The morale of rank and file ICE agents has virtually flatlined, for good reason - apparently the officers no longer can arrest and deport deserving candidates, thanks to that agency's taking of President Obama's unlawful declaration of amnesty for certain classes of illegal aliens (an action he took merely one year after publicly admitting he didn't possess that authority. Well, he seems to have invented some) and extending it to include virtually everyone, even those who obviously don't qualify under the already liberal definition of "Dreamers":
"[National ICE Council President Chris] Crane said a case involving a veteran ICE agent is a perfect illustration. The agent arrested an illegal who was not a “primary target.” The agent’s superior officers ordered the illegal released – even though he did not meet the criteria listed by the Dept. of Homeland Security.
The officer refused to follow orders and is now facing a three day suspension. The 35-year-old illegal immigrant with ten traffic violations was released." (All emphases ours)
Why even have a deportation process if it takes being a serial killer to qualify as a "primary target"?
When that drag-on-society criminal eventually smashes his vehicle into another car and kills someone (which happens all too often), the responsibility for those deaths will fall squarely on the heads of those who supposedly watch out for our "security".
Showing posts with label dictators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dictators. Show all posts
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Taking their ball and going home
"The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police."
(Washington Times)
This is a proudly raised middle finger to America by the feds in direct response to today's Supreme Court ruling allowing law enforcement officers to attempt to ascertain the immigration status of people already being investigated for other offenses whom they reasonably believe are in the country illegally. For instance, resident aliens under current Federal law must have their immigration papers with them at all times. Why is it so wrong, then, for police to investigate why someone given a ticket for a traffic violation or accident has no driver's license or ID that any normal citizen must produce, along with other indicators of unlawful immigration status?
Once again, as we have seen in so many other arenas (Defense of Marriage Act, internet gambling, marijuana, voter intimidation laws and unilaterally granting waivers to No Child Left Behind, among others), the Obama administration has basically abrogated its responsibility to enforce the laws on the books, this time by refusing to respond to calls for service from local police agencies who arrest illegal immigrants for committing other crimes.
We vehemently disagree with most of these statutes; the fact remains, however, that they are valid laws until repealed by Congress or stuck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and thus must be enforced the same as any other rule. Otherwise one rapidly experiences anarchy and chaos, which on second thought is probably exactly what Mr. Obama wants. That way he gets to swoop in and make up even more fanciful policies all on his own to ostensibly "clean up the mess", just like any other good tyrant.
(Washington Times)
This is a proudly raised middle finger to America by the feds in direct response to today's Supreme Court ruling allowing law enforcement officers to attempt to ascertain the immigration status of people already being investigated for other offenses whom they reasonably believe are in the country illegally. For instance, resident aliens under current Federal law must have their immigration papers with them at all times. Why is it so wrong, then, for police to investigate why someone given a ticket for a traffic violation or accident has no driver's license or ID that any normal citizen must produce, along with other indicators of unlawful immigration status?
Once again, as we have seen in so many other arenas (Defense of Marriage Act, internet gambling, marijuana, voter intimidation laws and unilaterally granting waivers to No Child Left Behind, among others), the Obama administration has basically abrogated its responsibility to enforce the laws on the books, this time by refusing to respond to calls for service from local police agencies who arrest illegal immigrants for committing other crimes.
We vehemently disagree with most of these statutes; the fact remains, however, that they are valid laws until repealed by Congress or stuck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and thus must be enforced the same as any other rule. Otherwise one rapidly experiences anarchy and chaos, which on second thought is probably exactly what Mr. Obama wants. That way he gets to swoop in and make up even more fanciful policies all on his own to ostensibly "clean up the mess", just like any other good tyrant.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Back on the horse
After going through several personal challenges over the last couple of years, we finally feel ready and able to devote some time and energy to this site. We apologize for taking so long to get our act together; it was unfortunately necessary to concentrate on our health and well-being instead of outside interests. Please pardon our dust as we get back up to speed, and we hope to once again earn your readership and trust. Onward, then.
Let's see, what sorts of events have occurred during our extended absence? Surely things have changed and the maddening situations about which we previously wrote no longer occur, right? Well, no, as a quick review of just today's news tells us:
1. The House Government and Oversight Reform Committee has this afternoon voted to hold Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder in contempt of that body for refusing to provide documents and emails pertaining to the "Fast and Furious" scandal, despite a last-minute (and surprise) assertion of executive privilege by President Obama (who as a Presidential candidate excoriated Bush 43 for doing the exact same thing).
