Articles tag:www.americanthinker.com,2010-08-31:/articles//2 2013-06-19T13:15:04Z Movable Type Pro 5.01 The Self-Delusion of the American Political Establishment tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90017 2013-06-20T05:04:11Z 2013-06-19T13:15:04Z The self-deluded fools in the American Political Establishment refuse to comprehend the long-term peril the country faces Thomas Lifson Washington D.C. is not just a city of monuments, museums and millions of square feet of buildings housing a preponderance of left-leaning overpaid bureaucrats complaining about how hard they work, it is also the home of the American Political Establishment (APE).  This monolithic body has evolved over the past eighty years as an ever increasing amount of political power once delegated to the states and the people has been seized by the federal government.  Within this entity are two branches: the senior partner -- the Democratic Establishment -- and the junior partner -- the Republican Establishment.

There are no offices on Connecticut Avenue in Washington with signs reading "The Republican Establishment" or the "The Democratic Establishment"; rather both are an amalgam of like-minded groups with one common interest: the control of the government purse-strings and the attendant influence and ego-gratification that brings about.

These establishments are made up of the following: 

1) many of the current members of Congress who have served more than two terms and as a result have become dependent on the income, perquisites and notoriety in holding elected office;

2) a vast cadre of retired national office holders whose livelihood as lobbyists and political appointees as well their narcissistic needs depends upon fealty to Party and access to government largesse;

3) the majority of the media, including pundits, editors, writers and television news personalities based in Washington and New York whose proximity to power and access is vital to their continued standard of living and social status;  

4) numerous think-tanks, law firms and members thereof who are waiting to latch on to the next Republican or Democrat administration for employment and ego-gratification;

5) the reliable deep pocket political contributors, crony capitalists and political consultants whose future is irrevocably tied to the political machinery of either party.

Therefore the overriding interest of this cabal has been and continues to not only be their narcissism and wealth accumulation but the amassing of power through the control of the income, borrowing and spending by the Federal Government. 

For many decades it has been tacitly understood among those in both party hierarchies the role that each play in the kabuki theatre that is the American Political Establishment.  For the Democrats, it has been to be the presumptive champion of the downtrodden and disenfranchised, and for the Republicans to be the promoters of free enterprise as an unending and growing source of income for the state, while maintaining some semblance of mitigating government spending.  Both actors have been content in the knowledge that each party would at some point have control of various levers of government be it the White House or one or both Houses of Congress.

For many years, as the junior partner, the Republican Establishment was satisfied in being a permanent minority in Congress as long as they could win the presidency upon occasion and join with the Democrats in feeding from the government trough.  Thus, with the exception of Ronald Reagan and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, the Republican Establishment has been content since 1952 to merely slow down the big-government policies of the Democrats while publically decrying their tax and spend policies.

This scenario was tolerated and generally ignored as long as the nation was experiencing overwhelming and seemingly endless peace and prosperity.   However, the American Political Establishment's infatuation with the personal attributes of Barack Obama is threatening to undermine the incestuous relationship between the parties.   Rather than examine his philosophical core and determination to transform the nation into a second class economic and societal entity, they chose to ignore it and instead viewed conservatives and the Tea Party movement as the real threat to their existence.

The APE, conditioned to believe that Obama was just another traditional Democrat president, has willingly abetted his near destruction of the economy and society.  However, living among others of similar philosophical bent and income strata in the bubble that is Washington D.C., many still do not see that the earth has begun to move under their feet.   They refuse to acknowledge that Obama and his radical cabal are determined to permanently destroy the Republican Party and complete the makeover of the Democratic Party into a socialist/Marxist entity bent on destroying everyone's individual liberty and standard of living.

The deliberate lies told regarding Benghazi and the willingness of the Obama regime to sacrifice four American for political expediency; the Justice Department's targeting of reporters; the egregious falsehoods about the Fast and Furious debacle; the political persecution of conservative groups by the IRS; and the potential destruction of individual privacy inherent in the massive data collected by the NSA; together with many failed economic and policy initiatives, should have sent off alarm bells among members of the Establishment.  It has not; in fact they are proceeding as if it were business as usual.

The mad dash to pass an immigration bill immediately legitimizing 11 to 20 million people illegally in the country is being proposed by the APE as a means of insuring their continued existence.   This would be accomplished by the increase in the voting population of those favoring an ever-expanding government while concurrently diminishing the influence of conservatives or the Tea Party movement.   That the impact on the middle class or low wage workers will be devastating in an already shrinking economy with unsustainable social spending is immaterial; the Establishment believes their future will be assured.   However, the reality of what this bill does is make permanent an unfettered Democratic Party machine controlled by the radical left.

The only chance this nation has of reversing its headlong dash over the cliff is to dismantle the American Political Establishment.   Many conservatives and rank and file Republicans have rightly railed at the myopia of the Republican Establishment and have thus focused their attention and anger at them.  However, this plays into the hands of the Obama cabal. 

Rather, the attention should be shifted to first, tabling any immigration bill in Congress and second, defeating at all levels anyone running for office as a Democrat in 2014 or 2016.  The Democratic Party is now fully in the thrall of Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers who control the purse-strings of the Party and thus who receives campaign funding.   All those running as Democrats are, in reality, enablers in furthering the aims of the far-left to destroy this nation as founded.

While it is important who the Republicans nominate to run for office in 2014 and 2016, it is monumentally more important that the Democratic opposition be defeated.  At this critical juncture in American history it is essentially immaterial who the Republican candidates are--they must be victorious.   The process of weeding out those Republicans not committed to conservative principles can begin later.   It will be far easier to alter the landscape in a Party whose base is overwhelmingly conservative and libertarian and where there are already a multitude of like-minded office holders.

The self-deluded fools in the American Political Establishment refuse to comprehend the long-term peril the country faces as well as the reality that the tactics of the Obama Regime are no different than those of Hitler or Mussolini in the early years of their dictatorship.   That entity must be, therefore, be dismantled.

]]> Will the Real Traitor Please Stand Up? tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90036 2013-06-20T05:04:10Z 2013-06-19T21:05:35Z It all hinges on who's lying, and so far, it ain't Snowden. J.R. Dunn Okay, who is the real traitor? Is Edward Snowden a heroic whistleblower or a traitor? Well, maybe Snowden is a bit of both. He is both a hero and a traitor, arising from different aspects of his dramatic actions. Snowden was a computer whiz and former Booz Allen contract employee handling secret work for the National Security Agency (NSA). If Snowden crosses over to revealing real substantive secrets to China and Russia, obviously that will be a horse of a different color.

But is another traitor Gen. Keith B. Alexander, Chief of the NSA, who testified before Congress on June 18? Gen. Alexander swore to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Gen. Alexander shredded the Constitution and then deceived the U.S. Congress and the public about it on June 18.

On June 18, the NSA Director told us that "these programs" stopped specific threats of terrorism. Approximately 50 acts of terrorism were prevented. Whoa, there, cowboy! Yellow penalty flag on the field!

We're not talking about "these programs" -- but about one program in particular. Obviously, there are some NSA programs that are appropriate. Some NSA programs do exist that certainly helped stop terrorism. If you didn't catch that dishonest scam, you need to sharpen your bureaucracy recognition skills.

Alexander lumped together appropriate and effective NSA programs with inappropriately, offensively, and stupidly collecting all telephone calls of all American citizens indiscriminately. The NSA dog and pony show (Alexander brought a supporting cast of characters) tried to deceive Congress and the American people in order to justify the unconstitutional and inappropriate NSA surveillance that Edward Snowden revealed.

In effect, Alexander is arguing that anything and everything the NSA wants to do has to be accepted and supported, if there is something somewhere that the NSA does that helps keep the country safe. Everything goes. We are not allowed to make a distinction between some NSA activities which are more offensive than others.

Alexander's team offered us a burlesque fan-dance striptease in the hearing. While saying they can't bare all, they tried to show enough leg in between the moving fans to keep the customers interested and the money flowing. Yet the examples prove how unconstitutional the NSA's intrusions into our privacy really are.

Every striptease glimpse the NSA and FBI offered underscored why they are scoundrels: They gave examples of international telephone calls across borders. Yet the surveillance program that Snowden exposed monitors purely domestic phone calls wholly within the United States.

They described situations in which there is probable cause to believe that a person is involved in terrorism, or talking to a known terrorist (across borders). Yet the surveillance Snowden exposed occurs without any probable cause. The NSA is snooping on everyone indiscriminately. So the glimpses they gave us were not a pretty sight. If there were probable cause, then there wouldn't be a controversy.

A little old lady caller to C-SPAN asked the killer question: Have there been any prosecutions if the NSA detected and stopped 50 terrorist plots? You know the answer. Further, all of this highlights the difference between Obama and Bush. Bush's activities -- as far as we know -- only involved international phone calls across our borders and only focused on specific, identifiable individuals under suspicion. Obama's Administration is targeting the entire U.S. population (at least those with telephones).

