to say if any are an inviting new leadership since the Obama foreign policy has destroyed any good will between the US and Pakistan for the foreseeable future. The only use for the US and the western press now will be for each candidate to manipulate the message.

The expedient use of the gullible, emotional and history challenged puppet western media to influence Pakistan’s leadership isn’t new. The most obvious example of this would be the past demonstration of the world-wide canonization of Benezir Bhutto – creator of Mullah Omar’s Taliban – while not-so-subtly attempting to topple Perez Musharraf. The western press – being historically ignorant – proves that manipulation of the western press is not only easy, but highly effective when it comes to influencing the world view of Pakistani leaders, and thereby effecting election outcomes.

At that same time, a previously banished, sentenced and discredited Islamic law supporter with terrorist ties – Nawaz Sharif – also gained a second foothold in the Pakistan government with the Bhutto/Zardari PPP victory and is currently being painted as the candidate most willing to negotiate with the US.

Why do I find that defective product tough to purchase….

Pakistan was never a fan of being viewed a puppet state of the US. But they did like our cash, and they did share a distaste for the jihad elements in their midst. The majority of the population has shunned Shariah as the nation’s law, but is that changing along with Sharif and Khan’s rise to power?

We’ll simply have to wait and see. The Obama foreign policy has placed us in the untenable situation that we not only wield no influence, but has fueled anti–US public opinion to new and unacceptable heights.

Yesterday, Curt linked to a Most Wanted article, wondering if Obama was preparing to surrender Afghanistan. I’d say the question and area is much larger than just Afghanistan. Not only did his policies lead to the Muslim Brotherhood as a liaison, and woo Nawaz Sharif as a Taliban negotiator in Pakistan, all options in Pakistan lead to a failed diplomatic relationship between the US and a nuclear armed nation for the foreseeable future.

And none of that bodes well for the US and any HUMINT for the global Islamic jihad elements, bent on destroying us. The US stands in the orchard, ready to reap the fruits of Obama’s foreign policy. And it appears that the fruit is already inedible.

In reality only Joe Biden thinks that Joe Biden is something other than a village idiot. Biden has a long history of making ridiculous and stupid statements.

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here he demonstrates his math prowess:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here is his health advice:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now Joe Biden says that the Taliban is not our enemy:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Jay Carney then tried to defend Biden.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We’re fighting the Taliban, but they’re not our enemy??

Glad we got that straightened out.

Oddly, it wasn’t always this way:

Obama: Step up effort against Taliban, al-Qaida

Obama: Taliban and al Qaeda must be stopped

SAN DIEGO —

Senator Barack Obama is proposing that the United States deploy about 10,000 more troops to battle resurgent forces in Afghanistan, a plan intended to shift the American military focus from the Iraq war to the marked rise in violence from the Taliban.

Making peace treaties with the Taliban was once a bad thing- according to Obama.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I have said repeatedly that democrats depend heavily on their supporters having zero long term memory and once again it proves to be true. One thing that is hard to forget, though, is that Joe Biden is not just stupid, he is dangerously stupid.

Ole’ Mitt is giving John Kerry a run for his money for the Flip-Flopper crown:

On an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” a few days ago, Mitt Romney was asked whether, given what we know today, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Romney wouldn’t say.

“Oh boy, that’s a big question,” Romney answered. “And going back and trying to say, given what we know now, what would we have done? Would we have invaded or not? At the time, we didn’t have the knowledge that we have now.” Romney mentioned intelligence before the war suggesting that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After the war, U.S. and international inspection teams did not find those weapons, which had been the basis for much of the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq. Still, Romney told Fox’s Chris Wallace that the invasion was “appropriate at the time” because the U.S. acted “in light of that belief” — that is, in intelligence that turned out to be faulty.

Three days later?

This time, his answer was not only different but definitive: No, the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq had officials known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.

“Well, if we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction — if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in,” Romney said.

“You don’t think we would have gone in?” asked MSNBC’s Chuck Todd.

“Well, of course not,” Romney answered. “The president went in based upon intelligence that they had weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action. The president would not have been pursuing that course.”

My beef isn’t just his flip-flopping, it’s his focus on WMD’s and whether or not the UN would of authorized force without them. WMD’s were NOT the only reason we went in.

We knew Saddam had ties to terror groups.

we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

A few great posts to read would be the debate between Scott, our Author, and a commenter. Both parts here and here.

Not only did he have the ties to terrorist groups but he had the means to get WMD’s into their hands. This would be unthinkable after 9/11, and after the previous 13 years in which he flipped the world off that was a chance no one could take.

Oh, but there were other reasons:

• The Cease Fire Agreement, broken many times by Iraq
• They thwarted inspections of their WMD facilities as mandated by the Cease Fire
• Iraq persisted in violating other resolutions by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its people
• The fact that Iraq had proven they were willing to use WMD from prior history.
• The fact that Iraq 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
• The fact that after 9/11 the threat posed by any terrorist group acquiring WMD would be grave

And many more.