Both men have previously stated (in the case of Mr. Holder, under oath) that they knew absolutely nothing until quite late in the game about this amateurish and stumblebum "operation" (in the view of many a thinly-disguised PR stunt that, had it somehow succeeded, would have been used as a propaganda tool to push for more gun control for law-abiding Americans) that has cost the lives of at least two American law-enforcement officers, not to mention those of countless innocent Mexican citizens. So, pray tell, exactly which of these highly sensitive communications between minions in the Executive Branch, concerning an operation about which this pair apparently hadn't a clue, need protection from Congressional oversight? Desperate measures indeed.
By the way, as far as we can determine not one person to date has lost their job over this utter debacle. It's good to be a Federal government employee.
2. A former head prosecutor in the Baltimore (wildly anti-lawful gun city in wildly anti-lawful gun Maryland) State's Attorney's office, the person who decided whether or not to go after people for gun crimes (and, judging by the comments to the story, an absolute jerk who insisted on charging otherwise law-abiding people to the max for such "crimes" as stopping for lunch in the city while in the middle of transporting an unloaded, cased firearm in their vehicle from Pennsylvania to North Carolina), was himself arrested last Friday night after cops stopped him for a traffic violation and discovered he had a loaded pistol in his car's center console:
"Matthew Fraling, 49, who spent 23 years as a city prosecutor and oversaw prosecutions of gun offenders for his final two years, was pulled over on Friday night at about 11:45 p.m. in the 2500 block of Guilford Ave. after an officer in an unmarked vehicle began following him.
The officer, Det. Kenneth Ramberg, wrote in charging documents that Fraling was pulled over after he crossed the center line, and he initially told the officer he did not have any weapons on him or in the vehicle. Ramberg asked Fraling to step out of the vehicle and again asked if there were any guns, and Fraling said he had one in the vehicle's center console for which he did not have a permit to carry."
We have to agree with one of the wags who commented - Mr. Fraling has undoubtedly now switched his position and whole-heartedly supports the idea of lawful firearm carry in the backwards state of our birth.
(h/t to NJT)
Let's see, what sorts of events have occurred during our extended absence? Surely things have changed and the maddening situations about which we previously wrote no longer occur, right? Well, no, as a quick review of just today's news tells us:
1. The House Government and Oversight Reform Committee has this afternoon voted to hold Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder in contempt of that body for refusing to provide documents and emails pertaining to the "Fast and Furious" scandal, despite a last-minute (and surprise) assertion of executive privilege by President Obama (who as a Presidential candidate excoriated Bush 43 for doing the exact same thing).
Both men have previously stated (in the case of Mr. Holder, under oath) that they knew absolutely nothing until quite late in the game about this amateurish and stumblebum "operation" (in the view of many a thinly-disguised PR stunt that, had it somehow succeeded, would have been used as a propaganda tool to push for more gun control for law-abiding Americans) that has cost the lives of at least two American law-enforcement officers, not to mention those of countless innocent Mexican citizens. So, pray tell, exactly which of these highly sensitive communications between minions in the Executive Branch, concerning an operation about which this pair apparently hadn't a clue, need protection from Congressional oversight? Desperate measures indeed.
By the way, as far as we can determine not one person to date has lost their job over this utter debacle. It's good to be a Federal government employee.
2. A former head prosecutor in the Baltimore (wildly anti-lawful gun city in wildly anti-lawful gun Maryland) State's Attorney's office, the person who decided whether or not to go after people for gun crimes (and, judging by the comments to the story, an absolute jerk who insisted on charging otherwise law-abiding people to the max for such "crimes" as stopping for lunch in the city while in the middle of transporting an unloaded, cased firearm in their vehicle from Pennsylvania to North Carolina), was himself arrested last Friday night after cops stopped him for a traffic violation and discovered he had a loaded pistol in his car's center console:
"Matthew Fraling, 49, who spent 23 years as a city prosecutor and oversaw prosecutions of gun offenders for his final two years, was pulled over on Friday night at about 11:45 p.m. in the 2500 block of Guilford Ave. after an officer in an unmarked vehicle began following him.
