Not So Silent Thoughts

So What About Romney's Offshore Tax Havens?

2012-01-19T13:17:00.000-08:00

By Megan McArdle (from The Atlantic)

So the story-of-the-week seems to be Mitt Romney's off-shore investments. I am deeply confused by the reporting. Either that, or the reporters are.

I first saw this story via Sarah Kliff at the Washington Post:

One possibility is that the tax rate might not be the only politically troublesome revelation in Romney's returns. Over at Reuters, Sam Youngman suggests that his work with Bain Capital might have led Romney to shelter income offshore

The Sam Youngman piece does indeed sort of suggest this, but it's more than a bit hazy on how.

His vast fortune is invested in dozens of funds linked to Bain Capital LLC, the powerhouse private equity firm he co-founded and led for 15 years. Several Bain funds have offshore connections and take advantage of tax breaks used only by the U.S. financial elite.

His tax returns could shed light on how Romney and Bain use offshore strategies to avoid taxes, said Daniel Berman, a former U.S. Treasury deputy international tax counsel and now director of tax at Boston University's graduate tax program.

Bain funds in which Romney is invested are scattered from Delaware to the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, Ireland and Hong Kong, according to a Reuters analysis of securities filings.

"Certain interests in foreign investment structures would have to be reported on attachments to his return," Berman said.

All of these things are true, but they do not add up to tax evasion, or even tax avoidance. Corporations do not have to pay taxes on income unless they repatriate the money. Individuals, however, do. The quote sort of muddies the distinction--the returns, we're told, could shed light on how "Romney and Bain" use offshore strategies to avoid taxes, but while I'm certainly not an international tax expert, from what I know, that the phrases "could shed light" and "and Bain" are doing a whole lot of work there.

As far as I know, there are only a few ways to "shelter" income offshore, and they usually look very much like "sheltering" income onshore--which is to say that we do not tax people on unrealized capital gains. And for very good reason--just ask all the dotcommers with employee stock options who paid huge taxes to exercise those options, and then saw the value of those options fall to zero. The IRS didn't give them their money back, either.

The tax expert Youngman consulted implies that this is a very confusing concept:

"I remember as a young lawyer being surprised to see tax returns of very successful investors showing net losses - because they were recognizing net losses" but not yet factoring in unrealized gains, Berman said.

I am sure that Professor Berman is a very smart, knowledgeable man; it is unfortunate that Youngman chose a quote that makes him sound like an idiot. "Some years, even successful people with a lot of assets lose money" should not be a shocking proposition for anyone old enough to graduate from law school--or read Reuters. Would you really be surprised to hear that the owner of a California 7-11 had lost money in 2001, even though the building he'd bought in 1981 had appreciated by 70%?

The other way I know of to avoid taxes with an offshore strategy is to invest in a US corporation which doesn't repatriate earnings, and therefore doesn't pay taxes on this. Any of you who invest in GE, UPS, or Apple are enjoying this sort of tax shelter, and if you sold some of the stock, I suppose it would be technically accurate to say that your tax returns shed light on whether "George and Apple use offshore strategies to avoid taxes", but this would not really be a very interesting statement. You still have to pay taxes if you want to get your hands on any of the money.

Most of the writing I've seen today about this seems to be confusing the Cayman's role as an offshore tax haven, and its other role as a headquarters for hedge funds. They are not entirely unrelated, but they are also not the same thing. Cayman, and a lot of other islands, became tax havens because they wouldn't tell your government if you had money there. It's not because there is some special tax break for investing there.

If the investments are showing up on Romney's tax return, then they are definitionally not this sort of tax haven.

Now, the US tax code is very complicated, and I am not an international tax expert, and it's certainly possible that Bain has hit on some structure which allows its investors to enjoy tax-sheltered income while actually having access to it--and that this structure would show up on Romney's return. For all I know, every rich person in the country has a portfolio positively stuffed with such investments.

But if so, I would like to hear such structures described, not obliquely hinted at. I know I have some tax experts in my readership, so how about it?

Bah,Bah,Baaaah! Hey you Sheeple' I'm not for Romney! Ever!

2012-01-19T08:40:00.000-08:00

Are The GOP Debaters Foolish Enough to Take CNN's Bait?
By C. Edmund Wright

So CNN's executives have let it slip (at least to Drudge*) that they are "going to let them just go at it" in what they are calling the "Republican Debate of the Year" tonight in South Carolina.

Let me translate:

'We are going to do our damndest to get the candidates to go at each other and totally ignore Barack Obama. We're going to ask those cute little questions like 'Governor Romney, with Speaker Gingrich standing right here, will you say to his face that he's the biggest son of a blah blah blah..... '

So please tell me, Republican candidates, that you are not foolish enough to fall for this. Please? No one has gained anything in this cycle in the debates by trashing other Republicans. (more on that later)

Quite the opposite in fact. Consider the travails of Newt:

Gingrich had an unprecedented standing ovation from most of the crowd Monday night in a now famous exchange with Juan Williams. To gain that kind of amazing response, Newt uttered not a single syllable about any of this GOP opponents. Instead, Newt overwhelmed the liberal Williams and his typical template with logic and history and power and passion and -- get this -- conservative principle!

The response was amazing. His standing ovation was so loud and universal that it had to include many folks who entered the hall supporting others instead of Gingrich. This is not everyday stuff. Not only that, but it gained Newt millions of dollars worth of accolades on Rush and Hannity and other talk shows the next day. All of this has given him huge bumps in both national and S.C. polls.

And it worked because this is what the Republican base voters are so obviously craving. That is why they responded so powerfully. And in fact, Newt's other great moments -- on terror, local control of schools and unemployment compensation -- were all moments generated by a classic Gingrich lecture where conservatism simply over powered failed liberal prescriptions for these issues.

Actually, if you go back through the 16 debates and track the big crowd moments, most of them result from Gingrich taking apart a liberal premise and usually a liberal questioner in the process. It's the primary reason Gingrich went from around 5% support to 35- 45% a few weeks ago. He didn't have any advertising to speak of. It was all the debates and that was all about attacking liberalism and doing it very effectively.

Monday, the only time Gingrich mentioned another GOP candidate in any of these exchanges is when Ron Paul used left wing Code Pink logic on how to deal with terrorists and Newt slapped him down. But the crowd roar was not at Paul being slapped down. It was in response to another liberal sacred cow being skewered.

In other words, the problems we have in our country today are not the fault of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry or Ron Paul. The problem is Barack Obama and the solution is removing him and as many liked minded members of congress as possible from office. Period.

Why these candidates, and their consultants and strategists can't understand this is agonizing and symptomatic of a Washington culture that does not understand the nation it tortures. The consultant class is largely from D.C. or at least "of" D.C. Ironic is that when Rick Perry hired all of Newt's consultants away upon entering the race, Perry was at about 35% in the polls. His consultants have taken him right to about 6% now. Meanwhile, Newt and Herman Cain (who never had hired any of the consultant class) soared.

Conversely, the attacks in the debates have backfired. Michelle Bachmann imploded when she went Bachmann Turn-Off Overdrive on Rick Perry over the HPV issue. After making a legitimate point on parental control and a smaller point on crony capitalism, she should have let it go. But no, she had to paint Perry as the next Joseph Mengele. And it failed. Her campaign went straight downhill from there and she never recovered. She tried by being the attack dog in all of the debates, including her trite "Newt Romney" attack. She limped away with barely 5% of her home state vote.

After the HPV attacks, a wounded Perry made a few unforced errors -- including a pathetic exchange with Romney over who cut Mitt's grass. Then we had the kindergarten food fight over what was -- or was not -- said in Mitt's book. From two governors who want to be President?

And there were numerous other exchanges like that and all of it was simply for the amusement of the media moderators. And it is driven by an inside the beltway culture -- blind as it is -- that looks at all of this as a game instead of understanding that this is about the future of our Republic and whether it survives or not.

The voters, however, largely understand the gravity of the situation -- and once again are way ahead of most of the candidates and their consultants as well as the pundit class. Thus, they respond on those occasions when the candidates figure it out as well. On Monday night, Newt figured it out. He put the Bain disaster behind him and re-focused on the problem: Barack Obama and liberalism. He aimed, fired and scored several direct hits and might have saved his campaign in the process.

Tonight he and all of the candidates have another opportunity to do the same. There is the Keystone Pipeline issue just lying there for the taking, not to mention the recess appointments made by Obama and of course the NLRB assault on South Carolina is still a raw issue.

The candidate who ignores the CNN bait and his GOP opponents and focuses on the real problems will win this debate. If none of them figure this out, we all lose and it's a win for CNN and Barack Obama. You know that and I know that instinctively. Why is this so hard to figure out?

*CNN SOURCE: 'WE HAVE REPUBLICAN DEBATE OF YEAR TOMORROW NIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO LET THEM JUST GO AT IT'... DEVELOPING...

The author is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and currently a senior consultant for an outside group supporting Newt Gingrich.

Email Friend | Print Article | 9 Comments | Share Share

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/are_the_gop_debaters_foolish_enough_to_take_cnns_bait.html#ixzz1jvINxFuH

Iran, the U.S. and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis

2012-01-17T09:11:00.000-08:00

By George Friedman

The United States reportedly sent a letter to Iran via multiple intermediaries last week warning Tehran that any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz constituted a red line for Washington. The same week, a chemist associated with Iran's nuclear program was killed in Tehran. In Ankara, Iranian parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani met with Turkish officials and has been floating hints of flexibility in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

This week, a routine rotation of U.S. aircraft carriers is taking place in the Middle East, with the potential for three carrier strike groups to be on station in the U.S. Fifth Fleet's area of operations and a fourth carrier strike group based in Japan about a week's transit from the region. Next week, Gen. Michael Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will travel to Israel to meet with senior Israeli officials. And Iran is scheduling another set of war games in the Persian Gulf for February that will focus on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' irregular tactics for closing the Strait of Hormuz.

While tensions are escalating in the Persian Gulf, the financial crisis in Europe has continued, with downgrades in France's credit rating the latest blow. Meanwhile, China continued its struggle to maintain exports in the face of economic weakness among its major customers while inflation continued to increase the cost of Chinese exports.

Fundamental changes in how Europe and China work and their long-term consequences represent the major systemic shifts in the international system. In the more immediate future, however, the U.S.-Iranian dynamic has the most serious potential consequences for the world.
The U.S.-Iranian Dynamic

The increasing tensions in the region are not unexpected. As we have argued for some time, the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the subsequent decision to withdraw created a massive power vacuum in Iraq that Iran needed -- and was able -- to fill. Iran and Iraq fought a brutal war in the 1980s that caused about 1 million Iranian casualties, and Iran's fundamental national interest is assuring that no Iraqi regime able to threaten Iranian national security re-emerges. The U.S. invasion and withdrawal from Iraq provided Iran an opportunity to secure its western frontier, one it could not pass on.

If Iran does come to have a dominant influence in Iraq -- and I don't mean Iran turning Iraq into a satellite -- several things follow. Most important, the status of the Arabian Peninsula is subject to change. On paper, Iran has the most substantial conventional military force of any nation in the Persian Gulf. Absent outside players, power on paper is not insignificant. While technologically sophisticated, the military strength of the Arabian Peninsula nations on paper is much smaller, and they lack the Iranian military's ideologically committed manpower.

But Iran's direct military power is more the backdrop than the main engine of Iranian power. It is the strength of Tehran's covert capabilities and influence that makes Iran significant. Iran's covert intelligence capability is quite good. It has spent decades building political alliances by a range of means, and not only by nefarious methods. The Iranians have worked among the Shia, but not exclusively so; they have built a network of influence among a range of classes and religious and ethnic groups. And they have systematically built alliances and relationships with significant figures to counter overt U.S. power. With U.S. military power departing Iraq, Iran's relationships become all the more valuable.

The withdrawal of U.S. forces has had a profound psychological impact on the political elites of the Persian Gulf. Since the decline of British power after World War II, the United States has been the guarantor of the Arabian Peninsula's elites and therefore of the flow of oil from the region. The foundation of that guarantee has been military power, as seen in the response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The United States still has substantial military power in the Persian Gulf, and its air and naval forces could likely cope with any overt provocation by Iran.

But that's not how the Iranians operate. For all their rhetoric, they are cautious in their policies. This does not mean they are passive. It simply means that they avoid high-risk moves. They will rely on their covert capabilities and relationships. Those relationships now exist in an environment in which many reasonable Arab leaders see a shift in the balance of power, with the United States growing weaker and less predictable in the region and Iran becoming stronger. This provides fertile soil for Iranian allies to pressure regional regimes into accommodations with Iran.
The Syrian Angle

Events in Syria compound this situation. The purported imminent collapse of Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria has proved less imminent than many in the West imagined. At the same time, the isolation of the al Assad regime by the West -- and more important, by other Arab countries -- has created a situation where the regime is more dependent than ever on Iran.

Should the al Assad regime -- or the Syrian regime without al Assad -- survive, Iran would therefore enjoy tremendous influence with Syria, as well as with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The current course in Iraq coupled with the survival of an Alawite regime in Syria would create an Iranian sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. This would represent a fundamental shift in the regional balance of power and probably would redefine Iranian relations with the Arabian Peninsula. This is obviously in Iran's interest. It is not in the interests of the United States, however.

The United States has sought to head this off via a twofold response. Clandestinely, it has engaged in an active campaign of sabotage and assassination targeting Iran's nuclear efforts. Publicly, it has created a sanctions regime against Iran, most recently targeting Iran's oil exports. However, the latter effort faces many challenges.

Japan, the No. 2 buyer of Iranian crude, has pledged its support but has not outlined concrete plans to reduce its purchases. The Chinese and Indians -- Iran's No. 1 and 3 buyers of crude, respectively -- will continue to buy from Iran despite increased U.S. pressure. In spite of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's visit last week, the Chinese are not prepared to impose sanctions, and the Russians are not likely to enforce sanctions even if they agreed to them. Turkey is unwilling to create a confrontation with Iran and is trying to remain a vital trade conduit for the Iranians regardless of sanctions. At the same time, while the Europeans seem prepared to participate in harder-hitting sanctions on Iranian oil, they already have delayed action on these sanctions and certainly are in no position politically or otherwise to participate in military action. The European economic crisis is at root a political crisis, so even if the Europeans could add significant military weight, which they generally lack, concerted action of any sort is unlikely.

Neither, for that matter, does the United States have the ability to do much militarily. Invading Iran is out of the question. The mountainous geography of Iran, a nation of about 70 million people, makes direct occupation impossible given available American forces.

Air operations against Iran are an option, but they could not be confined to nuclear facilities. Iran still doesn't have nuclear weapons, and while nuclear weapons would compound the strategic problem, the problem would still exist without them. The center of gravity of Iran's power is the relative strength of its conventional forces in the region. Absent those, Iran would be less capable of wielding covert power, as the psychological matrix would shift.

An air campaign against Iran's conventional forces would play to American military strengths, but it has two problems. First, it would be an extended campaign, one lasting months. Iran's capabilities are large and dispersed, and as seen in Desert Storm and Kosovo against weaker opponents, such operations take a long time and are not guaranteed to be effective. Second, the Iranians have counters. One, of course, is the Strait of Hormuz. The second is the use of its special operations forces and allies in and out of the region to conduct terrorist attacks. An extended air campaign coupled with terrorist attacks could increase distrust of American power rather than increase it among U.S. allies, to say nothing of the question of whether Washington could sustain political support in a coalition or within the United States itself.
The Covert Option

The United States and Israel both have covert options as well. They have networks of influence in the region and highly capable covert forces, which they have said publicly that they would use to limit Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons without resorting to overt force. We assume, though we lack evidence, that the assassination of the Iranian chemist associated with the country's nuclear program last week was either a U.S. or Israeli operation or some combination of the two. Not only did it eliminate a scientist, it also bred insecurity and morale problems among those working on the program. It also signaled the region that the United States and Israel have options inside Iran.

The U.S. desire to support an Iranian anti-government movement generally has failed. Tehran showed in 2009 that it could suppress demonstrations, and it was obvious that the demonstrators did not have the widespread support needed to overcome such repression. Though the United States has sought to support internal dissidents in Iran since 1979, it has not succeeded in producing a meaningful threat to the clerical regime. Therefore, covert operations are being aimed directly at the nuclear program with the hope that successes there might ripple through other, more immediately significant sectors.

As we have long argued, the Iranians already have a "nuclear option," namely, the prospect of blockading the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 35 percent of seaborne crude and 20 percent of the world's traded oil passes daily. Doing so would hurt them, too, of course. But failing to deter an air or covert campaign, they might choose to close off the strait. Temporarily disrupting the flow of oil, even intermittently, could rapidly create a global economic crisis given the fragility of the world economy.

The United States does not want to see that. Washington will be extremely cautious in its actions unless it can act with a high degree of assurance that it can prevent such a disruption, something difficult to guarantee. It also will restrain Israel, which might have the ability to strike at a few nuclear facilities but lacks the force to completely eliminate the program much less target Iran's conventional capability and manage the consequences of that strike in the Strait of Hormuz. Only the United States could do all that, and given the possible consequences, it will be loathe to attempt it.

The United States continues, therefore, with sanctions and covert actions while Iran continues building its covert power in Iraq and in the region. Each will try to convince the region that its power will be supreme in a year. The region is skeptical of both, but will have to live with one of the two, or with an ongoing test of wills -- an unnerving prospect. Each side is seeking to magnify its power for psychological effect without crossing a red line that prompts the other to take extreme measures. Iran signals its willingness to attempt to close Hormuz and its development of nuclear weapons, but it doesn't cross the line to actually closing the strait or detonating a nuclear device. The United States pressures Iran and moves forces around, but it doesn't cross the red line of commencing military actions. Thus, each avoids triggering unacceptable actions by the other.

The problem for the United States is that the status quo ultimately works against it. If al Assad survives and if the situation in Iraq proceeds as it has been proceeding, then Iran is creating a reality that will define the region. The United States does not have a broad and effective coalition, and certainly not one that would rally in the event of war. It has only Israel, and Israel is as uneasy with direct military action as the United States is. It does not want to see a failed attack and it does not want to see more instability in the Arab world. For all its rhetoric, Israel has a weak hand to play. The only virtue of the American hand is that it is stronger -- but only relatively speaking.

For the United States, preventing the expansion of an Iranian sphere of influence is a primary concern. Iraq is going to be a difficult arena to stop Iran's expansion. Syria therefore is key at present. Al Assad appears weak, and his replacement by a Sunni government would limit -- but not destroy -- any Iranian sphere of influence. It would be a reversal for Iran, and the United States badly needs to apply one. But the problem is that the United States cannot be seen as the direct agent of regime change in Syria, and al Assad is not as weak as has been claimed. Even so, Syria is where the United States can work to block Iran without crossing Iran's red lines.

The normal outcome of a situation like this one, in which neither Iran nor the United States can afford to cross the other's red lines since the consequences would be too great for each, would be some sort of negotiation toward a longer-term accommodation. Ideology aside -- and the United States negotiating with the "Axis of Evil" or Iran with the "Great Satan" would be tough sells to their respective domestic audiences -- the problem with this is that it is difficult to see what each has to offer the other. What Iran wants -- a dominant position in the region and a redefinition of how oil revenues are allocated and distributed -- would make the United States dependent on Iran. What the United States wants -- an Iran that does not build a sphere of influence but instead remains within its borders -- would cost Iran a historic opportunity to assert its longstanding claims.

We find ourselves in a situation in which neither side wants to force the other into extreme steps and neither side is in a position to enter into broader accommodations. And that's what makes the situation dangerous. When fundamental issues are at stake, each side is in a position to profoundly harm the other if pressed, and neither side is in a position to negotiate a broad settlement, a long game of chess ensues. And in that game of chess, the possibilities of miscalculation, of a bluff that the other side mistakes for an action, are very real.

Europe and China are redefining the way the world works. But kingdoms run on oil, as someone once said, and a lot of oil comes through Hormuz. Iran may or may not be able to close the strait, and that reshapes Europe and China. The New Year thus begins where we expected: at the Strait of Hormuz.

Men at War

2012-01-15T08:37:00.000-08:00

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

We’ll stipulate that of course the Marines who urinated on the bodies of dead Taliban in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, last year should be appropriately disciplined, assuming things are as they appear in the video.
Photo of General George Patton urinating in the Rhine River

Gen. George S. Patton, March 24, 1945

But it’s also worth noting that pissing has a distinguished place in American military history. Most famously, General George S. Patton relieved himself in the Rhine on March 24, 1945—and made sure he was photographed doing so. Patton later recalled: “I drove to the Rhine River and went across on the pontoon bridge. I stopped in the middle to take a piss and then picked up some dirt on the far side in emulation of William the Conqueror.” (At the time, actually, Patton was less concerned with emulating William the Conqueror and more worried about finishing off the enemy. Later that day he sent a communiqué to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in command of Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force: “Dear SHAEF, I have just pissed into the Rhine River. For God’s sake, send some gasoline.”)

It wasn’t just American generals who seemed preoccupied with pissing back in 1945. Three weeks earlier, Winston Churchill had visited the front lines near Jülich. Churchill had long dreamed of urinating on Hitler’s much-vaunted Siegfried Line to show his contempt for Hitler and Nazism. Unlike Patton, Churchill forbade photographs of the occasion. But General Alan Brooke, chief of the Imperial General Staff, who was with Churchill that day, later wrote: “I shall never forget the childish grin of intense satisfaction that spread all over his face as he looked down at the critical moment.”

So perhaps, as Rep. Allen West, once a battalion commander in Iraq, put it last week, all the sanctimonious Obama administration bigwigs “need to chill.” Did Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta really need to speak up at all? Couldn’t comment have been left to some junior public affairs officer at Camp Lejeune? And once he decided to weigh in, did Panetta need to condemn the Marines’ action as not just deplorable but “utterly deplorable”? Perhaps he felt a need to match Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who expressed not just dismay but “total dismay.”

Maybe, our current civilian leaders should spend a little less time posturing and a little more time supporting the troops who’ve been sent abroad to fight at the direction of their administration. They are, after all, carrying out a mission the civilian leadership has judged crucial to our national security. We know from the administration’s recent “strategic guidance” that President Obama now believes “the tide of war is receding” and that “we are turning a page.” That would be nice. But the “tide of war” resulted last year in fierce fighting, with seven dead and many more wounded from the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines, in Helmand. Soldiers and Marines continue today to fight and die at the direction of the commander in chief. Until the page is fully turned (if it ever is), he and his administration have a responsibility to err on the side of supporting our troops, rather than competing to chastise them sanctimoniously—even when a few of them have done something foolish.

Indeed, the foolishness of these few young Marines is as nothing compared with the foolishness of Obama administration officials.

US, Israel in open rift over Iran: Big joint military drill cancelled Debka

2012-01-15T08:11:00.001-08:00

US-Israeli discord over action against Iran went into overdrive Sunday, Jan. 15 when the White House called off Austere Challenge 12, the biggest joint war game the US and Israel have every staged, ready to go in spring, in reprisal for a comment by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon in an early morning radio interview. He said the United States was hesitant over sanctions against Iran's central bank and oil for fear of a spike in oil prices.....

DEBKA file's military sources report that a third aircraft carrier and strike group, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is also on its way to the Persian Gulf. This massive military buildup indicates that either President Obama rates the odds of an Israel attack as high and is bolstering the defenses of US military assets against Iranian reprisals - or, alternatively, that the United States intends to beat Israel to the draw and attack Iran itself.

Why Romney is Weak vs. Obama

2012-01-14T14:31:00.001-08:00

By Quin Hillyer

Since I wrote this little blog post the other day, picked up at Real Clear Politics, all of a sudden (by coincidence; I'm not claiming I had anything to do with it, but just am remarking on how rapidly the 'meme' has taken off) all sorts of people are suddenly realizing that Mitt Romney is hardly the candidate with the best chance to beat Barack Obama.

It certainly isn't all at the Center for Individual Freedom, but we did have a written colloquy on the subject the other day, with Troy Senik and Ashton Ellis insightfully joining me in weighing in. Actually, Jonathan Last made the case earlier, here. Tina Korbe, a rising star, argues the same thing at Hot Air. Phil Klein at the Washington Examiner makes the case that Romney's flip-flopping is a big liability in a general election (as it was for Al Gore and to a certain extent John Kerry). Back in late December, John Hawkins at Right Wing News also argued the situation quite well. Of course, Peter Ferrara made the case right here at the Spectator, although he also segued into (strong) arguments against Romney's ability to do a good job if he were elected anyway. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection also has questions.

The scholarly take on it, again doubting Romney's electability, was by Larry Lindsey at the Weekly Standard. From the center-left, the very smart former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) thinks his (former) party doesn't have much to worry about from Romney: "The fact, however, is that Democrats have not had to strain to plan the race they would run against Romney. For four days in the week, they will paint him as a flip-flopper who has occupied both sides of a lot of ground; for three days, as an entitled tool of corporate interests who made millions doling out pink slips on behalf of a shadowy management firm." Also at NRO, Andy McCarthy doubts whether we can know who is more electable.

At the New York Post, John Podhoretz writes a piece about Romney headlined "Never Has a Winner Looked so Beaten." The column is brutal. It calls Romney "one of the weakest major candidates either party has ever seen." Also: "[N]obody loves him. No one is inspired by him.… Claiming he should be president because he knows how to run a business may be the least stirring message any candidate has seized upon since Michael Dukakis foundered in 1988 by claiming he could bring 'competence' to the White House. And his liabilities are undeniable. Even though Gingrich's assault on Romney's record of laying off workers when he was running Bain Capital is breathtaking in its disingenuousness, that record does happen to be one of a dozen glaring weaknesses in Romney's biography, political history and approach that President Obama and his team will be able to use to their advantage." And Jonah Goldberg writes that Romney's "authentic inauthenticity problem isn't going away."

Plenty other similar pieces are out there, all in a rush. And they are all correct.

I try to look at these things from three perspectives based in my own experience. [MUCH MORE]I've been a political activist/political professional/presidential campaign state executive director/presidential caucus organizer/leadership Hill staffer, so I have a participant's perspective. I've been a PR executive, so I then try to look at it from a marketing perspective. And I've been a journalist/columnist for 15 years, so there's the close observer/outsider perspective. (This is not to boast about my background, but only to explain HOW I arrive at looking at things, from different angles, as a way to check my assumptions -- althought I do have a long record of getting it right.)

Anyway, here's what I see. I see, first, a candidate who "fails to inspire." This is hugely important. It's the old Dole/McCain/Bush 41 thing again: Without energizing one's base, it doesn't matter if you can get a few extra percentage points from "swing" voters (even assuming it's true that those extra few points are achievable -- which is probably not true anyway, because if you aren't inspirational, you aren't inspirational, period, meaning you don't inspire the middle either). It's also true that millions of voters really can decide to stay home; remember that Karl Rove estimated that up to 4 million expected Evangelical Bush backers stayed home in 2000 after being disgusted by last-weekend news that Bush had had a drunk driving arrest way back when. The result, of course, was a race that took six extra weeks to decide.

Next is a candidate's history, which was the basis of my original post on this front. Aside from winning the governorship against extremely weak opposition in a three-way race where he failed to get an actual majority of the vote, in a state that despite its liberalism had become accustomed to electing Republican governors (for 12 straight years), Romney still has never won an electorally significant victory that wasn't in his native state (Michigan) or in a state that is his backyard and site of his vacation home (New Hampshire). Even in Iowa, his mere eight-vote win after five years of work there amounted to six (yes, count them, exactly six) fewer votes than he earned four years earlier in the same caucus system.

Then there's the attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital. The attacks are over-the-top and unfair. But coming from the left in a general election campaign, they will work. That's how a weakened Ted Kennedy in a Republican year blew open a tight race against Romney and won by a landslide -- by attacking Bain (and by some subtle but effective exploitation of anti-Mormon bigotry, which unfortunately and unfairly and sickeningly will probably cost Romney a point and a half from otherwise GOP voters this year as well). What's particularly devastating here is when a candidate's big vulnerability is in the very area he tried to, and expected to, make his biggest political strength. Romney's main selling point has been that he is a good businessman who proved himself in the private sector; if that gets taken away, he's toast, because his record as governor was nothing to write home about, with his only significant "achievement" being the execrable one of Romneycare. This is very much akin to what happened to John Kerry, who tried to make his major selling point his supposed military "heroism," when the highly on-target Swift Boat attacks made that same military service into a slight net liability. You can't win when your biggest selling point is actually a vulnerability.

Romney, indeed, is the perfect foil for the Obama campaign, first because he is the very epitome of a Republican born rich who got richer by moving money around -- a millionaire plutocrat who just can't relate to "ordinary" Americans, and second because he is yet another Republican political/dynastic legatee. Think about it: We've gone from one Bush trying to outdo his Senate father by becoming president, to another Bush trying to outdo his president father by winning two terms as president, to a McCain trying to outdo his admiral father and admiral grandfather by becoming president... and now to a Romney trying to outdo his Michigan governor father and failed presidential front-runner by this time succeeding as a presidential front-runner. In the hands of the $800 million Obama campaign, this can easily by portrayed as a rather creepy and anti-American reliance on dynasticism.

Combine that with what appears to be a plastic insincerity (again, the "flip-flopping" charge was devastating against Al Gore and can be so again), with a "how dare you question me" attitude that increasingly has shown itself in debates, and with an utter failure to "connect" emotionally with what once were known as "Reagan Democrats" (old-ethnic. i.e. Italian-American/Polish-American, etc., blue collar workers, culturally conservative and on economics distrustful of Wall Street), and you have a recipe for an extraordinarily weak general election candidate.

Against all of that, all Romney can offer is a supposed greater acceptability to the educated, less culturally conservative, right-leaning economically, urban and suburbanites who are being targeted by Obama in places like Virginia and North Carolina. But the key thing here is that while these folks may be more socially liberal, they tend to vote more on the basis of their slightly upper-middle-income economic expectations rather than on social issues, and they'll vote either for or against Obama based on those analyses regardless of who the Republican nominee is. But it is the blue-collar worker, or small-business retailer, who (polls show) votes more often on cultural cues (not necessarily social issues per se, although that is sometimes the case, but more on stylistic cultural cues and concerns) than on other factors. Again, this is obviously a gross over-generalization (as is most 30,000-foot-level political socio-analysis), but these are indeed, as Rick Santorum keeps saying, the people who swing elections in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Missouri. The are far more likely to swing behind Santorum (or Gingrich, or Perry) than behind the stiff rich guy with a "weird" religion and no middle-cultural social affinities ("shooting... small varmints" and flipping on homosexual "marriage").

While general-election polls ten months out are not at all predictive of final results, they can indicate basic information about viability. Candidates with higher name ID (especially with low current "hard negatives" like Romney) can be expected to do far better than ones with low ID, low familiarity, etc. Thus, it is highly instructive that in recent polls in both Florida and North Carolina, Rick Santorum did almost exactly as well (margin of error) against Obama as Romney did, despite Romney's far greater familiarity to voters.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, Romney just can't campaign against Obama's single biggest vulnerability, Obamacare. There are just too many similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare, too many bad results from Romneycare (busting the budget, etc.), and too many video clips of Romney from six years ago saying that he hoped that even the individual insurance mandate would become a "national model." This will absolutely hobble Romney's campaign. In fact, it might be an insurmountable problem.

All of which is to say that Willard Mitt Romney has very low growth potential in a general-election campaign against Obama. His downside might be not as low as John McCain's was, four years ago, but his upside is negligible. As Larry Lindsey's analysis (mentioned above) explains, this can be an easy recipe for what I call a "respectable loss." But a loss is a loss is a loss. Romney is a weak general-election candidate who isn't likely to get any better.

The Ugly Truth In the Jobs Report

2012-01-08T08:54:00.000-08:00

Hearing the mainstream media breathlessly report that the unemployment rate declined to 8.5% makes it sound like all is well and the economy is mending. Unfortunately, there’s more to the story.

The official unemployment rate, called “U-3” by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), doesn’t include discouraged workers who gave up looking for work, nor does it include people working part time who want full time jobs. “U-6” is the real unemployment number, and it stands at a whopping 15.2% in Dec 2011. (See BLS Labor Underutilization for details)

The Rest of the Story

In the past two months, BLS reported a total of 300,000 new jobs added. If you dig into the fine print, though, you’ll see that 625,000 people were magically dropped from the rolls in the same period and no longer counted.

In November, the U.S. added 100,000 jobs (revised down from 120,000 reported last month) but 315,000 people ‘dropped out’ of the labor force the same month and were no longer counted.

In December, the U.S. added 200,000 jobs, but another 310,000 dropped out of the labor force

Another perspective of the real jobs number is the labor participation rate, the percentage of working age people between 16-64 who are actually working or looking for a job. People who are discouraged and have given up looking for a job are considered to have dropped out of the workforce, so the labor participation rate goes down.

That’s not the end of the smoke and mirrors. Of the total jobs created in 2011, 490,000 of the new “jobs” were actually conjured up by the magical birth/death model, a mysterious government formula that creates mythical jobs by estimating the birth and death of businesses.

Despite all the smoke and mirrors, we still have a long way to go before the economy gets back to normal. The U.S. needs to add 250,000 ‘real’ jobs per month for several years just to get back to historical averages.

Unfortunately, Obama’s “jobs plan” relies solely on short term gimmicks, like cutting $40 a month from the social security withholding for the average worker (even though it will just bankrupt social security faster). Unfortunately, this is just a short term Band-Aid that won’t actually create new jobs. If Obama truly wanted to create jobs, cutting taxes would go a long way to energizing the job market. Otherwise, BLS will have to continue conjuring up fictional jobs.

Mike Merrill is an entrepreneur, Army veteran, Ranger and West Point grad. He is the author of “Leadership Lessons of a Campaigner-in-Chief” http://amzn.to/svMh70

42 Disgusting Revelations from Barack Obama

2012-01-04T17:12:00.000-08:00

by. offthegridblogger.wordpress.com

I apologize when I cut this and copied I noted that it had many links which unfortunately I do not have time to set up right so you will have to cut and paste links to browser one by one.

There have been so many times we traditional Americans have been repulsed by what we have seen from this President, we have forgotten a lot of it. So I put together a list for you as a reminder:

1. Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

2. Obama says knowing when human life begins is “above my pay grade”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOTfnz11kBk

3. Obama supported infanticide, voting against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (and tried to cover up his votes): http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

4. Obama thinks having a baby is punishment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNbaig-D5pk

5. Obama supports gay marriage and repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and is against Defense of Marriage Act: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jQJuKI0Gf8&feature=fvwrel (For the facts about homosexuality see http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights.)

6. Obama thinks Americans are bitter by clinging to guns and religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2h13OZHdmc

7. Obama ridicules the Bible and exposes his utter ignorance: http://antiobamassiah.wordpress.com/video-of-obama-comments-about-the-bible-that-are-unbelievable/

8. Obama bows and apologizes to foreign leaders, even our mortal enemies: http://www.capveterans.com/america_s_freedom_tea_parties_are_growing/id33.html, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xWmsoAP-HoE#!

