Garden State Patriot

Benjamin Sherman is another brave American hero who gave up his life for his country. While on a mission in Afghanistan he lost his life when trying to save a comrade who had fallen into a river. Sherman jumped in to save his fellow soldier only for both of them to be swept away. 

In an interview with WCBV-Boston, Sherman’s grief-stricken mother and sister talked of their lost son and brother – describing the kind of person and soldier he was and how he would do anything for his country and his brothers-in-arms. 

But at the end of the interview, Sherman’s mother had some words for President Obama.

“It is time,” she said. “It is time to make a decision. This has gone on too long. They either need to come home or we need to end it.”

You can watch the video of the interview here.

Of course, if this were George W. Bush in office the lamestream media would have been showing this video ad nauseum in order to undermine the President. They would have tried to make Mrs. Sherman the next Cindy Sheehan. But now that Obama is in office, there is no such effort.

Hypocrisy aside, no matter where you stand on the Afghanistan question Obama’s ‘dithering’ on this matter has indeed gone on far too long. It has been two months – two months! -since General McChrystal ’s request for more troops. The men and women we send into battle deserve far, far better. And not one more family should have to experience the grief the Sherman family because their President can’t figure out whether the battle is worth fighting any longer. In fact, the indecision is simply unconscionable and beneath the office. It is time for the President to show some leadership on this issue and prove himself even the least bit worthy of the title Commander-in-Chief.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the Sherman family, especially his wife and his unborn child who will never know him.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

When this…

Led to this…

It’s amazing what can happen when you have a President who actually promotes the cause of liberty, isn’t it?

Charles Krauthammer – one of the more lucid and intelligent thinkers in the conservative movement in my view – has a very thought-provoking and insightful piece in this week’s The Weekly Standard. The title of Krauthammer’s piece says it all: Decline Is A Choice: The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy. Here are a few highlights: 

…my thesis is simple: The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands. 

Which leads to my second proposition: Facing the choice of whether to maintain our dominance or to gradually, deliberately, willingly, and indeed relievedly give it up, we are currently on a course towards the latter. The current liberal ascendancy in the United States–controlling the executive and both houses of Congress, dominating the media and elite culture–has set us on a course for decline. And this is true for both foreign and domestic policies. Indeed, they work synergistically to ensure that outcome.

But the liberal internationalism of today is different. It is not center-left, but left-liberal. And the new left-liberal internationalism goes far beyond its earlier Clintonian incarnation in its distrust of and distaste for American dominance. For what might be called the New Liberalism, the renunciation of power is rooted not in the fear that we are essentially good but subject to the corruptions of power–the old Clintonian view–but rooted in the conviction that America is so intrinsically flawed, so inherently and congenitally sinful that it cannot be trusted with, and does not merit, the possession of overarching world power.

For the New Liberalism, it is not just that power corrupts. It is that America itself is corrupt–in the sense of being deeply flawed, and with the history to prove it. An imperfect union, the theme of Obama’s famous Philadelphia race speech, has been carried to and amplified in his every major foreign-policy address, particularly those delivered on foreign soil. (Not surprisingly, since it earns greater applause over there.)

And because we remain so imperfect a nation, we are in no position to dictate our professed values to others around the world. Demonstrators are shot in the streets of Tehran seeking nothing but freedom, but our president holds his tongue because, he says openly, of our own alleged transgressions towards Iran (presumably involvement in the 1953 coup). Our shortcomings are so grave, and our offenses both domestic and international so serious, that we lack the moral ground on which to justify hegemony.

I would strongly recommend reading the piece in its entirety. It’s a bit lengthy but well worth the time.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

With apologies to that unforgettable band of the 80’s, A Flock of Seagulls, their biggest hit song of that era is an apt description of sorts of Obama policy towards the rogue, terrorist state.

President Obama’s approach to Iran is a failure unfolding before our eyes. Despite his overtures to open up a dialogue with the Tyrants on Teheran their fists have only become more firmly and tightly clenched than ever before. Now, as their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons become ever more close to becoming reality, Obama offers the free world nothing but empty words – plenty of carrots but no stick in sight.

In fact, you know the world is turned upide down when the leader of France – France! – feels the need to scold Obama for his failure to lead on the issue.

The contempt with which the president of France regards the president of the United States was displayed in public last week.

Nicolas Sarkozy was furious with Barack Obama for his adolescent warbling about a world without nuclear weapons at a meeting Mr. Obama chaired of the United Nations Security Council last Thursday (9/24).

“We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth,” President Obama said.

What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn’t call them on it.

‘President Obama dreams of a world without weapons…but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite,” Mr. Sarkozy said.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five Security Council resolutions,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “North Korea has been defying Council resolutions since 1993.”

