Sic Semper Tyrannis

More nails...

BHO is busy putting more nails in the lid of the future of his adminstration.

Today he has Kerry in Moscow seeking to "jawbone" Putin into abandoning his Syrian client.  Putin has no reason to do that and the effort will fail.  This will weaken the BHO Administration.

DoD released a report today that shows that reported sexual assaults in the armed forces rose by a third in number since 2010.  BHO's reaction was visible anger and threats of various kind.  I am in favor of maximum action against people who perpetrate such crimes, but BHO's confidence in his fixed idea that human behavior is easily modified by government fiat is misplaced.  The armed forces reflect society. US society today is much more loose about personal conduct than it was a generation ago.   Gender roles and rules are scorned as a basis for organizing society.  Gays are a protected minority.  All rules concerning sex are falling by the side of the road in the military as in the larger society.  It will be saidby some that these problems are like those of the Blacks in the US military in the long ago.  Well, maybe so, but it took a hell of a long time to make a reality of the changes made by Truman in 1952.  BHO is a social engineer.  This is a difficult engineering problem.

Immigration "reform" will probably fail in the legislative process.   The left, the right and the Latino activists are united in one thing.  They don't like the proposed law. More failure.

The anti-gunners are busy convincing themselves that if Harry Reid will put Manchin-Toomey up for a vote one more time....  "After all.  It is just common sense."  Obama wants that vote.  

Good Luck  pl 

 

The Gatekeepers

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Not to horn in on BG Farrell's movie reviews here at SST, but I recently saw a documentary and wanted to bring it to the attention of the SST community.  About two weeks ago I was asked to go with our former USMC senior service rep here at the US Army War College to see the new Israeli documentary The Gatekeepers by Dror Moreh. The Gatekeepers is an oral history of Israel's internal security and intelligence service - Shin Bet.  Moreh's documentary is built around in depth interviews with the last six Shin Bet directors and spans events from the 1960s through to the last several years, combined with archival footage and computer generated reenactments.  In fact the documentary's production was delayed until the most recent former director, Yuval Diskin, retired and could be interviewed for and part of the project.  Moreh was able to get the project going, which features the first public interviews with any of these men, because one of the former directors, Ami Ayalon was willing to be interviewed after being elected to the Knesset from the Labor Party.  It was Ayalon who helped convince his peers to participate.

Moreh's documentary is divided into seven segments and includes such controversial topics as the 300 bus incident, the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, and breaking up the Israeli Jewish extremist attempts to blow up the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. For me one of the most interesting portions of the film was when Yaakov Peri, who ran Shin Bet from 1988 to 1994, referred to Palestinian's who had engaged in attacks on Israel as melkhamim.  Melkhamim is Hebrew for warriors.  All the other former directors referred to Palestinian attackers as terroreest, which, as you can tell, is the transliteration word imported into Hebrew for terrorist.  The documentary was excellent and I cannot recommend it highly enough to the SST community.  If you're interested in counter-terrorism, intelligence, counterintelligence, and/or the Israeli/Palestinian dispute you need to see it if it is in your area. All six of the former directors interviewed demonstrated significant nuance in regards to their assignments, their adversaries, the problems Israel faces, and the politicians they work for.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the United States Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Army War College and/or the US Army.

Baucus to retire

The news that Max Baucus, six term senator from Montana would not run again in 2014 was greeted by the anti-gun folks as evidence that the gods are going to strike down the sinners who voted against Manchin-Toomey.  Chris Jansing was almost giddy with the good news.

Unfortunately for that view, the only likely Democrat who might obtain Baucus' seat in that very red state is Brian Schweitzer, the former governor.  He is firmly against gun-control.

The rest of the field  among the Republicans, Libertarians and Mountain Men are equaly resolute about guns.

Maybe the coastals could run a Canadian who is a dual national.  pl 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/us/politics/baucus-wont-seek-re-election-to-senate.html?_r=0

 

Obama is "betting the ranch."

 

President Obama is betting that he can "have it all."  He has chosen to press hard on issues in which it is likely that he will lose badly and become a lame duck long before this usually occurs in 2nd presidential terms:

- Guns.  It is transparently obvious that the president as the head anti-gun person wants severe restrictions on gun ownership in the United States.  His allies in this matter frequently slip in public speech and mention that what they want now is just a first step.  The widespread deception involved in the propaganda against gun ownership involves the mis-stated results of polling.  Examples:  The supposed 90% of Americans who want more inclusive sales background checks - Yes, they want that but what kind of background checks? The supposed 40% of gun sales that are unchecked, yes, but what sort of sales are those?  The implication in the propaganda is that these are sales conducted by unlicensed commercial sellers operating on the fringes of gun shows.   This is untrue.  Such chicanery has confirmed  gun owner belief that whatever legislation is passed this year, it must be held to rigid minimums.  This view will prevail and Obama will be forced to accept that.  That will weaken him.

- Immigration.  A compromise is possible, but any provision in the bill that creates a veiled amnesty will cause it to fail in the House.  The notion that a mere statement on the part of the DHS that they have a comprehensive plan for border control should serve as a trigger for a quick beginning of "the path to citizenship" will cause the bill to fail.  That would weaken Obama.

- Foreign Policy.  We have the spectacle of John Kerry traveling the world attempting to dictate behavior to one and all.  Israel, Turkey, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, NE Asia, Egypt.  How absurd!  How mistaken this is as to the true nature of international politics.  This process is bound to fail and the failure will weaken Obama.

- Obama's Budget.  Chained CPI is the least of the issues that Obama's base has with this document.  BHO has revealed himself as someone who is quite willing to abandon the ideals of the Democratic Party.  This will weaken him.

"I am the president, clothed in immense power!"  "The fate of mankind rests in our hands!"

Obama's problem is that he lacks Lincoln's power, a power fortuitously given by civil war to "the great emancipator."

No, he is much more like Grant in his second term.  pl

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-domestic-legacy-in-lawmakers-hands-obama-considers-his-options/2013/04/13/9067a1e4-a38b-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

Obama encourages more unsupportable mortgages.

 

"The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place. President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession."  Washpost

------------------------------

Wait a minute...  Wasn't one of the big problems in the housing crash debacle the Congress's insistence that banks should be encouraged to make loans to people who could not afford to make the payments?

The banks responded by doing that while supported along the way by Fanny and Freddy and then sold the loans to other paper mills that chopped them up into little bits that could be made into derivative securities.  Those houses then sold these securities to all sorts of clients while simultaneously betting against the clients in the credit swap defaults markets.  A further refinement was that the credit swap default market did not even care if the person taking out the "insurance" owned the security.  That was a mouthful.

Now the Obamanoids are encouraging a re-run of this process?  OK.  I see.  Social and political objectives trump financial common sense.  Latinos and African Americans are a key part of the Democratic Party base.  This is a pay-off for votes,

All this is interesting in the context of constant attacks by Democratic Party adherents in the media and the wonkery against Republican legislators who have the temerity to listen to their constituents on such the issues as gun law.  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html?hpid=z1

 

 

 

 

"Drinking the Koolaid." W. Patrick Lang

This was written in the autumn and winter 0f 2003/2004 and published in The summer number of "Middle East Policy" after "Harper's" who had commissioned me to write the piece refused to do so.  pl

(Now, in 2013 another band of manipulators is seeking to take  the US to war in Syria.  Americans - Beware!  pl)

Download Drinking the Kool-Aid

The Hagel senate hearing

 

Opinions?  pl

What do you do in the Army, mom?

 

The business of the ground forces; infantry, armor, Special Forces, attack aviation, and light tube artillery is killing people and destroying things.  Nothing should be allowed to obscure that fact.  There are many other functions in the Army and USMC that are not directly involved in killing except in self defense.  These include the more rarified national level kinds of intelligence work, logistics, medical services and of course all the senior staff work in the Pentagon and other headquarters that so many prefer to grubbing around in the mud and sand.

