Here is the transcript. He talks about Stevens, then talks about the movie but says it doesn’t justify killing anyone…

He then moves to 9/11/01, at which point he says that no terror act shall go unpunished and what have you.

Then look at this from Jay Carney, his press secretary.

Q Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that?

MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition.

Q Yes, I just hadn’t heard you –

MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.

Q No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just –

MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Next, let’s look at quotes from the media who reported on September 20th, that’s nine days after the attack, that the White House, for the first time called it a terrorist attack.

ABC News: “For the first time, White House press secretary Jay Carney publicly characterized the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as a ‘terrorist attack’.”

LA Times: ” The White House for the first time Thursday described the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya as a terrorist attack that may have involved militants linked to Al Qaeda.”

CNN: “The White House, for the first time Thursday, declared the attack that killed Stevens and three other people a terrorist attack.”

They’re so full of it, it’s a miracle they don’t choke (on their own lies). Next time you find yourself arguing with a ‘liberal’, use these links to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Obama and his friends are lying about the aftermath of the attack on the consulate.

Although the dictator was initially supported by Russia and China, these two countries have also grown to understand that he can’t be permitted to stay. He has killed too many people; besides, he doesn’t seem able to restore order.

Supported by the West and especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the rebels are stepping up their attacks against the Assad-regime. They are clear about their goal: they want to remove Assad from power.

Assad might be one of the world’s biggest sponsors of terrorism, but that does not automatically mean that it is in the West’s interests to replace him with the aforementioned rebels.

The suicide attack on ministers and members of Syria’s security forces two weeks ago proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the rebels consist of Islamic fundamentalists, rather than of secular liberals, ready and willing to embrace democracy. Saudi Arabia’s support for them too should be reason for concern: the House of Saud is a big proponent of Wahabbism – as extreme, fundamentalist and violent a version of Islam as they come.

This is the kind of Islam the West has come to loath and fear – and with good reason. Saudi women are massively oppressed, homosexuals are publicly executed, and Christians and especially Jews are considered to be slightly less than human. Heck, they’re so hated by Saudis that they’re only able to live in special resorts; if they leave these heavily secured neighborhoods they’re considered fair game for extremists.

The only reason the Saudis are considered somewhat respectable is their willingness to sell oil to the West. Other than that, the differences between the Islamist regime of Saudi Arabia and that of Iran are minuscule.

Interestingly enough, Iran continues to support Assad. The reason for that is simple: Assad supports Shi’a terrorists and Iran is a Shi’a country. The Wahabbis, on the other hand, are radical Sunnis. This means that they are Iran’s natural enemies.

The above leads me to conclude (and fear) that the real battle in Syria is not between democrats and a ruthless dictators, but between Sunnis on the one hand, and radical Shi’a and a powerful minority of Alawis on the other. The former are supported by the radical Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, the latter by the extremist Shi’a of Iran.

No matter, then, who wins, the West – and freedom – will lose. There is no use in replacing Assad with the rebels; it will not lead to less oppression, only to the oppression of different groups and individuals. Relatively speaking the situation in Syria may even become worse if Assad is ousted: the dictator protects minorities because he considers them their allies. Once the Sunni majority gains power, however, their circumstances will radically change.

This article first appeared at MT Weekly. Follow me on Twitter.

Such a strategy might very well have worked. Opinion poll after opinion polls shows that Obama’s approval rating is too low for him to count on reelection. First-term presidents with an approval rating of less than 50% have historically had a hard time convincing voters they’d perform better when given a second chance.

Romney, then, could have opted to simply focus on Obama’s stimulus package – that did absolutely nothing to actually stimulate the economy – and his ‘ divide and conquer’ strategies.

Instead, the leader of the Republican Party – by selecting Ryan – chose to make this an election about ideas: progressivism vs. conservatism, statism vs. the free market.

For years, Ryan has been one of the foremost, popular and influential fiscal conservative leaders in Congress. He has even written his own budget – a budget that’s as different from Obama’s spending habits as night and day. In it, he wants to cut spending dramatically, cut the size of the federal government, and lower taxes, knowing that – as Reagan put it so wonderfully years ago – the government is the problem.

By writing this plan, Ryan became a darling of the Tea Party, but an archenemy of the Democratic Party. Unlike so many other Republicans, he proved willing to not only talk the fiscal conservative talk, but to walk the fiscal conservative walk. Democrats recognized him for what he was – and is: a politician diametrically opposed to their dreams of creating a European-style welfare state, with the courage to take on unions and other powerful interest groups.

Because Romney has now made Ryan his running mate, he has effectively endorsed the congressman’s budget.

The risks are evident: it is relatively easy for Obama and Biden to portray their Republican opponents as ‘out of touch’ and cold hearted. ‘They want to lower taxes for the rich!’ ‘The end of Medicare as we know it!’ and more such drivel. If they succeed at scaring voters – and they very well could – Romney and Ryan will be destroyed at the polls, as far as that’s possible in this extremely polarized climate that is.

On the other hand, there are also advantages: very serious advantages, even. If they win – and that’s a big if – they will have a mandate to truly reform Washington and Medicare, to make it attractive for businesses to settle in the U.S., and to downsize the federal government, rather than to merely slow down its growth.

As said, that’s a big if, but according to Romney, it’s evidently worth it.

This column first appeared at MT Weekly. Follow me on Twitter.

In a video message released today, Ohio Governor John Kasich explains how he fixed his state’s budget. It’s a must watch video for all those interested in fixing the current economic / debt mess in DC.

Believe it or not, Gov. Kasich actually – pay attention big spenders in DC! - balanced it.

“We took on the largest budget short fall in Ohio’s history,” Kasich says. And that’s not all: they did it while lowering taxes for… not just “the rich,” but everybody.

Kasich eliminated the much detested – and completely immoral – death tax. Furthermore, he made “long overdue reforms” that helped improve Ohio’s economy. Oh, and he gave seniors and students and their parents more choice. In other words, he actually tried to implement conservative solutions for his state’s problems. The result? Ohio is in better shape than in a long, long time.

It seems to me that America could use more governors like Governor Kasich. Heck, she could use such a guy (or gal) in the White House.

Watch the video:

OK, this is the equivalent of a European economic Armageddon. First Greece came along, then, a few days ago, Italy. And now Ireland: Moody’s downgrades Ireland to “junk” status.

So, when can we officially roll up the European Union?

Quote from the article:

Credit ratings agency Moody’s has cut Ireland’s bonds to junk status and warned of further downgrades as the euro zone economy struggles to pull out of a financial crisis. Moody’s said it had reduced Ireland’s government debt ratings by one notch, to Ba1 from Baa3, saying there was a ‘growing possibility’ that the country would need more bail-out aid in late 2013, when the current EU/IMF programme is due to end.”

This is absolutely insane. We’re nearing a cliff… and instead of using the break to stop this ridiculously expensive car, we speed up. We can’t afford to continue this insane behavior much longer, the weaker European states can’t be bailed out time and again.

The political elite have to make a decision (and I kindly ask my fellow citizens to force them into making the right one): either the EU now has to become more powerful than most of them ever dreamed of, or it’s time to end it, at least partially (by pushing out the weak countries, for starters).

As an aside, I don’t believe the first option is truly possible (although some of them may certainly try). The EU is set to implode.

This post first appeared at Right Across The Atlantic.

Follow me on Twitter. Friend me on Facebook. Add me on Google+.

