Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 10 June 2010

Here is the great conundrum of our day:  Why can’t conservatives and Republicans be as ruthlessly and passionately focused on reducing government power as liberals and Democrats are on expanding it?

Until a solution to this is found, government guns and bureaucrats will relentlessly continue to control ever more of our lives, as they have for generations.  The most that can be achieved, such as under President Reagan, is to marginally slow down the continuing advance of fascism.

TeaPartyers love to fix the blame for this on their favorite enemy, the despised RINO.  In so doing, they run the grave risk of hubris.  Anyone who does not meet their standards of political purity is reviled – which might result in travesties such as ensuring the re-election of Harry Reid in Nevada.

Danny Tarkanian and Sue Lowden are solid Republicans – but they weren’t good enough for Nevada TeaPartyers, whose enthusiasm got a neophyte named Sharron Angle selected to challenge Dirty Harry in November.  Harry is likely to eat her alive for a breakfast snack.

Note that Sarah Palin didn’t come near the Nevada primary.  She placed her endorsement bets elsewhere.  Note further – she ignored the barrage of condemnation she got for her endorsements – and they were spot on.

Thanks to Sarah, California’s Barbara Boxer is going to lose to Carly Fiorina.  The TeaPartyers wanted Chuck DeVore, who would have been obliterated by BarBox.  Sarah would have none of that.  She made the difference for Carly, understanding that Carly has the combo of charisma, moxie, smarts, gravitas, and money to kick BarBox out of the Senate.

Sarah made the difference for Terry Branstad in Iowa, who will now clean Dem gov Chet Culver’s clock – as opposed to TeaParty favorite and Mike Huckabee acolyte Bob Vander Plaats who would have lost.  (Huckabee gives Sarah the creeps.  Me too.)

TeaPartyers could learn two vital lessons from Sarah – humility and pragmatism.   They are going to have to learn them fast to max out their effectiveness in November.  Humility means no hubristic arrogance – leave that to the Zerocrats.  Pragmatism does not mean abandoning your principles – it means being smart enough to see how you can best advance them.

So – how can conservative, constitutional principles best be advanced?  How can the Great Conundrum specified above be overcome?  By ruthless patience.  By a change in perspective.

This certainly is how the Left got their chokehold on our Constitution.  This did not happen overnight. By a patient strategy of what I call Fabian Fascism taking many years, the American people have been persuaded, unwittingly and almost unconsciously, to voluntarily give up their Constitutional freedoms.

“Fabian Socialism” was in vogue in the early part of the 20th Century, particularly among British socialists, such as Sydney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. They argued that socialism could best be achieved by not frightening the horses, that is, not through immediate revolutionary action, but in small, incremental steps[1].

Yet the gargantuan growth of governmental power in the United States over the last hundred years has not been in a socialist direction, towards nationalization and governmental ownership of industry.

Clearly, it has been in the direction of ever more bureaucratic, regulatory control – that is, in a fascist direction. Since this growth has not been sudden, but slowly accumulative, we can accurately and aptly call the process Fabian Fascism.

As an ardent admirer of Marx, Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) called his version of Marxist socialism “Fascism”[2]. Instead of nationalization – government ownership – of private business, Mussolini advocated government control of business via complete bureaucratic regulation. Instead of individual rights subordinated to “the people” or the “proletariat,” Mussolini subordinated them directly to the State.

That’s the goal of the American Left and the Democrat Party.  For a hundred years they have been moving inexorably towards it.  They never gave up.  Their patience was ruthless, a Leninist patience.

Lenin, the founder of Communist Russia, had a policy:  Always keep probing, always try to advance on every front; when your probe hits steel, pull back and wait; when your probe finds mush, continue the advance.

Here’s a metaphor.  Suppose you had a beautiful garden and you let the weeds grow in it.  The only gardening you did was half-hearted because you had to work to make a living and couldn’t take the time – or you were just too lazy – to trim and prune and de-weed adequately.

How would your garden look after a few years?  After a hundred years?  Would the folks who originally created the garden recognize it?  No – of course not, it would be an overgrown morass of weeds and brambles that had choked the garden out of existence.

Democrats are the weeds in America’s garden of government.  Republicans are supposed to be the gardeners – and they’ve done such a lousy job they’ve let the weeds take over.  The problem is not so much that too many of them are RINOs or insufficiently principled.  It’s that they don’t understand the job Republicans are supposed to do.

This is a matter of perspective, not principle.  Republicans look at government as an annoyance, a necessary evil, and working for it as a form of public duty or community service, as a sacrifice that takes time away from working for a living in the real world.

For Democrats, working for the government is their livelihood.  If they don’t have a government job or handout or subsidy, they don’t eat.  Being successful and prospering in one’s career and business is a Republican purpose.  Acquiring government power, handouts, subsidies or jobs is a Democrat’s.

Since the Democrat morality is fascist – might makes right, the end justifies the means – they will do whatever it takes to acquire that power, normal morality of honesty and decency be damned.

Republicans and conservatives do not need to change their morals, just their perspective on government, looking on it as a garden.

First, let’s look at it as something we have to have – say a vegetable garden where we grow food, not as something ornamental or unnecessary.

Except for looney libertarian disciples of Murray Rothbard (the founder of the Libertarian Party), no one on the conservative side of the political fence is an anarchist.  The functions and institutions that only a government can provide – police, courts, and army – are necessary conditions for a society to safely exist and flourish.

Without a government, e.g., there is no property, no one owns anything (for ownership is a legal concept), there is only physical possession – which means there is no such thing as theft (if I take something from you, it’s mine now because I possess it).

Thus the function of a government is to provide the legal space, the rules, the protection -  the garden – in and by which people can grow food, make a living, and peacefully prosper.  This was the garden created by America’s Founders:  the Constitutional Garden.

The appropriate Republican perspective is to look upon themselves as gardeners tasked with pruning the trees, trimming the bushes, and de-weeding the soil by pulling the weeds out by the roots.  This is not an annoyance, not community service, not “giving back,” it is the necessary maintenance that must be provided for the garden to function and flourish.

There are already a number of Republicans in Congress who are acquiring this perspective.  Leading them is House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.  His YouCut program – whereby each week people are offered five choices of government programs to cut back or eliminate and the winner is put to an actual vote in Congress – is an excellent way to reframe the perspective of Republicans as gardeners.

And Democrats as weeds.  Trillions and trillions of dollars of weeds, with the Treasury Department reporting (6/08) that US federal government debt is now at $13.6 trillion (93% of GDP) and will rise to almost $20 trillion within five years.

The cause of this fiscal insanity is the Democrat belief that since financial collapse historically most often leads to more fascist government control of a country, that’s what will happen in America.

The danger is enormous – but the bigger the danger, the bigger the opportunity.

We have been given a priceless opportunity, thanks to Zero’s overreach and his bankrupting of America.  We now have not just a chance to make a minor mid-course correction or slowdown, but to reverse direction away from fascism and towards freedom.  It’s crucially important we don’t blow it, ruin our chance by overreaching and impatience.

Yet it’s equally important that we don’t blow it the other way, by being too cautious, by not reaching far enough – or as the TeaPartyers might put it, being too RINO-ey.

Which brings me to Sharron Angle in Nevada.  She is a good person, an American patriot.  It’s easy to see how the TeaPartyers supported her.  Just listen (when you’ve got 10 minutes) to Mark Levin’s radio interview of her.  (I loved the part where she talks about how Harry Reid has “waterboarded the American economy.”)

The TeaPartyers are riding high because today (6/10)because Rasmussen’s poll shows Angle has an 11-point lead over Reid, 50% to 39%.  Yet Dirty Harry is riding high also, because he is sure he can make political mincemeat of her – do to her what he did to Sue “chickens for a checkup” Lowden.  The odds are that he’s right.  I of course hope he’s not.

The Reid-Angle race will be a fascinating barometer measuring how far Constitutional Conservatives can go before they frighten the horses.

Besides trying to paint her as a crypto-Scientologist wacko, Reid will focus on Angle’s call to eliminate the Department of Education and privatize Social Security.  Right on! is my response – but can Dirty Harry terrorize the voters with it?

Dirty Harry has $9 million in the bank.  The Dems will pour money into his campaign coffers – he’s their Majority Leader, not some backbencher.  Angle doesn’t even have a real website yet.  Logging on to her website today — http://www.sharronangle.com/ — gets you a Donation page saying she’s trying to raise $250K, and a notice saying “Full website launching soon.”  This is Amateur City.

No way BarBox is going to roll over Carly Fiorina.  Carly is a pro, ruthless and samurai-sword sharp who knows the way to win is disembowlment.  This 30-second ad of hers is masterpiece of political evisceration:

And what’s more, Carly ridicules BarBox for her support of the Left’s greatest passion, glowarming!

Carly’s Major League, Sharron Angle’s not, that’s the reality.  The fate of our nation is at stake here, folks.  The stakes don’t get bigger.  We don’t need heart-in-the-right-place emotion.  We need ball-busting utter ruthlessness.  We need folks who know how and are willing to kill the weeds that are destroying our Constitutional Garden.  Folks who can teach others how to and give them the courage to do it.

Sarah Palin is one.  Chris Christie is another.  And Jan Brewer, Mitch Daniels, Carly Fiorina, Jim Inhofe, Jim DeMint, maybe even Rand Paul if he can overcome his not wanting to defend his country (it’s the libertarian disease).  I would love to add Sharron Angle to the list.

November 2nd is going to be the learning experiment of our lives.  We’ll see where there’s steel and where’s there’s mush, what weeds we can trim or kill quickly, which ones to leave be until later.

With that, we’ll best know how to teach RINOs how to be gardeners instead, and how to most effectively apply the right weed-killer to the garden of our Constitution.

________________________________________
[1]   The Fabian Society was founded in 1884 in London, taking its name from the Roman General Fabius Maximus, who fought Hannibal’s Carthaginian army from 217-214 BC in small debilitating skirmishes, rather than attempting one decisive battle.

[2]   From the fasces, the bundle of birch rods around an axe and tied with a red ribbon that was the emblem of power and authority in ancient Rome.

The editor of the Imperial Valley Press, Brad Jennings, has written a column today that claims to be an apology for the cartoon that many of us veterans have taken offense with.  It is the cartoon that depicts two youths looking at a poster of Gunnery Sergeant Nicolas Popaditch and comparing his appearance to a James Bond super villain, a one eyed pirate, or Uncle Fester.

Mr Jennings tells his readers that the cartoon was taken the wrong way.  We who have proudly worn one of the uniforms of the United States military are being much too sensitive, it was just a mistake on Mr Jennings part.  I really don’t see much of an apology in the column only more justification as why it is ok, or should I say isn’t that wrong.  Even some of the commentors have pointed out that things were a whole lot worse during the end of the Viet Nam war for our men and women in uniform.  And as true as that may be, it is my intention to keep that from happening again to my Brothers and Sisters that continue to put on that uniform and keep us all safe and the wolves at bay.