President Barack Obama, leading student of Clintonian double-speak, tells us that we need to strike a balance between our privacy and keeping the country safe. We already struck that balance. It's called the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Our Founders struck a balance between privacy and national safety and protection from crime. The Fourth Amendment speaks eloquently for itself:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But Obama plays an old Clinton trick. When your violation of a rule is exposed, change the subject and demand a conversation about developing a new, perfect rule. Ignore the fact that you violated the existing rule, by talking about what the perfect rule might be.

Some are trying to cry "Look over there! A cloud shaped like a bunny!" to distract people from the real issues. Do you have privacy rights in telephone call data, since that data belongs to the telephone company?

Well, is your social security number private? Heck, yeah! But your social security number is issued to you by the U.S. Government, by the Social Security Administration. Yet it is very clear in the law that your SSN is private information that you have a right to have protected.

Then on June 18 Alexander joined James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, in committing perjury in a Congressional hearing before our very eyes. Snowden claimed that NSA technicians -- like him -- can listen in to anyone's telephone conversations any time they want. He announced this in his now-notorious news media interview from a Hong Kong hotel.

Yet on June 18, Gen. Alexander denied in the Congressional hearing that NSA staff can listen in on phone calls. Or did he? The Obama Administration is answering that question in terms of what is legally permitted -- not what is actually possible.

"You got the right answer to the wrong question!" legal consultant Norm ("Storm") Bradford loves to bellow. Notice the shell game: Snowden didn't say it was legally permitted. Snowden said he could do it -- technically (while he still worked as an NSA contractor). In response, the administration says it isn't legally allowed. They are not talking about whether it is technically possible.

It's a "Non-Denial Denial" perfected by the Clinton Administration. They are answering a question different from the one being asked. Such evasion can actually convince us that they have something to hide, that they are in fact guilty.

But then when pushed to the line, Alexander told a whopper, which snuck past most observers: When asked if it is technically possible, Alexander answered no. But let's recall that James Clapper told a similar flat-out lie to Congress on March 12, 2013, when he said the NSA isn't doing what Snowden now revealed that it is in fact doing.

On the one hand, they tell us, the NSA won't listen in to the content of telephone calls without a specific court order. So we know they can listen in to the substance of the phone call. But on June 18, Alexander said they are technically unable to listen in to the content of telephone calls. If you believe that, you probably have never heard of the Federalist Papers.

The NSA and the Administration admit that if they get a court order, they are allowed to listen to the content of telephone calls. So it is possible. What Snowden says is clearly true. If the NSA got a court order, of course they are technically capable of listening in. So what's to stop an NSA technician -- like Snowden -- willing to ignore the law from listening in on anyone he wants?

Many say Snowden helped our enemies. Hogwash. Anyone engaged in terrorism, espionage, or crime already knew that the government can get a warrant -- based on probable cause -- to wiretap their phones and even plant a hidden microphone. This changes nothing for people engaged in "probable cause" eligible behavior. And, they will never know if the government is on to them.

So is Snowden a scoundrel or a political savior? When faced with the same violation of the U.S. Constitution, Edward Snowden chose the Constitution over his job and his life. Gen. Alexander chose his job over the Constitution. This is why Snowden inspires (hesitant) admiration. But perhaps there are no angels in this story.

]]> The Other Court-Packing Scandal tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90052 2013-06-20T05:04:00Z 2013-06-19T23:14:59Z The Obama administration's many scandals are becoming nearly impossible to keep track of -- but here is yet another that should not fall between the cracks. Drew Belsky Conservatives have recently woken up to President Obama's attempt to pack the D.C. Circuit court of appeals with liberal judges.  What little attention the media has dedicated to court packing has entirely revolved around that court.  While it is understandable that the media is focused on the D.C. Circuit, one of the most prestigious courts in the country, it is a mistake to ignore the President's even more outrageous attempt to pack another court with sympathetic judges. 

The United States Court of Federal Claims is a specialty court located just across the street from the White House.  The Court serves an important function: it adjudicates claims for monetary damages, including takings claims, brought against the United States government.  The first thing one notices upon entering the courthouse is President Lincoln's quote -- "It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself in favor of citizens as it is to administer the same between private individuals" -- emblazoned on the wall.  The court has often been referred to as "the conscience of the federal government" because, in some instances, it is all that stands between a citizen and unfair treatment at the hands of the government.

This court's mission is more critical than ever in light of the rapid growth in the size and intrusiveness of government power under President Obama -- and unless Senate Republicans object, its character is going to move far to the left in a few weeks. 

Unlike judges on other federal courts, who serve for life, judges on the Court of Federal Claims are initially appointed for a fifteen-year term.  Any judge who is not reappointed for a second term may elect to continue serving as a senior judge and to receive his full salary for the rest of his life.  The one caveat to this generous rule is that the chief judge may call on any such judge to continue hearing cases until the judge meets certain criteria, based on age and years of service, that entitle him to fully retire with pay.

Eight senior judges currently sit on the Court of Federal Claims.  All eight were appointed by Republican presidents.

Senior judges serve at the discretion of the chief judge.  Last year, Chief Judge Emily Hewitt, a Clinton appointee who was elevated to chief by President Obama, sent a letter to the Administrative Office indicating that she would no longer require seven of the eight Republican appointed Senior Judges to hear cases.  These seven judges, including the extremely well-regarded Loren Smith, do not want to retire -- they are ready and able to continue hearing cases -- but the chief judge is forcing them into retirement due to an alleged dearth of cases.  These judges will continue to receive their full salaries for the rest of their lives, but they will no longer contribute any work, despite their desire to do so.

These dismissals might make sense if there truly were not enough cases for all of the judges.  But President Obama recently nominated two new judges to serve on the Court of Federal Claims, and five more vacancies will be created over the next few months. 

If Chief Judge Hewitt was warranted in her forcible retirements, there is no conceivable reason why the president should nominate (or the Senate should confirm) two new judges to the court.  At best, this confluence of events results in needless expense as two new judges' (and their law clerks') salaries are unnecessarily added to the government's payroll.  The more likely explanation is that this is a transparently political effort to forcibly retire judges in order to make room for Obama appointees, despite the fact that doing so will cost the taxpayers more money and rob the court of decades of experience and excellence.

It is admirable that people have started to pay attention to the D.C. Circuit court-packing scandal, but they should be careful not to let this additional scandal fall through the cracks.  These judges have faithfully served the American people for many years and are eager to continue their service.  They deserve better than to be tossed aside for political reasons.

]]> Critical Thinking about Climate Change tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90007 2013-06-20T05:04:00Z 2013-06-20T10:52:00Z How to make a progressive educator's head explode. Thomas Lifson Getting students to "think critically" has been a serious effort by educators for quite some time.  Of course time after time we've seen that in practice the critical thinking desired critically questions traditional and conservative positions.  But, if critical thinking is honestly what instructors are striving for, why not expand student thinking by challenging students to apply the technique in new, practical ways?

As a life-long atmospheric and environmental scientist and long-time college-science educator, I am constantly bombarded with material from a variety of sources, including many environmental groups.  Take, for instance, what can be labeled "sales" literature that I recently received from the Environmental Defense Fund.  The mailing contained a small double-sided poster that was titled "EXTREME WEATHER: THE CONSEQUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE" on the one side and "TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE" on the other side.  I will focus only on the "extreme weather" side here as an example for effective pedagogy.

What if a teacher were to display the Extreme Weather poster in the classroom and ask students to carefully consider its contents?  The poster contains 6 text boxes, each describing a consequence of climate change:  Wildfires, Extreme Heat, Storms, Droughts, Flooding, and Swelling Oceans.  Take the contents of the Storms box, for instance.  It claims:

"Scientists have warned that climate change could bring stronger, more destructive storms.  Superstorm Sandy --  the largest tropical storm on record -- brought those predictions crashing down on the Eastern U.S. on October 29, 2012.  Responsible for at least 147 fatalities, 8.5 million people without electricity and $50 billion in damages, Superstorm Sandy's reign of terror extended inland to the shores of Lake Michigan and northward to Nova Scotia, Canada." [Emphasis in original.]

Each sentence can be evaluated literarily and scientifically.

As literature, students could be challenged to examine the style, flow, and tone of the message.  The highlighted first sentence could be assessed for its real substance:  Who are these "scientists" who have such a dire warning?  How many are we talking about, 2, 10, every scientist?  Is the statement too nebulous to even have serious meaning, regardless of the one example of Sandy that follows?   Furthermore, phrases like "crashing down" and "reign of terror" could be parsed for their effect on eliciting deep emotions and inciting readers to "doing something to save the planet."

