September 11th - Never Forget

Today is the 11th anniversary of the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on the United States where they used hijacked civilian airliners as cruise missiles.  Over three thousand were killed as 2 airliners were crashed into, and destroyed, the World Trade Center towers in lower Manhattan, another airliner crashed into the Pentagon outside Washington DC, and a fourth airliner was prevented from reaching it's Washington DC target by the valiant efforts of the passengers to regain control of the aircraft.

This is the anniversary of the day we were reminded that the world is not a safe place - that evil exists.  That there are those who dislike us because of our values, our beliefs, and our freedoms.  Where our enemies have no hesitation to use terror / murder to promote their agenda - and consider anyone / everyone a valid target to achieve their goals.

Their targets this day were primarily innocent people who started their day going about their lives - boarding airplanes to travel from one part of the country to another or going to work.  Over 400 of those killed were comprised of those who accept the risks to protect and serve our society - the emergency responders and  military personnel.

In the Trade Center towers, firefighters, police, EMT's and other emergency personnel ran up the towers as workers evacuated down stairways - and all of these perished when the towers collapsed because of the damage from the crashing aircraft and massive fires they started.

Conditions in the Trade Center towers were such that, dozens if not over a hundred people, trapped and threatened by smoke and flames, chose to leap to their deaths - plummeting 100 stories or more to the ground below.  For many watching the live news broadcasts, the horror of the day became real as cameras saw these people take that step and place their lives in the hands of God.

As the day ended, we cried for those lost, we cried for the innumerable acts of bravery and sacrifice that took place, and we cried as three firefighters raised a flag from the devastated Trade Center area in defiance to those who attacked us - or celebrated in the streets as over three thousand died.

For many- politics and petty disagreements took a back seat to the events of the day.  Many called the day a  'modern' Pearl Harbor - an act of war against this country - and a unifying act.  But there were some of this country who still cheered the attack and attackers - or blamed the attack not on the evil of the attacker, but as a justified counter-strike in response to our actions and policies.

There are those who despise this country and its values of freedom, liberty, and rights to the point that they celebrate the attack.  They would prefer to see us forget about this horrific act - and fought to oppose our efforts to make those responsible, as well as those who subscribe and support the ideology which is at war with us.

There are those who castigate us for naming our enemy and calling out the fundamentalist islamofascist ideology that sees itself at war with Western Civilization.  They opposed our efforts to attack and attempt to eliminate the threat against us from these groups - whether they are non-government terror organizations like al-Qaeda or Hezbollah or they are states that actively promote and support these organizations - like Afghanistan's Taliban, or Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Iran.

11 years later - we have had some substantial successes in our fight.  But our fight is not over - even if political leaders no longer lack the will to oppose the threat or acknowledge that a threat exists.  Too many refuse to acknowledge evil or remain willing to confront evil.  They believe that evil can be negotiated with and hope that the alligator will eat them last.  Others see a common cause - remaking western civilization - and bet that once the common enemy is defeated, they can defeat their former ally....all the while when the fundamentalist islamofascists believe they can easily win that fight.

We are far closer into falling back into a September 10, 2011 mentality than we are of learning the painful lessons of September 11, 2001.  If we forget about 9/11 - and the steps which helped facilitate this attack - then we will fail not only those victims, but ourselves and our future.

Not only do we remember - we will not surrender or submit....

Progressive Ideology and the Founding Fathers

This Independence Day, I noticed an interesting trend promoted by a number of progressive columnists to try to link their vision and their ideology to that of the Founding Fathers of the United States.  It is as if they are attempting to revise history in order to create a meme that the expansion of government, the expansion of entitlements, 'social justice', 'fairness', and 'fundamental change' they are currently pushing are no different from the steps the Patriots took to break with Great Britain and form the United States of America.

EJ Dionne, writing for the Washington Post, puts his case this way...

The Founders would no doubt be gratified that we still care so passionately about their work. But they might be quite surprised to learn how much of our health-care debate focused on a careful parsing of what the Constitution’s clauses on regulating commerce and levying taxes allowed us to do to solve a problem that would have been unknown to them. We would be truer to the Founders’ intentions and spirit if we followed Madison in having more confidence in our own good sense and our knowledge of our own situation.


The genius of the Founders is that they created a government designed to act, and so I’d propose a new patriotic ritual involving an annual reading of the preamble to our Constitution:


“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”


Yes, the first word of the Constitution is “we,” and its purposes include establishing justice and promoting the general welfare. Before we expend enormous energy deciding how many angels can dance on the head of the commerce clause, we would usefully keep in mind the broader objectives of our great experiment.

Yes, let's not spend a lot of time or effort deciding how many angels can dance on the head of the Commerce clause, because the recent Supreme Court of the United States ruling on Obamacare's Individual mandate clearly answered that question. The SCOTUS ruling also clearly answered the question as to if the Individual mandate was constitutional under the 'Necessary and Proper' clause. In both cases, the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States clearly stated that the Individual mandate was unconstitutional under both of those clauses of the US Constitution. Furthermore, the opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts specifically took steps to narrow the interpretation of the Commerce clause - the first narrowing of it since it was expanded considerably during the New Deal era.

There is a fundamental difference between today's (or Woodrow Wilson's) progressives and the Founding Fathers of this country. The Founding Fathers clearly established the Constitution of the United States as a framework that limits the power of the federal government- defining specifically what the federal government could do and reserving all remaining powers to the states and the people of the United States. They defined a government that is accountable to the people - not a framework of a people accountable and responsible to / for the government.

They established a process for the 'evolution' of the Constitution - the process of passing amendments. They made this process particularly challenging so that it would not be easy to expand the reach and the power of the federal government without the direct consent of the governed.

The Founding Fathers of this country were motivated by the likes of John Locke and not the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who is not only the model for progressives, but also for the Jacobin's of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, and OccupyWallStreet.

