WhatFinger


Dr. Tony Magana

Dr. Tony Magana was raised in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M;University, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. He has served in the United States Army Reserve. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

Most Recent Articles by Dr. Tony Magana:

Obama’s Growing Credibility Gap

The failing Afghanistan/Pakistan policy and growing trillion dollar deficit spending already seen in the first 100 days of the Obama Presidency naturally draw comparison to another President whose ambitious beginning was marred by an analogous credibility gap that ultimately rejuvenated the Conservative movement.
- Wednesday, April 29, 2009

U.S. Must Secure Antiviral Drug Stockpiles

The potential onset of a world-wide deadly epidemic of swine flu and the likely significant shortage of antiviral drugs which are mostly stockpiled in the United States require that the President first act to insure that sufficient supplies of the drug are assured for the American public before releasing American strategic stockpiles to other countries who have planned poorly.
- Monday, April 27, 2009

The Cozy Obama GE Relationship

The symbiotic relationship between President Barack Obama and General Electric is not just about a liberal minded media helping a like mind, but increasingly it is being revealed about how one of the largest corporations in the world bought the Presidency of the United States. The late President Eisenhower, a Republican, warned America about the influence of the military-industrial complex as he recognized that large corporations ability to wield decisive influence on government had become a reality more than fifty years ago. President Obama received more corporate contributions from Wall Street and other major corporations than any candidate in history but for one of them he is especially beholding.
- Sunday, April 26, 2009