9. Obama sends bust of Churchill home, insulting America’s strongest ally: http://thewesternexperience.com/2009/02/23/president-obama-returns-bust-of-sir-winston-churchill-back-to-britain/

10. Obama wants to punish success and spread the wealth around. (Is the top 10% of earners paying 71% of the taxes–and 49% of Americans paying no federal income tax not enough socialism for you, Mr. President?): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM

11. Obama snubs Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, our strongest ally in the middle east: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/president-allegedly-dumps-israeli-prime-minister-dinner/

12. Obama says Israel should return to its 1967 border. (Does he think we should give Texas back to Mexico too?): http://matzav.com/obama-calls-for-israel-palestine-talks-on-1967-borders

13. Obama scolds Supreme Court Justices at State of the Union Address while lying: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

14. Obama takes personal credit for killing Osama bin Laden (compare to George W Bush’s comments after capturing Saddam Hussein): http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2011/05/contrasting-speeches-of-bush-on-saddam.html

15. Obama wants electricity rates to “skyrocket”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

16. Obama only talks to war commander once in 10 weeks. (How bizarre is it for the Commander-in-Chief not to communicate with his general during war time?): http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/gibbs-explains-why-the-president-has-only-talked-to-general-mcchrystal-once-in-10-weeks.html

17. Obama wants to circumvent the War Powers Act. (Is he above the law?):
http://theconservativetreehouse.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/will-obama-try-to-circumvent-the-war-powers-act-and-stay-engaged-in-libya/

18. Obama wants to bypass Congress on the debt ceiling. (Does he think he is king?): http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-18563_162-20076575-6.html?assetTypeId=30&blogId=

19. Obama wants U.S. to submit our laws to the world court: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=116552

20. Obama releases a birth certificate that is most likely a fake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY&feature=youtu.be

21. Obama is a serial liar: http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+serial+liar&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GZHY_en

22. Obama lost over half a billion dollars of our money on various solar scams, which its own administration admits were awarded without adequate due diligence, and which were a probable result of cronyism: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/277124, http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/09/14/breaking-white-house-pressured-omb-to-approve-solyndra-loan-before-due-diligence-complete/,http://tucsoncitizen.com/compoundcaptive/2011/10/22/solar-scam-on-taxpayers-and-the-rich-get-richer/, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/letters/wasting_green_on_greenies_no_more_Ty6EyjqLhb0hAHKgpRcR3L

23. Obama’s stimulus cost $278,000 per job: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

24. Obama has blatantly ingnored the Constitution in at least 7 instances: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1437376

25. Obama was absent from the Supercommittee deliberations. This absence was unbelievable to me. Here was the chance to get something done on the deficit, and Obama was bouncing around the world condemning America. Just imagine how an strong leader in the White House would be engaged in that process. http://www.northstarwriters.com/2011/11/13/lack-of-obama-leadership-leads-to-supercommittee-failure/

26. Obama says he is the fourth best president in history (better than Washington, better than Jefferson, etc). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxvSjDkF7HE

27. Obama had close associations with outspoken hater of America Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentenat terrorist Bill Ayers. (No white Republican candidate would have gotten away with that!) http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_the_affirmative_action_president.html

28. Obama proposes a new legal system in which citizen suspects could be imprisoned without trial. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23detain.html

29. Obama stops the Keystone pipeline and our offshore drilling but is party to allowing (through the Ex-Im Bank) subsidies to the Brazilian oil company and its offshore drilling, perhaps because his liberal pal George Soros owns shares. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xWmsoAP-HoE#!, http://www.politisite.com/2010/06/21/soros-invested-in-petrobras-days-before-obama-invested-billions-special-prosecutor-needed/

30. The U.S. capital Christmas tree pays homage to Obama but not Jesus. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-capitol-christmas-tree-pays-homage-obama-not-jesus

31. During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32074

32. While running for President, Obama had promised that he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration. http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/obama-makes-mockery-his-own-lobbyist-ban

33. In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21boeing.html?_r=3

34. The Obama administration pressured Ford to pull adds that told the truth about bailout money for General Motors and Chrysler. http://nation.foxnews.com/obama-administration/2011/09/27/wh-pressures-ford-pull-bailout-ad

35. The Obama administration used racially motivated actions to withdraw the case against Black Panthers who were intimidating voters. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html

36. Obama outrageously ramped up the bureacracy by appointing numberous Czars, probably in opposition to the Consitution which gives the Senate right of approval for such posts. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59071-feingold-questions-obama-czars

37. Obama wants to rid the U.S. of private health insurance. http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

38. The Obama administration gives over 1300 waivers to his own health care law. http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

39. Obama puts self-described communists in his administration (including Van Jones, Anita Dunn, and others). http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2FVEe7wCzs

40. Obama reneged on promises to be the most transparent administration and not to hire lobbyists. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/us/politics/25caribou.html, http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-reporters-grill-gibbs-over-selected-questions-for-obama/, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11449, http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18128

41. Obama defends public schools and the teachers unions but sends his own kids to private schools while eliminating vouchers for kids who cannot afford private schools. http://theweek.com/article/index/207598/should-obama-send-his-kids-to-public-school, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31163

42. Obama promises to cut the deficit but adds half again as much debt as all previous presidents combined. http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+deficits&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=A1b&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsu&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=8OoET9TNFKz_sQLao6iRCg&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1122&bih=837

Our thanks to Squirrel Hill’s Blog for some of these: http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/35-reasons-why-no-decent-human-being-should-vote-to-reelect-president-obama/

RUBBER STAMP Probe reveals feds pressuring agents to rush immigrant visas – even if fraud is feared

2012-01-03T18:34:00.000-08:00

The Daily Exclusive:
By Sarah Ryley

One-quarter of the USCIS officers surveyed said they have pressured to approve questionable cases.

1 2
Prev Next
Higher-ups within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are pressuring rank-and-file officers to rubber-stamp immigrants’ visa applications, sometimes against the officers’ will, according to a Homeland Security report and internal documents exclusively obtained by The Daily.

A 40-page report, drafted by the Office of Inspector General in September but not publicly released, details the immense pressure immigration service officers are under to approve visa applications quickly, sometimes while overlooking concerns about fraud, eligibility or security.

One-quarter of the 254 officers surveyed said they have been pressured to approve questionable cases, sometimes “against their will.”

The report does not call out any particular officials and indicates that the agency has had a problem with valuing quantity over quality since at least the 1980s.

But high-ranking USCIS officials said the pressure has heightened after the Obama administration appointed Alejandro Mayorkas as director in August 2009 during an effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform, bringing with him a mantra of “get to yes.”

Internal communications provided to The Daily indicate that the new leadership seemed to fundamentally clash with career agency employees over when to afford the benefit of the doubt, culminating in a whistle-blower investigation into a senior appointee and, ultimately, the agency-wide inspector general inquiry that produced the report.

“We recognize their right to interpret things as liberally as possible, but you still have to follow the law,” said one high-ranking official who was unhappy with the current push.

At least five agency veterans seen as being too tough on applicants were either demoted, or given the choice between a demotion or a relocation from Southern California — where their families were — to San Francisco and Nebraska, according to sources and letters of reassignment provided to The Daily.

Those kind of threats have caused lower-level employees to fall in line, sources said.

“People are afraid,” said one longtime manager, who requested anonymity for fear of being fired. “Integrity only carries people so far because they’ve got to pay the rent.”

A rank-and-file officer who was not involved in the investigation claimed he was demoted to working on less technical cases because he had a high denial rate. “They don’t reprimand you, they just move you,” he said.

“They attempted to basically get me to come into line and approve a bunch of cases. And I just wouldn’t compromise myself because the approvals they ordered, they weren’t in line with the laws,” said the officer.

These employees’ claims are reflected in the inspector general report, which found that 14 percent of respondents had “serious concerns” that employees who focused on fraud or ineligibility were evaluated unfairly. The report also found that supervisors sometimes take cases away from an unwilling officer and assign them to someone else, against agency rules.

Recommendations for improvements in the report included raising the burden of proof and doing away with the popular informal and special appeals practices, which immigration lawyers said would only lengthen an already onerous process.

Attorney David Leopold, who was recently president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the formal appeals process can take up to two years.

“When you’re dealing with business visas, those visas cannot wait around a year, or two years, for review. They needed an answer yesterday,” said Leopold. “I think when they’ve [the officers] made a mistake at that level ... sometimes you can just reason with people and ask them to take a look at it again.”

Nevertheless, USCIS approved 86 percent of the 3.9 million immigration cases it reviewed between October 2008 and October 2009 — a 4 percent drop from the year before, according to the most recent data provided to The Daily.

And immigration attorneys complained that it seems like officers are just looking for reasons to deny a case, and already demand a higher standard of proof than what is required. That standard is now considered a 51 percent likelihood that a fact is true.

“We’re getting ridiculous denials and requests for evidence on things that should be approved very easily,” said immigration attorney Deb Notkin, adding that it’s particularly tough for specialty industries like fashion, software development and graphic design.

The attorneys applauded Mayorkas’ more open dialogue with them, and other proponents of immigration reform, who had previously felt shut out of the bureaucracy. “Mayorkas, to his credit, is very accessible, so we are able to express our concerns about the adjudication process,” said Leopold.

But sometimes, the openness led to a perception that private attorneys were “running” the agency, according to the inspector general’s report, which cited emails in which individual cases were granted special review after private attorneys complained to management.

Mayorkas and Homeland Security press officers said yesterday they could not comment on the allegations.

Sarah.Ryley@thedaily.com

Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers

2012-01-01T07:40:00.000-08:00

By John Ransom

Posted on Sun Jan 1 2012 by Kaslin

Sybil wrote: Many Republicans say that over half of Americans pay no federal taxes. Quite frankly, this reminds me of the statement Adolf Hitler made in 'Mein Kampf', thus, "The Jews are responsible for we German people losing the First World War."- in response to Top Obama Administration Predictions for 2012

Dear Sybil,

Seriously. There are medications that you can take for your condition.

You post literally hundreds of copy and paste screeds that make no sense every day. You have got be some psych-op from the GOP, because you completely discredit liberals.

Skeetshoot wrote: I predict Obama will win the election and people like Ransom will explode into a frenzy of anger. The Repubs will end up as the losers -- the obstructionists, the naysayers, the haters. ." - in response to Top Obama Administration Predictions for 2012

Dear Skeet,

Frenzy of anger? No.

Once again liberals confuse conservatives with their own OWS movement.

Conservatives don’t have a frenzy of anger, because we go out and vote.

America is much bigger than who our president is.

I’m actually much more interested in what happens in the races for House and Senate.

Still and all, I expect that Obama will lose.

As far as being obstructionist: I’m thankful someone is saying “no” to the administration.

If you have a problem with the GOP doing that, you should take it up with the American people who voted in a new House in 2010 and tightened up the Senate too.

Elections, as Obama would say, have consequences. Quit whining about it.

Salemcom wrote: My concern is that Obama will launch a preemptive strike upon nuclear and other facilities in Iran, deliberately waiting until September or October to do so once lagging far behind in the polls, then demand to be reelected as a wartime president.... like George Bush. - in response to Top Obama Administration Predictions for 2012

Dear Salemcom,

I don’t think Obama has the nerve to launch a strike.

It’s more likely that he will come to some agreement with Tehran.

He’ll come home to the USA and declare “peace for our time,” with another faux peace agreement ala Munich 1938.

A year later Iran will announce they have a nuke.

And the rest of us will have to clean up his mess.

Mac wrote: Where is it written and enforced that we no longer have the right to say Merry Christmas? I don't even know George Soros let alone LOVE him! Would stealing money from clients be like Congress robbing OUR social security? Like trying to ruin the US Post Office so their buddies FedEx, etc. can take over? - in response to Mr. Crony Went to Congress: Subpoena Soros, Buffett, et al.

Dear Mac,

Christian beliefs in the public square are increasingly under attack.

Here’s an example:

The Connecticut Post chose to not put a "Merry Christmas" greeting in print on the front page of the newspaper on Christmas Day. This was very disrespectful to the vast majority of the public who celebrate the day religiously and a poor choice in not honoring our national holiday.

Here’s another:

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group that frequently targets the presence of faith and religion in the public square, is demanding that a nativity scene be removed from public property.

Does the Freedom from Religion Foundation ask women wearing burqas to remove them in the public square, or is it just Freedom from Christianity they seek? Plus it's Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion.

But what do you expect from the party that supports Eric Holder's "lying is a state of mind," and Clinton's "it depends on the what the definition of the word is, is"?

What would liberals be if they couldn't change the definition of words to support their perverted science?

Truthful, that's what. And then the cat would be out of the bag.

As far as robbing from social security, I think you are getting your philosophical lines crossed here. It wasn’t conservatives who did the robbing from taxpayers, it was liberals.

Lastly, I don’t know any one who works at FedEx, yet alone love anyone who does.

But to suggest that the Postal Service’s problems are part of some conspiracy is nonsense.

The causes of the USPS losing money annually are union-inspired practices like the one noted by Time Magazine:

The Washington Post’s Federal Eye blog reports that in 2009, postal workers were paid for 1.2 million hours of standby time, costing a total of $30.9 million. For the first half of 2011, however, the Postal Service has paid $4.3 million for 170,666 hours of standby time.

What, exactly, is standby time? Due to union agreements, postal workers can’t be laid off or reassigned during periods of low mail volume. Even if they’re not needed on the job, postal employees still show up at work (and get paid) for what’s known as standby time—which basically amounts to hanging out in a break room, conference room, or cafeteria for a few hours, perhaps all day. The scene calls to mind The New Yorker story about “rubber rooms” where New York City teachers accused of incompetence or misconduct sit idly for months, sometimes years, doing nothing except showing up to continue collecting paychecks.

Gerald wrote: The Teacher's retirement fund sued Bennet group. The suit was settled out of Court. Settlement terms are normally confidential so the ultimate profit made by Bennet group is likely much less than the alleged $1.4B. Normal analysis suggests that the Plaintiffs did not have a strong case that there were laws broken by the Bennet group or the Teacher's Fund would not have settled, unless there was a conspiracy with the Teacher's Fund. Teacher's funds are normally union controlled so there might have been other payoffs. Bankrupcy reorganizations are all messy and "sh-- can happen."

The Companies were in financial trouble and some jobs were saved. - in response to Mr. Crony Went to Congress: Subpoena Soros, Buffett, et al.

Dear Gerald,

The profit that Bennet and friends made was likely not “much” less than $1.4 billion.

Bennet did nothing illegal in the transaction as far as I can tell. From a financial point of view it was a smart transaction. But if he were a Republican, you’d be the first one to cry foul.

My issue with Bennet- and you- is the one of having dual rules. Bennet practices capitalism for himself and socialism for everyone else in that same condescending way that we have come to expect from crony communists who now run the Progressive Party that used to be known as the Democrats.

The Democrat Party used to be about the little guy. Now it’s just a party of great, big guys trying to make sure everyone stays little.

And it’s about the money that they want to make. Just look at who Obama surrounds himself with. Soros, Buffett, Pelosi, Kaiser, Corzine.

Ask yourself how Harry Reid came to be a multi-millionaire on a civil servant’s salary.

If you actually cared about the principles you espouse, you’d be more outraged than I am.

Jimiey wrote: In Fascism the government works with business, and in Socialism it owns business. It seems this admin. is both, a new breed a Fasolism. A sharp turn from a representative Republic. - in response to Mr. Crony Went to Congress: Subpoena Soros, Buffett, et al.

Dear Jimiey,

Very observant. We ran a column about that last week that you can see here. If you didn’t read it, you should. It details how 5 of the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 are directly tied to the Obama administration.

H20Skier wrote: I am glad TH is on top of Sybil's postings John. LOL. He has posted almost 300 posts today as WilliamKristol. - in response to Economists Finally Get One Thing Right in 2011: Obama a Failure

Dear H2O,

Please point to me one of WilliamKristol’s posts that remain on Townhall.

You can’t. Because while you were whining, I took extra time to have our crack staff at the Townhall World Wide Technology Campus develop a top-secret algorithm that allows us to remove pesky posts from the site with a click.

I read practically all of the posts every week to prep this column. I actually don’t find the spam problem that out of control especially from other sites. We have to balance ease of access with ease of reading.

I think we do a good job of it.

And BTW, when you whine about it, you’re just doing what Sybil wants you to do.

Good job. You’re helping Obama.

Mike wrote: I have an Economics Degree and I got it from day one with this guy. A Progressive Socialist is the worst kind of President because he has no concept of reality and what makes the economy tick. He is arrogant enough to think he can spend his way to prosperity. He also doesn't think he will have to pay the piper one day when the economy is bankrupt. Look for the credit rating to be downgraded shortly when Congress gives him the $1.2 Trillion extra to fund the government and increasing the debt to $16 Trillion +.- in response to Economists Finally Get One Thing Right in 2011: Obama a Failure

Dear Mike,

I give economists a hard time. But I know that not all, or even most, are supportive of the liberal agenda.

The problem with most economists is that every problem looks the same to them. As the old saw goes, if you give a man a hammer and tell him to solve problems with it he’ll look at every problem as if it’s a nail.

True Conservative wrote: John, I believe that 4.2 billion a day is only about 1.5 trillion a year ... only about 10%, not 30% of the GDP. However, you're right that it would still be devastating! - in response to If You Thought War Expensive, Wait Until You Pay for Obama's Peace

Dear True,

I think I worded the sentence poorly.

As of right now, energy costs take up about 9 percent of GDP. If you raised oil prices by $150-200 times 19 million gallons per day, you’d get an increase of about $1.5 trillion per year, which is an additional 10 percent of GDP increase. I’m guessing too that other energy sources would increase also. I think I figured we’d end up at 25-27 percent of GDP in total energy costs.

Salemcom wrote: John Ransom.... question: What would you do as president under present circumstances if Iran attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz... and if you chose war then what limits. Nuclear weapons to be used? - in response to If You Thought War Expensive, Wait Until You Pay for Obama's Peace

Dear Salemcom,

I don’t think anyone really cares what I would do. But I’ll bite.

I would attack Iran’s ability to interdict shipping first, then attack the Republican Guard, degrading their capabilities. I would measure out strikes hitting higher value targets as time passed until Iran agreed to back down.

I don’t think there would be any need to use nuclear weapons.

I can’t imagine a scenario under which nuclear weapons would be necessary even if the Arab states banded together.

Illinois Roy wrote: Well I think we need to strike a happy medium. PETA goes overboard at times, sure. But I also think anyone who would be gratuitously cruel to animals won't have any qualms about doing it to people either. For me it's not about elevating animals to human status but just a tendency not to want to cause unnecessary pain and suffering. - in response to PETA Wants Memorial to Cow Victims of 5/22

Dear Roy,

PETA goes overboard at times?

Dude, seriously. PETA’s like big, red clown shoes for the Democrats.

I don't know why you guys think that taking PETA seriously helps you rather than harms you.

Support for fringe groups like PETA is why Middle America has turned its back on the Democrats. Support for fringe groups like PETA is why Democrats can’t govern from the middle.

George wrote: Wow, with a few more "Big Mess Ups" like the successful Libyan policy, the death of Bin Laden, the careful handling of Keystone and the fight for tax fairness and President Obama will win by a landslide! - in response to Obama’s Top Boners of 2011

Dear George,

Oh yeah, that Libyan war is working well if your only goal was to kill Kaddafi. But this isn’t a Die Hard movie, where a happy ending is the death of a bad guy.

While I’m glad bin Laden is dead, too, I think the past months have shown that Bush was right: Neither from a tactical nor strategic point was Osama bin Laden that important. He was hiding in a mansion constructed out of mud with a bunch of women and children.

Again, glad he’s dead, but it’s not made any difference militarily. Actually I think it would have been better if we had extracted him and sent him to Gitmo for some waterboarding.

Lenape wrote: I don't know Ransom; quoting Bluto from Animal House doesn't exactly inspire confidence that you know what you're talking about. Do you have an actual career in finance, or are you just a TH Blogger? According to people like you, Mr. Ransom, everything the Dems do is wrong and everything the Repubs do is correct, so what exactly is the point of trying to "analyze?" - in response to Obama’s Top Boners of 2011

Dear Lenape,

As a former Democrat I can tell you that one of the reasons why I evolved into a conservative is that I was tired of defending the indefensible.

So yeah, most everything the Democrats do is wrong. But it’s not like I’m not critical of the GOP either.

Ask the former GOP state chair in Colorado how uncritical I am.

Chances are his answer would contain a least three four-letter words starting with the earlier letters in the alphabet.

I know you’d be more comfortable if I was quoting Karl Marx or Lenin, but Bluto from Animal House has more credibility on financial matters with me than Marxists do.

Anyone who has been paying attention to our coverage at THfin over the last year will acknowledge that our body of writers has kept people in front of the market and politics in a way that’s unique from other financial pages. You may not like our coverage or agree with it, but we’ve been right a lot.

Try doing that without a professional understanding of markets and politics.

It’s one thing to be merely a columnist, it’s a whole other thing to select, assign and promote stories that bring your site credibility.

Judging by our expanding number of readers, we’re doing both pretty well.

But nice try.

Happy New Year

V/r,

John

What Does Romney Really Think About Vietnam?

2011-12-26T09:18:00.000-08:00

by Bruce Thornton
Frontpage Magazine

Mitt Romney recently said something on Fox News Sunday that raises questions about his understanding of history and its pertinence for foreign policy. In the course of talking about the war in Iraq and the “lessons learned” from that conflict and its “errors,” Romney responded to a question about an incident from his father’s brief 1967-68 run for the Republican nomination. In August 1967, George Romney told a Detroit radio-television reporter, “Well, you know when I came back from Vietnam [in November 1965], I just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get when you go over to Vietnam. Not only by the Generals, but also by the diplomatic corps over there . . . . And, as a result, I have changed my mind . . . in that particular. I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression.”

Little remembered today, Romney’s remark, particularly the careless use of the term “brainwashing,” ended his run for the nomination. The other governors and the journalists who had been on the 1965 trip disavowed Romney’s insulting characterization of the military and diplomatic personnel who had accompanied the governors. Romney was accused of flip-flopping on his earlier comments that the war was “morally right and necessary” and that withdrawal was “unthinkable.” One journalist, noting the amount of time between the trip and Romney’s about-face, wondered why it took so long for Romney to get his brain back from the laundry. The media pounced on Romney’s clumsy use of the “brainwashing” metaphor: the New York Times headline read, “Romney Asserts He Underwent ‘Brainwashing’ On Vietnam Trip.” In February 1968, faced with polls showing voters in New Hampshire preferring Richard Nixon by a six-to-one margin, Romney dropped out of the race.

When Chris Wallace raised the issue in his Fox News Sunday interview, Romney responded, “Years later when my dad was proven to be right in terms of the errors in Vietnam, my wife asked him, ‘You know, dad, how do you feel about the fact that you’re finally being vindicated in what you said?’ And he said, ‘You know, I never look back. I only look forward.’ He’s quite a guy.”

Unfortunately, Chris Wallace didn’t ask an important follow-up questions. When Romney said his father “was proven to be right in terms of errors in Vietnam,” what exactly did he mean? Was one of the “errors,” as George Romney had explicitly said, getting involved in Vietnam in the first place “to stop Communist aggression”? And what events exactly does Mitt Romney believe “proved” his father was right? These are critical questions for understanding Romney’s grasp of history and its lessons.

What that history now shows us is that resisting Communist aggression in Vietnam was a “necessary war,” as Michael Lind calls it, a critical Cold-War duel that enforced the doctrine of containment of Soviet aggression. Thus if Romney thinks that subsequent events “proved” that intervention wrong, he’s on the wrong side of history. Indeed, there were “errors” made under General Westmoreland in the conduct of the war. But after the Tet Offensive of 1968 ended in disaster for the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong, and after General Creighton Abrams replaced Westmoreland and instituted effective counter-insurgency and Vietnamization programs, the tide turned. By 1972, the war was as good as won, as ambassador to South Vietnam Ellsworth Bunker said. American troops were coming home, the communist guerrillas in the South had been neutralized, the countryside was pacified, political and economic reforms were taking hold, and an improved South Vietnamese army was in a position to defend the country as long as the South Vietnamese received aid and air support from the US to counterbalance the resources provided the North by China and the Soviet Union, which had made the Army of North Vietnam the fifth largest in the world. But a Democratic controlled Congress in June 1973 passed the Case-Church amendment to the Defense Appropriation bill, which prohibited any further American military involvement in Vietnam after August 1973. Further legislation cut funding and planned to end all assistance in 1976. Left helpless before the combined might of North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union, South Vietnam was quickly overrun in 1975. The Congressional abandonment of South Vietnam was the fatal error of the war that squandered that victory.

What subsequent events “proved” right, then, was not, as George Romney and apparently his son believe, that the intervention was a mistake, but that a failure of political nerve can waste a hard-won military victory and render meaningless the nearly 60 thousand dead and 150 thousand wounded who had earned that victory. Indeed, the following expansion of communism not just in Southeast Asia — including the genocidal murder of two million Cambodians by communist fanatics — but also in Latin America and Africa, proved not the error of intervention, but the error of failing to follow through on the part of politicians motivated by ideology or political self-interest.

Mitt Romney may have been displaying filial loyalty, or he may even not know what his father had actually said. Considering that in his Fox News interview Romney had spoken of the errors committed in the Iraq war, while still voicing support for it, he may have thought that his father was making a similar criticism. Either way, Romney needs to make clear whether or not he endorses the narrative of Vietnam that makes our intervention there a misguided instance of neo-colonial aggression. The answer to that question is critical for our understanding of Romney’s foreign policy philosophy.

A World without Schoolteachers

2011-12-26T08:36:00.001-08:00

By Richard F. Miniter

The Kindle and Nook may make for not only the most important advance in reading since Gutenberg, but also, quite likely, a major lesson in unintended consequences. Especially for the educational establishment, because for the first time in history, Americans should be able to envision a future without public-school teachers -- indeed, a future without public-school administrators or state departments of education with their rigidly enforced, politically correct social-transformation curriculum. A future without onerous school taxes, "education president(s)," self-preening school boards, or million-dollar classrooms. But most happily, a future without a single supercilious finger wagging in our face as we're forever lectured about how much a securely tenured, part-time, self-important, overpaid class of public employees "cares" about our sons and daughters. Really, really, really cares. And, of course, knows much better than we do how to bring them up.

And it's all possible because these cheap, handheld, downloadable reading devices such as Kindle and Nook now give parents a choice between tutoring and classroom education.

Tutoring has always been the preferred model. That is after all how the very rich educated their children. Second-best, and not-so-second-best at that, were the small schools where the second tier of society, the well-off not-so-rich, pooled their resources in some public location and shared tutors. (Which is why the British, as in Eton and Harrow, still call exclusive private schools "public" schools.) And of course, the elite universities did their best to maintain the tutoring model of education. Did their best, that is, to steer clear of classroom instruction.

Because as opposed to a setting where the instructor stands in front a blackboard lecturing a group of students day after day, guiding and encouraging them through a restricted curriculum, tutoring is a process of individualized on-your-own reading and writing followed a quick critique from the tutor. A character and skill-building technique which not only consumes vastly more learning material, but hits it harder. In much less time.

A number of years ago, the Wall Street Journal had a piece about homeschooling in which a professional in some other field explained his discovery of the huge amount of material but amazingly small amount of time it takes to thoroughly educate a child with the tutoring model. A routine his daughter explained as reading a book every day and then writing an essay about it. "Read a book, write an essay."

In fact, even the simplest tutoring approach often works magic. Years ago, a twelve-year-old foster child arrived in our home essentially unable to read after six or seven years of classroom "special" education. To the point where he didn't even know how to use a dictionary. Our oldest son, a prolific writer, happened to be visiting us at the time, saw the problem, and came up with a fix. He handed the boy the newspaper he read each morning, told him to sit on his bed, read it aloud, and circle every word he couldn't pronounce or didn't know the meaning of. Then, later, the two of them went over the circled words together. The first day, every fourth or fifth word was circled, but it wasn't very long before the number of circles began to decrease, and something clicked in the boy's mind. "Hey," he seemed to say to himself, "this is not such a mystery. I can get this reading and writing thing working on my own." And he went on to other material. Then, when he was ready to begin high school, the state and local school district sent a team to evaluate him in order to design a classroom program that met his "special needs." Only there wasn't any, because they were shocked to discover that he tested at or above -- and in a couple of subjects, far above -- his grade level.

And that's all it takes. Hand out the reading assignment, be available, or have someone else available to examine the essay they write and perhaps send them back to the same material book for another go or two on the same subject. Because tutoring doesn't teach a discrete body of knowledge as much as it does a skill we don't hear much about anymore: scholarship. Not simply memorizing some facts about a subject, but examining it from one perspective and then another until you develop a detailed, three-dimensional view of the subject. It's your month to learn about the Revolutionary War? Read a biography of Washington one day, then in the next Paine or Jefferson, Madison and Adams. Intersperse these books with a personal account of a common soldier, a slave, a parson of the time. Sample some fiction which portrays the period -- Drums Along the Mohawk, for example. Some of the short and breezy economic looks about the period like The Timber Economy of New England. Maybe read the newspapers of the time.

Twenty days, twenty books, all of which a student has had to think fairly deeply about because he knows that he has to write about them, and voilà: a child knows more about the Revolutionary period than -- not to put too fine a point on it -- the average public-school teacher.

Too much to expect of your little second-grader? Well, for little people, there are little books with little words, and at the end of the day, little essays. They'll grow. Kids are smart.

It also sums down to a little block of time because without having to get ready for the school bus; the bus ride; dispersing to classroom; disciplinary issues in classrooms; having to raise your hand to go to the bathroom; noisy, chaotic hallways scenes every fifty minutes; noisy, chaotic lunch periods; announcements; fire drills; lectures about bullying, respecting alternative lifestyles, or strangers; then preparing for the bus ride home, followed by homework, one can do a better job with a child in two hours than a traditional school classroom setting can in eight.

There's also the issue of the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the classroom which the educational establishment will never admit to: indoctrination.

After all, whom do we thank for the classroom? Yes, that right -- dissenting religious sects who wanted their children to read the Bible (their version of it), couldn't afford individual tutors or many other books, and stood a schoolmaster/preacher up in front of a bunch of benches. An effort in indoctrination which later sublimated into civics (a branch of the same tree), after the schools were secularized and then in these latter days into a mushy leveling philosophy rooted in certain psychological/Marxist precepts that seem to impart a new and even higher truth.

Such as the very strange belief that competition is damaging -- that children are fragile, everyone is the same as everyone else, everyone is special, students can learn as much from other students as they may from adults, don't judge, don't strive...and teachers, don't you dare encourage students to study really hard in order to achieve "ability status"...don't make any gestures when you sing "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" because it might offend deaf people -- yada, yada. Anyone with even just a passing acquaintance knows the drill. Knows that this is in fact the end-game of public education -- a belief system.

And so, just as in the earlier religious schools and later in the quasi-religious civics schools, the information allowed to reach the classroom is controlled.

Via the texts.

Diane Ravitch and others have written extensively on the issue of K-12 textbooks, and anybody interested in the Byzantine, incredibly politically correct process by which they are formulated should read her. Suffice it to say that they provide a very restricted view of subjects and, even in "science," do their best to push the party line in much the same manner as a communist math textbook from the 1930s would offer the problem "if one capitalist can exploit twelve workers a day, how many can ten exploit in seven point five days?"

Public-school textbooks also make things up. Portray the starving times in the early Virginia colony as a transitional period in which the early colonists hadn't yet learned to "share," when the exact opposite was the case. I believe that it was Ravitch herself who used the example of a passage in a social studies text which presented as fact, and so glorified, the vanished Anasazi of the southwest as developing an egalitarian society in which everything was shared, when the fact is that they left no written record and so nobody knows how they organized themselves. But the examples of selection and mendacity are legion. And cut from exactly the same bolt of cloth used by earlier educators, who portrayed the four-hundred-year history of the Spanish Inquisition as history's benchmark for terror (and it is a good example) but ignored the fact that religious fanatics from their own doctrinal camp in tiny Scotland burned as many so-called heretics in forty.

But suddenly, with a Kindle or Nook in hand, children can skip the propaganda. At the fingertips of parents armed with a one of these electronic reading devices, there are eight hundred thousand free books -- and a million for sometimes as little as ninety-nine cents. They can find their own lies if they want to. Or, more importantly, the truth.

Which means that just as the automatic washing machine and dryer made in-house, twenty-four-a-day laundry service available to the middle-class (who couldn't afford live-in maids), these new, quickly downloadable electronic readers have put individual tutoring within reach of the great mass of families. Because the problem with tutoring has always been the books. A wealthy family might have had a huge, expensive library to draw from, while the peasants never did. Even a middle-class family in America today would be hard-put to sample and then make available 300 different print books for a child every year -- three children, 900 books. But now even the meanest family can have the Library of Congress in their pocket, or their child's backpack. In fact, there isn't any need to lug a backpack around any longer.

So should all parents begin tutoring their children at home? I don't know. My children are long grown and on their own, but if I had them back and compared the two visions -- a tutoring program taking only an hour or two out of my day which would land my child on his feet at age eighteen, having read and written about the lessons of over four thousand books, or a public education in which he would read and understand, if I was lucky, a hundred or two -- I'd be mighty tempted. Not to mention the fact that for twelve years I wouldn't have had some other adult whispering strange nothings in my kid's ear.

But what I am convinced of is that given the advent of the Kindle and Nook and whatever surprises follow, the current model of classroom-based public education is simply a dead woman walking. Teachers are going to have to reinvent themselves because children aren't going to be lectured to anymore day after dreary day. They won't allow it. Parents won't allow it. For the one single reason that they don't have to anymore. Instead, more and more children are going to be reading and writing and talking about the world of knowledge they're exploring. Intelligently. Becoming ever more educated while spending a much greater portion of their day doing what kids are wont to do. Running and shouting in the autumn sunshine, assembling a model of the Empire State Building in the basement, collecting rocks or dolls or pets. Being, one might say, kids.

...Who, if you're really lucky, might decide to take a walk down the road and interrupt Grandpa's nap.

Richard F. Miniter is the author of The Things I Want Most (BDD, Random House) and the coming e-book Conversations With My Graddaughter. He writes in Stone Ridge New York and can be reached at miniterhome@aol.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/..

Obama's Solar Smoot-Hawley

2011-12-22T08:57:00.000-08:00

By Green Lantern

Setting off a trade war with China that could have worldwide repercussions as if it were 1931 again.

Watching President Barack Obama ruin the economy by repeating every mistake of the 1930s, the one thing you could say was, "At least he hasn't passed a Smoot-Hawley."

Not anymore. The great amateur autocrat has now put his foot in it, kicking off a back-and-forth with China that is threatening other countries of the developing world, leading to who knows where. And what has set off this world trade war? Wouldn't you know, it's that wonderfully soft and beneficent solar energy, so clean, green and non-environmentally threatening, the darling of every liberal politician. In order to protect a domestic industry that literally lives off government subsidies, the President has embarked on a path that could take us directly back to 1931.

In case you haven't been following, here's what happened. Embarrassed by the loss of $500 million on Solyndra plus the bankruptcy of two other companies, Evergreen Solar and Spectrawatt, which together totaled one-sixth of U.S. solar manufacturing, the Department of Commerce has decided that China is to blame. The department has ruled that the Chinese have subsidized their solar panel industry by lending it $34 billion, thereby flooding the international market with cheap products. This has led the price of solar electricity from $3.30 per watt in 2008 to $1.80 last January to $1.20 today. In retaliation, Commerce is considering slapping a tariff of anywhere from 50 to 250 percent on Chinese solar panels.