From the science perspective, how is "stronger" and "more destructive" actually determined, including considering measurement techniques, availability of historic records, increased population and property development, and the like?  Further, what is meant by "largest tropical storm on record"?  In reality, how extensive and extreme was the storm's "reign of terror"?  In Pittsburgh, for example, the storm's "fury" was relatively light with some high winds and precipitation.  Sandy did become a Hurricane, a category 3 over Cuba, but only a category 1 (the lowest level) off the east coast of the U.S.  Does the fact of this low designation give some scope to the storm's overall intensity?

In addition, at the bottom of the poster we see the claim: "Global Warming: More Daily Record Highs in U.S. Than Record Lows."  Starting (conveniently) with the 1950s and then jumping to 2009 through 2012, pie charts display proof of this claim.  Here students can be encouraged to put statistical skills into play.  How does the selection of data and time periods affect results and conclusions?  Is the fact that the contiguous U.S. is less than two percent of the earth's surface important to consider?  And, more generally, how are statistics used to enlighten or darken reality? 

These are but a few suggestions for use in critical thinking in the classroom.  The danger in this poster-checking exercise, from a "progressive" educator's point-of-view, is that students who critically evaluate eco-activist pulp may end up not buying what the environmentalists are selling.  And that kind of thinking truly is critical.

(Note that excellent resources for teachers and students to access to effectively counter some of the "facts" of the Extreme Weather poster can be found at www.ICECAP.us and www.drroyspencer.com and, in particular, this presentation by Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville: www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/.)

Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and supporter of the Cornwall Alliance.  His new book is In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic's Guide to Climate Science (Telescope Books, 2012).

]]> The Real Threat from Comprehensive Immigration Reform tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90021 2013-06-20T05:03:50Z 2013-06-19T01:08:03Z There's an aspect of this gigantic poison pill that has not received nearly enough attention. Drew Belsky Greg Gutfeld, cohost of The Five and resident wit at Fox News, thinks that the scandals swirling around D.C. right now are so bad that Congress should be grounded for a year.  That's right -- no new laws, no initiatives, no nothin' until Congress straightens out what they've already screwed up.  This is a brilliant idea, because after the monster laws shoved down the throats of unwilling Americans for the last five years, America needs a breather.  And this is especially the case with the comprehensive immigration reform bill currently being considered by "the world's [feeblest] deliberative body," the U.S. Senate.

We should be leery about anything "comprehensive."  But supporters of the Senate bill assure us that there will be all manner of safeguards in it and that there will be certain triggers that must be met before the millions of illegal aliens already here can be made citizens.  If you believe that, then read this recent editorial at National Review.  But I'd like to address an aspect of the bill that has received far too little attention, and that's the effect of comprehensive immigration reform on the integrity of our elections.

Under the new immigration bill, the 11,000,000 or so foreigners now here illegally will be "legalized."  And despite having to wait for years to become full citizens, they will nonetheless end up on voter registries across America.  Even though non-citizens can't legally vote in America, they'll be encouraged to register.  And with the Supreme Court's June 17 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal of Arizona Inc., there'll little to stop them.

The upshot of the Court's ruling is that voter registrars can't demand proof that a registrant is a citizen.  Once you get on a registry, you can vote.  When I started writing about election fraud a few years back, there was only one state, Arizona, which made any attempt to verify American citizenship of voter registrants.  And now, that's been dashed to hell by the high court, the SCOTUS, the Supremes...the End of the Line.

I'm sorry to have to report this, but the real purpose of the Senate's immigration bill, the version pushed by Chuck Schumer, is to make voting by illegals possible.  If it weren't, they'd do something about the wide open voter registration systems in America.  No patriot should support any immigration reform bill that does not include measures that would make it "physically" impossible for non-citizens to vote.

On June 18, the lead story on the front page of the wood pulp version of the Kansas City Star dealt with the Court's ruling on Monday.  Posted online the day before by Steve Kraske, the article explored the effect of the Court's ruling on Kansas's new requirement for citizenship verification of new voters.  The article ends thus:

Louis Goseland, a coordinator with the Wichita-based KanVote Coalition, which is working to repeal the Kansas law, said the problem with requiring a birth certificate is that there is hardly any voter fraud to target in Kansas.

He said more people are turned away from casting ballots as a result of the law than there are cases of voter fraud in the state.

"Our main problem is these are solutions in search of a problem," Goseland said. "It's really about making voting more difficult for some people."

This is pathetic; Goseland has no idea of how much voter fraud occurs in Kansas.  If he did, then he would put a number on it and demonstrate how he arrived at that number.  Goseland repeats the standard lie of progressives about election integrity.

The new requirement in Kansas for voter registrants to prove their citizenship is the brainchild of Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state.  Kobach is something of a bête noire for progressives because of his involvement with Arizona.  And as it happens, there were protests outside his Wyandotte County home on Monday.  But none of the reforms by the states, such as photo ID requirements, are going to stop election fraud.  (To learn how to stop it, go here, read the article, and take the links at the bottom.)

The entire purpose of comprehensive immigration reform is to lock in a permanent Democrat majority.  Unable to win on the battlefield of ideas, Democrats want to steal victory by importing recruits -- a new constituency.  That this new constituency will enlarge the underclass is of little importance to Democrats; the important thing is that the imports will vote for the party that hands out the free goodies.

But regardless of whether millions of illegals are able to "come out of the shadows" because of immigration reform, the Supreme Court has just made it easier for them to vote under the current state of affairs.  But even if the Court had upheld the Arizona law, non-citizens would still find it easy to vote under the Senate's immigration bill.

The most recent proposal that successfully found its way into the Constitution was Amendment XXVI -- it took less than four months from passage by the Congress to ratification.  The next (and last) amendment had been passed by Congress almost 203 years before being ratified.  I mention the haste with which the 26th was done because it was a Democrat amendment, and it gave kids the right to vote.  (If they thought they could get away with it, Democrats would extend the franchise to newborns.)

Everything the Democrats do is to increase voter participation -- participation by kids, felons, old folks, folks in comas, illegal aliens, whatever, just vote Democrat.  The integrity of elections is of no concern to them; all they worry about is locking in a permanent majority.  And now, with comprehensive immigration reform, they are attempting to import an electorate.

Under Harry Reid, the U.S. Senate is the worst ever.  Decent GOP senators shouldn't vote for anything pushed by Reid and his ilk unless it is exactly right.  In other words: without comprehensive election reform, comprehensive immigration reform should be summarily rejected.  Unless it can be demonstrated that there will be safeguards that prevent the newly legalized from voting, the Senate immigration bill should die a dog's death.

Regarding election integrity, America is a banana republic, and always has been.  And there is no excuse for it in this high-tech age.  Americans should join together and say to the U.S. Senate: you're grounded.

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.

]]> Iran's President Rouhani: a Nuclear Fig Leaf tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90047 2013-06-20T05:01:44Z 2013-06-19T20:09:01Z This is no time for naiveté about "moderates." Thomas Lifson Naive observers of the recent Iranian presidential election call it a "game-changer." Such optimism warrants a sober assessment of the election, Hassan Rouhani, and the context within which he operates.

An unelected body of 12 Islamic jurists selected eight candidates (after rejecting over 600 for being women, religious minorities, or inadequately zealous). Rouhani, a 64-year old regime loyalist, was the most "moderate" of the final voter options. But he led the crackdown on a 1999 student uprising and helped the regime to advance its nuclear-weapons program.

Had Mir Mousavi, the reformist leader of the 2009 green movement, been released from house arrest and allowed to compete freely against Rouhani, Mousavi would have likely won by epic margins. Rouhani's electoral victory was essentially just a protest vote against Khameini.

Fortunately, the will of the Iranian people was so overwhelming this time that it couldn't be dismissed by Khameini, who in 2009 engineered election results to favor his preferred candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This time, Khameini's survival required acquiescence because (1) much more fraud would have been needed to produce his preferred winner in 2013, (2) far greater global scrutiny and skepticism attended this poll after the 2009 elections, and (3) his regime desperately needed to avoid the unrest produced last time -- particularly after Syria's 2011 uprising demonstrated how quickly and severely things can deteriorate.

But that doesn't transform Rouhani into some kind of Iranian Gorbechov who will or can revamp Iran's entire political system (or even just its nuclear policy). Such a "black swan event" is hardly predicted by Rouhani's past.

Consider the article that he published in the spring 2010 issue of the Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs. Despite the veneer of academic neutrality, Rouhani's worldview is clear: Iran is a model Islamic state that positively impacts the world, and militant hostility toward Israel is good (as is Hezb'allah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization). According to this summary of a May 2012 interview, Rouhani himself noted that nuclear policy won't change with a new president because any policy differences relate only to the pace of Iran's nuclear progress.