The man was evil and committed acts which ARE acts of war, ie firing on US fighter jets, attempted assassination of political leaders…you add that onto his history of aggression against its neighbors and his relationships with various terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, and you have a great reason to invade.

Not just WMD.

The fact that at the time everyone and their mother believed he had WMD is an added factor, but not THE factor.

Ok, off my soapbox.

Now onto some more Mitt news. It doesn’t just involve flip-floppery but full on stupidity. Here he is claiming that the individual mandate is “conservative”

Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.

The argument aims to improve Romney’s appeal to Republican voters concerned about the healthcare reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama’s healthcare law, which conservatives despise.

“Personal responsibility,” Romney said, “is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government.”

Oh please. Personal responsabilitity is definitely conservative…but forcing someone to pay for everyone’s health insurance is NOT.

U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Alpi ReyesCruz, who is from the Dominican Republic, waits for his ride on Combat Outpost Herrera Dec. 2. Reyes, an infantry soldier by trade, was finishing up a seven-month deployment as the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command's science and technology advisor for Regional Command East. The assignment took him all over the region, usually by himself, to document improvements soldiers wanted in their equipment. Once documented, he would relay the information back to the States where prototypes would be made and sent into theater for real-world trials before being mass produced and officially issued.

I went to the PX yesterday looking for some boot laces for one of our Wounded Warriors. His uniforms and boots had to be cut off. So, he has boots, but no laces.

Half the shelves were empty with little signs that begged for patience as “we are experiencing logistical supply shortages due to the blockade in Pakistan.”

Kabul is pissed because the ‘Merican drawdown will result in something like a $14BN loss to their economy. Their economy has seen roughly 11% annual growth over the last 5 years.

In other news, Pakistan has blocked ISAF trucks from crossing Torkham gate from Pakistan into Afghanistan. These trucks provide the majority of our equipment and life support. The Pakis are demanding something like $1750 per truck to be allowed transit, and there are currently over 1000 trucks stuck there (and as they are sitting there, they get pilfered, and attacked by Taliban). These are contracted vehicles, so the drivers are just as likely as not to say “screw it” and leave, with or without their payloads; and even if they stay, we pay them extra for their trouble.

Pakistan is literally holding needed supplies and trying to keep our forces hostage. These are, if you’ll recall, the same “partners” in the war on terror who didn’t know (*ahem*) bin Laden was living right outside their version of the war college. We kill bands of insurgents every day, and if they are anywhere near the border, Pakmil suddenly claims they were Pakistani forces. Even though we clear any kinetic strikes close to the border (within 4km on our side) through the Pakistan military liaison.

Can we please tell India that they are welcome to go jack Pakistan up? I get that Pakistan is a nuclear power, so we can’t exactly bully them, but last I checked, we a) have ICBMs, and they don’t; b) are the only country to ever use nukes in warfare; and c) already have an Army sitting on their border. Any commander in chief with balls would just order one or two of his brigades to seize OUR, taxpayer-provided equipment, and transport it into Afghanistan, with ROE that clearly states to remove any obstacles to that movement. Then, we would cut all funding and diplomatic ties with them, seize any Pakistani owned assets in the US, embargo all of their goods, and sink any ships they have, military or commercial. Just for giggles, we’d then drop bigass bombs all along their border in the “training camps” their military has (which look an awful like insurgent training camps, given that they are full of insurgents training, and not Pakistani military.)

What a shock. This President will send troops into Uganda, drop bombs into Libya, back fanatical Muslims in Egypt, but when it comes to Iran….and our top secret technology, he’s a bit timid:

With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war.

…One official told Fox News on Thursday that the incident is a huge loss and makes the top-secret helicopter tail lost during the Usama bin Laden raid in Pakistan “look like a pittance.” The official said there are real fears the Iranians will share this technology with the Russians and the Chinese, in addition to using it themselves.

What a pansy.

And then he brags about bin-Laden but allows the Muslim Brotherhood to come ever so closer to their dreamed about sixth Caliphate.

The destruction he has done to this country, and it’s future security is breathtaking to behold.

With popular sovereignty and populist revolution bringing Islamofascism (or orthodox Islam) to power across the Arab world, it is important to remember that democracy is not the criterion of legitimacy. To be legitimate, government must be republican. That is, it must serve to establish a system of liberty under law. If the majority use democracy to violate the natural liberty rights of the minority, that “tyranny of the majority” is no more legitimate than the “tyranny of the minority” that is exercised by unelected dictators. Such, at least, is the founding ideology of the United States.

The framers of our Constitution were highly suspicious of democracy, which they often denigrated as “mob rule.” To them democracy was a necessary evil. If we must be ruled, let it be by ourselves. But there are many ways in which we are not supposed to be ruled at all, but are supposed to be free, according to natural law (i.e. according to what can be understood about right and wrong on the basis of moral reason, regardless of whether our capacity for moral reason comes from God or from godless nature).

Hence the enumeration of limited federal powers in Article I of our Constitution, and the enumeration of individual rights in the Bill of Rights (explicitly incomplete). Unfortunately, our Democratic Party seems to take its name literally. They have been systematically breaking down constitutional limits on majority power since the New Deal, when FDR tore down the Constitution’s system of limited federal power.

