Chicago Republicans

This past month the President showed us another talent of his, something he's really quite good at - distraction.  Magicians refer to distraction as, "misdirecting the audience's attention to perform your secret moves without notice."  While sitting down with Sgt. Crowley, Professor Gates and VP Biden, BO tried his best to focus our attention off the major issues of the day.  Whether it be ObamaCare, a 2nd Stimulus Bill, canceling missile defense development while North Korea launches missiles, offering for the umpteenth time negotiate with Al-Qaeda or anything else on his far-left agenda, he's done his best to have us look this way while he's doing something else that way.

Fortunately, some news outlets are calling him out on the above issues - primarily Fox News and, in fairness, to some extent, CNN and the Washington Post.  While all of the above noted issues are important, I haven't seen much coverage, anywhere, of another issue that seems to have fallen off the radar - the closing of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.  On January 22, 2009 BO signed an Executive Order to close Guantanamo within one year.

On May 22, 2009, the US Senate effectively halted the President's plan by voting to keep the facility open, indefinitely, and refusing to fund the transfer of any prisoners to the US mainland until the Administration produced a "coherent plan for closing the prison."  Be honest - do you remember hearing about this on any major news outlet?  This was a MAJOR defeat for the President.  Of course, at the time of the vote, the Senate expected the so called Terror Policy Report within a month.

Last week the Administration quietly announced it had not yet completed the plan even though a six-month self-imposed deadline had come and passed.  Administration officials have stated the President granted a six-month extension.  This means the report on how to detain, interrogate and transfer to American or foreign soil suspected terrorists isn't even due, let alone to be implemented, AFTER the deadline BO set Guantanamo's closure.

This should be major news, but it's not "sexy" compared to the outrage over ObamaCare or the ridiculousness of the staged beer event.  A cornerstone of The Apologizer's campaign was the closing of Guantanamo Bay, now, even as President with a Democratic majority in Congress, he can't accomplish it.  We should all be grateful, Obama has stumbled yet again and we may be a lot safer for it.

Sources:

AP sources: Gov't delays terror policy reports

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_guantanamo

"Senate Nixes Obama's Guantanamo Plan" http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/05/20/obama-guantanamo.html

http://www.magicwhiz.com

A turning point in how I viewed the mainstream (now state run, effectively) media came during the very early 1990s.  I was home sick from work and happened upon C-SPAN, for some reason I watched.  A few days before, the media pulverized V.P. Dan Quayle for not knowing southwestern U.S. geography.  It seemed like he'd just been hammered for spelling potato with an "e" at the end.  Remember that incident?

I'd heard, and been razzed by friends and acquaintances, that our V.P. thought Phoenix was in California.  I soon saw a clip, on the news, where he said (paraphrasing), "I love being in southern California, I just love California.  I grew up in Phoenix."  Fast forward a few days to being home sick.  The Office of the V.P. held a press conference, broadcast on C-SPAN,  to explain this incident.  I wondered how they'd worm their way out of this one.  They simply declared they wanted to set the record straight and then ran the video clip of the now infamous statement.  I watched the same clip as he said (again, paraphrasing), ""I love being in southern California, I just love California.  I grew up in Phoenix, though, most people don't know that."

My jaw dropped and for a moment I forgot about my sore throat, stuffy nose, chills and pounding headache.  Had the media been that deceptive to take a clip and fail to show the last few words just to make him look stupid?  The answer had to be "Yes!".

Fast forward almost two decades to this year's Gridiron Club dinner in D.C.  V.P. Biden filled in for the President and, per Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, declared that a secret bunker under his residence would keep him safe in the event of an attack.  He boasted that's where Cheney went the morning of 9/11.  Ms. Clift reports this on her Newsweek blog.

To be fair, I'll note that the V.P.'s office issued this statement, "What the Vice President described in his comments was not -- as some press reports have suggested -- an underground facility, but rather, an upstairs workspace in the residence."  So, does that mean our V.P. is so stupid he doesn't know the difference between a second floor office and an underground bunker?

How many of you heard this story reported on the news?  I saw it only on Fox News and, obviously, in Newsweek.  Don't get me wrong, revealing the secret, secure location of where the V.P. of the United States would be kept safe during an attack might be considered treason.  However, if the V.P. publicly declares it, I say it is fair game.  Where are the media declarations of how stupid Joe Biden is for doing this or for not knowing the difference?  Dan Quayle misspells a word and then the media deliberately alters, by omission, something he said to make him look foolish but they say almost nothing about revealing the V.P.'s bunker.  Sad, shameful but, sadly, not surprising.