Now first notice this. Everywhere you look environmentalists and clean energy enthusiasts are celebrating the rapid fall in price of photovoltaic panels, arguing it heralds a glorious renewable future. Google just spent $94 million buying a solar station in California, claiming renewables will soon be "less expensive than coal," according to Forbes. "The price of solar panels has fallen 40 percent since the beginning of the year," exulted Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, only last week on Huffington Post. The European Union just announced confidently that by 2050 all forms of renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear and will be replacing all those nasty things. So is the price of solar really coming down or is it just the Chinese dumping subsidized products on the market, in which case the Administration's purpose is to jack them back up again?

Well, it's hard to tell. In any case, the President has elected to punish the Chinese and teach them a lesson. Are they being appropriately contrite? No, as anyone would have predicted, the Chinese have responded by accusing us of unfair trade practices by subsidizing the thin film industry, the main component of solar panels. So now we're in an escalating situation. Will it stop there? Not likely. This week the Indian Ministry of Commerce announced it too would yield to a petition from its solar industry and will investigate unfair trade practices by both China and the United States, targeting Arizona-based First Solar, our largest make of thin-film panels, and Suntech Power Holdings Co., the world's largest producer of solar panels based in China. So now it's a three-way trade war and growing fast.

Will that be the end of it? Don't bet on it. Remember, when President Herbert Hoover called Congress into special session in 1929, he was only responding to a plea from two Western Senators to protect farmers in Utah and Oregon. By the time Congress got finished, every industry in America had carved out its own special protected niche. The late Robert Bartley argued persuasively that it was Smoot-Hawley that turned a normal two- or three-year recession into the Great Depression that lasted for the next decade.

There's a more important point to be made here, however, because it's gong to be with us a long, long time. Every country in the world is going to be subsidizing its renewable energy sector. Spain did it, Germany is doing it, Denmark and Britain are doing it, and just about every country on the planet will eventually. Why? Because none of these technologies are economical in a market environment. Wind, solar and biofuels are all hopelessly inefficient and expensive and always will be. All must be propped up by the panoply of "renewable mandates," "feed-in tariffs," production tax credits, investment tax credits, government loans and outright grants that governments are providing everywhere.

The result is that every government in the world will be able to accuse every other government of subsidizing its renewables industry. The possibilities for future trade wars are literally endless.

So let's call a truce. In order to avoid worldwide trade wars, let's just have everyone admit that solar, wind, and all the other renewables will never get anywhere without massive government intervention in the economy. That way we can experience the "wave of the future" and still have a world economy left when we're done.

A Very Beatable President

2011-12-22T08:41:00.000-08:00

by Kaslin

We are a little over 10 months from Election Day, and the Christmas hope of many conservatives is that voters next November will deliver a decisive rebuke to President Barack Obama. Obviously, a lot can happen in 10 months. Nevertheless, many of the fundamentals of the race are already in place. And the news is not good for the president.
Photo of a sign that reads, "one term president"

Next year is shaping up as the least favorable for an incumbent president since 1992.

Horse race polls are of limited value this far from Election Day. The 10 to 15 percent of the electorate in the middle—the slice of voters who swing elections—aren’t paying much attention. Sometimes these voters do not make a decision until the very last minute, as was the case in the 1980 campaign between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

Still, the polls offer some guidance. The RealClearPolitics.com average of them shows Obama earning just 43 percent when matched against an unnamed Republican, and only 46 percent when matched against Mitt Romney. This is bad for the president because public opinion about an incumbent is pretty firm and difficult—though not impossible—to move, absent shifts in the broader political context.

And what to make of that context? Each presidential election is fought over a series of shifting national concerns, and the issues of the 2012 cycle are the least favorable for an incumbent president since 1992, and maybe even since 1980. And we know what happened to the incumbents in those elections.

Three issues in particular dominate the discussion, and none of them favors Obama. The most important is the economy, which has been struggling through a decade of weak growth. Consider that between 1951 and 2000, the American economy grew by an average of 37 percent every decade. Between 2001 and 2010, the pace of growth was less than half that, at just 15 percent.

This has generated an enormous “output gap”—the difference between what the economy would ideally produce and what it has actually done. Over the last decade, the size of this gap is a yawning $2.5 trillion. The average American has felt the effects in stubbornly high unemployment and stagnant real incomes, and the effort of the Federal Reserve to generate growth by cutting interest rates to the bone means that people who save their pennies earn virtually no interest for their scrimping.

Barack Obama certainly doesn’t deserve all the blame, but he will pay a high political price for three reasons. First, he overpromised to an absurd degree when he entered office. He claimed that the stimulus bill would reignite the American growth machine and keep unemployment under 8 percent. Neither happened, so Obama will pay for his unjustified optimism.

Second, he failed to form a bipartisan coalition to tackle the economic problem. The many comparisons made between Barack Obama and Franklin Roosevelt in the heady days of winter 2009 always seemed to overlook the fact that FDR’s New Deal, at least in its early stages, was bipartisan, framed as a national response to a national emergency. Obama’s approach was to breezily tell congressional Republicans, “I won.” Because the stimulus manifestly failed to deliver the growth that the president promised, Obama and congressional Democrats must bear the weight of that failure all by themselves.

Third, Obama turned his attention away from the economy far too quickly. This points to another difference between Obama and Roosevelt. FDR essentially threw everything at the Depression, including the kitchen sink; the legislating of 1933 and 1934 was relentlessly focused on the economy, and voters had no choice but to conclude that Roosevelt was, at the very least, doing everything he could think of. Not so with Obama. Having passed their stimulus, this president and his allies in Congress turned their attention to grander social welfare ambitions, something FDR did not begin to do until 1935, when the economy had already started growing at a robust rate.

Thus, the only real question is how big a price Obama will pay. The December survey of economists by the Wall Street Journal found that, on average, they expect 2012 annual GDP to come in at 2.3 percent, far below the postwar average, unemployment to be stuck at or above 8.5 percent for the whole year, and home prices to be flat. No incumbent president since FDR has been reelected when the economy still has so much slack.

Obama’s record on the economy is so dismal that, all by itself, it should be sufficient for an able Republican to defeat him. Yet this president faces other daunting challenges. The next big one is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. It contributed mightily to the GOP wave of 2010, and if the Republicans play their cards right, it will defeat Obama next year.

The reason is reducible to a simple calculation of costs and benefits. The president and his allies in Congress advertised their bill as a cost-reduction package, framing it as a win-win-win: People without insurance would get coverage, people with insurance would see their premiums reduced, and taxpayers would eventually enjoy a lower bill for it all.

However, this argument was a smokescreen. Obamacare focuses almost entirely on coverage expansion. The cost-reducing mechanisms are either very weak, politically impractical, or will eventually hit the middle class square in the jaw. The bill is in fact a win-lose-lose: Those without insurance definitely win, but only because of a transfer of wealth from people with insurance as well as from taxpayers.

Since most Americans already have insurance, this establishes an easy goal for the Republican nominee: Convince the average American that he will be worse off because of the bill. This should not be a difficult task. Credible, nonpartisan reports, many from government agencies, spell out in great detail how millions of Americans will be made worse off by Obamacare. What’s more, Obamacare continues to poll very poorly, mainly because of the messy process that produced it. Most Americans believe that the political system is broken, and that the effort of congressional Democrats in 2009-2010 to pass Obamacare is the prime example of what’s going wrong in Washington. Thus, it should be relatively easy for the GOP to convince voters they are bound to lose because bad process produces bad policy.

The final issue Obama will confront is the deficit. Like the economy, this is an issue that Obama owns politically, even if he is only partly responsible for it. Reduced tax revenues and greater demand for social welfare programs make deficits boom in a recession. And the long-term deficit is almost entirely a function of the runaway cost of Medicare.

Still, the president is politically vulnerable for good reason: He never really tried to forge a bipartisan coalition to tackle deficit reduction. His own deficit commission offered him a sensible, bipartisan plan—the “Simpson-Bowles” plan—that he summarily rejected.

And make no mistake: The deficit is a powerful political issue. The federal budget is massively complex—Rep. Paul Ryan and a handful of wonks at the Congressional Budget Office might be the only people in the country who begin to understand it. Yet most people grasp that money borrowed by the federal government must one day be paid back, with interest, by the taxpayer. Thus, as with health care, the Republican job on the deficit will come down to convincing voters that their intuitions are correct: They are losers because Obama raided the Treasury to pay off Democratic client groups, leaving the average taxpayer to foot the bill.

All in all, this election will be fought more on bread-and-butter issues than any since at least 1992. Ronald Reagan’s question to the nation in the final debate against Jimmy Carter—“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”—will be the GOP’s mantra in 2012. The answer is obviously no, and the Republicans will use the economy, Obamacare, and the deficit to pin the blame squarely on the president.

How will the Obama team counter? The Obama campaign has already telegraphed its strategy for 2012, and it is worth reviewing in some detail, beginning with the demographics of the electorate. Obama’s election in 2008 depended largely on an unprecedented haul among nonwhite voters, and Obama’s campaign gurus believe that demography can trump economics in the Mountain West swing states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico as well as the “New South” states of Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. Additionally, they are counting on another monumental haul from the youth vote, hoping that massive turnout at colleges like Ohio State and the University of Michigan will keep those important Rust Belt states in the Democratic column.

There is little doubt that Barack Obama will win a majority of the non-white vote and the young next year. Even so, the president and his team are being wildly optimistic (assuming they believe their own spin). For starters, large majorities among minorities and kids are built into every Democratic candidate’s campaign. Obama cannot just win these groups; he has to win them by such overwhelming margins that they cover his massive losses among older white voters.

Proponents of a so-called emerging Democratic majority, who argue that the nonwhite vote will eventually transform the Democrats into permanent occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., consistently make a category error when they discuss these voters. African Americans, no doubt, are solid Democrats who support their party year in, year out, regardless of the national climate. Yet Hispanics are not Democratic loyalists. They are swing voters who tilt Democratic. The difference between these two groups is like the difference between Massachusetts and Pennsylvania—the Bay State almost never votes Republican for president, while the Keystone State does so in a reasonably good year for the GOP.

And Obama’s numbers among Hispanics and other nonblack minority groups are less than stellar. The most recent reading from Gallup shows the president earning 52 percent approval from Hispanics, which compares unfavorably to his 67 percent share of the Hispanic vote in 2008. The same goes for the youth vote—again, a swing group with a Democratic tilt. Gallup finds Obama with just 50 percent approval from adults aged 18 to 29, down from 66 percent among these voters in 2008.

So if demographics will not save Obama, what about his message? His campaign team has already made fairly clear their approach to the 2012 election. The president will focus relentlessly on inputs. Obama is going to gloss over the weak performance of the economy to emphasize all of the “important” things he has done to fix the problem. We see this in the daily drumbeat out of the White House: The “do-nothing” Congress has not acted to fix the economy, so Obama will. The idea is to emphasize the energy and vigor of the president in tackling the problem, so people will at least believe he is trying. FDR benefited from this appearance, but that was in large part because he was actually doing everything he could. With Obama, it is mostly a posture he adopted after the 2010 election.

The other major message will be pure demagoguery: The Republicans are the party of extremists who threaten the republic. This message is reminiscent of the Herbert Hoover reelection effort; in late October 1932, the beleaguered president said:

We are told by the opposition that we must have a change, that we must have a new deal. It is not the change that comes from normal development of national life to which I object, but the proposal to alter the whole foundations of our national life which have been builded through generations of testing and struggle, and of the principles upon which we have builded the nation. . . . Our people should consider [carefully] whether they will support changes which radically affect the whole system which has been builded up by a hundred and fifty years of the toil of the fathers.

Team Obama will basically make the same case: The Republican program is at its core radical and anti-American. Will it work for them? The best way to answer this question is with another question: Did it work for Hoover?

The Obama strategy as it has developed is insufficient to produce reelection. The president is going to need assistance, either from more robust growth or a fumble by the Republicans. Bad demographic math, phony activism, and Hooveresque demagoguery is not enough to win.

Add all this up, and we’re left with this conclusion: If things continue on the same trajectory as they have over the last three years, the president will face a near insuperable challenge for reelection. Provided that the GOP nominates a reasonably attractive candidate, it will truly be one for the history books if Obama can be reelected with a terribly weak economy, a massively unpopular health care bill, an obscenely large deficit, and no compelling case for a second term.

It could happen, obviously, but I would not bet my money on it. Not in this economy!

ICE agency report puts serious dent in Eric Holder’s DOJ case against sheriff Joe Arpaio

2011-12-20T05:38:00.000-08:00

On Thursday Eric Holder and the Department of Justice filed suit against Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff’s office run by the outspoken and flamboyant Joe Arpaio who’s made it a personal crusade to uphold U.S. immigrations laws when the feds won’t.

Eric Holder and the Obama Administration are applying the full weight of the federal government’s resources into trying to stop the new Arizona immigration law, but that’s only one of the multi-front attacks they’ve setup to make sure states are stripped of their ability to enforce U.S. immigration laws. Now the DOJ is suing the most active and largest sheriff’s office in Arizona (Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office has 189 officers) by extending an investigation into alleged civil rights violations.

Back in March of 2009 the DOJ informed sheriff Arpaio that a probe was underway to investigate what the DOJ claimed were “alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures.” This is where things get sticky for Eric Holder and the Obama Administration.

Six months prior to this investigation the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) had already conducted its own investigation of sheriff Arpaio’s office and not only gave it a clean bill of health, they actually gave a raving review. The report said things like “The OI and DRO supervisors consider the conduct and performance of the MCSO … officers to be professional and meeting the requirement of the MOA.” And that they considered the working relationship between the feds and the sheriff’s office to be “excellent” and that cases brought by the sheriff’s office to be “high quality.”

The DOJ then got caught with its pants down when more government documents were uncovered under the Freedom of Information Act that suggests politics may be at the root of the investigation. Sheriff Arpaio’s lawyers found a March 11, 09 e-mail, that was sent just after the Justice Department investigation was announced, from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency employee to John P. Torres who was at the time the acting assistant secretary of ICE. The email said: “Did you see this?” attaching a news report on the investigation. “Yes,” Torres responded a few minutes later. “Interesting politics at play.”

Thursday’s DOJ lawsuit against sheriff Arpaio is for Arpaio’s allegedly failing to cooperate fully in the probe, despite the fact there has already been an ongoing probe for over a year and a half now and not a single charge has been levied against Arapio or his office by the DOJ for violating anyone’s civil rights.

With the new evidence found in the case by Arpaio’s lawyers including the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s raving reviews, emails hinting at this being a politically motivated case and the fact a year and a half investigation has not found one civil rights violation, Eric Holder and the Obama Administration appear to be legally and politically in trouble again.

Why can't Mark Meckler just 'withdraw' his attempt to legally transport his gun?

2011-12-18T08:35:00.001-08:00

Kurt Hofmann

Mark Meckler, who co-founded the Tea Party Patriots group, was arrested early yesterday morning at New York's LaGuardia airport for illegal possession of a weapon. The Huffington Post quotes his attorney:

"While in temporary transit through the state of New York in possession of an unloaded, lawful firearm that was locked in a [Transportation Security Administration]-approved safe, he legally declared his possession of the firearm in his checked baggage at the ticket counter as required by law and in a manner approved by TSA and the airline, yet was arrested by port authority for said possession," Stapleton said.

Unloaded, in a locked safe, approved by the TSA, and he declared his possession of the gun--not exactly hallmarks of nefarious intent. Still, in New York, that's not good enough, as the Associated Press explains:
Advertisement

Meckler, 49, declared the weapon, as required, authorities said. He's licensed to carry the gun in Grass Valley, Calif., where he lives, but that license isn't valid in New York, which has strict rules on carrying concealed weapons, they said.

Such "strict rules," in fact, that an unloaded gun in a locked safe is considered a "concealed weapon."

The degree of legal jeopardy Meckler faces is a bit unclear. The Huffington Post story seems to indicate it's not too serious:

Meckler was still being held Thursday night. He was charged with second-degree possession of a weapon.

A law enforcement source said such cases generally result in a fine, and not jail time.

Well, "not too serious," is of course relative--he was, after all, still in jail last night, after having been arrested before dawn. He will also almost certainly lose the gun--which, by the way, he carries because he has received death threats--forever.

Still, even that is "not too serious" compared to what the Queens District Attorney's Office told TPM Muckraker:

He’s being charged with second degree possession of an illegal weapon, a charge that carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison.

15 years, for the second degree version of a "crime" that in itself harms no one? What's the penalty for first degree--life (at least there is no death penalty in New York, unless being forcibly disarmed and left to the lethal mercy of predatory thugs is counted as capital punishment)? The fact that the charge is a felony of course means that if he is convicted, even if he is "only" fined, federal law will prohibit him from ever legally touching a gun or round of ammunition--for life.

On Tuesday, we talked about the the Department of Justice "withdrawing" the letter it had sent to Senator Grassley (R-IA) 10 months previously, flatly denying all "gunwalking" allegations, and how nice it would be if the rest of us could simply "withdraw" indiscretions that had become indefensible. Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee just over a week ago that the statements made in the letter were not "false," but merely "inaccurate"--a distinction he apparently makes between knowingly lying, and aking untrue statements while beleiveing them to be true. That Holder and other senior DoJ officials didn't know the statements were untrue is rather difficult to believe, and that they could have been unaware of the truth, without being grossly incompetent, is even more difficult to believe--but no matter.

Going back to Meckler's case, no one seems to dispute the notion that he had attempted in good faith to comply with all relevant laws, and simply failed to adequately familiarize himself with New York's insanely draconian gun laws. Seems tailor-made for a DoJ-style free pass to "withdraw" his attempt to transport the gun.

Guess it doesn't work that way for the rest of us, though.

Forgiving Newt

2011-12-13T08:56:00.000-08:00

By Jay Clarke

Newt Gingrich is a failure. A flawed, failed, weak human being. But then again, isn't everyone? When we are finally called to meet our Maker, there isn't one human being who has ever lived who can lay claim to perfection. Well, there is One.

But that's not Newt. He's true-blue human frailty to the core. And everyone knows it. Newt's "baggage" has been dissected, discussed, debated, and droned about on network news and cable shows since before he announced his candidacy. His supporters respond with glowing praise of his agile intellect, debating performance, innovative ideas, and knowledge of the Washington power structure.

But for some Republicans and conservatives, Newt is definitely not their guy. They could never vote for him, no matter how smart he is. No matter if he could defeat Obama in a landslide or put America back on the track to prosperity. Not even if he could tame the tax code, modernize and shrink the federal government and bring American sensibilities back to the White House. It's a "no go." Newt just has too much baggage. Two affairs. Two failed marriages. Boom. He's out.

But, according to Newt, he's changed. He's older. Wiser. A grandfather now. And he's answered every question about his past with grace and dignity while openly acknowledging his failures. He's found a relationship with God. And has sought God's forgiveness.

There are no perfect candidates just as there are no perfect people. America's Founders were less than perfect. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison held slaves. Adams was highly abrasive and had an explosive temper. Benjamin Franklin fathered an illegitimate son and was quite the ladies' man as America's first ambassador to France. More modern leaders have fared no better. John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton were all deeply flawed human beings.

So, at what point does a candidate or president's personal, human frailties cross the line and disqualify him or her to run for the highest office in the land? What level of moral perfection should we demand from our presidents? How far back into their lives should we dig? And is there any room for those who seek the presidency to ever be forgiven for their mistakes? Or will Americans continue to follow political hatchet-men and media manipulators who destroy the character of good men and women who seek public office?

These are questions that American voters need to seriously consider. If a "perfect" and unblemished presidential candidate is ever found, you can be sure that he/she has been manufactured and groomed by media consultants and political operatives. What you see definitely won't be what you get.

And is that what America really wants? A candidate who has never faced adversity and lost? American history is built on stories of those who have failed and then risen to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. The American Revolution itself hinged on just such a story. Bruised and battered, shoeless and shivering, George Washington's army crossed the Delaware River on December 25, 1776 to attack and rout the surprised Hessian forces at Trenton, NJ. This single act saved the American Revolution. Adversity and failure were no strangers to Washington in 1776 and were essential ingredients in his development as a general and American political leader.

"Experience is the father of wisdom." So goes the saying. Some believe that wisdom comes with age. Yet the world is full of young and old fools alike. Experienced and inexperienced. Wisdom is not easily discovered. It must be earned. Not through academic study, professional expertise, or time served on the planet. But through hard truths taught by potent and profound mentors. The humblers of prideful men. Pain. Loss and failure.

Newt Gingrich has had his share of pain and loss. And failure. In a way that most Americans will never experience. His errors cost him two marriages. He's paid the price in his personal life. Many times over. His personal failings have been widely publicized, editorialized, and embellished. Most of us cannot imagine the level of pain and humiliation involved when one's personal and private failures are made public and laid bare for all to see. Newt has lived it. And, by all appearances, he's a better man today because of it. Smarter. More insightful. And wiser. Pretty good traits for a president to have.

As human beings we all share the same, inherent defect. We are not perfect. We all sin. With that in mind and for those who may feel that Newt Gingrich is not qualified to be president, based solely on his personal failings, a word from a very wise man. "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone..."

If God, against whom all sin is committed, can forgive Newt Gingrich, maybe America can and should, too.

Jay Clarke is a businessman, writer, and lifelong conservative from Southern California. Write him at americanheirs@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter @AmericanHeirs, or visit his blog at americanheirs.wordpress.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/12/forgiving_newt.html at December 13, 2011 - 10:56:32 AM CST

Craving Another Great Depression

2011-12-12T10:11:00.001-08:00

By Ralph R. Reiland
How else to explain the celebrated Kansas speech?

Pushing his agenda for higher taxes on "the rich," President Obama kicked off his December 6 speech in Kansas by saying his Kansas grandparents "shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression."

In fact, the 1929 stock market crash turned into the long-running Great Depression because the counterproductive soak-the-rich policies of the federal government hadn't "triumphed" in reversing the downturn.

Franklin Roosevelt's forceful expansion of federal regulations and confiscatory taxation, his intimidation of "the rich," encouragement of labor strikes, and half-baked policy experiments discouraged employers from hiring workers and provided strong disincentives to new business investment.

"From 1929 to 1940, from Hoover to Roosevelt, government intervention helped make the Depression Great," writes Amity Shlaes in The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. "The trouble, however, was not merely the new policies that were implemented but also the threat of additional, unknown, policies. Fear froze the economy, but that uncertainty itself might have a cost was something the young experimenters simply did not consider."

Roosevelt's goal was to enlarge the power of the public sector, increase revenues to the government, and expand the economic controls of the centralized bureaucracy, even for dubious projects (today's version of unending and equally dubious projects include federal handouts for the Chevy Volt, $500 million in loan guarantees to politically correct but economically bankrupt Solyndra, Cash for Clunkers, and federally-imposed mortgage goals that promoted zero-down loans to unqualified buyers).

"Businessmen and businesses were the targets," writes Shales, while Roosevelt "made groups where only individual citizens or isolated cranks had stood before, ministered to those groups, and was rewarded with votes."

The craving for political power took precedence over national unity. "Roosevelt and his staff were becoming habitual bullies, pitting Americans against one another," writes Shlaes.

As Roosevelt stated it in his second inaugural address, he sought "unimagined power."

Those two words alone were enough to turn employers and investors into John Galt, the fictional character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged who, refusing to become a cog in an anti-individualist society, urges the world's producers, including businessmen, to strike, to withdraw their talent and investments from society in order to bring about the collapse of collectivism.

In their 2010 book, Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Superpower Status, Stephen Moore and Arthur B. Laffer summarize the Roosevelt legislative victories that deepened and lengthened the Great Depression.

Draining investment capital from the system, the top income tax rate was raised from 25 percent to 63 percent in 1932, and then to 79 percent, creating clear disincentives for business expansion and ever-higher obstacles to capital accumulation and new investment.

The corporate tax rate was raised from 11 percent to 12 percent in 1931, 13.75 percent in 1932, and 15 percent in 1936 with a 27 percent surtax on undistributed profits.

The highest inheritance tax rate was more than doubled in 1932, from 20 percent to 45 percent, raised to 60 percent in 1934 and 70 percent in 1935. In 1932, a gift tax was reinstated with a top rate of 33.5 percent, raised to 45 percent in 1934 and 52.5 percent in 1935.

The result was enduring stagnation. "The DOW did not return to 1929 levels until nearly a decade after Roosevelt's death," writes Shlaes, while the unemployment rate "did not return to pre-crash levels until the war."

After summarizing the aforementioned triumphs of Roosevelt's anti-rich, anti-business policy agenda, Moore and Laffer issue a clear warning: "U.S. federal and state tax policies are on an economic crash trajectory today, just as they were in the 1930s."

Obama Channels Hugo Chavez, Shows Why He Can't Lead On The Economy

2011-12-08T17:09:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, President Obama went to Osawatomie High School in Kansas to deliver an address framing the economic issues for the 2012 election. He was following in the footsteps of turn of the century “progressive” Teddy Roosevelt, who spoke at that same site 100 years ago to rail against big corporations and the privileged, while calling for “fair play” for ordinary Americans.

But the speech only showed why Obama can’t lead America on the economy. Instead of leading us forward into the modern economics of the 21st century, he keeps reaching back into the economics and politics of old – the failed Keynesian economics of Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, the disastrous stagflation of Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, and the supposed promise of progressivism 100 years ago, before the demonstrated failures of Marxism worldwide in the 20th century.

He drew a picture of America as a struggling third world nation, saying at stake today “is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure a retirement.” He explained America before his coming as “Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t.”

This sounds more like Indonesia, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua. But it is not America “long before the recession hit.”

He explained the roots of the problem as,

Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere in the world….Steel mills that needed 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100, so that layoffs were too often permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle….If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs or the Internet.

This Luddite analysis fundamentally misconceives the role of technology in a modern economy. Such advancing technology increases worker productivity, and hence wages and standards of living. Technological progress over the decades is why the average American worker in 2000 enjoyed 7 times the standard of living of the average American worker in 1900.

He identifies the solution in the speech as increased government spending as the foundation for rising prosperity. He says,

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, and communicate with the rest of the world. That’s why the over one million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and bridges; laying down faster railroads and broadband; modernizing our schools – all the things other countries are doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Before Barack Obama as President, the rest of the world looked to America as the example for the economic model that works to achieve prosperity. But today Obama tells America “It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.”

Instead he tells us to look at the basic infrastructure spending of other countries as the model that works. But American economic growth is not suffering because of a lack of basic infrastructure like a third world country. It is suffering because Obama is so doggedly pursuing the opposite of every policy that would free the economy to produce and boom. Under such Obamanomics, soon enough America will be suffering from the lack of a reliable energy grid like a third world country.

And of course, essential to that essential infrastructure spending, Obama tutors us, is to increase tax rates on the nation’s investors and job creators. He said in Kansas on Tuesday,

“But we don’t have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices….Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education, and research, and high-tech manufacturing? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can’t afford to do both. That’s not politics. That’s just math.”
So there you have the Obama formula for an economic growth. After the greatest runaway spending spree in American history during the Obama Administration, the answer is for government to increase spending even more, financed by increasing tax rates even more on the very investors and job creators that produce the jobs for the middle class and working people in America’s economic system. That is a perfect prescription for another recession, not the long, long overdue recovery America is still waiting for under Obamanomics.

Obama tells us, “It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody pulling in $50 million.” That would be wrong if it was true. But it is not.

What Obama is peddling to America on tax policy is only the ugliest example of his well-established rhetorical style of calculated deception. It is based on what he thinks the average voter does not know and will not know, and can be manipulated to believe to Obama’s political advantage. For the picture he is painting of the rich getting away without paying their fair share while working people bear most of the tax burden is the opposite of reality.

Even before Obama was elected, under those “failed policies of the past,” the top 1% of income earners in 2007 paid 40% of federal income taxes, while the CBO just reported that they earned that year 17% of the income. Moreover, that 40% of federal income taxes paid by the top 1% was more than paid by the bottom 95% combined, according to official IRS data. While the top 1% paid 40% of federal income taxes, the bottom 40% paid no federal income taxes as a group on net. Today 47% pay no federal income taxes.

Yet, Obama has already enacted under current law further tax increases on the nation’s job creators, investors and small businesses going into effect in 2013, when the tax increases of Obamacare become effective and the Bush tax cuts expire. Consequently, that year the top two income tax rates would rise by close to 20%, the capital gains tax would soar by nearly 60%, the tax on dividends would nearly triple, and the Medicare payroll tax would rocket up by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers. This alone would take us well beyond the Clinton tax rates, despite Obama’s outdated talking point that he is still repeating from 2008.

This is in addition to America suffering with virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40% on average, counting state corporate rates. As I have previously noted, even China imposes only a 25% rate, with the rate in the EU even less on average. Our Canadian neighbors next year, now booming while America lags under Obama, will enjoy a 15% rate next year.

Yet, Obama barnstorms America calling for still more tax increases on American business, large and small, and the job creators and investors on which jobs and prosperity for working people depend. The galloping regulatory burdens he is now imposing effectively involve still further tax increases stifling production. It all adds up to a brew for another recession in 2013, unless the American people force a change in course in 2012.

The Ethics of Eric Holder

2011-12-04T08:40:00.000-08:00

Taken from American Thinker
By Ronald Kolb

When Attorney General Eric Holder recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his role in the Fast and Furious operation, where 2,000 rifles were deliberately "walked" from the United States into Mexico, his answers at times seemed incredible and stretched the limits of believability.

A few months earlier, on May the third, Holder had testified before the House that he had only recently learned of the deadly and disastrous operation.

But a series of memos was uncovered by CBS News last October showing that during 2010, Holder had received at least five different notices concerning Fast and Furious from Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center. He also received another memo from Assistant Attorney General (and long-time associate) Lanny Breuer.

But at the recent hearing, Holder stated three times that he had learned of Fast and Furious only earlier this year, after the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona. Five times Holder testified that he never saw any of the damning memos.

Senator John Cornyn from Texas queried Holder. "Those are memos with your name on it, addressed to you, referring to the Fast and Furious operation. Are you just saying you didn't read them?"

"I didn't receive them," answered Holder. "They are reviewed by my staff and a determination made as to what ought to be brought to my attention."

Cornyn then asked Holder if he had apologized to Brian Terry's family. The exchange that followed showed a coldness and lack of sensitivity that was truly stunning.

Holder: I have not apologized to them, but I certainly regret what happened.

Cornyn: Have you even talked to them?

Holder: I have not.

But Holder continued. "It is not fair, however, to assume that the mistakes that led to Fast and Furious directly led to the death of Agent Terry."

The day following the hearings, the Terry family responded to Holder with a terse and angry statement. "Mr. Holder needs to own Fast and Furious ... the Attorney General should accept responsibility immediately. It is without question, the right thing to do."

That very same day, in an apparent attempt at damage control, Holder responded with a letter addressed to Terry's parents which he immediately leaked to the press before both parents had the opportunity to read it.

None of these events should be surprising considering Mr. Holder's controversial history.

The two events that Eric Holder is most defined by before becoming attorney general were his key roles while in the Clinton administration in obtaining freedom for members of the Puerto Rican nationalist terrorist group known as the FALN (also known as the Armed Forces of National Liberation). Holder would later follow that by facilitating a pardon for fugitive billionaire Marc Rich.

In looking back at both of those controversies, the similarities to Fast and Furious now seem eerie. Holder had proclaimed sympathy for the FALN victims, but only after the terrorists had been released. He also proclaimed ignorance of both Mr. Rich and the case against him, even though the facts clearly suggest otherwise.

The FALN had conducted a deadly bombing campaign in numerous cities around America during the 1970s and '80s, setting off nearly 140 bombs that killed six and injured more than 80. Their most notorious act was the bombing of Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan in 1975, which killed four and injured 60 others, some of them seriously.

What slowed the FALN's reign of terror was the arrest and incarceration of nearly all of the group's members during the early eighties. When Eric Holder arrived as deputy attorney general in Janet Reno's Justice Department in 1997, he quickly took up the cause of freeing the FALN, and it became a near-obsession.

Holder met with advocates for the FALN's clemency at least nine times over the next two years, but he deliberately kept the victims of the deadly and unrepentant terrorist group out of the process. He also never spoke with any prosecutors or law enforcement who had been involved with the FALN's capture and prosecution.

In December of 1996, in the months before Holder's arrival, then-pardon attorney Margaret Love had issued a report recommending against clemency for the FALN and their closely allied group, the Macheteros (machete-wielders). The latter group was primarily based in Puerto Rico and had killed six there in a number of armed attacks.

Mr. Holder was sworn in as deputy attorney general on Friday, July 18, 1997. In Holder's first full working day the following Monday, pardon attorney staffer Susan Kuzma -- who had previously served in the Public Integrity office with Holder during the 1980s -- sent Love a memo questioning her 1996 report that had rejected clemency.

By November, Holder had fired Love and replaced her with Roger Adams, who was then a member of Holder's staff. That same month, Holder and Adams began meeting with advocates of clemency for the terrorist group.

Years later, in 2009 (and just prior to Mr. Holder's confirmation hearings before the Senate), the Los Angeles Times uncovered the fact that Holder ordered Adams to rewrite the Love report and change it to a recommendation favoring clemency.

Adams still had misgivings, so he sent a report to Holder that the terrorists should still be denied clemency. Undeterred, Holder ordered Adams to revise it. On August 31, 1998, Adams finally sent Holder the revised report, but he warned Holder's chief of staff, Kevin Ohlson, in a separate memo that if the report became public, it "would be disastrous."

In the report that Adams sent to Holder, he wrote that "I continue to have concerns," including about the fact that the victims had not been notified and that clemency could also undermine investigations and prosecutions of co-conspirators among the two allied terrorist groups.

Holder quickly came up with the idea of an "options memo," to be prepared and sent to Bill Clinton, that contained no specific recommendations. Acting on Ohlson's orders, Adams complied.

But Holder's efforts still languished until early 1999, when Hillary Clinton announced that she was running for an open Senate seat in New York.

Between March and July of 1999, White House staff with ties to Mrs. Clinton began frequent meetings with FALN advocates, and soon White House Counsel Charles Ruff became involved. In July, Mr. Holder was turned to for an assist, and the Holder/Adams "options memo" went to Ruff on the 8th.

And in a move that would remain hidden until 2009, Holder had sent Mr. Clinton his own personal recommendation for clemency. That memo was acknowledged by Holder, but Mr. Clinton (and now President Obama) refused to make it public.

Ruff also sent his own report to Clinton in early August, but the final catalyst occurred on August 9. According to the New Republic, Mrs. Clinton met with a handful of FALN supporters, including then-New York City councilman Jose Rivera, who gave Hillary a packet concerning clemency for the FALN, along with a letter asking her to "speak with her husband about granting executive clemency."

On the morning of August 11, 1999, Mr. Clinton announced the offer of clemency to twelve members of the FALN along with four Macheteros, and the news stunned both the victims of the FALN and many members of law enforcement.

To make the offer more palatable to the public, Eric Holder had concocted a plan to have the terrorists express remorse for their actions. But none of them would accept, and the situation went from bad to worse. As the days passed and criticism continued, pressure from the Clinton administration intensified for the terrorists to accept the offer.

Finally, on September 7 -- a full four weeks after the offer had first been made -- all but one member each from the FALN and the Macheteros decided to accept. Three days later, eleven FALN members were freed from numerous federal prisons around the country. Within days, both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the action.