The officer, Det. Kenneth Ramberg, wrote in charging documents that Fraling was pulled over after he crossed the center line, and he initially told the officer he did not have any weapons on him or in the vehicle. Ramberg asked Fraling to step out of the vehicle and again asked if there were any guns, and Fraling said he had one in the vehicle's center console for which he did not have a permit to carry."
We have to agree with one of the wags who commented - Mr. Fraling has undoubtedly now switched his position and whole-heartedly supports the idea of lawful firearm carry in the backwards state of our birth.
(h/t to NJT)
Monday, March 21, 2011
Another presidential promise swirls down the drain
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"
...
"As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law."
Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, December 20, 2007, questioned in a Boston Globe interview about the possibility of his having to bomb Iran should he be elected.
Say what you will about President George W. Bush and the wisdom of invading Iraq (we didn't agree with the decision much either), but he at least sought and received Congressional approval before embarking on that course of action. Dear Leader simply took a few minutes out of his latest vacation in Rio to let us know about his "unilateral authorization" via a "presumptuous and flippant" radio announcement rather than a serious Oval Office address like President Bush chose to deliver in 2003.
Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner, who authored the above description of the president's quiet little weekend aside, further expounds on the president's pattern of shattering his campaign vows:
"This is a president who has repeatedly shredded the clear meaning of words in order to deny breaking promises he has clearly broken -- consider his continued blatant falsehoods on tax increases and his hiring of lobbyists."
It's nice to see that mainstream journalists are now finally beginning to notice that the Emperor is strutting around quite starkers. When will Dear Leader's legions of star-struck supporters (many of whom specifically voted for him because of his constant bashing of Bush on the war issue and his self-promotion as a person who wouldn't engage in the same sorts of acts) do the same?
...
"As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law."
Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, December 20, 2007, questioned in a Boston Globe interview about the possibility of his having to bomb Iran should he be elected.
Say what you will about President George W. Bush and the wisdom of invading Iraq (we didn't agree with the decision much either), but he at least sought and received Congressional approval before embarking on that course of action. Dear Leader simply took a few minutes out of his latest vacation in Rio to let us know about his "unilateral authorization" via a "presumptuous and flippant" radio announcement rather than a serious Oval Office address like President Bush chose to deliver in 2003.
Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner, who authored the above description of the president's quiet little weekend aside, further expounds on the president's pattern of shattering his campaign vows:
"This is a president who has repeatedly shredded the clear meaning of words in order to deny breaking promises he has clearly broken -- consider his continued blatant falsehoods on tax increases and his hiring of lobbyists."
It's nice to see that mainstream journalists are now finally beginning to notice that the Emperor is strutting around quite starkers. When will Dear Leader's legions of star-struck supporters (many of whom specifically voted for him because of his constant bashing of Bush on the war issue and his self-promotion as a person who wouldn't engage in the same sorts of acts) do the same?
Saturday, March 19, 2011
We won't be silenced
We received our first anonymous death threat the other day, courtesy of a cowardly supporter of Dear Leader:
"I like our president. I used to like you for good commentary on firearms rights. You do understand firearms rights, but you understand nothing else. I hope that ALL conservatives get killed soon. I have tried to reason with you before, and you were even open to discussion once, but now you are a pure, utter, nasty, cruel liar for the wingnuts who want to destroy the Constitution and American freedom.
I live in MN. Stay in AZ. If I find that you have come back up here, watch out; I have firearms too, I know how to use them, and you will not see me coming."
This rant is par for the course for the sorts of leftist thugs and bullies who loudly professed a desire for "civility" and "reasoned discourse" in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, at least until one politely disagrees with their views as well as their idol's political agenda. Then, as we see here, the gloves come off and their true tendencies in favor of censorship and intimidation once again bubble to the surface.
(By the way, thanks for ironically helping to make one of the anti-gun lobby's main arguments for them, numbnuts.)
This troll actually isn't as anonymous as he thinks he is. An alert friend of ours who works in IT has traced the IP address of the commenter, and it appears that our would-be silencer is a Minnesota state government worker (no big surprise there). Our attempt to further ID the person is ongoing.
We decided to do the responsible and prudent thing and report this matter to the Scottsdale Police Department, although we didn't think that action would do much good. Sure enough, Officer Johnson of that agency informs us that Zippy's rantings don't rise to the level of a "direct threat" (although it certainly seems that way to us), happens to be just "Internet talk" and thus we are completely on our own unless further specific statements or actions are made.