DoD's new policy of opening all combat arms specialties to women will enable some few future women officers to be four star generals.  Women are already three star generals within the existing policy.  The price of that fourth star will be incalculable in terms of units that may or may not be as effective, women pushed into roles for which they may not be suitable, physical and mental damage that is not necessary to maintain the capabilities of the force  All this is to be done evidently without serious experimentation, "trial runs' on mixed combat units, etc.

Many men now in the combat arms are merely "dressed for the part" and are "carried" by those who are, for good or ill, better able to endure the physical and psychological burden of an occupation that involves killing other human beings en masse, and at the same time existing in the field under conditions of hardship, isolation and filth that often last for long periods of time.  Infantrymen only incidentally kill in self defense as police are trained to do.  In the infantry and these other direct combat specialties you kill and destroy as your principle function.  Are women really suited for such a role?

I have been a combat arms soldier and I have been a combat support soldier.  These are very different things.  Anyone who thinks that technology or the "evolution of warfare" has changed the essential ugliness of war is just kidding himself.  The FOB based warfare against guerrillas of the last decade is not a forecast of what war will be in the future.  The only thing that can be known about these future wars is that the combat arms will continue to be what they are.

Obama pursues his dream of a "more perfect union." I hope we do not pay too high a price so that women can be four star generals.  pl  

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50572372/#50572372

Habakkuk on the origins of American political and strategic thought

Professor Brenner,

In response to Colonel Lang's observations on the way that Karzai has pulled the wool over Obama's eyes on the prospects of maintaining an American troop presence in Afghanistan, you raised the question of why, 'after more than a decade of deep immersion in the Islamic world,' American policymakers are still 'so dense.'  And you asked whether the problem was simply at the 'senior policy-making level', or whether it also extends to the 'experts' who brief and write papers for those actually making policy.<p>At the risk of lapsing into platitude or egregious error, due to the thinness of my knowledge, let me hazard some reflections in response to your questions.

American self-images reflect certain particular Western intellectual traditions. One of these, republican thought, is classical in origin and initially emerges from reflections in one troubled polity, fifteenth-century Italy, about another: Rome at the time of the transition to imperial rule. In it, a pessimistic view of human nature has ambivalent implications.  On the one hand, it leads to an immense suspicion of unchecked power. Controlling power is portrayed in part as a matter of balance - having opposing social forces, such as patricians and plebeians in the Roman republic, as well as different parts of government, limit each other - and partly a cultural matter, with an overwhelming emphasis on republican virtu.

More on Senator Hagel

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Like COL Lang, I'm also very pleased that Senator Hagel was nominated.  Back in 2007 Esquire ran an in depth profile of Senator Hagel.  It was written by Charles Pierce, who is now their primary writer/correspondent at their Daily Politics Blog.  While he put up a short column on the Senator's nomination and why it is a good thing today, click over and read the much more in depth reporting he did back in 2007 if you're interested in more detailed information about Senator Hagel.**

Then go pop the popcorn, get your beverage of choice ready, and watch the show as the Senate, the news media, the blogosphere, and specific interests groups and think tanks like AIPAC, the Emergency Committe for Israel, AEI, Brookings, etc amuse us with their dysfunction, err, demonstrate why we have a mature and effectively functioning political system and news media!

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do NOT necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and or the US Army.

** Esquire does some really good in depth political reporting.  In the past couple of years they've done profiles or reporting on Congressman Paul, Roger Ailes, John Demjanjuk and often post the full transcripts of the interviews shortly after publishing the stories.

"Obama to nominate Chuck Hagel as new Defense secretary" USA Today

"President Obama plans on Monday to nominate Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator from Nebraska and Vietnam War veteran, to lead the Pentagon as Defense secretary, according to two sources familiar with the nomination process. Hagel, 66, served two terms in the Senate from 1997 to 2009, and led an Army infantry squad in Vietnam in 1968. He was wounded in action there and received two Purple Hearts. An administration source confirmed that Hagel's nomination would be announced Monday. Both sources spoke on condition of anonymity because it had not been officially announced. "  USA Today

---------------------------------

I thank God Almighty for this.  pl 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/06/hagel-defense-secretary-nominee-obama-panetta/1810195/

Congress is a idiot.

pl

Obama will not pick Hagel

 
 

"Chuck Hagel is the Neoconservatives' worst nightmare. A decorated combat veteran who disdains promiscuous war-making. A conservative Republican who rejects a foreign policy of wandering the globe bombing, invading, and occupying other nations. A supporter of Israel who won't subcontract his judgment to the demands of Israel's Likud Party. No wonder the usual suspects responded in the usual way. By calling Hagel an anti-Semite."  Bandow

-------------------------------

Been there, done that, experienced that...

Hagel is a good man who thinks of soldiers as "his people."  He remembers that he is an American, first, last and always.

Now, the gay people are against him as they march towards their goal of absolute equality in marriage and all other "rights."

Can there be any doubt that BHO will abandon the idea of nominating Hagel?  The president probably doesn't want the distraction of a fight in the senate.  He is fully occupied with joining in the national hysteria over guns.   pl  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/neocons-against-chuck-hag_b_2342910.html

Time for a national commission study on gun ownership

I am a "life member" of NRA.  IMO the organization would be wise to propose and support a presidential commission on violence committed with firearms.  Such a panel should study the causes of crimes committed with guns as well as suicides, accidents, etc.  The panel should state its views with regard to desirable legislation.  NRA should participate in the work of the panel.  The panel should meet for a year and issue a report.  pl

Madison, Federalist # 46 and gun rights

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

James Madison (Publius) in Federalist Paper #46
arguing for the ratification of the present Constitution including the Second amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To "sweeten" the medicine of an insistence on individual gun rights in the US, it is usually claimed now that Americans want guns for; hunting, target shooting, home defense, collecting...

In fact "Publius" argues here that the possession of firearms by the citizens and the potential for resistance to tyranny implicit in that possession is necessary as part of the system of checks and balances that holds tyranny at bay. 

As one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers Madison is engaged in trying to persuade the states to ratify the present constitution.  Without such assurances as this one, it is quite possible that the constitution might never have been ratified.  In fact, two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island had voted against ratification by the time that Virginia voted in favor by the slimmest of margins thus establishing a majority.

NB that the private possession of weapons is mentioned by Madison BEFORE he mentions the similar effect of armed militias belonging to the states.  It is stated as an absolute good.  This explains the structure of the clauses in the second amendment.  The militia clause is intended to stand as an example of what in Madison's view was an absolute right of the citizens.

For those who would reply that an armed citizenry could have no effect against a modern army, it is only necessary to direct their attention to the history of the last years.

To those on the left or right who think an unarmed citizenry is a good idea, consider your true thoughts regarding the scruples of government servants and possible future regimes.  pl

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Susan Rice - Open Thread

Susan Rice will not be Sec State.  pl

Compass for the ship of state by Michael Brenner

"Presidents in their second terms have latitude for fresh foreign policy initiatives – so it seems. Revalidated at the ballot box and freed from the compulsion to view all through the optic of the next election, Barack Obama can focus on those vexing international problems that bedevil the United States – and which hold the promise of a respected legacy."  Michael Brenner 

Download COMPASS FOR THE SHIP OF STATE

My "Dream Team" at Defense and State

I think that nomination of Susan Rice to be Secretary of State would be a bad idea.  This has nothing to do with the Benghazi canard.    She recited the administration's screed on the attack in Libya.  BHO said at his 14 November press conference that he, and not Rice, is the proper target for their animus over Benghazi.  He was quite correct in that statement.  My problem with Rice is that she has often been described to me by those close to her as a hyper-ambitious and ruthless person who would be a threatening presence in the state Department headquarters in Foggy Bottom

At the same time, I think the appointment of Senator John Kerry to be Secretary of Defense would be an insult to the armed forces that he falsely denounced in lying testimony and statements after his return to Vietnam during the war.  The same Kerry faked his participation in a "ceremony" in which he and other malcontents threw their military medals away.  Kerry had bought copies to throw in order to be able to keep his own.