Rousseau saw government as the tool to implement the 'general will' with a few defining that 'general will'. He advocated the use of the unchecked power of the state so that the government (or state) would be able to 'force men to be free' and be more 'moral' that they would be outside of the direct control and influence of the state. The first major implementation of the Rousseau approach came through the Jacobin's of the French Revolution - a revolution that shares only the term 'revolution' with that of the American Revolution. The Jacobin's envisioned a new society - a 'fundamental change' and ruthlessly with the power of the state and Madame Guillotine embarked on a bloody reign of terror to ensure the creation of the new society.  It did not last.

Unlike the American Republic which has lasted 236 years, the French Revolution ended in a dictatorship, followed by a return to the monarchy, and nearly 80 years passing before a republic would be formed.  Today, if I counted correctly, France is on it's fifth republic.  We remain on our first.

Rousseau's concept of 'We' was in that the collective, the believers, needed to use the power of the state to reconstruct society to meet the demands of the 'general will' - which is exactly what Dionne means when he says 'promoting the general welfare' as well as his focus on 'We'...

This is all about the power of the state, the power of the collective we, to ensure and justify that their ends are obtained regardless of the wishes, desires, or freedom of the individual.

The 'classical liberalism' of John Locke has nothing in common with today's liberals or progressives. Classical liberalism advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. It draws heavily on Adam Smith's writings, in particular 'Wealth of Nations' when it comes to economics, trade, and the marketplace.

The Founding Fathers, in their forming of the United States, built a country on the foundation of this classical liberalism. This foundation of classical liberalism is the cornerstone of not only the core American values that we treasure, but the values of today's Reagan / Buckley conservatives. What we wish to 'conserve' is this foundation based on classical liberalism introduced to us by those remarkable men who we call our country's Founding Fathers.

What we celebrate on the Fourth of July is their vision and wisdom...and it is our conservative principles that are, Mr. Dionne, true to the Founders' intentions and spirit of a nation based on 'classical liberalism'.

President Obama - Live Address Campaign Event from Afghanistan - UPDATED

President Barack Obama will be delivering a live campaign address to the American people at 7:30 PM EDT from Kabul, Afghanistan - where he is to declare victory, sign a new strategic partnership with President Karzai, and spike the football on the one year anniversary of the SpecOps mission which killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.

How many times will the narcissist in chief use the term 'I' as he speaks tonight?

This post will be updated as the President spikes the football, dances in the end zone, and declares victory 'in our time'...

UPDATED

Tweet from a reporter at Bagram Air Base, outside Kabul Afghanistan as President Obama delivers his speech - noting that it's a campaign speech first and foremost.... 

"He's speaking to voters at home, not us..."  and notes via a picture of the press room during the 4am local time speech...

Outlook for the 2012 Campaign

"The campaign is underway and it could be the dirtiest in the nation's history" - Bill O'Reilly

I cannot disagree with this at all.

This could be one of the last chances for the progressive / hard left ideology in the US to maintain power in order to 'fundamentally change' this country - to 'redefine the relationship between the American people and the Federal Government' in a manner that erodes freedom, liberty, and the concept of limited government.

Already in this campaign we are seeing all stops being pulled by the Administration and their ideological partners to:

• encourage and faciliate campaign finance fraud
• encourage and facilitate voter fraud
• manipulate media / tapes / facts to promote and encourage racial politics
• blatantly lie, mispresent, and distort data and facts to promote a pro-Administration meme
• a complete double standard towards conservatives and progressives
• Domestic and foreign policies defined and determined by politics / political factors
• those who put politics and what's good for the party ahead of what's good for the country
• a willful ignorance and contempt towards law and the Constitution
• a willingness to damage the country in order to support a political meme
• a willingness to savage and demonize those who speak out against the Administration

We thought 2004 and 2008 were bad?  Or the 1800 Presidential contest?  or the 1860 Presidential contest?

This will be worse because the stakes are so high.

Ever hear of Stuart Chase?

Stuart Chase was an MIT trained economist and engineer who was active in progressive politics throughout his career and until his death in 1985.  He advocated socialism, eugenics, and was an early admirer of Stalin's Soviet Union's centralized planning and control of the nation's economy.

His political viewpoints were best defined and captured in his 1942 book, The Road We Traveled', about a new political paradigm that he termed 'X' which was based on 18 conditions that he saw as needed for the future of a postwar America....

1. A strong centralized government
2. An executive branch of government growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches
3. Control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government
4. The underwriting of employment by the government either through armaments or public works
5. The underwriting of social security by the government - old age pensions, unemployment, etc
6. The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care by the government
7. The use of deficit spending to finance these underwritings
8. The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies
9. The control of foreign trade by the government
10. The control of natural resources by the government
11. The control of transportation by the government
12. The control of energy sources by the government
13. The control of agricultural production by the government
14. The control of labor organizations
15. The enlistment of the youth in youth corpsd devoted to health, discipline, community service, and ideologies consistant with those of the government authorities
16. Heavy taxation with special attention to the estates and incomes of the wealthy
17. Control of industry without ownership
18. State control of communications

Look at this list of the goals that Chase saw as the goals for a postwar America to achieve and implement.  Do any of them look familiar? 

Then consider the name of the book...and the name of the 17 minute slickly produced film just released last week by the Obama Campaign - "The Road We've Traveled".... which recaps the 'achievements' of the President during his first three years in office - including the steps he took in response to the financial crisis, the recession, healthcare and banking reform, and getting Osama Bin Laden while asking for another 4 year term to finish Obama's goal of 'fundamentally changing' the United States.

Coincidence?

Tonight's Message...

The story behind this poster...

Hat Tip: Ace of Spades

LIberals and Taxing the Rich - It Goes Deeper Than Just This

Tigerhawk highlights Michael Barone's excellent take and observations on Liberals and Taxing the Rich: 

ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked candidate Obama if he would raise capital gains taxes even if, as in the past, that brought in less revenue to the federal government.

Yes, said Obama. “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

Ponder that answer for a moment. A candidate for president — president now — said he wants to take more money from people who earned it even though doing so would produce less money for the government.

The philosophy that has to be behind that answer is also behind the Obama administration budgets that have proposed capping the charitable deduction for high earners. The clearly intended result would be a massive transfer of money from the voluntary sector of society into government.