“What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?” he asked rhetorically. “More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map.”

If the Security Council had imposed serious sanctions on the regimes which are flouting UN resolutions, the resolution Mr. Obama proposed about working toward nuclear disarmament wouldn’t have been so meaningless, Mr. Sarkozy implied.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce or own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

The extent of President Obama’s naivete – or duplicity – was on display Friday at the G20 summit when the president, flanked by Mr. Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, revealed to the American public that Iran had a second nuclear weapons site on a military base near the holy city of Qom.

News reports indicated Mr. Obama had been briefed on the site before his inauguration. But he’s been conducting his foreign policy as if the mullahs could be trusted.

The fact that Obama has known about the secret nuclear site in Iran and has still persisted in a Neville Chamberlain-like approach to this problem is stunning - and suggests that his ego is far larger than his intelligence. It his time for him to lead before it is too late.

Let me be clear. The Iranian situation is indeed complex. The answers are not easy, nor are the consequences of using military force to stop them pretty. Iran very easily could attack Israel, either directly or throught their surrogate terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah. They could also use these terror groups to attack American interests and disrupt the world’s oil supply and, thusly, further damage an already weak world economy. All of these possibilities are indeed bleak.

Bleaker yet, though, is a world in which Iran possesses nuclear weapons. Like Pakistan and North Korea now, the free world would have no leverage over Iran. The mullahs could see fit to transfer their nuclear know-how to other terror states like Syria or, worse yet, put nuclear weapons in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah. An arms race could spread across the Middle East. Iran would also be free to continue to foment terrorist activities across the globe, with particular aim at the state of Israel, without the fear of consequence. This second scenario would be a far worse reality than using force to stop them now and, one would hope, replacing the regime with the pro-western contingent in that country.

Despite my many other serious concerns about what this President is doing, this issue should be above party and above ideology. An American President needs to, above all, be grounded in reality. He (or she) needs to understand their role as both leader of America and the free world. The time for diplomacy is quickly running out on Iran, I fear. The President now needs to step up and be forthright about the matter at hand and let the American people know that military force may be the only solution to this crisis. This is not an issue that the United States can defer on and leave to the state of Israel.

The President has before said the time for ‘childish games is over.’ Well, the time for fecklessness, weakness and naivete now ought to be over. It’s time for Obama to step up on this issue. To do otherwise, is an abrogation of his sworn duty to protect and defend our nation. To do nothing, would be unforgiveable.

Cross-posted at Red County and Conservatives with Attitude!

This speech needs no other commentary other than, I wish OUR President had given a speech like this.

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

You can see the rest of the speech here: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Residents of Englewood are taking a stand against the despicable leader of Libya. Qaddafi, who recently spit in the eye of every American – and in particular the families who lost loved ones – when he celebrated the release of Pan Am bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, as seen here…

…is being told to stay out of Englewood, where the nation actually owns an estate. Here’s the story.

ENGLEWOOD, N.J. — Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi will set foot on U.S. soil for the first time next month when he comes to address the U.N. General Assembly. Now he wants to put down stakes in the middle of American suburbia.

Plans to set up a tent and allow him to stay at a Libyan-owned estate in this upscale community 12 miles north of Manhattan, were attacked Monday by neighborhood residents and public officials, particularly after the hero’s welcome extended by Libya last week to the lone man convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan American Flight 103.

The attack over Lockerbie, Scotland, thought to be the work of Libyan intelligence, killed all 259 people on board the flight, including 33 from New Jersey. Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was freed from a life sentence in a Scottish jail and returned to Libya on compassionate grounds because he is dying of cancer.

“Gadhafi is a dangerous dictator whose hands are covered with the blood of Americans and our allies,” said U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman, whose district includes Englewood. He promised there would be “hell to pay” if the U.S. State Department violates a long-standing deal barring the dictator from staying at the Libyan estate.

Susan Cohen, who lost her then 20-year old daughter in the bombing, said it best:

“This is what happens when you have the path of appeasement,” Susan Cohen, of Cape May Court House, New Jersey, said of the prospect of Gadhafi staying in Englewood. “He’s getting everything he wants, and I guess that includes a trip to the state of New Jersey, which certainly doesn’t need this.”

The mere fact alone that Qaddafi would even think of staying at the estate speaks to his incredible lack of shame – and should remind us all that some men in this world are purely evil.

Cross-posted at Red County and Conservatives with Attitude!

On ‘Hannity’ last night, Sean compared the meek response of Obama vis-a-vis Iran to Reagan’s strong and principled stand against communist oppression in Poland. Check out this telling video here. Now if only Mr. Hannity would take my calls!

