About Me

Name: Always To The...
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

A Climate-Change Agenda We Can Believe In?

The sensible Robert Samuelson in today’s Washington Post warns Barack Obama away from a bold legislative agenda. (Meanwhile, over on the homepage, David Freddoso thinks the cabinet decisions that the Opportunist-in-Chief has announced thus far will dash the Left’s hopes for radical change -- at least on some fronts: we can only hope that climate change is one of them.)  Every new president is assaulted by his own supporters, who want him to put their particular agendas atop his "to do" list. That's happening, as Obama allies clamor for speedy action to provide universal health insurance, combat global warming and support trade unions. . . . Go
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Big Three Set To Become Green-Church Converts

From National Review blog Planet Gore;

With the Green religion transforming the nation’s capitol building into a house of environmental worship, Detroit automakers will return this week to beg again for taxpayer alms.

Want $25 billion to turn around your bank? Forget toxic subprime holdings, Fannie/Freddie substandard loan practices, or over-leveraged balance sheets. Just repent of your sins and ye shall be made whole!

So it is with Detroit automakers begging at the Washington gate. Every economist, auto analyst, and bankruptcy lawyer I have spoken with in the last month agrees that Detroit’s problems are threefold: excessive labor costs, too many dealerships, too many brands. Not one — not one — has mentioned environmental sin or excessive executive pay.

But atoning for these sins is what Democrats demand from Detroit’s reformed business model.

“They need to tell Congress and the world that they are visionary leaders of a rebranded green auto industry,” Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm told the Detroit News. Mind you, this is one of President-elect Obama’s top advisors on automotive and economic issues. And she’s from Detroit’s backyard to boot!

“They need to convey that they intend to lead our nation to energy independence,” Granholm continued.

This is sheer madness. For his part, Obama also seems to be consulting with ascetic monks, not economists, when it comes to business issues.

“When the automaker (executives) are getting paid far more than their counterparts at Toyota, or at Honda, and yet they’re losing money a lot faster than Japanese automakers are, that tells me that they’re not seeing what’s going on out there,” said Obama last week — providing little to suggest that he sees what’s gone wrong with the U.S. auto industry.

Taxpayers beware: Your political representatives want to loan your money to manufacturing businesses on the condition that they produce only green cars and smaller green pay stubs in order to make them more competitive with the best Germany, Korea, and Japan have to offer.

You’re being taken for a ride.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rot Here And In Hell

No plots for Mumbai terrorists: Indian Muslim trust

It may be a small gesture, but a welcome one in a city devastated by a terrorist massacre.  An influential Muslim trust has refused to bury the bodies of the nine terrorists who killed at least 174 people in Mumbai, declaring that they have no place in Islam.  The decision will mean that the dead terrorists will likely not find any burial sites in Mumbai, and that they will probably not get buried within the required three days

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Preventing The Possible

Last Wednesday a small group of at least 10 gunmen fanned out across the Indian city of Mumbai. [1] In coordinated assaults, they attacked areas frequented by foreigners, killing indiscriminately and taking hostages. The one gunmen captured so far has reportedly admitted to authorities that he [2] received training from Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States that has long fought an Islamic insurgency in Kashmir. While the rationale and responsibility for the attacks are still under investigation, the incident is not unprecedented and does raise questions about U.S. domestic security.

Since 9/11, the U.S. has become a much “harder” target for transnational terrorists. Luck isn’t the reason the U.S. has not been attacked since that day. In many respects, U.S. counterterrorism programs are working — and not just at home, either. While there has been a flare-up of terrorism in India and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, [3] a recent report by the Human Security Project shows that, globally, the trend in transnational terrorist attacks and the appeal of the radical Osama bin Laden agenda have been declining for several years.

Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to believe that all homeland security efforts will deny every attack every time. In particular, armed assaults and vehicle-borne explosive attacks are tactics that are not beyond the reach of any modestly funded and committed terrorist group. Attacks similar to the ones in Mumbai have plagued Russia since the 1990s. In 1995, 100 civilians died after Chechnyans captured a hospital in Budyonnovsk. In October 2002, 100 captives died when Russian special forces stormed a captured theater in Moscow. And in September 2004, 334 hostages died after a well-armed group of Chechnyans invaded a school in Beslan. Even the United States has not been immune from the danger of planned armed assaults. For instance, in August 2005, a Pakistani national was arrested as part of a terrorism investigation into a possible plot to attack the Israeli consulate, California National Guard facilities, and other targets in southern California.