Tigerhawk adds this commentary:

- Opposing Barack Obama on the last point is especially important: If we destroy the uniquely American propensity to do good works through private organizations, we will alter the character of the country forever. Not only will we have concentrated even more power in the central government, but we will have specifically undermined one of the principal mechanisms by which we bind our communities together -- charitable, civic, religious, and other voluntary groups that do good works.

Here Here, well said.

Think about this mindset - as it is not just limited towards taxes either.
 

In the Obamacare mandate directed at religious organizations, the Administration is directly attacking private charitable organizations like Churches to force them to undertake actions that run completely contrary to their religious beliefs and teachings. These fundamental beliefs, and their freedoms to act in accordance to those beliefs, is to be subjugated to the ideological beliefs of liberal fascism in the name of 'fairness' and 'rights'.


But in these cases, 'fairness' and 'rights' are entirely subjective. These words only apply in the strict limitation of adherence to the progressive ideology. Outside of that, then they words hold no meaning or force. 'Fairness' and 'rights' don't apply to religious institutions who wish to opt out of government mandated policies that run contrary to their values. 'Fairness' doesn't apply towards the 'wealthy' where the top 10% of income earners already pay 70% of the total federal income tax bill.


'Fairness' and 'rights' do not apply to private charitable organizations - as according to the left, the government is far better suited to provide the solutions and assistance than these private organizations which may not fully embrace the 'values' of the government. 


And in an additional example around the emptiness of the liberal use of 'fairness' and 'rights' - some private charitable organizations are more 'fair' than others, with more 'rights' than others particularly if they kow-tow to the progressive ideological viewpoint. Think of the kerfuffle between Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood when the Komen Foundation decided to stop providing funding for Planned Parenthood. The outcry from the left over the decision by Komen completely ignored the rights of the Komen Foundation to have freedom to decide to whom they will fund or donate to.


This is the fundamental change that President Obama promised - the remaking of this country away from its traditional values - values which grew this country from it's poor start in 1781 to become a beacon for the entire world.

Answering the Question - Why Conservatives Suck?

Another must view video from Bill Whittle....



Obama and Afghanistan

One of the main platforms of candidate Barack Obama linked specifically with the hard left base of today's Democrat Party - ending the War on Terror.  The primary focus was on the military operations inside of Iraq - to stabilize that country after the removal of the odious Saddam Hussein as its dictator. 

After gaining control of Congress in the 2006 midterms, and through the end of President Bush's term, IIRC, Congress held some 42 or 44 votes to stop funding the US forces in Iraq and begin their withdrawal back home.  The pace of these efforts only increased as President Bush decided the proper response to the increasing violence in Iraq was not surrender, but a surge of forces combined with counter-insurgency tactics and taking the fight to the enemy.  The left was nearly apoplectic in their opposition to the surge.  To their chagrin, the surge worked.  Iraq stabilized significantly, and a treaty was developed that laid the ground work for smooth transition from US forces to Iraqi forces...with both sides knowing that if conditions changed, negotiations could take place to maintain some active US forces to assist the Iraqi's stay stabilized.

Throughout this, candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan as being the 'good war' - the 'legitimate' war because of the Taliban's direct assistance to al-Qaeda which facilitated their 9/11 attack on the United States.  He even rattled the sabre when it came to the double game that Pakistan was playing - one portion of the government working and cooperating with the US, the other working and cooperating with the Taliban.  During this, he threatened to take the war to Pakistan.

Once in the White House, President Obama was faced with some real dilemmas.  From the information he now saw, he had a better handle on the challenges in the region and the reality of the threats - but also had these jaded by his embracement of the hard left ideology.  He's not addressed aspects of the dichotomy of his positions - anti-war / the need for a surge in Afghanistan; the pledge to close Gitmo / the need to keep Gitmo; Bush as the 'warmonger' / Obama's expansion of the drone wars and strikes.  Since his principles seem to stand against what he knows he needs to do to gain re-election / protect the US and our interests - he's resorted to making his decisions based, in my opinion, on politics. 

Political expediency, political cover, and what he can trade-off seem to be the main factors of his decision process.

The Bush era treaty with Iraq permits the US to withdraw its troops from Iraq at the end of 2011 - pleasing his base going into re-election year.  Why renegotiate to stay longer and take a political hit?  The original date in the treaty was the end of 2011, so if Iraq explodes, it's Bush's fault for going in, not winning it, and for negotiating the treaty that had a premature withdrawal date.

Even though he promised to close Gitmo in one year, it's more important to keep it functioning to provide protection - and for the most part, his base is giving him a break on this.

As Afghanistan looked like it was failing, the military asked for a surge like Iraq.  His base protested this as they did the Iraqi surge.  So, the President gave them a limited surge - in size and time frame - while his base and the Democrat Congress looked the other way. 

Unable to reach out and understand Pakistan, the President, like Kennedy did with Special Forces, became enthralled with drones - and expanded significantly the use of drones and drone attacks on terrorist targets in Pakistan.  Once again, his left base gave him a pass - knowing that in the long run, Obama would do there what he did in Iraq - and what the US did to Vietnam in 1975 (also under the desires of a liberal Democrat Congress).

Thus, Afghanistan and Pakistan stumbled along.  When given the chance to target Osama Bin Laden in a Pakistani city - he took it.  His gamble - that this would not be another Desert One, but provide him with the political key to be able to say, 'I got Bin Laden'.

The REAL Iron Lady

There's a lot of hype about actress Meryl Streep's performance as Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain who earned the nickname 'Iron Lady'. 

As highlighted by Tina Korbe on Hot Air, here is a video produced by the Heritage Foundaiton on the 'Real' Iron Lady.  As Tina noted in her commentary...

More goosebumps from this than I’ve had from any of the “Iron Lady” trailers (in fact, I’ve had no real emotions at all upon watching those).

I would like to point this out to all of the GOP Presidential candidates - this is the message and vision that you need to be advocating today.....we need to come out of our own 'winter of discontentment' - which started on January 20, 2009....

Imperial Presidency

Strange how the modern day Jacobins have become the "monarchists"....or are they just the same liberal fascists since 'the Terror'?  And instead of Madame Guillotine, we have vicious smears from the 'Old Grey Lady' and the much of the mainstream media directed at those who aren't seen as sans-culottes...the loyal followers endorsing liberal fascism.