We do disagree with Officer Johnson's conclusion and will soon be escalating our criminal complaint to a higher pay grade at SPD, but in the meantime we are perfectly capable of self-protection and refuse to be cowed by this cheap threat. This behavior in our experience is typical of most Obama supporters, as they are intellectually incapable of defending their hero's socialist policies and so must resort to these types of thuggish behaviors out of infantile frustration.
Bullies such as this Obamanoid clown are the reason we fight so hard for the right of everyone in America to be able to lawfully carry firearms for self-defense purposes.
"I like our president. I used to like you for good commentary on firearms rights. You do understand firearms rights, but you understand nothing else. I hope that ALL conservatives get killed soon. I have tried to reason with you before, and you were even open to discussion once, but now you are a pure, utter, nasty, cruel liar for the wingnuts who want to destroy the Constitution and American freedom.
I live in MN. Stay in AZ. If I find that you have come back up here, watch out; I have firearms too, I know how to use them, and you will not see me coming."
This rant is par for the course for the sorts of leftist thugs and bullies who loudly professed a desire for "civility" and "reasoned discourse" in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, at least until one politely disagrees with their views as well as their idol's political agenda. Then, as we see here, the gloves come off and their true tendencies in favor of censorship and intimidation once again bubble to the surface.
(By the way, thanks for ironically helping to make one of the anti-gun lobby's main arguments for them, numbnuts.)
This troll actually isn't as anonymous as he thinks he is. An alert friend of ours who works in IT has traced the IP address of the commenter, and it appears that our would-be silencer is a Minnesota state government worker (no big surprise there). Our attempt to further ID the person is ongoing.
We decided to do the responsible and prudent thing and report this matter to the Scottsdale Police Department, although we didn't think that action would do much good. Sure enough, Officer Johnson of that agency informs us that Zippy's rantings don't rise to the level of a "direct threat" (although it certainly seems that way to us), happens to be just "Internet talk" and thus we are completely on our own unless further specific statements or actions are made.
We do disagree with Officer Johnson's conclusion and will soon be escalating our criminal complaint to a higher pay grade at SPD, but in the meantime we are perfectly capable of self-protection and refuse to be cowed by this cheap threat. This behavior in our experience is typical of most Obama supporters, as they are intellectually incapable of defending their hero's socialist policies and so must resort to these types of thuggish behaviors out of infantile frustration.
Bullies such as this Obamanoid clown are the reason we fight so hard for the right of everyone in America to be able to lawfully carry firearms for self-defense purposes.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Obama's true nature peeks through once again
"Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, 'No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.'"
Heaven forbid someone should actually scrutinize our president's pronouncements.
Yes, we imagine it would seem better, at least through the eyes of a would-be dictator such as Dear Leader, to be the autocratic ruler of a repressed populace rather than have to "deal" with free people while being hamstrung by such inconvenient restrictions as the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Heaven forbid someone should actually scrutinize our president's pronouncements.
Yes, we imagine it would seem better, at least through the eyes of a would-be dictator such as Dear Leader, to be the autocratic ruler of a repressed populace rather than have to "deal" with free people while being hamstrung by such inconvenient restrictions as the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
"Ruling" by favoritism and fiat
First we had Dear Leader ram his socialized medicine plan (that was supposed to apply equally to everyone) through Congress by using dead-of-the-night trickery, then he turned right around and exempted many of his friends and supporters (most notably Andy Stern and his union thugs at the SEIU, who donated $28 million to his campaign) from the Ponzi scheme's many onerous (and expensive) requirements.
Next, despite having the entire Obamacare law thrown out as unconstitutional by a federal judge, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its plan to continue implementing the legislation (under some kind of authority as yet unrevealed to us).
Now we find out that the very first project to be exempted from Obama's brand new end-run-around-Congress-imposed EPA mandates on "greenhouse gas" emissions will be a power plant that is purchasing two expensive gas-turbines from G.E., and by extension his good friend (and major campaign supporter and financial donor) Jeffrey Immelt, who is coincidentally Obama's new "jobs czar".
Tim Carney has the details on that one.