Although I am glad that Mr Jennings did somewhat apologize I think I would rather have heard from the actual cartoonist who drew the cartoon to get a feel for what his intentions were.  That would have been much more enlightening than what Brad Jennings interpretation of the cartoon was.  It really does not make any difference if Brad thought the cartoon was drawn to show the apathy and ignorance of politics by young Americans when the artist really intended to make fun of a heroes battle scars.

From what I have been able to find the cartoonists name is David Garcia, but Mr Jennings would not tell me his name so it may be a guess on my part.  I would really be interested to see more of what this artist has done over the past few years as it would do more to dispels any misconceptions of the artists meaning.

I do stand with Mr Jennings on the fact that this cartoon is protected by the First Amendment.  I am a firm believer that Americans have the right to be as stupid as they want to be within the bounds of the law without violating someone else’s rights.  As a Former Marine I took an oath to defend all of America’s right to free speech, whether it is speech that I agree with it or not.  But to publicly disparage a Wounded Warrior is way beyond the pale of good taste, and decency!

Mr Jennings has been invited to join the discussion tonight as well as his readers, especially those who decided to comment.

Media Plays Mel Gibson Audio, But Not New Black Panther Tapes

RUSH: You know, it’s kind of interesting, isn’t it, all of this media attention to a tape made by the actor Mel Gibson in which he engages in racist rants, and yet the same media doesn’t see fit to air audio of King Zulu Shabazz, whatever his name, the guy that wants to kill cracker babies, part of the New Black Panther Party blocking voters from entering the polling place in Philadelphia in 2008. We got an ally of the regime talking about killing white babies and they’re talking about Mel Gibson?

RUSH: So the Mel Gibson story is all over the place. William Morris Endeavor talent agency instantly dropped Mel Gibson as a client. However, Eric Holder and Barack Obama continue to protect and represent King Samir Shabazz. This is the New Black Panther Party guy who said he hates white people and wants to kill cracker babies. The Department of Justice refuses to prosecute the New Black Panther Party on the basis of their voter intimidation even though a line attorney who has retired from the case said the case is slam-dunk. So the Department of Justice appears to be protecting a racist when they should be prosecuting him for civil rights violations. And yet none of this is in the news. But Mel Gibson’s all over the news. The left is condemning Mel Gibson’s behavior and ignoring — or celebrating, I don’t know which, King Samir Shabazz. I’m not denying what Mel Gibson said is raunchy, but what’s the bigger story here? What’s really more important: an audiotape rant of Mel Gibson, or the Department of Justice politicizing justice on the basis of race? – Show Transcripts @ RushLimbaugh.com

Who Will Investigate the Investigators?
Another voter fraud scandal involving the Justice Department.

J. Christian Adams,, a former career Justice Department lawyer who resigned recently to protest political interference in cases he worked on, made some news yesterday in testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

As expected, he claimed that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama appointee, overruled a unanimous recommendation by six career Justice attorneys for continued prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party on charges of voter intimidation in an incident I detailed here yesterday. But Mr. Adams leveled an even more explosive charge beyond the Panther case. He testified that last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice’s Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal “Motor Voter” law — Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

According to Mr. Adams, Justice lawyers were told by Ms. Fernandes: “We’re not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”

If true, Ms. Fernandes was endorsing a policy of ignoring federal law and encouraging potential voter fraud. Ms. Fernandes was unavailable for comment yesterday, but the Justice Department has issued a statement accusing Mr. Adams of “distorting facts” in general and having a political agenda.

But there is some evidence backing up Mr. Adams. Last year, Justice abandoned a case it had pursued for three years against Missouri for failing to clean up its rolls. When filed in 2005, one-third of Missouri counties had more registered voters than voting-age residents. What’s more, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who this year is her party’s candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat, contended that her office had no obligation to ensure individual counties were complying with the federal law mandating a cleanup of their voter rolls.

The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri’s voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue.

Mr. Adams’ allegations would seem to call for the senior management of Justice to be compelled to testify under oath to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But Justice is making none of its officials available and is refusing to enforce subpoenas issued by the commission. The more this story develops, the more it appears Justice is engaged in a massive coverup of its politicization of voting rights cases. – John Fund @ WSJ

With ‘One Nation,’ liberal groups aim to match tea party’s energy, influence

If imitation is the highest form of flattery, the “tea party” movement must be honored.

In an effort to replicate the tea party’s success, 170 liberal and civil rights groups are forming a coalition that they hope will match the movement’s political energy and influence. They promise to “counter the tea party narrative” and help the progressive movement find its voice again after 18 months of floundering.

The large-scale attempt at liberal unity, dubbed “One Nation,” will try to revive themes that energized the progressive grassroots two years ago. In a repurposing of Barack Obama’s old campaign slogan, organizers are demanding “all the change” they voted for — a poke at the White House.

But the liberal groups have long had a kind of sibling rivalry, jostling over competing agendas and seeking to influence some of the same lawmakers. In forming the coalition, the groups struggled to settle on a name. Even now, two of the major players disagree about who came up with the idea of holding a march this fall.

In this respect, at least, the liberal effort already resembles the fractious tea party movement. In February, some tea party groups skipped a long-planned gathering in Nashville in protest of alleged profiteering by convention organizers. Tea partiers have also argued about which candidates represent the movement.

Despite the friction among liberal groups, the effort behind “One Nation” was born of a certain necessity: At one of the first meetings, Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, said, “Raise your hand if you can push your part of the agenda all by yourself.”

No hands shot up.

Indeed, a promised overhaul of immigration law is virtually dead this year. Legislation that labor unions say would make it easier for them to grow their membership are stalled in Congress. The jobless rate is 15.4 percent for blacks and 12.4 percent for Hispanics, compared with 8.6 percent for whites.

“Having been confronted with the specter of the tea party . . . we felt it urgent to organize the majority of this country, which voted in 2008 and has gone back to the couch,” said Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP. “We’ve been split off in different directions.”

The groups involved represent the core of the first-time voters who backed President Obama — including the National Council of La Raza, NAACP, AFL-CIO, SEIU and the United States Student Association. (The effort is separate from the Democratic Party’s plan to spend $50 million trying to reach those same voters.)

Their aha moment happened after the health-care overhaul passed this spring. Liberal groups, who focused their collective strength to push the bill against heavy resistance, felt relevant and effective for the first time in a long while. That health-care coalition — composed of civil rights groups, student activists and labor leaders — liked the winning feeling.

“In many ways, the bitter fight for health-care reform has painfully highlighted that we must go back to the grassroots organizing that won us the election in the first place,” said George Gresham, president of 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. “We must reassert our strength as the social movement that ushered Obama into office.”

Liberal leaders see “much of the progressive agenda at risk in this election,” said Paul Starr, a professor of public affairs at Princeton University and co-editor of the American Prospect, a liberal magazine. “There is no choice but for these groups to get together. The historical pattern is that voter turnout falls disproportionately among minorities and young people at these midterm elections, so they are fighting a historical trend.”

Leaders of the groups have been meeting for about three months in a planning process that some participants called arduous, debating everything from the name of the coalition to what the branding and logo should look like.

The coalition’s first goal is to plan a march to “demonstrate to Congress that these agenda items have support across multiple demographics,” Jealous said. The demonstration, to be held Oct. 2, will center on pressing for more government spending on job creation.

“This is a way to create some intensity,” said Eric Rodriguez, vice president of NCLR. “Month after month, we spend time pointing to these employment figures, and we’re still not breaking through on the disparities in a way that we think is important.”

This week at their national conventions both NAACP and NCLR leaders will begin talking to their members about “One Nation,” and they are seeking money from foundations for the effort. They hope it will be a show of force that will remind both Congress and the White House that they are out there.

Obama, who some activists say has not lived up to their expectations, could also be pushed harder, said Michael McGerr, a professor of history at Indiana University who has studied political campaigns.

The effort has a historical parallel in a story that Obama has told on the campaign trail. According to the story, when labor organizer and civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph met with President Franklin Roosevelt to press his issues, Roosevelt told Randolph he agreed with him but that Randolph should “go out and make me do it.”

“They are calling the Democratic party back to what has been the pattern of successful liberalism in the 20th century,” McGerr said. – WaPo

President Obama Attacks Congress for Delaying His Nominees — Is He Right?

In announcing the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — and two other nominees — today President Obama said in a statement that “It’s unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes.”

That claim is reasonably true for the other two nominees given recess appointments today.

Republicans long objected to the nomination of Philip Coyle, now the associate director for National Security and International Affairs at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, because of Coyle’s opposition to missile defense.

The nomination of Joshua Gotbaum, now the director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, had also been held up.

Unmentioned by the president: the senator who had put a hold on Gotbaum’s nomination was Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who put a hold on Gotbaum’s nomination in May because of the way Gotbaum’s former employer Delphi Corp. dealt with pensioned former employees.

But it’s not the case with Berwick, whose recess appointment is getting most of the attention.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., echoed the president’s suggestion, saying that “Republican lockstep stalling of Don’s nomination was a case study in cynicism and one awful example of how not to govern.”

But Republicans were not delaying or stalling Berwick’s nomination.

Indeed, they were eager for his hearing, hoping to assail Berwick’s past statements about health care rationing and his praise for the British health care system.

“The nomination hasn’t been held up by Republicans in Congress and to say otherwise is misleading,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which would have held Berwick’s hearing.

Grassley said that he “requested that a hearing take place two weeks ago, before this recess.”

Berwick’s nomination was sent to the Senate in April, and his hearing had not been scheduled because he was participating in the “standard vetting process,” a Democratic aide on the Senate Finance Committee told ABC News.

But speaking not for attribution, Democratic officials say that neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, were eager for an ugly confirmation fight four months before the midterm elections.

White House officials and Senate Democrats argue that Republicans weren’t acting in good faith, that they were hoping to use Berwick’s nomination to demagogue the career of a widely-respected pediatrician praised by myriad medical organizations as well as President George W. Bush’s CMS administrators. Democrats say that the GOP was planning to use this confirmation fight to re-litigate the health care legislation battle, a fight they lost.

Is the desire to avoid that debate enough of a justification for a recess appointment?

Does using the Constitutional recess appointment prerogative so as to avoid having to expend political energy and capital on a fight one doesn’t want to wage – does that live up to the president’s stated promise of transparency?

For many Democrats, the answer is yes. They argue that GOP obstructionism and the desire of certain Republican senators to unfairly assail Berwick as a sort of death panel advocate drove the President to make the recess appointment.

Baucus, publicly at least, seemed to take issue with the president’s decision, issuing a public statement saying, “I’m troubled that, rather than going through the standard nomination process, Dr. Berwick was recess appointed. Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee – and answered.”