A California Update

Victor Davis Hanson has a superb and very sobering look at California's Central Valley region.  This area is, or rather, was one of the great agricultural bastions of America.  Generations of Californians farmed in this fertile valley.  In his essay, 'A Vandalized Valley', VDH paints a picture of the current state of the Central Valley - reflecting the effects of decades of progressivism, tolerance, and changing values...

I am starting to feel as if I am living in a Vandal state, perhaps on the frontier near Carthage around a.d. 530, or in a beleaguered Rome in 455. Here are some updates from the rural area surrounding my farm, taken from about a 30-mile radius. In this take, I am not so much interested in chronicling the flotsam and jetsam as in fathoming whether there is some ideology that drives it...


...The state’s reaction to all this is a contorted exercise in blaming the victim, in both the immediate and the abstract senses. Governor Brown wants to raise income taxes on the top two brackets by 1 to 2 percentage points, making them over 11 and 12 percent respectively. That our schools are near dead last in test scores, that many of our main freeways are potholed relics from the 1960s, that we just passed the DREAM Act to extend state financial support for college-age illegal aliens, and that the overtaxed are fleeing the state do not register. Again, those who in theory can pay, should — and should keep quiet about why they must suddenly pay a 12 percent income tax that was not needed, say, in 1991, 1971, or 1961, when test scores were higher, roads better, and communities far safer.


There is, of course, a vague code of silence about who is doing the stealing, although occasionally the most flagrant offenders are caught either by sheriffs or on tape; or, in my typical case, run off only to return successfully at night. In the vast majority of cases, rural central California is being vandalized by gangs of young Mexican nationals or Mexican-Americans — in the latter case, a criminal subset of an otherwise largely successful and increasingly integrated and assimilated near majority of the state’s population. Everyone knows it; everyone keeps quiet about it — even though increasingly the victims are the established local Mexican-American middle class that now runs the city councils of most rural towns and must deal with the costs.

This is a 'read it all' essay.

There is no single cause to the changes that are dramatically affecting life inside California's Central Valley.  Illegal immigration has had an impact, as has the tolerance, political correctness, and unwillingness to really focus on those who don't want to follow the accepted rules and actions of society.  The effects of decades of progressivism in the State Government has also had an impact as this not only supported and encouraged the environment that the other contributors leveraged, but also set policies into play that defined that environment - like the misdirected focus towards certain types of crimes as opposed to others - or the unwillingness to incarcerate and punish criminals.  It's the reflection of 'social justice' and 'social engineering' as advocated by progressivism.

Not long after reading this sobering essay, and reflecting on the changes, I read this commentary that notes how the Los Angeles Police Department has decided to turn a blind eye towards illegal aliens driving without drivers licenses.

In California, illegal immigrants, by law, cannot get drivers licenses.  Also by law, in California, if one is caught driving without a drivers license, the arresting entity can impound the cars being driven by unlicensed drivers. 

Section 14607.4(f) of the California Vehicle Code reads as follows:

It is necessary and appropriate to take additional steps to prevent unlicensed drivers from driving, including the civil forfeiture of vehicles used by unlicensed drivers. The state has a critical interest in enforcing its traffic laws and in keeping unlicensed drivers from illegally driving. Seizing the vehicles used by unlicensed drivers serves a significant governmental and public interest, namely the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Californians from the harm of unlicensed drivers, who are involved in a disproportionate number of traffic incidents, and the avoidance of the associated destruction and damage to lives and property.

The LA city government is dominated by progressive Democrats.  Los Angeles is one of California's sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants.  The City and LAPD have defined a policy to not ask questions about a person's immigration status during any level of contact with that person - and in fact, when it comes to the City, they use taxpayer funds to provide benefits and assistance for illegal immigrants.  Now, the LAPD has taken this policy another step further - implementing a new policy to disregard California law, and no longer impound vehicles being driven by illegal aliens without drivers licenses.


“It’s a fairness issue,” Chief Beck told the Los Angeles Times. “There is a vast difference between someone driving without a license because they cannot legally be issued one and someone driving after having their license revoked.”

Ah, fairness.  The rhetorical refuge of a progressive.

But this pales to the thought that there is clearly something wrong with the mindset that the Chief of the LAPD, or the Mayor of Los Angeles has the power to decide, whenever they wish, just which laws are to be enforced...

There is one last story to report on that reflects just how bankrupt California is - and this comes from not only the California High Speed Rail Network Board, who want to waste something north of $120 billion on a rail network that has no viable business model, and their political supporters. 

Mercury News conducted an investigation into this claim.  They found that this project would create only 20,000 to 60,000 jobs during an average year - and would employ only a few thousand people on a permanent basis once the construction was completed.

The claim that the project will create 1,000,000 jobs is so outlandish, it should have been summarily ridiculed and rejected - like the claim from the Board that the station in Merced, California would see / process more passengers in a day heading to Los Angeles than Amtrak currently handles in their busiest station in their network, New York City's Penn Station.

There should be some repercussions for this level of lying, fabrication, misrepresentation in the name of political expediency.  But then, the reason there are not has a lot to do with the reasons why the Central Valley is more like a Third World nation than part of the US.

Fannie, Freddie, and Inconvenient Facts

A battle of words, as well as political agenda's, is underway over the causes of the current financial crisis - in particular the financial services industry challenges in the fall of 2008 which came as part of the collapse of the housing market.

To many, the facts are clear that the collapse of the housing bubble was the seminal event which precipitated the financial crisis.

The left's preferred narrative of the financial meltdown goes something like this: Greedy banks, encouraged by reckless Bush-era deregulation and lusting after ever-higher profits regardless of the risk, caused the financial crisis.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored mortgage companies, were mere victims.

Well, the left has it exactly backward: It is a well-documented fact that government regulators twisted the arms of private banks to make subprime and other risky loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

And it imposed "goals" on Fannie and Freddie - with an implicit guarantee of taxpayer backing - to buy huge blocks of those loans and, ultimately, to resell them to gullible investors as mortgage-backed securities.