-------------------------------------

IMO the president should nominate former senator Bob Kerrey to be Secretary of Defense.  Kerrey was a long serving and moderate member of the senate from Nebraska.  He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his service in VN as a SEAL officer.  He was badly wounded in the same war.  Kerrey was president of the New School University in New York for a long time.  He would be respected by the armed forces.

John Huntsman, Jr. would be my choice for Secretary of State.  A moderate Republican, his nomination would demonstrate the sincerity of BHO's desire to "work across the aisle."  Huntsman was US ambassador to China and speaks fluent Chinese.  China should be a major focus of our diplomacy.  To have a secretary of state so familiar with that country would be a significant advantage.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

 

The Republicans defeated themselves.

 
 

The Republicans defeated themselves. 

They did that by allowing themselves to become a closed system in which they would not communicate with anyone outside the system and would not accept information that was not generated within that system.  Half the country is made up of people who refuse to watch anything but Fox News, who listen to no opinion but that of people like Limbaugh and the like and who are enchanted by political pitchmen like Lance Priebus, Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove.  Rove is a man so deluded by his own fantasies that Megan Kelly had to physically go to the Fox News analytic cell during election coverage to correct the on the air effect of Roves' delusions.

What were these massive shared delusions and what errors do they engender?

1- As I have written, the GOP badly over-estimated white turnout for the election.  The party apparatus did not grasp the fact that disdain for BOTH candidates would auto-suppress the vote in their core white constituency.  The GOP did that to themselves by nominating a candidate who in the end was still a "Mormon plutocrat married to a known equestrienne."  There IS real demographic change in the US but the effect of that would have been less in this election if the Republicans had not shot themselves in their various feet by ignoring the actual situation in the electorate.

2- The GOP has to learn to make reasonable concessions to the people who voted Democratic in this election.  John Wilkes Booth asked in his journal "Who's country is this?"  The little book was found on his body after he was killed by federal troops. The adherents of the hard, hard anti-Latino positions of today's Republican Party need to consider the futility of Booth's question.  They need to grasp the idea that the sons and daughters of today's Latino immigrants can be made into conservative Americans if a sincere effort is made to do so.  As I have written the central values of the great majority of Latinos are compatible with a rational conservatism.  Prosperity and a welcoming attitude will make the transfer of allegiance from the Democrats a reality.  That is not to say that the border should not be secured, but, in fact, that process is moving steadily forward.

3- The GOP needs to start nominating electable candidates.  In the old days party bosses picked candidates on the basis of their electability.  Perhaps nomination through the primary election process is not such a good idea.  pl  

                          

Electoral College Results by Population

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

In comments to the recent post on what happened to the White Vote, TTG asked about the electoral college results map adjusted for actual population density.  Its an excellent question, because what we have is that the portions of the non population adjusted map show a LOT of red compared to the blue, the reality is that a LOT more people live in the blue areas than the red.  

For instance in this map from Mark Newman at U Michigan's Center for the Study of Complex Systems shows the red/blue state map by population density (this is NOT the electoral college map, that's below):

Below you can find several maps that adjust for population density and see what I mean.  Links back to the original site below them.

2012 Electoral College Results Map from the Denver Post (showing FL for President Obama as projected):

2012 Electoral Map by population density from Mark Newman at U Michigan:

Here are the 2008 results adjusted for population, also from Mark Newman:

If you click through he's also got this down to the county level for both years with very good explanations of how he's done the weighting for density and what it means.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

The missing white vote in 2012

IMO the punditry is missing one of the available analytic "angles" in thinking about this election.  IMO a lot of rural white people may have stayed home rather than vote for either BHO or Romney.  In their eagerness to see the US become a "multi-culti" kaleidoscope of peoples and groups the media are beating the drum hard for the GOP to turn itself inside out to become a slightly more rightward leaning version of the Democratic Party.  The 2% decline in the share of votes cast by white people is cited as evidence of inevitable decline of  caucasian dominance in the USA.

That may be a flawed analysis.

I think a lot of white people in all those red counties pictured above hold deeply racist views concerning BHO.  Some of them may have voted for him in 2008 out of fascination with the novelty of the idea of him and as a mute protest against the domestic and foreign policy misrule of the Bush administrations.  The financial disaster into which we were clearly falling probably added to willingness to experiment with the Obama idea.  After  4 years of his government and endless "cracker barrel" discussion of the notion of a n---r president, many of these folks were completely and irreversibly against him.  If you don't think that is true, you need to get out of the blue areas on the map above and talk to people.  You may be afraid to do that and you may be justified in feeling that way.  In my years as a business consultant I learned not to take foreign clients out into the countryside for meetings, recreation, etc.  In general they perceived a profound difference in the attitude of the rural people and wanted to flee back to the blue enclaves.

At the same time, the Mormon factor was in play in this election.  The polling of rural people, especially white evengelical Protestants is generally all about talking to people who have overcome their doubts about Mormons as Christians.  The polling is not extensive among those who would not vote for someone who they think belongs to a secretive, non-Christian cult.  Those people probably do not want to talk about this to poll takers.

If you seek a net effect from my hypotheses, it seems likely to me that the conclusion reached by quite a few citizens was that they preferred not to vote at all rather than vote for either of two unacceptable candidates.

That effect may have played a significant role in the result.  the Republicans should be careful in doing their "homework" before they start making themselves into Democrats.  The potential white vote out there in "flyover" country may be larger than what was showing in this election.  pl  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Score Card - 2012

As we anticipated here:

Obama/Biden won by more than 290 votes in the electoral college.

Tim Kaine won a senate seat from Virginia.

The Democratic Party retains control of the US Senate.

The 2016 election season begins tomorrow.  Does this mean that Virginia is now a blue state?  No, it does not.  pl

Say Goodbye to Romney.

Fearless forecast for tomorrow's election and whatever the lawyering may be thereafter:

- Obama/Biden wins in the electoral college by at least 290 votes.

- The Democrats retain control of the senate.

- Virginia elects Tim Kaine to be a US Senator.   pl

 

Questions on the LDS Church for Romney

 
 

"Reviewing Romney's statements - and "inelegant misstatements" - throughout this campaign, we have now come to feel that full disclosure about the shaping influence of religion on his character is of even greater urgency to the voter.  It is no longer about the postponed Mormon Moment, for that has been lost.  It is about Romney himself.  Who is this man?  What settled convictions does he have?  Is Romney the face of Mormonism?  Or, as some Mormons have come to feel, has he so far distanced himself from core values of his religion that they feel constrained to emphasize that he is not that face?"  Huff Post

-------------------------------------------

You hear people say that Romney should not be questioned about his religion because in the United States there is no "religious test" for public office.  This is a basic error.  The US Constitution specifies that there shall be no religious test for office.  This is a restriction on the behavior of government, not on the behavior of citizens.  All the provisions of the constitution are restrictions on the behavior and power of the federal government and by extension through the 14th Amendment on the state governments.  Nothing restricts the right of citizens to consider ideologies and "mind sets" in deciding who to vote for.  IMO  such a consideration is desirable.  What is religion but an ideology?  Would it not be appropriate to ask an avowed anarchist to clarify his views before voting about him?

The theology of the LDS church is no more "off limits" than that of any other religion.  It may be that one believes that all theology is nonsense.  I would not argue the point, but the importance of theology to a believer and the effect on behavior and policy can not be dismissed.  "As man is, God was" is a tenet of the LDS faith.  What effect does it have on someone to believe that right behavior will lead to a personal destiny as savior of a planet other than this one?  Does such a belief lead to a lessened concern for this planet as opposed to other planets where personal destiny beckons?  In the area of Mormon custom, what are we all to think of the LDS tendency to a reliance on a communal survivalism that causes Mormons to prepare for a post apocalyptic world in which families must rely on their hoards of food and supplies.  Is this a vision of a Hobbesian universe in which there is war of "all against all" with the Latter Day Saints arrayed against the gentiles?  How does that kind of belief affect future Romney policy about public responsibility for disaster relief?  In the present emergency I have heard Ann Romney speak of the need for us to care for each other.  Is she speaking of private charity or government responsibility?  At the end of this Huff Post piece there is reference to a kind of Mormon "takiya," (the Shia practice of dissimulation for the faith).  Is this the basis for the obvious lying in the Romney campaign's political propaganda?  This is the campaign that declared that it would not be restricted by fact-checkers.  This is the campaign that lied about jeep production and the attendant jobs being exported to China.  Are we to think that the candidate does not know that his campaign lies?