National Security Crisis and Presidents

Controversy in the actions taken by government during periods of an acknowledged threat to national security traditionally have been seen as a part of the political process when viewed by subsequent administrations and society. We are just now learning the facts about interrogation of terrorists captured by the United States. One thing is clear, there are some who are trying to gain political favor or demean political opponents by maliciously misrepresenting who was really involved and are quite wrongly questioning the motives of a former President to protect his country. There is a historical precedent of reflection and correction rather than criminalization that should apply. The attempt to criminalize the political process including the application of ex post facto selective prosecution of only political rivals is an unprecedented shock wave to the American tradition. Since the events of 2002 there have been elections, changes in federal law, and court rulings that cannot be considered relevant in application to judging the legal propriety of the decisions collectively made by the executive and legislative branches of the federal government and both political parties as regards interrogation of enemies of the United States in the year following the 9/11 attack. Following the 9/11/2001 attack on the United States as noted global intelligence expert, George Friedman, wrote recently, the lack of intelligence American officials had on the true terrorism threat lead to great fear among both the public and government officials. There was some evidence that a second round of attacks could occur including the use of some type of weapon of mass destruction. The success of the attack on New York and Washington demonstrated that a status quo reliance on the existing intelligence community was unacceptable. Again as Friedman writes the highest priority for the United States was to “collect intelligence information rapidly.” The United States has faced a similar situation before, following the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan in 1941, the Democratic President so heralded today as the model for Obama, passed Executive Order 9066 which resulted in the dislocation of American citizens and legal residents without any due process and labeled them as enemies. The action was widely supported by Democrats including the California Attorney General, Earl Warren, who would later become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Today, of course, it is widely accepted by all Americans that the actions Roosevelt took where unconstitutional and morally wrong. The injustices that occurred to American citizens who committed no crimes or any wrong doing were never prosecuted as a crime. Neither Roosevelt or anyone involved with this ugly part of American history has ever been substantially judged for this action. Historians look at this action as failure of the collective United States together and thus do not put the blame on the American leaders. Which was a greater wrong giving pain to terrorists or jailing American citizens? Compare this with the situation facing the Bush administration in 2001-2002. Just like Roosevelt, President Bush did not know what was coming next. There were minimal tools available for him to get information but in his custody was a known planner of the 9/11 attack. Was the pressure he felt any less severe or the responsibility any less than that faced by Roosevelt in 1942? Even assuming his actions were wrong should he be judged any differently than Roosevelt who history has given a unqualified pass? A Pew Research Study has continually looked at the attitude of Americans towards torture. During the period of 2004 to 2007 when many revelations were surfacing in the press about possible torture by the government of captured terrorists no more than 1/3 of those surveyed said that torture can never be justified to gain information to protect the United States. Certainly by 2007 most of the American public was aware that significant events that could be called torture had occurred to enemies of the U.S. in custody but still a majority of Americans, in fact, 2/3 of those polled still favored the practice. This was the reality in which the leaders of the American government were functioning. However, the release of a letter from the Attorney Generals’ Office to the Senate Intelligence Committee which declassifies some of the inner workings on the approach of the federal government to the torture issue reveals that knowledge of the actions clearly extended to Democratic leaders of Congress including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Diane Feinstein in 2002. One of the most emergent issues deals with the concept that leading Justice Department officials, John Yoo and Attorney General Gonzales, violated their legal responsibilities by supervising lawyers to write legal opinions which justified actions of torture. Those who making these charges cite as precedent the Nuremberg trials of Nazi Jurists following World War II. Of course these trials dealt with wrongful violations of life, liberty, and property of citizens by their own government. This is markedly different than the infliction of temporary pain without evidence of any lasting harm on a known enemy of the United States. Why was there no Nuremberg trial of American Democratic attorneys who supported Japanese internment? If the Justice Department attorneys were willfully breaking their sacred code of ethics than why is the American Bar Association not taking action against them. The clearly liberal and one would argue most expert authority on legal behavior of attorneys does not say anything until 2004 when they made a political statement asking for banning of torture. William H. Neukom, President, American Bar Association in an Op-Ed on the ABA website waited to call on Congress until August of 2007 to pass “new legislation”. This implies that they felt that the language of existing law regarding torture was inadequate and required new laws and very importantly does not imply that the incumbent justice department officials were wrongly interpreting or enforcing existing law outside the norm of accepted professional behavior. The American legal system has always held that an attorney who advocates for a particular opinion in good faith is implicitly doing so until a court opinion or change of law occurs. Once either of these events occur then the lawyer’s responsibility is to adapt his counsel to the new reality which is exactly what happened in the Justice Departments opinion. Those on the left would have the system of law in the United States go from one based on precedence and continual clarification by the legislative process to the archaic socialistic Napoleanic system of Europe. The reality is that the definitions of torture which currently exist were not established until the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In the course of American history there have been times when the American government and the public have been tested during a national crisis. We are not a perfect people or a perfect country and often times political figures have acted in a manner that reflects the will of the population. Transferring all the guilt of the injustice done to Japanese Americans during World War II to President Roosevelt would be wrong. He was acting in manner consistent with the majority of public opinion but gradually over time that opinion changed.This does not excuse or some may say forgive the grave injustice he created. Whether we like it or not the truth is that in times of national crisis more often than not our leaders have reacted in the way the public expected them. This is inherent in a democracy. The administration of President Bush just as Roosevelt was motivated to protect the United States and clearly acted in concert with the majority of public opinion. The gravity of the offense of President Roosevelt by any reasonable standard would be many times worse than that of President Bush if you believe Bush was wrong. I strongly suspect that evidence will be eventually released that indicates that at least one life, but more likely many more, was saved by the interrogations carried out. Now just as then the best course of action for America is to look ahead not back. Presidents are human beings who carry an immense responsibility most of us can never imagine. Leon Pannetta wrote in the Washington Monthly a year ago (this is probably the reason Senator Feinstein was unhappy with his appointment) that torture should never be used under any circumstances however now as CIA Director he has clouded his previous opinion and told the New York Times that in a “ticking bomb situation” he would seek “aggressive interrogation methods” approval from the President. This clearly tells us that now even Director Pannetta has a weight on his shoulders that citizen Pannetta could not have imagined. Panetta has said he would follow all laws in his duties (no doubt relying upon his legal counsel to determine those limits). As this is being written Taliban forces are creeping ever closer to taking control of the nuclear weapons arsenal of Pakistan. What will President Obama do if he captures a terrorist who “may” hold information that a former Pakistani nuclear weapon may be used against the United States? What would you do? What would the majority of Americans think the President’s duty will be? Should we sacrifice New York or Los Angeles for one terrorist?
- Friday, April 24, 2009