President Obama said today that his “recess appointments will allow three extremely qualified candidates to get to work on behalf of the American people right away. With more than 180 nominees still pending before the Senate, it’s my hope that my colleagues in Congress will agree to put politics aside and move forward on these vitally important positions.”

That backdrop – unprecedented obstructionism, Democrats say – is important, they maintain.

You can argue – and White House officials and Senate Democrats are, in fact, doing so – that Democrats were delaying Berwick’s hearing and the vote on his nomination because Republicans were going to play politics with it.

But a) that’s not the same as Republicans delaying or obstructing his nomination and b) some might argue that there’s also something to be said about combating policy arguments with better policy arguments.

-Jake Tapper @ ABC News

The Elite Turn Against Obama

Even the Aspen Ideas Festival, an annual gathering of the country’s brightest lights, isn’t Obama country anymore. Lloyd Grove on the president’s waning support among the intelligentsia.

You’d think the well-heeled and enlightened eggheads at the Aspen Ideas Festival—which is running all week in this fashionable resort town with heady panel discussions and earnest disquisitions involving all manner of deep thinkers and do-gooders—would be receptive to an intellectually ambitious president with big ideas of his own.

In a way, the folks attending this cerebral conclave pairing the Aspen Institute think tank with the Atlantic Monthly magazine might even be seen as President Obama’s natural base.

Apparently not so much.

Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers, and his departing budget director, Peter Orszag, can expect heavy weather when they land in Aspen later this week to make their case to this civic-minded clique of wealthy skeptics.

“If you’re asking if the United States is about to become a socialist state, I’d say it’s actually about to become a European state, with the expansiveness of the welfare system and the progressive tax system like what we’ve already experienced in Western Europe,” Harvard business and history professor Niall Ferguson declared during Monday’s kickoff session, offering a withering critique of Obama’s economic policies, which he claimed were encouraging laziness.

“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”

Ferguson was joined in his harsh attack by billionaire real estate mogul and New York Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman. Both lambasted Obama’s trillion-dollar deficit spending program—in the name of economic stimulus to cushion the impact of the 2008 financial meltdown—as fiscally ruinous, potentially turning America into a second-rate power.

“We are, without question, in a period of decline, particularly in the business world,” Zuckerman said. “The real problem we have…are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.”

Zuckerman added that he detects in the Obama White House “hostility to the very kinds of [business] culture that have made this the great country that it is and was. I think we have to find some way of dealing with that or else we will do great damage to this country with a public policy that could ruin everything.”

Ferguson added: “The critical point is if your policy says you’re going run a trillion-dollar deficit for the rest of time, you’re riding for a fall…Then it really is goodbye.” A dashing Brit, Ferguson added: “Can I say that, having grown up in a declining empire, I do not recommend it. It’s just not a lot of fun actually—decline.”

Ferguson called for what he called “radical” measures. “I can’t emphasize strongly enough the need for radical fiscal reform to restore the incentives for work and remove the incentives for idleness.” He praised “really radical reform of the sort that, for example, Paul Ryan [the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee] has outlined in his wonderful ‘Roadmap’ for radical, root-and-branch reform not only of the tax system but of the entitlement system” and “unleash entrepreneurial innovation.” Otherwise, Ferguson warned: “Do you want to be a kind of implicit part of the European Union? I’d advise you against it.”

This was greeted by hearty applause from a crowd that included Barbra Streisand and her husband James Brolin. “Depressing, but fantastic,” Streisand told me afterward, rendering her verdict on the session. “So exciting. Wonderful!”

Brolin’s assessment: “Mind-blowing.”

In a session Tuesday morning, Silicon Valley guru Michael Splinter piled on. “From an industry standpoint, it’s below what a lot of people in industry have viewed as the solution to the jobs problem,” Splinter, president of the Applied Materials solar energy company, complained about Obama’s economic performance. He was speaking to an agreeable audience in an interview with Atlantic Media owner David Bradley. “When I talk to venture capitalists, their companies are starting to move their manufacturing operations out of the United States…Our corporate tax rate, on a worldwide competitive basis, is just not competitive. Taiwan is lowering their rate to 20 to 15 percent in order to stay competitive with Singapore. These countries have made it their job to attract industry. You don’t get that sense here in the United States.”

The consensus was similar in an afternoon panel discussion on the decline of the American middle class. “He said jobs were going to be his No. 1 priority—there’s a huge disconnect between Washington and what’s going on out in the country,” nominal Obama supporter Arianna Huffington said. “The president’s economic team kept talking about a ‘cyclical’ problem. Larry Summers said jobs were a lagging economic indicator. All these things are simply wrong. The president put all his trust in the wrong economic team—an economic team that didn’t understand what was happening.” – Lloyd Grove @ The Daily Beast

Peace Through Strength and American Pride vs. “Enemy-Centric” Policy

Earlier this week, I spoke at the Freedom Fest in Norfolk, Virginia; and, evidently, the media was asked to leave – not by me, that’s for sure. I want my message out, so despite reporters making up a story about “Palin people kicking us out” (uh, the “Palin people” entourage would consist of one person – my 15-year-old daughter, Willow – and I have no doubt she could take on any reporter, but I know for certain she didn’t “kick ‘em out” of the event). Anyway, here are some of the key issues I spoke about.

DEFENSE SPENDING

It takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures.

We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.

As a result of all these trillion dollar spending bills, America’s going bust in a hurry. By 2020 we may reach debt levels of $20 trillion – twice the debt that we have today! It reminds me of that joke I read the other day: “Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion!”

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny. We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.

This may be obvious to you and me, but I am not sure the Obama Administration gets it. There isn’t a single progressive pet cause which they haven’t been willing to throw billions at. But when it comes to defense spending, all of a sudden they start preaching a message of “fiscal restraint.” Our Defense Secretary recently stated the “gusher” of defense spending was over and that it was time for the Department of Defense to tighten its belt. There’s a gusher of spending alright, but it’s not on defense. Did you know the US actually only ranks 25th worldwide on defense spending as a percentage of GDP? We spend three times more on entitlements and debt services than we do on defense.

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

But the Obama administration doesn’t practice what it preaches. This is an administration that won’t produce a budget for fear that we discover how reckless they’ve been as fiscal managers. At the same time, it threatens to veto a defense bill because of an extra jet engine!

This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

THE U.S. NAVY

Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the US Navy. He said we have to “ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.” He went on to ask, “Do we really need… more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”

Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and, yes, we do because we must. Our Navy has global responsibilities. It patrols sea lanes and safeguards the freedoms of our allies – and ourselves. The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease. That will limit our options, extend tours for Navy personnel, lessen our ability to secure our allies and deter our adversaries. The Obama administration seems strangely unconcerned about this prospect.

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY INHERITANCE

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11.

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances. And thanks to the lamestream media pawing and purring over him, he had the benefit of unparalleled global popularity. What an advantage! So their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror. Commit to winning – not ending, but winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit to the fight against violent Islamic extremism wherever it finds sanctuary. Work with our allies. Be resolute with our adversaries. Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security. Unfortunately, these basic principles seem to have been discarded by Washington.

THE WAR ON TERROR

His administration has banned the phrase “war on terror,” preferring instead politically correct nonsense like “overseas contingency operations.” His Homeland Security Secretary calls acts of terrorism “man-caused disasters.” His reckless plan to close Guantanamo (because there’s no place to go after it’s closed) faces bipartisan opposition now.

The Attorney General just announced that a decision about where to try terrorists like 9/11 master mind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would not be announced until after the mid-term elections. Is there something he’s afraid to tell us?

The President’s new National Security Strategy does not even use the word “Islamic” when referring to violent extremism. Does he think the ideology of those who seek to kill Americans is irrelevant? How can we seek to defeat an enemy if we don’t acknowledge what motivates them and what their ultimate goals are? President Obama may think he is being politically correct by dropping the term, but it flies in the face of reality. As Senator Joe Lieberman noted, refusing to use the word Islamic when describing the nature of the threat we face is “Orwellian and counterproductive.”

AFGHANISTAN

In Afghanistan, it is true that President Obama approved deploying additional forces to the conflict – most, but not all the troops requested by commanders on the ground. But it took months of indecision to get to that point, and it came at a very high price – a July 2011 date to begin withdrawal.

This date was arbitrary! It bears no relation to conditions on the ground. It sends all the wrong signals to our friends and to our enemies. We know our commanders on the ground are not comfortable with it.

As that great Navy war hero, Senator John McCain recently put it: “The decision to begin withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan arbitrarily in July 2011 seems to be having exactly the effect that many of us predicted it would: It is convincing the key actors inside and outside of Afghanistan that the United States is more interested in leaving than succeeding in this conflict.”

Does the President really believe the Taliban and al Qaeda won’t be empowered by his naming of a starting date for withdrawal? They now believe they can beat him simply by outlasting us. What sort of effect does he think this will have on the morale of our troops – and of our allies?

ALIENATING OUR ALLIES

It’s not the only area where the Obama administration has failed our allies. They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington. When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent. When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hamas terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas. Loyal NATO allies in central Europe were undermined by the cancellation of a missile defense program with virtually no warning. At the same time, Russia and China are given preferential treatment, while remaining silent on their human rights violations.

CODDLING ADVERSARIES

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.

AN “ENEMY-CENTRIC” FOREIGN POLICY

It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy “enemy-centric.” And this “enemy-centric” approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because “we pretty much know what they are going to say.” Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.

This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities.

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF AMERICA

We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?

Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just see a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s best interests for our country to remain the dominant military superpower, but under President Obama’s leadership that dominance may be slipping away. It’s the result of an agenda that reeks of complacency and defeatism.

(I went on from there to talk about our need to end the negative, defeatist attitudes of those in leadership. I spoke further on American exceptionalism, and Willow and I ended a great evening with some great patriots. Sorry the media chose to report anything other than what actually happened at the event.) – Sarah Palin @ FaceBook

Obama’s Puppet Master

While doing some research on Soros, I learned he was the front man for the Rothchild’s family, who had such control over Europe, the Balkans, and Russia in the early part of the 20th Century. Their money helped him get his start, and they are pulling his strings. While the USA is a target, thru Obama, they are trying to get control over Russia and it’s former vassal states, because of the rich natural resources they have. Do some digging yourself and see if you can find anything on this connection. We are like blind little ants, while they are playing deadly chess with countries as their chess pieces.

This just might explain a whole lot of what is happening in today’s world. If you want to be informed, take the time to read about one of the most corrupt men of our generation, or should we say “the godfather of evil”.

Most of us have heard of him. Few really know who he is or what he’s got planned for us (or the rest of the world). Apparently, Obama knows him well. Here is some information to sink your teeth into.

PS: this CBS writer, Steve Kroft, certainly likes to live on the edge…

Some time ago I wrote an article questioning who might be the power or puppet master behind Barack Hussein Obama. It has to be someone because of his meteoric rise to power, with experience at virtually nothing, with questionable wisdom, and with a mysterious past that has been carefully erased and hidden where no one can check it. This puppet master, whomever he is, apparently paid for Obama’s education and his travels to Pakistan for some mysterious purpose, and promoted him into Illinois then national politics.