The Republican National Committee just released a new ad video, in which the GOP just about destroys President Obama – which is, obviously, a good thing.

In it, the RNC challenges Obama’s economic decision and record over the last two-and-a-half years, reports Wake up America!

Transcript (via WuA, with some slight corrections):

“He promised to change direction: $800 billion in stimulus, trillions for government healthcare, 2 million jobs… gone. Left turn after left turn America’s headed the wrong way – fast. Six million foreclosures, fourteen trillion in debt, $500 billion in higher taxes and the worst long term unemployment in generations. Don’t let Obama drive us to disaster, change direction. “

Watch the ad:

The GOP has to take the fight to Obama. If Republicans let him take the initiative, you can bet on it that he’ll seize it and end up winning a second term.

Obama has done a tremendous amount of damage to his country and the world. Future generations can’t afford a second victory for the current occupant of the White House. It’s that simple.

Follow me on Twitter. Befriend me on Facebook. Add me on Google+.

The British newspaper the Guardian reports that experts are increasingly fearing the U.S. may be sliding back into a recession.

Shares fell heavily on Wall Street on Wednesday after a gloomy report from US factories and signs of a slowdown in employment growth prompted fears that the recovery in the world’s biggest economy is fading.

With weaker than expected data from Europe and China adding to the downbeat mood, the Dow Jones industrial average lost almost 200 points in morning trading in New York.

The left-wing paper adds:

Despite the additional $600bn pumped into the economy over the past eight months, it grew at an annualised rate of only 1.8% in the first three months of this year, a sharp slowdown from its performance last year.

Oh my. If the Obama-friendly the Guardian is now preparing its readers for a new recession,  you can bet on it that it’ll happen.

Mike Riddell, fund manager at M&G, is quoted as saying: “The last month has been a horror show for the world’s biggest economy, and things are getting even worse if data released today is anything to go by. It seems that almost every bit of data about the health of the US economy has disappointed expectations recently.”

Shorter: you’d better prepare for some rough years indeed.

The reason, of course? Obama’s failed economic policies. The man did the exact opposite of what had to be done: he made the government bigger and made life virtually impossible for small and middle sized businesses.

Quite an accomplishment Mr. President, Ché Guevara himself couldn’t have done worse.

This post first appeared at Right Across The Atlantic. Follow me on Twitter.

Just to make this clear: I don’t care what anybody does in his spare time. Everybody, even politicians, are entitled to a private life. If they want to send questionable photos to young ladies when they’re married, well, I can’t say approve, but I can’t say I care. They can do whatever they want to do, as long as they don’t break the law (by, say, sending such pictures to an underaged girl).

Regarding the controversy surrounding Congressman Weiner, however, it’s time for some answers. Instead of fessing up, the good congressman would have us believe someone hacked his account and tried to smear him. That is a serious – a very grave, indeed – offense. If true, he should call in the Feds who could then hunt down the person who did this (if he can hack Weiner’s Facebook and Twitter accounts, what more does he have entrance to? His emails, for instance?).

But no, Weiner hasn’t done – as far as we know – any of this. Instead, he simply makes jokes about it, as if it were some innocent prank.

Why would he react that way (assuming his story is true)? I can’t come up with a satisfactory answer.

To call the situation ‘suspicious’ would be the understatement of the year. Weiner’s story doesn’t make sense – at all.

It’s time for some answers. Did Weiner call in the Feds? If not, why not? Does he think it’s perfectly OK for people to ‘hack’ the social network accounts of congressmen? Also: I do most certainly believe in the old adage that the cover-up is worse than the crime. If Weiner has lied about it – and we’ll need a serious investigation to find out whether he did or didn’t – he has to be held to account. That’s common sense.

In the meantime, I’m becoming increasingly angered by ‘liberals” attacks on Andrew Breitbart, whose Big Government website first covered this story. As I understand it, some leftists even implied Breitbart may have been responsible for the – ahem – hacking. If that’s not a ridiculous theory, I don’t know what is. Those who push this theory aren’t merely idiots, however, they’re simply dishonest hacks.

This post first appeared at Right Across The Atlantic. Follow me on Twitter.

For some reason, the Dutch government has suddenly decided to wage war on marijuana. As most foreigners undoubtedly know, the Dutch ‘tolerate’ the use of this soft drug. Heck, it’s one of the primary reasons hundreds of thousands of tourists flock to Amsterdam every year; that and the famous Red Light District.

Well, the government has now decided that enough is enough. Justice minister Ivo Opstelten announced last week that he’ll introduce a so-called weed-card.  Dutchmen who want to smoke weed have to show this card to the coffeeshop owner. If they don’t own one, they can’t buy themselves a joint.

Although the card is obviously an annoyance to many Dutchmen, the ones truly hurt by it are the tourists; the card will only be available to Dutch citizens.

The Dutch tourist branch is, therefore, not exactly charmed by Opstelten’s plan. And why would they? They could very well face losses of hundreds of millions of euros – and that at a time when Europe’s economies are already struggling.

Not only will this plan be enormously costly, it’s also likely to be extremely ineffective: many tourists will undoubtedly find a Dutchman willing to buy some drugs for them (against a minor fee, of course). Perhaps they’ll even be able to buy it themselves – not in a coffee shop but at a street corner.

Which brings me to my third (and final) objection to Opstelten’s unsavory plan: drug dealers will undoubtedly take over the streets. Heck, perhaps even entire neighborhoods. And how is the government going to combat that? With the tiny, useless Dutch police force? Right. Well, that’s at least going to be… entertaining.

Being tough on crime is a wonderful idea, but declaring war on soft drugs isn’t exactly a smart move; especially not when a country is facing many other – real, rather than imagined – problems.

* Although I’m pro-legalization of soft drugs, by the way, I don’t use it myself. Just to make that clear.

This post first appeared at Right Across The Atlantic: the Internet-home for conservative and libertarian Europeans and Americans. Follow me on Twitter here.

Man, it certainly is great that those Americans fi-nal-ly elected an intelligent guy, a man from Harvard no less, and a man of the world.

Oh yes, Obama really does wonders for the relationships between European states and the United States. He knows how to behave and he would never – evah! – do anything to insult Europeans or make himself look like an ass.

Uh, never mind that.

On his show for Fox News, Glenn Beck made a compilation of Obama’s biggest blunders during his trip to Europe (thus far). Watch it, but be forewarned: it’s truly pathetic.

My, oh my. You’d think it’s not that difficult to wait until the end of Britain’s national anthem before toasting to the queen, but apparently that’s above boy wonder’s pay grade. And let’s not even mention Obama’s botching of the signing of the Queen’s guestbook. 2008? Really, Mr. Messiah? As Beck said, I understand that 2008 was a great year for you, but it’s time to move. On.

During his next visit, it’d be wonderful if he’d accidentally call Britain’s queen “Queen Victoria” and refer to Europe as a whole as “the inventors of slavery.” That’d certainly shake things up. Or perhaps he could shout Gegen die Mauer or Ausweis, und schnell! during an official visit to Germany. I’m sure Chancellor Angela Merkel would be quite charmed by such a hilarious joke. Ahem.

This post originally appeared at Right Across The Atlantic.

