Liberal Heads will Explode in the First 100 Days of Obama

Now that Barack Hussein Obama II has been elected as the next President of the United States of American, and the long suffering frustrations of the multitudes of liberal causes been heard, you would think that the left leaning mouth pieces change their election style rhetoric. However, you can't turn on the national news, watch one of the useless talking head shows or read any of the mainstream news rags without having to endure the continuing pathetic chant of how bad things have been for the past eight (8) years (i.e. code word for the Bush administration).

Wake up liberals - YOUR GUY WON!! and NOW, YOU HAVE TO GOVERN.

So, what happened or more important to most of your causes, what didn't happen the past eight (8) years is no longer relevant. The real question before the spellbound liberal crowd is what your new leader is going to do in the next four (4) years. Or, probably of more entertainment value to us sidelined conservative Republicans, is what President Barack Hussein Obama II is going to do in his first one hundred (100) days in office.

Following is my prediction:

1. He will announce that it is impossible to get completely out of Iraq anytime soon.
2. He will announce that he is escalating the war in Afghanistan with 60,00 additional US troops.
3. He will announce that he is going to continue providing military assistance to Israel against Hamas in Gaza.
4. He will announce that he will address the UN and ask that all diplomatic and economic ties with Iran, Syria, Russia and Venezuela be suspended until they cease supporting Hamas efforts against Israel and Al-Qaeda terrorist efforts worldwide.
5. He will announce that he is actually going to ask Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts and push for additional tax cuts across the board in an effort to fuel the economy.
6. He is going to announce that he is no longer in favor of supporting the automobile industry's labor unions in their efforts to blackmail the American taxpayer and is going to announce his support to allowing GM, Chrysler and Ford to go into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
7. He is going to announce that he is suspending his plans for universal healthcare and instead has asked Ted Kennedy and the Congress to investigate a plan in which "everyone" is going to have to pay something for healthcare.
8. He is going to announce that he is no longer going to back any efforts to use global warming as a hammer against the US economy and is going to opt out of the Kyoto Treaty.
9. He is going to announce that it is now clear that this country can no longer afford the costs of illegal immigration and therefore he is going to start and aggressive deportation plan and also deploy the National Guard to our boarders to shutdown the flow on new illegal immigrants.
10. He is going to announce that starting immediately that all welfare recipients over the age of eighteen (18) or anyone over the ages of thirteen(13) that is unwilling to attend school, will be put on national reconstruction work crews to rebuild our national infrastructure until the economy improves and they can find full time employment in the private sector.
11. He is going to announce that he has instructed Congress to draft and pass a very strict line item veto bill and that until it does so, he will refuse to sign any bill that has any pork whatsoever.
12. He is going to announce that he has instructed Congress to draft and pass a term limitations bill of two (2) terms for US Congress and Senate to encourage our Country to go back to the citizen democracy.
13. He is going to announce that he has instructed Congress to pass a bill that would suspend the minimum wage laws to encourage businesses to hire new employees at a market wage.

In summary, the realities of governing in the real world of 2009 as opposed to being a community organizer in Chicago and campaigning under the protection of the world press with little of no scrutiny, will hit President Barack Hussein Obama II and his new administration with hurricane force winds and leave them with very few opportunities, if any, to payback their eagerly waiting liberal mob.

And, I predict that the "show" will be very entertaining as one liberal head after another explodes in anger. It all starts January 20, 2009. Don't miss it as it will be better than network TV.

Will America be the "Last Man Standing"?

In the past 6 months, it has been natural to get all wrapped up in partisan politics. However, during this time when my fellow Americans and most of the world for that matter is getting ready to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, I was once again reminded of what we may may be facing as a nation and as the leaders of the free world in the coming years. And, even though it may be higher taxes and redistribution of wealth and an assault on our Constitution and Christian rights, the most important task that we may face is the loss of our friends and allies in Europe to the onslaught of Islamic Fascism. How we support Europe in this crisis and how we stop this threat from gaining a foot hold in the United States is by far the greatest challenge that we will face over the next 25 years.

Following is the speech of Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25, 2008.

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.

Liberals are the Real 21st Century Scrooges

From the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times on December 20, 2008, titled, "Bleeding Heart Tightwads" by Nicholas D. Kristof , it appears that Mr. Kristof reluctantly comes to the conclusion that conservatives have always known - Liberals are the Real 21st Century Scrooges.

The full text of Mr. Kristof's comments are as follows:

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.

So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.

Merry Christmas to the 57 Million Conservatives in America

It would be easy for Conservative Americans to wonder what they have to be thankful for in 2008. Our wonderful country has elected a socialist with very little if any executive experience as our next President. We have given Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed even more power in the the US Congress, President Bush and his administration is handing out money and basically nationalizing US industry at a rate that Marx would be proud of, the economic prospects for 2009 and beyond are bleak, the ACLU seems to be winning the war on Christmas and even though we are facing one of the coldest winters in the past 100 years, the Obama administration is planning to place global warming very high on their agenda of issues to address.

However, even in the face of what now appears to be a rejection of conservatism, common sense and overwhelming resistance of all things Christmas, we can't give up on our conservative principles and we can't lose faith in the fact this is still a middle right thinking country. And, most of all, Conservative Americans have plenty to be thankful for.

So, let your faith be your guide and may God bless America like he has always done during this Christmas Season and throughout all of 2009 and beyond.

Barack Hussein Obama's War

If you thought that the Iraqi war was a mess, you haven't seen nothing yet. It was reported today that under the direction of President Barrack Hussein Obama and the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 - the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.

This year has been the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban for hosting al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Suicide attacks and roadside bombs have become more dangerous, and Taliban fighters have infiltrated wide swaths of countryside and now roam in provinces on Kabul's doorstep.

U.S. commanders have long requested an additional 20,000 troops to aid Canadian and British forces in two provinces just outside Kabul and in the south. But the high end of Mullen's range is the largest number any top U.S. military official has said could be sent to Afghanistan.

Mullen said that increase would include combat forces but also aviation, medical and civilian affairs support troops.

"So some 20,000 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now," he told a news conference at a U.S. base in Kabul. "We certainly have enough forces to be successful in combat, but we haven't had enough forces to hold the territory that we clear."

Overall, there are more than 60,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Mullen said any increased U.S. deployment would be directly tied to force levels in Iraq, where U.S. commanders are drawing down troops.

"The Taliban and extremists are more sophisticated and effective," Mullen said. "They haven't won any battles but they certainly have increased the level of violence, and we're very focused on that. That's why the additional forces are so important, to be able to provide security for the Afghan people so these other areas can be developed."

U.S. officials already have plans to send four ground brigades and an aviation brigade to Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved the deployment of the aviation brigade, defense officials told The Associated Press. And 10th Mountain Division forces will deploy next month to two provinces that neighbor Kabul - Wardak and Logar, which have seen an influx of militants over the last year.

Mullen said that after the additional U.S. troops are added over the next eight months, only improvements in Afghanistan's governance and economic situation will affect the strength of the insurgency.

But the chairman conceded that the U.S. may have misjudged the central government's ability "to have the kind of impact that we wanted."

Afghanistan, Mullen said, has never been run by a strong central government, and the U.S. may look to communities and tribes in the country's provinces to take on a greater role in future strategy.

He called U.S. goals in Afghanistan "moderate," and said the long-term U.S. vision is for a country that can govern itself while respecting international law, while providing both material and economic security for its people.

United States to Become the "First Underdeveloped Nation"

If you think that the economy has been bad in 2008 and are expecting 2009 to be even worse, you may have no idea how bad it is going to get. Last month, trends forecaster Gerald Celente told Fox News that America will morph into the first "undeveloped" nation of the world by 2012. He said there will be a tax revolution marked by "food riots, squatter rebellion, tax revolts and job marches." He also said by 2012, the holidays will be more about getting food rather than gifts.

Pentagon resources and U.S. troops may be used if needed to quell protests and bank runs during an economic crisis, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute reported.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the War College study states.

Incidents of economic collapse, terrorism and disruption of legal order could require deployment of forces within the U.S., it said.

A "strategic shock" could require the nation to use "military force against hostile groups inside the United States."

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has warned that advanced nations could face civil unrest during distressful economic times

"[S]ocial unrest may happen in many countries – including advanced economies" if the economic crises are not properly dealt with, Strauss-Kahn said.

He added that violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite," London's Guardian reported.

In a recession where consumer spending is plummeting, foreclosures are rampant, workers are losing jobs, credit is tight and markets are strained, some are warning about a worst-case scenario.

According to the Phoenix Business Journal, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson considered the prospect of civil unrest while he pushed for September's Wall Street bailout – even suggesting martial law might be essential.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama's pick for secretary of Homeland Security, would not provide comment to the Business Journal on the possibility of civil unrest during economic crisis. But state and local police indicated that they have trained for such an event.

"The Phoenix Police Department is not expecting any civil unrest at this time, but we always train to prepare for any civil unrest issue. We have a Tactical Response Unit that trains continually and has deployed on many occasions for any potential civil unrest issue," Phoenix Police spokesman Andy Hill said.

"We have well established plans in place for such civil unrest," Scottsdale Police spokesman Mark Clark told the Business Journal.

Maricopa County Sheriff Deputy Chief Dave Trombi concurred: "We're prepared."

Nick Dranias, director of constitutional government at the libertarian Goldwater Institute, told the Phoenix Business Journal declaration of martial law would allow U.S. armed forces to control civilian authorities.

While he said the Posse Comitatus Act limits the military's role in domestic law enforcement, he referenced a 1994 U.S. Defense Department Directive (DODD 3025) that gives military commanders authority during domestic emergencies to "save lives, prevent suffering or mitigate great property damage," according to the report.