Sources:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/15/shining-light-on-cheney-s-hideaway.aspx

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/19/cheney-s-mystery-room.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/

What does it really mean to be a Republican? The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is a perfect opportunity for Republicans to explain the core principles we are supposed to believe in. Rather than being contrary for contrary's sake, it is a time to educate the nation, the state and wavering Republicans that it is our adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law that provides for the real intellectual freedom and diversity that defines our party. This nomination can help define one of the first components of the Republican "sniff test" as we legitimately examine Judge Sotomayor's record. Unless there is some ghastly misstep, Obama will probably get his nominee through but that does not mean we can't use this opportunity to express what we stand for. Obama campaigned on the idea that judges should be persons of "empathy" who should know what it feels like to grow up poor, be a mother, be a minority, etc. and who would "actively" interpret the law to achieve "just" results. We now have a chance to confront him on what our Constitution stands for and what the separation of powers truly means. We now have a chance to act like Republicans.

"Being Republican" is an important question, not only facing the future of the party nationally but in defining our existence in Illinois. We see the debate emerging about the contrasting roles of Colin Powell and Dick Cheney. The local reaction to Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame has brought up the roles of conservatives and moderates on the issue of life and their places in the party. Cook County Democratic candidates (I have heard through the grapevine) are considering running as Republicans, not because of republican principles, but to have a better shot at winning against an incumbent Democrat (kind of a reverse-Specter). Are there certain minimum principles that one must hold to be able to be called a Republican? In Illinois, we run a real risk of abandoning our core principles when we allow Democrats to put on our hat. What are those principles that we should expect from each of our candidates? Limited exercise of government power, the rule of and equal application of the law, adherence to the Constitution, equality of opportunity (not results), protection of innocent life and a fundamental commitment to individual self-realization. When applied, we expect lower taxes, abolishing punitive measures for success, fair and honest judges and lawmakers, security both locally and nationally and the freedom to express our opinions and views. Just running on a platform on lowering taxes is not enough, otherwise our party just becomes "Democrat-lite" or worse, the Democrat alternative for those who can't run with "D" by their name.

There are many out there clamoring for Republicans to become more "moderate" and in doing so abandon some of our core principles. We see this most often in the areas of life, abortion, the environment and education. Let me tackle the elephant in the room, life, since it is the best example of how we might let perception blur our principles. There are some that accuse "pro-lifers" of marginalizing the party. This is a huge mistake and it plays right into the Democrat strategy of dividing the party. What is at the core of Republican principles is not just the protection of innocent life, but the means and process by which we do so. Putting aside the question of when does life begin and when does it acquire rights and warrant protection, Republicans believe that the means for addressing this lie in science, religion and the hands of the people not government. This is essential for Republicans on both sides to agree on. Under Democrat principles, these questions are decided in the courts, by unelected, and in some sense, undereducated judges - single individuals making decisions that effect whole communities. Or they are decided by the executive branch, either by order or through an agency or commission such as the HHS, HUD, FCC, EPA, entrusted with administering a policy or overseeing regulations. This should trouble all Republicans, even those who are "pro-choice", that those who do not represent the will of the people, who are not experts nor accountable through election are making those decisions. On this Republicans can and should be united. The anger should not be directed at those who disagree on when life begins and how it should be protected, but against those who seek to control the issue in the courts, the media, through regulation and policy, but not law. This applies not only to life, but to other "social" issues that given a diverse society will always be "debatable". Recently, our courts and the EPA, not science, have defined carbon emissions generally as pollutants. In California, it took a federal appeals court to uphold the voters' support of Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, by overturning a lower activist court. This is why the review of Sotomayor's record and the questioning of her judicial philosophy is so critical to reinforcing Republican political values. We have before us a judge who has openly described her role has looking out for the consequences of her decision. Rather than applying the law, as depicted by our lady Justice who holds the Scales while blindfolded, she sees the role of a judge to use the law to manipulate a desirable result. This is in contradiction to our Constitution and violates the separation of powers defined by it. We owe it to ourselves and our nation to stand up for our principles no matter how ineffectual that task may seem.