No, no, don’t take that as an endorsement. It’s merely a summary of what Andrew Sullivan argues in his latest post on Sarah Palin:

Palin has been airbrushed out of the GOP race by the entire scene – from Politico to National Review. And yet, for some unfathomable reason, she has secretly put together an hour long “Triumph Of The Will” “Evita” ”Undefeated” documentary that will attempt to do what Josh Green tried: to reframe her as a visionary reformer. (“Undefeated” is another odd lie, of course. She lost the last general election overwhelmingly and would almost certainly have lost re-election in Alaska if she hadn’t quit. But we’re in postmodern Republican land here, so logic is not of the utmost concern.) More to the point, it’s going to air in Iowa next month.

Why would someone who has decided not to run do that?

You’ve got to love that Godwin from Andrew; “Triumph of the Will”. Ha-ha. Yeah. Great one, Andrew. That’s really creative; equating Republicans with Nazis. Nobody’s ever done that before. Nope.

In any case, Andrew goes on to quote Scott Conroy at Real Clear Politics. He reports:

["The Undefeated"] is a two-hour-long, sweeping epic, a rough cut of which [filmmaker Stephen K.] Bannon screened privately for Sarah and Todd Palin last Wednesday in  Arizona, where Alaska’s most famous couple has been rumored to have purchased a new home. When it premieres in Iowa next month, the film is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin’s prospective presidential campaign — an unconventional reintroduction to the nation that she and her political team have spent months eagerly anticipating, even as Beltway Republicans have largely concluded that she won’t run. Bannon, a former naval officer and ex-Goldman Sachs banker, sees his documentary as the first step in Palin’s effort to rebuild her image in the eyes of voters who may have soured on her, yet might reconsider if old caricatures begin to fade.

Although Andrew’s reasoning makes sense, the chances of a Palin candidacy are rather small. Most experts believe she won’t run and they’re probably right. After all, why should she? She’s doing (very) well financially, she’s a household name and probably has a blast being responsible for herself, rather than for an entire state or even the entire country. Oh, and she can count on the admiration of millions of Americans who love her for her ‘common sense conservatism’ and down to earth mentality (or perhaps I should say public mask).

Having said that, if she decides to run, she’ll undoubtedly have a profound impact. Although recent polls suggests she’s have a hard time winning over a majority of Republican voters, she hasn’t lost the race beforehand. Palin is a strong woman, she is a born and natural leader; that kind of character appeals to voters.

This post first appeared at Right Across The Atlantic: the Internet home for European and American conservatives, classically liberals and (sane) libertarians.

So, Barack Obama is currently touring Europe. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking: Europe, why? Doesn’t he detest the Old Continent?

Well, yeah. Judging by the way he has treated Europe ever since he became president, at least.

Apparently, however, he now feels we’re somehow of vital importance for his agenda. (You wonder whether his dismal approval ratings at home have anything to do with this trip, but that as an aside) So he graces us with his presence. Oh my, how wonderful: the almighty himself has arrived. (I guess that means that the end of Europe is indeed nigh; nigher even than most of us thought)

The British newspaper the Telegraph reports that British PM David Cameron and Obama have dubbed the relationship between their two countries, which was once known as “the special relationship,” as the essential relationship. Apparently, the American president wants to send a message of friendship to the British people (who he has insulted in numerous occasion).

That’s very considerate of him. Especially considering the fact that he is not exactly known for being considerate to anyone.

In any case, I’m afraid that the renaming of the ‘special relationship’ is actually an insult as well. Special implies something positive; something you’re happy about. Essential, on the other hand, may give people the impression that it’s not a marriage (or relationship) of love, but of necessity. We need each other… whether we like it or not.

Of course the two men also stress the point that there’s “a deep emotional connection” between their nations, but it’s clear to anyone with half a brain that such words don’t come from the heart. Not from Obama’s, anyway.

This post originally appeared at Right Across The Atlantic.

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire.

That’s basically how one can summarize the situation in Europe. Several (South) European countries are on the brink of collapse. Greece is as near bankruptcy as can be. At the same time, Western and Northern Europeans are becoming increasingly disturbed by the irresponsible behavior of the Greek, and of other nations.

Other nations, you ask?

Why yes. You see, Spain is almost in a state of civil war.* Spanish youth have been protesting announced economic reforms for some time now, because once again they are the ones who have to bear the grunt of the government cuts. This while the unemployment rate among the youth is up to 40% (or more).

Meanwhile, the ones actually responsible for Spain’s economic mess – the middle-aged and the elderly – are not asked to make any significant sacrifices.

If I were a Spaniard, I wouldn’t quite accept that either.

Having said that, reforms are desperately needed. If the Spanish continue living the way they’ve lived for decades, they’re doomed – and so will the rest of the European Union. After all, Europe’s economies are interconnected. If Spain falls, the Euro suffers a major blow. And if the Euro suffers a major blow, the other Euro-countries are in deep trouble indeed.

As for Greece, especially the Dutch are increasingly angered by the attitude of the Greek. The EU has bailed out Greece, but now they want another  ’loan’; even though they haven’t paid back the other one. What’s worse, many believe they will never pay these loans back. A small country like the Netherlands is asked to give the Greek 3,5 billion Euro (that’s approximately 5 billion in US Dollars. Such an amount may be peanuts for, say, the United States, but not for a country like the Netherlands that has a total population of a mere 16 million souls.

So what’s ahead for Europe? Well, to say that the future looks rather grim would be the understatement of the century. The Old Continent can’t bail out weak, corrupt, lazy and irresponsible states infinitely. One of these days, we’ll simply run out of money.

* For some photos of the mass protests see here and here. Go here for a video.

This post first appeared at Right Across The Atlantic.

Glenn Beck is on a roll. He recently traveled to Israel where he made clear that he stands with the Jewish nation-state. It may be surrounded by enemies, and Obama may throw it under the bus, but Beck isn’t about to abandon Israel – the only true democracy in the Middle East, by the way.

Today, his website The Blaze published an article entitled “Obama Sides With Palestinians.” You can read it here. Beck just referred to the piece on his radio show arguing that, for the first time in history, the U.S. has joined the dark side with regards to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The reason, of course: Obama said  yesterday that Israel has to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.

President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians’ demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

Mitt Romney already said that Obama has thrown Israel under the bus – and he’s right (as is Beck).

We all knew that Obama would eventually side with the Palestinians, of course, but I’m shocked nonetheless. This demand is utterly ridiculous, insane and even murderous. Giving into these demands would mean committing suicide for Israel. Those are big words, but they’re warranted in this situation. As Joe Klein explained at NewsReal:

A future attack launched from the pre-1967 lines against Israel’s nine-mile-wide waist at its narrowest point could easily split the country in two.  Most of its national infrastructure (airports, industries, and inter-city highways) and population centers would be fully exposed to hostile fire from military forces deployed along the adjacent West Bank hill terrain, which would serve as an ideal platform of attack for Arab military forces. The Golan Heights would provide the Syrians with the same strategic military position to threaten Israeli civilians living below. Protecting against infiltration by Palestinian terrorists would be virtually impossible.

Our merry leftist friend seems to be all too happy about the prospect of letting Israelis be slaughtered by Hamas and Hezbollah. It’s almost surreal: how many true allies do we have precisely in the Middle East?

Beck is now sounding the alarm bell – thank God that at least someone does.

This post first appeared at Global Freedom.

We’ve been waiting for a long time for Obama to speak out as strongly against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad as he did against Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak.

And today, finally – fi-nally, his administration condemned the violent reaction in Syria against protesters who dare criticize Assad’s regime.