When Rouhani was Iran's chief nuclear negotiator under President Mohammad Khatami, he gave a speech in 2004, explaining his approach to the nuclear talks then conducted with the "EU-3" (Britain, France and Germany). Rouhani boasted about playing for time: "While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [nuclear conversion] facility in Isfahan. By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work there."
Rouhani also explained Iran's strategy of forcing the world to accept its nuclear program as a fait accompli: "The world did not want Pakistan to have an atomic bomb or Brazil to have the fuel cycle, but Pakistan built its bomb and Brazil has its fuel cycle, and the world started to work with them. Our problem is that we have not achieved either one, but we are standing at the threshold."

Thus, Rouhani is a nuclear fig leaf. His academic and diplomatic polish could enable him to secure the international legitimacy that eluded his crude and outrageous predecessor. Indeed, if Ahmadinejad  - despite all of his Holocaust denials and threats to destroy Israel - achieved so much nuclear progress, then world powers will be totally impotent with the more palatable Rouhani.

Even if Rouhani wanted to soften Iran's nuclear policy, it is Khameini who decides such matters, and his intransigence is well established (e.g., Khameini banned presidential candidates from later making concessions to the West, and last February vetoed direct talks between Iran and the United States).

Suppose Khameini disappears. The realpolitik considerations guiding the Iranian regime would remain. Iran, which considers itself a protector of Shiite Islam, fears a Sunni takeover of Alawite-ruled Syria. The Alawites are an offshoot of Shiite Islam, and Iran just committed 4,000 troops to Syria, to help fortify Basher Assad's regime there.

Iran's alignments mean that it will also continue supporting Hezb'allah, another Shiite force fighting alongside Assad's military. These realities ensure that Shiite Iran's relations with its Sunni neighbors will grow increasingly adversarial, and that too will reinforce Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Those who cautioned that military action against Iranian nukes could alienate ordinary Iranians and minimize the odds of internal regime change must now concede that the regime has "changed." Any further change could take years, because president-elect Rouhani must work within a complex system developed over decades, and he's not about to overthrow it. Nor are the millions who elected him. They got the president they voted for, so they have no reason to protest any time soon (especially after 2009, when they had strong grounds to protest, but their voices brought only brutal crackdowns without democratic gains).


To show good faith and establish his "moderate" credentials, Rouhani should cease all nuclear enrichment until the next round of diplomatic talks concludes. But in his first press conference last Monday, he vowed to continue enrichment. Rouhani's assumption of the presidency this August deserves the briefest "honeymoon." If he offers no substantive nuclear compromise within weeks, the West must halt Iran's nuclear program with a firm ultimatum backed by force.

The only time Iran showed any willingness to compromise on its nukes was when it feared an attack: after US forces swiftly devastated Iraq's military in 2003. If Obama thinks that -- without the threat of force -- his outstretched hand will now be embraced by a "reformer," he has fallen for the illusions of a fist that was unclenched for sleight of hand.

Iran has already enriched enough uranium to make several nukes, and will get the Bomb during Rouhani's first term as president, unless an effective diplomatic and military strategy is pursued. This is no time for naiveté about "moderates."

 

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, a doomsday thriller about Iranian nukes and current geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

]]> MSM is Lying: Conservatives Are the Mainstream tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.89987 2013-06-20T05:01:35Z 2013-06-18T01:44:58Z Don't let your enemies define who you are, or how important. Drew Belsky During his sabbatical, a university professor wishes to come to Florida to interview me for a study he is doing on black Tea Partiers.  He said he wants to find out why "you think the way you think."  Why do I get the feeling this guy believes that black conservatives are a strange phenomenon, almost unique as discovering a Bigfoot?  This professor is flying all the way to Florida to actually meet me, an extremely rare species -- a Blackus Conservativus.

As believers in traditional values such as faith in God, family, and country, conservatives are viciously attacked by the mainstream media, which function as enforcers, punishing all who dare challenge the left's socialist/progressive agenda.  The MSM portrays conservatives as nutcase extremists; take Col. Allen West, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Ted Cruz to name a few.

Liberals decry as "kooky" those of us who believe that the institution of marriage should continue to remain the union of one man and one woman.  Expecting the president to obey the Constitution is also declared by Obama media sycophants and the mainstream media a bit nutty, mean-spirited, racist, and extreme.

The left, assisted by their buddies in the MSM, use a very effective tactic to render conservatives politically impotent.  They accuse us of being haters and aggressors, all the while forcing every item on their socialist/progressive list down America's throats.  Conservatives who were simply minding their own business are branded the bad guys.

Conservatives are swiftly becoming an ever-increasingly "silenced majority" -- persecuted, intimidated, and bullied into shutting up.  Rush Limbaugh says our country is in the midst of a peaceful takeover.  America as founded is slipping away daily.

Patriots, our only hope for restoring America as founded is to put as many true conservatives in office as possible.  We take back America one candidate, one race, at a time.  This is why it is so crucial that we rally around courageous conservative candidates like Steve Lonegan.

In an article about Steve Lonegan running for U.S. Senate in New Jersey, the author actually called Lonegan a "clown" because he is a conservative who vows to oppose Obama's agenda.  Think about that, folks: the MSM says opposing Obama is crazy talk, a joke, acting like a buffoon.

The article considers Lonegan a clown for posting on his website that he will "fight Obama's agenda in the U.S. Senate."  Lonegan sounds right on target to me.  The article also said that "hugging the president" is the way to win in New Jersey.  So according to this MSM hack, Lonegan should ignore Obama's disastrous failed socialist/progressive record and simply give the (black) guy a hug.

Allow me to share a bit about the president the liberal author of the article wants Lonegan to embrace (give a hug): if Obama were white, he would be facing impeachment.  We have unprecedented high numbers of Americans on food stamps and disability; unemployment is through the roof.  We have record high fuel prices and food prices.  The homes of millions are financially underwater.  Our economy is on life support.  Our national debt is $17 trillion, which a Boston University professor says is really $222 trillion.  Numerous high officials in the Obama administration were caught blatantly and arrogantly lying to the American people.

Then there is the IRS scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the AP scandal, and the revelation that Big Brother is violating our First and Fourth Amendment rights like never before.  Meanwhile, ObamaCare is being exposed as a financial, medical, bureaucratic, and emotional nightmare. 

Under Obama, America is in decline.  Americans are accepting the worst economic recovery since WWII as the new normal.

And still, the mainstream media continues to brand conservatism, which is rooted in common sense, as being outside the mainstream, calling us "clowns" and racists.  They insist that Americans join their brain-dead loyalty to the first black president, succumbing to the hypnotic tune played by Obama on his flute -- marching us into a river from which there is no return.

Thus, conservative candidates with backbone like Steve Lonegan are vital to our cause.

The MSM says Steve Lonegan as the presumptive nominee means the GOP has given up trying to win the New Jersey Senate seat.  Their narrative is that conservatives are crazy, out-of-the-mainstream, unelectable losers.  It is the same spin the MSM put on Romney naming conservative Paul Ryan as his VP nominee.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Conservatism wins every time it is confidently and passionately articulated.  Ronald Reagan proved that.  Suggesting that the GOP has surrendered the New Jersey Senate seat is yet another MSM attempt to dispirit and discourage conservative voters.

Steve Lonegan has the right stuff to pull off a victory for conservatism and America.  Legally blind due to a childhood disease, Lonegan is a proven overcomer.  Lonegan is former director of the New Jersey chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a Tea Party group.  Thus, Lonegan is one of us. 

Steve, thanks, brother, for stepping up and standing up for conservatism.  We who love our country as founded are behind you 100% with our prayers and financial support.  God bless.

]]> Impeach Eric Holder tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90016 2013-06-19T05:04:50Z 2013-06-18T21:40:33Z The case against Attorney General Holder. J.R. Dunn As the Washington media continues to trip over the stumbling blocks of administration scandals and echoes of Watergate bounce off the buildings across the Potomac River, the question comes to mind: Will there be impeachment hearings this summer as there were in the Summer of '73?

There may indeed be impeachment hearings this summer, but not for President Obama; we may very well see that the House Judiciary Committee convenes hearings on the impeachment of the Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder. In a recent talk radio interview, Texas Congressman Lamar Smith the former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, confirmed a rumor that behind closed doors he has heard a number of his colleagues discussing the impeachment of Holder.

Congress has the authority to impeach any Senate-confirmed cabinet official or federal judge, not just presidents. It states in Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution:

"...the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The case against Holder is potentially profound, more so than the case against either Presidents Nixon or Clinton. But unlike these two former presidents, Holder is not an elected official, so that there can be no contention that the Republicans will be undoing a public mandate.

Looking at the chilling facts as they have been revealed so far, Holder is on very thin ice. So far, it has been revealed that Holder personally withheld information concerning the fatally flawed Operation Fast and Furious. The information in question was subpoenaed by Congress, and for his refusal to comply, he was found in contempt; an historical first for any sitting member of the cabinet. Ultimately, Holder's master, President Obama, issued an Executive Privilege decree to provide legal cover for Holder.