Congressional hearings were called to investigate the events surrounding the pardons. On September 16, Clinton issued a blanket order of executive privilege in an attempt to fend them off.

On October 20, 1999, Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In both Holder's opening oral and written statements, he stated that "I wish to begin by extending my heartfelt sympathy to those victims and their families whose lives were tragically affected by the criminal conduct of the FALN."

Holder continued by saying that "[i]t is difficult to fully comprehend the extent of the pain and suffering these victims were forced to endure. ... I want the victims of FALN violence to know that our thoughts and prayers remain with them now and in the future."

However, Holder was forced to deal again with the victims during his testimony. Four different senators asked Holder why none of them had been contacted before clemency was offered.

The first exchange was with Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah.

Holder: Well, I think that generally we do a good job in getting victim input, notifying victims when pardons and clemency decisions are being made. I think we could have done a better job here. I think we could do a better job generally.

Hatch: You didn't do anything here. You didn't do anything here, according to the records I have.

Holder: Well, we...

Hatch: You didn't talk to the victims.

Holder was asked the same question by Senators Grassley (Iowa), Kyl (Arizona), and Ashcroft (Missouri) and gave the same response. What none of them knew at the time was that Holder had deliberately avoided contacting the victims and had met repeatedly with FALN advocates in his personal obsession to free them.

Whenever questions focused on his own role, Holder would either refer to executive privilege -- which he did 40 times -- or shift the blame for the clemency offer to Mr. Clinton -- which he did 15 times.

The most egregious and bizarre claims of executive privilege came in exchanges with Senator -- and Judiciary Chairman -- Orrin Hatch. The 1996 report from Margaret Love that had recommended against clemency was accidentally released to the committee, and Hatch asked Holder to comment on it.

Holder: The letter should not have been produced. It seems to me that the information contained in the letter is clearly within the bounds of executive privilege.

Hatch: Seriously?

Holder: Excuse me?

Hatch: Seriously, you can't really believe that.

Holder: Oh, absolutely.

Hatch: Well, we have a copy of the letter. And you are aware that she recommended against clemency.

Holder: I really would not comment on what recommendations were made by the pardon attorney. As I said, I think that falls well within the bounds of executive privilege.

Later, Hatch asked Holder about the 1999 report that he and Roger Adams prepared that effectively replaced the 1996 Love report that recommended against clemency.

Hatch: Did the second report contain a recommendation of whether the president should or should not grant clemency?

Holder: Mr. Chairman, with respect to those questions, it seems to me the answers to those questions are prohibited by the assertation of privilege of the...

Hatch: How? Tell me. I mean, where in the law do you find that?

The befuddled senator never received an answer.

Hatch also asked if there had been any attempt to obtain information from those offered clemency concerning some of their co-conspirators who remained at large.

FALN bomb-maker William Morales was -- and still is -- hiding in Cuba. Macheteros Victor Gerena and Filiberto Ojeda-Rios were on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list (Gerena has now been on that list for a record 27 years, and Rios was killed in an FBI shootout in 2005).

Holder replied that "to my knowledge[,] those requests were not placed."

Hatch: You're a former prosecutor. I mean, don't you want to get to the bottom of these things?

Holder: Sure.

Hatch: Well, then, why weren't those questions asked?

Holder: Because it seems to me you're talking about a group of people who did not recognize the right of the government to even--

Hatch: What's that got to do with it?

Holder tried to shift the blame to Clinton. "Well, as I said, the power of the president is absolute in these areas...again, it is for the president to decide."

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama then quoted from a report from Janet Reno's office written the previous month that was leaked just prior to Holder's testimony. It mentioned the threat of increased violence from the "impending release from prison" of members of Puerto Rican terrorist groups.

Holder answered that "I think that given the terms under which these folks were released, which is where they had to indicate that they renounced violence, makes the report language you cited, it seems to me, a little inapplicable."

On October 21, at a bizarre press conference the day following the hearing, Holder dug himself in deeper. "What I was trying to tell the Committee yesterday was that the Attorney General's report clearly did not refer to these people [the FALN], given the fact that they have, as a condition of release, renounced violence."

One day later, Jack Quinn -- the influential former White House counsel for Bill Clinton as well as the former chief of staff for Al Gore -- met with Deputy Attorney General Holder. Quinn was now the legal representative for fugitive billionaire Marc Rich.

A look back at Holder's actions during the Rich pardon gives an even fuller insight into the dubious and corrupt political opportunist that he was then and still is today.

In September of 1983, commodities trader and financier Marc Rich and his business partner Pincus Green were the targets of a 51-count indictment that included charges of evading $48 million in taxes, trading oil with Iran while Iran was under a U.S. embargo, and additional charges of racketeering and fraud. It was the largest tax fraud case in U.S. history.

At the time of the indictment, Rich and Green had already fled to Switzerland and were living in luxury. Extra charges were added in March of 1984, making it a 65-count indictment.

By 1999, when Rich's attorney, Jack Quinn, approached Eric Holder for help, Mr. Rich was listed on the Interagency International Fugitive List as WANTED by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Marshal Service.

Rich was also listed on the Justice Department's website as an international fugitive. The posting further noted that the U.S. "will pay a reward for information that leads to the arrest of Marc David Rich." Rich was also posted on Interpol's "Red Alert" list.

Quinn first tried to use a more than willing Holder to obtain a deal from prosecutors for his client, but when that scheme failed in early 2000, Quinn would return to Holder later that same year for help -- this time in attempting to obtain a pardon. Quinn would later state -- and Holder eventually admit -- that he had dangled the attorney general post before Holder in a potential Gore administration.

Holder would claim over the coming years that he was not familiar with who Marc Rich was -- and then gain only a passing familiarity with his case -- even after discussing Rich's case with Quinn at least nine times between October 1999 and January 2001.

In 1976, Holder had first arrived in Washington as a member of the newly formed Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. He departed that office in 1988.

Between October 18, 1982 and July 10, 1984, the Washington Post ran five front-page stories focusing on Marc Rich. One of three stories from 1983 focused on the infamous "steamer trunk affair" from that August, where Rich had unsuccessfully attempted to transport subpoenaed documents to Switzerland that were recovered at the last moment from a Swissair flight on the runway at Kennedy airport (located in Holder's hometown of Queens, New York).

The following month, another front-page story from the Post focused on the indictment of Rich, correctly calling it "the largest tax-evasion indictment in U.S. history." The newspaper ran at least 16 other stories that focused on Rich between 1983 and 1989, and five of those stories were posted on the front page of the Business section.

It would also be discovered (and reported by National Review's Andy McCarthy in 2009, just prior to Holder's planned confirmation vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee) that Holder as U.S. attorney in Washington in 1995 had settled a multimillion-dollar fraud case between the Treasury Department and Mr. Rich.

And in February of 2000, soon after Quinn's and Holder's plan to cut a deal for Rich with New York prosecutors fell through, Quinn sent Holder a memo of talking points entitled "Why DOJ (Justice Department) Should Review the Marc Rich Indictment."

Before prosecutors totally rejected a deal for Mr. Rich, Holder and Quinn stayed in constant touch after their initial contact in the fall of 1999. According to notes that Quinn kept of a phone call from Holder on November 8, Quinn quoted Holder as saying that he would "do what he can" and that it was "ridiculous" that prosecutors in New York were refusing to even discuss the case with Rich's attorneys.

Quinn's notes then included Holder's suggestion to "send letter to Mary Jo" (White -- who was then the prosecutor), and to "cc" a copy back to him. When Holder received his copy of the letter, he replied to Quinn that "we'll call her and say she should do it."

The notes added that Holder had advised Quinn to be "reasonable and conciliatory" when sending the letter. Incredibly, the deputy attorney general was now giving advice to assist the biggest tax evader in history in having his charges dismissed.

Quinn's letter was sent to White on December 1, and over the next two months before White's office replied, Holder and Quinn still remained in contact. After one conversation, Quinn noted that Holder had "spoke[n] to MJ" White, and "she didn't sound like her guard was up." After a further conversation with Holder, Quinn asked, "Deal?" Holder replied, "Yeah, think so. We're all sympathetic. Equities are on your side."

But the deal was flatly rejected in early February, and by mid-March of 2000, Quinn and the rest of Rich's legal team began making plans to obtain a presidential pardon for their fugitive client. Quinn returned to Holder for help that November after the election.

Meanwhile, the Rich legal team moved on what Quinn called the "GOI" (government of Israel) front. Rich began donating what would total 200 million dollars to Jewish and Israeli foundations over the next months. And according to reports in the Israeli press, at least 120 thousand dollars of Rich's money ended up in then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak's campaign. Barak would come to play an important role in the coming months.

Quinn touched base again with Holder on November 17 and sent an e-mail to a colleague the following day. Quinn wrote that he "spoke to him [Holder] last evening. he says go straight to wh [White House]. also says timing is good."

On the 21st, Quinn met with Holder personally and discussed the pardon petition (Holder later said he couldn't remember the meeting). Holder told Quinn that he didn't need a copy of the petition, and to just have White House Counsel Beth Nolan "call him."

What Holder was suggesting was to bypass Pardon Attorney Roger Adams, who would have been obliged to contact the prosecutors. Holder already knew that the prosecutors would vehemently object.

On December 11, Quinn gave the pardon petition to Nolan and suggested that she contact Holder for his input.

That same day, Ehud Barak called Clinton and (according to transcripts prepared by the National Security staff), at the end of the 20-minute call, Barak brought up Rich, and noted that he had made many "philanthropic contributions." Barak hoped that Clinton would "consider" the case.

On January 6, Beth Nolan contacted Holder for his input on the pardons for both Rich and his business partner Pincus Green (whom Quinn was also representing). Holder told her that his position was "neutral' in pardoning the two fugitives.

On January 8, Ehud Barak called Clinton again. And just like the first call, Rich came up at the end:

Clinton: It's best we not say much about that.

Barak: Okay. I understand. I'm not mentioned it in any place.

Clinton: I understand.

On January 10, Quinn sent Holder a copy of a letter that he had sent Clinton five days earlier where he stated that "I believe in this case with all my heart."

Quinn added a cover letter for Holder. "Dear Eric: I hope you can say that you agree with this letter. Your saying positive things can make this happen. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Jack Quinn."

Quinn sent the letter to Holder, but since it dealt with pardons, it went instead to Roger Adams (where a petition should actually have gone months earlier). Adams's staff realized that it was meant for Holder and forwarded a copy to him, where it arrived on the 17th. Holder's staff would later say that he received it, but Holder denied that he ever did.

Adams finally saw a copy on the 19th, and he drafted a short response saying that Rich and Green should request petition forms. Adams decided to hold the response until Monday the 22nd, thinking that Clinton would have no time to pardon them before leaving office.

The rest of the events over the next two days would prove to be both stunning and disheartening.

At 2:47 p.m., Clinton called Ehud Barak, and this time Clinton brought up Rich:

Clinton: I'm trying to do something on clemency for Rich, but it is very difficult.

Barak: Might it move forward?

Clinton: I'm working on it, but I'm not sure...here's the problem with Rich; there's almost no precedent in American history. There's nothing illegal about it but there's no precedent...I'm working on it."

At 6:30 p.m., Quinn called Holder and told him that the Rich pardon was under serious consideration at the White House, and that they would soon be contacting him for his input.

Quinn mentioned Ehud Barak's support for a pardon, and his notes show that Holder had "no personal prob," and that his personal feeling was "not strongly against it," but that the prosecutors would "howl."

Quinn quickly called Nolan's White House Counsel's office and told them that Holder was "neutral, leaning favorable." Nolan promptly called Holder back at 6:38. Holder then repeated that he was now "neutral, leaning favorable" and had heard that Ehud Barak was now "interested."

After Holder hung up, Nolan informed the staff that Holder now supported a pardon -- to the surprise of the others. Stunned staff member Eric Angel said, "Why the f--- would he say that?"

At 7:00 p.m., Nolan and Angel were joined by White House staffers Bruce Lindsey, Meredith Cabe, and others for a staff meeting with Clinton, and the discussion focused on pardons -- the last being for Marc Rich.

Clinton noted that Ehud Barak had called him and raised the issue (even though it was Clinton who had called and raised the issue). The staff expressed strong opposition, but then Nolan dropped a bomb. She said that Holder was "leaning toward" a pardon.

When the meeting ended, no one was sure what Clinton would do. He then returned a call from Jack Quinn, and he agreed with Quinn's suggestion that the case against Rich was a civil and not a criminal one.

Clinton then informed Nolan and Lindsey that he was going to issue pardons, and to contact the Pardon Attorney office. Just past midnight, Cabe reached Roger Adams, and then faxed him a list of those being pardoned. Adams noted Rich and Green on the list, but no information was included.

Nolan's office then faxed the pardon petition to Adams, and he realized that Rich and Green were fugitives. At that point, the FBI faxed the required NCIC check to Adams. It showed the indictment that was still pending, and added that the two were wanted for arms trading.

Adams faxed a summary to the White House but was still worried that pardons would be issued. At 1:00 a.m. he contacted the Justice Department Command Center in an attempt to track down Holder.

Adams reached Holder at his home, and he informed him that Clinton was seriously considering pardons for the two fugitives. Holder told Adams that he was aware of that fact, and the conversation abruptly ended.

Holder would tell Congress -- and later the Washington Post --that he had been distracted by other issues that night. On other occasions, he would tell Congress that after he had given his recommendation hours earlier, he thought the pardons would still not be issued.

But Holder would also testify that when he received the warning call from Adams, he thought that Clinton had already made up his mind.

Even at that point, there was still one last chance to prevent the pardons. Nolan's staff was concerned about the the NCIC listing of arms trading, and at 2:00 a.m., an angry Jack Quinn assured them that there was nothing else.

At 2:30 a.m., Nolan called Clinton and expressed her concerns, saying that all they had was Quinn's assurance. Clinton's response was to "take Jack's word." And with that, Marc Rich and his legal team -- with a huge assist from Eric Holder -- finally achieved their goal.

But Holder's abysmal behavior wasn't finished. By January 22, the issue of the Rich pardon had fully erupted (and would continue for days). It was in that context when Quinn spoke to Holder that day. After Janet Reno's departure two days earlier (and with John Ashcroft's confirmation still days away), Holder was now acting attorney general.

Quinn again took notes, which he e-mailed to other members of the team late that afternoon. "Just spoke to Holder. Said I did a very good job and that he thinks we [should] be better about getting the merits of the case out publicly." Holder added that the press should know about the "support of [Ehud] Barak."

Holder then advised Quinn that he needed to have travel restrictions and arrest warrants lifted for Rich and Green, and to contact Interpol about Clinton's decision.

Then, unbelievably, Holder advised Quinn to go to the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan and move to have the indictment dismissed -- in case the prosecutors had not.

By early February, Holder was under severe criticism. Crossing paths with reporters, Holder said that "I'll be talking about that later."

On February 6, Ehud Barak lost reelection as prime minister of Israel in an unprecedented landslide to Ariel Sharon. Two days later, Holder appeared before the House Government Reform committee.

In his eight-minute opening statement (and with Quinn sitting right beside him), he said that "efforts to portray me as intimately involved or overly interested in this matter are simply at odds with the facts ... and it does not now stick in my memory."

He added that when he was first approached by Jack Quinn, "Mr. Rich's name was unfamiliar to me." He added that "consequently, I gained only a passing familiarity with the underlying facts of the Rich case."

On the meeting between him and Quinn the previous November 21 about a potential pardon, Holder said that "I have no memory of that conversation, but do not question Mr. Quinn's assertion."

About the conversation with Quinn after the pardon on January 22, Holder said that "[a]t no time did I congratulate Mr. Quinn about his efforts. If I said anything to him about his having done a good job, it was merely a polite acknowledgment of the obvious[.]"

After admitting that he'd had "conversations" with Jack Quinn about becoming attorney general under Gore, Holder told Committee Chairman Dan Burton from Indiana that "[m]y actions in in this matter were in no way affected by my desire to become Attorney General of the United States, or any desires I had to influence or seek to curry favor with anybody."

Congressman Paul Kanjorski told Holder that "I do find some of these positions almost incredible from the standpoint -- when you first heard the name Rich from Mr. Quinn that triggered no idea who that was?

Holder: I did not know.

Kanjorski: And you didn't assign somebody to find out? This was unusual. You've never been approached by Mr. Quinn in regard to a pardon before, have you?

Holder: That's correct.

Later Kanjorski asked, "Did you know whether he was a fugitive?"

Holder: I'm sorry, did I know what?

Kanjorski: Did you know whether he was a fugitive or not?

Holder: Yes.

Kanjorski: OK. That's a rare classification for someone seeking a pardon.

Moments later, Holder testified that, "I never really thought that this case was going to move, using your term, given the fact that he was a fugitive ... if I'd known, obviously, that it was going to turn out this way, I mean, I would have done things differently."

Later there was this exchange with Bob Barr from Georgia:

Barr: Did the Southern District of New York oppose the pardon?

Holder: You mean before the--well, they never weighed in on the pardon. They were never contacted.

Barr: So they didn't even know that a pardon request had been submitted?

Holder: That's correct.

Barr: How about the FBI?

Holder: Did not weigh in.

Barr: NSA?

Holder: No.

Barr: CIA?

Holder: No.

Barr: State?

Holder: No. Again, there were no contacts between the Justice Department and these agencies.

Holder concluded his testimony before the House by telling the reform committee's chief counsel, James Wilson, the following about his determination on the Rich pardon:

I mean, when I say I'm neutral but leaning toward, neutral means I'm kind of where I was before, don't have the ability to make that determination, if there is a foreign policy benefit then that, kind of, moves me. I think, you know, as I said, I tried to be careful in relaying that to her (Beth Nolan) so that it would not be misinterpreted.

Still Holder continued. "Perhaps I didn't do as good a job with her -- or with you. It seems kind of clear to me, but I guess I haven't explained it as well as I might."

Six days later, on February 14, 2001, Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This time, though, Pardon Attorney Roger Adams was seated next to him. In Adam's opening statement, he spoke about the call he made to Holder on the early morning of January 20 after learning that Rich and Green were fugitives.

Adams stated that he "immediately contacted Deputy Attorney General Holder at home, through the Justice Department Command Center, to alert him that the president was considering granting pardons to two men. Mr. Holder indicated to me that he was aware of the pending clemency requests of Rich and Green."

Holder then spoke about the events of the 19th and 20th, saying that he was "extremely busy that day and particularly that night." He assumed that the pardon request went to the Justice Department for review. He assumed that staff contacts were going on between his office, the pardon attorney's office, and the White House.

He did not think he was the only person in the Justice Department aware of the pardon. He added that by the time he got the warning call from Adams on the morning of the 20th, "I thought that a decision had been made, that the president had rendered a decision, had made up his mind...so I took no action at that point."

Holder told Ohio Senator Mike Dewine that "I did not think, given the fact that he was a fugitive, that this ever was a matter likely to be successfully concluded from Mr. Rich's perspective." Holder then told Jon Kyl from Arizona that "my interaction with the White House I did not view as a recommendation," but there were "certain things I would have done differently."

In March of 2002, the House Government Reform Committee issued their final report on the Clinton pardons. In quoting from the report, the New York Times noted that Holder was a "willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and and opposing a pardon" for Rich.

The article noted that Holder admitted discussing becoming attorney general in a Gore administration with Jack Quinn, and that Holder's conduct was "unconscionable." The House report itself noted that Holder's actions were "pivotal" and had a "critical impact."

The report's devastating conclusion was that Holder had "abdicated his responsibilities" as deputy attorney general.

Just two years later, at a Washington, D.C. dinner party in the fall of 2004, Holder met a newly elected senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, and the two bonded immediately.

In 2006, Holder contributed $2,000 to Senator Obama's Hopefund PAC. Also that year, Holder donated to Senator Pat Leahy's PAC -- another man who would help control Holder's destiny. In 2007, Holder donated $2,300 (the maximum) to both Obama's primary and general election campaigns.

That August, Holder was mentioned in the Chicago Tribune as a potential attorney general in an Obama administration. In June of 2008, the American Lawyer wrote that Holder was "playing a variety of positions" for Team Obama.

Obama became the presumptive nominee on June 3, and the following day he named Mr. Holder to help choose his running mate. But later that evening, the AP posted a story about Holder's ties to the Rich pardon. At a press conference six days later, Obama sidestepped questions about Holder's past. That August, Joe Biden was chosen as the running mate.

On November 18, two weeks after the election, Holder's name was leaked to the press that he would soon be nominated for Attorney General. An AP story noted that in the prior week, members of Obama's team had polled the incoming Senate in an attempt to nail down the post that Holder had so long coveted.

On December 1, Obama made it official, saying that Holder had the "talent and commitment" to succeed as attorney general and would "protect the people and uphold the public trust."

In late December, the Boston Globe reported that members of the Obama transition team had been coaching Holder to "prepare" him for what would likely be tough questioning for his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On January 9, the Los Angeles Times reported in a front-page story about Holder's years-long obsession with freeing the FALN. On January 13 -- and two days prior to the hearings -- Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy told the Legal Times that Holder displayed "independent judgment" in helping to facilitate clemency for the FALN, and that debating the issue was only a "rehash."

The hearings began on the bitterly cold morning of January 15, 2009, and Holder addressed terrorism midway through his opening statement: "I will work to strengthen the activities of the Federal government to protect the American people from terrorism. Nothing will be more important."

Soon, though, Holder was forced to address the FALN issue. He told Senator Sessions from Alabama that what Bill Clinton had done was "reasonable."

Then Senator Cornyn from Texas got to the heart of the matter:

Cornyn: Did you recommend clemency for the FALN terrorists to President Clinton?

Holder: Yes.

Cornyn: Was it a mistake?

Holder: No, I don't think it was a mistake.

Holder then told Cornyn that "I think the decision was made in a pre-9/11 context."

But Holder neglected to mention that in the years preceding the clemencies were the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six, and the twin African embassy bombings in 1998, killing more than 200.

Holder then admitted to Senator Coburn from Oklahoma about freeing the FALN terrorists that:

You had two United States attorneys who weighed against it, law enforcement was against it. There are obviously the feelings the victims had...I took those into account and balanced that against the people advocating for it.

But Holder had contacted neither law enforcement nor the victims.

Senator Grassley began his questioning after the lunch recess. The hearing room was darkened, and the now-infamous FBI surveillance tape showing now-freed FALN members Edwin Cortez and Alejandrina Torres constructing bombs was shown.

When the lights went back up, Holder told Grassley that "I've not seen that video before."

Moments later, he changed his story, telling Grassley that "I think I've seen it in some news accounts in the recent past, like, in the last week or so, something like that."

Holder then told Grassley that he wasn't aware of any threats by the FALN towards Judge Thomas McMillen at their sentencing in Chicago in 1981. For example, FALN member Carmen Valentine told McMillen that "you are lucky we cannot take you right now."

Holder then told Grassley that "I'm not sure I ever described them as non-violent...it's a difference between -- let's hypothetically say -- murder and attempted murder."

Then Holder told Senator Sessions that "I looked into the situation, took into account the fact that these people were not directly involved in incidents that led to death or -- or injuries...it seemed to me that the clemency grant given was appropriate."

What Holder failed to mention was that most of the FALN members who received pardons were arrested in April 1980 near Chicago, and that 29 bombings had earlier been carried out in the Chicago area between 1975 and 1979. Nine people had been injured, some of them seriously.

When the subject moved to the Marc Rich pardon, Holder's testimony was a tour de force of evasive and misleading statements, and his memory often failed him.

Holder told Senator Specter from Pennsylvania that he didn't remember telling Jack Quinn to avoid the Justice Department and go straight to the White House, yet moments later said that "I never told Quinn to go straight to the White House."

Holder told Senator Grassley that he was not familiar with the Rich case and that he "assumed" that the prosecutors and Justice Department were involved. He further said that he wasn't "particularly sympathetic" to the case, that he didn't do "anything affirmatively to make it happen, and that "I should have made sure that I was better informed ... about the history of Mr. Rich."

About the 1 a.m. warning call on Jan. 20 from Roger Adams alerting Holder of the impending Rich pardon: "I thought we were dealing with a fait accompli, that the president had already made up his mind."

Then Holder went through a series of pointed questions from Grassley, and his memory seemed to fail. Grassley asked if Holder remembered saying that there would be "a howl" from the prosecutors.

Holder: At this point, Senator, I mean, we're talking about something that happened, what, 2001? So, that's eight years ago, I don't remember that."

But things for Holder weren't quite over yet. On January 21, 2009 -- the first full day of the Obama administration, and only minutes before the full committee was scheduled to vote on Holder -- Andy McCarthy of National Review published an article about the Clarendon Ltd. settlement from 1995 involving Marc Rich and Eric Holder.

That article, along with the fears of some senators that Holder may prosecute Bush administration officials over terrorist policy, caused a one-week delay in the vote.

During the hearings, Specter asked Holder if he had been aware of what kind of record Marc Rich had.

"No, I was not," replied Holder. "I did not acquaint myself with his record. I knew that the matter involved -- it was a tax fraud case; it was a substantial tax fraud case."

That case was USA vs. Clarendon Ltd. The company was one that Rich owned 49% of, and one of the commodities it traded in was metals -- copper, nickel, and zinc.

Between 1988 and 1991, the company had obtained 22 contacts totaling 45 million dollars to supply coinage metal to the U.S. Mint. But they had fraudulently withheld Rich's name (who was then a fugitive) from the contracts.

The contracts ceased, and the government sued, and the case was handled by the U.S. attorney's office in Washington. Mr. Holder arrived as the U. S. attorney there in October of 1993, and the case was settled between Holder's office and Mr. Rich in April 1995. Rich agreed to pay the government 1.2 million dollars, and he even swore out an affidavit and sent it to Washington from Switzerland.

The problem for Holder was that he has repeatedly said that he was unfamiliar with both Marc Rich and the case against him, even though the Clarendon case, along with a mountain of other evidence, shows otherwise.

He also claimed -- just like he would later do during Fast and Furious -- that his staff had kept him in the dark. In the Clarendon case, it involved a multimillion-dollar fraud and a settlement with a fugitive. In Fast and Furious, it involves 2,000 guns running untracked into Mexico, resulting in murder and violence in the present and into the future.

But in 2009, as expected, Mr. Holder was confirmed, even though half the Republicans refused to fall in line and accept the inevitable.

Now, Mr. Holder is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8 to discuss the deadly gunrunning scandal, and if past is prologue, then the Committee should know what to expect.

Looking back in history at the list of former attorneys general, two from the recent past seem to stand out. Robert F. Kennedy chose -- at some personal risk -- to take on not only organized crime, but the corrupt Teamsters union. John Mitchell became entangled in Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal and was convicted of multiple felonies.

It's quite obvious which category Mr. Holder belongs in. Scandal seems to follow him wherever he goes, and now, either through incompetence or malfeasance, the road has led to Fast and Furious.

Every day that Mr. Holder now remains attorney general further diminishes the office, and the Justice Department's reputation as well.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/12/the_ethics_of_eric_holder.html at December 04, 2011 - 10:40:05 AM CST

Presidential Thanksgiving Message's Pernicious Premise

2011-11-30T08:13:00.000-08:00

By Peter Heck

In the first Thanksgiving address given by an American president, George Washington encouraged his fellow citizens in 1789 to join him in "acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." Clearly demonstrating an equal grasp on the gravity and meaning of such an occasion, current U.S. President Barack Obama followed in Washington's footsteps by calling this generation of Americans to a day of "eating great food, watching a little football, and reflecting on how truly lucky we are." Quick, grab a tablet of stone and chisel in that pellet of eternal insight before it escapes our mortal consciousness.

Perhaps the comparison is unfair given that Obama did issue a written statement that thanked God for "the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives." Nonetheless, conservative critics pounced, observing that the same president who never misses the opportunity to host an Iftar dinner and extemporaneously proclaim the great benevolence of the God of Islam just totally blanks on the magnanimity of the Judeo-Christian God amidst the very holiday our people have historically set aside to honor Him for His blessings.

Fox News columnist Todd Starnes fired the first volley, noting that the president's "remarks were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God." From there a bevy of right-leaning commentators attacked the president for his sin of omission. Might I humbly suggest that a more meaningful critique of the president's speech should focus less on what he didn't say, and more on what he did?

To posit, as President Obama did, that the great prosperity of the United States is the consequence of "luck" is as controversial and radical as anything this president has said during his time in the national spotlight. Yes, as controversial as proclaiming that Israel should go back to its pre-1967 boundaries. Yes, as radical as suggesting that knowing whether or not to defend the unalienable right to life was above his pay grade.

Because in a very real way, this comment puts the entire presidency of Barack Obama into context. It starts making sense out of the muddled picture we have had of Obama and piecing together the fragments of a larger worldview that has been shadowed by the meaningless media caricatures of the man.

Taken by itself, crediting luck as the source of American greatness could perhaps be excused as a slip of the tongue or a lazy retreat behind a tired rhetorical cliché. But when placed in context and added to other previously isolated statements to make a combined symphony of thought, it explains why the president seems so uncomfortable and confused when asked about American exceptionalism. It explains why he obstinately omits reference to the Creator God as the source of man's rights when quoting from the American Declaration of Independence. It explains why he frequently seems ashamed of American preeminence, feeling obligated to bow before foreign leaders or apologize profusely for our national sins -- real or imagined. It explains both a foreign and a domestic policy designed to relegate America to the role of world participant rather than world leader.

President Obama misunderstands the significance of American greatness because he misappropriates its foundational source. In his secular socialist worldview, America's riches were not the reward from One whom Abraham Lincoln called the "beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens." They were not the result of a national obedience to the Natural Lawgiver, nor the consequence of a national commitment to conform to the timeless truths of His moral order.

No, to the man who is now the face of the free world, they were nothing more than the byproduct of an advantageous role of the civilizational dice. If a transcendent being was involved, it was only to spin the globe blindfolded and un-ceremonially plop its finger down randomly on the United States, instigating a flood of prosperity that was no more purposeful than it was deserved.

That is why, in Obama's mind, there is nothing more exceptional about America than Britain or Greece, why we have no right to admonish the human rights atrocities occurring with impunity in China, why America should presume to hold no position of moral superiority in our dealings with foreign thugs and tyrannies, why our time is better spent apologizing for our arrogance than recommitting ourselves to the glorious truths of our founding. And it's why food and football are just as likely to cross his lips on Thanksgiving as is the One to Whom we have, at the direction of presidents far greater than Barack Obama, historically rendered thanks.

If anything, this unfortunate episode reminds us of why Thanksgiving 2012 will offer a brand new reason for national gratitude.

Peter is a public high school government teacher and radio talk show host in central Indiana. E-mail peter@peterheck.com, visit www.peterheck.com, or like him on Facebook.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/11/presidential_thanksgiving_messages_pernicious_premise.html at November 30, 2011 - 10:13:43 AM CST

Under GOP Controlled House, Federal Debt has risen$6766.00 per Household

2011-11-18T08:21:00.000-08:00

Republicans want to stop Democrat spending, right? If you believe that, I have a really big bargain for you on a bridge to Brooklyn…Under GOP Controlled House, Federal Debt Has Increased $6,766 Per Household will explain what’s actually happening as opposed to what politicians are saying. Quite different subjects, unfortunately.

See, all the big banks are sitting on too much in fake assets and all the developed countries (and a bunch of the rest too) have run up so much debt buying votes that they’ll never be able to repay (your household owes over a quarter of a million not counting interest) that only the flow of debt-based spending is keeping wheels turning. When that stops, the wheels stop and the air leaks out of the fake “wealth” in the banks. Politicians of both sides want that delayed as long as possible, which requires the spending continue.

They don’t say it like that, though Ron Paul comes pretty close. So the Dems claim spending will make things better (bleed the patient to cure him) and the GOP says they’re against spending…just the Dems won’t let them stop. But all revenue bills must start in the GOP-controlled House, right? So, the GOP has to support any spending that happens…they just don’t want us to notice.

Curtains for Cain

2011-11-13T09:09:00.001-08:00

Curtains for Cain
By Tom Thurlow

In the 1997 movie Titanic there is a short period of time after the ship hit the iceberg and before it began to sink that no one on the ship took seriously the danger they faced. In fact, the passengers seemed to treat the grazing of the iceberg as a catastrophe averted. Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio continued pursuing their love for each other, Billy Zane continued his dastardly framing of DiCaprio, and the whole ship looked forward to the rest of the quick journey across the Atlantic, never realizing until too late that the ship was doomed. In only a few minutes the passengers were scrambling for lifeboats or jumping into the water, and the ship itself sunk off of the silver screen and into the Metaphor Hall of Fame.

This is where the Herman Cain campaign is right now. The fatal blow to the campaign has been made. Whether he knows it or not, Herman Cain's campaign is over. I would be overjoyed to be wrong, but the numbers and believability of sexual harassment claims against him have amounted to the critical mass of complaints that end the Cain campaign. It is only a matter of time before everyone realizes it.

On October 31, Politico reported only two vague and anonymous complaints, made long ago, and we were all told that they resulted in some kind of agreement with the National Restaurant Association. Understandably, conservatives flocked to defend the near-frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. Jonathan Martin of Politico unfairly called on Cain to not only explain the accusations but defend himself from them.

Comparisons were made to Clarence Thomas, who faced Anita Hill during his Senate confirmation battle. While not alleging actual sexual contact, Anita Hill testified to a series of boorish and obnoxious sexual-themed verbal encounters with the conservative Judge Thomas, who furiously defended himself against what he called "a high-tech lynching."

In the Clarence Thomas case it was fair to ask about whether the same or similar actions had happened to other subordinates or co-workers of Judge Thomas. In fact, far from it, other women with whom he worked spoke very highly of Clarence Thomas, and this led to his confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1991.

With the fourth reported charge of sexual harassment leveled at Herman Cain, the comparisons to Clarence Thomas have ended. In fact it is the fourth specific case of sexual harassment, the charge of Sharon Bialek, that constituted the turning point from mere ice on the promenade deck to compartments filling with water and spilling over to other compartments, starting to sink the ship.

At a November 6 press conference, Sharon Bialek, with her attorney Gloria Allred beside her, claims that in 1997 (the same year that the movie Titanic was released), she visited Herman Cain to ask for a job. Mr. Cain allegedly took her to dinner and afterwards reached up Ms. Bialek's leg and tried to force her head into his crotch area. After she protested, Cain allegedly stopped his advances and drove her home.

As a litigator, I am routinely lied to and sometimes I end my day so cynical that I am surprised when someone actually tells me the truth. But, with all apologies to Herman Cain fans, this story has the ring of truth to it.

Sure, you can say that Ms. Bialek was coached by a very experienced attorney, and an argument can even be made that Ms. Bialek is trying to make some money off of this matter. Reportedly, Ms. Bialek had has money problems, including filing personal bankruptcy twice. And no one jumps into a hornet's nest like this matter for free. There very well could be a highly-paid magazine exclusive interview in Ms. Bialek's future, and Ms. Allred may be advancing her legal fees against any possible magazine deal payoff. All this is possibly true.

And as Ann Coulter has written, Bialek's proximity to David Axelrod cannot be ignored. In the past it was Axelrod who managed to at least be nearby when other Obama adversaries had sexual misdeeds reported about them.

The timing of it is also a little off, as Ms. Bialek could have waited until Cain won a primary victory or two before making her charges. The value of her exclusive story would have increased even more at that time.