Wow, this is going to cause a political earthquake, I’m sure.

The United States is not working to undermine the Syrian government but President Bashar al-Assad “needs to address the legitimate aspirations of his people,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said on Monday.

I don’t know what to say. This is im-pres-sive. I’m truly speechless. He needs “to address the legitimate aspirations of his people.” Really? Assad will now, certainly, understand that he can’t just go out and kill everybody who dares disagree with him.

Yep.

My, my, where would the West be without this strong American leader? Nowhere. No-where.

Seriously, though. I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the fact that Obama seems to be more interested in condemning the West’s traditional allies in the region when they step out of line, than the West’s enemies when they are the ones killing their own people. Why is it that Assad and Iran can get away with their crimes against humanity, while someone like Mubarak can’t fart without Obama ‘condemning’ it?

Which brings me to the following bit of news:

In Syria, the anti-Assad demonstrations are getting bigger and are explicitly calling for regime change. The Iranians have sent some of their top experts to Syria to aid the Baathists in putting down the insurrection. The mullahs have delivered some 400 cameras that are hidden in traffic signals, in order to identify the activists, and more than 42 censors to shut down foreign radio and TV broadcasts. And there are many Revolutionary Guards and Hizbullah in Damascus, along with Iranian-trained Arabs, nearly 2,000, to show the Syrian security forces how it’s done. In other words, it’s an attempt to replay the Iranian repression on Syrian soil.

Ahmadinejad and Assad are sitting in a tree, … and Obama’s pretending not to see.

This post originally appeared at Right Across The Atlantic.

If you just got off the plane from Mongolia and dialed into the left-wing U.S. media, you might think Glenn Beck is the anti-Christ. The hue and cry about Beck is downright hysterical. Why do they care? Beck isn’t an elected official; he’s not even a journalist. He’s just a guy with an opinion. So what’s the beef?

Well, again, it goes to free speech. Many hardcore ideologues in both camps simply do not want to hear opinions other than their own. And if someone is successfully bloviating views that differ from their orthodoxy, they go ballistic. And Glenn Beck is certainly successful.

That’s exactly it. Leftists don’t want conservatives to able to share their views. Beck’s too effective, he reaches too many people, and he’s too influential. Progressives can’t let that stand. That’s why they waged such a ferocious war on him and why they’re so happy that his show on Fox News will end come December.

Although I respect and understand Beck’s decision to call it quits (he has many more things going; he’s a one-man media organization nowadays), I have to say I’m not happy with it – at all. The reason is not just that I love watching his show. No, it’s that leftists think they succeeded in silencing him (by going after his advertisers). Their view will undoubtedly be: ‘Who’s next?’

And that’s the question we should all ask ourselves as well. Who will they go after now? Who will try to silence when Beck and Fox go their separate ways at the end of this year? Will it be O’Reilly himself? Or perhaps Sean Hannity?

This post first appeared at Global Freedom.

Senator Jim DeMint urged conservatives in Iowa yesterday to “get it right this time” with a Republican presidential nominee. Before choosing a favorite, however, voters should first “identify the right principles,” or so he said.

“I hope Iowa will not only be the first state to pick the right candidate… but also the first state to redirect our country to the principles that we want our candidate to carry,” he said. “Those principles that will restore the greatness, the freedom, the opportunity. … We must choose the right principles before we can choose the right candidate.”

DeMint is right, of course. Voters – of whatever stripe – first need to know what they stand for. What is it what they want? What do they believe in? How do they picture the future of the country? Next, it makes sense to select a candidate who actually embodies those principles.

However, that’s not all there is to it. One should also ask the question what candidate has a chance of winning the general election. You can vote for a ‘ideologue,’ sure, but if he then loses the election, you’re further away from home than if  you would have selected a person who doesn’t embody all of your principles, but at least the majority (or the most important ones) of them.

Politics is, has always been and will always be the art of compromise. Those who don’t get that are the ones left standing. They are the ones who become increasingly frustrated because they feel whatever they do, whomever they vote for, it doesn’t make the smallest of differences. And I don’t quite see how that serves anybody.

This post first appeared at Right Across The Atlantic. Follow me on Twitter.

TrogloPundit wrote an intriguing post over at Right Wing News about unions, collective bargaining and employees’ ability (or right) to individually negotiate with employers. The gist of the matter is this: individual employees will “continue to negotiate with employers after collective bargaining is gone.”

Unions don’t want people to understand this rather obvious fact, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

To me, breaking up the suffocating power of the unions is about two things: individual responsibility and individual freedom. Collective bargaining encroaches upon the employee’s freedom, and on that of the employer. Furthermore, it gives unions tremendous power, thereby strengthening its hold over employees, many of whom only joined the union because they had to.

Unions have become too powerful, too influential and too demanding. That isn’t in anybody’s interest – except for that of the unions themselves, of course.

Talk show host Bill Maher once again displayed his ignorance for America’s history and founding by telling Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers would have “hated” their “guts.”

As you’d come to expect from Maher he constantly referred to members of the Tea Party as “teabaggers” – which would probably be an insult coming from virtually everybody else. When Maher uses this word, however, the Tea Party should wear it as a badge of honor.

Next he told Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers were “nothing like them.” No, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington and all the others were profoundly different. How? Here comes Maher:

Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up  like them, and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated  your guts. And what’s more, you would’ve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.

Video:

I hate to break it to you, Bill, but the majority of the Founding Fathers were religious. And those who weren’t orthodox in their beliefs, at least had a healthy respect and appreciation for religion. They didn’t want to force others to believe as they did – certainly – but they respected religion, and the Bible, nonetheless. Even those more critical, such as Thomas Jefferson, believed the Bible contained important lessons – lessons wise men should take to heart. There may have been a few, like Thomas Paine, who held religion in less high esteem, but they were the minority, not the majority.

Furthermore, unlike what Maher seems to believe, the Founding Fathers weren’t big fans of a welfare state. At all. In fact, they considered the government the greatest potential threat to freedom. They understood that an intrusive, activist state always limits a people’s freedom. That’s why they wrote the Constitution in the first place: they wanted to guarantee Americans specific rights, the government could not take away.

The Tea Party continues this tradition. They too stand for individual liberty, over collectivism and social engineering. They want the government to get out of the people’s business – out of their health care and out of their pockets. If there’s one thing they demand, it’s to be left alone to live their lives as they please. Not as it pleases Maher and other cocky liberals who mess up their own lives in virtually every respect, but who nonetheless believe it’s up to them to tell others how to live.

Perhaps that Maher can do what he seems to value so much – get a good education – before spouting his mouth off again about things he has little to no knowledge of. If not, he’d do us all a favor if he’d just keep his deliberately humiliating mouth shut.

After she – and other prominent conservatives – were blamed for the horrendous tragedy in Arizona, former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin clouded herself in silence for a few days, after which she came back with avengeance. She released a video in which she took on the mainstream  media and leftist activists (but I’m repeating myself) for playing dirty games; for literally using the horrific deaths of six innocent people to further their agenda.

Watch the video:

Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

It goes without saying that Palin is right. Leftists condemned conservatives in general for the shooting before we even knew the slightest thing about Jared Lee Loughner’s political views. Once more information surfaced about his background, it became clear that he is simply insane. Politics had nothing to do with his terrible crime. Of course that inconvenient fact did not prevent leftists from lashing out at, especially, Palin time and again. They had found a new political weapon, and they were determined to use it for all its worth.