But now there is new, publically-revealed evidence of two possible counts of perjury committed by the AG. The first count focuses on his assertion to Congress that he was not informed of the details of Fast and Furious. However, it was first reported by National Public Radio that when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by one of the weapons involved in Fast and Furious, that the AG was informed by the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, via e-mail.

But most recently, the other possible count of perjury involves the statement to Congress by Holder on May 15th of this year, about obtaining the phone record and e-mails of the Associated Press and other major news organizations, wherein the AG stated:

"This is not something I've ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy..."

Yet the facts seem to indicate quite the opposite, given the number of warrants issued by the FBI to conduct investigation of James Rosen, a Fox News reporter. This paper trail of contradictions prompted Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee to send a letter to the AG, in which they raise the possibility that Holder may have perjured himself by issuing a sweeping denial of any involvement. The letter asks for clarification by stating the following:

"The media reports and statements issued by the Department regarding the search warrants for Mr. Rosen's emails appear to be at odds with your sworn testimony before the Committee..."

The letter goes on to state:

"We believe -- and we hope you will agree -- it is imperative that the Committee, the Congress and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement in and approval of these search warrants."

In the June 3rd response from the Department of Justice (DOJ), there seems to be an admission of guilt on the part of the AG. The DOJ response letter states:

"The Attorney General was consulted and approved the application for the search warrant during the course of the investigation."

There have been sixteen federal officials impeached since 1797. It falls to the House of Representatives to make the first move in this process. After Articles of Impeachment are passed by the House Judiciary Committee, the House either votes to have the Senate act upon these articles or to terminate the process. This procedure has not always resulted in the removal from office of the officials. In the cases of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, neither man was convicted by the Senate. In the case of Richard Nixon, he chose to resign rather than face a trial in the Senate. But the list of impeached officials includes the two presidents mentioned above, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of whom were judges.

Given the evidence so far revealed, the AG will likely resign in the dead of night on the Friday of the Labor Day weekend this September. He will try to disappear like smoke through the keyhole, but it would be nice if the Republicans could show him where the door is by convening impeachment hearings; the public deserves to know if their Attorney General is a crook.

]]> How Quaint: Big Brother Demands 'Privacy' tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90008 2013-06-19T05:04:30Z 2013-06-18T16:52:08Z It's amazing what can make a person feel wistful and nostalgic these days Thomas Lifson The other day, as usual, I began the day by checking for messages on the NSA notice board, aka my private e-mail account.  Imagine my delight when I discovered that I had received an official invite to Netroots Nation, the annual shindig for undocumented transgender community-organizing Marxists of color.  I was bummed out, however, to learn that this year's festivities, being held in San Jose, California, begin tomorrow, on June 20, while I'm still administering final exams here in Korea, so I'll have to miss out on the opening "Liquid Courage" party with Howard Dean.

This four-day event, jam-packed with seminars and colloquia, includes guest appearances by an impressive list of progressive members of the United States Congress, from Pelosi and Begich to Ellison and Waxman; exclude the more moderate half of the House roster Allen West identified as communists, and the remainder, along with their senatorial counterparts, are on the schedule at Netroots Nation.  Then of course there is the opportunity to meet Sandra Fluke in person!

Overwhelmed by the honor of being personally notified, but a skeptic by nature, I had to do a quick internet search using PRISM (Powered by Google) to verify that the e-mail was authentic, and not an elaborate phishing operation.  (Remember the good old days when we thought anyone attempting to gain surreptitious access to our private information online was breaking the law?)  Sure enough, the Netroots website gives a complete schedule of events.  As with all large-scale conferences, the eager attendee is faced with agonizing choices, with talks, workshops, and discussion panels occurring at the same time at various locations.  One must prioritize carefully.  For my purposes, a few titles immediately jumped out as must-dos:

"Free Your A**: Defining and Creating a Progressive Sexual Culture"

"A Nation in Trans-ition"

"UndocuQueer: The Intersectionality of the Undocumented and LGBTIQ Struggles"

The last of these three is most enticing.  Of course, we all know about "Ls," "Gs." "Bs," and "Ts" -- and the lecture's clever title gives away the identity of "Qs."  But what, I'm dying to know, is an "I"?  I'm sure I'm not the only "S" eager to learn the answer, if only to avoid feeling out of the loop at chic parties this summer.

Everything I have just described is publicly accessible on the Netroots Nation website.  I would describe the details of the (euphemism alert!) "private" e-mail I received -- it included a link for requesting press credentials -- but I am bound to secrecy, whatever that might mean in the era of President Observatron, the international electronic grid's "fundamental transformer," if you will. 

For at the end of my e-mail from the progressive deniers of all individual existence and natural rights comes the following notice, straight out of those halcyon flat earth days when words like "confidentiality" and "privacy" were still imagined to have meaning.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (and/or the attachment accompanying it)... is for the sole use of the intended recipient or recipients and may contain information which is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution or other dissemination of this communication and/or the information contained therein is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please contact the sender at (xxx) xxx.xxxx and destroy all copies of the original communication.

I appreciate the effort to protect the privacy of our communication from state snooping -- that, after all, is/was the primary purpose of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- but given that this e-mail comes from Barack Obama's progressive authoritarian kin, I must propose the following addendum to the confidentiality notice above:

That is to say, review by unintended recipients is prohibited unless you are an authorized part-time clerk in any regional office of the Federal Agency for Metadata and Electronic Surveillance, in which case you need only contact the sender, recipient, or anyone among either party's recent contacts if you have grounds for suspicion that the relevant entity is engaged in terrorist-related activity, whether of the international (but non-Islamic) variety or the U.S. domestic (Tea Party) variety.  (In the latter case, contact your local IRS swat team at once.)

My favorite part of the Netroots Nation confidentiality notice is "destroy all copies of the original communication."  How quaint!  Remember when we sort of half-believed we could "destroy all copies" of something?  Remember when we dreamed we still had some voluntary control over our own personal communications, our own associations, our own lives? 

"Confidentiality Notice" -- it's amazing what can make a person feel wistful and nostalgic these days.  Almost makes me sorry I can't find the way to San Jose in time for the Saturday 3:00 p.m. panel discussion entitled, "Reclaiming Family Values from the Right."  Well, it's either that or "Organizing Support for Abortion Rights in Hostile Territory" down the hall.  Decisions, decisions.

]]> What the IRS Has Become tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.89983 2013-06-19T05:03:32Z 2013-06-18T18:47:42Z With an IRS like what we have now, we're at serious risk of "freedom" becoming a word of the past in America. Drew Belsky The IRS has hypocritically ignored the Constitution, having targeted groups whose names included what America once stood for: patriotism, freedom, and the Constitution.  This will be emphasized on June 20, when Judicial Watch, the people's watchdog over the government, holds a public panel discussion with some of those who were victimized.  American Thinker interviewed Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch's president, and some of those who were harassed and abused by the IRS.

Fitton is not surprised by the Obama administration's actions and regards them as a continual Democratic tactic.  He told American Thinker how, during the entire Clinton presidency, his group was targeted via numerous audits.  He sees this latest scandal as déjà vu, since conservative groups "were put in a box by the IRS and could not do the actions they planned on doing because their activities were curtailed significantly.  This is a scandal for the ages.  We all saw in the last few years that the Tea Party became inactive and now we know why.  All I know is, the IRS engaged in a massive suppression of perceived political opposition to the president at a time that was very important for his re-election campaign.  This is government suppression and oppression.  The movement was coming out, and they were stopped by this administration.  This is about Obama's role as chief executive and his refusal to take responsibility."

Freedom's Watch, a 501(c)(4), was established in 2007 to counter MoveOn.org and to help with public relations in support of the Iraq troop surge.  Its former president and CEO, Bradley Blakeman, said Lois Lerner of the IRS from 2009 to 2011 targeted him, the organization, and the donors.  He told American Thinker that not only did the IRS go after start-ups, but they also went after established and defunct conservative groups in an effort to intimidate, harass, and create fear.  They tried to hold him personally liable for any excess income, and the big donors were told that their donations would instead be considered a gift, subject to being taxed.  Although it was found that there was no liability on his part, he had to pay a substantial amount of money to lawyers and an accounting firm that specializes in executive compensation.  He wants Americans to beware, since "[i]t cost us dearly to defend ourselves.  You are guilty until proven innocent, because you are not charged with anything but have to go through an investigation with the IRS having the ultimate power."

Blakeman was the scheduler for President George W. Bush and wonders why the IRS commissioner visited the White House over 150 times, whom he saw, and how long he was there.  He asserts that as a former presidential scheduler, it is inconceivable to him that any outside official would spend approximately every fourth day at the White House.  He seems to have a very good point, since Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius, and Leon Panetta each visited under fifty times.  "The lawyer in me is very suspicious of the White House reaction of stone walling.  If there is nothing to it release the records.  They only did it through visits to try to control the message.  They wanted everything oral, and made sure there was no paper trail."