I once suggested it might be billionaire George Soros. I now believe that to be the case more than ever.

George Soros might be the most evil man in the world, with intent to destroy America and every value we have held dear. Obama seems to be in lockstep with Soros’ philosophies and simply a tool in Soros’ world-changing strategies. Both must be stopped.

Read the below article and judge for yourself. It is from www.resistne t.com/profiles/ blogs/George- soros-obamas- puppet.

___________ _________ _________ _________ ______

“Who is behind Barak Obama? Who is pulling the strings?”

Here is what (CBS’) Mr. (Steve) Kroft’s research has turned up………bit of a read, but it took 4 months to put it together…

GEORGE SOROS TEA PARTY ENEMY #1

“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States .” George Soros

“George Soros is an evil man. He’s anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good.” Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America ‘s moral decline, at the feet of one man?

YES, It is indeed possible.

IF George Soros isn’t the world’s preeminent “malignant messianic narcissist,” he’ll do until Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are reincarnated.

What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath’s lack of conscience. He considers himself to be an elitist world class philosopher, despises the American Way and just loves to do social engineering (change cultures).

Soros is the power behind the throne of Obama. I accuse George Soros of being the PUPPET MASTER that is pulling Obama’s strings.

Gyargy Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary . Soros’ father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.

The Schwartz’s, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.

When Hitler’s henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary , to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews, George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.

Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.”

“70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.”

During an interview with “Sixty Minute’s” Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his “best year:”

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors.

SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: Not, not at all. Not at all, I rather enjoyed it..

KROFT: No No feeling of guilt?

SOROS: No., only feelings of absolute power.

In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having “carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper’s death in 1994. Two of Popper’s most influential teachings concerned “the open society,” and Fallibilism.

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.

The “open society” basically refers to a “test and evaluate” approach to social engineering. Regarding “open society” Roy Childs writes, “Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper’s advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess.

In 1956 Soros moved to New York City , where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation.

Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.

In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for “The American Thinker” she says, “Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically.aalmost overnight.”

In 1994 Soros croowed in “The New Republic” that “the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.” The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be “one of the greatest social robberies in human history.” The “Soros Empire” indeed.

In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia . At the time, Malaysia ‘s Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros “a villain, and a moron.” Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, “We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people.”

The website Greek national Pride reports, “[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia , Ukraine and Myanmar [ Burma ]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros’ role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality.”

Francehas upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars.

Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for “illegal market manipulation.” Elizabeth Crum writes that “The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized. [Soros'] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary ‘s economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.

My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach.

But what about America ? Soros told Australia ‘s national newspaper “The Australian” ” America , as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out,” he said, adding that the time has come for “a very serious adjustment” in American’s consumption habits. He implied that he was the one with the power to bring this about..

Soros: “World financial crisis wwas” stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”

Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil , in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama’s largesse towards Brazil , came shortly after his financial backer George Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).

Tait Trussel writes, “The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil , but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security and independance.”

A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. Their mission: “This blog is dedicated to all.who have suuffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits off.George Soros. Youur stories are many and varied, but the theme is tthe same: the destructive power of greed without conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day be made to stop preying upon the world’s poor.thatt justice will be serveed.”

Back to America . Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago Bill O’Reilly said on “The O’Reilly Factor” that “Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous..”

In 1997 Rachel Ehrrenfeld wrote, “Soros uses his philanthropy to change or more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His “open society” is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of an PROGRESSIVE ideology of rights and entitlements.”

Perhaps the most important of these “whistle blowers” are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book “The Shadow Party” outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel. Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years.

The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration.

DiscoverTheNetworks .org (another good source) writes, “By his [Soros'] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia , Croatia , Georgia , and Yugoslavia . When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government a fully formed government-in- exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup.”

November 2008 edition of the German magazine “Der Spiegel,” in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS (President of the U.S. ) should do after taking office. “I think we need a large stimulus package…” Soros thought that around 600 billion would be aboutt right.

Soros also said that “I think Obama presents us a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights.”

Although Soros doesn’t (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.

Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by “The Baltimore Chronicle’s” Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.

In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton Dick Cheney’s old stomping grounds.

When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time.

Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren’t bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA.

And I mustn’t forget to mention Soros’ involvement with the MSM (Main Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to. In short, George Soros controls or influence most of the MSM. Little wonder they ignore the TEA PARTY, Soro’s NEMESIS.

As Matthew Vadum writes, “The liberal billionaire- turned-philanthr opist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives.”

Richard Poe writes, “Soros’ private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America ‘s traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social engineering.”

Some of the many NGOs (None Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America , the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks .org.

Poe continues, “Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia.”

Without Soro’s money, would the Saul Alinsky’s Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? Yes, yes, yes, and yes

Americastands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barak Obama is leading the way.

The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

These days, Patrick Henry’s sentiment is more than just some quaint hyperbole from long ago it’s a slow burning, but intense, glow that fires our courage and heart. TEA PARTY BEWARE..

Jeremiah Wright teaching at Univ. of Chicago

The institution which found Barack Obama capable of teaching constitutional law, also finds Rev. Jeremiah Wright classroom-worthy. Maureen Callahan of the New York Post reports on some of what the Rev is teaching at the Chicago Theological Seminary, on the U of C campus:

During a five-day seminar Wright taught last week at the University of Chicago, he was back at it, claiming that whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America.

“White folk done took this country,” Wright said. “You’re in their home, and they’re gonna let you know it.”

The course, advertised as focusing on politics and public policy in South Africa and America, was taught in a small, ground-floor room at the Chicago Theological Seminary on the university campus, where Wright’s voice echoed out an open window. The class was composed of about 15 to 20 students, mainly older African-American women who would arrive early and giddily linger during lunch breaks and after class, looking for the reverend’s attention. (The course cost a little over $1,000 if taken for college credit and $300 if taken without.)

The absence of young people was telling: The lectures seemed ossified, relics of a pre-civil-rights America

Contrary to what was said by him and his handlers in 2008, Barack Obama said in 2004 in a Sun-Times interview that he went quite often to hear Wright speak.

These days, he says, he attends the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week — or at least as many weeks as he is able. His pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant.

Obama also called Wright his mentor, his moral compass, his sounding board on matters of politics. The only “charity” he gave money to before becoming a US Senator. The inspiration for the term “Audacity of Hope”; has his young daughters listening to Wright since they were toddlers.

Wright’s anti-Israel, anti-American, and ant-white views were well broadcast in 2008. He later made outright anti-Semitic statements when he accused the “Jews” surrounding Obama from keeping him away from President Obama.

Where was the media then and where is the media now? – American Thinker

(H/T BK)

Lawmakers guide Dodd-Frank bill for Wall Street reform into homestretch

WASHINGTON – Nearly two years after tremors on Wall Street set off a historic economic downturn, congressional leaders greenlighted a bill early Friday that would leave the financial industry largely intact but facing a more powerful network of regulators who could impose limits on risky activities.

The final bill took shape after a 20-hour marathon negotiation between House and Senate leaders seeking to reconcile their separate versions. The legislation puts a lot of faith in the watchful eye of regulators to prevent another financial crisis. New agencies would police consumer lending, the invention of financial products and the trading of exotic securities known as derivatives. Bank supervisors would have the power to seize large, troubled financial firms whose collapse could threaten the entire system. The bill calls for banks to hold more money in reserve to weather economic storms but leaves the details to regulators.

But with a few exceptions, the measure avoids dictating to Wall Street what it can and cannot do. The bill does not break up big banks or ban the trading of derivatives. Nor does it significantly streamline the confusing array of financial regulators in Washington.

The House and Senate are set to vote on the legislation next week, and administration officials said President Obama could sign it into law before July 4.

The action capped a surprisingly good week for Wall Street. On Thursday, Democrats failed to pass a separate bill that would have raised taxes on some of the country’s wealthiest financiers. On Friday, stocks of financial firms jumped when trading opened in New York. Many analysts said the markets breathed a collective sigh of relief that the regulatory reform talks were over and that the results could have been much worse for the financial industry.

One firm that is likely to face more oversight is Goldman Sachs, which has become emblematic of the excesses of Wall Street. Regulators would more carefully track the firm’s riskiest activities. In the coming year, a regulatory council could force the bank to shed its sizable hedge funds and private-equity activities. It also could be banned from making financial trades for its own profit instead of for clients, shaving roughly 10 percent from the firm’s revenue. But after those changes, Goldman Sachs and a few other financial titans will still dominate the financial system, the analysts said.

A flurry of dealmaking allowed several industries to escape the new system. At the last minute, auto dealers were granted exemptions from new consumer rules, despite their major role in lending. Most mutual fund and insurance companies avoided a ban on some risky trading. Community banks, which make up the vast majority of their industry, got a carve-out months ago.

Still, the deal reached a few minutes before dawn Friday all but ensures that Obama will see his second major legislative achievement of the year, after health care, Democrats said. It also gives the president momentum as he presses major economies in Europe and Asia to make similar changes at an economic summit in Toronto this weekend.

“We are poised to pass the toughest financial reform since the ones we created in the aftermath of the Great Depression,” Obama said at the White House, adding that the bill “represents 90 percent of what I proposed when I took up this fight . . . We’ve all seen what happens when there is inadequate oversight and insufficient transparency on Wall Street.”

Asked whether he expected the compromise legislation to pass the full Senate — which approved an earlier version, 59-39 on May 20, with support from four Republicans — Obama replied, “You bet.”

Republican lawmakers who serve on congressional financial panels blasted the compromise bill. “This legislation is a failure on both counts,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “It will not encourage much-needed stability and confidence in our financial markets. It will not significantly reduce systemic risk in our financial sector.”

A flurry of change

The bill’s final passage would set off a rush of activity. Two long-standing bank regulators would be combined, and regulators would have to launch more than 20 studies on controversial topics such as limiting the risky activities of big financial firms and setting precise capital reserve standards for banks.

Some administration officials acknowledged that leaving so much decision-making in the hands of regulators could open the process to lobbying by the financial industry. Many bank supervisors, in fact, work inside the headquarters of the biggest financial firms and have close relationships with the executives of the companies they regulate.

Among the first tasks for the administration would be to set up a new consumer protection bureau that would monitor credit card companies, mortgage brokers and banks to make sure consumers have clear information about financial products. The new agency, while housed in the Federal Reserve, would have its own budget and director appointed by the president and would have wide authority to write consumer protection rules and enforce them with civil penalties. It could, for instance, force mortgage lenders to be more upfront about possible interest increases in adjustable-rate loans. During the crisis, many borrowers were caught off guard by the rise in rates on such loans.