Castro Refutes Liberal Media, Obama Claims

The American liberal media was enraptured over the prospect that President Obama “was seeking a new beginning with Cuba” as quoted in The New York Times during the recent Organization of the American States meeting in Trinidad & Tobago but it comes as no surprise to the conservative Hispanic community that over the past couple of days Fidel Castro has been publishing essays critical of Obama and contradicting glowing media reports and the Obama account. The Cuban government website ironically called Cubadebate, only officially sanctioned government material is allowed on the website, regularly publishes essays by Fidel Castro, who says he uses this website to fight the terrorism of the media. On April 20 he wrote an essay about what he calls the comical issues of the Summit of the Americas and then on 21st wrote about “serious issues.” Last week headlines swept around the world that Raul Castro informed the U.S. that Cuba would be willing to discuss “everything, everything, everything” which included human rights, freedom of the press, the release of political prisoners. Additionally, in the New York Times articles describing interaction between Cuba, Sec. Hillary Clinton, and Obama there were numerous quotes that Latin American countries would no longer blame the U.S. for all their problems. Well according to Castro they missed something in the translation. Fidel Castro, who says he was kept abreast of what was happening at the Summit minute by minute, has a much different take on what happened at the Summit that is very much at odds with what was reported by the American press and the Obama administration. Reports being published by the liberal American media are only saying that Fidel Castro said Obama misunderstood what Raul was saying but the two long winded essays by the Cuban dictator contain much more criticism. Castro says the American press and the President must have had bad language interpreters because Raul Castro never promised to discuss anything that would betray the Revolution. His meaning that he would discuss anything meant that he was so confident in the revolutionary process that he could not be intimidated. Castro says the only political prisoners that were discussed were freedom fighters in U.S. and other countries that were imprisoned at the order of the United States and that Cuba suggested that perhaps Mrs. Obama should help free them. Castro says that the United States rushed the meeting and was not fair to Bolivia and other countries. He inferred that in diplomatic exchanges before the summit Obama had promised to give them more attention then he actually did at the Summit. The United States has the responsibility to repay Latin America for wasting Latin American resources and causing wars there. President Ortega of Nicaragua represented a country that was devastated by an American war and therefore deserved reparations. The United States has the responsibility to give expensive green technology to all the poor Latin American countries he added. Castro says Obama told Cuban representatives that the United States should model its foreign policy to that of Cuba which Castro claims only sends doctors to poor countries not military forces like the United States. (note:I guess Castro forgot all the Cuban soldiers he sent to Africa, Latin America, and Asia) He reiterated remarks that Nicaraguan President Ortega supposedly made to the Obama administration that they are actively fighting the drug trade and capturing large amounts of drugs that would have been sold in the U.S. (note: complicity between Castro and many of his Latin American cronies with the drug cartels is well known) Castro said Obama should be more like Martin Luther King ( note: several Cuban black dissidents are currently serving long prison terms for forming a Martin Luther King Society in Cuba) and offer to help the poor in Cuba. He asked why Obama as a Senatorial candidate promised to lift the Cuban embargo and now as President had not. Castro says the only crime committed is the crime of the embargo and that it should be lifted unconditionally immediately. Castro scoffed at the remarks Obama made about talks that would let more of the money sent by American relatives of Cubans saying that most Cubans do not have rich American relatives so the government has to spread the money around. Interestingly he also claims to quote the Chinese saying the American dollar was “junk money” inferring that because it has such a low value he did not want Cubans to have too much of it. (note: American dollars are the only real currency in the tourist sections of Cuba) Clearly the Cuban government government does not want the world to think that is has relinquished anything to United States and that it remains proudly defiant. Castro called Obama a hard worker and charismatic but said he was otherwise no different than the many other American presidents he has dealt with. So it appears all the spin about a new beginning with Cuba by the American media was just a sham. The only thing that has changed is that now we have a gullible President who probably needs to get some better translation. What has happened to American media when the only way we get the true story is from the Reflections of Comrade Fidel on a Cuban government website?
- Thursday, April 23, 2009

Roxana Saberi:An All American Hero

Tonight an American is wrongly imprisoned for simply reporting on every day life. The jail she sits in is a far cry from the the town of Fargo, North Dakota where she was born. Growing up she was the quintessential “All-American” girl who played soccer, piano, and enjoyed line dancing. Not only did she obtain two master’s degrees in journalism and international relations but also was Miss North Dakota of 1997 and made the top ten for Miss America 1998. Roxana Saberi had the befalling that comes with her success to pursue much easier and less dangerous careers than the one she did. She could have capitalized on her charm, intelligence, and good looks to seek any number of lucrative careers but instead she chose a different and more challenging profession. Combining her interests in international relations and journalism she embarked on a lifework as an independent freelance journalist with a focus on the country where her father was born, Iran.
- Monday, April 20, 2009

Do World Leaders Respect Obama?

The spin from the liberal media in America is that the United States finally has great world leadership in President Obama. However, consistently over time, another picture is emerging from foreign press reports that are not controlled by the American spin machines, of Obama being seen in much less flattering way that does not protray him as the object of respect from other world leaders.
- Sunday, April 19, 2009

Latin American Realities For Obama

Obama’s visit to Mexico and the Organization of American States meeting in Trinidad-Tobago should be about frank discussions leading to constructive engagements which puts America’s interest first. Obama should offer to shake the hand of Latin America and talk not fill that hand with an unrestricted donation of cash. History has taught us that neither American meddling nor American foreign aid will be the major instruments of successful reform. The Kissinger approach of constructive engagement is the model to follow with the strict understanding we have limited resources and domestic priorities.
- Saturday, April 18, 2009

Crazed Veteran Myth Obama Agenda

The Obama administration is shamefully using the media enhanced urban myth of the crazed veteran to try and overcome the recent victories in preserving the rights of the second amendment and to quash pro-military sentiments which negatively impact their plans. The intentional use of “Timothy McVeigh” dishonors the service and records of millions of American veterans especially when it is being used in context to smear the image of those in uniform. There is a risk that such statements will discourage war veterans from seeking treatment for mental illness for fear of being unjustly labeled a potential criminal.
- Thursday, April 16, 2009

Boston Tea Party’s Real Meaning

Tomorrow is Tax Day and also a day when at least a few Americans want to engage in the Constitutional right of protest. Despite winning an election all week there has been on all out effort by the left including the Huffington Post, New York Times, The Boston Globe, and of course MSNBC to portray in nothing less than paranoid terms a dangerous right wing conspiracy. Their obvious uncomfortable appearance usually consisting of an apprehensive smirk while delivering their message of misinformation reminds one of famous old movie scenes where a criminal gets found out by the lie detector test.
- Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Will Obama Surrender American Sovereignty?