Regarding ObamaCare, Blakeman and the others want Americans to understand that the IRS will be enforcing it, which means that "[t]he IRS will know you better than your relatives."  This can be seen in the most recent revelation, that the IRS improperly seized 60 million medical records from a California health care provider in March 2011.  This health care provider is suing the IRS for improperly stealing medical records, claiming the search warrant was limited to only the financial records.

Dan Backer, the legal counsel of theteaparty.net, and Niger Innis, the strategic director, told American Thinker that Americans should be wary of the IRS, since it is not independent and will have an increased role in implementing ObamaCare.  They cite how the IRS had them buried in paperwork and filling out questionnaires, such as what donors were likely to run for office, as well as being asked to print out their entire Facebook and Twitter pages.  Innis noted that a pending decision for becoming a (c)(4) is actually worse than being rejected.  Since they are now somewhere in limbo, they cannot appeal, as would be the case if they were rejected.  Innis agrees with Blakeman that Obama is stonewalling and points to the answer the president gave at a news conference to the question of whether anyone at the White House had been aware of these incidents.  For him, the president's answer -- "I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the [inspector general] report before the I.G. report had been leaked" -- was diversionary on a number of different accounts.

Ken Crow, the co-founder of The Tea Party Community, said he is being abused by having to undergo a personal income tax audit.  He is very angry, since he thinks this was done to limit freedom of speech.  "The IRS was using its full power to inhibit conservative grassroots efforts.  If there is so much smoke, there has to be a fire some place and it is with some high-ranking figures.  This is the most corrupt regime in American history.  I won't even call them an administration anymore."

Backer is hoping that everyone involved will be fired, including Lerner.  "It is insane to me that she is getting a paid administrative leave.  She is getting a paid vacation for violating people's constitutional rights.  Is she being kept on to keep her silent?  Everyone up and down the ladder should be fired as an example that those who work in government are held accountable to the law so this never happens again.  President Obama has the ability to fire people for cause.  The president created an atmosphere by attacking anyone who disagreed with him, that they were dangerous to democracy.  You do not necessarily have to give the order for people under you to believe that is what you want to happen."

The legal counsel also explained that anyone applying for a (c)(3) can sue the IRS if the process for approval or denial takes too long.  He is hoping that at the minimum this will also occur for those applying for a (c)(4) so the IRS will not be allowed to stonewall and drag out the process as is the case for theteaparty.net.

Blakeman also wants a special prosecutor appointed who is not perceived as partisan and is seen by both sides as someone who is fair, knowledgeable, and balanced.  He thinks this is needed to show that there are consequences: "Remember, during Watergate, as today, people said that a special prosecutor is not needed and the only reason to appoint one is to go on a fishing expedition.  The call words of Watergate are certainly here: 'stonewalling' and 'cover-up.'  Does the liability reach the White House with this current scandal?  It took two years for the truth to come out during Watergate, and today a special prosecutor is also needed to get to the bottom of this."

Fitton is not sure if he supports appointing a special prosecutor but his organization is requesting over half a dozen documents under the Freedom of Information Act.  He does not think congressional investigations are the answer since they appear to be lax in oversight and accountability.  "We cannot rely on the institution of government, since it has broken down and does not hold anyone accountable for wrong doing.  This needs to never happen again and there needs to be resignations, firings, and a complete report to the American people."

Everyone interviewed sees this as a case of the Obama administration turning on the people through harassment, intimidation, and limiting political opposition.  What was done went against the rule of law and the Constitution.  People need to be held accountable so this never happens again, or democracy will be a word of the past.

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

]]> Leftus Ignoramus tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.89986 2013-06-19T05:03:31Z 2013-06-18T18:47:30Z Leftists seem to harbor a profound ignorance of geography, history, and other hard facts which anyone involved in politics ought to know. How exactly do they get away with it? Drew Belsky Mary Landrieu last Thursday showed what would be, for many of us, appalling ignorance.  Debating against the need to build a fence to keep out illegal immigrants -- a proposal which Landrieu had earlier supported -- the Louisiana senator said to Senator Thune from South Dakota:

A smart fence which is what Senator McCain and I want to build -- since he's from Arizona, I think he knows more about this than the Senator from South Dakota, who only has a border with Canada that is quite different.

Consider just how profoundly ignorant that was for any grownup, to say nothing of a senator who chairs the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.  South Dakota has no border with Canada.  Perhaps a state which was north of South Dakota might have such a border.   Let's see.  What state might that be?  How about North Dakota? 

Curiously, almost exactly three years ago, another elected Democrat, Peggy West of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, in calling for a boycott of Arizona because of its tough law on illegal immigration, noted: 

If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this, saying that they have a major issue with -- you know, with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would say... I would -- I would have to look twice at this, but this is a state that is a ways removed from the border.

West, incensed enough to support a Milwaukee County boycott of Arizona, did not know that Arizona has a border with Mexico (and worse, suggested that if Arizona did have such a border, then its immigration law might have been justified).

Leftists seem to harbor a profound ignorance of geography, history, and other hard facts which anyone involved in politics ought to know.  Candidate Obama famously let slip that he thought that there were fifty-seven states in the republic.  He also thought that Auschwitz was in Western Europe, the part which Allied soldiers like his grandfather helped to liberate.  Most high school history students know that Auschwitz lay deep in Poland and was overrun by the Red Army, not the American Army.  President Obama has called Europe a "country," and he has also said that Hawaii -- where he grew up! -- is part of Asia.

Howard Dean has the same sort of deep-seated ignorance about the world.  When asked in December 2003 how he would handle Iran, Dean replied:

The key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union, of course, had disintegrated a dozen years before.  Imagine if a politician in 1934 was asked how best to restrain Germany, and he replied that a summit with the Kaiser to clarify the perspectives of Imperial Germany was the best approach!  

How can leftists who are so profoundly uneducated in history and geography rise so high?  How can that prize dolt Al Gore be the "expert" on global warming when he states as fact in 2009 that the Earth's interior was "extremely hot, several million degrees," when the temperature is estimated to be less than 15,000 degrees Fahrenheit? 

Leftus Ignoramus is the product of several malodorous confluences.  First, the left has strived mightily to dumb down ordinary Americans.  And it has succeeded: half of all Americans between age 18 and 34 cannot find Texas on a map of American states. 

Second, the establishment leftist media gives a pass to every stupid gaffe by its cadres.  The gathering of "select" media around Obama today -- a sort of Praetorian Guard of the very Fourth Estate which is supposed to protect us from Praetorian Guards -- ensures that a man who can do only one thing well -- read a teleprompter -- is never tested on his knowledge of the word.

Third, leftists all believe that facts exist only to support ideology, and may even be invented to support leftism.  In one case, the notorious "fact" that wife-battering jumped during the Super Bowl turned out to be based upon...nothing at all.  Only the persistence of Christina Hoff Sommers uncovered this bit of whole cloth.

Fourth and perhaps most ominously, leftists like to be led by ignoramuses, particularly ignoramuses who are blissfully unaware of just how little they know.  Leftists need -- indeed, leftism cannot survive without -- true believers who know nothing but believe that their ideology is true and trumps all facts.

Leftus Ignoramous is no accident.  He is a Frankenstein created with purpose.

]]> Why not Zimbabwe? tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90009 2013-06-19T05:03:30Z 2013-06-18T21:42:17Z A mysterious omission from the itinerary. J.R. Dunn When I heard about President Barack Obama's plans for a $100 million trip to Africa with his family and entourage, I was surprised that Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) is not on the itinerary.

I would think that Zimbabwe would be a place that President Obama would especially like to visit, because Zimbabwe is a country where almost all of Obama's redistributionist dreams have come true. And Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe (an avowed Marxist) is surely among Obama's pantheon of heroes and role models (along with Marx, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Saul Alinsky and Rev. Jeremiah Wright).

Robert Mugabe has presided over the "fundamental transformation" of a thriving Rhodesia, once "the breadbasket of Africa" (and a nation with significant heavy industry including mining, iron, and steel) into a Zimbabwe dependent on imports of food and emergency relief supplies to fend off starvation of its population.

Mugabe favored a one-party state, total black rule, and a monopoly on land. He presided over the driving off (and sometimes the slaughter) of productive white farmers, and then gave the farms to unskilled blacks as rewards for military service or political loyalty. Agricultural productivity dropped by more than half, as did employment associated with running a successful agricultural enterprise.

Mugabe also presided over a treasury that printed more and more money to cover government debts, which resulted in such out-of-control inflation that Zimbabwe had to abandon its own currency and use foreign currencies such as the Euro, British pound, U.S. dollar, South African rand, and Botswanan pula.

Mugabe is known for condoning and supporting violent intimidation of voters and political opponents. One difference between Mugabe and Obama is that, while Mugabe has condoned, supported, and even fomented violence for his political aims, Obama has (thus far) only exploited the violent acts of others in the pursuit of his political agenda.