And, of course, we would be remiss if we didn't mention that Dear Leader's Department of the Interior has just been hit with a contempt of court citation for blatantly violating the law by continuing to block deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico despite a federal judge's specifically ordering them to not do so. We broke taxpayers now have to pay the legal fees for the oil companies because of that sanction. Thanks, Mr. President!
Isn't this sort of crass political cronyism and cherry-picking of winners and losers, along with the unilateral imposition of one's political will on the peasants regardless of what the other two branches of government have to say about it, the very hallmarks of a dictatorship?
Hope and change, indeed. "Change" into an authoritarian regime that the minor despots of the world can only marvel at with envy.
2012 simply can't get here soon enough. We only hope it's not too late for our republic.
Next, despite having the entire Obamacare law thrown out as unconstitutional by a federal judge, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its plan to continue implementing the legislation (under some kind of authority as yet unrevealed to us).
Now we find out that the very first project to be exempted from Obama's brand new end-run-around-Congress-imposed EPA mandates on "greenhouse gas" emissions will be a power plant that is purchasing two expensive gas-turbines from G.E., and by extension his good friend (and major campaign supporter and financial donor) Jeffrey Immelt, who is coincidentally Obama's new "jobs czar".
Tim Carney has the details on that one.
And, of course, we would be remiss if we didn't mention that Dear Leader's Department of the Interior has just been hit with a contempt of court citation for blatantly violating the law by continuing to block deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico despite a federal judge's specifically ordering them to not do so. We broke taxpayers now have to pay the legal fees for the oil companies because of that sanction. Thanks, Mr. President!
Isn't this sort of crass political cronyism and cherry-picking of winners and losers, along with the unilateral imposition of one's political will on the peasants regardless of what the other two branches of government have to say about it, the very hallmarks of a dictatorship?
Hope and change, indeed. "Change" into an authoritarian regime that the minor despots of the world can only marvel at with envy.
2012 simply can't get here soon enough. We only hope it's not too late for our republic.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Strikingly similar styles
Egypt basically shut down all Internet access to and from that country last night in an apparent last-ditch attempt to save the regime of Hosni Mubarak from being brought to an abrupt end by his long-suffering peasants.
Just four days ago, we here in America were informed of Dear Leader's wish for a similar "Internet kill switch" to be put into place for this country, one which would naturally be unconstitutionally out of the reach of any judicial oversight:
"A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a 'national cyberemergency,' and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year. (Emphasis ours)
Only despots (Mubarak) or wannabe-despots (Obama) express a desire to have absolute power with no governmental check against abuse at their disposal, all because they know what's best for the rest of us.
Reading the CBS story, we learn that if this legislation passes the president could pretty much call anything he wanted a "national cyberemergency", allowing him to flip that switch and take over privately-owned communications networks with impunity without fear of sanction or repudiation from a court of law, which is pretty much dictatorial-level power. This would leave Americans with no other recourse than to regain their electronic liberties by force.
How similar this sounds to what's going on right now in the streets of Cairo.
No wonder Joe Biden refuses to label Mubarak a dictator. His boss aspires to have the exact same level of complete control over our country's communications in a "crisis" to be determined solely by him, with no way for citizens to legally challenge that decision. The Vice President understandably doesn't want any of us citizens to confuse the president's agenda with that of a tinpot Third-World strongman.
Oops, too late.
Just four days ago, we here in America were informed of Dear Leader's wish for a similar "Internet kill switch" to be put into place for this country, one which would naturally be unconstitutionally out of the reach of any judicial oversight:
"A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a 'national cyberemergency,' and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year. (Emphasis ours)
Only despots (Mubarak) or wannabe-despots (Obama) express a desire to have absolute power with no governmental check against abuse at their disposal, all because they know what's best for the rest of us.
Reading the CBS story, we learn that if this legislation passes the president could pretty much call anything he wanted a "national cyberemergency", allowing him to flip that switch and take over privately-owned communications networks with impunity without fear of sanction or repudiation from a court of law, which is pretty much dictatorial-level power. This would leave Americans with no other recourse than to regain their electronic liberties by force.
How similar this sounds to what's going on right now in the streets of Cairo.
No wonder Joe Biden refuses to label Mubarak a dictator. His boss aspires to have the exact same level of complete control over our country's communications in a "crisis" to be determined solely by him, with no way for citizens to legally challenge that decision. The Vice President understandably doesn't want any of us citizens to confuse the president's agenda with that of a tinpot Third-World strongman.
