Identifying the Threat...Or Not

Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman (I) attacked the Obama administration today for stripping terms like "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic radicalism" from the US National Security Strategy document. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the report identified that the primary struggle was against " militant Islamic radicalism". Lieberman wrote a letter to top counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan on Friday stating that the administration "identify accurately the ideological source" of the threat against the US. He also stated that failing to identify Islamic radicalism as the enemy is offensive to followers of Islam around the world.

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamic extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

Lieberman also said that this is not the first time the Obama administration has "tip-toed" around Islam. In the administration's review of the Fort Hood shooting, the shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, was never referred to as a radical Islamic extremist. The term was still omitted after the administration learned the Hasan had contact with a radical cleric beforehand.

Lieberman ended by stating "unless we are clear about who we are fighting, it's counterproductive and we won't be able to defeat this enemy."


Common Sense- This completely blows my mind. How can you remove the main threat to our freedom from a key document such as this? Make no mistake, radical extremist Muslims are the greatest threat to this country. And how about our Islamic allies around the world? By not identifying Islamic radicals as a threat, it may appear the US accuses all followers of Islam of being a danger. I do understand that there are other terrorists, domestic and foreign, that want to harm the US. But the largest threat to America still remains these Islamic radicals. Therefore, once again, why remove that term from a key security document? It would be like omitting the term Communists/Communism from security documents during the Cold War. Communism was the greatest threat to this country and no administration removed the term from their security documents. It may just be me but I think Mr. Obama and his administration have completely lost sight of who our enemies are.

Pray for Poland

As I'm sure many of you have heard by now, Poland's President Lech Kaczynski, his wife Maria, and many other key military and civilian leaders were killed when the presidential plane crashed this morning. Here is a list of the other leaders that were killed:

Ryszard Kaczorowski -- last president of the anti-Communist government-in-exile in London, 1989-90. The government-in-exile was set up after the prewar Warsaw government was forced to flee the Nazis in 1939.

Aleksander Szczyglo -- head of the National Security Office and former defense minister

Pawel Wypych -- presidential aide

Mariusz Handzlik -- presidential aide

Jerzy Szmajdzinski -- deputy parliament speaker and former defense minister

Andrzej Kremer -- Deputy Foreign Minister

Gen. Franciszek Gagor -- head of the army chief of staff

Andrzej Przewoznik -- minister in charge of WWII memorials

Slawomir Skrzypek -- head of the National Bank of Poland

Janusz Kurtyka -- head of the National Remembrance Institute, a state body that investigates communist-era crimes

Przemyslaw Gosiewski -- lawmaker

Zbigniew Wassermann -- lawmaker

Grzegorz Dolniak -- lawmaker

Janusz Kochanowski -- civil rights commissioner

Bishop Tadeusz Ploski -- army chaplain



President Kaczynski and his wife, Maria


My deepest condolences go out to the victim's families, the Polish military and government, and the Polish people. This is an international tragedy and the world mourns with Poland. Please pray for the country of Poland and its people that they may be comforted during this time of sorrow.



Mourners gather in front of the Presidential Palace in Warsaw, Poland to pay tribute to the late President Kaczynski and his wife, Maria.


"The world is full of suffering, it is also full of overcoming it."- Helen Keller

-SGS

Justice Stevens Retirement and a Look at the Candidates

Today, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. This gives President Obama his second Supreme Court Justice nomination. Stevens was appointed by President Ford shortly after the Watergate scandal and is the Supreme Court's longest serving member. Stevens is also the leader of the liberal bloc on the court. He is scheduled to retire in late June/early July.

Stevens has been planning to retire since last summer and sent his letter of resignation to President Obama today. Stevens stated "that it would be in the best interests of the court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the court's next term" which begins in October. But who is Stevens kidding? He really wants to retire before the next court term starts so that President Obama still has a Senate majority before the November midterm elections. The November midterms may reduce the Democrat's majority. With the Senate majority in place, Obama should have no real problem with the confirmation hearings.
I am not trying to discredit Justice Stevens term on the bench but I just find it a rather odd decision to retire before the midterm elections so that there is plenty of time for confirmation hearings.

There are three leading candidates to fill the Justice Stevens position. They are:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49
Federal Appellate Judge Merrick Garland, 57
Federal Appellate Judge Diane Wood, 59

Let's take a look at these candidates more closely.




Solicitor General Elena Kagan- Former professor and dean of Harvard Law School; Domestic policy aide to President Clinton. She was very successful at calming down the faculty and for bringing in many conservatives to the college. She has already passed one Senate confirmation hearing to become Solicitor General. There are some concerns with Kagan. First, many state her lack of experience as a judge and, therefore, has no "paper trail" for her views. Another concern with Kagan is her decision as dean of Harvard Law School where she banned military recruitment on the campus to protest the passage of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" homosexual policy in the military, claiming the latter violated the First Amendment.



Federal Appellate Judge Diane Wood- Former University of Chicago law professor; Anti-trust expert in the Clinton Justice Department; Appointed to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) by President Clinton in 1995. Wood is by far the most liberal of all three candidates. Therefore, she may face a lot of difficulty in her confirmation hearings if chosen. She is a very strong pro-choice advocate and has even argued against bans on partial-birth abortions. Some conservatives claim that she has disregarded Supreme Court precedents. Others claim that she may push for the removal of "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the approval of same-sex marriages.