But the tactics of Mugabe's ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union) guerillas were not so different from those employed (in the anti-British insurgency in Kenya) by the Mau-Maus, of which Obama's grandfather was accused of being a member (see my American Thinker piece, "The Sins of the (Grand) Fathers") Many believe it is from those events in Kenya, and his grandfather's experience, whence come Obama's deep-seated anti-colonialism and his disaffection for the British.

Like Obama, Mugabe has always blamed others (in his case, the entire West) for his difficulty in turning his country into his version of Shangri-La.

A 2011 American Spectator articleHip, "Hip, Hooray, It's Rhodesia Independence Day!" begins by stating that Ian Smith (Prime Minister of Rhodesia in November 1965 when the country declared its Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Great Britain) lived to see all his worst fears and predictions for the future of his country come true.

Rhodesia's independence was termed illegal by Great Britain, and Rhodesia was essentially ostracized (denied diplomatic recognition) by the rest of the world, because Rhodesia's reluctance to grant immediate universal suffrage to its overwhelming black majority ("Majority African Rule", as demanded by Great Britain) was deemed "racist." Then, as now, the world at large preferred to support a country riven by economic upheaval, violence, and socialist dictatorship over one that was accused of racism.

In reality, the government of Rhodesia had made enormous strides in educating, improving, and enriching the lot of its native black population, building schools and hospitals and enjoying the support of tribal leaders.

Among the analogies that can be drawn between Rhodesia and the U.S., historically and at present, is the Rhodesian government's timetable for black suffrage and our own U.S. census once counting blacks as 3/5 of a person; in each case it was feared that political power based on sheer numbers would ultimately subvert, rather than advance, the nation's march toward freedom and equality for all.

From the same American Spectator article:

Smith believed that one-man, one-vote in Africa meant free elections once. He was loath to submit his country to the chaos, socialism, violence, and dictatorship that he was certain would follow elections based on a universal franchise (which, as he pointed out, had difficulties that Western critics were not likely to consider: for instance, how to accurately register voters when most rural-born black Africans had no birth certificates).

Smith was careful to gain the support of the country's tribal chiefs, he stated that his goal was evolution not revolution on the way to expanding the franchise (which was tied to income and property qualifications), and he affirmed that he would not risk Rhodesia's multi-party elections, free press, independent judiciary, and free economy with a mass electorate that might be inclined to do away with them.

And one could draw another analogy based on the perils of "one man, one vote", this time regarding the Obama regime's apparent agenda to refuse to control illegal immigration and to grant "amnesty" (and, presumably, citizenship and voting rights) to the hordes of illegal immigrants who, with no grounding in American history or civics, can be expected to vote in favor of the false promises of socialism.

The American Spectator article concludes:

So what can America learn from gallant Rhodesia? For one thing, we can learn to judge nations by the values they uphold, not the electoral processes they observe. We can see why Western "colonialism" was oftentimes better than the alternative. And most of all, perhaps, we might learn not to take our own liberties for granted. In every generation, they are only a demagogue away from being taken from us.

So, I think you can understand my puzzlement that President Obama doesn't plan to visit with President Mugabe. While I don't know if Mugabe shares Obama's fondness for golf or basketball, I'm sure the two would still have a lot in common, and a lot to talk about.

Stu Tarlowe's own pantheon of heroes and role models includes Barry Farber, Jean Shepherd, Long John Nebel, Aristide Bruant, Col. Jeff Cooper, Rabbi Meir Kahane and G. Gordon Liddy.

 

]]> Israel, UNIFIL, and the Blue Line tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.89985 2013-06-19T05:02:25Z 2013-06-18T01:13:57Z A new color to illustrate an old problem for the EU: Hezb'allah is not some benign humanitarian organization. Drew Belsky The world has become familiar with the Green Line, and the Red Line, supposedly a game-changing demarcation.  Now it is likely to become acquainted with the Blue Line, the line devised by the United Nations on June 7, 2000 that demarcates the Israeli-Lebanese border.  This results from events 22 years earlier and the hostilities that began on March 11, 1978, when members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) assaulted Israel from their base, which was virtually a state within the state, in Lebanon, killing and wounding a considerable number of Israelis.  In response, Israeli forces invaded three days later and occupied most of southern Lebanon.

Almost immediately, on March 19, 1978, the U.N. Security Council met to pass two Resolutions, 425 and 426, which called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces and created the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Its mission was to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, help restore peace and security, and to assist the government of Lebanon in "ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area."

As a result of the assassination of the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom in London by a PLO group, Israel in June 1982 began Operation Galilee to expel the PLO from southern Lebanon.  UNIFIL stayed behind the Israeli lines, and its role was largely limited to protecting the local population.  By 1985 Israel had withdrawn from most of Lebanon but controlled part of the south, an area manned by a combination of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Southern Lebanese Army.  Following the United Nations' invention of the Blue Line in June 2000, a concept respected by both sides, Israel withdrew all its forces later that year.

However, a major consequence of the continuing hostilities was the emergence in Lebanon of Hezb'allah, supported by Iran and Syria, which replaced the PLO as the dominant group in the country. Though Hezb'allah terrorists from Lebanon violated the cease fire and the Blue Line on many occasions the area remained relatively calm until 2006. UNIFIL patrolled the area, observed the movement of troops, kept contact with the different parties, and provided humanitarian assistance.

In July 2006 Hezb'allah invaded Israel, crossing the Blue Line, attacking the area of the Israeli town Zarit, and aiming rockets against other Israeli border towns.  It killed three Israelis, wounded two, and captured two.  Israel retaliated in a conflict that led to deaths of more than 1,200 Lebanese and 165 Israelis.  The role of UNIFIL had to change.  It had engaged in military observations, and provided humanitarian and medical assistance, but also suffered some loss of life and injury.

Its expanded role was created by the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 11, 2006, which gave UNIFIL various new functions.  In addition to its original mandate, UNIFIL was to monitor the cessation of hostilities, support the Lebanese armed forces in its deployment through the south of Lebanon, extend humanitarian aid to civilian populations, coordinate its activities with the governments of Lebanon and Israel, and assist  the Lebanese government in establishing an area free of troops and weapons between the Blue Line and the Litani River.  The UNIFIL was to take all necessary action in the areas where its forces were deployed to ensure that the areas were not used for hostile activities.  The number of UNIFIL forces was increased from 2000 to what was supposed to be 15,000, though it never reached that number.

All these U.N. functions were worthy objectives, but the U.N. Security Council disregarded the reality that Hezb'allah, not the official Lebanese government, was now the real power in the country, and was becoming increasingly assertive.  The mandate of UNIFIL was to keep peace between Israel and Lebanon, but Hezb'allah was and is the real opponent not only of Israel, but also of any pluralistic Lebanese government.  It blocked UNIFIL patrols to such an extent that only 10 percent of the patrols included Lebanese troops.  It moved some of its forces south of the Litani River.  UNIFIL has been unable to stop Hezb'allah from acquiring its large arsenal of weapons from Iran.  Furthermore, as Hezb'allah began sending its forces to help the Assad regime in Syria, official Lebanese troops had to be deployed from the south of the country to the north, creating a gap that UNFIL had to fill, and thus making it more difficult to monitor the area.

On May 15, 2013, the UNIFIL base was overrun and three of its troops briefly kidnapped by Hezb'allah, which took arms and equipment.  The result resembled what happened in the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which experienced a similar problem of being attacked, leading to withdrawal of Austrian troops from the contingent.  Now, European countries have threatened to remove their troops from UNIFIL unless the security situation improves.  Every country has the right to resign from U.N. forces.  The UNIFIL force is now about 11,000; the European countries, mostly Spain, France, and Italy, which supplied 60 percent in 2006, now account for 30 percent.  The largest contingent in the 38-nation force, comes from Indonesia, which paradoxically does not have diplomatic relations with Israel.

UNIFIL is not the only factor responsible for preserving relative quiet in southern Lebanon, but it is a crucial player in efforts to control hostilities.  It is even more crucial for European nations to recognize the importance of UNIFIL's role and to continue to supply troops.

It would be helpful if the reluctant European Union followed the lead of the United States and finally listed Hezb'allah as the terrorist organization that it is.  It is not a benign political party, and it is meaningless for the EU to try to separate the military wing of Hezb'allah, and call it terrorist, from other parts of the organization.

The fears of the EU are understandable that, if it does designate Hezb'allah a terrorist group, its UNIFIL forces may be attacked.  However, recent history shows that appeasement does not work.  The assassination by Hezb'allah of the Lebanese former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, on February 14, 2005, and the attack on the bus carrying Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria on July 18, 2012, illustrate that appeasement of Hezb'allah, an organization that embodies a spirit of malevolence and hatred, is unlikely to bring peace and security to Europe or to the Middle East.