The wee hours of Friday morning brought about the final and most arduous compromises between lawmakers in reconciling the chambers’ two versions of the bill.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) agreed to scale back a controversial provision that would have forced the nation’s biggest banks to spin off their lucrative derivatives-dealing businesses. The proposal had been a particularly thorny issue for Democrats, causing internal divisions that threatened to derail the entire process.

Administration officials and Democratic leaders worked fervently to bridge the divide between Lincoln and a bloc of House Democrats that opposed the provision, especially those from New York, where much of the derivatives industry is concentrated. Finally, the two sides agreed to allow banks to hold onto derivatives related to traditional banking operations such as interest rates, currency rates and gold and silver. Banks would have to move their riskiest derivatives trades into an affiliate that must have its own capital reserves. The Senate agreed to the compromise language just after 2:30 a.m.

‘Volcker rule’

The conference panel also strengthened the “Volcker rule,” named after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. That measure would bar banks from trading with their own money, a practice known as proprietary trading. In reaching this deal, negotiators adopted a provision that would ban certain forms of proprietary trading and forbid firms from betting against securities they sell to clients.

Under the agreement, firms would have up to two years to scale back proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds and private-equity funds. Banks also would be barred from betting against their clients on certain investments.

Even as they worked to toughen the Volcker language, lawmakers agreed to an exemption at the behest of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), one of the four Republicans who voted for the earlier version of the bill. Brown, whose state is a hub of the asset-management industry, wanted the bill to allow banks to invest at least a small amount of capital in hedge funds and private-equity investments. The measure would prohibit a bank from placing more than 3 percent of its capital in such investments. It was one of a number of provisions tailored to hold onto key votes as the bill heads toward final passage.

The cavernous Dirksen 106 conference room remained packed as dawn approached, but it was a chaotic and cluttered mass of humanity. Lawmakers had stopped trying to conceal their yawns. Aides who had worn down their BlackBerry batteries recharged them for the home stretch. Trash cans spilled over with coffee cups and sandwich wrappers. Empty Fritos bags and plastic Diet Coke bottles littered the room, along with reams of paper: old amendments, new amendments, handwritten amendments, amendments to amendments.

Weary lawmakers wrapped up their work minutes before sunrise. “It’s a great moment,” said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the banking committee led the effort in the Senate. “It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”

One of the last motions Friday was to name the bill after the two chairmen, Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had shepherded the legislation through the House over the past year. At 5:07 a.m., they agreed unanimously that it would be known as the Dodd-Frank bill, and the sound of applause echoed down the empty hallways.

An Iceberg of Financial Reform, but What Lies Beneath?

A whopping 62 percent of Americans now say the United States is on the wrong track, yet President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress continue to steer the country in the same downhill direction toward bigger government. That runaway train picked up more speed this morning, as a House-Senate conference committee came to a final agreement on a Wall Street reform bill that’s packed with $19 billion in new taxes and fees on banks (which consumers will end up paying), a new consumer-unfriendly Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and a complete failure to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (among the causes of America’s financial nightmare).

Though the Wall Street reform bill is aimed at solving the problems that led to America’s financial collapse, it entirely ignores one of the major culprits responsible for our fiscal mess – Fannie and Freddie. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal.”

Given the sheer scope of the nearly 2,000 page bill, the biggest concern might be the unknown, unintended consequences that lie beneath. As Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) said during a conference committee meeting, “My guess is there are three unintended consequences on every page of this bill.”

But what we do know about the bill is bad enough already. For starters, the bill creates a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will likely do consumers more harm than good. As Alex Pollack of AEI writes:

Any objective observer of government-agency behavior would predict that this will become a large, expensive, highly intrusive additional financial bureaucracy. With arbitrarily expanding demands, it will impose heavy costs on consumer financial services and requirements that likely conflict with those of other financial regulators.

Customers are already seeing the effects of increased government regulations on banks — less money in their pockets. The Wall Street Journal reports that “Bank of America Corp. and other banks are preparing new fees on basic banking services as they try to replace revenue lost to regulatory rules, in a push that is expected to spell an end to free checking accounts for many Americans.” With more regulations handed down by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consumers can expect more costs, less choice, and fewer consumer-friendly products (like debit cards) from their banks.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) said the bill “deals with every single aspect of our lives.” Given that we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. That’s a scary prospect. – The Heritage Foundation

U.S. Lawmakers Reach Accord on New Finance Rules

Jewish Clergy Group: Elena Kagan Isn’t ‘Kosher’ to Serve on Supreme Court

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is “not kosher”–meaning she is not fit to serve on the court–according to more than 850 Orthodox members of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. That’s the term the rabbis used about Kagan in a press release issued Thursday, saying “Elena Kagan is not kosher. She is not fit to sit on this Court–or any court.”

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that “a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.”

Levin said most people are happy when “one of their own” is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, “We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head–from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies have no right to be delivered.’”

In a statement issued Thursday, the rabbinical alliance called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to confirm Kagan to succeed the outgoing Justice John Paul Stevens.

“It is clear from Ms. Kagan’s record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, partial-birth-abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the ‘supremacy’ of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society’s already steep decline into Sodom and Gomorrah,” the rabbis said in the statement.

Levin told CNSNews.com that his fellow rabbis–and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox and traditional Jews–are puzzled at the president’s choice of Kagan.

“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone–or some group–is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”

Barring a rebuff from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Levin told CNSNews.com that the rabbis want someone in the Senate to launch a filibuster to stop Kagan’s nomination from coming to a vote.

“We’re waiting for the more courageous, decent senators–whether it’s a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)–we’re looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination,” Levin said.

Confirmation hearings for Kagan begin Monday at the Senate Judiciary Committee. Neither Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) nor Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)–both members of the committee, known Kagan supporters and top Jewish members of the Senate–responded to calls for comment on this story. – CNS News

Study Finds Liberal Bias in College Summer Reading Lists, Stirring Debate

A new study by the National Association of Scholars has found that 70 percent of the summer reading books assigned to incoming college freshmen in the U.S. show a liberal bias and are not academically challenging, setting off a storm of debate in educational circles.

The report, “Beach Books: What Do Colleges Want Students to Read Outside Class?”, surveyed 290 colleges and categorized their summer reading lists in broad terms, such as “multiculturalism, immigration and racism” (the most common category chosen by colleges), or “environmentalism, animal rights and food” (the second largest liberal category selected by colleges). The study found that “the choices by and large reflect leftist political perspectives.”

“Even where the books themselves may convey more complex social views, most of the books on the list fit neatly with the agenda of the campus left: anti-Western, anti-business, multicultural, environmentalist and alienated. The books do signal what lies ahead for students in many colleges: a four-year program of more of the same,” the report concluded.

The study did not look at the alleged bias of the assigned books individually, according to NAS spokeswoman Ashley Thorne, who helped create the list. “We looked at what the books were about,” she said, and then categorized the general subject as either liberal or conservative.

“Only 2 percent of the books were considered conservative,” she said.

Click here to view the full list of colleges and recommended summer-reading books.

The study also found that the selection of books focused heavily on “pop culture and sports and not core curriculum,” which is where Thorne argued higher education should be going.

“They were not intellectually challenging,” she said.

The report also argued that “the current reading programs take little interest in the classics.” It found that there were no works by Shakespeare or from the Renaissance and that ancient works were completely ignored.Of the 290 assignments by colleges, only five schools came close to assigning classics, according to the report. Those “classics” were: Frankenstein, The Communist Manifesto, Walden and the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn — which was assigned by two colleges.

But educators argue that classics are curriculum material best studied in the classroom, and that students are unlikely to read Rousseau over the summer. They argue that popular books not only build common ground, but help students learn to write better than the textbooks and classics they will be required to read in their courses

The NAS’s use of broad-brush categories also came under widespread criticism from educators. John K. Wilson, an Illinois educator who writes the College Freedom blog, said that the most assigned book was “This I Believe,” a collection of statements of what people believe by a wide array of contributors that could hardly be considered liberal or conservative.

“It doesn’t appear that anyone at NAS has read the book,” he said.

He also challenged the inclusion of “Persepolis,” a graphic novel about the brutal dictatorship in Iran, as liberal, and the failure to list “Freakonomics,” a libertarian book about economics, as conservative.

The report also came under fire from the Chronicle of Higher Education, the major magazine of the academic world, according to an editor who works there and asked not to be named.

“Is that a report, or is it a PR stunt?” Mike Caufield posted on the Chronicle’s website. “Once you look at the methodology of the report and look at the organization releasing it, the story here is apparently ‘Right Wing Organization thinks summer reading is too liberal, according to self-devised classification system.’”

Caufield charged NAS’s funding by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, a Pittsburgh-based funder of conservative causes since the 1980s, and its public opposition to multiculturalism and affirmative action created a bias in the study that made it useless. As another poster wrote, “Does being ‘conservative’ really mean active support for pollution and animal suffering? Not only is this insulting to the concept of conservatism, it is nonsensical.”

But Peter Wood, president of NAS, stood by his group’s report, saying, “Something is wrong when Frankenstein is the best book on the list; the only work of philosophy is The Communist Manifesto; and books on Africa outnumber books on Europe nearly six to one.”

Ed Barnes @ Fox News

Court rules ‘no precedent’ stopping voters from recall of U.S. senator

Tea partiers in New Jersey have moved one step closer to ousting a sitting U.S. senator that they say has shown “a total disregard for the people’s wishes.”

New Jersey Tea Parties United and the Sussex County Tea Party have joined forces to try an unprecedented way of sending a message to Washington: removing a senator through a recall vote.

A three-judge appellate panel ruled today that the New Jersey secretary of state must accept the tea partiers’ notice of intent to recall Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and allow their joint recall committee to begin collecting the voter signatures needed to put the senator’s name back on the ballot, two years before his term is supposed to end.

Senator Robert Menendez D-NJ

New Jersey is one of a handful of states that allows for the recall of its congressmen, thanks to a constitutional amendment New Jersey voters approved by a 3-to-1 margin in 1993.

Nonetheless, when the tea partiers filed to begin the recall process last September, New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells, under advisement of the state’s attorney general, initially denied their notice, taking up the unusual argument that the state’s constitutional amendment is … unconstitutional.

Executing a recall of a member of the U.S. Senate “is a matter of exclusive jurisdiction of federal authority,” Wells responded in an official letter. “Neither the United States Constitution nor federal statute provide for a recall proceeding for a federally elected official.”

The tea partiers, however, then turned to the courts.

Their lawsuit asked, “Can the state [of New Jersey], after amending its Constitution and passing legislation to guarantee its citizens access to a formal, state-endorsed mechanism to foster collective ‘core political speech,’ deny its citizens access to that mechanism because of the content of their political message?”

The state’s appellate court today answered, “No.”

The tea partiers explained their reasons for trying to oust Menendez, telling the New Jersey Herald their senator “does not represent the people the way his oath requires that he does,” as evidenced by his votes on Medicare, health care and “extravagant, excessive multi-million dollar projects that offered little or no short-term economic benefits.”