By the way, here’s what I wrote back in January regarding the Obama approach to Iran:

Herein lays the problem with Obama’s approach toward Iran. One can not engage in diplomacy – which entails negotiation, finding common ground and compromise – when the ‘partner’ at the table is an opponent of the convictions and values your nation stands for. To do so would be pacifism. And as history has taught us pacifying enemies of freedom only leads to more violence, war and tyranny, not less. One can only hope that history isn’t about to repeat itself.

Proven right? Pretty much, I think. Although the one thing that has become more clear to me now is that Obama has also completely ceded our moral authority as the leading promoter of freedom and democracy in the world. With his constant apologizing for America and willingness to cut deals with dictators he’s boxed himself in. He put himself in a position of not being able to support the Iranian protesters for fear that it would damage future negotiations with the evil mullocracy. In essence, his approach legitimized an evil regime.

Well, we can’t say you weren’t warned.

The Iranian people, desirous of reform and po’d at the sham re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadine-jihad, have taken to the streets in mass protest.

The protests have turned violent, with some Iranians having been killed already. Check out Gateway Pundit who has a ton on this (some of which I’m almost hesitant to post to be honest).

Meanwhile, where is the leader of the free world on this today? The man who thinks it’s OK for the mullahs to have nukes? The guy who was foolish enough to say this just last Friday?

We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran…Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways…

Is he making public statements in favor of the reform-minded protesters? Is he acting like an American President should and supporting people who clearly want more freedom and liberty? Is he anywhere to be found today on this at all?

Nope. Instead, he’s stone cold silent.

Truly. Sad.

Did you know terrorists caught on the battlefield were now U.S. citizens? Apparently so, because the Obama Administration has our military reading them their rights when they are caught on the battlefield.

…the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today — foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them and they’re reading them their rights — Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Just how in heck are any of these people going to be adjudicated in our courts? Our soldiers are going to have to now act like cops and investigators, garnering sufficient enough evidence to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt? Are these soldiers going to have to leave the battlefield and come to court to testify?

This is beyond ridiculous and flies in the face of how illegal enemy combatants have been handled throughout our history. They are not citizens. They don’t have any claim to the rights Americans possess. They have no right to a day in court.

In a word, this is sick. (h/t Michelle Malkin)

¿Sabìa usted que…err, I mean, did you know?

In 1977, James Earl Carter, the peanut farmer, lifted travel restrictions on Cuba. These remained in place for 5 years until Ronald Reagan reimposed them in 1982. In 1995, Bill Clinton also eased travel restrictions on Cuba. Here’s a timeline detailing the history of travel between the U.S. and Cuba going back to 1959.

No other country restricts travel to Cuba. Yes, anyone else from anyplace else in the world can go there. And many do.

Next, did you know that the U.S. already exports millions of dollars worth of goods to Cuba? Most people are under the impression that there is a full and complete embargo on the island. Not so. In fact, trade has been on the rise since 2000 — and the U.S. is actually Cuba’s #1 supplier of agricultural products. Here are some facts. 

What is the current level of Cuba’s agricultural trade? What products?

In 2006 Cuba was the 33rd largest market for U.S. agricultural exports, ranking ahead of countries like Morocco, Brazil, Sweden and Denmark.

U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba have grown significantly since trade was authorized in 2000. The United States now is Cuba’s largest supplier of agricultural products, supplying approximately 96 percent of Cuba’s rice imports and 70 percent of their poultry meat imports. U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba peaked at $384 million in 2004 and dropped to $328 million by 2006. The European Union (EU) is the second largest supplier of agricultural products to Cuba, followed by Brazil, Argentina, and Canada. Cuba imports about $1 billion in agricultural products overall.

Basic food products and commodities such as rice, wheat, poultry, corn, soybeans, and soybean products have dominated U.S. sales to Cuba. Although minimal seafood is exported to Cuba, U.S. wood product exports to Cuba now exceed $7 million.

U.S. dairy exports in 2006 were $13 million, down more than 50 percent from 2005. U.S. poultry exports dropped from $58 million in 2005 to $45 million in 2006.

U.S. processed food product exports for Cuba’s growing tourism industry lags far behind exports of these products from competing countries. Major competitors include Argentina, Brazil, the EU, New Zealand, Canada and China.

Top U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba
$ million

To see more on U.S.-Cuba trade, check out the USDA site.

So, allow me to sum up. We’ve lifted travel restrictions on Cuba before. We actually trade with them quite a bit and have done so increasingly for the past decade. Other countries already allow travel there and trade with Cuba. Essentially, everything being advocated now by those who want to change our Cuba policy has already been tried or is already really in place.

So my question to those advocating these very policies is quite simply this: why hasn’t the Castro regime changed a bit?

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!