But in his November 8 press conference reply to Ms. Bialek's charges, Herman Cain made two almost inexplicable statements: in answering charges that he said did not happen and could not have happened, he offered to take a lie-detector test, "but only if I had a good reason to do that." Clearly, if ever he has a good reason to take a lie-detector test, it is now. In fact, most anyone accused of completely made-up sexual harassment charges would sprint to the nearest lie-detector and demand to be strapped in and tested immediately. And in answer to a Wall Street Journal reporter's question, Cain said that "there will probably be other" complaints of sexual harassment. If these complaints of sexual harassment are made up out of thin air, how is it that he predicts there will be others?

Also, one of the earlier complainants, Karen Kraushaar, currently a spokesman for the State Department, has not come forward to give details about her encounter with Mr. Cain but she stands by her 1999 complaint. She says she wishes to stay out of the matter, and this in itself lends credibility to her complaint.

And this might explain the timing of Ms. Bialek's complaint. If she were concerned that there might be other women specifically and credibly complaining of past sexual harassment at the hands of Mr. Cain, Bialek would surely want to be before the others. The possible value of Bialek's story could diminish if she were the eighth or ninth woman saying the same thing.

Numbers matter. While Clarence Thomas had only one accuser, so far there are 4 women charging Cain with sexual harassment, and as Cain himself predicted "there will probably be others."

Remember the Clinton administration? It seemed that on average, about every three months there would be a brand new, credible scandal -- not all involving women. All of these scandals were quickly denied and the accusers promptly and efficiently smeared. But after a few of these scandals, one could reasonably conclude that President Clinton was a serial law-breaker. As a variation in the old saying, maybe where there is smoke there isn't always fire, but where you had the amount of smoke associated with the Clinton White House, you know there are at least several real fires.

Same here. With one or two accusers, especially if they stay anonymous and receive relatively small settlements from the National Restaurant Association, one can probably make the case that either there is nothing to these accusations, or if there were the actions were isolated and won't be repeated. But with several women complaining of sexual harassment by Mr. Cain, and at least one specifically and credibly complaining of sexual harassment by Mr. Cain, some or all of the complaints are probably true.

While the passengers were donning their life jackets, Kate Winslet tugged at the Titanic chief engineer's coat and melodramatically said, "I saw the iceberg, and I see it in your eyes." He told Winslet what I am telling the Cain campaign right now: this ship will sink. Unlike what happened in the movie, I sure hope there are enough lifeboats for everyone involved.

Tom Thurlow is an attorney who practices law in the San Francisco Bay area and manages the blog napawhinecountry.com. He lives in Napa County with his wife Martina and daughter Rachel.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/11/curtains_for_cain.html

Sharia's Encroachment into American Courts

2011-11-06T07:25:00.000-08:00

By Janet Levy

Currently an estimated 2.6 million observant Muslims reside in the United States. Many live their lives according to sharia law, the moral and religious code of the Islamic faith. When Muslims bring legal disputes into U.S. courts, a legal dilemma often arises, pitting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws against Islamic sharia law.

Increasingly, U.S. courts have yielded to sharia. In effect, our judicial system is failing to adhere to the very beliefs on which this country was founded. Sharia advocates are overturning our long-held legal traditions to follow precepts laid down by a faith that represents less than one percent of our population and whose beliefs are at odds with U.S. legal and spiritual history.

American law reflects Judeo-Christian values and traditions. These have always operated under the precept, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto G-d the things that are G-d's." This separation, which created the historic distinction between religious leadership and secular authority in the United States, is now being threatened, as sharia has encroached into the American legal system, and Muslim advocacy groups have increased pressure to institute sharia. Two notable cases illustrate this trend.

Hosain v. Malik

Under U.S. law, child custody cases follow the legal standard of "the best interests of the child." This can mean joint custody of children by both parents, full custody solely by the mother or father, or, if both parents are unfit, custody by relatives or guardians. Under sharia or Islamic doctrine, however, fathers receive sole custody when children reach seven years of age, regardless of family circumstances.

That's exactly how Hosain v. Malik was decided in 1996 when an American court in Maryland awarded full custody of a daughter to her father, enforcing a court order from Pakistan, an Islamic country that follows sharia law. Although the mother in the custody battle was never deemed unfit and the daughter was actually afraid of her father, an alleged substance abuser and batterer, the U.S. court enforced sharia requirements. Further, the child's attorney was not present at the custody decision to advocate for the child, and no input was sought from the daughter, as is standard in U.S. custody cases.

In the Hosain v. Malik case, the husband's attorney cleverly twisted the "best interest of the child" requirement and argued that in Pakistani culture, the well-being of the child is facilitated by adherence to Islamic teaching, which mandates custody to the father. In this case, the child was sent back to Pakistan with the father, violating the child's human rights to enjoy a relationship with her mother and violating the mother's rights as a woman. Further, the father accused his ex-wife of adultery, which meant that if she returned to Pakistan she could face imprisonment, lashing, or even death by stoning under sharia.

New Jersey Divorce Case

In June 2009, a divorced Muslim woman (unnamed by the court), who was raped and assaulted by her husband, requested a restraining order from a New Jersey family court. The presiding judge denied the woman's request and stated that "the court believes that the husband was operating under his belief (Islamic sharia) that his demand to have sex whenever he so desired was not prohibited." Remarkably, the husband's imam testified at the trial to affirm that under the sharia, a wife is required to comply with her husband's sexual demands.

However, according to New Jersey law, coerced sex between married persons is considered rape regardless of whatever imams, rabbis, and priests declare it religiously sanctioned. Thirteen months later, the decision was overturned. But in the interim, the woman endured the stress of living without protection from a violent man whose right to rape, sanctioned by sharia, had been supported by the American judicial system.

These cases, which received limited media coverage, illustrate failure by the courts to maintain the integrity of state and federal laws. (For more examples, see the recent report from the Center for Security Policy, "Sharia Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases"). Our legal system must insure that constitutional guarantees are not influenced by any outside legal systems, including religious or foreign laws, such as sharia, which are hostile to our legal traditions.

Sharia Law

Sharia is Allah's law, and it stands above all man-made laws. This immutable Islamic legal doctrine derives from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, interpretations, and rulings. It mandates gender apartheid, religious discrimination, Muslim supremacy, cruel punishments, and the denial of free speech and religion, among other things. Requirements are detailed for every aspect of life, from the correct use of the toilet to the treatment of non-Muslims to proper wife-beating techniques.

Islamic doctrine recognizes men as superior to women in matters of civil arbitration and thus promotes the unequal treatment of women. Under sharia, the list of inequalities include: a woman's testimony is valued at half that of a man's, she may be convicted of sexual misconduct if she is raped unless she produces four male witnesses, she receives half the inheritance of male offspring, her husband may freely divorce her without providing for her welfare, she may be raped with impunity, and she may be beaten as her husband sees fit. All these abuses, which violate U.S. laws for equal treatment of the sexes, are perfectly acceptable under sharia law.

Sharia law requires the segregation of Muslims from non-Muslims, assigns a subservient status to non-Muslims, forbids certain religious activities and observances and mandates death for Muslims who leave the faith -- all of which violate religious freedom, equal treatment under the law, and other guarantees in the U.S. constitution.

Jewish Law and Catholic Canon Law

Many who defend rulings that follow Islamic doctrine or sharia make spurious comparisons to Jewish law and Catholic Canon law. These comparisons are disingenuous because the distinctions couldn't be more striking between sharia and the laws of Jews and Catholics.

Islamic law or sharia is supremacist and triumphalist. The Koran commands Muslims to change secular laws to conform to sharia or to impose sharia worldwide. In Muslim countries, the mosque is both the state and the court. Disobeying sharia can be punished by flogging or death.

By contrast, Jewish (Halacha) and Catholic Canon laws are never imposed even for Jews and Catholics, respectively. Under Jewish law and Canon law, any two parties in a dispute can choose to seek and follow a decision rendered by a religious court, but they are always free to pursue secular redress. In fact, Jews and Catholics are required to follow secular law and are under no obligation whatsoever to abide by Jewish or Catholic Church doctrine. The dictum in Jewish law of "Dina d'malchuta dina" translates to "the law of the land is law" and recognizes non-Jewish laws and non-Jewish legal jurisdiction as binding on Jewish citizens. Jewish law does not operate under a supremacist power structure like Islamic doctrine. It is unenforceable, and it is not a replacement for constitutional law.

In contradiction to Church doctrine, Catholic men and women can freely initiate divorces without fear of punishment. A Catholic woman can even have an abortion, although abortion is condemned by the Catholic Church. Catholics can be excommunicated from the church, but this doesn't affect their individual liberties or impose criminal punishments or penalties.

Unlike Islamic sharia, Jewish law and Canon law have no provisions for taking lives, criminal penalties, or monetary compensation for non-money damages. No doctrinal basis exists to create a worldwide Jewish or Catholic government like an Islamic caliphate, nor is there a religious mandate for martyrdom similar to a jihad to fulfill Judaic or Catholic devotion. If a Catholic woman engaged in an extramarital affair, she would not be sentenced to death by stoning as she would be under Islamic doctrine. If her father or brother murdered her for her impropriety, they would be incarcerated for life or receive the death penalty by the appropriate authorities...and certainly not be praised for maintaining family honor, as is the case with sharia. Catholics and Jews are free to change their religions without the threat of punishment by death faced by Muslims.

While sharia is immutable, Jewish and Canon law has evolved over time to embrace new interpretations. Jewish law allows the latitude for judicial discretion, and innovations are frequently proposed and instituted. Catholic Canon has also changed with varying circumstances and has a rich historic basis of evolution, beginning with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

Clearly, sharia is at odds with everything enshrined in our Constitution to honor and preserve individual liberties and freedom. Sharia stands in opposition to equal protection under the law for both sexes, all religions, all races, and all ethnicities. Ultimately, it replaces the constitution with the objective of submitting to Allah's law, which denies freedom, equality, tolerance, and justice.

Unfortunately, the United States is now on a slippery slope to allow sharia quarter in our American courtrooms. To permit this insidious divergence from U.S. and state law threatens the basic principles and liberties that Americans hold dear. In essence, sharia law is antithetical to the American concepts of freedom and equality.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/sharias_encroachment_into_american_courts.html#ixzz1cwIRmi3u

Could We See World War Three in Our Lifetimes?

2011-10-30T10:39:00.000-07:00

By Adam Yoshida

Three months ago, in this space, I asked whether, if present trends were to continue, we could find ourselves embroiled in something like a Third World War. Working from that concept and the thoughtful remarks of a number of readers, I decided to delve into the question a little more deeply and, as a result, have produced a new e-book entitled The Blast of War: A Narrative History of the Third World War. The book, a "future history," lays out how the present situation -- if carried over into the future -- could lead us into catastrophe.

The world situation today is as unsettled as it has been at any time since the late 1930s. Indeed, I believe that the underlying cause of this is the same as it was in that era: irresolute policies by Western leaders that will, if they are not corrected soon, leave nations with no choices except for abject surrender and all-out war. Time and time again world leaders have chosen to punt dangerous problems down the road rather than take the risks necessary to resolve them today. Some of these problems, such as China's reckless pursuit of short-term growth as a substitute for political reform, unsustainable global debt loads, Iran's headlong rush towards nuclear weapons, the illegal movement of ten million Mexicans into the United States, and Europe's lackadaisical economic integration, can and will have no happy resolution. The question is what shade of terrible the results will be.

Under ordinary conditions and in isolation, each of these problems might be manageable. However, as Mark Steyn points out in his excellent new book After America, there is another parameter that has created the conditions for an unimaginable disaster: the fact that the United States increasingly appears unwilling or unable to provide the sort of leadership necessary to move the world through these troubled days. It is well and good enough for neo-isolationists, such as Ron Paul and his supporters, to argue that the United States ought to disengage from international affairs -- and for liberals (and not a few conservatives) to argue for reductions in defense budgets -- but the reality is that, as Steyn points out, a world without American leadership will be an anarchic place where, without anyone able to assert himself, more and more states will be tempted to resort to aggression to achieve their foreign policy objectives.

Consider the following:

- China's economic growth is almost certainly the result of a bubble that cannot and will not survive forever. In the face of the degradation of Communist ideology, the sole reason why the party's authoritarian regime survives is because it has managed to take credit for economic growth. When the growth stops -- and it will -- and the party is suddenly sitting on more than a billion poor people (and the few hundred million wealthy ones seek the exits), how will the party seek to sustain its rule? If they were faced with a well-armed United States with a web of external alliances, they would have little choice but to take their chances on internal reforms of some sort. On the other hand, if faced with a distracted United States and a divided Asia, who is to say that the Chinese -- who, it must not be forgotten, will have, as the baleful legacy of their one-child policy, tens of millions more young men than women -- will not, in the time-worn fashion of endangered regimes throughout history, seek to resolve their problems through war? It is astonishing to consider just how little attention we have paid to such a truly dangerous situation. Here we have a powerful regime likely to suffer severe internal issues surrounded by weaker states filled with the resources that that nation needs. I think that, in the likely event of war, future historians will be amazed by how little attention was paid in advance.

- I think that the odds of a European conflict have been underplayed. The core nations of the European Union are incredibly invested in the euro and will, in my judgment, eventually be forced to accept some kind of fiscal union as its price. Ultimately, that will require the cooperation of a number of smaller states that will have strong incentives to defect -- some will want to opt out of paying for transfers, and others will want to avoid paying their debts. It is not difficult to imagine that, in the event that some smaller nation -- such as, say, Greece -- seeks to truly defy a pan-European consensus, some cause for military action against them might be trumped up by the Franco-German alliance.

- We have good cause to be worried about the potential of an Iranian nuclear bomb. However, I think that we have ignored another serious threat: the gradual transformation of Turkey into an Islamist state. George Friedman discussed Turkey as a potential antagonist in a mid-century conflict in his book The Next Hundred Years, but given the unsettled nature of the Middle East today, I think that we might well find ourselves in a shooting war with the a Turkish government, whose secret ambition appears to be the recreation of the Ottoman Empire, sooner than that.

- It is difficult to see how the enduring problem of Mexico will be resolved without some sort of conflict. Not only is Mexico in internal chaos as a result of an ongoing war between drug cartels and the government, but the more than ten million Mexicans illegally residing in the United States also create an issue that will not be easily resolved.

Each of these individual situations carries with it some danger of war. However, when you consider them as a whole, they create a real risk of a cascade of chaos that could consume the whole world. It is easy to imagine, as I have done in The Blast of War, how these problems -- without sober world leadership -- could escalate into an interlocking series of wars that would in combination result in the greatest armed conflict since the Second World War.

By no means should we place our faith in the ability of nuclear weapons to deter such a conflict. While these weapons were, to some degree, effective in preventing a direct war between the United States and the Soviet Union, none of the conflicts which menace the world today offers anything like that war's balance of terror. We would do well to recall that, in history's greatest war, the Nazis refrained from using chemical weapons -- even during the final battles in the dying days of the Third Reich -- for fear of Allied retaliation. War on a global scale is still possible.

War is, and always has been, nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means. As the global situation grows more dire, it will become an ever-increasing menace in all of our lives. The only way to preserve the peace today is, as Ronald Reagan reminded us, through strength. Only a prepared and engaged America can use its military power to stop wars before they happen or, failing that, ensure that aggressors are speedily defeated. As tired as some Americans may be of the burdens of global leadership, we would all do well to remember what the probable alternative is.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/10/could_we_see_world_war_three_in_our_lifetimes.html

America in Decline

2011-10-29T05:38:00.000-07:00

by Bill O'Reilly

According to a new poll by The Hill newspaper, 69 percent of Americans now believe the USA is in "decline." In addition, a whopping 83 percent indicate they are worried about America's future.

Very sobering. So what's going on?

If you study history, you know that America was built on self-reliance and personal achievement. In the early years of the Republic, the federal and state governments pretty much stayed out of the way as folks built businesses and communities. There were absolutely no public safety nets. If you failed, it was up to you to survive.

Because of that circumstance, the citizens of America became strong. The motto "Don't Tread On Me" was absolutely appropriate. Hardship was accepted as a part of life. Self-sacrifice for the good of others was the order of the day. Cowardice and narcissism were condemned everywhere.

And so the world's greatest and strongest country was built. Not by pinheaded bureaucrats, but by the blood and sacrifice of hardworking folks. Each generation had strong role models to follow. There were rules of conduct, and there was a dominant Judeo-Christian signpost. As Superman well knew, it was "truth, justice and the American way."

But things have changed.

The collapse of tradition began in the late 1960s when the Vietnam War raged. For the first time, Americans could see the horrors of combat in their living rooms. And that war was largely undefined, especially for younger people. What the heck was the USA doing in Southeast Asia? Why were young men being drafted into a conflict few understood? In order to win any war, you need dynamic leadership. President Lyndon Johnson failed to provide it.

Out went the baby with the bath water. In came drugs, free love and a suspicion of authority. No longer was the United States a noble nation in the eyes of many of its own citizens who began to see their country as an oppressor.

America became a divided nation. Traditions eroded quickly, as many people began doing their "own thing." No longer was there a widely accepted code of conduct.

Self-reliance remained the key to success in our capitalistic system, but for those who declined to compete, the federal government stepped in to lend support. As the family structure collapsed, entitlements became more common, as children and single mothers had to be supported. The vexing issues of racial inequality and persistent poverty brought about ultra-expensive social engineering. Liberal Americans looked to the Western European model of cradle-to-grave support as a panacea for "income inequality." The view that Washington has a moral obligation to provide a decent lifestyle for everyone took root.

That philosophy, currently embraced by President Obama, has led to massive debt, which, in turn, has created chaos in the private marketplace. In this world, a strong economic base is the foundation of power. America has lost that base.

And so, once again, the folks are right. The United States is in decline. And only we the people can reverse that. We have to depend on ourselves.

Our Way of Government Really Is Under Attack by Communists!

2011-10-26T17:38:00.000-07:00

BREAKING: Homeland Security Adviser Allegedly Leaked Intel to Attack Rick Perry
TX Dept. of Public Safety Director: “We know [Mohamed Elibiary] has accessed DPS documents and downloaded them.”

by
Patrick Poole

Texas Department of Public Safety officials are asking questions following a report that Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council member Mohamed Elibiary may have been given access to a sensitive database of state and local intelligence reports, and then allegedly shopped some of those materials to a media outlet. He allegedly used the documents to claim the department was promoting “Islamophobia” — claims that the media outlet ultimately rejected. They declined to do the story.

Earlier today, I received confirmation from a left-leaning media outlet that Elibiary had recently approached them asking to do a story attacking Texas DPS:

Yes, he approached us and gave us some reports marked FOUO [For Official Use Only] that he said showed a pattern of Islamophobia at the department. He emphasized that some of the regional fusion centers were shut down a few years ago after the ACLU complained that they were targeting Muslim civil rights groups and said that this was being directed by [Texas Gov.] Rick Perry.

We looked at the reports and they weren’t as he had billed them to us. They seem to be pretty straightforward, nothing remotely resembling Islamophobia that we saw. I think he was hoping we would bite and not give it too much of a look in light of the other media outfits jumping on the Islamophobia bandwagon.

I asked if there was any sense of his possible motivation:

Oh, self-promotion definitely. It was clear up front that he wanted to be a quoted source in the story. We’ve used him as an unnamed source in previous stories. There’s nothing unusual or unseemly about that because officials do it all the time, but this was the first time he approached us with documents. Honestly, if they had been what he represented them as we would have probably run with the story. But we looked at them and saw this was a partisan hatchet job that could blow back on us so we passed on it.

In light of these allegations, I spoke today with Texas DPS Director Steve McCraw. He confirmed that Elibiary has access to the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest (HS SLIC) database, which contains hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports and products that are intended for intelligence sharing between law enforcement agencies.

(Full disclosure: I gave a briefing in April 2010 to the TX DPS on historical terror incidents and terror connections to Texas. I’ve also been critical of Elibiary’s involvement with DHS considering his past extremist statements and activities.)

I asked Director McCraw if he knew whether Elibiary had access to TX DPS reports on the HS SLIC, to which he replied:

We know that he has accessed DPS documents and downloaded them.

McCraw stated that he will be requesting that DHS conduct an investigation to determine whether or not Elibiary improperly handled any sensitive intelligence products, and said that he will reserve judgment until an investigation is complete. He added:

If in fact this happened we will be extremely disappointed in him. We’ve worked with him and other groups to get their comments regarding a wide range of issue in order to be inclusive.

.

In fact, Elibiary received his first official position serving on the TX DPS Advisory Board and leveraged that position into his current positions with DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center. Elibiary was appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Council in October 2010.

I asked Director McCraw about the nature of their work product:

We do have a process in place that ensures the quality of our product going all the way to our assistant director of intelligence and counterterrorism. Our training of employees has been extensive and adheres to all Department of Justice and Homeland Security privacy and civil liberties policies. The ACLU was involved in our process for establishing the fusion center statute passed by the state legislature.

I asked about the potential impact of a security breach that has been alleged to have occurred in this instance:

This system allows intelligence agencies to share products. These products are meant to be for official use only and anyone working for the Department of Homeland Security attempting to use it in any other way undermines the efficacy of the program. If DHS has cleared somebody for access we have no questions, but if they violate the confidentiality of the system it has a chilling impact on sharing information, and that’s the last thing we need.

Following these interviews, I contacted both Mohamed Elibiary and the Department of Homeland Security asking for comment. At present I have not received a response from Elibiary, but I did speak with DHS spokesman Chris Ortman, who immediately demanded to know who my source was.

When I explained that I had become aware of Elibiary’s alleged approach to the media organization from a third party and directly contacted that publication for comment (which they gave under the condition of anonymity) and began reading the quotes I had been given, Ortman immediately interrupted and expressed skepticism:

In all my eight years working in media I have never heard of such a situation where a third party contacts a reporter at one outlet and tells them that another news outlet has spiked a story.

Mr. Ortman is significantly out of touch regarding this; it is likely a daily occurrence at a number of outlets.

When I directly asked Ortman about who gave Mohamed Elibiary access to the HS SLIC system, he abruptly ended the conversation and said he would need to call me back. After more than an hour wait and knowing from other sources that senior aides for DHS Secretary Napolitano had been fully briefed late last night on the matter and that the story is quickly leaking out, we are publishing what we have so far.

We’ll bring you any additional details, including any further comment from Elibiary or DHS on this story.
Patrick Poole is a national security and terrorism correspondent for PJMedia.

Reagan Saw This Coming

2011-10-22T13:13:00.000-07:00

By Pamela Geller

Ronald Reagan saw this coming, and Barack Obama is making his prediction come true.

Moammar Gaddafi got what was coming to him. Of course, the concern now is the jihadist and al-Qaeda elements that are positioned to replace him. Years ago, Ronald Reagan called Gaddafi the "mad dog of the Middle East" and said that his goal was a worldwide "Muslim fundamentalist revolution."

Many others besides Gaddafi shared that goal, including those who opposed him, and with Gaddafi's death, that goal is closer than ever to being realized. Here we are, thirty years after Reagan made these remarks, in the throes of a worldwide Muslim fundamentalist revolution.

Reagan said that those who wanted this "Muslim fundamentalist revolution" were enemies of the United States -- for them it was "like climbing Mount Everest, because we are here." And in a sense, that is exactly the reason why. I don't know if Reagan ever read the Qur'an, but his remark indicates that he knew the larger reason why they were targeting the kafir, the great infidel nation. It was "because we are here" -- i.e., because we constitute the foremost obstacle to the overriding goal of Islam: we stand in the way of a world living under Islamic law.

Still, Reagan's warning of a worldwide "Muslim fundamentalist revolution" was prescient. Can you imagine the Muslim Brotherhood stooge in the White House ever uttering those words? Imagine: Ronald Reagan saw back then the objective of Islamic imperialism. He may not have appreciated the full scope of it, but he understood it. Clearly he believed that it could be contained. Reagan came into office, and the Ayatollah Khomeini released our hostages; the Islamic world was intimidated, cowed by Reagan's testicular fortitude.

Reagan made this statement before the jihad attack on the Khobar Towers, before the jihad attack on the USS Cole, before the first attack on the World Trade Center, and the 7/7 attack in London, and the 3/11 attack on a train station in Madrid. Reagan warned of a worldwide "Muslim fundamentalist revolution" before the Islamic jihad massacre committed by Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas; before the Islamic jihad massacre in Bali; before the jihad massacre in Mumbai, and before the numerous thwarted attempts at jihad attacks in the United States over the last two years. Reagan spoke before the nearly 18,000 Islamic jihad terrorist attacks that have been committed since 9/11.

Reagan spoke before there was a significant Muslim presence in Europe. Now the threat and intimidation by Muslims throughout the countries of the European Union is growing at every level. And now Gaddafi is gone, but the threat of a worldwide "Muslim fundamentalist revolution" remains, and is stronger than ever, thanks to Barack Obama.

Jihadists, who were prominent among the resistance to Gaddafi from the very beginning of attempts to overthrow his government, recently revealed their goal of taking power in a post-Gaddafi government and creating an Islamic state. U.S. intelligence agencies announced this early in September. Where were these government agencies five months before that, when the uprisings began and were being universally hailed as bringing democracy and freedom?

If I knew, why didn't Barack Obama and the U.S. intelligence services? Readers of my website AtlasShrugs.com are not surprised by what is happening in Libya, as I warned about it back in March and several times in April. Yes, I told ya so. And I told you back in February that the Muslim Brotherhood would be taking over in Egypt.

Obama did this. Was there any thought in Washington to what we were doing in Libya when it became evident back in March that al-Qaeda was in and among the "rebel" faction? The question still has not been answered: how is al-Qaeda preferable to Gaddafi?

Obama spent billions of your money to assist in the Islamic takedown of yet another country. America, under Barack Obama's "leadership," did this. And America will pay. The Obama legacy will not only be the degenerate spending which led to the economic downfall of this country; he will also go down in history as the first anti-freedom leader whose foreign policy led to serious attempts to reestablish a universal caliphate across the world. I predicted all this in my book, The Post American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America.

Thousands dead, billions spent...for what? The only result will be the advance of what Reagan saw coming: the worldwide "Muslim fundamentalist revolution."

Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance."

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/10/reagan_saw_this_coming.html at October 22, 2011 - 03:13:39 PM CDT

What does the President need the most right now?

2011-10-16T19:42:00.001-07:00

By Jack Curtis

First, he needs to distract voters from his own failures and he needs a scapegoat to keep blame fixed elsewhere.

Then, he needs a cause with which he can visibly succeed while pulling the citizens into line behind him.

The Occupiers and Iran, if they are successful, can provide what he needs. The Occupiers shift the public gaze from Obama’s inability to change a dismal economy to blaming bankers for the problem. The more fuss about the bankers, the less Obama is in the picture. Raising Iran to the level of a combative and fearful villian allows Obama to pose as a noble leader without actually doing much.

There seems no doubt that the Occupiers are a put-up job; popping up on rather short notice in multiple cities and then, multiple countries on a coordinated basis demands substantial planning, organization, communications and financing. There’s a lot of free food and camp gear being handed out. There seems no more doubt that the backstage genius is Democrat support; the cast resembles 60′s hippies much more than modern Tea Folk.

The Occupiers have no message; just their confused presence. They’re entitlement-reared, immature and spoiled exponents of the tantrum as a solution. Shortly, they will slink home or start trashing in real violence to gain the fear and attention they crave. They will limit that to the Democrat-governed places where it will be tolerated and excused as New York and its Mayor are tolerating them now.

Obama will come down hard on a few carefully selected Wall Street victims and orate bravely against Iran to show his leadership. The Occupiers will make whatever scene they have in mind, or their backers have in mind for them.

And the broken economy will grind on…

Nicaragua’s Presidential Elections: How Daniel Ortega Could Shame Democracy

2011-10-14T10:21:00.000-07:00

By Ambassador Robert Callahan and Ray Walser, Ph.D.

It is a safe bet that Daniel Ortega will be Nicaragua’s next president on November 6. As leader of the disciplined Sandinista party, the 65-year-old former Marxist-Leninist rebel faces a fragmented and poorly funded opposition. He has a robust campaign chest thanks to nearly $2 billion dispensed over the past four years by his Venezuelan soul mate, Hugo Chavez. He exercises increasing influence over, or outright control of, most Nicaraguan television and radio stations.

Despite these advantages, Ortega may also resort to electoral fraud on a massive scale. If he does, the U.S. should be prepared to challenge the legitimacy of the elections and potentially cut future economic assistance.

Control the Electoral Council

Heading into the presidential elections, Ortega’s high trump remains the corrupted Supreme Electoral Council (CSE), the fourth co-equal branch of government. Its Sandinista members engineered a massive and flagrant fraud during the municipal elections of 2008, stealing between 40 and 50 mayoralties, including in the capital, Managua.

The CSE, which is under Ortega’s control, has announced that there will be no electoral observation but only “accompaniment” and that it will be on the government’s terms. It has yet to make clear whether this is a mere semantic difference or an attempt to limit electoral vigilance. Whatever the case, the invitation to “accompany” did not come until well into August and has met with numerous bureaucratic obstacles. The European Union says that it will send a small observation team, but it still complains that the CSE has not clarified the conditions. The Organization of American States (OAS) has offered to send a group but cannot find financing. The Carter Center, which has observed every Nicaraguan election since 1990, has decided to stay away this time because of delays in setting observation rules.

Nicaraguan civil society groups that have observed previous elections (such as the highly respected Etica y Transparencia and IPADE) and newer, non-partisan organizations (such as Hagamos Democracia), still have no legal status to participate as observers. Etica y Transparencia, in fact, has decided to forego legal sanction, knowing that it would likely be denied. Instead, it will take the risky step of sending its thousands of observers to the polls on election day without CSE permission.

Why, though, would Ortega resort to any sort of skullduggery? Why would he not allow unfettered observation? After all, poll after poll indicates that he will attract between 38 and 48 percent of the vote, more than sufficient to give him a first-round victory over the splintered and quarrelling opposition.

Fracture the Opposition

His nearest rival, Fabio Gadea, an octogenarian journalist and radio owner of impeccable democratic credentials and unimpeachable integrity, is somewhere between 18 and 25 percent. Next in line, discredited former president Arnoldo Aleman, who is alleged to have made off with about $100 million during his tenure, fails to reach double figures in most surveys. Two other opposition candidates are also campaigning, but together they command no more than 2 or 3 percent of the public’s favor.

In addition, and in stark contrast to the Sandinistas, the opposition lacks money. Their traditional sources for financing, prominent members of the private sector, have said often that unless the opposition coalesces around a single candidate, the business community will keep its purse closed. But there may be another, equally compelling reason: The Ortega government has pursued prudent macroeconomic policies and maintained labor peace, both of which benefit businesses. These factors, along with the Central American Free Trade Agreement and record high prices for the country’s principal commodity exports, have led to a modest economic boom in Nicaragua.

Still, Ortega is taking no chances. He thought he would win overwhelmingly in 1990, and every poll suggested he would, but when the hour of reckoning arrived, he lost decisively. He fears the same might happen again, that the people are lying to the pollsters. It is what Nicaraguans call the Gueguense, or the art of the clever deception. So, no matter what the polls indicate, no matter how divided the opposition, no matter how stuffed their campaign coffers, the Sandinistas will use the CSE to rig the process and, if necessary, the results.

The Constitution Is Unconstitutional?

Another issue related to the elections, which has been all but unmentioned during the campaign, is the legitimacy of Ortega’s candidacy. The Nicaraguan constitution is clear: No one is allowed to serve more than two terms as president, and no one can serve consecutive terms. Ortega is disqualified from running on both counts. He made an attempt in 2008 and 2009 to amend the constitution to allow for his re-election but failed. So he resorted to the Supreme Court, which he also controls.

While opposition magistrates were attending a conference in Spain—and over a weekend—Sandinista judges from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court met and quickly declared that the provisions that limited Ortega to two terms and prohibited consecutive terms violated his human rights.

The judge who wrote the decision was summoned by the Foreign Ministry to explain the case to the ambassadorial corps. He described what he called an “antinomy.” Yes, he said, the constitution was explicit, but the drafters must have been ignorant of “the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,” written during the French Revolution, and of the U.N.’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” both of which supported the Supreme Court’s decision. The magistrates, he said, had to choose between two legitimate principles—the antinomy—and had decided that the constitution had the lesser claim. The constitution was, in effect, declared unconstitutional.

Jurists, including many disaffected Sandinistas, denounced the decision. Newspapers published editorials and op-ed pieces, all calling into question how and why it was done and noting the dire effects it would have on the country’s institutions. Opposition politicians joined the chorus and threatened to overturn the decision in the legislature.

Ortega had clearly wrong-footed his foes. If they refused to recognize his candidacy as legitimate and boycotted the election (as they had done in 1984 for other reasons), he would run unopposed and claim a mandate. But if they contested the elections, they would implicitly condone the judicial outrage. They decided on the latter course. The international community, including the United States, had little choice but to acquiesce in this approach, and for the same reasons.

As Nicaraguans opposed to the Sandinistas prepare to go to elections in November, they are confronted by the front-runner’s illegitimate and illegal candidacy and by the ruling party’s manipulation of the election processes. They worry about effective, credible electoral observation. They suspect that if, despite all the advantages enjoyed by the incumbent party, Ortega loses the election at the polls, the CSE will steal it during the count.

Recommendations

The U.S. government has come to ignore or tolerate many of these clearly undemocratic actions by the Sandinistas and will likely continue to abide them if they get no worse, despite Ortega’s strident anti-Americanism. But if these elections are as marred by fraud as were the municipal elections of 2008, the U.S. should:

* Condemn clearly and by name the fraud and its perpetrators and announce that it will not recognize the results and thus Ortega’s victory.
* Work in the OAS, despite its limitations, to investigate and denounce the fraud and results.
* If a U.S. ambassador has been nominated, the nomination process should be halted. The charge d’affaires should continue to run the embassy. The future presence of Nicaragua’s ambassador in the U.S. also hinges on free and fair elections on November 6.
* Withhold the two waivers for Nicaragua’s efforts to compensate American citizens for property confiscated during the first Sandinista regime and for its lack of budgetary transparency. This would trigger automatic suspensions in other aid programs and require the U.S. to vote against Nicaraguan loan applications at certain international lending institutions.

A Call for U.S. and International Action

Ortega has done just enough to date to avoid provoking a strong negative reaction from the U.S. and the international democratic community. If, however, he does engage in wholesale fraud in a national election, the U.S. and others should call him to account and expose his increasingly corrupt and authoritarian government.

Ambassador Robert J. Callahan is a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua from 2008 to 2011. Ray Walser, Ph.D. , is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

Is the New World Order Unraveling ?

2011-10-14T10:12:00.000-07:00

by Pat Buchannan

With Greece on the precipice of default, and Portugal and Italy approaching the ledge, the European monetary union appears in peril.

Should it collapse, the European Union itself could be in danger, for economic nationalism is rising in Europe. Which raises a larger question.

Is the New World Order, the great 20th century project of Western transnational elites, unraveling?

The NWO dates back as far as Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, which a Republican Senate refused to enter. FDR, seeking to succeed where his mentor had failed, oversaw the creation of a United Nations, an International Monetary Fund and a World Bank.