When the market fell apart, the banks were left with rotten loan portfolios, and Fannie and Freddie stuck the taxpayers with billions of dollars in losses.

To date, taxpayers have spent $169 billion on Fannie and Freddie's mistakes. But some analysts believe the losses could ultimately reach as much as $1 trillion.

Among the owners of the financial meltdown are not only the Clinton era appointees, including Jamie Gorelick, formerly of the DoJ, who was the creator of the 'wall' between intelligence services which impeded the sharing of information and contributed to the conditions for the 9/11 terror attack on the US, as well as former Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank - who not only resisted all efforts to reform / regulate Fannie and Freddie, but also where the leaders pushing Fannie and Freddie to pressure banks to make subprime and high risk mortgage loans on the basis of 'social justice'.

These progressive lawmakers and officials used these GSE's to enact, via their powers to define and control mortgages, and therefore the housing market, to ensure that all, in particular minorities and those who did not have the financial history, security, or means to afford their debt obligations, were not impeded by their lack of history, security, or means.  In effect, the intent was to 'eliminate' poverty by eliminating barriers to home ownership - and to permit those home owners to borrow 100% or even more, since the assumption was made that prices will always increase, of the home's value for whatever material wants and needs the home owner's had.

The progressives in the US, obviously, dislike these facts.  Not only does it link their agenda and ideology to the root cause of the financial meltdown, but it also highlights the intellectual and fiscal bankruptcy of their approach towards 'social justice'.

Unsurprisingly, Joe Nocera writing in the New York Times today, takes these facts to task and attempts to place the blame back on greedy bankers and the lack of effective regulations which created an environment for unscrupulous lenders to prey upon minorities trying to live the American dream.  He spins the yarn that Fannie and Freddie only reluctantly got into the subprime mortgage market in 2005 - 2006 - under the previous Administration - and not only did not have any significant exposure in guaranteeing subprime mortgages, but didn't really guarantee these - the banks were the one's that did this.

Needless to say, Nocera's piece is deeply flawed - so flawed in fact, that the Times already has had to make one major correction to the piece.

The New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson, along with co-author Joshua Rasner, has already detailed the much of the problems related to the causes of the financial meltdown in their excellent, and fair, book "Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon".   They detail the corruption, greed, and desire to enact a political agenda on a 'free market' created the circumstances for the meltdown.  Many of the major players in this are progressive democrats and those who strongly supported progressive democrats.

Beyond this review of the problems, facts specifically counter the mantra of the left, like that articulated by Joe Nocera in the Times. Facts like the information from the Securities and Exchange Commission... 

Fannie and Freddie entered into agreements accepting responsibility for misleading conduct discovered by the SEC, including:


1. As of June 30, 2008, Freddie had $244 billion in subprime loans, while investors were told it had only $6 billion in subprime exposure.


a. Freddie knew it was inadequately compensated for the risks it was taking. For example, it was taking on “subprime-like loans to help achieve [its] HUD goals” that were similar to private fixed-rate subprime, but the latter typically received “returns five to six times as great,” says the complaint.


b. Freddie had concerns about risk layering on loans with an LTV >90% and a FICO <680. (Yet, in Freddie’s disclosures it only noted risk layering concerns on loans with an LTV >90% and a FICO <620. This is a major difference since only 10 percent of its loans fell into the LTV >90% and a FICO <620 category, while nearly half fell into the LTV >90% and a FICO <680 one.)  

2. As of June 30, 2008, Fannie had $641 billion in Alt-A loans (23 percent of its single-family loan guaranty portfolio), while investors were told it had less than half that amount ($306 billion, or 11 percent of its single-family loan guaranty portfolio).  

3. The SEC complaint disclosed that Freddie had a coding system to track “subprime,” “other-wise subprime,” and “subprime-like” loans in its loan guaranty portfolio even as it denied having any significant subprime exposure.  

These suits are important because they demonstrate that Fannie and Freddie “told the world their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was … and mislead the market about the amount of risk on the companies’ books,” said Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division.

70th Anniversary of the Day of Infamy - Part Two

70 years after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, we are rapidly losing a historical treasure over this seminal event in US History.  These are the veterans of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  The youngest are in the late 80's.  Their stories, information, and first hand recollections of the attack are amazing.

Across the United States, efforts are being made to preserve their information and stories for the benefit of future generations.

Their stories are amazing. 

During my honeymoon in 1994, my wife and I visited Pearl Harbor as tourists.  We visited the museum which detailed the attack with photos, maps, and models of the ships and aircraft involved from both sides.  Inside the theater was an excellent film about the attack.  I filmed it on my camcorder - but still haven't moved it from the tape to digital. 

However, there were two events that were riveting to both of us from our visit to Pearl Harbor.  One was our trip over to the USS Arizona Memorial which is astride the sunken battleship USS Arizona.  On the walls of this memorial are the names of the 1,177 officers and crew who perished when the battleship exploded and sunk during the attack.  But facing north on the Memorial, one can look into the waters of Pearl Harbor and see the shattered ship - with oil still slowly leaking from it's broken fuel tanks.

The second memorable event was outside the museum.  Standing on the patio between the museum and the harbor, overlooking Battleship Row and the USS Arizona Memorial, were a number of Pearl Harbor veterans.  These gentlemen were answering questions and telling their stories of their experiences during the attack - as a sailor on board a submarine, another who was aboard a cruiser damaged in the attack, and another a survivor from one of the crippled battleships.  These are the stories that I need to covert to a digital format.  These are the stories that our future generations need to hear - first hand stories of the attack and then of the response we made over the next nearly 4 years.

Eleven years later, we returned to Oahu on vacation, this time with my young daughter.  We visited Pearl Harbor again - but unfortunately, the museum complex and USS Arizona Memorial were closed for their annual maintenance period.  Undaunted, we took the shuttle to Ford Island to tour the USS Missouri, the Iowa class battleship launched during WW2.  On her deck, on September 2, 1945, the Japanese signed the documents for their unconditional surrender, ending World War 2.