Palin waited a few days, but when she finally came out, she did so blasting. She blasted the media and her other leftist critics, and had no qualms accusing them of ‘blood libel.’ While the Left will undoubtedly hate her for it, she has the truth on her side. Progressives’ reaction to the Arizona shooting was nauseating.

What’s more intriguing about this whole affair than the Left’s reaction, however, is Palin’s response to the ‘blood libel.’ Some advisers undoubtedly told her to keep her mouth shut, to let this one go. But that’s not Palin’s style. No. She’s a self-styled momma grizzly. Although it’s easy to make fun of this term, the fact of the matter is that she does embody the grizzly-attitude. She fears nothing. When cornered, she lashes out. She plays offense at all times, not just when so-called ‘experts’ think it’s convenient. And big pappa grizzlies don’t impress her one bit. She’s determined to protect her cubs – whether they’d be her own career, her ideals, her policy views, her children, or her allies – against all cost. And that’s precisely what makes her so dangerous to the left.

Palin’s distinct approach to politics is “Palinism.” To me, it’s basically a libertarian conservative world view, combined with an aggressive strategy to win elections and shape the general tone of the debate. Although some more careful – and fearful – conservatives may not like it, Palin’s combination is the way forward; at least for her.

Although I have a record of criticizing Palin, I’ve come to respect her tremendously in recent months. The more she says and writes, the more impressed I am by her character, fearlessness, political intelligence and strategy. This is one dangerous lady – if you oppose her agenda, that is.

I’m not ready yet to (prematurely) endorse any candidate for president, but Palin certainly is at, or near, the top of my list. Conservatives need her desperately; other politicos are too afraid of the mainstream media to fight back, but not Palin. Unlike any other conservative politician, she’s able to set the tone of the debate. Even those who are right-of-center and who do not support the governor’s ambitions, have to admit that she has a vital role to play in the conservative movement. To silence her – because you consider her ‘too divisive’ – is not just ludicrous, but potentially dangerous. After all, who else is willing and able to take on the left and its dirty games?

This article originally appeared at Right Across the Atlantic.

Remember how leftists were accusing Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck of being a polarizing figure after and especially before his “Restoring Honor” rally? He was too outspoken, not nuanced enough. Well, how about this?

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz at “One Nation”: “We must fight the forces of evil – the conservatives.”

He went on to say that:

They want it for them, they don’t want it for the people. They talk about the Constitution, but they don’t want to live by it. They talk about our forefathers, but they want discrimination. They want to change this country.

If that’s not “polarizing,” I don’t know what is. “They want discrimination”? Really? Strange, I’ve never heard, say, a Tea Party speaker advocate reintroducing segregation. In fact, if memory serves me well, Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally featured several prominent African American speakers, who demanded an end to Obama’s “divide-and-conquer”-politics. If conservatives “want discrimination,” why is it that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King, was happy to accept Beck’s invitation to speak at his event, that stressed moral values such as honor, honesty and respect?

As usual, it is the so-called liberals, not conservatives who are trying to divide the country and who count numerous polarizing figures such as Ed Schultz among their ranks. You’d almost think that they are simply projecting their own beliefs on the conservative movement.

You can watch Schultz displaying his unbelievable amount of hatred for conservatives in this video:

This post first appeared at NewsReal Blog.

Apparently, cigarettes are the new crack cocaine. At least, that’s what New York mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to believe. After banning smoking in indoor public areas, he now wants to do the same with outdoor areas such as parks, beaches and pedestrian malls.

Like most ex-smokers, I’m vehemently anti-smoking. I always encourage people to quit; I continuously tell them that they’ll feel so much better once they do, and so on. If you ever met one of us former smokers, or if  you are one of us, I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. However, I do believe some of my fellow anti-smokers can take it a step too far. They don’t understand that there’s a difference between convincing people to quit smoking and to legislate your views and force people to give it up (or, if they refuse, to become social pariahs).

We should encourage people to quit, but we must not make the mistake of treating cigarettes as the new crack cocaine; they’re not.

First published here.

It’s fascinating to see the civil war that broke out recently among Republicans. The Tea Party movement took on moderate Republican candidates (for Congress and the Senate) they declared ‘RINO’s’ (because they were moderate in their social, and often also in their fiscal views), while the Grand Old Party’s establishment fought back by labeling Tea Party activists naive radicals who don’t understand that you sometimes have to settle for a moderate candidate if you want to win in the general elections.

Even politicos, Republican strategists and influential pundits are involved in this fight. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin represents the Tea Partiers, who prefer losing an election with a ‘real conservative’ candidate, than winning one with a moderate. The other side is led by people such as the Architect (of George W. Bush’s electoral victories) Karl Rove and (until recently perhaps the most influential and respected conservative columnist) Charles Krauthammer.

Whomever is right is of little concern to me – in this post at least. To me, it’s far more important to point out that it seems a bit counterproductive for conservatives to have a go at each other, while their country is being burned down by the progressives, led by Obama, who took over Washington back in 2008. They apparently would rather waste their energies destroying each other than the ones who are doing their best to “radically transform” America into something you and I won’t recognize. It might just be me, but this seems a tad bit counterproductive and even downright silly. If it were me, I’d probably want to focus on beating the real enemy – ‘liberals.’ Not on taking down my political friends.

A slightly different version of this post appeared at NewsReal Blog.

Conservative Washington Post columnist George F. Will has listed some important questions conservative  members of the U.S. Senate have to ask Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. It’s a good list. Here are some of the best questions on it:

• Regarding campaign finance “reforms”: If allowing the political class to write laws regulating the quantity, content and timing of speech about the political class is the solution, what is the problem? If the problem is corruption, do we not already have abundant laws proscribing that?
• Some persons argue that our nation has a “living” Constitution; the court has spoken of “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking against “changeability” and stressing “the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution,” says “its whole purpose is to prevent change — to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away. A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that ‘evolving standards of decency’ always ‘mark progress,’ and that societies always ‘mature,’ as opposed to rot.” Is he wrong?
• The 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”) is, as former Delaware governor Pete du Pont has said, “to the Constitution what the Chicago Cubs are to the World Series: of only occasional appearance and little consequence.” Were the authors of the Bill of Rights silly to include this amendment?
• Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom you clerked, said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Can you defend this approach to judging?
• You have said: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” But that depends on what the meaning of “is” is. There was no constitutional right to abortion until the court discovered one 185 years after the Constitution was ratified, when the right was spotted lurking in emanations of penumbras of other rights. What is to prevent the court from similarly discovering a right to same-sex marriage?

These questions are of vital importance because Kagan’s answer to them will clearly show what kind of ideology she adheres to. Many – probably rightfully – believe she is a progressive, perhaps even a radical. Ever since she was first mentioned as Obama’s potential nominee for the vacant seat at the Supreme Court, however, Judge Kagan has tried to presentself as a moderate. She can’t be both. She’s either a (radical) progressive, or she’s not.

If she is a leftist, I suggest she is exposed as such before she’s appointed to the Supreme Court, not afterwards. In order to do so, all the Senate Judiciary Committee has to do is ask Kagan Will’s questions. And that shouldn’t be too much trouble for them, I’d say.

—

This post first appeared here.