In 1951 came the European Coal and Steel Community, love child of Jean Monnet, which evolved into the European Economic Community, the European Community and the European Union. A European Central Bank and a new currency, the euro, followed.

The hidden ultimate goal of economic union was political union - a United States of Europe as model and core of the 21st century world government.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the EU expanded to the east. And the New World Order, formally proclaimed by George H.W. Bush in 1991, was out in the open and seemingly the wave of the future.

Progress was swift.

A North American Free Trade Agreement, bringing the United States, Mexico and Canada into a common market that George W. Bush predicted would encompass the hemisphere from Patagonia to Prudhoe Bay, was signed in 1993.

A World Trade Organization was born in 1994. U.S. sovereignty was surrendered to a global body where America had the same single vote as Azerbaijan.

The Kyoto Protocol, brought home by Vice President Al Gore, set up a regime to control the worldwide emission of greenhouse gases.

An International Criminal Court, a permanent Nuremberg Tribunal to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity, was created.

A doctrine of limited sovereignty had been asserted. Elites claimed a higher law than national sovereignty, "a responsibility to protect," enabled them to intervene in countries where human rights violations were egregious.

Serbia, bombed by Bill Clinton for 78 days for fighting to hold its ancient province of Kosovo, was the first victim.

Suddenly, however, the progression has stalled. Indeed, the New World Order seems to be unraveling.

Emerging powers like China, India and Brazil are demanding they be exempt from restrictions that developed countries seek to impose.

The follow-up summits to Kyoto - Copenhagen in 2009, Cancun in 2010 - ended in failure. The Doha round of world trade negotiations ended in failure.

China refuses to let her currency float lest she lose the trade surpluses that have enabled her to amass $3 trillion in cash reserves.

Protectionism is rising. Americans chaff at a new world economic order that has led to deindustrialization of their country. Congress is talking of defunding the U.N. as anti-Western and anti-Israel.

Why is the New World Order suddenly going in reverse?

A primary reason is the resurgence of nationalism. Nations are putting national interests ahead of any perceived global interests.

A second reason is the decline of a West whose project this was. We no longer dictate to the world, and the world no longer marches to our tune. The deficits and indebtedness of Western nations preclude more of the big wealth transfers in foreign aid that once bought us influence.

A third reason is demography. Not one European nation has a birth rate sufficient to replace its population. Europe's nations are aging, shrinking, dying. A depopulating Germany cannot carry forever the deficit-debtor nations of Club Med. The oldest nation, Japan, is on schedule to lose 25 million people by 2050, as is neighbor Russia.

Militarily, America remains the most powerful nation. But Iraq and Afghanistan have bled the country and left us without the certain attainment of our goals. Old allies like Turkey go their separate ways.

Ethno-nationalism also explains a disintegrating world order. Aspiring nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Padania, Flanders, Ingushetia, Dagestan, East Turkestan, Kurdistan and Baluchistan seek a place in the sun, free of the cloying embrace of the mother country.

The desire of peoples for nations all their own, where their own language, faith and culture predominate and their own kind rule to the exclusion of all others, is everywhere winning out over multiculturalism and transnationalism.

Through history there have been attempts to unite the world.

The Roman Empire. Catholicism. Islam. The West that ruled much of mankind from Columbus to the mid-20th century. Communism, which conquered half of Europe and Asia but arose and fell in a single century.

With the death of communism and the decline of the West - in relative population and power - Islam has become the largest religion, China the world's emerging superpower, and Asia the continent of the future.

Could this still be the Second American Century? Not the way we are going.

Last nights debate

2011-10-12T12:41:00.000-07:00

Romney won. Not only that, but I just don’t see anyone taking the nomination away from him. Herman Cain was not convincing enough, neither was Michele Bachman. And Perry? Was he at the debate last night? He is so bad at debates, it is painful to watch. Romney on the other hand gave me the confidence that he can go up to Obama in a debate and completely outperform him. And it is imperative that Obama be defeated.

This is not an endorsement of Romney; it is an acceptance of reality. When the stars of the conservative movement (Palin or Allen West) decide to sit out the primaries, leaving us with well-intentioned but inexperienced Herman Cain and Michele Bachman, then the establishment candidate is going to win. We can’t blame this on Romney or even on the establishment. If our candidates refuse to seek “a title,” then we can’t win. It’s that simple.

Will Romney get Tea Party support? I think it will be important to see who he picks as his Vice President. Will he pick Tea Party rising star Marco Rubio? I’m not sure. Marco Rubio would be the star of the ticket, much as Palin was the start of the 2008 ticket. That can be a distraction, and you want to keep the focus on the top of the ticket as much as you can. Besides, Rubio has made it clear he is not interested in leaving the Senate so soon after getting there.

My pick to join a Romney ticket would be Senator Jim DeMint. I think that would be a terrific pick. DeMint would help Romney win the South, where he is not popular at all. And without winning the South Romney can’t beat Obama.

DeMint is respected by almost every faction of the Tea Party movement. He is an intelligent and capable man, and he is ready to be President from day one. Most importantly, he is a principled and outspoken man. If Romney found himself drifting left he would hear it from DeMint, and we could be satisfied that the ideas of the Tea Party movement would have a strong advocate within the White House. That’s certainly much better than we have right now. A Romney/DeMint ticket is one I can get excited about.

The establishment hates Jim DeMint. However, they would be more than happy to see him leave the Senate, so you can expect them to be supportive of this VP pick (unlike four years ago).

One other thing that is important for the Tea party movement is to focus on the congressional races. We might not be able to get a Tea Party president, but we can make sure that if it does come down to a President Romney, that he has a Tea Party Congress. If Congress passes a repeal of ObamaCare, a balanced budget amendment, entitlement reform, etc.; will a President Romney veto legislation passed by a Congress of his own party? I doubt it.

There is no reason to lose hope. While I remain of the opinion that a moderate like Romney is not going to accomplish all that needs to be done to save this country from the socialist path we are in, I do believe he will slow down and even reverse some of the damage that Obama has done to our country. And if the Tea Party movement continues to gain power in Congress, and if we have an important seat at the table of a Romney administration, then we can help to slowly turn our country around.

I have always argued that the battle we are in, against this destructive progressive movement, is going to last decades. The Tea Party movement must be ready to continue this fight for as long as it takes. And if we are able to follow a President Romney with a true Tea Party conservative president, then the full restoration of the United States of America will be complete.

Dr. Michael Santos

Corruption in Maricopa County

2011-10-12T08:30:00.001-07:00

By Selwyn Duke

When we think of political persecution, places such as Tiananmen Square may come to mind. Increasingly, however, this tool of tyranny is coming to our shores -- and it is not made in China. It is, in the case I'll discuss today, made in Maricopa County.

Every avid news reader knows about the battles between Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the federal government; Leviathan has targeted him because of his principled stand against illegal immigration. What is not quite as well-known, however, is that the sheriff and his supporters -- most notably former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas -- have long been battling a corrupt local political machine bent on thwarting the rule of law and benefiting itself. Not surprisingly, as in the film Walking Tall, Arpaio's and Thomas's attempt to end local corruption has come at a price: the State Bar of Arizona (SBA) has begun prosecuting Thomas and two of his deputies in a move that reeks of political retaliation.

One of these underlings is ex-Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon. The other is ex-Deputy County Attorney Rachel Alexander, whom some readers may recognize as the proprietor of the website Intellectual Conservative. Alexander, despite having played only the smallest of roles in a racketeering case against the Maricopa County Supervisors, now faces suspension of her law license and significant career damage. And, outrageously, Alexander's supervisor Pete Spaw, despite playing a far larger role in the RICO case, has not been charged. This has led many to conclude that Alexander is the victim of selective prosecution.

The problems for Thomas and his deputies started when the County Supervisors filed wrongful prosecution charges against them with the SBA, which the County Supervisors' leftist allies in the bar association ran with. What were these local politicians so upset about? John Hawkins at RightWingNews.com provides some background,writing:

Thomas came up with a unique way to prosecute illegal immigrants with a felony, instead of just letting them go with a slap on the wrist. He used a felony smuggling statute to prosecute them, describing them as "smuggling themselves." With a felony conviction, they would be required to serve time and would not be able to return to the U.S. He even distributed money - which was seized from racketeering funds - to programs for youth run by the Boy Scouts and churches. By law, that money is to be distributed to organizations that keep youth away from crime and drugs. Thomas ensured that it was no longer only distributed to left wing politically correct organizations. Due to the proactive efforts of Thomas, along with Joe Arpaio and Senator Russell Pearce, illegal immigration has greatly decreased in Arizona. The population of illegal immigrants dropped by one-third over two years.

This didn't sit well with the illegal alien-enablers in local government. Hawkins continues:

Thomas ran for re-election in 2008 on a platform of stamping out public corruption with Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Together they decided to take on powerful politicians who had gotten away with corrupt acts for years. Don Stapley, the Chairman of the County Supervisors, raised thousands of dollars to run for president of the National Association of Counties, even though he did not have an opponent. He then spent that money on personal luxury items. Stapley allegedly spent $6000 of these funds at Bang and Olufsen electronics, along with $1300 for hair implants, $400 for candleholders and $10,000 for furniture for his home. He also spent these funds, solicited as campaign money, to buy tickets to Broadway plays and movie theatres. He bought flowers, paid the grocery store and department stores, paid for massages -- and paid for family trips to Sundance, to Utah to ski, a trip for his son and friends to Florida and a three-week vacation in Hawaii for his entire family at a beach house costing approximately $11,000.

Thomas brought charges against Stapley and a jury indicted him. Stapley was also indicted for failing to disclose his real estate dealings on financial statements. His business partner, Conley Wolfswinkel, is a convicted felon. Thomas also brought charges against Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. She was indicted for voting on giving money to Chicanos por la Causa while failing to disclose she had a sweetheart loan deal from them. Wilcox, who drives a 2006 Corvette, gave herself prime real estate territory at Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport through the "minority-owned business" affirmative action program.

Unfortunately, though, the Maricopa Machine knows how to protect itself. These charges were all transferred to now retired judges -- one of whom resigned in disgrace -- and were dismissed. And the Machine plays dirty. At one point, the supervisors removed Thomas's entire thirty-lawyer Civil Division from his jurisdiction -- until ultimately being ordered to return it by the Arizona Court of Appeals. At another point, they allegedly hacked into Alexander's Intellectual Conservative website, cloaking it so that Google would block it. This severely impacted upon the site's traffic (the hacking damage has since been undone).

To understand the kind of political persecution the SBA is guilty of, note that even some of Thomas's opponents are rallying to his and his deputies' defense. This includes the lifelong Democrat who, along with a Republican supporter of former Democrat governor Janet Napolitano and a third colleague, paid for anadvertisement alerting fellow bar members to how their dues are being used for a political vendetta. What follows is an excerpt:

As John Hawkins points out in his piece, when an expert (Hazard) who helped draft the American Bar Association's ethics rules says the SBA's charges are without merit, it should raise a red flag.

Also sounding the alarm is the Maricopa County Republican Committee, which responded to the Machine's injustice by taking the unusual step of condemning the prosecution. In aformal resolution , the MCRC pointed out that "even a columnist for the liberal Arizona Republic, Robert Robb, has denounced the Bar's investigation"; the MCRC concluded with "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Maricopa County Republican Executive Guidance Committee that it demand the State Bar drop the baseless and politically motivated investigation into Andrew Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander."

Yet, in the sea of injustice that is this sordid affair, the charges against Alexander are so outrageous that even some who side with the SBA against Thomas have defended her. For example, Arizona attorney Greg Patterson writes that the case against Alexander -- a woman "well known in the conservative blogging community" -- "is both selective and overreaching." David Roney at SonoranAlliance.com places matters in further perspective, writing:

Alexander is being charged, despite a long, unblemished record at MCAO [Maricopa County Attorney's Office], solely for her role working on the RICO case. What was her role? She worked under her supervisor Pete Spaw's direction. Shaw [sic] was an experienced RICO attorney who, according to my sources, started the drafts of the pleadings, finalized the drafts of the pleadings with Andrew Thomas, and developed the key theories in them. He exclusively dealt with opposing counsel, and filed all of the pleadings electronically. Alexander's role consisted of mostly research for the pleadings, and taking direction from Spaw, nothing further. Yet Spaw was not charged by the Bar, only Alexander.

The real issue here is [an] allegation that Alexander sought to burden and embarrass county supervisors. The allegation is nothing short of hilarious on its face.... The supervisors, with a few exceptions, have done a pretty good job of bringing poor press and embarrassment upon themselves. And they did so all without the help of Alexander.

Without a doubt, crooks are very "embarrassed" when light is shone on their dark deeds. Yet the ideological component cannot be overlooked. There is a full-court press on to destroy Thomas, Aubuchon, and a woman running a website named "Intellectual Conservative" for the same reason the Machine targets Sheriff Joe Arpaio: they were pursuing an agenda some call conservative, but which really amounts to the upholding of the rule of law -- and the antithesis of liberalism.

So this is a story of corruption. There is the garden variety, in which those who walk tall and stand against evil are targeted by those who wish to continue enriching themselves. But then there is the kind that is another hallmark of despotic regimes: political persecution. It is a phenomenon of fascism, whereby those who toe your line get benefits, and those who don't get intimidated into silence or, when they're too stout-hearted, destroyed.

By any means necessary.

Then, once big business and all other prominent people and entities are marching in lock-step, you have complete control over civilization. This is Chicago -- and, it appears, Maricopa -- politics. And we allow it to stand at our own peril.

Contact Selwyn Duke

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/10/arizona_state_bar_targets_conservative_lawyer_and_blogger_in_political_prosecution.html at October 12, 2011 - 10:29:58 AM CDT

Obama Team Split on How To Rally Unruly Coalition

2011-10-10T16:22:00.000-07:00

by Michael Barone

President Barack Obama obviously is scrambling in his attempt to win re-election. He has proclaimed himself the underdog and has given up his pretense of being a pragmatic centrist compromiser in favor of harsh class warfare rhetoric.

But it's worth taking note of what he has squandered. In 2008, Obama won 53 percent of the popular vote. That may not sound like a landslide, but it's more than any other Democratic presidential nominee in history except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

Higher than Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland, higher than Harry Truman and John Kennedy, higher than Jimmy Carter and (but don't bring up the subject with him) Bill Clinton.

Why have so few Democratic nominees won 53 percent or more, as 10 different Republican nominees have? The historical reason is that the Democratic Party has been an unruly coalition of disparate groups -- big-city Catholics and Southern whites for the century after the Civil War -- which usually has been hard to hold together.

Obama's 2008 coalition included two-thirds of young voters and Latinos, majorities of those earning more than $200,000 and those earning less than $50,000, non-college whites in the upper Midwest, and 95 percent of blacks nationwide. Some obvious tensions there.

Now his strategists feel obliged to pick which groups he'll concentrate on to get back up to 50 percent. What's interesting is that his demographic strategists and his issue strategists seem to be eyeing different groups.

The demographic targeters, in their quest for 270 electoral votes, have decided to concentrate on traditionally Republican states that Obama carried in 2008, according to a report in The New York Times. They note that some of these states -- e.g., Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina -- have above-average percentages of college-educated voters, who trended strongly toward Obama.

They add that those three states have more electoral votes (37) than Florida (29) and twice as many as Ohio (18), which were both target states in each of the past three presidential elections. But Ohio and Florida have lower percentages of college-educated residents, and the movement toward Obama compared with past Democrats was relatively minimal.

This may be smart targeting. For years, Democrats have been seeking to regain the majorities they won from blue-collar whites in the days of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. But they are a declining percentage of the electorate, and it's been a long time since they have given Democrats any majority at all for president.

Statewide polling since June has shown Obama with majority disapproval in Florida (43 percent approves; 53 percent disapproves) and in Ohio (44-52). That supports the view that his chances are tenuous in those states.

But unfortunately for these strategists, recent polls don't show Obama doing much better in Virginia (45-50), North Carolina (45-51) or Colorado (46-50). The Obamaites point to Sen. Michael Bennet's 2010 victory in Colorado as a model to follow. But Bennet won by only 48 to 46 percent, and the Democratic governor won with just 51 percent against split opposition. And Republicans carried the state's popular vote for the House.

There's also an enormous gulf between the so-called Colorado strategy and Obama's stance on issues. It's not clear that lambasting Republicans for not raising taxes on millionaires and corporate jets is going to win votes or rally the enthusiasm of currently disappointed college-educated and young voters.

They may actually have looked past the campaign rally cries of "pass this bill" to notice that it doesn't have 50 votes in the Democratic-majority Senate and indeed has hardly any Democratic co-sponsors. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been employing parliamentary legerdemain to prevent a vote on Obama's bill.

It's not so clear, either, that bashing millionaires and corporate jets is going to rekindle the enthusiasm of young voters and Latinos discouraged after months of joblessness. They may remember that spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the 2009 stimulus package didn't do much good.

At the moment, the only states where polls since June show Obama with job approval as high as 50 or 51 percent are those where he got 60-plus percent in 2008, plus New Jersey, where he got 57 percent.

Those are enough to get him up to 200 electoral votes, 70 short of a majority.

But they're not enough to reassemble the 53 percent coalition that hoped he would bring change for the better. That coalition, historically unusual, seems now to be part of history itself.

Mr. Barone is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years.

Taking Idiocy Seriously

2011-10-08T09:18:00.000-07:00

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Judging by the incoherence of their agenda and the relatively small number of participants, you could say the Occupy Wall Street protesters aren’t serious. Their spirit is captured in this anecdote from New York’s Zuccotti Park, reported in the New York Times: “One woman gave a pep talk to what looked like a new recruit. ‘It’s about taking down systems, it doesn’t matter what you’re protesting,’ she said. ‘Just protest.’

“Just protest.” As we said: not serious. Even idiotic.

Occupy Wall Street may peter out and have no lasting significance whatsoever. And the respectful coverage by some in the media, the earnest attempts by bien-pensant commentators to guide the protesters to a coherent policy agenda, the evident nostalgia of Baby Boomers for the palmy days of their youth in the ’60s, the painful envy on the left of the success of the Tea Party—it’s all somewhat comical.

However: In politics, sometimes you have to take idiocy seriously. The complaints in the ’60s against life in oppressive Amerika were childish. The nuclear freeze movement of the early ’80s was foolish. The anti-Iraq war movement of a few years ago was both silly (“Bush lied, people died”) and disgraceful (“General Betray Us”). But movements can have political impact even if they aren’t worth much morally or intellectually or even numerically. And while one would hope the main effect of such flaky movements would be to discredit their allies, it doesn’t always work out that way. “General Betray Us” did not, for instance, prevent a big Democratic win in 2008.

Speaking of that win, we would note that Occupy Wall Street has a huge practical problem: the man who now occupies the White House. The president of the United States is Barack Hussein Obama (he’s suddenly taken to stressing his middle name, as he rallies his troops for 2012 by reminding his supporters how allegedly courageous it was for them to support him in 2008). It’s as if John Kennedy had been a first-term president in 1967, running for reelection. The New Left surely would have had a tougher time mobilizing against Kennedy than it did against Lyndon Baines Johnson. The reaction to the protests by the liberal wing of the Democratic party would have been more mixed, the “movement” would have had more difficulty taking off, and the New Left’s ascendancy over the next few years would have been more problematic.

Still, the fact that Obama is in the White House doesn’t guarantee that the protests fizzle. Nor is their silliness a guarantee of impotence or insignificance.

How should conservatives react? Our shorthand advice would be to follow the example of Reagan more than that of Nixon. Nixon succeeded in mobilizing middle America against the spoiled rich kids protesting—but in policy terms Nixon as president made concessions to the left, and failed to advance any sort of bold conservative policy or political agenda.

Reagan, by contrast, channeled discontent with the status quo into a conservative agenda of big reform. His alternative to left-wing economic demagoguery wasn’t the status quo, it was the Kemp-Roth tax cuts and then tax simplification. His alternative to the left’s critique of big-government, interest-group liberalism was a thorough critique of the pathologies of the liberal welfare state. His response to the nuclear freeze movement was not to defend Mutual Assured Destruction, it was SDI.

As for the George W. Bush administration, it had elements of both Nixon and Reagan—but went mostly into a defensive crouch in its second term before the antiwar onslaught, with the notable and admirable exception of the surge in Iraq.

A surge is in fact the way to go—an intellectual, policy, and political countersurge to both the Obama administration and to Occupy Wall Street. The protesters don’t like crony capitalism? Offer bold proposals to reform it. They don’t like Wall Street? Conservatives should offer policies to benefit Main Street and seek to curb Wall Street abuses. The protesters don’t like the glorification of money? Nor do conservatives, who put God, country, and family before business, and who respect the military, churches, active citizens, and stay-at-home moms more than bond traders (no offense, bond traders!).

Is anyone in the GOP up for a Reaganite agenda? There are some prominent Republicans whose records in office suggest they could be effective carriers of the torch—Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Mike Pence, and Jim DeMint, to name a few. None of them has chosen to try to fill Reagan’s shoes in 2012. Mitt Romney, leading the presidential pack, is (understandably) playing it safe—running the 1980 George H.W. Bush campaign without a Reagan to compete against him while the other candidates seem to be playing the roles of John Connally, Phil Crane, Harold Stassen, and John Anderson.

Meanwhile, the Republican leadership in the House is bogged down (understandably) in managing its own fractious caucus, and in tactical battles with President Obama. The Republicans in the Senate are even more preoccupied with skirmishes with Harry Reid. Has any big idea emerged from the Hill since Paul Ryan’s budget? Has the presidential campaign had a single memorable speech—or even a memorable soundbite?

There is still time. And the fecklessness of the Obama administration, and the idiocy of the left, may mean that conservatives can get away with playing prevent defense over the next year. But the Wall Street protests serve as a useful reminder of the volatile and unpredictable nature of politics at a moment like this—and a reminder that it’s generally better to be on offense.

When you’re on offense, though, it helps to have a quarterback.

Mouth and Throat Cancer brought on by oral sex

2011-10-08T07:26:00.001-07:00

Mouth and throat cancer, called oropharynx cancer, used to be a disease seen most commonly in elderly persons. Tobacco smoking and alcohol use were known to be the leading causes of oropharyngeal cancer. Today, oral sex is listed as the leading cause of cancer of the mouth and throat.

New research, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, demonstrates that human papillomavirus, HPV, is the leading cause of cancer of the oropharnyx in the U.S. The number of people diagnosed with HPV-related oral cancers in the U.S. tripled from 1998 to 2004.

Currently, as NPR reports, almost 10,000 new cases of oral and throat cancer are diagnosed each year, with a 28 percent increase in incidence since 1988. Interestingly, the majority of those who are being diagnosed with the HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers are men. This leads researchers to wonder if the vaccine against HPV that is recommended for teenage girls may be affording that gender with protection against oropharyngeal cancer, as well as the currently known protection against cervical cancer.

Researchers have noted a marked drop in non-HPV-related mouth and throat cancers since the American population has begun to turn away from tobacco smoking.

The oropharyngeal cancer most commonly affects the tonsils, palate, base of the tongue and the upper throat. Whereas this type of cancer was previously seen most often in aged patients, it is now more common at younger ages, including baby boomers and their juniors, reports Bloomberg News.

HPV is the most commonly transmitted sexual disease, but as Dr. Gregory Masters, an oncologist at the Helen Graham Cancer Center in Delaware reminds us, research is not yet clear that oral sex is the main or only transmission factor in this cancer,

Dr. Maura Gillison, author of the research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology states that persons who have had six or more partners on whom they've practiced unprotected oral sex are eight times more likely than those who have not had oral sex to develop the HPV-related mouth and throat cancers, reports CBS News.

Merck, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the HPV vaccine, has issued a statement that there are no current plans to research the usefulness of the vaccine against oropharyngeal cancers.

Smack dab in the middle of the baby boomer generation , L.L. Woodard is a proud resident of "The Red Man" state. With what he hopes is an everyman's view of life's concerns both in his state and throughout the nation, Woodard presents facts and opinions based on common-sense solutions.

Mouth and Throat Cancer brought on by oral sex

2011-10-06T06:46:00.001-07:00

The Tea Party vs. The Establishment

2011-10-05T06:18:00.000-07:00

The stars are aligned for Mitt Romney. In every Republican debate, he has been left relatively untouched by the moderators and by every candidate save Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. He continues to ride high in the national polling, holding steady at near one quarter of the likely Republican primary voters. The Republican Party bigwigs, including key funders on Wall Street, are throwing their support to him.

There's only one problem: He'll lose the general election.

He'll lose the general election for a very simple reason: Nobody in the conservative base is excited about him. While the so-called GOP opinion leaders wax on about how super-electable he is, they fail to recognize that it is precisely that logic that gave us the unelectable John McCain. Turnout wins elections these days, not appeals to the independent voter.

Mitt Romney suffers from an enthusiasm gap. He seems to be everybody's second choice. He is few people's first choice. And that is a major problem for him. People pound the pavement for their favorite candidates. They work phone banks for their favorite candidates. They vote for their second favorite candidates -- but they don't work for them.

Republican Romney supporters seem to be counting on sheer dislike for President Obama to carry Romney to victory. That logic is not compelling. Democrats thought the same thing when they nominated John Kerry against the unpopular incumbent George W. Bush. But an empty suit will not beat an unpopular incumbent.

In short, Romney suffers from an enthusiasm gap. Higher-ups in the Republican Party may like the cut of Romney's jib, but the grassroots think he's a flip-flopping stiff allied with corporate cronies, not a principled leader in a crucial time. No candidate for the presidency has suffered from the enthusiasm gap and won the Oval Office since Richard Nixon in 1972. Romney will not break that pattern.

The question is whether the Republican establishment truly cares. In some ways, the Republican establishment's treatment of the Tea Party is very much like the old media's treatment of the new media in 2008. During that election cycle, the new media -- Internet and talk radio -- loudly proclaimed the irrelevance of the old media. They shouted from the rooftops that the old media no longer controlled the narrative.

And the old media had its revenge. They not only nominated their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, without vetting him in any way, they then proceeded to nominate their Republican candidate of choice, John McCain, by magnifying the flaws of all the other candidates and touting his "momentum" in the primaries. Then they proceeded to elect Obama by tearing down McCain piece by piece.

In this election cycle, the battle isn't between the old media and the new media anymore. It is between the Tea Party and the GOP establishment. Since 2010, the Tea Party has declared victory; they've decided that they now handle the rudder of the conservative movement, thanks to the election of candidates like Allan West, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.

But the establishment GOP sees the Tea Party as a threat, for two reasons. First, they think that the Tea Party is more interested in principle than victory. They look at Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell and they see a descent back to the losing days of Barry Goldwater. In this, they may be right. Many of those in the Tea Party would rather run principled candidates who lose than elect Democrat-lites who proceed to corrupt both the government and conservatism itself from within. In this view, at least there will be clear lines of blame when liberals drive the ship of state into the jagged rocks of reality.

Second, the establishment GOP is not aligned with the philosophy of the Tea Party. They like the philosophy of a Democrat-lite: more efficient, effective government, but not necessarily a smaller one. This is the philosophy of Mitt Romney, who rips Rick Perry for stating that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (which it is), who established a health care mandate in the state of Massachusetts, who supports Obama's continued nationalization of education, whose tax cutting talk is weak tea at best.

Even more than the Democrat-lite philosophy, establishment Republicans like winning. Was Ronald Reagan running in these primaries, the establishment GOP would attempt to dump him for Romney, the same way they tried to dump Reagan for George H.W. Bush in 1980.

The problem, of course, is that the establishment GOP philosophy results not in victory but in tremendous losses. When conservatism is politically inconvenient, it sometimes wins (see Reagan) and it sometimes loses (see Goldwater). But when conservatism embraces the politics of convenience, it always loses. If the establishment GOP succeeds in nominating Mitt Romney, it will be able to add another black mark to its long record of failure -- and, even worse, it will have co-opted the greatest Constitutionalist movement in a century for its own pathetic purposes.

We've Been ZIRPed by the Fed

2011-10-01T08:44:00.000-07:00

By Mark W. Hendrickson

It isn't easy to earn interest income these days. Interest rates on government T-bills, banks' savings accounts, and certificates of deposit are microscopic. You can blame our government and central bank. They have "ZIRPed" millions of American savers. Here are the details:

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the average interest rate paid on federal debt, as of July, was just under 2.4 percent, implying an annual interest expense on $14.5 trillion of debt of nearly $350 billion. (Net debt, subtracting intra-governmental debt is lower; actual debt, including off-budget items, is higher.) If the average interest rate rose to 5 percent, the annual debt burden would rise correspondingly to well over $700 billion and consume approximately one-third of total federal revenues.

At some point, higher interest rates would consume such a large portion of federal revenues that only massive dollar-creation by the Federal Reserve could provide funding for government's myriad programs. Washington simply cannot afford for interest rates to rise, and therefore, the Fed will keep them abnormally low for as long as possible. In essence, the Fed has declared an end to a free market in interest rates.

The market price of interest rises when demand increases relative to supply and falls when supply increases relative to demand. Today's record-low interest rates imply that the supply of money saved -- i.e., capital -- is abundant relative to the demand for capital. It isn't.

Today's low interest rates are not the result of superabundant capital, but are the result of massive intervention by the Federal Reserve System. In response to the financial panic in 2008, the Fed adopted what is known as ZIRP -- a "zero interest rate policy." This August, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke announced his intention to maintain this policy for two more years. Doubling down on this engineered low-interest-rate policy, on September 21, the Fed announced "Operation Twist" -- its plan to force down long-term interest rates even more.

Without Fed intervention, the supply of savings -- genuine capital -- would not be sufficient to finance and refinance all of the world's debt. Interest rates are this low only because the Fed has been using its extraordinary powers to boost the supply of capital with "fiat capital" -- money that nobody has earned and saved, but that the Fed conjures up ex nihilo.

As with the supply of capital, Federal Reserve interventions, along with various government interventions, have manipulated the demand for capital. If the U.S. Treasury had to compete with vigorous private demand for capital, interest rates would rise, so it has been necessary to squelch private demand.

Government and its central bank have suppressed demand for capital in several ways.

First, the torrent of anti-wealth policies unleashed by the Obama administration has produced the "turtle phenomenon" -- many businesses have gone into shells, postponing plans to open or expand until the cloud of uncertainty and fear of arbitrary wealth-destroying policies blow over.

Second, the Fed has been paying interest (albeit a modest 0.25 percent) on banks' excess reserves, and that has reduced the incentive for banks to lend those funds.

Third, there is abundant anecdotal evidence that banks have been rationing credit so severely that even low-risk customers often are denied loans. The private sector's access to capital is being curtailed so that Uncle Sam can obtain scarce capital cheaply.

American savers are taking it on the chin in today's rigged capital markets. With interest rates on Treasury debt being ultra-low, when you factor in inflation and taxes, savers are paying the Treasury to hold their money instead of being compensated for lending their savings to the government. ZIRP is bailing out our bankrupt government at savers' expense. This is one way that wealth is being "spread around" in the Age of Obama.

By ZIRPing us unrelentingly, the Fed is proving that it is no friend of the people. To paraphrase the Gettysburg Address, the Fed is a tool "of the [government], by the [government], for the [government]." One is tempted to add: may it soon "perish from the earth."

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/10/weve_been_zirped_by_the_fed.html

Romney the Electable?

2011-10-01T08:14:00.001-07:00

By Aaron Reber

Are you sick and tired yet of hearing about Mitt Romney being the "most electable" candidate? I am. Lately, via the media and our own RNC elites, we have been fed this constant drivel about the electability of Mitt Romney. The same tired story goes that, because Romney was the centrist Republican governor of a blue state, he has the widest voter appeal, and thus the best chance to win in a general election.

This is a bad joke.

Now, I'm no beltway "expert." However, I've had the opportunity to work on campaigns ranging from U.S. Senate down to City Council, and I can see the problems with Mitt Romney. Let us for a moment consider the attributes a candidate must have to be truly successful, and you will quickly see why Mitt is one of the least electable candidates we have for the general election.

Charisma and the Ability to Create Personal Connections

Creating personal connections with the voters is what wins you an election. Period. The average voters do not think like we issue-oriented types do. People first vote based upon who they perceive shares their values and creates the best personal connection with them. Ideology is a distant second. Mitt Romney couldn't create a personal connection with a Labrador puppy. The man is robotic. He is so slick that one gets the feeling you could feel the grease if you shook his hand. John Stewart said it best when he stated that Romney "looks like he stepped out of a Viagra commercial." Counting on this man to connect with voters is a non-starter.

A Politician's Record and Credibility

A politician's record is crucial to his or her candidacy. It can be used to create or crush one's ability to connect with voters. A fine case in point is Kerry and the swift boat veterans. In 2004, Kerry's inability to connect with voters was bad enough. However, because his record didn't seem unpalatable to the general public, he was still being held afloat by dissatisfaction with Bush's policies -- that is, until the swift boat veterans came onto the scene. Overnight, Kerry's record in Vietnam, initially seen as a strength, was used to obliterate his credibility.

What exactly do you think will happen with Romney and RomneyCare? How does a man attack ObamaCare when his own plan was the basis for ObamaCare? Tying the already deeply unpopular ObamaCare to job-destruction is our best line of attack. Yet with Romney as the nominee, Obama will be able to dodge it in the first debate. Just think of Obama's response to Romney's charge against ObamaCare. "Well Mitt, your plan was the basis for my health care bill." Winning!, as Charlie Sheen would say, and just like that, Romney would lose his ability to comment on the issue. Tie that to the fact that Mitt has flip-flopped on just about every other issue the country cares about, and you have yourself the Republican John Kerry.

Fund-Raising, Wealth, and Campaign Structure

I have to hand it to him: Mitt can raise a lot of money. He has his own personal wealth to put into the campaign, and he has a fine campaign team. However, the fact is that no matter who the nominee is, he or she will have the money necessary to get the message out. Furthermore, even if Romney's campaign team is the best there is, it can be put to work for the eventual nominee if he loses. Also, do we really want a nominee who can flaunt that much of his own cash during an age where politicians seem so out of touch with reality? Won't bulldozing his beachfront mansion to build another, bigger mansion rub the electorate the wrong way? Just a thought.

Ideology and Exciting the Base

There is no such thing as being too conservative or too liberal to win a general presidential election. This was proved by both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, respectively. Voter turnout is what truly decides an election. If a candidate is trailing in the polls 99% to 1%, but only that 1% who approves of him turns out to vote, he will win with 100% of the vote tally. This of course is an absurd example, but I chose it to make a point. You must turn out your base if you plan on winning an election. You do not ever choose a candidate based upon what the fickle independents may or may not want. You choose only the wording for your messaging based on how independents will receive it. Again, take Reagan and Obama. Both men come from the far poles of the American political spectrum. Both revved up their base, and both chose their wording in the general election to make their positions palatable to the politically ignorant.

The election in 2008 was a classic example of what happens when you have one candidate, Barack Obama, who excites his base, and another candidate, John McCain, who deflates his base. John McCain was supposed to be this bipartisan problem-solver that the middle would swoon over. What happened? McCain depressed his own base so much that he lost my home state of Indiana. Indiana had not voted for a democrat since LBJ! What's more is that McCain lost the independent vote in an avalanche. Why? Independents follow strength and conviction. They will see right through some pandering politician, just as they will see right through Mitt Romney. It is too obvious that he is saying only what he thinks will get him elected. Just watch him speak to the Tea Party. It's such obvious pandering that it is wince-inducing. Romney's flip-flopping and the pictures of him with Ted Kennedy signing RomneyCare into law will only suppress voter enthusiasm among the base, and it will do nothing to win independents.

What is that, you say? Anger against Obama will be more than enough to turn out the base? I'm sorry, but I again must refer you to John Kerry. The liberal base hated George W. Bush. Kerry still lost. Positive emotion trumps negative emotion. Why do you think Obama is so blatantly attempting to appease his base now? He knows that it is his only hope. You win elections by starting with your base and then adding to your coalition until you hit that 50+1% to win.

The only people we have telling us Mitt Romney is the most electable candidate are the inbred RNC types who got us into this mess four years ago. Somehow I just don't trust Tim Pawlenty, the first man into the presidential race and the first man out, to understand what it takes to be electable. Of course, it is possible that the economy will be in an official recession next year, and it won't matter whom we nominate...but do we really want to take that chance? Do we really want the guy who planted the seed of ObamaCare entrusted with the job of removing it? Let us all do ourselves a favor and not nominate the Republican John Kerry. Find the man who can beat Romney and rally behind that man, or, absent another economic meltdown, we'll have four more years of Obama.

Justice Kennedy and the Fate of ObamaCare

2011-09-30T08:41:00.000-07:00

By Joseph Ashby

It's been one year, six months, and eight days since it happened. White-hot tempers have cooled. Dire predictions are rarer. Unlike many tumultuous situations, which in retrospect appear unworthy of our ire, the intensity that accompanied the passage of ObamaCare was well-suited to the size of the cause.

Throughout the Western world, government-run health care has served to catalyze a permanent leftist political climate. Unlike the relatively limited nature of our current welfare state (which is already bankrupting the nation), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is designed to reach across all age demographics and into nearly every income bracket.

Because of its near-limitless reach, if fully implemented, ObamaCare will quickly become a political force surpassing even Social Security and Medicare. Once that happens, the only way to win elections will be to promise not to touch government health care. Every politician will have to accept and even endorse issues that are now championed only by the far left.

The morning after ObamaCare passed, the Los Angeles Times announced that the Democrats had won a 100-year war, but the war didn't end. Once the law passed, Americans began a two-pronged effort to sabotage the left's well-laid plan, and thereby rescue America from an ominous fate.

The success of the first prong, judicial action, will likely be determined by late next spring.

Earlier this week, the U.S. government failed to file a request for re-hearing of their case before the full panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Failure to file for the re-hearing likely means one of three things. The Obama team wanted no part of the unfriendly 11th Circuit, is willing to accept a version of ObamaCare without the insurance purchase mandate (a possibility Rush Limbaugh pointed out Wednesday), or believes it has a winning argument to take to the Supreme Court.

With four reliable liberals and four reliable constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, many consider the court's decision to rest with Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy's recent votes are both cause for hope and concern for those fighting ObamaCare.

For example, in the 2005 Kelo decision, Kennedy sided with the liberal wing of the court. The decision allowed a municipal government in Connecticut to seize private lands through eminent domain and hand the land over to other private interests. Kennedy wrote in a concurring opinion that as long as there was a proper "rational-basis test" which justified government taking the land, then the use of eminent domain was constitutional.

If Kennedy finds the health insurance mandate "rational" or a necessity to address health care costs, the unthinkable (but very possible) may occur: ObamaCare may get the SCOTUS stamp of constitutional approval.

Opponents of the president's health care law will find the Citizens United decision more encouraging, both because Kennedy fell on the side of the Constitution and because of its analogous similarity to ObamaCare. In both Citizens United (free speech) and the Affordable Care Act (right to property), the law in question gives the federal government such broad power that even dependable moderates like Kennedy cringe.

The most iconic moment of the Citizens United case came during oral arguments, when Chief Justice John Roberts questioned deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart on what types of speech the government could outlaw:

Roberts: If it's a 500-page book and at the end it says, "so vote for X," the government could ban that?

[Snip]

Stewart: If you have Citizens United or General Motors using general treasury funds to publish a book that at the outset, for instance, that Hillary Clinton's election would be a disaster for this --

Roberts: No, no. Take my hypothetical. It doesn't say at the outset. "Here is a..." whatever it is. "This is a discussion of the American political system." And at the end it says, "Vote for X."

Stewart: Yes, our position would be that the corporation could be required to use PAC funds rather than general treasury funds.

Roberts: And if they didn't you could ban it?

Stewart: If they didn't, we could prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds.

Several months later, the Court heard a second oral argument on the same case. In the second round, then-Solicitor General (now Supreme Court justice) Elena Kagan was asked about the potential that the Federal Election Commission could ban books. Kagan responded that the FEC had the power to ban books, but has never and most likely would never use that power. A somewhat shocked Justice Antonin Scalia tersely responded, "We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."

After the oral arguments, Kennedy voted with the originalists on the court. The majority opinion, written by Kennedy, was laced with statements that suggested he was greatly affected by the back-and-forth over book-banning. "When Government seeks to use its full power," wrote Kennedy, "including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought."

When ObamaCare goes to the Supreme Court, the Scalias and Robertses of the bench will no doubt pin down the administration lawyers on the individual mandate.

If the government can force citizens to buy health insurance, what will stop the Congress from mandating the purchase of cars, homes, food, or any number of products or services? There is no good answer to that question because, if we must buy one product, there is no sufficiently definable limit on congressional power regarding our personal purchasing decisions. We can hope Justice Kennedy will be greatly affected by that argument as well.

But to depend on Anthony Kennedy is a little like a soldier who takes cover behind a sapling during a firefight -- the sapling may stop the bullet, or it may not. Which is why the second prong, the legislative repeal of ObamaCare, must continue.

Even if the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate unconstitutional, there is no guarantee that the justices will throw out the entire law. The American people would be left with the taxes, regulations, massive Medicaid expansion, and other harmful provisions of the health care law. If that is the case, the defeat of ObamaCare through the republican process is our only avenue. The 2012 elections will be our best shot (and maybe our only real chance) of stopping the law.

Obama and the wordsmiths at the White House think themselves quite clever dubbing ObamaCare "Obama cares." The truth is that Obama doesn't care. It's incumbent upon the rest of us to stop this destructive law before it's too late.

Borrowed from American Thinker

Private Foundations: Benefactors or Malefactors?

2011-09-29T07:36:00.000-07:00

By Ross C. Reeves

The "Super Committee" charged with deficit reduction should take notice of a tax policy that permits the wealthiest Americans to divert a third of their tax obligations away from the Treasury and to causes of their own choosing. The same system also subsidizes conversion of taxable investment income to tax-free income and removal of billions in investment assets from the reach of estate and gift taxes.

The system at work lies in the intricate body of tax law that subsidizes the creation and perpetuation of so-called "private foundations." Briefly described, these are trusts or similar entities that control hundreds of billions of dollars in investment securities in the form of "endowments." Although they are accorded the status of "charities" under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, they do not meet any accepted definition of a charity. They do not raise money from the general public, but are instead the creatures of wealthy families and their corporate affiliates. Nor do they actually perform charitable works. Rather, they make discretionary "grants" to actual "operating charities" selected by trustees, as and when they see fit.

As of 2008, private foundations controlled $650 billion, two-thirds of which was made up of investment securities that earned investment income of over $60 billion. No income taxes were paid on these revenues. Neither the assets nor the earnings are subject to death taxes.

Ending these tax benefits could solve a substantial part of the Super Committee's ten-year goal. But a more important reason exists for reform: the tax code. It has established that most un-American of institutions: permanently entrenched wealth with the capacity and intent to influence the national agenda.

It goes without saying that private foundations are huge players in the world's financial markets, as venture capitalists, real estate developers, futures traders, and investors in stocks and bonds. Although discouraged from lobbying, they do in fact lobby prodigiously at all levels of government. But their greatest influence on the national agenda is promoting and funding research, public opinion polls, academic studies, advocacy groups, and other intellectual fodder in support of their pet causes. These activities are designed to "leverage" tax dollars in furtherance of their agendas. The names MacArthur, Pew, Kaiser, Koch, and Ford are the most familiar, but these "persuaders" number in the scores if not hundreds.

The modern system, in summary, works like this. A rich family or corporation creates an endowment to further "charitable" causes selected by the founder, subject only to extremely loose standards of public good. By way of example, the charitable purposes of foundations established by the Buffett family promote abortion rights, education of poor children, nuclear non-proliferation, environmental protection, and human rights. The endowment is donated free of gift tax, and is also removed from the reach of otherwise applicable death taxes. Moreover, the founder receives an immediate deduction from his income taxes for the gift, in effect getting 35% or more of it back from the taxpayers.

The foundation invariably takes this money and invests it. Although foundations do have to pay taxes on so-called "unrelated business income" (UBI), investment earnings are not considered UBI and thus are free from income tax. If, as some politicians argue, lower taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends constitute a subsidy for the rich, this tax-free universe for foundations is Valhalla itself.

In 1969 the Congress placed some limitation on the Topsy-like growth of private foundations by imposing an "excise tax" to the extent -- and only to the extent -- that the foundations do not "pay out" at least 5% of the endowment's current value in any year. Because foundation investment earnings historically almost invariably exceeded that "distributable" amount, most have had excess earnings to add to the endowment each year.

Apologists for private foundations argue that these remarkable benefits are a well-tuned public policy to support charities. They equate their activities with those of schools, institutions for the performing and fine arts, hospitals, and other "operating charities." The private foundations argue that, like conventional charities, they are being subsidized for doing work the government would otherwise have to perform. It is against this claim that their conduct should be measured.

The first consideration is that they do not support works that the people, acting through their governments, consider wholesome and helpful. They make grants only to those causes their founders and trustees have decided are more important than what government does. Notwithstanding the warm sentiments Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and others have for higher taxes, their foundations' very existence shows disapproval for what the government does and how it does it. If they felt otherwise, they would be more efficient in their largesse by foregoing foundations, paying income taxes on their investments, and dying with these assets in their taxable estates.

A more important consideration is that private foundations do not even support their own goals. The tax code has paradoxically encouraged giving for charity, but not spending on charity. The founder, as noted, receives an immediate tax deduction as if he had put money in the hands of the needy instead of an "endowment." But the empirical evidence is that the "gift" stays in the foundation's money bin forever and is never used to support foundation goals.

A 2007 IRS study -- which has not been updated -- tracked, over a ten-year period, the top 100 foundations by asset size. It calculated endowment growth and "distributions" as a percent of their respective endowments (the so-called "payout rate").

It comes as no surprise that all endowments grew. That is a natural consequence of making investments on which no income tax is paid.

The eye-popping statistic is the payout rate of each. With the exception of a mere handful of outliers, every one of the 100 foundations on the list paid almost exactly 5% out for expenses and actual charitable use. To underline a crucial point: 5% is not the average or median distribution by all 100 foundations; it is the individual payout rate of each one of them over a decade -- all while endowments were growing steadily and, presumably, the needs of their beneficiaries were increasing.

A sober observer can reach but one conclusion: over ten years, through hundreds of iterations of decisions made by one hundred boards of trustees, private foundations unerringly chose self-perpetuation over the needs of their intended beneficiaries.

As shameful as this performance is, private foundations respond with sophistry: we are good, therefore should be around for future generations; therefore we should not spend our money. This syllogism assumes, incorrectly, that it is public policy to perpetuate eternal memorials to the agendas of dead wealthy people. America's tradition is quite the opposite: reduction of plutocracy and actual spending on charity.

What is required is a system that matches up the founder's charitable deduction and the foundation's tax benefits with public policy. As a start, the charitable deduction for endowment gifts to private foundations should be discounted to present value based on the express undertakings of the foundation to expend the gift or, if none are made, the historic rate of principal distributions from the foundation's endowment gifts. (Present value calculations such as this are routinely performed in business and tax matters.) Existing foundations should be brought into conformity by increasing the "distributable amount" for excise tax purposes to 10% of endowment value, and by taxing investment income at the same rates as unrelated business income. Under such a regime, foundations may choose to persist in self-perpetuation, but they will have to adapt to a tax structure that demands their fair share.

Obama's Jobs Act Wouldn't Work. Here's What Would

2011-09-29T07:16:00.000-07:00

By Raymond Richman and Howard Richman

President Obama is doing his best to blame his bad economic record on his Republican opponents. He has a proposed bill, the American Jobs Act, which would supposedly create jobs, so he bashes Republicans at every opportunity for not supporting it. Meanwhile, his potential Republican opponents have some much better alternatives that would create huge numbers of jobs without costing the federal government a dime.

Obama's Jobs Act

Obama's largest proposed expenditure in this $447-billion bill is a temporary cut in the Social Security taxes paid by businesses and households. But as Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman (the lead author's dissertation advisor) demonstrated, businesses and households base their decisions to invest and consume on permanent expected income. Temporary tax cuts such as these purchase votes but do little to increase hiring or spending.

Another large expenditure would make grants to local governments to pay for 280,000 teachers, cops, and firefighters and to modernize "at least 35,000 public schools" -- a state and local government responsibility. How would the Department of Education determine which states, school districts, and municipalities will receive the money? Discretionary earmarks like these are an invitation to political chicanery.

Another expenditure would create a National Infrastructure Bank to finance modernizing roads and bridges, new and improved rail facilities, new airports, and waterways. Yet another would finance the rehabilitation of "homes, business and communities" by "leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations." At a time when bankrupt government-sponsored banks like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are bleeding hundreds of billions from the Treasury, expanding the government role in finance hardly sounds like good policy.

Another proposal promises the "most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years." One of its provisions would "prohibit employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring." And the bill has teeth drawn from the Civil Rights Acts so that firms that discriminate against unemployed workers could be sued. But if a firm hires a worker who is employed somewhere else, wouldn't that make a vacancy elsewhere? Obama's new provision would discriminate against those workers who wish to better themselves by moving from one job to another. The only new employment here would be given to trial lawyers, who would bleed businesses that were growing by hiring the best available employees.

So far, we have been talking about just the parts of Obama's bill that he claims would reduce unemployment. The worst parts are the measures designed to raise the revenue to pay for all of this. Jack Lew, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the bulk of the plan -- $400 billion over 10 years -- would be raised by limiting the itemized deductions, such as those for charitable contributions and other expenditures, that may be taken by individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making over $250,000 a year. There goes much of the funding for charities!

The rest would come from provisions affecting oil and gas companies, hedge funds, and the owners of corporate jets. Eliminating the oil and gas industry's depletion allowances could discourage them from drilling for new gas and oil within the United States, but would not discourage drilling abroad where they are not subject to the excessively high U.S. corporate income tax, so long as they reinvest their profits abroad.

The Domestic Energy Alternative

Nearly all of the Republican candidates are advocating that President Obama take away his many roadblocks to drilling for oil and natural gas and to mining for and burning coal. Indeed, the traditional energy sector has the potential for creating new jobs rapidly.

Thanks to the discoveries of gas in shale and new drilling technologies, this sector is already creating tens of thousands of jobs in North Dakota (an unemployment rate of 3 percent!), Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, et al. and is capable of making us a leading producer and exporter.

Compressed natural gas costs about 3/5 the price of gasoline. As fleet owners convert to compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel, the few filling stations that have already been built will soon be augmented by thousands along the interstates and in our cities, making it possible for households and small businesses to switch to CNG-powered vehicles. This switchover has the potential to revolutionize motor transportation, create a real boom, and eliminate U.S. dependence upon imported oil. All the federal government has to do is get out of the way!

Obama's proposed new tax on the oil and gas companies is just his latest attempt to discourage fossil fuel use and production in the United States in order to make the much more expensive green energy seem more attractive. But when Obama negotiated the Copenhagen Accord with leaders of India, Brazil, South Africa, and China following the failure of the U.N. Climate Control Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, he exempted China from any transparency and international verification requirements that would arise from a climate treaty. As a result, when he makes energy more expensive in the United States, he simply sends U.S. industry to China.

The Balanced Trade Alternative

Another solution would be to balance trade. The U.S. trade position has been deteriorating steadily under Obama's watch. Net exports (exports minus imports) in goods and services fell to negative $538 billion in the 12 months ending in July, the nineteenth consecutive month when our monthly trade deficit was worse than it had been the same month one year earlier. Each of these $538 billions of dollars subtracts from American income, subtracts from demand for American products, and puts Americans into greater debt to foreigners.

President Obama freely lets our trading partners violate one of the chief rules of trade. Article IV of the International Monetary Fund Articles of Agreement requires that countries "avoid manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members."

The worst offender has been China. According to statistics reported by the Asian Development Bank, in 2009 the Chinese government increased its currency reserves by $453 billion as one of the byproducts of its currency manipulations. During 2010 it accumulated an additional $256 billion. About 2/3 of these currency reserves are dollars, though nobody outside China knows for sure, since the People's Bank of China won't disclose the currency composition of its foreign exchange reserves to international organizations.

As a result of China's dollar purchases, U.S. net exports in goods to China (exports minus imports) hit a new 12-month low in July, falling to a negative $288 billion over the most recent 12 months, as shown in the graph below:

Some of the Republican presidential candidates have taken strong positions on trade with China. On August 16, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, then one of the little-known candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, called for Washington to stop permitting Communist China's "predatory, mercantilist trade practices." On September 6, Governor Romney revealed a jobs plan which condemned China for stealing proprietary technology from American companies producing there, called for the possible use of targeted tariffs or multilateral sanctions, and demanded Chinese reciprocity with regard to government procurement decisions.

But why limit our trade demands to China? Many of our other trading partners are copying China's technique of manipulating exchange rates in order to run trade surpluses with the United States -- even Mexico, with whom we have a long-standing free-trade agreement and South Korea with whom we are about to sign a free-trade agreement.

On May 31, Governor Palin called for balanced trade arrangements with our trading partners but didn't specify how she would achieve them. Under WTO rules, the United States could impose a scaled tariff on each of the countries with whom we have trade deficits. Such a tariff would gradually balance trade, which would bring in about $540 billion of new American income -- about 5.4 million new jobs, each producing about $100,000 of product. These productive workers would, in turn, employ other Americans to provide them with services. The United States economy would boom.

Disclosure: The authors get royalties from gas wells or own stock in companies that are involved with oil and natural gas production. They maintain a blog at www.idealtaxes.com, and co-authored the 2008 book Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late, published by Ideal Taxes Association.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/obamas_jobs_act_wouldnt_work_heres_what_would.html at September 29, 2011 - 09:05:46 AM CDT

Major Miscalculation

2011-09-28T08:26:00.001-07:00

Despite his deployment of every rhetorical weapon in the progressive arsenal, Obama could never make the thing popular. At town hall meetings, the bear growled and snorted, in a posture that the experienced psephological woodsman understands means “leave the bear alone.” The Democratic response was to mock the grizzly. Nancy Pelosi even called the town hall protesters “un-American.”

By July 2009, Gallup found Americans had attitudes that were “conspicuously incongruous with the results of the 2008 elections.” The 2010 midterm elections showed just how incongruous.

Of the myriad miscalculations made by Obama, among the most fateful has to be his assumption that a repudiation of George W. Bush was synonymous with a repudiation of conservatism. By election day in 2008, Bush’s approval rating was at 25%. You cannot get that low without losing a sizable slice of your base, particularly when self-described conservatives outnumber self-described liberals by roughly 2 to 1. It was their opposition to Bush’s big-government conservatism that made them the feedstock of the “tea parties.”

Obama probably understands this dynamic better as his own poll numbers sink not only among independents but with his base, which has convinced itself that his — and the country’s — problems stem from appeasing the conservative bear. Obama’s bizarre harangue of the Congressional Black Caucus on Saturday — “Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying” — was a testament to the cratering enthusiasm of his biggest supporters.

The dilemma for Obama is that non-liberals don’t see the situation the same way. As nearly every poll shows, more than 70% of Americans believe we’re on the wrong track, and the number of people calling themselves conservative continues to grow, as does the number of moderates who say they lean to the right. According to Pew, the average voter places himself twice as far from Democrats as he does from Republicans.

Government Land and Building Ownership

2011-09-27T08:53:00.001-07:00

The federal government owns 653,299,090 acres of land, yet Congress insists upon using taxpayer dollars to purchase to buy more. Almost 30% of all the land in the United States is owned by the federal government, but through congressional lands acts that number continues to rise. The federal government also owns over 400,000 buildings. Increasing federal ownership of land literally expands the size and scope of government. When government owns land it restricts access for recreation, mineral exploration, grazing, hunting, and other traditional uses. Expansive government ownership infringes upon property rights and curbs economic development.

Doctor And AMA Split Over Contentious Issue Of ObamaCare

2011-09-27T05:53:00.000-07:00

By Sally C. Pipes
For more than 160 years, the American Medical Association has served as the self-appointed chief lobbying group for doctors. But the AMA’s lofty status has been under threat over the last several years — and is under attack today. In fact, the AMA now only counts about 17% of doctors as members.

According to a new survey, the majority of doctors do not believe that the AMA represents their views and interests. Much of that dissatisfaction stems from the organization’s support for President Obama’s contentious health care reform package.

That shouldn’t be surprising. The AMA declares that its core mission is to “help doctors help patients.” But ObamaCare undermines that pursuit by making life harder for physicians and driving down the quality of care available to patients.

The survey — conducted by physician recruitment firm Jackson & Coker — is a brutal indictment of both the AMA and ObamaCare. Just 13% of doctors agree with their trade association’s support of the health reform law.

Some doctors are even dissociating themselves from the AMA. Of those who have terminated their membership, 47% cited the organization’s continued backing of the health care law as the primary reason. Increasingly doctors are turning to associations like Docs4PatientCare and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons that actually do represent their interests.

The Jackson & Coker survey joins a large stack of research with similar findings. In February, the National Physicians Survey discovered that more than three times as many doctors believed that the quality of American health care would “deteriorate” rather than “improve” under ObamaCare. Nine of ten physicians think ObamaCare will have a negative impact on their profession.

There’s no doubt that it will.

Why? For starters, the law doesn’t address one of doctors’ most serious concerns — reimbursement rates for patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, it stretches these programs’ shaky finances even further.

On average, physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries receive 81% of the rate private insurers pay. For Medicaid patients, reimbursements are even lower — just 56% of the private rate. In 2009, underpayments to hospitals amounted to $36.5 billion.

Cheerleaders for Medicare and Medicaid claim that the government is just driving a hard bargain. But these underpayments end up hurting both healthcare providers and patients.

Doctors pocket about $20 for each Medicaid patient they see. By contrast, an hour with a privately insured patient means payment of up to $260.

To compensate for lower government rates, doctors must increase their patient load. Every patient consequently spends less time with the doctor.

In some cases, doctors are responding to low reimbursements by refusing to see patients with public insurance. The American Academy of Family Physicians found that 13% of doctors did not partake in Medicare in 2009.

The numbers are even worse for Medicaid. The Houston Chronicle reported that doctors in Texas are leaving the program because of declining reimbursements at an “alarming” rate, with more than 300 drop-outs between 2008 and 2010. In Dallas, just 38.6% of physicians participated in 2009.

Given the paltry amount they’re reimbursed for seeing a Medicaid patient — and the cost of overhead — a doctor may actually lose money on each additional public patient he or she sees.

As the number of doctors who will treat them dwindles, beneficiaries of public insurance often must resort to costly alternatives like emergency rooms (ER) — even if they only need routine care.

More than 30% of Medicaid enrollees visited an ER in 2007, compared to the less than 20% of Americans with private insurance.

These visits exert a huge burden on the U.S. health care system. A 2009 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that treatment for three common illnesses cost an average of $166 at a general practitioner’s office. The very same treatment could run upwards of $570 in an ER.

Up to 27% of visits to ERs across the country are for non-emergency medical treatment. These unnecessary visits end up costing the country approximately $4.4 billion each year.

ObamaCare will only make these matters worse. By 2019, Medicaid will cover at least an additional 18 million Americans. All these new beneficiaries may have nominal insurance coverage. But they’ll struggle to secure a doctor’s appointment and will thus turn to already over-worked ER staffs.

The AMA claims that its top priority is helping doctors. Yet the organization has backed a law that would force some physicians to work longer hours for less pay and others to operate in perpetually overcrowded emergency rooms.

If doctors — those on the front lines of American health care — don’t support this massive overhaul of our medical system, then who can?

Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Taube Fellow in Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is The Truth About Obamacare.

True Friends

2011-09-26T20:17:00.000-07:00

True Friends

After losing his parents, this 3 year old orangutan was so depressed he wouldn't eat and didn't respond to any medical treatments. The veteranarians thought he would surely die from sadness. The zoo keepers found an old sick dog on the grounds in the park at the zoo where the orangutan lived and took the dog to the animal treatment center. The dog arrived at the same time the orangutan was there being treated. The 2 lost souls met and have been inseparable ever since.

The orangutan found a new reason to live and each always tries his best to be a good companion to his new found friend. They are together 24 hours a day in all their activities.

They live in Northern California where swimming is their favorite past time, although Roscoe (the orangutan) is a little afraid of the water and needs his friend's help to swim.

Together they have discovered the joy and laughter in life and the value of friendship.

They have found more than a friendly shoulder to lean on.

Poll finds Obama approval at historic low

2011-09-24T07:22:00.000-07:00

By Justin Sink

President Barack Obama's approval ratings have fallen to a new low, with only 36 percent of Americans saying that they approve of the way he is handling his job overall, according to a new poll from the Economist/YouGov. A majority of Americans - 56 percent - disapprove of the president's performance.

Even more concerning for the president may be the news that top Republican candidates have moved within striking distance in head-to-head matchups. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney trails Obama by just a 44 percent to 43 percent margin, while Texas governor Rick Perry trails 46 percent to 42 percent.

As has been the case in previous polls showing the president's slipping approval, Americans seem frustrated primarily in a souring economy. Only 30 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of the president's handling of the issue. 50 percent of Americans believe that the policies of the Obama Administration have hurt the economy, and 53 percent say that they have hurt the middle class.

Nor are they particularly convinced by the president's jobs bill push. More Americans believe that the bill would not create a substantial number of new jobs, and 64 percent of those polled say the president should be doing more to help create new jobs.

Furthermore, the poll shows that while the country was evenly divided in January on whether they would describe the president as "effective", today only 15 percent of Americans believe so, versus 40 percent who do not. 45 percent have no opinion on the matter.

Nor is the president scoring points for ideological consistency. 57 percent of those polled believe that most of what the president says is what he wants people to hear, rather than what he really believes.

Still, there are a couple glimmers of hope for Obama and the Democrats. As has been true in other polls, more trust Democrats than Republicans to handle the issue of job creation, and more believe that government spending is the way to create more jobs.

The Economist/YouGov poll surveyed 1000 respondents with a margin of error of 3.7 percent.

Rep. Paul Broun Introduces Concealed Carry Recognition Bill(House of Representatives)

2011-09-23T06:06:00.001-07:00

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well.

Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become null and void at the state line.

And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutional carry” friendly. The SAFE Act recognizes that while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry is the ideal.

For more than twenty years, Gun Owners of America has pushed constitutional carry (also known as Vermont-style carry) at the state level. Such legislation recognizes the right to carry without having to first get the government’s permission.

After all, how much of a right is protected by the Second Amendment if citizens must first pass tests, fill out applications, take classes and, in many cases, be fingerprinted and photographed to obtain a license—in essence, to prove to the authorities that they’re not criminals before being allowed to carry?

Vermont had it right for over a century. Any person can carry a concealed firearm—whether they are a resident of the state or not—except for use in the commission of a crime. That’s it. No registration, no paperwork, no arbitrary denials by anti-gun bureaucrats.

And the result? Vermont consistently ranks among the safest states in the country.

And other states are finally starting to follow suit. Three states (Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming) have passed constitutional carry laws for their own citizens. Texas passed a modified version, allowing for a concealed firearm anywhere inside one’s vehicle, including motor homes. And since 1991, constitutional carry has been allowed in more than 99% of the state of Montana.

Even with these improvements, however, reciprocal agreements between states are written in such a way that an actual permit is still required in order to carry concealed from state to state.

And in many instances, there is NO way to legally carry concealed in another state.

Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way that respects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right to defend one’s life—without needing a permit from the government.

Just as GOA works to eliminate government restrictions on carry at the state level, GOA has never supported a bill at the national level that stops short of recognizing constitutional carry.

After all, a bill that requires states to implement a permitting system risks setting back the efforts of the many states seeking to pass real concealed carry reform.

The SAFE Act also respects the Constitution and states’ powers in that it does NOT establish national standards for concealed carry, nor does it provide for a national carry permit or require a state like Vermont to move to a permit system (in order for its citizens to carry out-of-state).

In fact, the Broun bill will do nothing to change what the states already do in terms of allowing or denying their citizens their right to carry firearms. This bill simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home state, to also carry in every other state that allows concealed carry.

Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill, unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

Constitutionally-protected rights, including the right to self-defense, do not disappear at the state line. Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act will simply allow lawful gun owners who have the right carry concealed firearms in their home state to also carry in other states.

ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act.

Click Here to Send Your Representative a prewritten email message Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 FAX: 703-321-8408 www.gunowners.org

About: Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

2011-09-22T15:56:00.001-07:00

Americans Still Favor GOP-Controlled Congress

2011-09-21T09:38:00.000-07:00

By Joe Deaux

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Voters are still more likely to vote for Republicans than Democrats for Congress, according to a recent survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports.
More on Politics

Republicans edged Democrats 42% to 39% according to the poll, which ended Sunday. Last week, the GOP had a 43% to 38% advantage over the Democrats. The Republicans have led the poll every week since the beginning of 2010.

During the same week last year, the GOP led by 10 percentage points.

The survey reported that Republicans were most popular among men, voters over 40 and whites. Democrats led among women, voters under 40 and blacks, Rasmussen Reports said.

No racism here .... of course not.......bullshit

2011-09-19T16:09:00.000-07:00

Cleaver: If Obama wasn't president, we would be ‘marching on the White House’
By Alicia M. Cohn
Unhappy members of the Congressional Black Caucus “probably would be marching on the White House” if Obama were not president, according to CBC Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).

"If [former President] Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House," Cleaver told “The Miami Herald” in comments published Sunday. "There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president.".... full article here.....the Hill

Cloward-Piven: The Ultimate Goal of Gunwalker?

2011-09-18T09:25:00.000-07:00

It's hard to think of a more logical reason for Gunwalker to exist.
by Bob Owens

PJMedia reader “eon” posted an insightful comment in response to my September 15 article on the Gunwalker scandal:

To the best of my knowledge, no previous U.S. administration has ever destabilized the government of a putatively friendly foreign power purely for domestic political gain.

The closest you can get would be the revolutionary movement in what is now Panama, that the U.S. nurtured to gain that area’s independence (from Nicaragua) — to facilitate building the Panama Canal. But that was a pre-existing revolutionary movement with pre-existing complaints against the Nicaraguan government that did not include stopping them from selling illegal drugs. (Editor’s note: Panama gained its independence from Colombia, not Nicaragua.)

The gains Obama & Co. seem to be seeking come in three flavors. Ranked in order of time-criticality from their POV, they are most likely:

1. Short-term: Increased illegal immigration from Mexico as people attempt to flee the increasing violence (allowing them to push the DREAM Act through, and “stacking the deck” in the next election via ACORN and SEIU);

2. Medium-term: Propaganda for tighter gun laws (possibly enacted by Executive Order, bypassing the Congress);

3. Long-term: Legalization of “recreational drugs,” helped by a “drug friendly” Mexican government, influenced by if not overtly controlled by the drug cartels.

I strongly suspect that (3) is the ultimate objective, with (1) and (2) being seen (at least by Obama & Co.) as “stepping-stones” to attaining it.

While I personally think (3) is a non-starter even as a long-term issue, investigators and pundits closely tracking Gunwalker have long suspected a larger game was afoot.

A high-risk plot involving major elements of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Treasury, and State, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Border Patrol, and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CID), requiring approval from the State Department, isn’t something that comes from a mid-level bureaucrat. It is typically incited and decided by the very highest levels of appointed and elected officials.

As anyone with any experience in government will attest, there is massive institutional inertia against both change and risk. It is insurmountable without significant stakeholder support. In government, this means directors, secretaries, and elected officeholders.

An operation like Fast and Furious would have been jettisoned in the conceptual stages as inherently dangerous and assured of failure, as various veteran law enforcement officers have attested (including here at PJMedia in an article by LAPD veteran “Jack Dunphy”):

I can appreciate the desire to use novel law enforcement approaches in confronting the violence attendant to drug trafficking in Mexico. Someone, displaying a bit of that outside-the-box thinking, came up with the idea of allowing thousands of weapons to be bought on this side of the border with the idea that they could be tracked as they made their way through the network of cartel members and facilitators and into the hands of Mexican outlaws.

This was a pipe dream. To me, it is inconceivable that this operation ever made it out of the first meeting where it was discussed. It goes to show how detached police executives can be from the reality of police work as it is actually practiced. There is simply no effective way to track a gun once it leaves the store where it was purchased.

We’ve long suspected that what “eon” calls a “medium-term” goal — propaganda for tighter gun laws — was the ultimate goal of Gunwalker, but the plot makes significantly more sense if Gunwalker did have multiple goals, of which gun control was just one.

A logical speculation posted by “eon” is that the short-term goal of Gunwalker was to increase violence in Mexico. This would drive more Mexican citizens northward as illegal aliens, seeking respite from the violence in their home country. Their plight would provide the administration a way to pitch the DREAM Act as an act of kindness to political refugees and another step towards amnesty.

This would be a strategy straight from the Cloward-Piven playbook.

As James Simpson noted several months ago at American Thinker, the Cloward-Pieven strategy is always approached the same way:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Gunwalker purposefully increases social unrest (increased gun violence/destabilizing Mexico), with the possible result of overloading the U.S. public welfare system (more illegal aliens fleeing the violence in Mexico and Central America). Gunwalker’s perpetrators could then use that influx to create an insurmountable constituency of poor seeking handouts from the Democratic Party. The hope of the strategy is to force a system-wide collapse of the current system, and then to rebuild the government in a variant of the strongest socialist model they think the public will accept.

It sounds too devious. It appears to fit.

Take Operation Fast and Furious in Arizona, the two suspected operations in Texas, Operation Castaway in Tampa, and the newer allegations of “Gangwalker” in the Midwest — they make sense only in the larger context of a Cloward-Piven framework.

These operations could not possibly succeed at interdicting straw purchasers, smugglers, and cartel bosses. No one actually involved in law enforcement could possibly believe that such idiotic operations could work. But these operations are logical when viewed through the context of their implementation as tactical applications designed to support a Cloward-Piven strategy.

Operation Castaway provided weapons to destabilize Central American countries and to help keep the cartel drug supply lines from Central and South America open. The unnamed gunwalking operations in Texas provided a steady flow of U.S. firearms to southern and central Mexico. Operation Fast and Furious provided the Sinaloa cartel more than 2,020 weapons in northern Mexico along the U.S. border. And to make sure the cartel wars didn’t get too one-sided, the State Department made sure the bloodthirsty Zetas were armed with American military equipment by selling them military hardware through a transparent front company.

The violence in Mexico triggered by the administration’s gunwalking efforts also seems logically designed to reverse a trend that had begun of Mexicans and others originating from south of the border leaving the United States because of our current economic situation.

