The Cool Blue Blog

Would We Get The Immigration Policy That We Need?

If you too remember McCain as a supporter of  a comprehensive immigration reform and can even recall his promise to make such a reform once he is elected president then I guess you don't really trust him to serve the needs and interests of America and the American people and lead much stronger policy on borders safety.

I know that I'm not alone in the expectation that the future president would solve the open borders situation with all the implications that it has on our society and economy. As Obama is certainly not the answer to the ongoing problem of the illegal immigration, I was really relived to hear that McCain decided to change his stance on the immigration issues and is now promising to act for securing the borders first.

From CNN Analysis:

On Wednesday night, McCain held a private meeting with more than 150 Chicago, Illinois-area Hispanic leaders.

According to The Associated Press, several people who were at the meeting said McCain assured them that he would push for comprehensive immigration reform if he's elected president.

In 2007, McCain's sponsorship of comprehensive immigration reform angered conservatives and very nearly derailed his presidential campaign.

At a Republican debate at the Reagan Library in January, McCain was asked whether he would still vote for his original measure.

"No, I would not ... because we know what the situation is today ... that people want the borders secured first," he said.

McCain's critics were reassured.

"The original proposal, I opposed. Sen. McCain's new proposal, I support, which is to ensure you have border security before you have any other type of reform," L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich said.

I know McCain is actually the only choice for all of the republicans out there and I agree with most of his positions. But if the immigration policies are deer to your heart I feel that we need to make sure that if and when he gets to the White House the actual policies that he leads on immigration issues would be the right ones.

written by Beverly from The Republican Online blog

Agent of Change

Back in 2006, when Democrats won the majority in both Houses of Congress, they did so partly on the promise of ethics reform. They campaigned heavily on the theme that the Republican Congress was mired in a Culture of Corruption

After railing for months against Congressional corruption under Republican rule, Democrats on Capitol Hill are divided on how far their proposed ethics overhaul should go.

Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, mindful that voters in the midterm election cited corruption as a major concern, say they are moving quickly to finalize a package of changes for consideration as soon as the new Congress convenes in January.

Their initial proposals, laid out earlier this year, would prohibit members from accepting meals, gifts or travel from lobbyists, require lobbyists to disclose all contacts with lawmakers and bar former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists from entering the floor of the chambers or Congressional gymnasiums.

But

None of the measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules. Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can anonymously insert into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from members in both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all.

Senator Barack Obama was tasked with spearheading the Democrats ethics proposals

“The dynamic is different now,” Mr. Obama said Friday. “We control both chambers now, so it is difficult for us to have an excuse for not doing anything.”

He is pushing to create an independent Congressional ethics commission and advocates broader campaign-finance changes as well. “We need to make sure that those of us who are elected are not dependent on a narrow spectrum of individuals to finance our campaigns,” he said.

In February of 2006, Senator John McCain sponsored a bill "that would require lobbyists to disclose more information on their activities, including the gifts they give lawmakers, double to two years the waiting period before a lawmaker can take a job as a lobbyist and require members to pay charter rates when they travel on corporate jets." Senator McCain included the freshman Senator from Illinois whose public statements indicated he would be good candidate to count on for the bipartisan reform package. And it is clear, McCain thought that he had private assurances from the Senator that he was indeed on board.

The problem is, the Democrats had no intention of passing such sweeping reform and when push came to shove, Obama bailed.

And Senator McCain got offended and he wrote the Senator from Illinois to tell him

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform were sincere," McCain writes.

Obama attended a meeting with McCain and senators committed to a bipartisan task force on ethics reform. McCain left the meeting convinced that Obama was open to working closely together, according to an aide....

"When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. ... I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again."

Senator McCain is no poser when it comes to ethics reform and porkbusting

In 1996, McCain was one of five senators, and the only Republican, to vote against the Telecommunications Act. He did it because he believed the act gave away too much to the telecommunications companies, and protected them from true competition. He noted that AT&T alone gave $780,000 to Republicans and $456,000 to Democrats in the year leading up to the vote....

In 2000, McCain ran for president and reiterated his longstanding opposition to ethanol subsidies. Though it crippled his chances in Iowa, he argued that ethanol was a wasteful giveaway....