No U.S. senator, however, has ever been subjected to a recall vote, and, in fact, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide any process for doing so. Consequently, Wells and her attorney have argued that the attempt is unconstitutional.

The court today, however, ruled that Wells determined this “albeit without citation to any specific legal authority.”

And while the court’s ruling suggests Wells’ conclusion may in the end be correct, it admits the limits of judicial restraint prevent the court from stopping a legal process just because it might be ruled unconstitutional later.

“The language of the state constitutional amendment and the implementing legislation is clear and unambiguous,” the judges stated. “No published opinion from any federal or state court in the nation has yet declared invalid a state recall measure’s application to a member of the United States Senate or the House of Representatives.”

And without that precedent, the judges decided, the court had no alternative but to order the recall process allowed to continue (though the order is stayed until further appeals by Wells can be heard).

“In sum,” the ruling concluded, “there are a host of genuine arguments and counterarguments that can be articulated and debated about whether or not the federal Constitution would permit a United States senator to be recalled by the voters under state law. There is no express textual answer to this debate in the United States Constitution. Nor is there any precedent from the United States Supreme Court squarely on point.

“We are pointed to no precedential opinion which has held that the recall of a United States Senator cannot be conducted,” the court said. “The silence of the federal Constitution may well result in the conclusion that it may be done.”

Provided the court’s order stands through further appeals, the tea partiers will then have 320 days to obtain the signatures of 25 percent of registered voters in New Jersey, roughly 1.3 million names, to place a recall on the ballot.

The effort to recall a senator is not entirely new, nor is it limited to New Jersey.

[Read more...]

By Drew Zahn
March 16th, 2010

Race & Gender of Judges Make Enormous Differences in Rulings, Studies Find – News

Posted Feb 6, 2010 6:20 PM CST

By Edward A. Adams

A judge’s race or gender makes for a dramatic difference in the outcome of cases they hear—at least for cases in which race and gender allegedly play a role in the conduct of the parties, according to two recent studies.

The results were the focus of a program about “Diversity on the Bench: Is the ‘Wise Latina’ a Myth?,” sponsored by the ABA Judicial Division at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Orlando on Saturday afternoon.

In federal racial harassment cases, one study (PDF) found that plaintiffs lost just 54 percent of the time when the judge handling the case was an African-American. Yet plaintiffs lost 81 percent of the time when the judge was Hispanic, 79 percent when the judge was white, and 67 percent of the time when the judge was Asian American.

The comprehensive study, by professors from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business, examined a random assortment of 40 percent of all reported racial harassment cases from six federal circuits between 1981 and 2003.

A second study (PDF), looked at 556 federal appellate cases involving allegations of sexual harassment or sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The finding: plaintiffs were at least twice as likely to win if a female judge was on the appellate panel.

University of Pittsburgh School of Law Professor Pat K. Chew, who co-authored the racial harassment study, said she found “the rule of law is intact” in the cases she reviewed. Judges—no matter which side they ruled for—took the same procedural steps to reach their decisions, she said.

But judges of different races took different approaches “on how to interpret the facts of the cases,” she said.

Pressed on whether the rule of law could actually be considered intact when outcomes varied so much depending on the race of the judge, she replied: “It’s always made a difference who the judge was. We’ve long known, for instance, that a judge’s political affiliation makes a difference.”

Judge Carol E. Jackson of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri said she was heartened that diversity has crept into the federal court system, where today 20 percent of judges are women and 15 percent are members of minority groups.

“It’s important that different voices are being heard,” she said.

The program took its title from a much-debated comment made years ago by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor : “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

The participants never answered the question of whether a Latina judge reaches better conclusions, but at least in some cases, it appears likely that she would reach a different conclusion from a white male jurist hearing the same evidence.

ABA Journal.

February 03, 2010
Holder Must Go!
By Jamie Weinstein
FOXNews.com Reuters News Agency

After a year of outrageous national security mistakes it’s time for our Attorney General to step down.

The Obama administration’s most egregious national security blunders over the past year can be traced back to the Department of Justice. From the handling of the interrogation and incarceration of the accused Christmas Day bomber to the decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in civilian courts, these national security misjudgments have made the United States less safe in the War on Terror. While the buck ultimately stops with President Obama, it is now clear, after a year of mistakes, that Eric Holder has failed in his role as Attorney General. He must go.

When Eric Holder was nominated for the post of Attorney General there was a small glimmer of hope among some conservatives that he would be reasonable when it came to war on terror issues. That hope was almost entirely based on a 2002 interview with CNN where Holder stated, correctly, that it was “hard for me to see how members of Al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war” and thus entitled to the “protection of the Geneva Convention.”

He continued:

“One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located,” he told then-CNN anchor Paula Zahn. “Under the Geneva Convention…you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.”

Unfortunately, this small glimmer of hope has been dashed during Holder’s first year in office.

In the aftermath of the disastrous handling of the interrogation of the accused Christmas Day bomber, we have learned that it was most probably Eric Holder’s Justice Department that decided to read Umar Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights and try him in federal court, essentially giving him a pretext to stop talking before he could be extensively interrogated.

Asked at a White House Press briefing “who made the decision to try him [Abdulmutallab] in federal court,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied “I believe that decision is made by the Attorney General.”

Having spent months in Yemen, Abdulmutallab could have potentially provided vital intelligence that could have been used to protect the American homeland. But because of DOJ’s decision to Mirandize him, Abdulmutallab initially exercised his right to remain silent after only 50 minutes of interrogation. What an outrage.

Despite White House spin and reports that Abdulmutallab may have started talking again, there is little question that this was an astounding error. And it is not just the Dick Cheneys of the world who think so. No less than our current Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, has said that Abdulmutallab should have been treated as a terrorist detainee instead of as an ordinary criminal.

This decision alone is enough to dismiss Holder. Yet, this is just the most significant error in a long list of serious errors the Attorney General has made during his short tenure.

In April, President Obama authorized the Justice Department to release the enhanced interrogation memos [sometimes erroneously called the “torture memos”] on the recommendation of Attorney General Holder. Calling the release of the memos “unnecessary as a legal matter” and “unsound as a matter of policy,” former CIA Director General Michael Hayden and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the “effect” of the move “will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.”

The two continued by noting that “public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques…”

In August, despite President Obama’s insistence that his administration would look forward not backwards and despite the fact that they had already been previously investigated by career prosecutors, Eric Holder decided to reopen investigations into CIA officers who employed enhanced interrogation techniques. This unnecessary move, which even the president decided to distance himself from, only served to further weaken morale at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

In November, it was Eric Holder who decided that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad would be tried in civilian courts despite the fact that the terrorist kingpin had already declared his intention to plead guilty in a military tribunal. In addition to serving as a propaganda platform for Mohammad, the trial will likely cost huge sums of money to orchestrate and make New York City an even a bigger target for attack than it already is.

All the decisions that have been made by Attorney General Holder and his Justice Department have already damaged America’s security. They rank as some of the Obama administration’s most troubling errors during its first year in the White House. The United States has been ill served by Attorney General Holder. It is time for the president to relieve him of his duties.

Jamie Weinstein holds a master’s degree in the history of international relations from the London School of Economics and is a columnist for The North Star National. He can be reached through his blog at www.JamieWeinstein.com.

Chavez Furiously Backtracking As Venezuela Petro-Economy Deteriorates
by Gus Lubin BusinessInsider.com
January 26, 2010

In anticipation of Thursday’s Carabobo oil field auction, outspoken Marxist president Hugo Chavez quietly pleaded for foreign investment.

“Investment and experience from foreign oil firms is necessary in Venezuela. We need it,” Chavez said, according to Dow Jones.

The statement is a serious turnaround for a government that has nationalized dozens of foreign oil companies in recent years. But they ‘need’ foreign investment because mismanagement is turning the country into just another failed petro-state.

This is also the second instance of Chavez backtracking today.

Chavez reversed a six-year ban on the sale of U.S. dollars by Venezuela’s central bank, in an effort to control the vast amount of money that was leaving the country through unregulated exchange, according to Bloomberg.

He had previously threatened to “burn the hands” of speculators who speculated against the bolivar, Venezuela’s currency.

It’s Nation Profiling Time; And What’s Wrong With That?
By Marc Stockwell-Moniz Chandlers Watch
January 10, 2010

The hypocrisy of liberalism hit a new high last week. The United States government has instituted new policies regarding air travel from certain countries. This of course is tantamount to racial profiling, however there hasn’t been even one hint of opposition to these new rules from the left.

Why has there been no outrage from the left? Is it perhaps these new set of air travel rules were implemented by the Obama administration? The answer is yes. And you can take that answer to the bank of public-opinion. Can you imagine if President Bush had decreed that fourteen nations, not one of them being a “white nation’, e.g. European, were now subject to new security procedures? The left would be in an a total twisted uproar. Of the fourteen nations, eleven of them are totally Islamic nations, while two nations are roughly half-Islamic and one nation, Cuba, officially atheist.

Political correctness took a hard hit last week. The amazing thing about this profiling hit, is that political correctness was clobbered from the left. Is President Obama waking up even a little bit regarding racial, oh excuse me, I mean nation profiling? This writer hopes he has. And millions upon millions of Americans who depend upon air travel must be some-what encouraged by this action too.

Until political correctness and any form of non-profiling are defeated, the yoke of political correctness will continue to be a heavy weighted-collar around our necks in the attempt to fight the War On Terror. And that includes all forms of non-profiling, regardless if it is an individual or a nation.

Marc Stockwell-Moniz is the official American Historian for ChandlersWatch.com The opinion offered in this article is the sole opinion of the author and not necessarily those of Chandlers Watch (although it probably is.)

Venezuela Slipping Into Socialist/Statist Darkness, Figuratively and Literally
By Tom Blumer NewsBusters.org
January 10, 2010

Four recent stories out of Venezuela each give readers a brief glimpse at how Hugo Chavez’s brand of authoritarian socialism is critically wounding what could be resource-rich, financially prosperous country:

1.January 9, Associated Press — “Venezuela weakens currency for 1st time in 5 years.”
2.January 10, Bloomberg — “Chavez Says He’ll Seize Businesses That Raise Prices.”
3.December 22, AFP — “Chavez announces new discount ‘socialist’ stores.”
4.January 9, AP — “Venezuela faces risk of devastating power collapse.”
Collectively, however, they depict a country in the early stages of a headlong free-fall into Cuban-style financial ruin. No U.S. establishment media enterprise appears interested in making the accelerating decays in financial well-being and personal freedom in that country understandable to the average person.

