I am, temporarily, renaming Hawaii as the U.S. Canary Islands.  Something’s happening here.  The Obama birth certificate issue was dead and buried.  Then, as if on cue, the main stream media started demanding that people like John Boehner and other “declare” that Obama is a U.S. citizen and “declare” that he is a Christian.  When both John King and George Stephanopoulos ask the exact same question, this is not a coincidence.  Since the main stream media is the publicity arm of the Obama White House, these actions are interesting.

Part of the problem is the new liberal Democrat who was elected Governor of Hawaii.  What were they thinking?  This guy is a hard-cord socialist, if not a communist.  He immediately shot off his mouth about how he was going to march down to the Department of Health and prove to the world that Obama was really a U.S. citizen.  Apparently he thought the prior Governor, a Republican, was withholding documents that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.  But the problem was that when he visited the cupboard, the cupboard was bare.  Oops.

But, even that story seems to have died down, so there must be another reason.  I suspect the real problem is that several states have passed or are about to pass laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to be put on the Presidential ballot in that state.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures the following bills have already been introduced on this subject:

Arizona’s HB2544, Connecticut’s SB391, Georgia’s HB37, Indiana’s SB114, Maine’s LD34, Missouri’s HB283, Montana’s HB205, Nebraska’s LB654, Oklahoma’s SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.

There may be many more, but it actually only takes one state.  This creates a huge problem for Obama and an even bigger problem for the Democratic Party.  Unless the Supreme Court rules these laws unconstitutional, Barack Obama, or anyone else running for President in 2012, is going to have to provide proof that they are a natural born U.S. citizen.  What is the Obama administration supposed to do?  Are they going to sue Arizona and argue that demanding that someone prove they are a natural born U.S. citizen before being on the ballot is a violation of federal law?  That would result in a political firestorm.

On the other hand, the 2012 Presidential campaign is already underway.  Republican candidates are lining up and early debates are already scheduled.  By this time next year many of the primary elections will already be over and we will be well on our way toward having a nominee in both parties.  This creates a huge problem for the Democratic Party.  The standard has changed from assuming someone is a natural born U.S. citizen, unless proven otherwise, to requiring the candidate to prove they are a natural born citizen.  If Obama wants to run for re-election, he will have to pony up his official birth documents.  The only thing we know for sure is that he definitely does not want to do that.

The Democratic Party cannot afford to wait until January of 2012 to find out whether or not Barack Obama is going to be a candidate for re-election.   If they are going to replace him, they need to start finding a candidate NOW!  Hillary Clinton has been traveling the globe shooting herself in the foot, so I doubt that they will want to just draft her as a candidate.  In addition, Bill Clinton is, well, Bill Clinton; who brings with it the good, the bad and the ugly.

I believe that this media campaign was started in the naïve hope that some major Republican would “declare” that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, so that Obama could use this “declaration” as a substitute for providing real documents.  So far, no Republican has been dumb enough to do that.  Instead they have said that they have not challenged him on this subject and they consider this issue to be an unnecessary distraction.  They are not going to fall on their sword and risk the embarrassment of having Obama trot out real authentic documents.  But they also aren’t going to let him off the hook by declaring him to be a natural born citizen.

The coal miners used to carry canaries down into the mines as an early warning device.  Canaries are very vulnerable to gas, so if the canary died the miners knew it was time to go.  This time the Canary Islands (Ok…Hawaii) may be providing a warning signal to both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party that an ill wind is developing with the potential to blow him out of office.  One thing is sure, we have not heard the end of the Obama birther conspiracy theories and it would be unwise for anyone in either party to ignore this issue.

TDM

The showdown in Wisconsin is more than a political disagreement; it is a fight for our democracy.  Public sector unions have grown so powerful that they have transferred the legislative, executive and judicial power from the public to the unions. We are now at the point where we either fight back, or we lose our liberty. 

FDR, a solid union supporter, warned about the danger of public sector unions:

Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”   …a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”

FDR understood that public sector unions would ultimately result in a threat to our democracy.  The New York Supreme Court also issued an opinion in 1943 warning about the danger from public service unions:

To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.

The public sector unions in Wisconsin are doing exactly what FDR and the New York Supreme Court predicted they would do.  They are attempting to use extortion to circumvent the legally elected government. 

Democrats have always allied themselves with unions. Republicans have always opposed unions gaining too much power.  This is why it was Democrats who passed the Wagner Act allowing people to form unions and it was Republicans who passed Taft Hartley restraining their power.  But prior to JFK, even Democratic presidents were opposed to allowing federal employees to organize.  Here in California, we can thank Jerry Brown for authoring public sector unions during his first attempt to destroy our state.  It is somewhat ironic that the severe financial crisis facing Governor Brown today has its roots in the abuse of power by those same public sector unions he set loose in 1977 when he signed SB 839, the State Employer Relations Act. 

Note:  Even the Sac Bee realized this was a big mistake and wrote the following in an editorial:

“A system of union elections and collective bargaining for state employees could weaken the civil service system and, what is worse, could put union leaders in positions where they could dictate to elected officials on government policy.”

Looks like the SacBee nailed that one.  What ever happened to their editorial board?

The power of public sector unions is a clear and present danger to our democracy.  It is nearly impossible to get elected to statewide office in California without union support.   That is why even Meg Whitman tried to cut a deal with the police unions to gain their support.  (If she had stood up to public sector unions instead of trying to compromise with them she might be Governor Meg Whitman today.)  It was also the unions who spent millions preventing Arnold Schwarzenegger from passing his reform propositions.  It is easy for Republicans to criticize Schwarzenegger for compromising with democrats, but when the public failed to back him in his proposals for change, he probably had no other option.