IMO people are right to consider the effects of religion on behavior in public office.  They were right to consider it in the case of JFK and they should consider it now.  pl  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-c-whitney/romney-mormonism_b_2068070.html

Pat Lang's endorsements

FWIW I run a blog that is all about foreign policy, military affairs and my other various interests.  I generally do not endorse candidates but the choices in the coming national and local elections are so stark that it would seem cowardly to stand aside and await an outcome.  I recommend the following choices for president, congress and in the city of Alexandria:

For president and VP of the United States - Barack Obama and Joseph Biden.  The US economy is recovering slowly from the disasters inflicted on it by the profligate actions of the Bush Administration and the Congress on both sides of the aisle.  GDP is rising, unemployment is falling, employment is rising, the stock market is doing well.  Profits are high in corporate America.  What is needed now is the patience needed to let the recovery continue.  What is NOT needed is an administration intent on renewed de-regulation of the financial industry, a de-regulation that could only lead to further "looting" of the economy by the Gordon Gecko crowd.  In foreign affairs, another Obama Administration is a lesser evil for me.  Like Romney, Obama appears to subordinate the interests of the US to those of Israel, but at least he has shown the courage to "push back" against Zionist demands for effective operational control of US forces in an attack against Iran.  Neo-Wilsonian influence is strong in the Obama foreign policy apparatus.  An ideologically driven sponsorship of revolution in the Islamic World regardless of the identity of the revolutionaries is only acceptable because it is not as bad as the probable domination of a Romney policy by the neocons who surround him.  Is Romney really interested in foreign affairs?  It is probably true that he is not and that he is shamming interest in pursuit of the only thing he seems to want - the presidency as a life prize with which to feed his CEO ego. 

For US senator in Virginia - Timothy Kaine.  I simply cannot stand Allen. 

For member of the House of Representatives from the 8th district of Virginia - James Moran.  I do not wish to see the extreme right further strengthen its grip on the House. 

For mayor of Alexandria - Andrew Macdonald.  The present mayor has shown himself to be an agent of massive commercial re-development rather than a defender of the city's historic character and quality of life.  For that reason I recommend his opponent.

For city council in Alexandria - Alicia Hughes, Robert Wood, and Frank Fannon.  I decline to recommend a full slate.

pl 

Benghazi fever on the right

It is being said over and over again that the Obama Administration deliberately obfuscated what happened in the attack on the consulate in Benghazi.  Day by day a trickle of old e-mails, partial early reports and developing assessments are hailed as "proof' that something shameful happened and is happening in the US Government, something hidden.

The truth is that early reports and judgments of traumatic, sudden events like this are usually incorrect and need to be developed and "straightened out" with the passage of time and completed investigations.

Complicating the situation in Benghazi was the location there of a CIA base covered as other than that.  These people were working on the very problems that eventually resulted in the attack and the deaths.  Not surprisingly, the CIA has not been desirous of the revelation of the presence and status of its employees and so the declarations to the press have not been accurate in that regard.

None of this matters to the "Friends of Trump" 1% crowd who will build any kind of sandcastle that they can that might influence a few more cretins in the battleground states to act out their racism in the polling booth.

The media is cooperating in this psywar campaign.  Does this mean that they have decided Romney will win?  pl

 

"Horses and Bayonets."

USS Lamson, a US Navy ship of the era to which Romney referred. (1916)

As we all should know, national popular vote polls are legally meaningless since the US constitution dictates that elections for president and vice-president are in the electoral college by electors chosen by the states however they choose to do so.  This is system will not change.  A change would require a constitutional amendment ratified by 2/3 of the states.

The states are more or less free to decide the manner of their choice of electors.  Currently only Maine and Nebraska use something other than a "winner take all" method in the popular election in the state concerned.  The two exceptions choose electors on the basis of the popular vote in each US House of Representatives congressional district.  How they apportion the two electoral positions derived from the the state's US senators is not clear to me.  Close popular elections in several states can easily result in the election of someone other than the candidate who, across the country, had the most citizen votes.  This has happened several times and may again this time.

The purpose of this indirect system of election was and is to emphasize the continuing federal nature of the United States.

Who won the debate on foreign policy?  I think that the president easily mastered his opponent in this contest.   Aside from the "horses and bayonets" moment, the most interesting thing said was Romney's insistence that a psyops effort should be mounted to change the mind of the Muslims about Islam.  I wonder if he actually understood what he had been briefed to say.  pl 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/23/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE89K0A920121023

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_electoral_college

 

An Expert Artisan's View: Ephraim Halevy on Iran and the Foreign Policy Stakes in the US Presidential Election

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

On Sunday, the Al-Monitor published a very in depth and timely interview between reporter Laura Rozen and former Mossad Director and Israeli National Security Advisor Ephraim Halevy.**  The interview covers many important foreign policy issues, specifically dealing with Iran, how to approach one's adverseries, and the impact of Israel's concerns with Iran on the US presidential campaign and US foreign policy.

Some of the most important take aways were his remarks about how one should deal with one's adversaries:

    " Therefore, I realized that dialogue with an enemy is essential. There is nothing to     lose. Although the claim was, if you talk to them, you legitimize them But by not     talking to them, you don't de-legitimate them. So this convinced me, that we all     have been very superficial in dealing with our enemies. [...]

    Not everything you try succeeds. But you have to be willing to try. If you fail 10 times,     and succeed once, the success outweighs the failures.

    What happened: In order to meet public opinion, both Israel and the US governments     have tied our own hands. There is a law [...] which prohibits US officials from talking     to Hamas [...] In the end, you create an inherent disadvantage for yourself."

He also has some really important thoughts in regards to leadership at the strategic level in regards to operations, such as the one to kill/capture bin Laden:

     "I think nobody who has been involved in ordering the use of force can forget the     angst, the days and nights of concern, as to what and how it can be done.

    Romney has said, Anybody could have decided to finish bin Laden. Even [Jimmy]     Carter. This again  was a mistaken concept. President Obama didn’t just decide [one     day to kill bin Laden]. The operation to end the life of bin Laden necessitated     multiple points of decision by him. I know from operations I have been involved with     on a smaller scale.

    They are very intricate. You don’t just give the order and wait in your office for     commanders to come three months later and say it’s done. No. This kind of operation,     which is accident prone, hands on operation, one has to make one decision after the     other […] It took courage and cool headedness and leadership. Anyone who says it     was an easy thing to decide, doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. [Such     comments] show a total lack of understanding of what this kind of operation means.

    Once I was in charge of an operation and Netanyahu was Prime Minister. One day,     because of the intricacy of what we were doing, I talked to him 10 times on the phone     […] Ten times. It was a Friday, a day I will not forget.

    This kind of operation, every minute, an issue comes up, that sometimes requires a     decision on the political level.

    The Libya story, the way it’s being used, is a sordid manipulation. […]"

And he discusses something near and dear to my heart, which is trying to understand the identities of those we have to engage with - allies, competitors, and especially adversaries:

    "Over the years, both because of personal contact with some key figures on the other         side […] I realized, in order to be effective with one’s enemies, you have to have two     essential capabilities: To overcome by force if necessary — and/or to withstand their     force if necessary. And do everything you can to get into their minds and try to     understand how they see things, what their concerns are — their dreams,     aspirations, hopes, feelings are. And where if at all there is room for common ground     of one kind or another.