It’s getting rather old, but the Left continues to attack one of the most influential conservative women alive today: Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

When she was invited to speak at Stanislaus university in California last Friday, leftist students immediately went through trash cans, trying to figure out how much Palin was being paid. They organized protests, asked their friends of the mainstream media for help, and altogether did their best to ruin what eventually became the most successful fundraising dinner in the university’s history.

The material recovered by the students, which detailed perks such as first-class airfare for two and deluxe hotel accommodations, prompted California Attorney General Jerry Brown to launch an investigation into the finances of the university’s foundation arm and allegations that the nonprofit violated public disclosure laws.

Would they have done the same thing if Palin was a leftist? Have you ever heard of progressive students protesting against the speaking fees of, say, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton? No, of course you haven’t. That’s because this is not about fairness or money but about Palin’s ideology. She is a conservative, and that’s reason enough for leftist students to ruin her evening and to disgrace the university that invited her.

This non-scandal once again proves that conservatives are engaged in a political war with progressives. Too often conservative pundits and politicians think we should be ‘civilized’. We should not, because our enemies certainly are not either. When you are engaged in a war all that matters is that you win. If this means you have to fight dirty every now and then, so be it. The Left understands this, too many on the Right do not. Let Palin’s treatment at Stanislaus serve as a wake up call for those who still believe that manners matter.

–

This post first appeared here.

When asked who is responsible for what he calls “the mess” in Afghanistan, Yon replied: “Obama is part of the problem. McChrystal is part of the problem. Some say that Eikenberry is part of the problem but that’s getting out of my lane. Clearly this war is beyond ‘messed up.’ It’s schoolyard political while a serious war is blowing up.”

“It’s a political swamp,” he continued.

The situation in Afghanistan and the obvious lack of trust between the Obama administration on the one hand, and the military leadership (most importantly Gen. McChrystal himself) could lead to disaster. ” [I] have been saying since April 2006 that Afghanistan has [the] potential to overshadow anything we ever saw in Iraq,” Yon said. “Today, I stand by that stronger than ever.”

When I just heard the news that Gen. McChrystal had been summoned to the White House, I shared it with Yon on Twitter, who immediately answered that “McChrystal should be fired.” Although I was initially inclined to disagree – or to at least see things in a somewhat more nuanced light – I changed my mind when, moments later, Time published the actual Rolling Stone article. It is even worse than expected. Even if you believe that McChrystal’s criticism is to a large degree justified, he should have kept his mouth shut. A general has no business badmouthing his (civilian) superiors, especially not in front of a journalist. It is that simple. As Yon says on FaceBook page, “unless McChrystal basically denies the article, he must be fired. If he is not fired, I will start calling him President McChrystal because Obama clearly is not in charge.”

Having said that, although I understand the anger directed at the general, I don’t believe that firing him will make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. This is bigger than one general. From reading Yon’s updates about the war, it’s clear to me that both the military leadership and the civilian leadership are deeply divided. As if that’s not bad enough, they also seem too busy fighting each other to even think about permanently defeating the Taliban.

In other words, calling the situation in Afghanistan precarious would be quite an understatement, and pretending that if we just rid ourselves of the general all will be fine isn’t very convincing. Not to me, anyway.

Again, Gen. McChrystal has to be held to account for this incendiary article. There’s no way around it. But expect no miracles with regards to the state of the war in Afghanstan. If things are as bad as Yon says they are, it requires more than McChrystal’s resignation to clean up the mess, including a drastic change in Washington’s Afghanistan policy.

Great news, Russia’s new (self-anointed) Czar, Vladimir Putin, and his loyal number two, Dmitry Medvedev, have decided to go Stalin on Russians’ ass. They’ve ordered the police to confiscate 100.000 copies of a book written by prominent members of the opposition, Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Milov.

The reason, you ask? Well, they had the audacity to criticize Putin’s legacy.

That’s the way to go about these things, isn’t it? What do Milov and Nemtsov think, damnit!, that we’re living in the 21st century or something?

Putin’s right: no more criticism should be allowed. This whole “freedom of speech” thingy is greatly overestimated anyway. It’s not as if it’s vital for your happiness or anything to be able to speak your mind without fearing the government’s wrath.

Besides, those pesky books take such a long, long time to read. If we want to be informed, it’s much better, and more effective, to watch government-owned news channels. These people know what they’re talking about, they’re well connected, they’re professionals. Most importantly: They’re not critical.

Let’s hope that other wannabe dictators soon follow in Putin’s footsteps: The fewer doubt-inducing books there are, the happier we’ll be.

Angle won the Republican Party’s nomination recently. She is a darling of the Tea Party, who calls for the replacement of Medicare and Social Security with “free-market alternatives.” She also ‘favors big cuts in federal spending and endorsed getting rid of the Department of Education and giving more control to state and local governments.’

Although these views are perfectly defensible – even authentically conservative – more moderate members of the GOP feel a little bit queasy about Angle. Sen. Scott Brown – yeah, that Massachusetts Republican who was only to represent his state in the U.S. Senate because the Tea Party supported him – for instance, has already said he “doesn’t plan to get involved in that race.”

It’s never ceases to amaze me that those who always call for a “Big Tent” are seldom willing to put up with people who hold slightly different beliefs. Centrists are in many respects worse than ideological progressives, conservatives and / or libertarians in that regard. They always talk about how they want to be accepted in both parties, how they too should be supported, endorsed and funded, but when a more ideological and idealistic person wins the nomination of their party, they suddenly disappear from the scene and quickly focus on “doing my job here” (as Brown put it).

With all due respect, but if these individuals can’t get themselves to support their own party’s nominee because she’s too libertarian / conservative for their tastes, they shouldn’t complain when conservative activists actively work to oust them in their from office. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Simple.

This article on China and Russia by Professor Barry Rubin, is the most interesting analysis of international politics I’ve read this week:

China is very much motivated toward development rather than ideology or geopolitical ambition. It wants to get along with everyone as much as possible and make lots of money. (Quite a change from the days of the Little Red Book and the Cultural Revolution!). So they are ready to sell arms to everyone. They are all over Africa especially doing deals with anyone who can pay.

To get cash, the Chinese will do anything. For example, they have allowed secret flights from North Korea to Iran carrying weapons and nuclear technology. When U.S. forces arrived in Iraq, they found that China had sold Saddam advanced anti-aircraft guns.

But China also has fears. And these fears explain China’s opposition to sanctions in general:

They believe they have two big vulnerabilities. One is fear of being isolated, as happened during much of the Cold War. Whenever anyone speaks of sanctions and pressures, the Chinese think: What if this would be used against us some day. So they tend to be against such things everywhere (Yugoslavia, Iran). Since they want to make money selling to these countries that’s another reason to reject sanctions (and cheat when possible on them).

The even bigger vulnerability is China’s vast need for oil and gas. They don’ want to alienate any of the suppliers and they don’t like the idea of a crisis disrupting the supply. So they like trading with Israel because it has useful hi-tech and other such products and with the Arabs to buy oil and gas, and sell items to them.

And Russia:

Russia is quite different in political terms but also is desperate for money. Its current regime has lots of ambitions and a big chip on its shoulder. Whether it’s true or not, they are angry that the West-and especially the United States-didn’t do more to help them after Communism. They also feel as if they are weak and way behind. When I was in Moscow I saw shops from every Western country selling luxury goods but nothing indigenously Russian. Putin wants to make Russia a great power, to regain parts of the Soviet empire and to have influence over much of the rest of the former USSR and satellite states.