This is a photo I took from the bridge of the USS Missouri looking north to the USS Arizona Memorial.  In this picture, we see the key elements of the start and the end of the US involvement in the Second World War.

The fight between the United States, with our allies, and Japan during the Second World War was remarkable in many facets.  It was one of the hardest and bloodiest fights - ranging from massive naval battles where the opposing fleets only viewed each other via aircraft, to point blank range night surface ship battles.  From bloody invasions of atolls and islands few Americans had heard of prior to the war, to prolonged fights in jungles where the conditions were as big of a threat as the enemy.  Fights where the Japanese fought to the bitter end, preferring death to surrender.  This was a fight where the casualties on both sides increased significantly the closer we got to the islands of Japan - and where the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare were needed to bring the Japanese government to accept surrender.

The US had very few successes in the first 6 months of the conflict.  Except for small raids, including the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in April 1942, the news from the front was bad.  Starting with the naval fight in the Coral Sea in May 1942, where a Japanese invasion fleet was deterred, to the decisive US victory at Midway in June 1942, where 4 of the 6 carriers which launched the attack on Pearl Harbor were sunk, to the attrition battle around Guadalcanal from August 1942 to January 1943, the US fought with all it had to turn the tide.

In October 1944, in the Battle of Surigao Strait, part of the larger Battle of Leyte Gulf, a US battle fleet utterly destroyed a Japanese fleet attempting to interrupt the landings on the Philippine island of Leyte.  The primary US force in this fleet - 5 of the 8 battleships sunk or severely damaged during the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

Of the 8 battleships at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, only the USS Arizona was beyond salvage.  The USS Oklahoma, raised from the harbor floor in 1943, foundered under tow back to the US in 1947.  The other 6 battleships saw significant action in both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters once they were refloated and repaired. 

Today, the animosity and hate of 70 years ago is long gone between the US and Japan.  We are allies today - militarily and economically.

We need to commemorate days like 12/7/41 and 9/11/01 because they are turning points in our history.  Commemoration includes studying the events of the day, the causes for those events, and the reactions to those events - it's part of our history and we need to learn from it.  Commemoration includes paying respect to those thousands who died on both of those days.  To my generation, 9/11 is our Pearl Harbor...but we cannot forget to hear and honor the words from those who experienced Pearl Harbor.

70th Anniversary of the Day of Infamy - Part One

Today is the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack on the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii as well as other military bases and installations on the island of Oahu.

A force of 353 fighters, bombers, and torpedo planes were launched from 6 Japanese aircraft carriers which moved undetected to a spot about 275 miles north of Oahu.  At 7:48am local time, the first elements of the Japanese initial strike force commenced their attack on the Kaneohe Naval Air Station.  About 7 minutes later, the main element of the first wave struck Hickam Air Base, Ford Island Naval Air Station, and the ships at anchor in the harbor.

With none of the aircraft carriers assigned to the US Pacific Fleet in port for this attack, the primary targets for the Japanese attack were the 8 battleships that comprised the main surface strength of the US Pacific Fleet.  7 of these battleships were anchored off Ford Island, the last, the flagship, USS Pennsylvania, was in drydock.

Japanese torpedo and level bombers devasted the battleships as they sat at anchor.  USS Oaklahoma, after taking numerous torpedo hits, capsized losing over 400 of her crew.  USS West Virginia, also hit by numerous torpedoes, was able to avoid capsizing by quick damage control work, but sunk to the harbor floor with over 100 dead.  The USS California, hit by 2 bombs and 2 torpedoes also sunk in place.  The USS Nevada, at the rear of Battleship Row, was the only battleship to get underway during the attack, beached herself to avoid sinking and blocking the harbor entrance.  USS Maryland, USS Tennessee, and USS Pennsylvania took bomb hits and severe damage.  However, the biggest single loss of life was in the destruction of the USS Arizona, which suffered a catastrophic magazine explosion.  One thousand one hundred seventy seven crewmen died as the USS Arizona exploded and sank.

The loss of life on the USS Arizona accounted for almost half of all lives lost during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

While the Japanese were undertaking their surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet - intended to disrupt and disable the fleet as an effective force for the start of hostilities, other Japanese forces commenced hostilities against US forces in the Phillipines, and against British forces in SE Asia, Malaysia, and Burma.

President Franklin Roosevelt on December 8, 1941 speaking to a Joint Session of Congress -

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.


The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.


Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And, while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.


It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.


The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.


Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.


Japan has therefore undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.


As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.


No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.


I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.


Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.


With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.


I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

The United States was at war in the Pacific.  On December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States - which returned the favor on the 12th.  The World was now at war.  It would continue until September 2, 1945.

Obama and Israel

Earlier this week, during an exclusive campaign fundraiser (one of 60 so far this campaign season), President Obama sought to provide assurances to the Jewish donors present of his commitment to the nation of Israel - 'No ally is more important than Israel'.

To quote the good citizens of Rock Ridge in Mel Brooks' 'Blazing Saddles' - "Bullshit!"

As reported on PJ Media, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave a major address on US policy in the region to the Brookings Institute the very same week that Obama was lying to to Jewish donors at the Upper East Side fundraiser.  As Barry Rubin of PJ Media notes, the Panetta address provides us with a clear picture of the Administration's view of the region - particularly when not pandering for campaign funds.

Despite the satisfactory state of relations on a purely military level, the Obama Administration is not a friend of Israel, even to the extent that it was arguably so in the first two years of this presidency.


It is now an enemy; it is on the other side. Again, the issue is not mainly bilateral relations but the administration’s help and encouragement to those forces that are Israel’s biggest enemies, that want to rekindle war, and that are 100 percent against a two-state solution. And I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority, I mean the Islamists.


And the Obama Administration is also a strategic enemy of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Morocco, and Jordan. It is also a strategic enemy to the democratic opposition forces in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia, and Egypt.


Having analyzed and studied the Middle East for almost four decades I say none of this lightly. And these conclusions arise simply from watching what the administration says and does.


In his speech, Panetta has bashed Israel based on a ridiculously false premise. Here it is:

“I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view.” Nevertheless, Israel needs to take risks and particularly, “The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table, to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.”