The major foreign policy issues facing the American President are often portrayed by liberal political factions in the context of American interest versus global interest. Anti-capitalist, anti-free trade, and anti-American factions are trying to transform the organizational failures of the United Nations (UN) into a universal referendum on national sovereignty targeted at the United States. With the election of Barack Obama many who champion this cause see a ally. Traditional American values and the Constitution dictate appropriately that American action must always be framed with reference to American interest as the first priority. Where President Obama stands in relation to the international “Right To Protect “ movement (R2P) is a focus of considerable debate. No issue has greater gravity for the future of America.
- Monday, April 13, 2009

Half Hearted Missile Defense Won’t Do

The concept of missile defense has gradually achieved respectability and attention from the American public since first conceptualized by the Reagan administration however the Obama administration seems to be sending mixed messages about their commitment to it which ignore the realities of current and future threats. Unless the United States totally gives up on Israeli survival, suddenly recognizes Islamic Radicalism as a benefit to mankind, and finds Kim Jong Il, a friendly fellow, two things are clear. In the future we are likely to face these asymmetric warfare threats more alone than ever and there will be an increasing risk that rogue nations or factions will consider attacking the United States.
- Saturday, April 11, 2009

Democrats Health Plan Neglects Competition and Choice

The high quality of health care in the United States which is widely recognized worldwide arises because of two key factors, competition and choice. The Democratic initiative under way to change the health care delivery system will alter the basic market mechanisms producing these societal assets.
- Thursday, April 9, 2009

Is Obama’s N. Korean Policy Sound?

Even though Obama had met with prominent officials of Russia and China during the G-20 summit, his administration's response to North Korea's recent missile launch very wrongly predicted a punitive rather supportive reaction of these powers to North Korea. How could the Obama administration be oblivious to how these powers would respond?
- Thursday, April 9, 2009

The injustice against former Senator Ted Stevens is a story of sex, cover up, and corruption

The admission of wrongful conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens (AK) today by Attorney General Holder does not close the issue but only raises many questions. It now appears likely that the prosecution team not only withheld exculpatory evidence which would have exonerated Senator Stevens but also concealed knowledge of an ongoing inappropriate sexual relationship between the head FBI agent and the star prosecution witness who received a special deal in his own prosecution. Was this information specifically withheld until after the general election to have political consequences?
- Thursday, April 2, 2009

G-20 Tests Obama’s Belief in America

The Presidential visit to Europe and Turkey comes at a time when the world is questioning whether the bold experiment called America has become passé.
- Wednesday, April 1, 2009

GM 25 Billion Wasted

In December 2008, many Americans were immediately critical of the idea of bailing out General Motors(GM). Their initial proposal asking for $18 billion of taxpayer funds to bailout a company whose total assets optimistically could only be valued at $38 billion and additionally suffering a crushing debt burden of $66 billion defied common business sense. Now those who were susceptive to only labor interest groups and made these faulty decisions should be held accountable to the American public for wasting $25 billion.
- Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The Texas Evolution Controversy

For as long as there has been recorded history man has sought to define and appreciate that which is immutable: truth. The simplest most relevant definition of truth for most of us is that there must some unchanging rules of the universe that give our lives meaning and therefore purpose. Our sentient gift which is unique as far as we currently realize in the animal world compelled our ancestors and will compel our descendants in this pursuit.
- Monday, March 30, 2009

Make Industrial Investment Paramount

The Obama-Geithner banking plan to buy "toxic" domestic real estate asset derivatives will perpetuate the current vicissitude of financial services leading us into a deeper and darker hole. The deprivation of wealth in the current crisis means that our country now has a very limited reserve of capital to inject into the production of wealth. Misdirecting the largest portion of that remaining capital into domestic real estate instead of industry will not bring more jobs except for Wall Street.
- Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Conservatives Can Save Capitalism

imageThe unique form of American capitalism which has propelled the United States economic juggernaut is under assault. Corporate mismanagement and outright swindling just recently demonstrated by Bernard Madoff’s guilty plea, but unfortunately not limited to just his nefarious endeavors is giving ammunition for the progressives now in power to destroy what took generations to build.
- Saturday, March 14, 2009

Sponsored