    I think that what we have had over the years is an abundance of one side, and a dearth     of the other.     There has been a big emphasis, and rightly so, [on overcoming     adversaries by force]. But we have paid little attention [to understanding one’s     enemies.] And I have always had the feeling to look for ways and means of creating     channels for dialogue. I was involved in channels of dialogue in one way or other,     in major and minor roles, as of 1973-1974, when I served here in Washington, D.C., as     Mossad station chief."

The whole interview is excellent.  Ms. Rozen did a great job, so click on over and read the whole thing!  It'll be far more informative on anything at the debate, in the Spin Room, or in the coverage over the next week...

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

** Hat tip to Tom Levenson over at Balloon Juice

October Surprise?

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Not sure if this is the October Surprise anyone was expecting, but since it involves Iran, there would be a certain symmetry to it.  The New York Times has reported that Iran and the US have agreed to direct negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.  Iran is insisting that these occur after the election so that they know who they are negotiating with.  This, of course, makes sense given the statements of Governor Romney, his campaign, and his advisors regarding Iran and its nuclear energy program.  The speculation in the article is that should Governor Romney get elected that neither the US nor Iran will want to actually have these talks.  This is an excellent example of how personalities and relationships matter.  The Times reports that this development is the result of very quiet, very low key diplomacy by the Obama Administration over the past three plus years coupled with the increases in economic sanctions.  That these efforts appear to be bearing fruit is a positive sign, but Iran's guarded response demonstrates that they have received the messages from the Romney campaign regarding potential, future policy towards Iran and the Middle East.  This too is an excellent example of how hard it is, given the nature of the US political system and the way it interacts with our news media (such as it is...) to use the information portion of national power.  It does not matter if an administration is disciplined and focused when there are over 500 other elected federal officials in Congress and often dozens of potential presidential candidates, given that we are now running two to four year presidential campaigns, hundreds of authoritative analysts and advisors and commentators (and I mean that loosely in both command of the facts and actual quality of analysis) all with their own messages being blasted out 24/7.  It seems like the Iranians have learned a lesson from President Reagan - "trust, but verify".

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do NOT necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

Marshall Would Have Been Proud--by Foresman

Mother Jones is not a magazine known for highlighting the good works of institutions such as VMI. More often than such institutions would be in Mother Jones "progressive/liberal/populists" crosshairs.  That is not the case in a recent article regarding the Romney speech at VMI.  As COL Lang has suggested in earlier post VMI would be a good host but would do nothing to give an appearance of support for a particular presidential candidate.

I have no doubt that the VMI graduate who organized the appearance, believed that it was right and proper.  I know him, he is a fine young man, but like many of us in our youth, he allowed his exhubrance to get in the way of common sense. 

There is a good reason for the military to remain impartial--regardless of who is elected, that person will be the Commander in Chief as specfied by the Constitution of the United States.  The military's alligence is to the Constitution, not a particular political candidate.  Unfortunately this message and responsibility is often lost on some who serve in the military; or some who use their retired rank to indicate support for a particular candidate.  Neutrality is the best course; to be partisan will ultimately erode the special trust and bond between those serving in uniform and the American public.  Foresman

"The White Horse Prophecy" by Clifford Kirakofe

The White Horse Prophecy was attributed to Joseph Smith after his death by a prominent LDS member.  The gist is that sometime in the future the US Constitution would "hang by a thread" and Mormons would join in with others to save it. The White Horse appears to be a symbolic reference to the LDS community.   Back in the 1840s era, there were a number of sects developing here in the US which were not mainstream.  Millennialists like the Millerites are an example.  Back in that day prophecy and interpreting scripture linking it to contemporary conditions was popular.  Today, this is standard fare with the Fundamentalists. Back then sectionalism was a problem in the US and the slavery issue was looming threatening the Union.  Perhaps this is what Smith's followers may have had in mind.   Who knows as they themselves are not agreed about it.  Within the LDS church, the prophecy does not appear to be taken as "canonical" because there is debate about its authenticity and interpretation.  That there is debate within a church on theological matters is not unusual. On the other hand, some LDS members feel strongly that it impels them to defend the US Constitution in troubled times.  Both Romney's father and Romney are on record endorsing this type of interpretation. Some years ago I had an LDS friend and colleague  who was quite conservative.  An academic and a lawyer, he was very strongly pro-Constitution interpreted from a traditional Madisonian perspective.  And he was quite strongly interested in the Federalist Papers and so on.  His views seemed in line with general non-LDS conservative thinking and I detected no hint of a theocratic perspective. It seems to me reasonable that members of any religion in our country who find special reasons or spiritual inspiration to support the Constitution are within their rights.  Proper support and civic activity may well be a positive thing.  One problem, of course, would be if they took this idea in a theocratic direction as that itself would be unconsitutional.  Naturally, Americans do not want a situation in which someone who became president thought of himself as a prophet of some kind.  The closest we have come to this IMO was Woody Wilson, a delusional and easily manipulated type.  GWBush seemed to be in this category also. Presently, the Fundamentalists espousing "Dominionism" have the clearest agenda to impose theocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

As Col. Lang has said, our country faces a real dilemma given the two candidates. If Romney is elected and does not dump the Neocons, then it will be more of perpetual war for perpetual peace.  If Obama is elected, IMO it will be the same.  Clifford Kirakofe.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Horse_Prophecy

 

 

 

Maybe Cantor is the leader?

"... the Israel lobby seems to be breaking openly, between Likudniks and liberal Zionists. This is further evidence of the fact that Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis of the complicity of the Israel lobby in the disastrous Iraq war can now be discussed, because liberal Jews are disassociating themselves from the traditional lobby. Also notice that Alterman bashes David Gregory for calling Netanyahu the "leader of the Jewish people.""  Mondoweiss

-----------------------------------

I think I will just leave this open to discussion.  pl

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/jewish-political-community-supported-iraq-war-but-now-divides-between-neocon-funders-and-liberals-alterman.html

On Ole Tailgunner Joe...

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

MS2 in the comments to COL Lang's recent post about Marshall asked about where to go to get started reading about these things.  In regards to the Senator McCarthy material I highly recommend Oshinsky's biography entitled A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.  I found it very easy to read, well researched, and the author, clearly dealing with a controversial subject, actually manages to show Senator McCarthy's humanity while clearly articulating how far off the rails he had gone.

The transcript for the Army/McCarthy Hearings can be found at this link.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army. 

"The Choice 2012" A PBS biography

 
 

This two hour production was aired on Wednesday 9 October, 2012.  It was a thorough look at the two men.  I was not comforted.

Romney emerged from this portrait as a self obsessed businessman who wants the presidency as a prize, a symbol of accomplishment in a life dedicated to personal accomplishment and devotion to a church that he avoids discussing.  He has a very exalted view of himself as does his wife.  In one revealing incident recounted in the production, Romney and his wife met with a group of Iowa Republicans in Boston just after he left the State House.  One of the Iowans asked hard questions.  Ann Romney was so incensed at this that she rose, left the room without a word and did not return.  What does this say of the imperial  presidency that might emerge from a Romney victory?  The tale of his always shifting policy positions makes it clear that he is through and through a businessman.  Policy positions mean nothing in business.  Only profits have meaning in business.   If you think that you know what a President Romney might do in a crisis with regard to any issue, you are probably wrong.  In any situation he will sum up his personal "balance sheet" and act on that basis.

President Obama may not be strong enough physically and emotionally to suffer the "blows" that would be his portion in another four year term.  Look how much the man has aged in the last four.  His road to power was a tortured path in which he survived and prospered by his wits as he moved from one elite eductional institution to another in search of identity.  Listenng to him speak to the camera as president of the Harvard Law Review is revealing.  IMO, at that point he was still a white man in a somewhat black skin and his black colleagues on the Review thought the same.  His body language, diction and vocabulary selection were not "black" at all.  It took his deliberate "voyage" into the bosom of his wife's family to achieve what is at least a plausible public persona as a black American, rather than just another mainstream American.  If he is elected, Republican obstructionism will continue unabated.  He is a sensitive, intelligent soul.  He looks exhausted, used up.  pl

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice-2012/

McCarthy, Alsop, Clemons and Ignatius vs George Marshall

In his speech at Lexington, Virginia on the 8th, Romney made it a point to praise General of the Army George Marshall the Nobel Prize for Peace winner who was also Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and head of the American Red Cross.