Federal Appellate Judge Merrick Garland- In 1989, Garland left a law firm to become a federal prosecutor in Washington D.C. He supervised a variety of civil, criminal, and national security matters in the Clinton Justice Department, including initial proceedings against Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. He was later appointed to the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals. Garland is a moderate Democrat who is applauded by both Democrats and Republicans and seems the most likely to face little difficulty in the confirmation hearings.

There are many other questions facing President Obama: Should he appoint a strong liberal, like Stevens, or a more moderate candidate? Should he appoint a Protestant (Wood) or someone of Jewish background (Kagan/Garland)? Does he risk appointing the first homosexual to the Supreme Court (Kagan)?

Common Sense- I think former Attorney General Edward Meese said it best when talking about the retirement of Justice Steven's and Obama's appointment:

"Never has it been more important in our nation’s history that the next Supreme Court justice be a person with a proven commitment to the original meaning of the Constitution and laws as they are written. Many laws being passed and issues being raised in Washington will likely require judicial scrutiny in the coming years. It is critical that the life-tenured justices who will decide these cases will not bend the law to favor a political ideology or personally held belief, but rather interpret our framework as it is written."

President Obama MUST choose a candidate who decides based on the law of the land, not on personal beliefs or political ideology. Therefore, if I HAVE to make a choice out of these candidates, I would go with Judge Merrick Garland. He seems the least controversial, is applauded by both parties, and has the experience to make intelligent decisions based on the Constitution. In my opinion, if Obama wants to avoid political suicide in the midterms elections and in his bid for re-election, he should choose Garland or someone similar.

-SGS

Nuclear Treaty Signed but How Safe are We?

Today, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the new START treaty, which reduces both the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals. Of course, both celebrated the treaty as a landmark piece. However, many, myself included, wondered what the treaty would do to stop terrorist groups or rogue nations, like Iran and North Korea, who don't recognize such treaties. President Obama stated "Those nations that refuse to meet their obligations will be isolated, and denied the opportunity that comes with international integration." I don't know about you but that doesn't make me feel safe. "Deny the opportunity for international integration"? Why should we even allow such groups or nations that chance to integrate into the international community? In my opinion, you shut these terrorist groups and rogue nations down before they can even get their hands on nuclear weapons AND you build up your nuclear arsenal in case, God forbid, one of them does get their hands on one. He also stated that those nations that do agree to the treaty will "not be threatened by American arsenals." Iran continues to take steps towards its nuclear program while the United States and four other countries (Great Britain, France, Russia, and China) consider stronger sanctions against Iran. Despite the celebration, former Ambassador Richard Burt stated that the treaty takes "very small steps towards further reductions". The treaty will reduce the nuclear warhead limit to 1,550 per country over seven years, a third less than what is currently permitted (2,200). The US plans to announce the start of the disarmament in May at the UN.

However, there is another problem with Mr. Obama's new treaty. Hours before the treaty was signed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow that the Kremlin reserves the right to back out of the treaty anytime he feel the US missile defense system is a threat. The Russians have numerously said already they believe our missile defense system does serve as a threat. As New York University professor Stephen Cohen stated "it is a politically unstable treaty". Also, the Russians have a historical record of violating nuclear arm control agreements and have already stated building up their arsenals, unlike the US. President Obama's nuclear weapon agenda is ridiculous. By having a smaller, less reliable, less creditable nuclear arsenal, nations around the world will have more incentive to increase their own nuclear arsenals. The Wall Street Journal stated today that the reason more countries haven't gone nuclear is because the US has been a nuclear power, not a treaty. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Canada could all build bombs in a week. Instead, they have relied on the US as a nuclear power to deter aggressors.

Common Sense- I believe this treaty does nothing to stop the nuclear arms race that still goes on to this day. The treaty does nothing to prevent terrorist groups or rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. If anything, it increases their will to get them. With a less powerful nuclear country, such as the US, around, these groups and countries will feel less threatened. Along with that, other countries, like Canada or Japan, will increase their nuclear arsenals to protect themselves since the US may not be able to. The treaty also allows Russia to back out of the treaty if they feel threatened by the US and possibly reignite the Cold War.

-SGS

"Common sense is as rare as genius- it is the basis of genius."- Ralph Waldo Emerson.


"After Treaty, US Confronts Threat of Terrorists Acquiring Nuclear Materials"- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/08/treaty-confronts-threat-terrorists-acquiring-nuke-materials/

"Obama's False START"- http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/08/morning-bell-obamas-false-start/

Beginning Thoughts

First, thank you for visiting my blog. I welcome all comments, questions, and concerns as along as they are polite and non-violent (eg. no foul language or threatening). Although I am a proud conservative, I welcome all political views as I, and everyone should, try to keep an open mind. With that being said, please keep in mind that my views are of a conservative nature although I consider myself to be somewhere between a moderate-conservative Republican. I hope you enjoy my site and hope you visit often!

-SGS