Basically, the policy of this Administration is that Israel must, in the view of the Administration, not only talk peace with Hamas and Hezbollah, but that IT must be the one to make concessions to these terrorist organizations if 'peace' is to be realized. 

What the Administration is basically saying is, since Hamas and Hezbollah will only recognize peace exists upon the ashes of Israel, then the ashes of Israel is fully acceptable to the Obama Administration.  They see Israel as the impediment towards achieving peace - not the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah by insisting that the utter destruction of Israel being the only acceptable solution to the challenges of the region.

To the President, and within his official policy of his Administration the issue isn't Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and radical Islamist takeover of many of the region's countries.  It's not about Iran and Syria arming Hezbollah, permitting Hezbollah to occupy Southern Lebanon and effectively establish a radical Islamist state within a state - while pointing 50,000 missiles at Israel.  It's not about the Fatah and Palestinian Authority actively working to make Sumaria and Judea 'juden rein'.  It's all about the existence of a Western democracy not only within this region, but defiantly standing against the Arabs in the region for over 60 years.

This was made even more evident by the words of the US Ambassador to Belgium - a former Obama fundraiser extraordinaire who was rewarded with the Ambassadorship by the President.  This horse's ass, Howard Gutman, recently told a conference hosted by the European Jewish Union that Israel is to blame for the anti-semitism that is being actively harbored and practiced by people of the Muslim faith.

A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” Gutman reportedly said, according to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. “He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.”


According to the account in the Israeli paper, “The legal experts at the event were visibly stunned by Gutman’s words, and the next speaker offered a scathing rebuttal to the envoy’s remarks.”

In a proper world, this moron would have already been sacked for his statements.  Instead, he only articulated the official viewpoint of the Obama Administration...and demonstrated once again the President's real positions. 


Which is more reprehensible?  The Administration's position regarding Israel or the Jewish idiots at the fundraiser who donated tens of thousands of dollars to the President for his re-election?

The Arab Winter

Mark Steyn's column this week looks with a great deal of pessimism at the latest developments resulting from the 'Arab Spring' - the revolutions across a number of countries in the Middle East against the mainly secular dictatorships that existed there.  Most troubling to not only the US, but Western Civilization and the prospects of peace in the region, are the replacement of these dictatorships by Islamic fundamentalist governments.

In Egypt, which held it's first stage of Parliamentary elections earlier this week, the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more radical Salifi's won nearly 65% of the vote and are positioned to take firm control of the Egyptian government once (if?) the military regime that stepped in after the departure of Mubarak hands the reins over to an elected government.  Already, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi's are calling for the replacement of the current legal system with one that is based on Shari'a law.

Corruption and Islamism in Egypt is rampant today.. "Post Mubarak Egypt has become an uncontrolled kleptocracy, in which public officials steal whatever isn't tied down." Chaos exists - one that will be capitalized on by the Islamists who will 'bring order' to the situation.

One of the best bloggers / observers of this region, Michael J. Totten, maintains a blog on PJ Media.  Totten travels extensively in the Middle East region and his writings from Lebanon during 2005-2006 were exceptional.  (Totten is one of those bloggers who works harder, writes better, and informs more than so many of the so-called professional journalists.)  Totten notes in this recent blog entry 'Watch Out':

– “I’ve always scoffed at those who describe the Muslim Brotherhood as moderate. It’s not at all an objectively moderate organization, and certainly not by any Western standard. Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans are moderates. These guys are authoritarian theocrats. If a Christian counterpart existed in the United States, they’d be called fascists.


They really are moderate compared with the Salafists, though. The Salafists are the Taliban-style totalitarians that produced Al Qaeda. “

We are making a huge mistake if we dismiss these changes in government, in Tunisia, in Libya, in Egypt, and in Yemen, to name the one's already underway, into Islamic fundamentalist based governments as one that is not a threat to the Western nations. Syria continues to be in turmoil as the tyrant Assad tries to hold on - and it's far more likely that the hard core Islamists will take power (with the support of Iran and Hezbollah) when Assad falls. Lebanon is another country that is under divided rule, but lacks the power to really dismiss and disengage itself from Hezbollah's influence. Hezbollah will do in Lebanon what it wants to do - and the Lebanese people / government is unable to stop it - and will have to share any price paid.

All of this moves to further isolate Israel. While it is a nation under siege today, the siege will tighten considerably between these government changes and renewed actions by the Islamic bloc in the United Nations.

Pressure will increase in the United States to abandon Israel - which would be fatal to both if that decision is ever made.

Far too many refuse to accept the threat that the radical Islamists, ranging from the Muslim Brotherhood (see writings of Sayid Qutb), the Salafis, to the Iranian Shiite theocrats, seek to re-establish a larger Caliphate in the name of Islam. This is a fundamental challenge to the neo-liberal Western Civilization that has been in combat with the Islamic caliphate and it's goals to expand via the sword since the 8th century.

Among those refusing to accept the actions of these groups as evidence of their intent to obtain their goals and agenda are the liberals / left of the West. Rather than look at the fundamental differences between the cultures - in particular the treatment of women - the focus remains locked into the fallacy of multiculturalism. Where is the outrage, when for example, nearly 3,000 women in Britain last year were the victim of so-called 'honor attacks' by their Muslim family members?

'They've turned Occupy London into Animal Farm'

I've written a fair amount not only on the OccupyWallStreet movement, but on the OccupyLondon nitwits encamped outside St. Paul's Cathedral.

I've highlighted some of their excesses, like defecating inside the Cathedral, and the Regents of St. Paul's offering sanctuary to the OccupyLondon protesters despite their ill-treatment and disrespect towards the Cathedral.

From Hot Air, comes this story from London's Daily Mail newspaper - 'They've turned OccupyLondon into Animal Farm' highlighting how the anti-capitalist 'elite' of OccupyLondon are being accused of misusing funds, holding secret meetings, and generally conducting themselves as superior to the other schlubs that are in the encampment.  It's reminiscent of Animal Farm where the conflict starts between those of two legs vs four and soon evolves into the swine being superior to the other animals on the farm as ultimately defined in the sole remaining 'commandment' - 'all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'


None of this should be surprising.  As George Orwell knew / foretold, all 'collective totalitarian' movements and organizations ultimately come down to embracing the concept that we are all equal within the collective, but some, the self appointed 'elite' leadership, are more equal than others.