In 2004, McCain launched a frontal assault on the leasing contract the Pentagon had signed with Boeing for aerial refueling tankers. McCain’s investigation exposed billions of dollars of waste and layers of contracting irregularity.

In 2005, McCain led the Congressional investigation into the behavior of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The investigation was exceedingly unpleasant for Republicans, because it exposed shocking misbehavior by important conservative activists.

In spite of all of this, Senator Obama has the audacity to question McCain's street creds in this area and in fact tired to paint him as a tool of lobbyists

Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, Sen. John McCain, has lobbyists as top aides and "many of them have been running their business on the campaign bus while they've been helping him."

The Democratic presidential hopeful also said McCain's health care plans reflect "the agenda of the drug and insurance lobbyists, who back his campaign and use money and influence to block real health care reform."

Obama was put in charge of ethics reform but when an opportunity to join a bipartisan working group presented itself, Obama chose partisanship which resulted in less ethics reform.

Obama now claims to be a man who can bring the country together; someone who knows how to be bipartisan; and he claims to be a leader in this regard. But to be bipartisan means that you sometimes have to piss off your "clan"; in this case the Democratic leadership. But Obama has not shown he can do that and in fact he record shows he can not do that.

McCain, as everyone knows by now, is willing to piss off his party when it means getting something done. The very quality that made his nomination iffy, is now the very quality that holds the seeds to undermine Senator Obama.

In every case where he had the opportunity to do the bipartisan heavy lifting he refused.

Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama did not partake in the Gang of 14’s bipartisan deal on judges while Mr. McCain was one of the Gang’s leaders. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never had his own Kennedy-McCain piece of legislation on immigration or any other issue that infuriated his base. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never had his anti-partisan equivalent to McCain’s policy stand against torture.

Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never lambasted the Secretary of Defense of his party’s own presidential administration for chronic incompetence. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never voted for environmental legislation that angered his fellow party members. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never cussed at people in his own party for sending loads of pork to their home district and state. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never principally voted against subsides for ethanol, even when it alienated members of his own party in politically significant Iowa.

When the time comes, and McCain and Obama are compared in the arena of change, Obama will fall far short of the mark.

When the time comes, and McCain and Obama are compared in the arena of bipartisanhip, Obama will fall far short of the mark.

When the time comes, and McCain and Obama are compared in the arena of leadership, Obama will fall far short of the mark.

When the time comes, and McCain and Obama are compared in the arena of Foreign Policy, Obama will fall far short of the mark.

So where will Obama make his stand.

 

Puppetmaster

Did you watch the US Embassy in Belgrade burn? Did the spectacle appear ominous?

The mostly-Muslim, mostly Albanian area of Serbia called Kosovo, over which President Clinton went to war to restrain Serbian ethnic-cleansing, has declared independence from greater Serbia. The US and most of Europe immediately recognized the new country and government.

Serbia, was not so happy.

And neither was Russia who sees the US and Europe rapidly winning former Soviet states over to their side.

Most understand that the Serbian government allowed the riots and the burning of the US Embassy.

"We have made known to the Serbian government our concern and displeasure that their police force did not prevent this incident," President George W. Bush's spokeswoman said....

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana stressed that Serbia had an "obligation" to protect embassies, and said talks with Belgrade on an accord that could lead to Serbia joining the 27-nation bloc would be put on ice.

I don't think Serbia much cares about joining the EU anymore and Serbia's close ally, Russia, couldn't be more ecstatic about having yet another of it's former states joining "the enemy".

More importantly, Russia is the Puppetmaster orchestrating this unrest in the heart of Europe.

Russia supplies missile and nuclear technology to Iran. When the US attempts to deploy a missile shield to Europe to protect them from Iran, Russia balks, claiming the missile defense is really targeting Russia.

Well, if you ask me, that's revealing if you consider Iran a proxy of Russia.

Russia supplies arms to America's enemies in Syria and Venezuela

Russia has made a strategic military alliance with China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan

And now Russia is fostering unrest in Europe which, if maintained, will further occupy NATO troops on European soil, providing less resources to quell Islamists in Afghanistan.

How will the Obama deal with Russia and Putin?