In particular, Putin and the regime want to sabotage U.S. policy. They are more openly contemptuous of President Obama than virtually any other country in the world (and that includes Iran). In Europe, they want to keep the U.S. and NATO over the areas they formerly control. Russian companies are buying up resources in those countries wherever they can. Russia has attacked Georgia and is menacing a lot of other ex-victims, who are scared and doubtful they can depend on the United States right now.

Moscow sees Iran as a friend – the Mullahs buy weapons from Russia and they support several key allies of Russia, such as Armenia, while they do not (visibly) support any extremist organizations operating in Russia.

That doesn’t mean Russia considers Israel an enemy, however. No, the Kremlin wants to have good relations with all countries in the Middle East: Arab countries, Iran and, yes, Israel. It opposes Arab-Israeli wars, mainly because they’re bad for (Russia’s) business. Of course opposition to such wars does not mean Russia won’t sell weapons to Syria and therefore (indirectly) to terrorist organization Hezbollah. It will and it does.

Rubin’s conclusion:

One can argue that these policies are shortsighted; that spreading radical Islamism will hit Russia and China as well; and that resulting regional stability will hurt even their economic interests. Those are good arguments but are not persuading Russian and Chinese leaders.

In short, while things have greatly improved since the Cold War, neither Russia nor China supports Western policy in the Middle East. President Obama is not going to change these realities.

And that’s one of the main problems for Obama: high expectations. He promised us heaven, but he won’t be able to deliver.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney once again made headlines recently by criticizing President Barack Obama. As we’re used to by now, Cheney doesn’t mince words:

On the eve of the unveiling of the nation’s new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting “weakness” to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

Now, let’s not get into a debate about whether or not Cheney hasn’t been guilty of playing politics himself in the past (he has, of course; that’s what politicians tend to do). What matters most is that he’s right. From the day he was sworn in, Obama has projected an image of weakness to the rest of the world. And that’s a dangerous thing to do.

Even those of us who criticized George W. Bush regularly during the last years of his administration (and before), have to admit that he at least projected an image of strength. America’s adversaries knew, especially after Bush’s reaction to 9/11, that America could not be messed with. If America was seen as weak back then, you can bet on it that it would’ve been challenged even more by its enemies than it was.

Obama is making a tragic mistake by spending too much time and energy on trying to come across as a ‘uniter,’ instead of on squashing the West’s enemies. The world is a dangerous, Hobbesian place. Obama’d better realize it ASAP. Before Iran has nuclear weapons, for instance.

World leaders have finally accepted that it will be impossible to come to a deal on climate change this year and have moved their attention to setting new dealines for a global agreement.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December has been billed as the world’s last chance to stop global warming.

But negotiations soon broke down because the US refused to sign up to targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

As far as I’m concerned, the above is yet more proof that the international left knows full well that global warming isn’t as big a threat to mankind, as they like to pretend. If it was, they wouldn’t have accepted a mere ‘political agreement.’ No, they would’ve kept at it until they had devised a plan to ‘save the world.’

Good news then: from now onwards we can happily ignore the global warming crowd, because they don’t even take their own cause that serious.

Sadly, that’s exactly what MSNBC and European media are trying to do. The leftist American news channel spent some time to yesterday’s terrorist attack on Ft. Hood, but forgot to mention the fact that shooter Major Malik Nadal Hasan was an extremist. The army discovered recently that the major has posted comments on several websites, comparing suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on grenades to protect their comrades.

Hasan was about to be employed to Iraq, which upset him a great deal, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann did say. But here too he forgot to mention one inconvenient fact: one of the reasons Hasan was so upset about being deployed to Iraq, was because he believed that muslims should “stand up” to U.S. forces in the Middle East. You’d think this was important enough to be mentioned, no? Chris Matthews did the same as his buddy Olbermann:

Matthews kept going on sympathetically about PTSD, and the “horrendous things” that Hasan must had heard as an Army psychiatrist. But in a fairly long career as an Army shrink, Hasan had never been deployed overseas.

But that fits the liberal media template. Military service can drive you nuts.

The problem with the approach of MSNBC and the European media is that ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away. Extremists have to be fought on several levels: ideological, spiritual, physical, etc. To do so, we have to admit that a problem exists. Muslim extremism exists. It’s even a gigantic problem, especially in the Middle East (but also in the West). Islamism is an ideology of hatred, intolerance and violence. We can’t compromise with it, we have to defeat it. Whitewashing the acts of extremists thinking they may just leave us alone if we stick our heads in the sand, won’t work.

You would think that the MSM have awakened to this fact by now, but no. Their political correctness prevents them from waking up and doing what they are supposed to do.

British newspaper the Telegraph reports that former Vice President Al Gore is on track to becoming the world’s first ‘green’ billionaire.

Last year Mr Gore’s venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

It took us Europeans a while, but we’re finally waking up to the fact that Gore and other climate change cultists may not have had our interests in mind, when they advocated we should use “green energy.” Experts like the British Lord Monckton and the Dutchman Hans Labohm have tried to educate the Old Continent about this matter for years; it appears as if they are finally making some progress.

The above doesn’t mean that the majority of Europeans have become global warming critics. European media and most politicians continue to pretend that this is the main challenge facing “our generation.” They have become experts in scaremongering and their efforts to scare voters into agreeing to policies that are harmful to them, continue to pay off. Still, the more headlines my fellow Europeans read about how Gore et al. are enriching themselves, the likelier it is they’ll become just as cynical as Americans. And that should give us all hope, because has historically been Europe that pushes for global warming treaties that’ll ruin Western economies.

Russia has provoked outrage in Poland by simulating an air and sea attack on the country during military exercises.

The armed forces are said to have carried out “war games” in which nuclear missiles were fired and troops practised an amphibious landing on the country’s coast.

Documents obtained by Wprost, one of Poland’s leading news magazines, said the exercise was carried out in conjunction with soldiers from Belarus.

Could someone please explain to me why Russia would simulate such an attack, if it has no plans whatsoever of attacking Poland? As far as I can tell, the only other possible explanation is that Moscow wants Warsaw to fear it. Putin strongly believes Russia should rediscover itself as a major power. You cannot be a major power if you don’t control your own backyard.

Poland has drifted towards the West in recent years; a development the Kremlin cannot appreciate. So what to do when you’re Medvedev or Putin? You just threaten your neighbor. “Continue traveling down that path and you’ll face the consequences.”

The good news? Bush saw Putin’s soul and concluded that all was well. The bad news? Bush isn’t exactly known for his ability to read people.

Michael van der Galien is editor-in-chief of PoliGazette and is a contributor to Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood and David Horowitz’s NewsReal.

Selfmurderer in chief Gordon Brown of Britain

Good news! It took the European Union a couple of decades and many years of socialist indoctrination, but it has finally been able to sign a treaty to collectively commit suicide.

Subject to formal endorsement in summit conclusions being prepared in Brussels, Europe has agreed to make a conditional offer to the rest of the world at global environment negotiations in Copenhagen in December…

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said the financial cost should not be included in the EU’s proposed package of ambitious climate change targets – at least not until other nations signal their readiness to pay their share.

But the summit text puts a 100 billion euros-a-year (£89.6 billion) price on curbing global warming by 2020, of which annual public funding is estimated at 22-50bn euros.(£19.7bn – £44.8bn.)