AP’s headline at the first item noted seems designed to avoid attention. This isn’t a mere “weakening” of the currency; instead, it’s a bizarre bi-level devaluation of up to 50%

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz0cGAr01P9

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Human Events
January 5, 2010

Had he not proven incompetent to detonate his lap bomb, Umar Farouk Abdulmullatab would have carried off an air massacre to rival Lockerbie. We would all have ended Christmas day watching TV footage of 300 mangled bodies being picked up around Detroit.

The system breakdown was total. His father had reported to the U.S. embassy that Umar had gone extremist, disowned his family and vanished in Yemen. Though the 23-year-old Nigerian had been put on a U.S. terrorist watch list and denied a visa to enter Britain, his U.S. visa was not revoked.

Though he had been in Yemen for months, bought his plane ticket in cash and boarded without luggage, he was neither red-flagged nor screened or body-searched.

We were spared the horrible consequences of our incompetence, only because of his incompetence. The episode raises questions not only about airline security, but about how we are fighting the real war we are in.

Defeating al Qaeda calls for ways and means different from dealing with domestic crime families like the Gottis or Gambinos.

Organized crime is the province of police and prosecutors.

Crime bosses are read their rights and granted access to a lawyer. They come into court in suits to undergo a fair and equal contest to ascertain guilt or innocence. If acquitted, they walk free.

This 23-year-old Nigerian is an enemy combatant whose way of war is mass murder. Under the rules of war, he may be shot. The immediate imperative was not to read him his Miranda rights or to phone Ron Kuby. It was to subject Abdulmullatab to intense and hostile interrogation so that U.S. forces can quickly find, fix, attack and kill his comrades and camp followers.

Unlike the war on crime, or the war on drugs, this is not a metaphorical war. There is no presumption of innocence, rather a presumption that Umar is a terrorist and did not act alone.

The questions he should have been asked as soon as he was pulled off the plane and hauled to a prison hospital are these:

Who taught you to detonate a bomb? Who sewed the underwear in which you concealed the components? Who was with you in Yemen? What are the names of those you trained with? Who helped you get on that plane? Who did you stay with on your visits to the U.S.? Who gave you cash? Who paid your bills? Where is your computer? And if you want pain medicine for those burns, you will tell us.

A question arises after the lackadaisical way the administration first dealt with this potential horror. Are we governed by serious people? A second question is raised by the ideological journey of this 23-year-old from devout Muslim to extremist to terrorist, and by his sojourn from Nigeria to London to Yemen to America.

In Omar Bradley’s comment on Korea, are we fighting the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy?

Obama just ordered 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Yet, even if Gens. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal pull it off and pacify Kandahar, how does that protect the American homeland from suicide bombers hell-bent on blowing up airliners?

How does turning the tide in Afghanistan stop radical Muslim youth in Africa or Arabia from being trained to board planes with bombs and blow them up over the Atlantic? How do 130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq make us more safe from an al Qaeda that has moved into Waziristan, Baluchistan, Yemen, Somalia and North Africa?

The Sept. 11 massacre may have been decided upon in Afghanistan. But the perpetrators were Saudis and Egyptians who plotted, planned and trained in Germany, Boston, Delray Beach and Northern Virginia.

How has occupying two nations at a cost of 5,000 dead, 35,000 wounded and a trillion dollars made us safer from an enemy that more resembles the Apache of Geronimo than the panzers of Rommel?

If protection of the homeland against another Sept. 11 is the goal of this war, how relevant to that goal is the building of clinics and schools in Kabul and keeping the Taliban at bay in Helmand?

Are we fighting other people’s wars, rather than our own war?

We Americans are today widely hated in the Arab and Islamic world by scores of millions, out of whom al Qaeda need but recruit a few hundred suicide bombers to wreak havoc on our country.

Does having 200,000 U.S. troops in their part of the world, fighting and killing Muslims, make our country more secure than defending our borders, keeping radicals out, running al Qaeda down, and tracking and killing them where they are?

To win the war we are in, we have to fight the war we are in, not the war we prefer to fight because no one else is so good at it.

The Heritage Foundation
by Sally McNamara
Backgrounder #2347

Abstract: President Barack Obama recently announced a new strategy to lead the 43-nation NATO International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan to victory. Upon the request of General Stanley McChrystal, President Obama has ordered the deployment of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan in the coming months. He also announced the drawdown of U.S. troops beginning in July 2011. It is vital that America’s NATO partners also step up to the plate by providing additional combat troops, equipment, and political support for General McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy. For too long, ISAF has been short-changed militarily and politically by Continental Europe. The United States and the United Kingdom have been forced to shoulder an unfair share of the burden for the mission in Afghanistan, losing disproportionate amounts of blood and treasure.

At the end of August, U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, advised the Obama Administration that the mission in Afghanistan “will likely result in failure”[1] unless the U.S. and NATO implement a new counterinsurgency strategy backed by a significant surge of up to 80,000 additional U.S. troops.[2] Importantly, he noted that, given the right strategy, success in Afghanistan is achievable.[3] Having taken three months to reach a decision, President Barack Obama has announced a surge of 30,000 U.S. troops and has appealed to the NATO allies to contribute additional troops and resources.[4]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Brussels on December 3 to meet with NATO foreign ministers to discuss Europe’s contribution to the new strategy for Afghanistan. A surge of 40,000 troops will give General McChrystal’s strategy a greater chance of succeeding with less risk to the deployed troops. Therefore, it is critical that NATO’s European members send at least 10,000 additional troops together with critical enablers and other resources that General McChrystal identified by as necessary for victory.

With a few honorable exceptions, NATO’s European members–especially France, Germany, Italy, and Spain–have underresourced the U.N.-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan from the start. They have provided too few troops with too many national caveats on their deployments. Furthermore, their support for the civilian component of the comprehensive strategy approved at NATO’s Bucharest summit in 2008 has been woeful, despite a stated eagerness to forgo combat missions in favor of aid and development projects.

At the Bratislava defense ministers’ summit in October, two European NATO members stated that Europe was waiting to see President Obama’s direction before deciding whether to provide additional resources for Afghanistan.[5] President Obama’s limited resourcing of General McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy means that additional European contributions will likely be decisive to the war effort. The European commitment to Afghanistan must be increased in several ways if General McChrystal is to have a realistic chance of succeeding. These contributions will need to include additional combat troops, police trainers, embedded training teams, and helicopters.

The Gap Between NATO’s Talk and Actions

President Obama came to power pledging that his cooperation and consultation with America’s allies would be greater than his predecessor’s.[6] However, he has quickly found that President George W. Bush’s inability to secure greater Continental European contributions to the mission in Afghanistan was not because of his supposed “unilateralism,” but because of Europe’s lack of political will to fight long wars abroad. In spite of President Obama’s high personal approval ratings among Europeans, he did not receive the much-needed additional commitment of combat troops at the Strasbourg-Kehl summit in April, and he did not unify the alliance around his “spring surge” strategy for Afghanistan.[7]

Stung and frustrated by NATO’s lack of commitment, President Obama has excluded the NATO allies almost entirely from his decision on General McChrystal’s strategy for Afghanistan. British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth recently took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the President for his lack of decisiveness on this matter.[8]

Despite the change in tone and style from his predecessor, President Obama has experienced exactly the same conspiracy of reluctance that President Bush faced in seeking more equitable burden sharing for the Afghanistan mission. Since October 2006, when NATO assumed full responsibility for Afghanistan’s security, the U.S. has repeatedly attempted to secure greater European input for both military and civilian operations in Afghanistan. The contributing nations have had ample opportunity to make their voices heard through the countless NATO summits, ministerial meetings, bilateral discussions, strategy sessions, speeches, conferences, and compacts.

It is therefore disingenuous to attribute the problems that ISAF is experiencing in Afghanistan to too few opportunities for the allies to consult. Rather, NATO has repeatedly agreed to strategies for Afghanistan but then failed to provide adequate resources. The comprehensive approach, which was endorsed at the heads-of-state level in Bucharest in April 2008, is a striking example of this disconnect.[9] The alliance endorsed a strategy for a greater civilian-military footprint in Afghanistan, but after a short-term surge of largely American and British troops to combat the Taliban’s spring offensive, ISAF’s overall strength was almost the same in October as it had been in April. No additional Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) have been created since April 2008.[10]

At the October 2009 defense ministerial summit in Slovakia, NATO endorsed General McChrystal’s assessment of the mission but specifically refused to commit resources toward his recommendations. However, NATO did adopt four priorities that fully underscore General McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy:

1.Protection of the Afghan population;
2.Increasing the size and capacity of the Afghan security forces;
3.Coordinating international and Afghan efforts to improve governance in Afghanistan; and
4.Taking a regional approach to the mission by engaging Afghanistan’s neighbors, particularly Pakistan.[11]
The alliance also stressed the need to better coordinate and fully resource the training of Afghanistan’s security forces through the NATO Training Mission for Afghanistan (NTM-A).[12] However, as with previous tactics and strategies endorsed by NATO, the alliance seems to have adopted the plan without acknowledging the vast resources needed to implement it.

Location of NATO Forces

At present, ISAF’s total strength of 71,030 personnel is split unevenly among regional command centers in Kabul (the capital), Kandahar in the South, Herat in the West, Mazar-e-Sharif in the North, and Bagram in the East.[13] By a large margin, the South and East are the most volatile areas of Afghanistan, accounting for the vast majority of insurgent attacks. Helmand, Kandahar, Pakitka, Ghazni, Zabol, Uruzgan, and Khost average the greatest number of daily insurgent attacks.[14]

The Dutch, British, and Canadians rotate lead nation status for the 36,500-man deployment in southern Afghanistan, supported by American, Australian, Bulgarian, Polish, Estonian, Danish, Romanian, and Slovakian deployments. The United States acts as the lead nation for the 18,300-man deployment in eastern Afghanistan, supported by the Czechs and New Zealanders.

By contrast, the North and the capital have been largely stabilized, accounting for the fewest security incidents, although instability has started to creep into some areas in these regions, such as Kunduz and Wardak. Western Afghanistan experiences greater numbers of insurgent-initiated attacks than the North, but far fewer than the South.[15]

Germany leads the 5,700-man Mazar-e-Sharif deployment in the North, supported by Swedish, Hungarian, and Norwegian troops. Italy leads the 4,400-man Herat deployment, supported by Spanish, American, and Lithuanian troops, and France rotates leadership of the 6,130-man Kabul deployment with Turkey and Italy.

The 43,800 troops from the U.S. and U.K. comprise more than 60 percent of the total ISAF contingent. By year’s end, the U.S. will have 68,000 troops deployed, operating either under ISAF command or as part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom.[16] The additional 30,000 troops announced by President Obama will further increase the American military footprint in Afghanistan as they steadily insert into theater through 2010.

In contrast, the “big four” Continental powers– France, Germany, Italy, and Spain–provide just 11,255 troops combined. Excluding the U.K., the remaining 20 NATO-EU members provide 20,083 troops.