]]> Globalism vs. Jingoism tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.90004 2013-06-19T05:02:00Z 2013-06-18T13:01:03Z With the current National Security Agency (NSA) scandal unfolding, two new political genres seem to have emerged to compete with the liberal-versus-conservative paradigm we know. These are jingoism and globalism. Drew Belsky With the current National Security Agency (NSA) scandal unfolding, two new political genres seem to have emerged to compete with the liberal-versus-conservative paradigm we know.  These are jingoism and globalism.

The former are American patriots sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  Theodore Roosevelt declared, "If  by jingoism they mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign powers, then we are 'jingoes.'"  The latter are ideologues dedicated the  suspension of the Constitution and the dissolution of the American republic in favor of becoming an appendage of a global government controlled by the United Nations.  These globalists among us have heretofore enjoyed relative anonymity while working indefatigably in various positions of influence within government to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

A proverb succinctly articulates the political milieu in America today: "When you cast a stone into a pack of dogs, the dog that yelps is the one that got hit."  Edward Snowden cast that stone, and boy, did the globalists yelp!

To wit: former vice president Dick Cheney appeared on Fox News Sunday fiercely defending the legality and necessity of government surveillance authority as wielded by the NSA.  Cheney claimed  that if these two programs, leaked by Snowden, whom Cheney accused of treason, had been in place, the 9/11 terrorist attack might have been thwarted.  If he is correct, how and why did the NSA surveillance lose track of hundreds of assault weapons sold by ATF agents to Mexican drug cartels?  Why was the NSA unable to deter Maj. Nidal Hasan from his "workplace violence" at Fort Hood, Texas?  And why was the FBI oblivious to the multiple harbingers of the nefarious activities of the  Tsarnaev brothers prior to their ignominious bombing at the Boston Marathon?  One wonders if the NSA recorded the 911 call from a private citizen informing authorities of the presence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hiding in his boat after the clueless FBI had held the entire city of Boston under lockdown for three days.

Verizon customer Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) states he has no problem with his phone company turning over his call records to the NSA, asserting his complete confidence in the "government trying to match up calls between known terrorists."  Continuing, Graham said, "I'm glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country."  Graham said that Snowden compromised national security and wants to see him arrested, but he is unclear on what charges Snowden should face.  Score two globalist hits by stone-throwing Snowden.

When George Stephanopoulos asked John Boehner his opinion of Snowden, the speaker replied, "He's a traitor. The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk. It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are. And it's a giant violation of the law."

That's three prominent  establishment Republicans clearly expressing their  complete trust in the Obama regime to use the NSA's vast data-mining capabilities to pursue only terrorists and leave ordinary Americans alone.  Right -- just as the IRS fairly and equally approved 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status for all applicants, regardless of political bent.  A bridge in Brooklyn, anyone? 

Now let's see what the "progressive"(read: socialist) Democrats are saying.  Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) states, "What Edward Snowden did amounts to an act of treason."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) echoes Nelson: "I don't look at this as being a whistle-blower; I think it's an act of treason."  These are American lawmakers who are shamelessly ignoring the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and defending this corrupt regime's right to violate the privacy of the American public.  That is a globalist position. 

Here is the stone Edward Snowden cast into the pack that caused these globalists to yelp: "I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate, which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in.  My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."

Now let's look at the jingoist position.  Freshman Senator Rand Paul is sponsoring a class-action suit challenging the NSA's PRISM program, which logs Americans' phone calls and internet activities.  The litigation may include the entire American population as plaintives.  Paul said,  "I'm going to be asking all the internet providers and all of the phone companies: Ask your customers to join me in a class-action lawsuit.  If we get 10 million Americans saying we don't want our phone records looked at, then maybe someone will wake up, and something will change in Washington." 

Typically outspoken former congressman Ron Paul (Rand's father) had this to say: "I'm worried about [sic] somebody in our government might kill him [Snowden] with a cruise missile or a drone missile. I mean, we live in a bad time where American citizens don't even have rights and that they can be killed. But the gentleman is trying to tell the truth about what's going on." 

Senator Ted Cruz opined, "If it is the case that the federal government is seizing millions of personal records about law-abiding citizens, and if it is the case that there are minimal restrictions on accessing or reviewing those records, then I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service by bringing it to light."

Finally, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) summed up the jingoist position.  "As one of the few members of Congress who consistently voted against the Patriot Act, I expressed concern at the time of passage that it gave the government far too much power to spy on innocent United State citizens and provided for very little oversight or disclosure. Unfortunately, what I said turned out to be exactly true. [Emphasis added.]

"The United States should not be accumulating phone records on tens of millions of innocent Americans. That is not what democracy is about. That is not what freedom is about. Congress must address this issue and protect the constitutional rights of the American people."

That's about as jingoistic as you can get.  Something is definitely rotten in America.

]]> Obama's Loss of Trust and Credibility tag:www.americanthinker.com,2013:/articles//2.89982 2013-06-18T05:04:16Z 2013-06-18T12:10:24Z President Obama's approval ratings are in free fall like a hot air balloon with the fire extinguished Thomas Lifson The latest polls show that President Obama's approval ratings are in free fall like a hot air balloon with the fire extinguished; his approval rating has declined eight percentage points over the past month. CNN reporter Chris Cuomo described the decline as "dropping like a stone." Lara Brown of U.S. News and World Report, declared, "The Obama presidency becomes more Grant than Lincoln every day." Even his standing as a "leader" has shown a six-percentage-point drop among those who think he is a decisive and strong leader. Worse, CNN reports that half of the public no longer trust the president or find him honest, credible, or trustworthy. The worst news, though, is that 54 percent of the public disapprove of the president's job performance - up nine points over the past month. Taken as a whole, this is a meltdown of public support for the president and the first time since November 2011 that a poll revealed that a majority of Americans view the president negatively. Significantly, it is the Democrats, young people, independents, and minorities - the president's former friends and formerly his strongest supporters - who are causing the shifts in approval.  In fact, the biggest drop this month is among the under 30's, which dropped 17 points since last month.

The dive in approval ratings, of course, coincides with media coverage of the cascade of scandals washing over the White House. While the impetus for the decline in approval likely is concern for the unprecedented invasions of privacy and the distaste for government surveillance of private citizens, the president's numbers dropped across the board: economy (down two points), deficit (down four points), immigration (down four points), terrorism (down 13 points), foreign affairs (down five points).  The catalyst for the heretofore somnolent media's sudden attention to the administration's misfeasance, if not malfeasance, probably is that its own freedoms are threatened this time.  As Breitbart noted, the mainstream media has not broken a single one of the major scandals of Mr. Obama's second term, nor have they even covered the scandals until recently. Instead, as Breitbart also noted, the "media's energy was collectively poured into ensuring the truth was never discovered." In that, of course, the White House has been even more diligent; the president and his team have worked to downplay the seriousness of the allegations of all the scandals. None of the major players has had push-back - Eric Holder, though cited for contempt of Congress, is still Attorney General, and both Susan Rice and Samantha Power have had promotions. In fact, a factor of the public's about-face in support for the president comes, I believe, from his "in-your-face" response to the scandals. He seems to put his administration above the fray when it comes to accountability and transparency - in spite of all the high-sounding campaign and political rhetoric about transparency.

If the Nixon era should have taught politicians anything, it is that trust and credibility are essential to the presidency. Nixon's downfall was not so much in the petty thievery of his campaign researchers; it was the lying and cover-up that brought him down.  With Obama, abuse of trust is the theme running through all the scandals. Ironically, the shear number of scandals is helping the president in the short term - there is scattershot investigative coverage rather than focused probing. The cumulative effect, though, is beginning to show. Americans bought into the president's campaign image of "hope and change," but lately, they instinctively know that "where's there is smoke, there's fire" and the "smoke" of all the scandals seems to come directly from fires at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  In the Internet era, doubletalk doesn't work; there've been too many side-by-side comparisons of truth versus White House spin.

It's bad enough that the public doesn't trust the president and his White House czars; it is disastrous when the Obama Administration's cronyism and scandals destroy trust to the point that the credibility not just of this administration but of the whole of the United States Government is threatened. Nowhere is this a more pressing problem than in the Internal Revenue Service scandal; the president added the newly minted responsibility to administer parts of the Affordable Care Act to the IRS's responsibility for collecting tax revenues. The idea that the public will trust the IRS after what has been revealed about ideology contaminating the processing of applications for tax-exempt status has dealt it a body blow from which it will be difficult if not impossible to recover. Voluntary compliance with tax regulations has, by and large, been the hallmark of this country. But unless some drastic housecleaning and reform are implemented, tax avoidance such as is rampant in countries like Italy, Greece, and some South American countries may spread like a plague.

What can we learn from this morality tale? When trust between a president and the people begins to unravel, the whole government starts to fall apart.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., a former Presidential Speech Writer for President George H. W. Bush, is now Senior Fellow for Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute.

]]>