We already know that Democrats tried to cut funding for the missile shield, the very system that was just proved in a real world situation as being effective

This is not a situation for platitudes. Russia is seriously orchestrating a play for dominance, using the Islamist wild card whom they only barely control as their proxy.

This is very nuanced and complex global situation and from what I can tell, his Foreign Policy team is not up to the job.

Can we trust an inexperienced newcomer to the global sandbox with the challenges the next President will face?

The Change he brings could very well be the Change we have been trying to avoid since the end of the Second World War.

Threat Assessment

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell delivered to Congress a threat assessment

Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri continue to lead the terror group and focus on their strategic vision of confronting the United States and its allies with mass casualty attacks around the globe, McConnell said. “Although security concerns preclude them from the day-to-day running of the organization, bin Laden and Zawahiri regularly pass inspirational messages and specific operational guidance to their followers through public statements,” he explained.

He noted that there have been “no major attack against the United States or most of our European, Latin American, East Asia allies and partners.”

The retired Navy vice admiral said the fact that there were no attacks was not an accident; rather, U.S. intelligence officials worked with allied nations to unravel terrorist plots, he said. The United States and its allies continued to attack terror groups in the Middle East and Central Asia. Coalition allies in other parts of the world shared intelligence and actively worked against extremists.

"Not an accident" because the United States is being pro-active against the Islamists and not simply treating them as criminals to be arrested after the fact. They are being treated, and respected, as a deadly enemy whose intention is to destroy the United States and Europe.

Attacks worldwide against al Qaeda do take a toll on the terrorists, McConnell said. “The death last week of Abu Layth al-Libi, al Qaeda's charismatic senior military commander and a key link between al Qaeda and its affiliates in North Africa, is the most serious blow to the group’s top leadership since the December 2005 death of then-external operations chief Hamza Rabia,” he said.

Al Qaeda in Iraq suffered major setbacks in its drive to intimidate Iraqis and establish the country as al Qaeda’s base of operations and planning. The group can still mount lethal attacks in Iraq, but it is hurt, McConnell said.

“Hundreds of AQI leadership, operational, media, financial, logistical, weapons, and foreign fighter facilitator cadre have been killed or captured,” he said. “With much of the Sunni population turning against AQI, its maneuver room and ability to operate have been severely constrained.”

The number of al Qaeda attacks in Iraq dropped by more than half by the end of 2007. “We see indications that al Qaeda’s global image is beginning to lose some of its luster; nonetheless, we still face multifaceted terrorist threats,” he said.

Defeating Islamists, and most especially al Qaida is important because of their mythology. As I have pointed out previously

...in order to fight and sustain a religious war, you have to claim that God is on your side. And if God is on your side, then it follows that you will win: No matter the odds against you.

And even more specifically, if you are trying to convince people that blowing up innocent men, women and children is what God wants, against all sensibilities to the contrary, then you have better win to prove that God is on your side...

If the Islamists, the Jihadists, lose their moral authority; if it starts to appear that God is not on their side, then fewer people are going to sign up to kill innocent men, women and children, which is the only real weapon they have.

Every time they fight and lose it undermines their ability to claim that they are doing it for Allah. Because surely if Allah had sanctioned their behavior, they would win.

Pulling out of Iraq would be seen as validation of their argument. Degrading their capability with direct and indirect action everywhere they exist creates doubt in the mind of true-believers as well as, and most importantly, would-be recruits.

But they are a mortal enemy. They are not defeated, and they will adapt.

“While increased security measures at home and abroad have caused al Qaeda to view the West, especially the United States, as a harder target, we have seen an influx of new Western recruits into the tribal areas since mid-2006,” McConnell said. “We assess that al Qaeda’s homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic and infrastructure targets designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population.”

McConnell said conventional explosives probably will be the most probable al Qaeda attack scenario. “That said, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are attempting to acquire chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and materials,” he added. “We assess al Qaeda will continue to try to acquire and employ these weapons and materials; some chemical and radiological materials and crude weapons designs are easily accessible, in our judgment.”

The question for you is, which of the candidates for President are more likely to continue to undermine the mythology that supports the Islamists

And which are more likely to enhance it?