No administration can guarantee it will stop every attack everywhere. But if our nation assumes the offensive, the U.S. can take the initiative away from the terrorists, lessen their chances of success, and mitigate the damage they cause. Consequently, [4] Washington should continue to:

  • Maintain valuable terrorism-fighting tools established under legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008.
  • Keep the Federal Emergency Management Agency as an integral part of the Homeland Security Department. When an explosion happens, the government cannot wait until it knows if the incident was a terrorist attack or an industrial accident. Rather, our nation needs to respond with alacrity, and that means taking an integrated “all-hazards” approach from the local to the national level.
  • [5] Enhance counterterrorism coordination with allies like India. Washington and New Delhi would both benefit by pooling their counterterrorism expertise and increasing joint activities to address regional and global terrorist threats.

Now is not the time to grow complacent about homeland security.

Article printed from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/01/morning-bell-preventing-the-possible/

URLs in this post:
[1] In coordinated assaults, they attacked areas frequented by foreigners, killing indiscriminately and taking hostages:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809281744967855.html?mod=article-outset-box

[2] received training from Lashkar-e-Taiba:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122805078242366995.html?mod=article-outset-box

[3] a recent report by the Human Security Project:
http://www.hsrgroup.org/

[4] Washington should continue to:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/wm2147.cfm

[5] Enhance counterterrorism coordination with allies like India:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm2146.cfm
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Activists Seek Revocation Of Tax Exempt Status Of Churches That Supported Prop 8

San Francisco Chronicle: Tax-Exempt Benefit Disputed in Prop. 8 Campaign, by Matthai Kuruvila
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wake Up

Andrew Breitbart writes:

Ironically, the Bollywood crowd is in the minority in India, where a majority approve of the U.S. behavior and more people like Mr. Bush than don't. Indians lean 45 percent to 34 percent in favor of Mr. Bush, according to a Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll taken earlier this year.

"I think, if you look at the public opinion polls, the ratings for President Bush are higher in India than in any other country. That is the factual basis," Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon explained.

That was true, too, in the U.S. until the American media's relentless propaganda against Mr. Bush finally took hold and took its toll. The real question is when the people who make the world's most popular form of entertainment finally accept the truth: that the Islamist threat is real, growing and won't go away when George W. Bush leaves the White House in January.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Birds Of A Feather?

Monsters of State

That may sound like a football team, but it may better describe a State Department headed by Hillary Clinton with Samantha Power working as a liaison to Barack Obama.  According to reports, Obama will announce just that combination today, putting together his chief opponent over the last two years with an adviser who famously described her as a “monster”.  But which of the two present the bigger danger?

Earlier, I wrote that the Scowcroftian direction of Obama’s foreign-policy choices represented a change in direction from his campaign rhetoric, and a welcome development. Power’s inclusion on the team represents something very different, and a threat to Israel. Let’s recall Power’s ideas about Israel

This should give us some insight into the foreign-policy objectives of Barack Obama, who had Power as an adviser from 2005 until the “monster” comment in March of this year. He didn’t bounce her from his team over her views on Israel and … well, let’s recall how she described the pro-Israel lobby:

Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.

For those who may not catch the reference, Power means the Joooooos.  And why would that alienate the Jewishcabalthatsecretlyrunseverything?  For one thing, Power wants to spend billions on bolstering Palestinian military strength, instead of spending it on helping the Israelis to defend themselves.  Bear in mind that this interview takes place about seven months after 9/11, when people supposedly still knew how dangerous radical Islamist groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda were.  Power wanted to send them money and stop funding Israeli efforts to fight them.

As I noted in early October, this clip has some remarkable insight into Power and her foreign-policy direction. First, she adopts the same conspiratorial thinking about the Jews in the US, as if we’d have no better reason to ally ourselves with a Western-style democracy in the Middle East.   Power then suggests that the West should stage a massive occupation of Israel to neutralize the IDF in favor of groups like Hamas as a policy to settle the Middle East conflict.

Sounds great … for the terrorists.

Obama didn’t kick Power off his team over these remarks.  He bounced her for calling Hillary a “monster”.  If Power gives any indication of Obama’s foreign policy direction, then Hillary won’t be the only one.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive