The Company You Keep

Mama always told me choose your friends wisely because you're known by the company you keep. We should begin to look at the Presidential candidates in these terms in order to anticipate who could be staffing their government and who would be reflecting the rest of us in the White House and representing America to the rest of the world. The following are some quotes from a sermon delivererd at Howard University on January 15, 2006 by Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., the spiritual advisor and pastor of candidate Barak Obama.
"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college...Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
Mr. Obama has also used the statement about black men in prison-it is incorrect. The statement about black women is insulting, racisr, sexist, and ignores all the accomplished black women beginning with Condoleeza Rise.,
"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
Among ther things, this ignores the U.S. economic boycott of apartheid South Africa that eventually freed Mandella.
"We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."
"We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
This man has been Obama's preacher for more than 20 years. He married Barak and Michelle and baptized their children. We have seen his views reflected in the attitude toward America of Michelle Obama and it simply cannot be that the Senator does not share them as well. You can read similar views on any radical Islamist web site and Osama couldn't have said it better.

Letter to The Washington Post

Ruth Marcus' April 4 editorial "Fox-in-the Henhouse Government"(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2007/04/03/AR2007040301576.htmlwww.washingtonpost.com) is another in a long line of Post hatchet jobs on the Bush administration. OK lying to Congress is not a good thing, but the rest is merely allegation without context and Ms Marcus seems to think that any and all regulation is good, and any attempt to curtail or cut back on regulation is bad. That's a political position, not an indictment of bad behavior.
After reading the paper I searched the Post web site for any information on the recent resignation of Diane Feinstein from the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee she has been the ranking member or chair of the last six years. (http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/03/30/dianne-feinstein-
resigns-in-ethics-scandalnot-that)-the-media-cares/. Here Ms Marcus and the reporters of the Post could deal in facts that hardly need context to understand, and that does not deal with allegations, but actual violations of the law. It is a fact that well over one billion dollars, some in no-bid contracts, went to companies her husband controlled until 2005. Randy Duke Cunningham is spending significant time in jail for appropriating some two million dollars for his own use and that pales in comparison to the Feinstein caper.
Some questions Ms Marcus and her fellow reporters could answer: Is Ms Feinstein being investigated by the Justice Department? Should she also resign as head of the Rules Committee, which would have her, in effect, investigating herself for breach of Senate Rules? Was that assignment appropriate or just convenient? Is there some reason you do not think that Democrats ripping off the taxpayer is a negative or do you just believe that being a Republican is a felony? Is the preferred treatment merely another example of Media Bias?

Red v. Blue

What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Rudy Giuliani summed it up very nicely in his appearance in our area this week. He recalled that he switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican, but he had an intermission when he called himself an Independent. This was his period of decision, and it was difficult since he admitted he had bought into the propaganda that Republicans do not care about the poor and disadvantaged.
He finally worked out that the Republican ideas of free markets, competition, and personal responsibility are universally good for all people and all institutions. He told the story of a New York Caritable group that made available 2,000 scholarships for private schools for children in the city's public school system. He became a believer in School Choice, that is competition, when 168,000 applications were filed.
The latest example is Medicare Part D. Despite some intiial problems and the issue of the doughnut hole, nearly 80% of seniors are enrolled and about that percentage approve of the program. Seniors have a multitude of choices (Dems said they'd be to dim to figure it all out) and the price has dropped 40% from the predicted cost (Dems want to have the feds set drug prices, which will limit choices and make the program more expensive). It is relevant to ask why they would do this. The answer lies with the issue of who trusts what and whom. Democrats think government and higher taxes are the answer to everything. Republicans think responsibility for solutions lies mainly with the citizens.
Mr. Giuliani is also a neo-con; a former Democrat who has seen the light and who is passionate about national defense. This is a movement that began with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and gained a new impetus in the late 1950's that lasts to the present. This is a process that is a thorn for Democrats as there has never been a sustained mass movement in their direction. These are people who are particularly despised by the left, because their life experiences and judgment brought them to different conclusions regarding government and civil society. In a word, Republicans are Right!

What Happened in January

There are ironic military anniversaries this month that have resonance in the present. On the 14^th in 1943 Roosevelt met Churchill in Casablanca to discuss war strategy. This was nearly a decade after Churchill first warned his country and the world about the menace developing on the Continent, and it was the second year of U.S. participation in WWII. On the 17^th in 1991 the air attack on Iraq began in Operation Desert Storm. This is now remembered on the left and in the media as the “good” Iraq War. On the 28^th in 1973 Peace was declared in Vietnam, fourteen years after the first American soldiers were killed there. On the 30^th in 1968 the Viet Cong launched the Tet Offensive, which has become a mythical American military defeat.

It is mythical because the idea of a defeat is totally wrong. The battle, which began on the Lunar New Year, lasted about three weeks. At the end of that time the Viet Cong offensive military capability was decimated: they were never again able to initiate a credible attack. But, the belief that the outcome was just the reverse was reinforced, if not promulgated by Walter Cronkite and the media at the time. It was also the deciding factor in America's leaving Viet Nam in such a mess five years later.

During the 2004 presidential campaign Newsweeks’ Howard Fineman was heard to say on TV that “often when Cronkite said, ‘...and that’s the way it is,’ it wasn’t.” Tet was one of those “wasn’ts.” Even President Johnson must have believed Cronkite because he is reported to have commented that if he had lost Cronkite, he’d lost America. Apparently, no one in his administration thought to inform the American people otherwise.

On January 3, 2007 Prime Minister Tony Blair commented on the impact the media is having on the war in Iraq. He said, “[Islamic terrorists] have realized two things: the power of terrorism to cause chaos, to hinder and displace political progress especially through suicide missions, and the reluctance of Western opinion to countenance long campaigns, especially when the account it receives is via a modern media driven by the impact of pictures.” Saying that he believes it will take at least 20 years to defeat the extremists, he went on to point out that “…terrorism cannot be defeaterd by military means alone, but it can’t be defeated without it.”

In Vietnam the Necessary War self-described liberal 1960’s war protestor Michael Lind writes that, “The United States fought the war in Vietnam because of geopolitics, and forfeited the war because of domestic politics.”¹ Today the left, with Ted Kennedy and Dennis Kucinich leading the way, is trying to repeat history. But, no matter how many comparisons are drawn between the two conflicts, the significant difference between Vietnam and Iraq holds great peril for the Middle East, for the United States and ultimately for the world. That difference is that under no circumstances were the communist Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese, or their patrons the Russians and the Chinese going to follow the departing troops back to America to attack our homeland. We know, as do the politicians who are advocating that we pull out of Iraq, whether immediately or euphemisitically in a phased withdrawal, that the Islamic extremists will do just that. We know because they have already done so.

Lind conlcudes the book’s preface by writing, “Let there be no doubt: There will be ‘Vietnams’ in America’s future…Preparing for the…unconventional wars of the twenty-first century will require both leaders and publics in the United States and allied countries to understand what the United States did wrong in Vietnam-and, no less important, to acknowledge what the United States did right.”²

Before 9/11 we had a decade full of warnings. For twelve years Saddam Hussein ignored U.N. sanctions and in fact used that organization to further enrich himself. In addition, during this time, he daily shot at our Air Force protecting the no-fly zone. There was never any question that one day, particularly if he succeeded in shooting down a plane, Saddam would have to be dealt with.

The desire of the extremists to attack within America and the ability to do so was clear with the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in February 1993. We then had the bombing of a U.S. Air Force barracks at Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, the declaration of war against the United States by Osama bin Laden in 1996, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Just as the English government ignored Churchill in the 1930’s, the American government pretended that these military attacks could be handled by cadres of FBI lawyers and decided not to take the hard decisions necessary to protect the future of the country.

Also on January 3, 2007 Gerald Ford, 38^th President of the United States was laid to rest in his hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Since his death on December 26, 2006 pundits repeatedly re-assesed his 800 plus days in the White House with particular attention paid to his decision to pardon former President, Richard Nixon. For the most part, these pundits were the same media people and politcians who wanted nothing more than to see Nixon go to jail in 1974. Yet, with the perspective of thirty years they now acknowledge that having the “long national nightmare over” then was a good thing. At the time they called Ford, the consummate athlete, a klutz and stupid to boot.

If retrospect tells us that getting into Vietnam was necessary despite the mistakes that were made once there, can we not speculate that retrospect with give us the same assessment of Iraq. Will the passage of time and the passing of the need to secure political advantage for the next election bring some wisdom and a global perspective to what we have going on today?

1. Lind, Michael, Vietnam the Necessary War (New York: the Free Press, 1999) page xiv.
2. Lind, page xviii.

"I Believe..."

"I believe that when America is willing to use her influence abroad, the American people are safer and the world is more secure. I believe that wealth does not come from government. It comes from the hard work of America’s workers, entrepreneurs and small businesses. I believe government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable. I believe government plays an important role in helping those who can’t help themselves. Yet we must always remember that when people are hurting, they need a caring person, not a government bureaucracy."
President George W. Bush
The Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2007

A New Plan-A Second Chance for Success

The White House

January 10, 2007

The New Way Forward In Iraq

The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

Ø The Consequences Of Failure In Iraq Could Not Be Graver – The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq. Our enemies throughout the Middle East are trying to defeat us in Iraq. If we step back now, the problems in Iraq will become more lethal, and make our troops fight an uglier battle than we are seeing today.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Security

Iraqi:

· Publicly acknowledge all parties are responsible for quelling sectarian violence.

· Work with additional Coalition help to regain control of the capital and protect the Iraqi population.

· Deliver necessary Iraqi forces for Baghdad and protect those forces from political interference.

· Commit to intensify efforts to build balanced security forces throughout the nation that provide security even-handedly for all Iraqis.

· Plan and fund eventual demobilization program for militias.

Coalition:

· Agree that helping Iraqis to provide population security is necessary to enable accelerated transition and political progress.

· Provide additional military and civilian resources to accomplish this mission.

· Increase efforts to support tribes willing to help Iraqis fight Al Qaeda in Anbar.

· Accelerate and expand the embed program while minimizing risk to participants.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

· Continue counter-terror operations against Al Qaeda and insurgent organizations.

· Take more vigorous action against death squad networks.

· Accelerate transition to Iraqi responsibility and increase Iraqi ownership.

· Increase Iraqi security force capacity – both size and effectiveness – from 10 to 13 Army divisions, 36 to 41 Army Brigades, and 112 to 132 Army Battalions.

• Establish a National Operations Center, National Counterterrorism Force, and National Strike Force.
• Reform the Ministry of Interior to increase transparency and accountability and transform the National Police.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Political

Iraqi:

· The Government of Iraq commits to:

• Reform its cabinet to provide even-handed service delivery.
• Act on promised reconciliation initiatives (oil law, de-Baathification law, Provincial elections).
• Give Coalition and ISF authority to pursue ALL extremists.

· All Iraqi leaders support reconciliation.

· Moderate coalition emerges as strong base of support for unity government.

Coalition:

· Support political moderates so they can take on the extremists.

o Build and sustain strategic partnerships with moderate Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds.

· Support the national compact and key elements of reconciliation with Iraqis in the lead.

· Diversify U.S. efforts to foster political accommodation outside Baghdad (more flexibility for local commanders and civilian leaders).

• Expand and increase the flexibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) footprint.
• Focus U.S. political, security, and economic resources at local level to open space for moderates, with initial priority to Baghdad and Anbar.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

· Partnership between Prime Minister Maliki, Iraqi moderates, and the United States where all parties are clear on expectations and responsibilities.

· Strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption.

· Build on security gains to foster local and national political accommodations.

· Make Iraqi institutions even-handed, serving all of Iraq's communities on an impartial basis.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Economic

Iraqi:

· Deliver economic resources and provide essential services to all areas and communities.

· Enact hydrocarbons law to promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation.

· Capitalize and execute jobs-producing programs.

· Match U.S. efforts to create jobs with longer term sustainable Iraqi programs.

· Focus more economic effort on relatively secure areas as a magnet for employment and growth.

Coalition:

· Refocus efforts to help Iraqis build capacity in areas vital to success of the government (e.g. budget execution, key ministries).

· Decentralize efforts to build Iraqi capacities outside the Green Zone.

• Double the number of PRTs and civilians serving outside the Green Zone.
• Establish PRT-capability within maneuver Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs).

· Greater integration of economic strategy with military effort.

• Joint civil-military plans devised by PRT and BCT.
• Remove legal and bureaucratic barriers to maximize cooperation and flexibility.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Regional

Iraqi:

· Vigorously engage Arab states.

· Take the lead in establishing a regional forum to give support and help from the neighborhood.

· Counter negative foreign activity in Iraq.

· Increase efforts to counter PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party).

Coalition:

· Intensify efforts to counter Iranian and Syrian influence inside Iraq.

· Increase military presence in the region.

· Strengthen defense ties with partner states in the region.

· Encourage Arab state support to Government of Iraq.

· Continue efforts to help manage relations between Iraq and Turkey.

· Continue to seek the region's full support in the War on Terror.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

· Focus on the International Compact.

· Retain active U.N. engagement in Iraq – particularly for election support and constitutional review.

---

Conventional wisdom has it that the Republicans will lose both the U.S. House and the Senate. There are even Republicans who have opined that this might be a good time to teach the Party a lesson and further that it will make it easier to keep the White House in 2008. This, then, is the time to see in black and white what could be facing the country.
Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon’s New Map and other writings on military strategy and tactics has been making presentations on these subjects for 15 years to DOD and other government personnel. In one session he apologized to part of his audience but stated that if “you were born before 1960” your perceptions are in the wrong century and you don’t get it. For one thing, the enemy we are facing operates to a great degree in cyberspace. Granted, Barnett is talking about military matters, and being older does not mean learning and adapting stops. Many of you reading this may take umbrage, but if there is evidence that neither learning nor adapting has taken place in people who could have government power we have a problem. It is, therefore, important to consider who will be in charge if the worst happens.
In the House: Way and Means, Charlie Rangel, born 1930, a member since 1971-Mr. Rangel has stated that none of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts should be continued. Energy and Commerce, John Dingell, born 1929, a member since 1955. Judiciary, John Conyers, born 1929, member since 1965-Mr. Conyers has his impeachment plans on the web. Appropriations, Dave Obey, born 1938, a member since 1969. Intelligence, Alcee Hastings who lost his job as a judge after taking bribes. In the Senate: Appropriations, Robert Byrd born 1917 member since 1953. Mr. Byrd is affectionately known as the “king of pork.” Armed Services, Carl Levin born 1934, member since 1979. Mr. Levin thinks we should pull out of Iraq immediately. Judiciary, Patrick Leahy born 1940, member since 1974. Mr. Leahy was booted off the Intelligence Committee in the 80’s for leaking classified material. The real point is that these are the same men , saying the same things, in the same positions of authority in the U.S. Congress who were voted out in 1994. The question is: do we go back a century or do we go forward?
British journalists for "The Economist" John Micklethwaith and Adrian Wooldridge wrote The Right Nation to explain Americans to Europeans, and the attitudes of Europeans to Americans. Begnning on page 277 they compare the congressional districts of Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Hastert to illustrate the differences between liberal and conservative in America. Mr. Hastert’s constituents are family oriented, rally for causes, do not obsess about politics because their system is efficient and responsive, have positive attitudes, are solidly middle class, are opening churches, and are pro-growth. 70% plus own their own homes. Mrs. Pelosi's constituents protest, are political obsessives with dysfunctional government, have an aristocratic sensibility, are closing churches and are anti-growth. Less than 35% own their homes. The hub in San Francisco is beautiful but stagnating because it is losing population. The question is: what kind of an America do you want?
The ironies in today's Democrat Party and with its candidates abound. Nancy Pelosi says she is for tax cuts, but has voted against every one proposed in the last 11 years. The repeal of President Bush's tax cuts will include everyone now in the 10% bracket that was newly established. Their rate will go back to 15%. In additioon, the child credit will go down, and the marriage penalty break will be abolished. The only people hurt by these measures will be those in the middle class as the rich can afford the hit and the poor do not pay federal taxes. So much for Pelosi's middle class tax cuts.
The only rationale for impeaching the Commander in Chief during a war is to believe that there is no war. This belief that any problems we may have with radicals who fly airplanes into buildings can be taken care of by the FBI after the fact does not promote national security. At the least it leaves out the concept of "security." This attitude perfectly coincides with the Clinton administration's policies in the 90's that believed the whole thing is a law enforcement issue. Some Democrats say it is morally right to vote to send troops to battle and later say "never mind." Other candidates say we should have invaded Iran instead or bombed North Korea. Bob Casey, Democrat Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, perfectly recites Howard Dean's talking points on Iran, but when asked if he knows the name of that country's leader, had no idea. This proves that any dolt can memorize material, but having some idea of what you are talking about, particularly when it means committing troops, is a good thing.
Ohio Republican incumbent Senator, Mike Dewine, described his very liberal opponent, Congressman Sharrod Brown, as being all rhetoric and no results. Apparently, Mr. Brown has been in the House 12 years and only has his name on four bills (one renames a building and the other three deal with Taiwan). We should apply that yardstick to the Democrat Party as a whole. No other issue typifies the all rhetoric no results posture than prescription drugs for seniors. Democrats campaigned on this one issue for at least 30 of the 60 years they controlled the Congress, but never got it done. (Ya think it was just the issue they wanted?) Now that there is a program that after less than a year has nearly 90% of seniors paticipating and has an 85% approval rating among those seniors, the Democrats want to, in the words of Mrs. Pelosi, "blow it up." Who loses here-certainly not Mrs. Pelosi. The question then is do you vote for empty rhetoric, or proven results?
Go forward-go backward. Secure and prosperous America, of not. Rhetoric or results. Don't forget to vote!