With the Democrats in control of all of our information industries (academia, news and entertainment media, all of our biggest philanthropies, all of our professional organizations), the priority of liberty is no longer widely understood. As a result, democracy is often held up as a first principle, when in our system it’s value is purely instrumental. It is valued as a way to secure liberty, and it is without value if it fails to be advantageous for that purpose.

Our loss of understanding of the priority of liberty leaves the nation standing perplexed as the Arab world falls in a single sweep to popular tyranny. Democracy—our supposed criterion of right—is leading to the most evil outcome: the empowerment of al Qaeda and Iran in country after Middle Eastern country, while America mumbles half a cheer and a lot of quiet fretting.

Daniel Pipes on the disastrous consequences of regarding democracy as principle in the Middle East

Pipes has a nice piece on our state of impotent discombulation. He does not say anything about democracy not being the correct criterion of legitimacy—very likely he does not understand this point himself—but he nicely sums up the confusion that is created when U.S. policy-makers treat democracy as principle in the Arab-Muslim world:

•Democracy pleases us but brings hostile elements to power.
•Tyranny betrays our principles but leaves pliable rulers in power.

“As interest conflicts with principle,” says Pipes, “consistency goes out the window.”

But is inconsistency really the problem? Obama has actually been perfectly consistent. Where dictators are friendly or pliable, he throws them to the wolves (demanding that Ghaddafi and Mubarak leave). Where they are hostile to the U.S. and not at all pliable, he is silent and unmoved when protesters are slaughtered en masse (Iran and Syria).

The obvious explanation is that Obama himself is not just a Muslim, but is an Islamofascist. (The evidence for both is overwhelming.) He skillfully uses the Democratic Party’s immoral priority of democracy over republicanism to advance democracy where the outcome will be anti-republican, and suppress it where republicanism is likely to prevail.

The key is Iran. A democratic Iran would almost certainly embrace liberty/republicanism, but so long as it remains in the hands of the Islamofascists, it can usurp every populist movement in the area to the Islamofascist side. Hence Obama’s determination to see that Iran gets The Bomb.

Assert republicanism over democracy

Faced with a president who is actively making use of the errant principle of democracy to undermine the national interest, it is not enough to advocate some wise balancing of democracy and interest. Instead, it is necessary to clarify and insist that republicanism, not democracy, is our principle, and that democracy should only be advanced where doing so advances the cause of liberty. Until we get regime change in Iran, that means no-where else in the Islamic world should we be pressing yet for democracy. Iran has to come first, or it will usurp every other attempt at democratic reform.

This strategy would expose Obama for what he in fact is doing, using a false principle to advance the Islamofascist cause. Pipes, in contrast, casts Obama as a bumbler, presumably well intentioned. Would that it were the case. Pipes’ suggestions for how to deal with the conflict between democracy and interest are fine as far as they go:

Aim to improve the behavior of tyrants whose lack of ideology or ambition makes them pliable. They will take the easiest road, so join together to pressure them to open up.

Always oppose Islamists, whether Al-Qaeda types as in Yemen or the suave and “moderate” ones in Tunisia. They represent the enemy. When tempted otherwise, ask yourself whether cooperation with “moderate” Nazis in the 1930s would have been a good idea.

Help the liberal, secular, and modern elements, those who in the first place stirred up the upheavals of 2011. Assist them eventually to come to power, so that they can salvage the politically sick Middle East from its predicament and move it in a democratic and free direction.

If Obama was merely a bumbler, he could learn from this advice. Since he is actually an Islamofascist, the only counter is to assert correct moral principle: that our goal is to advance liberty, and that democracy is only on the side of principle where it serves to promote liberty. Otherwise Obama can just continue to pretend to be acting on American values as he helps elevate Islamofascists to power across the Middle East.

Addendum: the New Deal actually ushered in a new (and un-ratified) Constitution

Since everything affects interstate commerce in some way, post-New-Deal Supreme Courts have held that Congress is empowered to regulate anything and everything under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Pre-New-Deal Courts had rejected that interpretation on the grounds that it violated Justice Marshall’s first principle of constitutional interpretation:

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).]

Allowing everything to be regulated under the commerce clause did not just render one clause of the Constitution without effect, it vitiated the entire system of limited enumerated powers.

That system of limited enumerated powers stood in the way of FDR’s desire to implement a Soviet-style command economy, where the government dictates to industry the quantities that it will produce and the prices it will charge. Yes, Roosevelt did actually try to implement such a system, dictating prices and quantities to every major industry in America. That was the job of the NRA (the National Recovery Administration), created by the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA). (See FDR’s Folly, by Jim Powell, chapter 9.)

NIRA was struck down by the Supreme Court, prompting FDR’s infamous court-packing scheme and “the switch in time that saved nine.” Intimidated by a popular president during a time of national agony, the Supremes agreed to abandon the Constitution, and we have never gotten it back.

Crossposted at Error Theory