If the net flow of illegal aliens is negative, the Democratic Party’s desires are inhibited: increasing numbers of illegal aliens can create the sort of economic crisis they need to force amnesty laws, to assure a long-term Democratic majority, and to establish lock-step control over Hispanic voters as they have established over blacks.

Operation Fast and Furious doesn’t make sense as a anti-cartel operation, but it makes perfect tactical sense as a way of implementing Cloward-Piven, something that President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Secretary Napolitano, and Secretary Clinton have long embraced as followers of those radicals and Saul Alinsky. Gunwalker is the start of a coup d’état against the republic by the very souls entrusted to guard it.

Of course, this is entirely speculation at this point. It’s just damn hard to think of a more logical reason for Gunwalker to exist.
Bob Owens blogs at Confederate Yankee and Bob's Gun Counter.

Its all about him.... he can't even speak proper English ! Who said this guy was scholarly?

2011-09-17T21:12:00.001-07:00

His English isn’t very good at all !

‘the odds of me being elected’ should be ‘the odds of my being re-elected.’

Then there was the ‘gotta pass the bill’ instead of ‘have to pass the bill’

and ‘Navy Corpseman’ instead of Navy Corpsman. Shit on Affirmative action, this guy

is an idiot.

Perry's Reagan Moment

2011-09-17T08:12:00.001-07:00

By Bruce Walker

Rick Perry is taking on big issues with no sense of fear. In the Florida Republican debate, Perry did little to soften his attack on the Social Security System as a "Ponzi Scheme." Someday, perhaps, Perry's insistence on using tough language when talking about Social Security will be seen as a defining moment in American political history.

None of the other Republicans has openly agreed with Perry's name for Social Security, and even stout conservatives like Herman Cain, in the South Carolina debate, urged conservatives not to get bogged down in rhetoric. Cain is dead wrong. A serious rhetorical attack on Social Security must be made.

Frontal rhetorical attack on dangerous leftist nonsense is the key to conservative victory. In March 1983, President Reagan addressed the National Association of Evangelicals. In that speech Regan ignored the counsel of advisers and said that the Soviet Union had "the aggressive impulses of an evil empire."

In June 1977, President Carter at Notre Dame embraced the moral equivalence of our nation and the Soviet Union and called upon us to abandon our "inordinate fear of communism." President Ford in his October 1976 debate with Carter said, "There is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe." Nixon, famously, embraced the cynical politics of practicality divorced from ethics.

Reagan repudiated this unsavory nonsense. Any empire with KGB border guards larger in size than our whole Marine Corps with a sole purpose of keeping enslaved populations behind barbed wire is an Evil Empire. Any nation which in its war in Afghanistan put explosives in children's toys designed to blow off young children's hands was an Evil Empire. Any regime which from September 1939 to June 1941 did everything possible to help Hitler defeat Britain was an Evil Empire.

Once Reagan boldly told the truth and eschewed limp and nuanced language, we stopped fighting the Cold War and started winning it. This did not mean that Reagan hated Russians. In fact, as a serious Christian, he loved them. It did not mean that Reagan stopped negotiating with Kremlin leaders. It meant, rather, that his negotiations with the Kremlin focused increasingly on how the Evil Empire could be peacefully dissolved (e.g., letting Poles solve their problems without Soviet pressures and pulling out of Afghanistan).

Perry loves old people and he will cause them no harm. His guns are aimed at an inherently dishonest and cynical Social Security System. Once Social Security is defined as wrong, then its replacement by many of the myriad good ideas proposed over the years by conservatives can be implemented.

But the invaluable rhetorical assault by Perry on Social Security has even broader implications than saving the federal government. The whole free world is full of Ponzi schemes. Greece allows hairdressers to retire at age 50 because their work is considered hazardous. Small wonder, then, that the Greek government is drowning in debt which will only get worse. The interest rate required to sell Greek short-term notes is a staggering 60%, which means that default on those notes is virtually certain. Greece, along with several other European nations, has been operating variations of a Ponzi scheme for decades. If the European Union melts down and the euro dramatically inflates, that disaster will hit our shores hard.

But we need not look across the Atlantic to see societal hurricanes coming. California has unfunded pension obligations of $500 billion, and the American Enterprise Institute estimates that the states together may have $3 trillion to $5 trillion in unfunded obligations. Governor Walker in Wisconsin faced ferocious assaults by leftist thugs before he was able to make even modest rationalization of teachers' pensions.

What Perry provocatively proclaims about our Ponzi Security System can resonate throughout America and Europe. It can embolden those who fear the lash of leftist rage which will strike him who first tells the truth. Before Reagan, what American president, what prime minister of any NATO nation, and what leader of a major political party in Europe or America told the truth about Soviet evil? Yet once said and defended, Reagan's words had an electric effect. Six years later, the Berlin Wall fell.

The potential benefits of ending all these Ponzi Schemes are vast. The most common alternatives, which usually center around good business investments, can lift our economy out of its dismal state. If private security plans seek wise portfolios spread across well-run and rising businesses, that capital can spur genuine long-term growth. Americans themselves become invested in business rather than invested in reckless politicians.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/perrys_reagan_moment.html at September 17, 2011 - 10:11:24 AM CDT

To good to make up so I borrowed it.

2011-09-14T20:29:00.000-07:00

Hat Tip thank you "Freaked out Politucussing in the NewsJunkieNation @quirkpatra.blogspot.com

So the Obamanazis setup this site...really....
It's called attackwatch.

It's owned by the Obama campaign and you are to report attacks and even rumors. The site is very black and white and RED and they like to debunk things using Mediamatters.

They even said that if you wanted to report something... you should go on Twitter and use a hashtag.

#attackwatch.

All day long, hilarity has ensued.

You can see the very best of American humor here.

It's not only donkeys who can laugh.

Some group called misfitpolitics created this FINE satire commercial for Obama's new snitch site.

Here are my choices for my favorite, most poignant posts today to the hashtag "attackwatch":

New jobs plan from #attackwatch turn in a RINO $10, a Republican $20, a 912er $40, tea partier $60 and a tea party leader $100, Paulbots $0-------------

No one will ever see my tweets at #attackwatch because there are so many. Can you have other tweeters..uh.."removed"?

‎#attackwatch Many people are quoting Obama's campaign promises. That's just mean. Make them stop!

The red, black and white color scheme seems oddly reminiscent of something. Thinking ... thinking #attackwatch

I just drove my car over the speed limit to McDonalds and bought a Happy Meal with an evil, evil toy in it. #attackwatch

Dear #AttackWatch Somebody cut me off in traffic. I think it was a Tea Party Terrorist trying to suppress my vote.

When is Obama going to call for us to "rise above partisanship" and sign up for his #AttackWatch email list?! #ncpol

I saw a Republican walking around today unencumbered and free! THIS MUST STOP! #AttackWatch

Hey #AttackWatch how many times does a child have to turn in their parents to get the official Hitler youth knife?

#attackwatch The neighbor's dog only @#$^ on the right half of my property making it into some kinda gopcircle. Alien message?

#attackwatch I just tore that @#$% tag off my mattress

Timepieces being flung at OFA HQ. It's an #AttackWatch watch attack!

Dear #attackwatch, I am the registered owner of the domain names stoolpigeon.com and neostasi.com. Interested?

#attackwatch I was at the Waffle House and a Sr. citizen just referred to the President as Barrack Hussein Obama their License # is attached

#attackwatch I just saw several people refuse to eat their peas. Do you have a SWAT team?

Obama I'm confused. If I see someone suspicious should I use #AttackWatch or this illegal class III AK-47 an ATF agent gave me?

Dear @AttackWatch : I was hoping to get a job at your website. Question: Do I need a Mao suit to apply or will you give me one? #attackwatch

Dear #AttackWatch, which is more supportive of Obama's glorious collective? Potatoes or Stove Top Stuffing?

Hey @AttackWatch my car's Check Engine light is on. I did; engine is still there. Light still on. Can you help? #attackwatch

#attackwatch Two socks went into the dryer, only one came out. Please help!

I don't always report on my neighbors, but when I do, I use #AttackWatch

What's black, white, and RED all over? #AttackWatch

How many attacks could #AttackWatch watch if #AttackWatch could attack watches @AttackWatch #attackSwatch

My favorite movie is #AttackWatch of the Killer Tomatos

Dear #AttackWatch: There's this hobbit trying to destory the ring of power. Thought you should know... for no reason at all

‎#attackwatch I saw someone enter a public school with what looked like a Bible. You better move this one to the top of the list.

Dear #AttackWatch the hobbit is halfway up Mt. Pele, but Krugman has caught up to him and the precious

Who needs a rape whistle? I've got #attackwatch

#attackwatch Just parked my private jet in a handicap space, left it running and bought some lemonade from little girls in yard w/o a permit

‎#attackwatch Lets hope "fighting the smears" doesn't involve my local OB/GYN

#AttackWatch: Because #ResistWeMuch was already taken." @AttackWatch

"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask who of your neighbors, friends and co-workers you can snitch on." #AttackWatch

#AttackWatch already has a bat-signal, but it's solar, so it doesn't work at night

I actually sympathize with #AttackWatch. They remind me of the time I got my head wedged in a bowling ball return chute.

‎#attackwatch I think the rapture has taken place because I can no longer find anyone who says they voted for Obama

Should I only report people who *say* false things, or can I report people who look like they're *thinking* false things? #AttackWatch

#AttackWatch I saw someone reading the 1st Amendment. Please investigate ASAP11oneoneunoexclamationpointdosuno*!

If you want to rat out your Obama-hating neighbor on #AttackWatch call Winston at 666-1984.

I'd say something about a terrible rumor I heard that being president comes w/ criticism but fear reprisals #attackwatch #serioustweet

Just be glad Slick Willie Clinton is not in charge of #attackwatch He'd have it twisted into #attackcrotch within hours.

just got an email from #attackwatch. The subject line was 'Sind seiner papieren in ordnung'. What the hell does that mean?

‎#attackwatch My braces intercepted a coded Message from Marsha. Jan's mouth is writing checks that her butt cant cash. She wants #obamas job

Dear #AttackWatch What's hairy, smelly, lives in the woods, & reports you to the government? A liberal chick? Yes. Also #attackSQUATCH

When should I go to my hidden attic room #attackwatch and start writing my diary?

Dear #attackwatch was peeking through my neighbor's window again-as ordered, and I spotted a BIBLE, a GUN, and an American FLAG. Help!

#attackwatch People are calling our President the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, that’s not allowed is it?

#attackwatch somebody I know keeps calling POTUS dumb! Please release his college transcripts so I can prove him wrong!

I saw a 400 lb woman at the store buying a giant tub of ice cream w/ food stamps. I thought we were all supposed to eat peas? #attackwatch

Hey #attackwatch, I saw 6 ATM’s in an alley, killing a Job. It looked like a hate crime!

Dear #AttackWatch I’d like to report the Dos Equis guy. He’s claiming to be the most interesting man in the world. You told me Obama was!

Dear #AttackWatch I’m still trying to understand why anyone wants to attack watches.

Dear #AttackWatch: I would like to report a man named Jeremiah Wright for interrupting Obama’s Sunday naps with racist tirades.

Dear @attackwatch, some guy is saying that freedom is NOT slavery, war is NOT peace, and ignorance is NOT strength! Stop him!

Hey #attackwatch, I just saw a kid opt out of apples with his Happy Meal!

Dear @AttackWatch : Weather maps on TV only show 50 states. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER SEVEN?

Hey @attackwatch,I saw TeaPartiers vandalize & destroy $millions of property last month.Wait no,those were #Union thugs!

Dear #attackwatch, with all that Stimulus money, you would think you could afford a web developer who was older than 3.

Hey #attackwatch, I think Ted Nugent is using a Gibson guitar - you should go take it away from him.

------

God Bless America.

Nevad Governor endorses Rick Perry

2011-09-13T17:01:00.000-07:00

Carson City, NV – Governor Brian Sandoval released the following statement today:

Our nation needs a leader in the White House who understands the role of government and our economy. Governor Rick Perry has the strongest record of job creation, fiscal discipline, and executive branch leadership among the presidential candidates. As a governor, Rick Perry created a tremendous blueprint for job creation and as President, I know he will get America working again. I consider Governor Perry a friend and I am proud to endorse his campaign for President.

Now all of you don't forget to vote today!!!

TSA Creator Says Dismantle, Privatize the Agency

2011-09-12T11:37:00.001-07:00

by Audrey Hudson
They’ve been accused of rampant thievery, spending billions of dollars like drunken sailors, groping children and little old ladies, and making everyone take off their shoes.

But the real job of the tens of thousands of screeners at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to protect Americans from a terrorist attack.

Yet a decade after the TSA was created following the September 11 attacks, the author of the legislation that established the massive agency grades its performance at “D-.”

“The whole program has been hijacked by bureaucrats,” said Rep. John Mica (R. -Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

“It mushroomed into an army,” Mica said. “It’s gone from a couple-billion-dollar enterprise to close to $9 billion.”

As for keeping the American public safe, Mica says, “They’ve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.”

“Everything they have done has been reactive. They take shoes off because of [shoe-bomber] Richard Reid, passengers are patted down because of the diaper bomber, and you can’t pack liquids because the British uncovered a plot using liquids,” Mica said.

“It’s an agency that is always one step out of step,” Mica said.

It cost $1 billion just to train workers, which now number more than 62,000, and “they actually trained more workers than they have on the job,” Mica said.

“The whole thing is a complete fiasco,” Mica said.

In a wide-ranging interview with HUMAN EVENTS just days before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Mica said screeners should be privatized and the agency dismantled.

Instead, the agency should number no more than 5,000, and carry out his original intent, which was to monitor terrorist threats and collect intelligence.

The fledgling agency was quickly engulfed in its first scandal in 2002 as it rushed to hire 30,000 screeners, and the $104 million awarded to the company to contract workers quickly escalated to more than $740 million.

Federal investigators tracked those cost overruns to recruiting sessions held at swank hotels and resorts in St. Croix, the Virgin Islands, Florida and the Wyndham Peaks Resort and Golden Door Spa in Telluride, Colo.

Charges in the hundreds of thousands of dollars were made for cash withdrawals, valet parking and beverages, plus a $5.4 million salary for one executive for nine months of work.

Other over-the-top expenditures included nearly $2,000 for 20 gallons of Starbucks Coffee, $8,000 for elevator operators at a Manhattan hotel, and $1,500 to rent more than a dozen extension cords for the Colorado recruiting fair.

The agency inadvertently caused security gaps by failing for years to keep track of lost uniforms and passes that lead to restricted areas of airports.

Screeners have also been accused of committing crimes, from smuggling drugs to stealing valuables from passengers' luggage. In 2004, several screeners were arrested and charged with stealing jewelry, computers and cameras, cash, credit cards and other valuables. One of their more notable victims was actress Shirley McClain, who was robbed of jewelry and crystals.

One of the screeners confessed that he was trying to steal enough to sell the items and buy a big-screen television.

In 2006, screeners at Los Angeles and Chicago O'Hare airports failed to find more than 60% of fake explosives during checkpoint security tests.

The sometimes rudder-less agency has gone through five administrators in the past decade, and it took longer than a year for President Obama to put his one man in place. Mica’s bill also blocked collective bargaining rights for screeners, but the Obama administration managed to reverse that provision.

Asked whether the agency should be privatized, Mica answered with a qualified yes.

“They need to get out of the screening business and back into security. Most of the screening they do should be abandoned,” Mica said. "I just don’t have a lot of faith at this point,” Mica said.

Allowing airports to privatize screening was a key element of Mica’s legislation and a report released by the committee in June determined that privatizing those efforts would result in a 40% savings for taxpayers.

“We have thousands of workers trying to do their job. My concern is the bureaucracy we built,” Mica said.

“We are one of the only countries still using this model of security," Mica said, "other than Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and I think, Libya."

Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court. Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook.

PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe

2011-09-10T12:04:00.001-07:00

Timothy Birdnow

Barack Obama has gone to Congress asking for more money to spend. The President, in a rambling and tedious exercise mixing blame with demands, made quite a few dubious statements in laying out the case for Congress to vote for the plan which as yet does not exist. Much like Obamacare, Congress must ultimately vote for the bill to know what is in it.

At one point Mr. Obama made a major gaffe; he identified Abraham Lincoln as the founder of the Republican Party.

Lincoln did not join the Republicans until 1856, over two years after the party was founded. The first Republican convention was held in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854.

Such a gaffe would have brought huge amounts of ridicule and derision on George W. Bush, but in the case of Obama the media yawned.

Actually, they did more than yawn; government-funded PBS has altered the transcript of the President's speech, removing the offending comment.

The New York Times transcript has the following quote:

"We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future -- a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad -- (applause) -- launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set."

But how does it appear in the PBS transcript?

"We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future - a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set."

So PBS has purposely altered a transcript containing a major gaffe by the President. See a screen shot:

Sure; we have a fair and balanced media! The best government money can buy!

Update: Brian Birdnow adds:

Shocking, but not surprising! B-Ho was also wrong on saying that Lincoln started the first land grant colleges. Each state is in charge of its own educational institutions and most of the states entering the union after 1815 had designated state universities,with grants of land, in their state constitutions. That is the reason that major state universities are in near the geographic center of their respective states, and not located in the major urban areas.

Update from Russell Cook:

It now says at the top of the transcript page now "EDITOR'S NOTE: The original transcript provided on this page, as was noted, reflected the president's remarks as prepared for delivery and released by the White House. This transcript has been updated to reflect the remarks as delivered and released by the White House."

My how things have changed: when unions fought for rights not entitlements!

2011-09-08T21:24:00.000-07:00

Natalie Merchant

Race Wars: The left's coming race war

2011-09-08T17:53:00.000-07:00

By Erik Rush

Although they speak to the desperation of liberal leaders (particularly those in Washington), the gargantuan lies and incendiary invective being purveyed by lawmakers like Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., also represent a dangerous abandonment of moral restraint on the part of the left and a genuine threat to domestic tranquility in the short term.

On Aug. 20, Waters, a black congresswoman, told a town-hall meeting that "the tea party can go straight to hell" after thoroughly lambasting the grass-roots group. Last week, Rep. Carson, who is also a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus, told a similar gathering that some in Congress and the tea-party movement would love to see blacks "hanging on a tree."

Grossly overstating elements of racism has been boilerplate fare among liberals and black activists for many years, but what's occurring done now is being criticized as beyond irresponsible, even by certain liberal pundits.

But is it?

Some have said that words such as those of Waters and Carson border on the rhetoric of those who would like to start a race war. I don't think it borders on this at all; I believe it is in fact the rhetoric of those who would like to start a race war. As such, it is much more maliciousness than irresponsibility.

The phrase "plans within plans" was employed in Frank Herbert's classic science fiction novel "Dune." The reason I occasionally cite books, films and other entertainment media is because they often reflect a society's worldview. At other times, they are an attempt to shape that worldview.

Americans like films with happy endings, for example, something that is uniquely American (in case you didn't know). I've heard it also disgusts a lot of Europeans, which I think is kind of cool. I believe that this phenomenon speaks to Americans' widely acknowledged indomitable spirit. There are also billions of spiritual folk who concur that we tend to get more of that upon which we focus. So, keep the happy endings coming, by all means.

But I digress; back to plans within plans.

For years, we've seen the machinations of such plans advanced by socialists. Inner plans: Convince us that they advocate for equity and brotherhood, when in fact they're the most bigoted among us. Assemble all of the stupid, the ugly, the perverted, the lazy, and enroll them into institutionalized resentment and ignorance, then mobilize them politically. Regulate and legislate medicine to the point where health care is so expensive that citizens welcome government intervention. Tax businesses to the point where they cannot afford to pay workers a living wage, nor take sufficient profit to continue operation. Sabotage major markets to stultify the economy in the aggregate, thereby proliferating widespread destitution, fear and anger. The list goes on.

The external plan: A socialist America.

Is there a cabal of black activists meeting with President Obama and high-level administration operatives to orchestrate these occurrences? I can't say for sure, but as with Cloward-Piven, it certainly would make sense, and we've seen that nothing is beneath these people. In the end, it doesn't much matter, because political operatives know how to interpret signals; many radical factions construed Obama's election as license to broaden and augment their influence. That process has only progressed, since his administration showed no inclination to condemn nor curtail their actions.

A "race war" arising out of the tension being generated now would be blamed on the nonexistent racism of the tea-party movement, and might serve as a political development deeply desired by the radical left. Whether one speaks of Caesar, the Bolsheviks, or Mao, civil unrest has often been the pretext for militarization, subduing of the population and permanent institution of a new order. This, despite the persistent ignorance of millions of Americans, has been the goal of radicals (such as those currently infesting the White House) for decades.

The fact that all this lies beyond many Americans' ability to conceptualize hardly matters.

In the meantime, we have much with which we can confirm the intent of the provocative oratory we've heard. There's the Labor Day weekend remarks of Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa, who admonished American workers to "take out" tea-party "son of bitches." We have criminal members of the New Black Panther Party engaging in paramilitary training. Then there's "Tea Party Zombies Must Die," an online game that's sort of a "Doom 2" meets the Daily Kos. In it, the player can spray buckshot and bullets at such luminaries as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly, as well as tea-party "trailer trash." To make it even more fun (and help to dehumanize the political right), there are also anthropomorphized zombie swine thrown in. All of these characters are bent on attacking the peaceful liberal player, of course.

So, listen to the sound bites. Listen to Hoffa, Waters, Carson and the New Black Panther Party. It's all from the same old-school Marxist playbook. And – as was the conventional wisdom before the left subverted our educational system, the press and other media – it is all working toward an evil end.

You remember evil … don't you?

Obama Invites Amnesty Advocates as Guests to “Jobs” Speech (Slap in Face to Workers)

2011-09-08T16:31:00.000-07:00

by John Hill
Stand With Arizona

Obama’s choice of honored guests to sit in the First Lady’s Box (with wife Michelle) during his speech tonight speaks volumes about his comtempt for the rule of law on immigration – and for American workers.

Besides GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt – whose company paid no taxes last year thanks to “green jobs” boondoggles, and shipped thousands of jobs to China, Obama has invited 3 major league pimps for illegal alien amnesty. Let’s take a look:

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

Villaraigosa is a former member of the racist Mexican separatist group MEChA, which openly advocates for the “liberation of Aztlan” – the imagined land which would consist of a “re-conquered” (“reconquista”) American Southwest.

When a state councilman, Villaraigosa went to Mexico City to personally thank then-President Ernesto Zedillo in helping defeat Proposition 187, which would have banned welfare, healthcare and social services for illegal aliens in California.

More recently Villaraigosa created anger among his neighbors when he built a 6-foot wall around his mansion – despite a local ordinance that only permits a maximum height of 42 inches. This from a man who opposes a border fence of any height on our Southern border, and who launched a boycott against the state of Arizona for daring to enforce the law against illegal invaders.

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley

O’Malley is the latest hero for illegal aliens and the multitude of treasonous non-profits which use taxpayer moneys to push for amnesty laws. O’Malley has called illegal aliens the “New Americans” – an insult to legal immigrants and citizens. O’Malley also pushed through the unpopular “Maryland Dream Act” late on a Friday night, to provide illegal aliens with in-state tuition. Later, activists led a historic drive to reverse this law, and put it on the ballot for the voters to reject in 2012.

O’Malley has also steered millions in taxpayers dollars to Maryland’s version of La Raza: Casa de Maryland. Casa has a deeply incestuous relationship with Maryland politicians and routinely makes race-based threats to bully them into passing pro-illegal alien rules and legislation.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka

Trumpka – who is supposed to represent the American union worker – has instead worked to undermine those workers by spending millions to loby Congress in support of amnesty legislation such as the Federal DREAM Act, which woulde provide amnesty to more than 1.4 million illegal aliens. Trumpka is also in full support of Obama’s recent moves to halt deportations and issue work permits to illegals – which will hurt his own members by depressing wages nationwide, but increase his own power by creating new union workers from whom he can confiscate dues.

Trumpka also personally led protesters to Arizona after the passage of S.B. 1070 – a law which creates jobs for American workers by removing illegal aliens from work in Arizona – empowering Sheriffs like Joe Arpaio to liberate those jobs for legal workers to take (as seen in this video).

These choices are a slap in the face to American workers, and make a mockery of Obama’s commitment to “create jobs” for Americans. Remember his backdoor amnesty and work permits for 300,000 – and potentially millions of illegal aliens.

Remember this hypocrisy when you listen to Obama’s speech.

PLEASE CONSIDER A DONATION of $10.70 to Stand With Arizona in honor of SB1070, to help us continue to fight against illegal alien amnesty and push for Arizona-style enforcement laws nationwide: DONATE link. Thank you.

Here is Part of Sarah Palin Today at Indianola, Iowa

2011-09-03T13:26:00.000-07:00

Never fight a land war in Asia

2011-09-01T18:36:00.001-07:00

By George Friedman

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking at West Point, said last week that “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.” In saying this, Gates was repeating a dictum laid down by Douglas MacArthur after the Korean War, who urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia. Given that the United States has fought four major land wars in Asia since World War II — Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq — none of which had ideal outcomes, it is useful to ask three questions: First, why is fighting a land war in Asia a bad idea? Second, why does the United States seem compelled to fight these wars? And third, what is the alternative that protects U.S. interests in Asia without large-scale military land wars?

The Hindrances of Overseas Wars

Let’s begin with the first question, the answer to which is rooted in demographics and space. The population of Iraq is currently about 32 million. Afghanistan has a population of less than 30 million. The U.S. military, all told, consists of about 1.5 million active-duty personnel (plus 980,000 in the reserves), of whom more than 550,000 belong to the Army and about 200,000 are part of the Marine Corps. Given this, it is important to note that the United States strains to deploy about 200,000 troops at any one time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many of these troops are in support rather than combat roles. The same was true in Vietnam, where the United States was challenged to field a maximum of about 550,000 troops (in a country much more populous than Iraq or Afghanistan) despite conscription and a larger standing army. Indeed, the same problem existed in World War II.

When the United States fights in the Eastern Hemisphere, it fights at great distances, and the greater the distance, the greater the logistical cost. More ships are needed to deliver the same amount of material, for example. That absorbs many troops. The logistical cost of fighting at a distance is that it diverts numbers of troops (or requires numbers of civilian personnel) disproportionate to the size of the combat force.

Regardless of the number of troops deployed, the U.S. military is always vastly outnumbered by the populations of the countries to which it is deployed. If parts of these populations resist as light-infantry guerrilla forces or employ terrorist tactics, the enemy rapidly swells to a size that can outnumber U.S. forces, as in Vietnam and Korea. At the same time, the enemy adopts strategies to take advantage of the core weakness of the United States — tactical intelligence. The resistance is fighting at home. It understands the terrain and the culture. The United States is fighting in an alien environment. It is constantly at an intelligence disadvantage. That means that the effectiveness of the native forces is multiplied by excellent intelligence, while the effectiveness of U.S. forces is divided by lack of intelligence.

The United States compensates with technology, from space-based reconnaissance and air power to counter-battery systems and advanced communications. This can make up the deficit but only by massive diversions of manpower from ground-combat operations. Maintaining a helicopter requires dozens of ground-crew personnel. Where the enemy operates with minimal technology multiplied by intelligence, the United States compensates for lack of intelligence with massive technology that further reduces available combat personnel. Between logistics and technological force multipliers, the U.S. “point of the spear” shrinks. If you add the need to train, relieve, rest and recuperate the ground-combat forces, you are left with a small percentage available to fight.

The paradox of this is that American forces will win the engagements but may still lose the war. Having identified the enemy, the United States can overwhelm it with firepower. The problem the United States has is finding the enemy and distinguishing it from the general population. As a result, the United States is well-suited for the initial phases of combat, when the task is to defeat a conventional force. But after the conventional force has been defeated, the resistance can switch to methods difficult for American intelligence to deal with. The enemy can then control the tempo of operations by declining combat where it is at a disadvantage and initiating combat when it chooses.

The example of the capitulation of Germany and Japan in World War II is frequently cited as a model of U.S. forces defeating and pacifying an opposing nation. But the Germans were not defeated primarily by U.S. ground troops. The back of the Wehrmacht was broken by the Soviets on their own soil with the logistical advantages of short supply lines. And, of course, Britain and numerous other countries were involved. It is doubtful that the Germans would have capitulated to the Americans alone. The force the United States deployed was insufficient to defeat Germany. The Germans had no appetite for continuing a resistance against the Russians and saw surrendering to the Americans and British as sanctuary from the Russians. They weren’t going to resist them. As for Japan, it was not ground forces but air power, submarine warfare and atomic bombs that finished them — and the emperor’s willingness to order a surrender. It was not land power that prevented resistance but air and sea power, plus a political compromise by MacArthur in retaining and using the emperor. Had the Japanese emperor been removed, I suspect that the occupation of Japan would have been much more costly. Neither Germany nor Japan are examples in which U.S. land forces compelled capitulation and suppressed resistance.

The problem the United States has in the Eastern Hemisphere is that the size of the force needed to occupy a country initially is much smaller than the force needed to pacify the country. The force available for pacification is much smaller than needed because the force the United States can deploy demographically without committing to total war is simply too small to do the job — and the size needed to do the job is unknown.

U.S. Global Interests

The deeper problem is this: The United States has global interests. While the Soviet Union was the primary focus of the United States during the Cold War, no power threatens to dominate Eurasia now, and therefore no threat justifies the singular focus of the United States. In time of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States must still retain a strategic reserve for other unanticipated contingencies. This further reduces the available force for combat.

Some people argue that the United States is insufficiently ruthless in prosecuting war, as if it would be more successful without political restraints at home. The Soviets and the Nazis, neither noted for gentleness, were unable to destroy the partisans behind German lines or the Yugoslav resistance, in spite of brutal tactics. The guerrilla has built-in advantages in warfare for which brutality cannot compensate.

Given all this, the question is why the United States has gotten involved in wars in Eurasia four times since World War II. In each case it is obvious: for political reasons. In Korea and Vietnam, it was to demonstrate to doubting allies that the United States had the will to resist the Soviets. In Afghanistan, it was to uproot al Qaeda. In Iraq, the reasons are murkier, more complex and less convincing, but the United States ultimately went in, in my opinion, to convince the Islamic world of American will.

The United States has tried to shape events in the Eastern Hemisphere by the direct application of land power. In Korea and Vietnam, it was trying to demonstrate resolve against Soviet and Chinese power. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was trying to shape the politics of the Muslim world. The goal was understandable but the amount of ground force available was not. In Korea, it resulted in stalemate; in Vietnam, defeat. We await the outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan, but given Gates’ statement, the situation for the United States is not necessarily hopeful.

In each case, the military was given an ambiguous mission. This was because a clear outcome — defeating the enemy — was unattainable. At the same time, there were political interests in each. Having engaged, simply leaving did not seem an option. Therefore, Korea turned into an extended presence in a near-combat posture, Vietnam ended in defeat for the American side, and Iraq and Afghanistan have turned, for the time being, into an uncertain muddle that no reasonable person expects to end with the declared goals of a freed and democratic pair of countries.

Problems of Strategy

There are two problems with American strategy. The first is using the appropriate force for the political mission. This is not a question so much of the force as it is of the mission. The use of military force requires clarity of purpose; otherwise, a coherent strategy cannot emerge. Moreover, it requires an offensive mission. Defensive missions (such as Vietnam and Korea) by definition have no terminal point or any criteria for victory. Given the limited availability of ground combat forces, defensive missions allow the enemy’s level of effort to determine the size of the force inserted, and if the force is insufficient to achieve the mission, the result is indefinite deployment of scarce forces.

Then there are missions with clear goals initially but without an understanding of how to deal with Act II. Iraq suffered from an offensive intention ill suited to the enemy’s response. Having destroyed the conventional forces of Iraq, the United States was unprepared for the Iraqi response, which was guerrilla resistance on a wide scale. The same was true in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency is occupation warfare. It is the need to render a population — rather than an army — unwilling and incapable of resisting. It requires vast resources and large numbers of troops that outstrip the interest. Low-cost counter-insurgency with insufficient forces will always fail. Since the United States uses limited forces because it has to, counterinsurgency is the most dangerous kind of war for the United States. The idea has always been that the people prefer the U.S. occupation to the threats posed by their fellow countrymen and that the United States can protect those who genuinely do prefer the former. That may be the idea, but there is never enough U.S. force available.

Another model for dealing with the problem of shaping political realities can be seen in the Iran-Iraq war. In that war, the United States allowed the mutual distrust of the two countries to eliminate the threats posed by both. When the Iraqis responded by invading Kuwait, the United States responded with a massive counter with very limited ends — the reconquest of Kuwait and the withdrawal of forces. It was a land war in Asia designed to defeat a known and finite enemy army without any attempt at occupation.

The problem with all four wars is that they were not wars in a conventional sense and did not use the military as militaries are supposed to be used. The purpose of a military is to defeat enemy conventional forces. As an army of occupation against a hostile population, military forces are relatively weak. The problem for the United States is that such an army must occupy a country for a long time, and the U.S. military simply lacks the ground forces needed to occupy countries and still be available to deal with other threats.

By having an unclear mission, you have an uncertain terminal point. When does it end? You then wind up with a political problem internationally — having engaged in the war, you have allies inside and outside of the country that have fought with you and taken risks with you. Withdrawal leaves them exposed, and potential allies will be cautious in joining with you in another war. The political costs spiral and the decision to disengage is postponed. The United States winds up in the worst of all worlds. It terminates not on its own but when its position becomes untenable, as in Vietnam. This pyramids the political costs dramatically.

Wars need to be fought with ends that can be achieved by the forces available. Donald Rumsfeld once said, “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. You do not engage in war if the army you have is insufficient. When you understand the foundations of American military capability and its limits in Eurasia, Gates’ view on war in the Eastern Hemisphere is far more sound than Rumsfeld’s.

The Diplomatic Alternative

The alternative is diplomacy, not understood as an alternative to war but as another tool in statecraft alongside war. Diplomacy can find the common ground between nations. It can also be used to identify the hostility of nations and use that hostility to insulate the United States by diverting the attention of other nations from challenging the United States. That is what happened during the Iran-Iraq war. It wasn’t pretty, but neither was the alternative.

Diplomacy for the United States is about maintaining the balance of power and using and diverting conflict to manage the international system. Force is the last resort, and when it is used, it must be devastating. The argument I have made, and which I think Gates is asserting, is that at a distance, the United States cannot be devastating in wars dependent on land power. That is the weakest aspect of American international power and the one the United States has resorted to all too often since World War II, with unacceptable results. Using U.S. land power as part of a combined arms strategy is occasionally effective in defeating conventional forces, as it was with North Korea (and not China) but is inadequate to the demands of occupation warfare. It makes too few troops available for success, and it does not know how many troops might be needed.

This is not a policy failure of any particular U.S. president. George W. Bush and Barack Obama have encountered precisely the same problem, which is that the forces that have existed in Eurasia, from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in Korea to the Taliban in Afghanistan, have either been too numerous or too agile (or both) for U.S. ground forces to deal with. In any war, the primary goal is not to be defeated. An elective war in which the criteria for success are unclear and for which the amount of land force is insufficient must be avoided. That is Gates’ message. It is the same one MacArthur delivered, and the one Dwight Eisenhower exercised when he refused to intervene in Vietnam on France’s behalf. As with the Monroe Doctrine, it should be elevated to a principle of U.S. foreign policy, not because it is a moral principle but because it is a very practical one.