Why did he do that?  It seems to me that this praise as well as the chosen venue for the speech was calcualted to move Romney's PR and marketing generated image back to the center of the political spectrum where the greatest number of American voters reside. 

George Marshall has been a favorite punching bag for the extreme right in US politics since the 1950s.

After the end of WW2, PresidentTtruman sent Marshall to China to attempt to mediate the ongoing Chinese civil war, a war between the communists and the nationalist KMT government.  At that time the nationalist government was heavily supported by the United States.  Several billion dollars of military aid had been provided.  Fifty thousand US Marines had been landed in China to prevent seizure of key facilities by the communists.  Marshall found that the nationalist government and its forces had been very severely damaged in the struggle against Japan in WW2 and that the communist forces were far more capable.  At the same time he reached the conclusion that the level of money corruption inside the nationalist government was so severe that the money and equipment being provided by the US was serving little useful purpose in defending the country against a communist victory.  On that basis he recommended to Truman that the US should not involve itself more deeply in China's troubles.   Predictably, the communists won control of China.  Chiang Kai Shek, the nationalist president, later said that nationalist China had lost the war because it had "rotted from within."  Marshall had resolutely resisted the idea of direct US involvement with its own ground forces in the outcome of the civil war.  For that he was pilloried by the extreme right; Joe McCarthy, Joe Alsop, the John Birch Society and by others of that ilk as one of the men who "lost China."  This theme has been an ongoing motif of the hard right in the US ever since.  Romney moved decisively away from allegiance with that wing of his party in this praise of Marshall. 

Today, Steve Clemons and David Ignatius attacked Romney's praise of Marshall in separate columns.  These attacks were not on the basis of the old China nonsense.  No.  These attacks were squarely based on Marshall's advice as Secretary of State to Truman that he not commit the United States to recognition of Israel in 1948 (or any other time).  In this advice he was joined by James V. Forrestal, George F. Kennan, Robert Lovett, John J. McCloy, Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson.  Marshall foresaw that the independance of Israel would lead to an unending series of wars, the displacement of vast numbers of people from their native lands and a greatly increased burden of hostility to be borne by the United States on behalf of a small country in a far away place.  Both Ignatius and Clemons acknowledge the results of American recognition but nevertheless assert that Marshall was "wrong."

He was wrong?  How was he wrong in his judgment?  He was wrong?  Ah, he was wrong from the point of view of columnists who know which side of the bread is buttered.  That's how he was wrong.

Romney has portrayed himself as the "next best thing" to an Israeli.  You have to wonder what he thought he was doing in this speech.    He must have known that the Israel first crowd would react.  pl 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/mitt-romney-george-marshall-and-israel-palestine/263365/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/does-romney-truly-understand-the-middle-east-revolution/2012/10/09/ac623cce-1204-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

Romney to speak at VMI today.

My Alma Mater and that of several of us here is hosting a foreign policy lecture by Governor Romney.  The lecture will be to the corps of cadets and is not a public event.  CSPAN TV will broadcast it live  at 1120 Eastern Time.

The address will be in the Hall of Valor in the Marshall Leadership and Ethics Center at VMI.  The room is so named because the upper gallery walls are lined with glass cases in which the military decorations of alumni are displayed.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Military_Institute

 

"Stench" visits the office.

http://www.dilbert.com/

 pl

Some Updated Information on the Innocence of Muslims Affair

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

The Innocence of Muslims affair (incident?  incidents?) has become a fast moving story that seems to get more fantastical the more that gets reported.  It is now pretty clear that Sam Bacile is not an Israeli, Israeli American, or even Jewish.  Bacile is, apparently, a pseudonym for a Nakoula Basselly Nakoula - who appears to be an Egyptian emigre and was involved in this project with a number of naturalized American Copts and native born American Evangelicals.  Members of the cast have clearly indicated that the film was supposed to be/originally about Coptic persecution and was overdubbed in both English and Arabic with the anti-Islamic dialogue that has led to some serious problems in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen including the death of four American foreign service personnel.  The thirteen minute clip, posted to You Tube in July, began to gather interest over the past several days due to its being promoted by both Quran burning advocate Terry Jones and Egyptian-American Copt Morris Sadek.  The fatal anti-American violence in Libya may have partially been the result of various media and extremist movement sources claiming that the video had been produced for the 9-11 remembrances and was being widely shown on American TV on that day. 

While the story will continue to undergo change over the next several days as more facts come to light, the real issues are how does the US adjust its strategies and policies in the Middle East in response to these activities.  It also demonstrates very clearly that no matter what America's official positions, messaging, and actions are they can all be overcome by events regardless of whether they are unofficial messaging being transmitted by Americans - official or otherwise or the activities of the actual actors on the ground in the Middle East.

*Adam L. Silverman, PhD is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC).  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USAWC and/or the US Army.

Bibi campaigns for Romney

"Opposition leader Shaul Mofaz (Kadima) blamed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for what he called the deteriorating relationship between the US and Israel, in a special meeting during the Knesset’s summer recess on Wednesday.

“Mr. Prime Minister, tell me, who is our biggest enemy, the US or Iran? Who do you want replaced, [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or [US President Barack] Obama?” Mofaz asked in the plenum. “How low are you prepared to drag relations with our closest ally?”

 According to the opposition leader, world leaders have not turned their backs to Israel, but they do not trust Netanyahu. "  Jpost

-------------------------------

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#49001490

 

 

Shaul Mofaz is a former chief of Staff of the IDF.  He is of Iranian extraction. 

There was a remarkable discussion on Morning Joe today.  This discussion was on the subject of Natanyahu's gross interference in the US presidential election and his attempts to control US foreign policy and armed forces operations.  The Israeli/Likud side was represented by Donny Deutsch the vulgarian real estate mogul and Andrea Mitchell , notorious for her thinly concealed advocacy of Israeli positions..  The US side was represented by Lawrence O'Donnell and Joe Klein.  O'Donnell and Klein made it clear that they believe that Natanyahu is making an open "play" to elect Romney who Natanyahu thinks is his "bitch."  They also stated that Natanyahu seeks to control American foreign policy so that he can simply "order" US forces to attack Iran.  pl

 

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=284775

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/united-states-and-israel-engage-in-public-spat-over-iran-policy.html?pagewanted=all

Stewart and Colbert vs. the Democrats

Last night's episode featured Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) New York and a variety of Democratic Party "liberals" interviewed in the lobby of the convention on the subject of "toleration."   Both of these are worth watching.

The adorable senator was elected to fill HC's seat a few years back.  She stands for re-election in a couple of years.  She has the Valley Girl voice, blond good looks that ought to place her in the GOP, and the expectation that men will accept any sort of foolishness if she giggles at them.  My very grown up wife finds her deeply offensive.  I have no problem with Kirsten.  She is still a little bit too much the PTA president and not enough Olympia Snow, but she is not my senator.  Personally, I would rather vote for Michelle Dockery for the senate.  She's not an American?  Ah, shucks, this is a technicality.