This level of hypocrisy should no longer surprise us - those advocating fairness do not really want fairness, and those advocating equality never really want true equality. 

When will we finally learn this lesson?

A Middle East View for November 28, 2011

Today, four major Egyptian party coalitions are vying for seats in their Parliament as the first stage of elections take place since the ouster of former President Mubarak earlier this year. 

Since the fall of Hosni Mubarak in February, ending decades of enforced one-party rule, dozens of parties have sprung up, all hoping to make it big. They fall into four major groups:


•The Democratic Alliance is led by the Freedom and Justice Party, a new party created by the once outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. The alliance includes a number of liberal forces in an effort not to scare off more secular voters.


•The Egyptian Bloc is led by the Free Egyptian Party a new party created by Coptic Christian. The alliance is largely secular and includes some left-leaning outfits. This is the biggest rival to the Democratic Alliance.


•The Islamist Alliance is led by Nour Party and other Salafis, ultraconservative Muslims whose ideology resembles Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism. It includes the Gama’a Al Islamiyya terrorist group’s Building and Development Party. This group hopes to pick up support from those disillusioned by the Brotherhood’s apparent drift towards the political center.


•The Revolution Continues Alliance is leftist and includes many of the youth groups that helped lead the anti-Mubarak uprising in January, as well as the Brotherhood’s youth wing, which has broken away from its parent organization.


The Muslim Brotherhood has become more centrist than in the past, as it is torn between the vanishing old leaders, who yearn for the days of violence, and the youth groups that want it to become fully secular. It is expected to emerge as the largest party, though not a majority, since it has the best organization. Guardian

Some are touting this as an example of the 'Arab Spring' where Arabs, mainly young adults, took to the streets to protest and ultimately overthrow the despots who ran their countries.  They will point to this election, and others, as an example that these Arab nations are embracing the tenants of Democracy.  Perhaps...but I am highly skeptical that democracy and democratic principles will find a welcome home in the Arab nations which experienced the Arab Spring.

Instead, we are far more likely to see that the Arab Spring will result in the swapping of secular despots for Islamic despots....

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Gadhafi in Libya were corrupt dictators who outlived their days. They all suppressed the Islamic movements in their respective countries, and were all thus on the side of the seculars in their own perverse way. The same holds true for Syria’s Bashar Assad, whose father, Hafez, killed some 20,000 people in the city of Hama in 1982, quelling a rebellion by the Moslem Brothers. Now, his son, Bashar, no less ruthless, seems to be about to go the way of Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gadhafi.

The demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt were initially led by secular groups – educated youngsters adept at using the Internet, Facebook and Twitter. In Egypt, they stood shoulder to shoulder with members of the Coptic Christian community, which constitutes 10% of the Egyptian population. Quite naturally, they called for the downfall of Mubarak to be followed by democratic elections. The motley crew in Libya that overthrew Gadhafi was supported by the democracies that make up NATO, and it is unimaginable that the bloodbath that rid the country of the “mad dog of the Middle East,” as former U.S. President Ronald Reagan called him, would not be followed by democratic elections – even under the chaotic conditions that followed Gadhafi’s downfall.

But who is going to win the elections when they take place – in Egypt, in Libya and eventually in Syria?

We already have a preview: In Tunisia, the country that had been the most secular and westernized of the Arab states, the election was won by Ennahda, the Islamic party, with the advocates of a secular Tunisia left far behind.  [Original here]

But with this disconcerting news that provides a grim forecast for the region, there still are signs that there may be hope for the region....in Lebanon.

American Nomenklatura & Death of the Individual

Let's start with a definition -

      no·men·kla·tu·ra

   /ˌnoʊmənklɑˈtʊərə/ Show Spelled[noh-muhn-klah-toor-uh] Show IPA

noun, plural -ras.  

a select list or class of people from which appointees for top-level government positions are drawn, especially from a Communist Party.

This class of people, in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc communist countries, were those who held key administrative people in all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, whose positions were only via appointment and approval by the leadership of the communist party in each country or region.  Soviet academics who opposed the communist rule defined this as a new class or caste that were above those of the people or people's class.

However, as they say, times they are 'achanging'...as America's elites, and in particular the progressives of the Democrat Party and President Obama, are building, endorsing, and empowering an American Nomenklatura.

There are three real elements that are part of this American Nomenklatura -

1. The media and the Democrats are joined at the hip and have created a 'hereditary celebrity' class.
2. The political class views the taxpayers as cash cows to be milked for their own benefit and the benefit of their friends, children, and contributors.
3. The SCOTUS action on the three Obamacare cases it granted certiori on might well encapsulate the principle that we citizens are, in fact, cash cows there for the federal government to milk.

There are far more examples than just these three elements as the author of that article contends.  President Obama appoints a hard left pro-Union activist to head the National Labor Relations Board and we see not only this little regulatory organization appoint itself as the arbitrator as to where a public company can establish it's manufacturing operations, but also break it's own rules of operation to ramrod new regulations into business that facilitate, simplify, and expedite the ability for Unions to expand their membership.

These are also the same Unions who represent the largest single special interest group actively involved in corrupting the American political system by flooding, to a vast majority of Democrats, hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions....contributions that represent the revenues from the dues they collect from their members.  Union members aren't consulted as to whom the leadership should donate their funds towards - the leadership gives to Democrats who then use taxpayer funds to promote generating additional members and dues going into the Union leadership coffers.

Our airways are flooded with the appeals, demands, and stories that the system is 'unfair' and the 'people' are suffering.  Between the mainstream media's intellectually bankrupt comparisons of the OccupyWallStreet movement towards the Tea Party Movement (advocating limited government, lower taxes, promoting the individual as opposed to the collective), we are being indoctrinated that it is our responsibility to promote and accept additional revenues to the Government in order to cover their ability to lock even more Americans into a cycle of dependency on the government.