The Witch Hunt Is Back?

Paul Krugman in the August 29th New York Times wrote an op-ed piece lamenting the return of "Witch-Hunt Season" because...get this...Republicans and conservatives oppose President Obama. Krugman compares Obama's Administration to the Clinton Administration in terms of "political opponents" trying to dig up anything they could on the President, regardless of how far-fetched it might be.

I'll be the first to admit Republicans and conservative bought into a lot of anti-Clinton conspiracy theories and that they're buying into a lot of anti-Obama conspiracy theories. Some are far-fetched, and some have at least some basis in fact.

Kind of like Krugman's column, if you think about it.

Krugman's defense of Obama against "Witch-Hunt Season" relies on a carefully-crafted distortion: that Republicans have no reason to investigate the President. With some of the questionably-legal actions the Administration has taken, I believe there are grounds to investigate if for no other reason than to put the questions to rest once and for all. That's pretty much the same way some Republicans went after Clinton, and as we saw then, there were some highly questionable actions the Clinton Administration and the Clintons specifically did. That's not to say all of the suggested investigations were valid, but suggesting that all of the investigations into Clinton and Obama amount to a witch-hunt is laughable.

Krugman's assessment of the situation seems to miss the 8 years between Clinton and Obama where George W. Bush was assaulted on almost a daily basis with accusations, not unlike what Krugman says happened to Clinton and is happening to Obama. Here's a brief list of the accusations against Bush:

- He didn't really win the Florida recount.
- His brother Jeb and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris conspired to cheat Al Gore.
- He knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen.
- He arranged for relatives of Osama Bin Laden to be flown out of the US days after 9/11.
- Bush went into Iraq for oil.
- Bush made up the story about Iraq having WMDs.
- Bush made up the story about Iraq trying to acquire yellowcake uranium.
- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Big Oil
- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Israel.
- He stole the 2004 election in Ohio.
- He allowed Halliburton to get no-bid contracts because of Dick Cheney.
- Bush was responsible for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame because her husband was critical of the Administration.
- He controlled gas prices to make money for his Big Oil buddies.
- Bush ignored the victims of Hurricane Katrina because they were primarily black.
- He allowed banks to run roughshod and worked against regulating them, thus causing the subprime mortgage crisis.

Most, if not all, of these statements have been made by Leftists who have demanded (and in some cases gotten) investigations into these subjects, regardless of how far from the truth they are. But I'm guessing that Krugman didn't have a problem with these investigations because of a) who was the President being investigated, and b) who was pushing for the investigations. That undermines his credibility, what little he has, on this subject.

And let's not forget that it was Democrat strategist James Carville who talked about going to "war" against the Republicans in the latter part of the Clinton years, suggesting that Democrats would investigate any Republican President as vigorously as the Republicans investigated Clinton. Surprise surprise, that happened. Yet, no admonition from Krugman. Funny, huh?

Seems as though the "Witch-Hunt Season" isn't back...because it never stopped.

Ignoring a Problem Doesn't Make It Go Away

Politico reports that President Obama blasted "lies" and "disinformation" recently. Although I hoped he was talking about his own Administration, that hope was crushed when he started talking about the controversies surrounding his birth certificate and whether he's a Muslim. Although I'm not a "birther" or an "Obama is a Muslim" type, I do want to make a point about the President's handling of these issues.

Although they are relatively minor issues from the larger perspective, they persist and grow because the President hasn't definitively addressed them. Contrary to what the Left says, the President has not released a Birth Certificate yet. He has, however, released a Certificate of Live Birth, which isn't quite the same thing. And, no, it's not sufficient to quell the rumors that his Birth Certificate proves he wasn't a natural-born citizen.

This is where his actions come into play. Although he has tried to downplay the significance of the issue, his actions or his apparent actions that seem to underscore the validity of the charges. It's all about the actions matching up with the statements. Walking the walk, and talking the talk. When a leader doesn't walk the walk and talk the talk, his or her leadership is understandably questioned, even by people who might normally let him or her slide on other issues. That's a failure of leadership and that failure has come into play yet again with the "Obama is a Muslim" talk. By not walking the walk and talking the talk, Obama has invited the kind of speculation about which he laments.

The solution is easier than the President thinks or wants to admit: start walking the walk and talking the talk. Give a little, Mr. President, and put these rumors to rest for no other reason than to give everyone peace of mind. Plus, imagine what it would do to those people who have said "Obama wasn't born here" and "Obama is a Muslim." It would make them look absolutely foolish and unreliable, while you would come away from it looking more honest (which is something you really need to do right now...). That's a pure win-win for you, Mr. President. All it would require you to do is suck it up and lead.

Something tells me that won't happen.