Then there are the "liberal" faithful on the subject of inclusiveness.  pl

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-september-5-2012-kirsten-gillibrand

On the 4th, Colbert (the second whitest man in North America) interviewed Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (D) New York.  She represents the "fightin' 9th" or maybe the "fightin' 11th."   Born in the US she is a product of US/NY Schools even though her parents are from Jamaica.  In the course of their talk it became clear that she thinks that slavery still was legal in Brooklyn, NY in 1898 and that the people responsible for this were "the Dutch."  Seriously.  Colbert, a South Carolinian, found this situation difficult to deal with.  pl

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/418674/september-04-2012/better-know-a-district---new-york-s-9th---yvette-clarke

The Democrats ignored massive dissent on Jerusalem. - Reason.com

"Although Democrats adopted a plank supporting the constitutional overturning of Citizens United for the sake of democracy, they managed to ignore their own party rules and delegate voices this afternoon when amending the party platform. DNC Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa announced the party required a two-thirds vote to amend the party platform. However, minutes after failing to reach the threshold after three separate votes, he awkwardly moved forward and declared the two-thirds threshold had been reached."  Reason.com

--------------------

So, the Democrats love democracy but.... not really.  The more Villaraigosa repeated the voice vote, the louder were the "nays."  He's a good machine politician and so, in the end, he ignored the dissent on the "we love Israel" planks in the platform.  As he said on MJ today, there were no registered complaints.  He is lucky.  Any such complaints would have forced a roll call vote.  How embarassing that would have been.

"Every family has its ups and downs."  Quotation? 

The "down side' for Democrats in their relentless quest for diversity is the diversity itself.  Traditional Democratic support groups like Jews and especially Zionist Jews have less and less "clout" in the face of the indifference of the multitude of other groupd for whom Zionism is just another tribal nationalism seen through the anti-colonial lens of the predominately "left" orientation of today's Democratic Party.

The platform committee tried to walk away from the worshipful attitude towards Israel that Zionist money and media power still dictate.  Then the delegates tried to vote down the platform amendments.  AIPAC won that vote.  How long will that continue?  How long will US policy be dictated in Tel Aviv?  pl

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/09/05/what-bibi-wants/

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/05/dnc-chair-villaraigosa-declares-super-ma/print

Romney, business and the presidency

"Paradoxically, the bar was high for Mitt Romney's speech to the Republican convention not because much was expected of him but because it was not.

In six years of campaigning for the presidency, he has managed to leave such a hazy and sour impression in the minds of the mass of American voters that he is barely regarded as a human being. In the days and hours leading up to Romney's big moment, delegate after delegate at the convention told me, with a glint of panicked hope in their eyes, that in Romney's speech he would finally have a chance to introduce himself -- to seem real, to be understood."  The Atlantic

----------------------------

I didn't watch any of the convention and will not watch the infomercial in NC either.  In my distant youth, national political conventions were fun.  The issues were settled in lovely smoke filled rooms.  Demonstrations marched about the hall and journalists of high reputation presided over black and white images that they clearly did not take seriously.  Now.....  Sigh....  The commercializtion of America is nearly complete, as is the momification, the political cleansing, etc.  As part of that, the idea has taken hold that politics is merely a sub-division of marketing.  People prattle of "market shares,"  "media markets,"  TV "buys,"  and above all "branding," as though we are engaged in buying f-----g toothpaste.  The old guys on Mt. Rushmore would not be pleased.

Included in this mess is the notion, seemingly accepted by all that the president is the "commander in chief" of the United States.  He is not.  He is commander in chief of the armed forces.  He has no more right outside civilian law to command civilians than does Alfred E. Newman.  (Look it up) 

An even more egregious folly is the notion that the president of the US is CEO of the USA.  The United States of America is nothing like a business corporation.  I have been in government as a civilian and I have been in business as a corporate officer of a large international company and I assure you that business and government are not alike at the top in the USA.

The CEO of a large corporation has freedom of action within the guidance of the board of directors of the company.  He/she is hired to make money for the company.  Other than going to jail, the only thing the board of directors is concerned with is the bottom line on the balance sheet that represents the only reason for the company's existence.  This is MONEY.  How much money (profit) did we make this year and how much are we likely to make next year?  Those are the only really important questions for a business.  General Motors does not exist to make vehicles.  It exists to make PROFITS.  If that does not occur then the board and/or the stockholders get a new CEO.  Until that happens the CEO has a free hand to make money for the owners doing pretty much what he/she wants to do.

The president of the US exists within a very different system.  He does not have a free hand, except perhaps within the bounds of certain foreign policy and war making features that originated in the Cold War.  The constitution of the US created a system designed to limit power, not to enable it.  The assumption was that the power of those who have the money and guns is unlimited unless it is restrained by law. In the president's world, the board (Congress) sits every day properly watching to insure that the non-CEO president does not exceed the standing and ever  changing authorizations of power and money that the Congress grants or has granted.  In BHO's case the Republicans in Congress began to limit his freedom of action within weeks of the inaugural. They have never ceased to do so and will continue if he is re-elected.  In Romney's case, his cretin business friends seem to believe, as does he, that he would arrive in Washington with the discretionary power of a corporate CEO.  He would not.  Unless the Republicans win the presidency and control of both houses of Congress, Romney will be in the same position that BHO has been in for four years.  "Payback is a bitch."  What do they think Romney is going to do, stage a coup against the Congress?

Government does not have a "bottom line" in the business sense.  The US Government is not like a third world government.  Individuals can measure how much they made from government contracts, but the government itself is a "cost center" (business speak) not a "profit center."  It is a non-profit entity that provides services without earning money to pay for them other than fees at parks and similar trivialities.  It gets its money by a levee on the consumers of the services.  It also borrows money and has the ability, along wth banks, to create money by simply putting the right numbers on paper.

In this set up, how would Romney and the Republicans measure their "success?"  Would it be by any growth that occurred in GDP?  Would it be by reduction in expenditure for social services?  Great!  Let's see them do it!  pl

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-capitalist-saint/261823/

Carrying a Grudge - By Richard T. Sale,

Carrying a Grudge By Richard T. Sale, author of Clinton’s Secret Wars

" Nothing is so tragic as to see those people whose emotional development has prematurely stopped and, as a result, their disposition, their bent of mind, has basically settled into an inalterable pattern. This is a pity because a youthful mind exhibits a lively emotional disposition that responds alertly and discerningly to life, its activities, and its events. A generous, welcoming disposition finds wonder everywhere. It is quick to admire because admiration expands the mind and deepens and refines the emotions. It also spurs interest in the admirable. In turn, that interest drives the mind to explore whatever acts to expand its power. More importantly, a lively, welcoming mind uses its activities to develop the instinct of sympathy. "  Sale

 Download The Current Campaign

"The next president of the ..."

 

"In the shadow of a military  (sic) battleship, Mitt Romney formally named Paul Ryan as his running mate Saturday, saying that the 42-year-old Wisconsin congressman was the “intellectual leader” of the Republican Party with the experience to tackle the fiscal crises facing the nation and the temperament to be effective.

“Paul and I are beginning on a journey that will take us to every corner of America,” Romney told thousands of supporters gathered on a muggy morning here, shortly before introducing Ryan and embracing him. “We are offering a positive governing agenda that will lead to economic growth, to widespread and shared prosperity, and that will improve the lives of our fellow citizens. Our plan to strengthen the middle class will get America back to work and get our country back on track.” LA Times

-----------------------------------

I suppose there might be other than "military" battleships...

Romney introduced Ryan as "the next president of the United States" before correcting himself.  Was this a freudian slip betraying an understanding that Ryan would be Romney's Cheney?  Shouldn't Romney be the "intellectual leader of the Republican Party?"

Romney appeared to be having a difficult time reading the teleprompter (or whatever it was).  He several times tripped over words in his text, misreading them or mispronouncing them.  His writers need to give him easier material. 

Ryan is a choice born of fear, a fear that the right wing base will not vote for Romney in sufficient numbers to elect him in key states.  Remember, an American presidential election is about winning majorities in states, not the country as a whole.  This is still a federal republic This is something that people who are not of us often have a hard time learning.  Fareed Zakariya, now suspended from most of his jobs for plagiarizing material for his attacks on 2nd Amendment rights, has never learned this.  More on that will appear here tomorrow.