"I don't think it's likely," he said. "But it's not impossible."

Who Knew What and When Did They Know It?

With all of the controversy and innuendoes flying around about who may or may not be involved in Blagogate, I think that we should quickly move beyond the local politics of Chicago, immediately convene a congressional hearing and simply take the famous Democratic approach to these types of scandals and ask, "who knew what and when did they know it?".

Then, even if we never really find out who did what or who knew about who was doing what, we can appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and eventually prosecute everyone inolved for purgory and ostruction of justice. And, even if we can't do that, the mere appearance that someone did something should be enough for someone to go to jail?

Further, with the networks cutting back on their programing budgets and since no one willing be working anyway, it would make for great TV to start our Lord Obama's first term and would distract the nation as the economy continues to crumble around us.

The RNC would finally have something to rally around, The DNC could scream right wing conspircacy, the national press could take up the mantle of defense attorney, the evil right wing radio talking heads would have more material then they have had in years and all of the unemployed would have something to watch during the afternoon besides Tom Cruise jumping around on Oprah's stage. Great fun would be had by all!!

The Face of the Obama Whitehouse / Anmial House?

I knew that the Obama campaign was being "manned" by a bunch of young northeast liberal kids or at best northeast liberal wannabes that couldn't afford the northeast education. And, I knew that this past election was more of a game for most of them than about political philosophy (i.e. I hate my parents and I am smater than them, blah, blah, blah).

However, it wasn't until I saw this Animal House picture of Jon Favreau, incoming Obama Whitehouse speech writer, in a blog post by Al Kamen on the washingtonpost.com website, that I realized that some of the immature kids may actually be influencing public policy.

I, like many of the 57 million Americans that voted for John McCain, have tremendous political policy differences with Hillary Clinton. However, very few of us would condone Mr. Favreau's actions. I think that it is time for Barrack to step in, "break this party up" and send all the kids home. I guess that if he doesn't , we all know where he stands. Maybe at the same party just outside the view of this picture?

The full text of Mr. Kamen's post is as follows:

Question No. 58 in the transition team vetting document for the Obama White House asks that applicants: "Please provide the URL address of any websites that feature you in either a personal or professional capacity (e.g. Facebook, My Space, etc.)"

Question No. 63 asks that applicants "please provide any other information ... that could ... be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect."

For a while there this afternoon, President-elect Barack Obama's immensely talented chief speechwriter, 27-year-old Jon Favreau, might have been pondering how to address that question.

That's when some interesting photos of a recent party he attended -- including one where he's dancing with a life-sized cardboard cut-out of secretary of state-designate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and another where he's placed his hand on the cardboard former first lady's chest while a friend is offering her lips a beer -- popped up on Facebook for about two hours. The photos were quickly taken down -- along with every other photo Favreau had of himself on the popular social networking site, save for one profile headshot.

Asked about the photos, Favreau, who was recently appointed director of speechwriting for the White House, declined comment. A transition official said that Favreau had "reached out to Senator Clinton to offer an apology."

Favreau is not the first campaign aide whose online presence has proved awkward. Last March, John McCain aide Soren Dayton forwarded an anti-Obama YouTube video to his private Twitter feed linking Obama with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, leading to his suspension from the campaign. And in 2007, two bloggers hired by former North Carolina senator John Edwards stepped down after blog posts they had written before he hired them became a subject of controversy.

Favreau's case seems unlikely to be so dire; Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines cast the photos as evidence of increased bonhomie between the formerly rival camps.

"Senator Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon's obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application," he said in an e-mail.

Dead Moose on Auto Bailout Table is Legacy Costs

I find it almost unbelievable that even though most working Americans know that the "Dead Moose" on the auto bailout table is the legacy cost for retired workers, the mainstream media and most of the "discussion" in the congressional hearings is about sub-par quality and lackluster cars, demand shift and uncertain energy policy, the financial meltdown and the global slowdown.

Every car the Big 3 make carries "legacy costs"—the costs of providing healthcare and pensions to scores of retired workers. For every Big 3 auto worker, there are about 10 dependants, which are defined as retired workers and their families.

According to David Cole, Chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, "when the international car companies came to the U.S., the move stuck the domestics with a very large disadvantage related to legacy costs. And that's $2000 a car." That two grand must be built into the sticker price of any new car and truck. And that's money on top of developing, producing and marketing a car—costs that Honda, Toyota and others don't have. It makes competing difficult for the domestic automakers, "like playing basketball with a bowling ball," according to Cole. GM's per-hour labor rate for car assembly is about $75 per hour, compared to $40 to $45 for other car companies. That particular disadvantage, says Cole, will be "gone by the end of next year," when a new labor agreement goes into effect.

The gig is up. It's time for the UAW to stop living in retirement fantasyland and join the real world with the rest of us.