Restoring Dishonor

Today is the day of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, an event that could be a historic event in modern times. So, naturally since Glenn Beck is involved, the Left has been trying to tear it down. Here's a sampling of what Leftists have been saying about the event:

- At Beck's "Divine Destiny" event at the Kennedy Center the night before, Media Matters (the Soros funded Leftist lying media organization headed up by proven and admitted liar David Brock) said that the event was "steeped in politics" in spite of Beck's claims to contrary because...some of the speakers spoke out against abortion and political correctness! Oh, horrors! We can't have people exercising their free speech and making points that have religious undertones, can we? By the way, kids, there are people who skew to the left politically who agree with the speakers who came out against abortion and political correctness. Nat Hentoff comes to mind.

- Media Matters also rattled off a list of conservative groups and people with connections (no matter how weak the connection - seriously, they bashed a conservative group for putting ads in one of their publications promoting the 8/28 events) to "prove" the 8/28 event was political. Wow. No wonder Media Matters is so revered by the Left. They dig to find completely irrelevant points to "expose" the Right's "real agenda." Bravo, you magnificent bastards!

- Media Leftists have gone out of their way to portray Beck as a "conservative" and a "controversial talk show host," but have called blacks who oppose the 8/28 rally (like the Rev. Al Sharpton) as "civil rights leaders." Yeah, like Sharpton's new to the controversy scene. Beck's controversial because he said the President has a problem with white people, but Sharpton isn't controversial because he actually does have a problem with white people?

- ABC's Claire Shipman did a report about the 8/28 rally where she took one of Beck's statements out of context and used it to bash him. The statement used in the ABC report shows Beck saying, "Blacks don't own Martin Luther King." However, there was more to the statement. Here is Beck's full statement to put the segment ABC used in context: "Whites don't own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don't own Martin Luther King." By leaving off the first half of Beck's statement, it changes the context of it all. But I'm sure it wasn't part of an orchestrated effort on the part of the Leftist media to malign Beck and those who are attending the rally today, right?

- NBC's "Today" show featured a report about the rally, Tom Costello suggested that it might be difficult to stop people from having signs "with racial overtones" given how there were similar signs at a rally in DC last year. Of course, when Beck says no signs will be allowed and has done so repeatedly and clearly. I'm sure Costello was going to mention that but just ran out of time, what with trying to drag in Dr. Laura's allegedly racist rant into a completely unrelated matter because Sarah Palin defended Dr. Laura and will be a speaker today.

- MSNBC's Ed Schultz compared the TEA Party movement to the Nazis to try to malign the 8/28 rally and suggested Beck was trying to incite race riots. Of course, the TEA Party folks have clearly said the 8/28 rally isn't anything they are putting on, but why let that fact get in the way of attacking Beck by proxy?

Wow. It's almost as if the Left is scared that conservatives are exercising their First Amendment rights today to express a different opinion than the Left espouses. How radical! How "dangerous."

How utterly predictable. Leftists attack anything they don't understand (which is quite a bit, it turns out) and call anything that deviates from their norm as not just wrong, but morally corrupt and intellectually devoid of anything worthwhile. That gives them the self-imposed righteousness to justify any means necessary to slander the Right. After all, they're fighting evil, so they have to fight fire with fire, right?

Yeah, not so much. See, when you resort to blatant and subtle dishonesty to make a point, your point isn't that strong to begin with. All the Left is doing with Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally is showing how dishonorable they can be.

Surprised? I Didn't Think So

In the "This Shocks Who?" Department, Shirley Sherrod declined the offer of a different job within the Department of Agriculture this week. While Leftists cheer her integrity for ask for Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to step down, there are questions to be asked about why she decided not to take the job. After all, she said she accepts Vilsack's apology, so that should be the end of it, right?

Not so much. As I suggested in a previous blog post, Sherrod appears to be an opportunist looking for any way to elevate her standing in the world. Going back to the Department of Agriculture, even after the media frenzy surrounded her firing, would not elevate her, no matter how high profile the job would be.

Plus, there's still the possible lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart to consider. With her recent payday from the federal government, she certainly has made money off playing the race card when it suits her needs. If she accepted the job, there is a chance that her superiors might ask her to drop the idea of suing Breitbart, which would mean any potential payday from that venture would disappear. And seeing how she's played her firing so far, I don't think she'd allow that. Instead, she's passing up a sure thing for a chance at hitting the legal jackpot.

And that's a big risk, in my opinion. Filing suit against Breitbart may get her a big payday, but it has a greater chance of backfiring against her, leaving her with legal fees and no job, at least in the short term. And, really, who in their right minds would hire someone who took on her own employer in court?

Sherrod had a chance to show she has moved on, and she didn't take it. That, in and of itself, should show us all where her heart really is.

Distort the Constitution Much?

The Left has never really been that keen on following the Constitution as written because they feel it is a "living document" (meaning that they believe the Constitution means what they say it means, regardless of whether it's grounded in the Constitution). Now, the Left has taken the Constitution to a whole new level with the "community center" that is proposed to be built a few blocks from Ground Zero.

The First Amendment gives Muslims the right to build the mosque/community center under the Establishment Clause, and if you disagree, you're anti-Muslim, stupid, or any number of other derogatory labels. But the thing of it is...the First Amendment doesn't state or imply a right to build anything, let alone a mosque/community center.