Troop Losses. The location tends to determine the nature of a nation’s deployment. For example, British, Canadian, and Dutch troops in Helmand and Kandahar have faced some of the fiercest fighting of the entire campaign, while German troops in the northern provinces undertake a largely peacekeeping role. This is reflected in the wildly uneven troop losses among the ISAF nations.

The U.K. has lost more men–235 soldiers killed, almost exclusively in Helmand–than all other NATO-EU members combined. In comparison, 210 Czech, Danish, Estonian, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish servicemen have died in Afghanistan. In Helmand and Kandahar alone, 547 troops have died, primarily British (209), Americans (194), Canadians (104), and Danes (24).[17] (See Table 1.)

Caveats. Although NATO closely guards the comprehensive list of national caveats on deployments, the operational and maneuverability limits placed on troops and equipment is a significant problem for ISAF commanders. These limits on ground forces and what they can do adversely affect operations in Afghanistan.

In a press conference in 2006, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) General James Jones said that there were 102 national restrictions on the deployments in Afghanistan.[18] Testifying before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2009, current SACEUR Admiral James Stavridis stated that there are 69 caveats.[19] Troops from countries with few or no national caveats–including Denmark, Poland, the U.K., and the U.S.–are largely based in the South. Germany, Italy, Spain, and Turkey are reportedly among the worst offenders.[20] Notable caveats include the following:

•German troops are restricted to conducting operations in northern Afghanistan before nighttime and never more than two hours away from a well-equipped hospital;[21]
•Turkish troops are restricted to Kabul;[22]
•Southern European troops are barred from fighting in snow;
•Troops of one unidentified member country are required to consult their national government before deploying within one kilometer of the Pakistani border; and
•One unidentified member country prohibits troops from other nations from flying in its aircraft.[23]
A further problem with caveats is that they are occasionally unofficial, unwritten, and not declared until an operation is underway.[24]

What Europe Can and Should Do

In his report to President Obama and to NATO three months ago, General McChrystal stipulated that the U.S. and NATO have a 12-month window of opportunity to turn around the worsening situation in Afghanistan and defeat the insurgencies.[25] In a special address to the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London in October, he stated: “We need to reverse the current trends and time does matter. Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely.”[26]

One of the primary reasons for the lack of progress since 2001 is the underresourcing of operations.[27]

With just nine months remaining on General McChrystal’s timetable, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen will be a key player in ensuring additional European commitments for the mission in Afghanistan. As President Obama stated in outlining his strategy for Afghanistan, “this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war.”[28]

Secretary General Rasmussen needs to continue his informal “direct diplomacy” tour of the allies. He has already visited Budapest, Ljubljana, London, Berlin, Oslo, and Bratislava in recent weeks, pressing individual nations on what resources they can and will deploy to Afghanistan. As the former prime minister of a geographically small country who committed combat troops to both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, Secretary General Rasmussen can speak with authority to national leaders about domestic political pressures and the necessity of winning this war.

Rasmussen and Obama must continue to reinforce the message that the burden for Afghanistan is not one that the United States can or will shoulder alone. As U.N. Special Representative for Afghanistan Kai Eide stated bluntly at the NATO summit in Bratislava, “[A]dditional international troops are required…. [T]his can not be a U.S. only enterprise. There has to be contribution from other troop contributors, and in particular the Europeans.”[29]

Political Will. There is a sense of despondency over troop losses among Europeans, matched with a pervasive sense that the war cannot be won. European leaders need to counter the public perception that it is an unwinnable war of choice and help to shape public opinion in favor of bolstering NATO troop levels.

European officials could more easily convince their publics about the necessity of fighting in Afghanistan if President Obama would make an unequivocal statement on European soil about the stakes of winning in Afghanistan. President Obama has visited Europe multiple times since his election, as have Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, and other senior officials. Now is the time for the Administration to leverage its strong public diplomacy investment and realize tangible gains in the form of troops, equipment, money, and political support from Europe for the mission in Afghanistan.

The Obama Administration’s long debate about the new strategy for the war has already reduced the President’s credibility among the NATO allies. For example, while waiting for the results of his long deliberations on General McChrystal’s recommendations, the alliance postponed a major force generation conference on Afghanistan planned for November.[30] It is important for President Obama to reverse the impression, growing among the allies, that he lacks the commitment to “finish the job.”[31]

Specifically, in December, President Obama should give a major speech in London solely on the issue of Afghanistan. President Obama is already scheduled to be in Copenhagen and Oslo in early December and should add London to his itinerary because the U.K. is the largest European contributor of troops to Afghanistan. President Obama should call on other NATO members to follow the example of Britain, which has deployed 9,000 combat troops without national caveats. He should also lay out the risks of failure in Afghanistan, both for international security and for the future of NATO.

Combat Troops. In his report, General McChrystal stipulated that 40,000-60,000 troops would give his strategy a medium chance of success and that 60,000-80,000 additional troops would maximize his strategy’s chance for success as well as reduce the risks to NATO forces. The deployment of just 30,000 U.S. troops restricts the sheer geographical area that can be covered and, unless backfilled by other NATO allies, will fail to achieve a key NATO priority: protection of Afghan civilians.[32] A true counterinsurgency strategy can be implemented only with a higher troop-to-civilian ratio. Having endorsed General McChrystal’s assessment at the October ministerial meeting, NATO has already given its political blessing to the strategy, but NATO’s European members need to work with the United States to fully resource General McChrystal’s recommendations.

Removing national caveats would provide some reinforcements to hotspots for troops already deployed in Afghanistan. For example, French troops based in Kabul could be moved further into the East. But additional troops are needed. Secretary General Rasmussen recently stated that he expects nations to pledge “substantially more forces” to Afghanistan.[33] Slovakia has already announced that it intends to double its 246-man contingent.[34] The U.K. will also increase its large deployment by 500 troops as well as 500 additional special forces.[35] However, Europe needs to substantially boost its contribution, above the 5,000 troops that Secretary General Rasmussen expects to announce later this month.[36]

Almost all nations in the alliance have additional combat forces that could be deployed to Afghanistan–especially France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Turkey. Albania and Croatia also have spare capacity to boost their relatively modest deployments, which would demonstrate their willingness as the newest members of the alliance to provide as well as to consume security.[37]

In addition to providing combat forces, these nations should supply critical enablers to increase the efficacy and flexibility of these troops where possible. Their deployments should be announced and arranged sooner rather than later.

President Obama and Secretary General Rasmussen should make it clear that France and Germany’s provisional announcement that they will wait until January to consider additional troop requests is unacceptable, especially in light of General McChrystal’s pressing timeline for action.[38] Secretary Clinton should make it a top priority to press Berlin and Paris on this matter during her visit to Brussels and hold French President Nicolas Sarkozy to his statement that this strategy gives “new momentum” to ISAF’s mission in Afghanistan.[39]

Considering the vital need for additional European combat troops in Afghanistan, the Netherlands should reconsider its planned withdrawal of forces on December 1, 2010. The Dutch have led the ISAF mission in Uruzgan, the province directly north of Kandahar, and have achieved notable successes working alongside Australian troops and local Afghan leaders. Since 2006, 16 Dutch soldiers and nine Australian servicemen have given their lives in Uruzgan.[40] Defense Minister Eimert Van Middelkoop is currently considering whether to withdraw the entire 1,450-man deployment–in accordance with a recent motion by the Dutch Parliament–or to move the troops to another part of the country.[41] It makes little sense to withdraw operationally tested soldiers with local knowledge, who have made significant progress and have earned the trust of local people, and move them to an unfamiliar province for reasons of domestic politically expediency.

Central and Eastern Europe. It remains to be seen whether the Obama Administration has any credibility to seek additional combat troops from Poland and the Czech Republic after its shameful decision to abandon the missile defense deal with Warsaw and Prague. This problem extends to the Baltic nations, which will have difficulty committing significant defense resources to Afghanistan when they have little confidence in the alliance’s Article V guarantees. For example, NATO has still not formally responded to Russia’s recent simulation of a nuclear attack on Poland.[42]

Central and Eastern Europe have long sought more than mere reassurances about the indivisibility of transatlantic security but have failed to secure tangible deliverables on this goal, such as contingency planning or the permanent stationing of U.S. troops in the region. President Obama’s apparent willingness to trade away the “third site” missile defense installations at Moscow’s behest has exacerbated this nervousness and discouraged greater participation in the American-led operation in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, this provides an opportunity for Poland and the Czech Republic to demonstrate their commitment to NATO’s first operation under Article V. As NATO continues the negotiations for its new strategic concept, Warsaw and Prague will have greater authority to emphasize the importance of contingency planning for Article V operations if they have invested in the Article V operation in Afghanistan. Poland has provisionally indicated that it will send several hundred additional troops to Afghanistan and should be partnered by other leading nations in the region.[43]

Civil and Military Trainers. There is widespread agreement among the allies that the Afghan government needs the capacity and capability to provide more of its own security. The creation of a functional, non-corrupt security apparatus is essential for a successful counterinsurgency strategy and the long-term creation of an Afghan identity.

President Obama has emphasized General McChrystal’s recommendation that Afghanistan’s National Security Force (ANSF) should number 400,000, consisting of a 240,000-man Afghan army and a 160,000-man national police force.[44] Within the next year, General McChrystal aims to expand the Afghan National Army (ANA) from 94,000 to 134,000.[45] Considering his warning that the window of opportunity to defeat the insurgency is now just nine months, this will require an expeditious increase in the training of Afghanistan’s security forces.

Afghan National Army. NATO currently has 59 Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams (OMLTs), each composed of 13-30 personnel, that train and mentor Afghan troops and accompany ANA trainees on missions. To reach existing projections of a 94,000-man ANA, nine more OMLTs are needed. Achieving General McChrystal’s recommendation of a 134,000-man ANA by the end of 2010 will require 103 OMLTs.[46]

A number of Continental countries have the capacity to staff additional OMLTs for Afghanistan, especially those members of the alliance that have comparably small deployments, including Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Slovenia, and Turkey. Increased OMLT training and mentoring of the ANA should be complemented by the provision of modern equipment as the ANA seeks to upgrade its kit and weapons.

Afghan National Police. When the European Union launched its police training mission in Afghanistan in June 2007, NATO had high hopes that the EU would shoulder a large portion of the burden for the creation of a viable, non-corrupt Afghan police force. A fully functional police force is also a critical element of General McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy. However, the European Union has not been a serious player in training the Afghan National Police (ANP), nor will it be in the future unless major changes are implemented. As noted by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the EU Police Mission in Afghanistan is too small, underfunded, slow to deploy, inflexible, and largely restricted to Kabul.[47]

NATO members should therefore coordinate their efforts through the NATO Training Mission for Afghanistan, which was announced at the Strasbourg-Kehl Summit in April. The NTM-A will bring together the various training programs for both the ANA and ANP and will be led by a single commander, who is also responsible for the U.S.-led Combined Security Transition Command– Afghanistan.[48]