The EU’s combined share of that would be between 7-10bn euros (£6.2bn – £8.96bn) a year by 2020.

For the record, 100 billion euros is approximately 150 – 160 billion USD.

Ah well, I was pretty tired of life already, so it’s fine with me. Besides, what do we need all that prosperity for anyway? Prosperity is related to money, and money is evil. So I guess Brussels really is protecting ourselves against our most hideous sin: greed. Oh, that and an unhealthy love for life, of course.

Good, now that we’ve decided to destroy ourselves, who’s next?

In my latest post for David Horowitz’s NewsRealblog I opine that cable news networks like Fox News and even MSNBC, are picking up on the fact that conservative candidates for office are more popular than ever.

Well, ever, since 1994, at least:

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” invited conservative Republican Mario Rubio on two days ago, for instance (watch it here). Rubio is the former speaker of the Florida Senate, a real conservative, and he decided to challenge Governor Charlie Crist in the race for Senator Mel Martinez’s Senate seat.

Although Rubio was initially considered to be an underdog without a chance of winning, he has become increasingly famous, with conservative bloggers and voters preferring him over his moderate Republican opponent, Crist. Hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough even went so far as to describe the conservative Floridian as one of the most “interesting” and “fascinating” candidates to run for office this election cycle.

One day before Rubio made this, for him vital appearance on a national show, Fox News host Glenn Beck invited another renegade conservative on his show: Doug Hoffman, who runs for Congress in New York. Not only did Beck interview Hoffman, he also joined Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, Rick Santorum and Dick Armey in endorsing him, instead of the official candidate of the GOP, moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava.

The real surprise here isn’t that conservatives are becoming increasingly popular, but that cable news shows are so quick to catch up on it. That has taken me somewhat by surprise.

Then again, Beck is an outspoken libertarian and Scarborough pretends to be a conservative. So perhaps it is less surprising then one would assume at first sight. Still, it’s a healthy, encouraging development.

Meanwhile, the sudden interest in Rubio, has forced Governor Charlie Crist to attack his main competitor for Martinez’s Senate seat. Although Crist was once considered to be one of the most talented governor in the country, who could become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2012 or 2016, he has been unable to deal with Rubio’s criticism, labeling Crist a fake conservative.

So what can Crist do once he realizes that ignoring Rubio isn’t going to work? Right; launch a smear campaign. Both the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald have noted that Crist’s allies have started to “push back at the notion that Rubio is a conservative’s dream candidate.”

His sin? Marco Rubio is not a real fiscal conservative because he is paying off a mortgage and student loans. Dude.

Do I sense the odious smell of desperation in the air?

On his show yesterday, Fox News host Glenn Beck argued that the financial crisis is part of a deliberate strategy to expand the size and scope of government.

NewsReal‘s Matthew Vadum explains that ‘it’s called the Cloward-Piven Strategy of orchestrated crisis. It’s an approach to radical social and political change articulated by Marxist university professors Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven in a 1966 Nation article, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” They called for “a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls” in an effort to overwhelm the system.’

This strategy worked wonders in New York back in 1975, when the city was pushed to the brink of bankruptcy.

One of the leftist activist groups that contributed to the current economic climate is ACORN. Its founder, Wade Rathke, is a big believer in the Cloward-Piven Strategy but he’s given it a new name for a new millenium. He calls it the Maximum Eligible Participation Strategy and has said he wants to use the Internet to swampAmerica’s social welfare system.

Although the Cloward-Piven Strategy pertains specifically to welfare benefits, the basic idea is that any massively unsustainable financial demands on the government will cause chaos and civil unrest.

As Vadum explains, printing more money – as the Obama administration is doing – fits right into this strategy. The idea is that it will drive up inflation. Massive inflation, in turn, has to be countered by interest rate hikes. The result of higher interest rates? Less economic growth and, if the rates are increased significantly, the entire economy could collapse.

Let there be no mistake about it; Obama and his friends are a bunch of radical leftists. They’re not out to improve the U.S. by working with a scalpel, but with the help of a gigantic axe.

In his monthly news conference, the Tory leader said if the role had to exist at all, it should go to someone who would see himself as a chairman of the European Council.

“I do not want the job to exist, but if it has to exist, I don’t think it should be the all-singing all-dancing President Tony Blair,” he said.

“It should be a job of chairing the Council of Ministers, rather than a new president of a superstate.”

Although it will undoubtedly be a “job of charing the council” initially, it’ll undoubtedly gradually transform into a “new president of a superstate” in the end. Americans learned this lesson earlier, now we have to learn it as well. Give politicians a little bit of power and they will not rest until you give them more. You give them more and they will get more themselves, whether you want them to have more power or not.

It’s fantastic that Cameron continues to resist Brussels, but I’m afraid we’ll end up following in America’s footsteps; this even though the relationships between individual European states aren’t even remotely comparable to those between their American counterparts.

A tragic mistake in the making.

Fed up with Barack Obama’s naiveté and far-left agenda, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has decided to distance himself from his American colleague. Where Sarkozy once was strongly pro-American, he has now shifted his focus from the U.S. to other international allies.

Didier Billion of the Institute of International & Strategic Relations says: “Sarkozy has clearly been thrown off course in his relations with America.” Another foreign affairs expert, Bruno Tertrais from the Foundation for Strategic Research, adds: “There is an annoyance about what the French see as naivety in the Obama administration.”

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

It’s fascinating to see just how much America’s relationships with traditional allies has changed since Obama took office. Countries that were decidedly pro-American under George W. Bush, feel betrayed by his successor. Governments that, on the other hand, opposed Bush strongly, are Obama’s biggest fans.

If Obama continues down this path of alienating America’s friends, the U.S. will end up alone, because although its enemies may like Obama personally, they do not have any sympathy for his country. They want the U.S. weakened, not stronger. They do not think Obama is such a wonderful fellow because he’s a strong leader, but because they think they can push him and therefore his country, around.

We’ll see what the long term effects of Obama’s behavior will be, but I fear that they will be extremely destructive – for the U.S. and its traditional allies.

Yeah, it’s clear to me that this is exactly what Russia needs right now; government, China-style:

Nearly two decades after the collapse of the Communist Party, Russia’s rulers have hit upon a model for future success: the Communist Party.

Or at least, the one that reigns next door.

Like an envious underachiever,Vladimir V. Putin’s party, United Russia, is increasingly examining how it can emulate the Chinese Communist Party, especially its skill in shepherding China through the financial crisis relatively unbowed.

United Russia’s leaders even convened a special meeting this month with senior Chinese Communist Party officials to hear firsthand how they wield power.

Now, we all knew that Putin and Medvedev weren’t exactly the enlightened chaps the MSM pretend they are, but this goes far. Even for them. The Russian people were nearly destroyed by communism; so what do their new, capitalist rulers do? Right, abolish freedom and repeat the same mistakes their fathers and grandfathers made before them.

Don’t get me wrong. Putin et al. are not communists as such. They’re authoritarians. They don’t want China to tell them how to start a communist revolution. No, they only want to know how they can, and I quote, develop “the Chinese ability to use a one-party system to keep tight control over the country while still driving significant economic growth.”

But that’s not much better, now is it. The Chinese system is extremely authoritarian. If Russia copies China’s one-party rule, the Russian people will once again be doomed to slavery.

And so Putin continues his transformation from strong yet democratic leader, into a dictator who crushes all dissent – violently.

It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so darn sad.