Castro: Tea Party means fascism for America

November 18, 2010

Call it a contrary endorsement: if this bloody-handed dictator is against the Tea Party movement, it must be a good thing:

Speaking to a group of students visiting Havana, former Cuban leader Fidel Castro accused the Tea Party of leading the United States towards “fascism.”

In his comments, Castro chided the United States as a “ruined nation” and derided the Tea Party as “extreme right.”

Forgetting for a moment that fascism is a product of the Left and is the opposite of everything the Tea Party stands for, I just have this sneaking feeling that, given their choice, many Cubans would prefer a Tea rather than a Communist Party, right about now.

(via Mark Hemingway)

Impeach Eric Holder

November 18, 2010

I warned last month that Eric Holder’s decision to try al Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani in a civilian federal court was a mistake and that the government’s case was in deep jeopardy. Well, those chickens have come home to roost:

A New York City jury acquitted alleged Al Qaeda accomplice Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani of all major terrorism charges in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the first trial of a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner in civilian court.

The Tanzanian was convicted on just one count of conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property and cleared of 276 counts of murder and attempted murder in the bombings that took 224 lives, including 12 Americans.

This is an incredible screw up that denies justice to the victims of those killed in the embassy bombings, and it was easily avoidable by using the military commission system set up by Congress for this very purpose. But Holder and Obama, with their hard-Left ideological axes to grind, had to “make a point” and show how they were different from that evil Bush adminstration.

I could go into a long rant here about the lousy situation the Holder and the administration have left us in through their incompetence, but Ed Morrissey beat me to the punch:

The administration is left with three choices in regards to Ghailani: announce that they will release him at the appointed date whenever his sentence ends, announce that they will hold him indefinitely without regard to the court’s ruling on the matter while referring the case back to a military commission despite his acquittals, or refuse to state which they will do and hope the issue falls to the next administration.  The first will mean that the US will knowingly release a master al-Qaeda terrorist with more than two hundred murders under his belt; the second will mean that the trial they staged was nothing but a sham.  And the third will be a cowardly dodge.

Such is the state in which Holder as Attorney General has left the US.  Either the US is so inept that it will eventually release a man who attacked two of its embassies abroad (which was an act of war by al-Qaeda) or that the DoJ may commit an impeachable act by knowingly submitting a defendant to double jeopardy, whether in this administration or a future administration.  By committing to the civilian criminal system and assigning judicial jurisdiction where it never belonged, those are the only options left.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

I’m already on record with my contempt for Attorney General Holder. If he had any sense of honor or even decency, he would resign immediately. If his boss had any sense of responsibility at all toward the duties of his office, he would fire Holder. Neither, I fear, is the case, for both are committed ideologues.

It falls, therefore, to the incoming Congress, to investigate the full range of AG Holder’s actions: not just the Ghailani trial, which is bad enough, but the department’s racially biased enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, its attempts to politically smear a sitting governor, the witch-hunt against CIA interrogators – all of it.

And, when the facts are laid bare, the House must bring articles of impeachment against Eric Holder and place him on trial before the Senate. Yes, I know a Democratic-controlled Senate would almost never convict him, but the exposure of his incompetence and misdeeds would almost certainly force him from office, regardless of a trial.

That would be a good thing for the Department of Justice and the nation as a whole.

LINKS: More from my blog-buddy, Sister Toldjah. Power Line discusses the failure option. Fausta is outraged.

UPDATE: From Big Peace, “They came within a hair’s breadth of losing the case entirely.” Jennifer Rubin calls it a debacle.

Refuse to be nannied? Then get ready to be sued.

November 18, 2010

This quote is part of a longer article on why the author won’t ever vote for Mitt Romney for president until he admits that RomneyCare was a mistake, but there’s a clip that is relevant to our future under Romneycare’s national cousin, ObamaCare. Mitt’s bad medicine:

No, this is all about policy, specifically Romneycare – which has thus far been the Big Dig of health care, except costs have risen faster.

Obamacare has the benefit of having not yet been fully implemented. It’s already hurting the economy and costing people their jobs, but the worst has yet to arrive. Well the Romneycare disaster is already upon us.

The highest health insurance costs, the highest medical costs and the fastest rising costs. Massachusetts has them all, thanks to Romney. And they’re getting worse.

Meanwhile the Herald reported yesterday that the folks at the beloved Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector created under Romneycare are “cracking down on more than 3,000 residents who are fighting state fines, and has even hired a private law firm to force the health insurance scofflaws to pay penalties of up to $2,000 a year.”

Big Brother is watching – and suing – you.

Emphasis added.

The same is almost inevitable under ObamaCare, because its universal coverage provisions require universal subscription, either through buying one of the government-approved (and more expensive) plans, or by paying a tax penalty fine for refusing to buy a plan. That’s the infamous individual mandate, which takes the unprecedented step of requiring citizens, as a condition for merely living, to engage in an economic activity whether they want to or not – and punishes you if you refuse. And it is unconstitutional.

But, the government has to have this money in order for ObamaCare to even have a snowball’s chance of working. It must take money from the more healthy, younger portion of the workforce that won’t need as much insurance to subsidize universal coverage for the remainder, which is likely to need more frequent and more expensive care. (Rationing comes into this, too, but that’s a separate issue.)

Thus, as costs increase under ObamaCare (and even the government says they will), pressure will mount to go after those who refuse to pay the fine,  as the article describes, and maybe even after those who game the system by paying the fine and then buying coverage only when they truly need it.

So, get ready. Not only will Uncle Sam tell you what kind of insurance you must buy and at what price, but he’ll probably sue you if you don’t play along.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)