Ryan will rally the Republican base but he will also alienate many who understand that Ryan's economic thinking includes privatization of Social Security and Medicare.  The Republicans can spin that all they want but Ryan wants to make the economy whole by taking benefits from most people.  That will cost Romney in November.

At the same time, the event was staged in a navy town in front of a storied WW2 battleship, a ship that represents the period of America's greatest military dominance in the world.  Is this a signal as to Romney foreign policy or what?  For Romney to do that is strange behavior for a man who chose not to serve in the military.  Neither did Ryan.  Too good to serve?  How many sons does Romney have?  How many served anything but their church?

In his speech at Norfolk Ryan referred repeatedly to all the things that "we" will do when elected.  Perhaps he does not know that Romney would be president and not he, or has he been given assurances that power will be shared a la Bush/Cheney?  Under the constitution of the US the VP has no power at all, except to wait for the president's death and to preside over the senate.

IMO Ryan will be at least as much a problem as a blessing for Romney.  pl 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-declares-paul-ryan-the-intellectual-leader-of-the-gop-20120811,0,35529.story

A Romney foreign policy team

 

"Other rumored contenders for Romney's NSA are technocratic officials who have served in top policy positions in GOP administrations before, including former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, former NSC Middle East staffer Elliott Abrams, or former State Department Policy Planning director Mitchell Reiss. Campaign aide Dan Senor, who has been closely advising Romney on all thing Middle East, could be in line for a deputy NSA slot, the kind of role Denis McDonoughplays in the current administration, some advisors say.

At the sub-cabinet level, even speculation is difficult because so much depends on who gets the cabinet level slots above. Senior advisor Rich Williamson seems like a natural choice for U.N. ambassador. But the roster of advisors jostling for other positions like deputy secretary of state, deputy defense secretary, under secretary of defense for policy, and others includes several Romney foreign-policy advisors, including former deputy NSA for Iraq and Afghanistan Meghan O'Sullivan, former under secretary of state Robert Joseph, former State Department counselor Eliot Cohen, former assistant secretary of state Stephen Rademaker, former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, and many, many more."  FP

--------------------------------

The president (Mr. covert action) is apparently ahead in nation wide polling.  That doesn't mean a lot but if things go that way we would be spared this horror.

With the exception of Eric Edelman (sorry Eric) I believe that this crew will merrily take the US back to war in one or more places.  That ought to finish off our economy.  So many countries, so few divisions... Oh.  we can fix that!  pl

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/09/who_will_get_top_jobs_in_a_romney_administration

Maybe October will be the cruelest month...

"Alon Ben-Meir, a professor of international relations at New York University's Center for Global Affairs, said Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak used the American visits to send a message to Tehran that Israel won't hesitate to take unilateral action. Ben-Meir cautions U.S. and other officials against seeing the Israeli threats as mere posturing, pointing out the profound national security concerns that shape Israeli defense policy and the country's unshakable faith that Washington will come to its rescue if a strike against Iran triggers retaliation by Tehran or its well-armed allies in the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militia. "I don’t think Israel is bluffing entirely. There is an element of exaggerating its readiness to act and likelihood of winning. But many advisors to Prime Minister Netanyahu are saying that if he waits six or eight months, they may end up unable to do anything significant in terms of damage" to nuclear facilities that Iran has been moving underground to protect them from airstrikes, Ben-Meir said." LA Times

------------------------------------

Once again.  Israel, go for it!  If you think that you can't live with technologically advanced Muslim countries then hit Iran.  You go girl, er, country... You show them wogs what their place is...  at your feet, right?  After all, aren't you God's chosen people?  The stupid Americans will come in and clean up after you by finishing off the enemies of God.  And you better do it before November, 'cause Obama might win and then, he might be harder to control with campaign money and the threat of losing the election in a few places like Florida.  Romney, well, if only you could be sure...  pl  

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/08/iran-not-yet-on-verge-of-obtaining-nuclear-weapons-experts-say.html

Romney and primitive Palestinians

IMO the Israeli government behaved correctly toward Romney.  They were respectful but careful not to prejuduce their relationship with BHO's administration.  Dan Senor, the neocon mouthpice on Romney's stsff, did not succeed in having Romney compromise his freedom of action if he is elected.  Even Bibi held bsck a little,  Barak and Peres acted like the statesmen they are.

Romney, on the other hand managed to imply that the Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories are "wogs" through and through and incapable of self improvement due to their backwardness. 

I accept the fact that some cultures are more of a handicap to the improvement of the material lot of the people than others.  Do not ask.  Nevertheless, the Palestinians are the least likely candidates for that kind of condemnation that i can think of.  Did Senor "feed" Romney this "line" or was it Bolton?

In fact,  the Palestinians both at home and in the diaspora, are among the most educated populations, in the Middle East.  They enthusiastically embraced Western education under both Ottoman and British government, and my experience of them is that they have a highly developed middle class who prosper wherever they go and are valuable citizens.

Their long quarrel with the Jews is a tragedy for all mankind.  Under Israeli occupation they have suffered many indignities and deprivations.  Beyond the question of the personal humiliations of an occupied people subjected to the attentions of the Shin Bet and an occupation army made up largely of teen-aged soldiers showing off for each other, there have been crushing economic penalties inflicted by an exclusivist nationalist colonial stste.

Taxes are collected from the Paeestinians and then withheld from those who paid them.  This seems to be in the hope that this will intimidate the Palestinians into acceptance of "helot" status.  Infrastruction projects are withheld, Emplyoment in Israel is denied.  Houses and neighborhoods are demolished as "mass punishment."  After Oslo there was a period of hope for the Jews and the Palestinians.  This was the time of Barak's premiership.  Palestinian capital from abroad flowed massively into into the WB and Gaza.  The economy flourished, but that golden age was followed by a drive to wreck the Palestinians' possible state.  This drive was successful.

Was Arafat's governmet corrupt?  Yes, so what?  All government's are more or less corrupt.  The people prospered under his rule until Israel wrecked what they had built.

In such a context Romnay imples that the Palesinians are responsible for their poverty.  Either this man is without conscience or he is too ignorant to be president.  pl

Romney promises to support Israeli attack on Iran

"He will also make a speech on Sunday on foreign policy and US-Israeli
relations. It is expected to focus on the Iranian nuclear issue and the common
interests of Israel and the US.

In comments echoing Netanyahu's position that a nuclear Iran is the biggest
threat to the Jewish people since the Holocaust, Romney will say: "We have seen
the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out
again."

Preventing the Iranian regime developing a nuclear weapons
capability "must be our highest national security priority," Romney will say
according to excerpts of the speech released in advance. "The "security of Israel
is in the vital national security interests of the United States."  The Guardian

---------------------------------------------

I am curious to know what authority a President Romney would have for taking the US to war against Iran if Israel chooses to act unilaterally.  I know of no treaty or ratified agreement between Israel and the US that would authorize it.  I know of no UN resolution that would legitimate such action.  Does the recently signed law on US military supply and finance of the IDF require it?  What? 

Of course there is always the possibility that neither candidate would honor any promise made to Israel.  pl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/29/mitt-romney-backs-israel-strike-iran

Anglo-Saxon?

Yes;  Magna Carta, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, our law's roots, our literature's roots.  Pull your heads out of your asses.

 
Mister Darcy was Anglo-Saxon  (Norman), sort of.  pl

What is Romney hiding?

""In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of
the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the
failure of the president to reignite our economy," Romney told the conservative
National Review Online."  Reuters

------------------------------------

This implies that there is something to be found in the returns, something "wonderful"  (2010 reference). 

My guess is that whatever it is frightens the Romney campaign, not because it is illegal but rather because it is a killer politically.

Posibilities:

-  There were years in which he paid no federal income tax on a net basis.

-  His tithing to the LDS church is enormous.

-  His tax shelters overseas are reflective of a totally ideological devotion to unregulated capitalism.

-  A tax strategy that makes Romney look like one of the "sharks" in "Shark Tank."

Or - whatever.  pl  

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/us-usa-campaign-idUSBRE86G10D20120718