The Left's main argument is that the construction of a mosque/community center is an extension of the right to worship. There are two main problems with that argument. First, a person of faith doesn't require a building to worship openly. In my faith, all that's required to establish a church is two people sharing their common faith. Besides, given that there's a mosque within walking distance of the proposed site of the mosque/community center, there are options that are readily available for their religious needs. If the mosque/community center isn't built, nobody is denied their right to worship. It's not the building that makes the right to worship; it's the exhibition of faith.

Second, the Left is being contradictory with its position on the mosque/community center. When it's come to expressions of Christian or Jewish faith, the Left has firmly come down against public expressions of faith, especially on public land. Their logic in those instances is that people of faith should pray only in churches and synagogues since someone might be offended at a public expression of faith. In short, you can pray all you want, just not where people might take offense.

And building a mosque/community center where Muslim prayer will be allowed within a couple of blocks of an act of extremist Muslim terrorism isn't offensive?

Put simply, the Left has no real Constitutional grounds under the Establishment Clause on which to defend the building of the mosque/community center. There may be other Constitutionally-based arguments that could be made, but suggesting that the building of a mosque/community center is an extension of freedom of religion is intellectually dishonest and a gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

You Break It...

Now, my administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That's my job. And it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, "Well, this is Obama’s economy." That’s fine. Give it to me. My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe. --- Barack Obama, July 14, 2009

What a difference a year makes. From "Give it to me," to "Don't blame me."

Well, I hate to tell you, Mr. President, but the economy is yours, not just because you're the man at the helm of the American ship or because you said the economy is yours. It's because you took decided action that impacted the economy. From the "stimulus package" that failed to stimulate anything but the wildest dreams of bureaucrats to the various spending proposals that will add to the debt without adding much to the economy, the current economic situation is as much Obama's as it is Bush's, if not more so.

But you'd never hear the President say that these days. Oh, no, he "inherited" this economy according to Obama, so he can't be to blame. However, who will be front and center to take credit for any good economic news? You guessed it.

That's the sign of a weak leader. Although Obama and his followers like to compare the President to Ronald Reagan, there is a vast difference between the two men. Reagan didn't care who got the credit for getting something done as long as it was done. Obama cares about getting the credit, but avoids any criticism, regardless of whether it's legitimate.

Yes, what a difference a year makes. Obama laid claim to the economy, but only when it makes him look good. The problem: he laid claim to it when he thought his plans were going to work. Now that they haven't, he's stuck with it.

The Elephant in the Room

For the past couple of years, Iran has been making moves to build nuclear reactors, citing their desire to move away from an oil-based energy policy. The Left has cheered this move, marking one of the first times in recent history that Leftists have actually cheered for nuclear power.

But, here's the funny thing. Iran is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. And I can't say that Iran's done much to tap into that reserve. Why would they go nuclear when they have oil? I have a few thoughts on the matter, and none of them are as blissfully ignorant as the Left's thoughts on the same matter.

1) Iran knows they have the US over a barrel. An oil barrel, to be precise. It's no secret that America has a jones for oil. One of our sources of foreign oil is the Middle East, and one of the primary tanker routes is the Strait of Hormuz. And guess where Iran sits. Right along the Strait of Hormuz. Combine that with the fact about Iran's oil reserves that I referenced above and you get a situation that could create an artificial spike in oil prices if Iran decides to cut us off. Going nuclear allows them to hold onto more oil which they can sell back to us as economy-busting prices.

2) They're gearing up for an attack on Israel. It's not secret that the current leadership in Iran wants Israel out of the picture in the Middle East. One of the great advantages Israel has over their Muslim counterparts in that neck of the world is their military. One way to counteract that military is through bigger, more dangerous weapons. Like...oh I don't know...a nuclear bomb. And given that Iran has a deal with Russia to get the kind of uranium used in nuclear weapons instead of the uranium used in nuclear reactors, I'm guessing Iran's going to play a much bigger role in the Middle East's conflict with Israel very soon.

3) Iran will be a battlefront in an impending geopolitical conflict akin to the Cold War. This is a radical notion, but one that has a basis in fact. The fall of the Soviet Union left great opportunity, but also a lot of hard feelings among the communists still there. Although we saw Russia moderate its relationship with the West early on, one would be hard-pressed to say that the relationship hasn't soured again. Blame Bush if you want, but it wouldn't have mattered who was President because they have been planting the seeds for this for decades. Now, consider China's growing influence on the global scene. The fact that China and Russia are on the same page is scary, especially considering both are actively supporting Iran's nuclear aims. Both countries have an ax to grind with America, and they're not above making us fight on ground that isn't theirs. If events continue to unfold like I think they will, once Iran goes nuclear, Russia and China will get more vigorous in their defense of Iran, which would embolden Iran to attack Iraq. That has the potential to draw us into a global war that we won't be able to afford and will most likely lose.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong on these (especially on that third one). But until we're willing to look at the facts and act accordingly, Iran's nuclear capabilities will continue to be the elephant in the room that we're trying to ignore.