Oops, too late.
Way to go again, Joe
"I would not refer to him as a dictator."
Good ol' Vice President Joe Biden, doing what he does best by running off at the mouth once again, this time about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has autocratically ruled that country since 1981 by keeping the country in a permanent "State of Emergency" and not allowing a multiparty election until 2005, after being heavily pressured by the rest of the world to have one.
Mubarak is generally acknowledged to have fixed that election, and he definitely had the runner-up jailed for forgery after he dared to protest about the rampant vote-rigging (America complained about that, at least). The press there is regularly muzzled, corruption is widespread and it's rumored that Mubarak's son Gamal is being groomed to take over the presidency once Hosni kicks off. If that's not a dictatorship we'd shudder to see what a real one looks like.
Let's let Parade magazine, which regularly features Mubarak as one of the "World's Worst Dictators" (he's currently Number 20) , inform us about this man's regime from his previous mentions on that list:
"According to the U.S. State Department, Mubarak has the ability to transfer any criminal case from the civilian judicial system to a military court, and the use of torture by his officials is common. In recent months journalists have been jailed for 'insulting the president.'" (2007 ranking)
...
"The use of torture in Egypt has been widely documented. In response to international pressure, Mubarak allowed local elections in 2008, but in 80% of the contests, his party’s candidates ran unopposed. He made it so difficult to register or campaign that turnout was estimated at only 3%." (2010 ranking)
The Egyptian people have some very real reasons to be rioting in the streets. They want to be free. Biden, alas, can only offer up the following mush-mouthed pap in reaction:
"Biden urged non-violence from both protesters and the government and said: 'We’re encouraging the protesters to – as they assemble, do it peacefully. And we’re encouraging the government to act responsibly and – and to try to engage in a discussion as to what the legitimate claims being made are, if they are, and try to work them out.'"
Got that? If any of the peasants' grievances are legitimate. As Dan Murphy of the Monitor article opines,
"Egypt's protesters, if they're paying attention to Biden at all, will certainly be wondering which of their demands thus far have been illegitimate."
Word.
We don't care how much of a "good neighbor" in the Middle East Egypt has been for us. The U.S. should not prop up dictators as part of its foreign policy. Period.
Good ol' Vice President Joe Biden, doing what he does best by running off at the mouth once again, this time about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has autocratically ruled that country since 1981 by keeping the country in a permanent "State of Emergency" and not allowing a multiparty election until 2005, after being heavily pressured by the rest of the world to have one.
Mubarak is generally acknowledged to have fixed that election, and he definitely had the runner-up jailed for forgery after he dared to protest about the rampant vote-rigging (America complained about that, at least). The press there is regularly muzzled, corruption is widespread and it's rumored that Mubarak's son Gamal is being groomed to take over the presidency once Hosni kicks off. If that's not a dictatorship we'd shudder to see what a real one looks like.
Let's let Parade magazine, which regularly features Mubarak as one of the "World's Worst Dictators" (he's currently Number 20) , inform us about this man's regime from his previous mentions on that list:
"According to the U.S. State Department, Mubarak has the ability to transfer any criminal case from the civilian judicial system to a military court, and the use of torture by his officials is common. In recent months journalists have been jailed for 'insulting the president.'" (2007 ranking)
...
"The use of torture in Egypt has been widely documented. In response to international pressure, Mubarak allowed local elections in 2008, but in 80% of the contests, his party’s candidates ran unopposed. He made it so difficult to register or campaign that turnout was estimated at only 3%." (2010 ranking)
The Egyptian people have some very real reasons to be rioting in the streets. They want to be free. Biden, alas, can only offer up the following mush-mouthed pap in reaction:
"Biden urged non-violence from both protesters and the government and said: 'We’re encouraging the protesters to – as they assemble, do it peacefully. And we’re encouraging the government to act responsibly and – and to try to engage in a discussion as to what the legitimate claims being made are, if they are, and try to work them out.'"
Got that? If any of the peasants' grievances are legitimate. As Dan Murphy of the Monitor article opines,
"Egypt's protesters, if they're paying attention to Biden at all, will certainly be wondering which of their demands thus far have been illegitimate."
Word.
We don't care how much of a "good neighbor" in the Middle East Egypt has been for us. The U.S. should not prop up dictators as part of its foreign policy. Period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