But this time we finally have a politician with the moral courage to directly challenge the public sector unions.  Governor Walker, with the backing of a Republican legislature has done the unthinkable.  He has taken on the public sector unions without apology. 

Governor Walker shows no signs of backing down and the tea party is quickly organizing to provide him with vital support.  I wouldn’t underestimate the ability of the Tea Party to mobilize people.  The liberal media is screaming that Walker is trying to bust the public sector unions as if this is the ultimate crime against humanity.  Well I have news for them.  He is trying to bust the public sector unions and it is about time.  The real mistake was allowing them in the first place.  I think Democrats and unions are going to be shocked to discover that a high percentage of people agree with the Governor.  That is why they voted for him:

According to ABC News, Organizing for American, which is the official campaign arm for President Obama, operating under the umbrella of the Democratic National Committee, has been mobilizing union members and supporters to rally against the Wisconsin budget measure.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-national-democrats-mobilize-state-employee-protests/story?id=12949812

John Boehner, Speaker of the House, has warned the White House about this:

“According to news reports, the White House has even unleashed the Democratic National Committee to spread disinformation and confusion in Wisconsin regarding the governor’s courageous actions,” he said. “I urge the president to order the DNC to suspend these tactics.

This is more than Obama just publicly disagreeing with Governor Walker.  President Obama has a right to disagree with this decision by the Governor of Wisconsin, but he does not have the right to interfere with the State’s legal authority.  The actions of the unions in conducting this work stoppage are potentially illegal.  Obama may be guilty of publicly encouraging people to participate in an illegal work stoppage.  He may be guilty of more than that; he may be guilty of openly aiding and abetting illegal activity.  It is possible that we are headed toward a constitutional crisis. 

Where, exactly, is the line here?  Is it appropriate or even legal for a President of the United States to encourage public sector employees to participate in an illegal work stoppage?  What if the Governor of Wisconsin encouraged federal employees to conduct an illegal strike?  How would the federal government respond?  Would this not border on insurrection?  There is a significant difference between disagreeing with the political policy of a Governor and openly encouraging people to violate the law as a symbol of protest.  Obama may well have crossed that line.    

The reason President Obama and people like Nancy Pelosi have responded so strongly to the situation in Wisconsin is that they know what is at stake.  If Governor Walker succeeds, this will spread across the country.  At first it will spread to states with Republican Governors and Republican legislatures.  That may already be happening in Ohio.  Eventually this will spread to every state.  It is impossible to overstate the political significance of a politician taking on the public sector unions and winning.

The Democratic leadership may have a major mistake.  According to reports a lot of people in Wisconsin, including union workers, are very angry about these protests.  At a time when the state is facing a $3.6 billion deficit, the unions are trying to extort the state into meeting their demands.  This will quickly go one way or the other.  Either the voters will be incensed with the government for daring to cut benefits for public sector union workers, or they will be furious with greedy public sector union workers for acting like spoiled children.

Democrats have proven, once again, why they cannot be entrusted with political power.  They know how to campaign, but they do not know how to govern.  They are gambling that the protests in Wisconsin will topple the Wisconsin State Government, just like the protestors in Egypt toppled that government.  But Wisconsin is not Egypt and Walker is not Mubarak.  Wisconsin is a state with a democratically elected government exercising power clearly within its constitutional authority.    

I also wonder if anyone in the Obama administration has even considered the consequences of success.  If the unions win this battle, they will simply increase their demands and we can expect more and more protests.  Eventually, they will challenge the Obama administration as well.  Of course Obama is so deeply in bed with the unions already that it may be difficult to recognize any change.

This is similar to other crimes of extortion, like kidnapping.  If one kidnapper gets a lot of money, the victim may be saved, but ultimately you just get more kidnapping.  The only way to stop kidnapping is to refuse to bargain with kidnappers in the first place. 

Harry Truman understood that, which is why he ordered the army to seize the railroads in response to a railroad strike:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-orders-army-to-seize-control-of-railroads

Ronald Reagan understood this which is why he fired all the air traffic controllers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12292.html

Governor Walker gets it.  Barack Obama not only doesn’t get it, he is openly encouraging union workers to participate in this irresponsible and potentially illegal work stoppage. 

Either Governor Walker or President Obama is really right or terribly wrong.  The one who is wrong is going to pay an enormous price for this miscalculation.

The Cheese State Rebellion has the potential to radically change this country for the better.  ON WISCONSIN!

 TDM

Everyone remotely familiar with NFL football is familiar with the prevent defense.  This typically occurs during the last couple minutes of a game.  Your team is ahead.  They have shut down the other team all game.  You are anticipating victory.  Then the announcer points out that your team has gone into the prevent defense.  This change in strategy is designed to let the other team gain some yardage, but “prevent” the big play.  Unfortunately the prevent defense often backfires.  The other team starts to move the ball effectively for the first time all game.  They gain momentum and the next thing you know they score the winning field goal or touchdown.  Once again your team has brilliantly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  The only thing the prevent defense accomplished was to prevent your team from winning.

The Republican leadership continues to use the prevent defense with regard to Obama’s birth certificate.  Lately liberal left wing news reporters have been challenging Boehner and others to “condemn” anyone who dares questions Obama’s birth certificate.  They also challenge Boehner to condemn anyone who dares believe Obama is a Muslim.  Please!  That is utter nonsense and it should be treated as such.  Boehner has never claimed that Obama is not a U.S. citizen nor has he ever claimed Obama is a Muslim.  But that is not enough for the rabid dogs on the liberal left; they want him to condemn anyone who dares have a contrary opinion on the subject.  Not only must you agree with them, you must publicly condemn anyone who doesn’t.

In effect, the Republican leadership has been employing the prevent defense when they should use this to attack Obama.  Every time I see some Republican asked about Obama’s birth certificate or his citizenship, I keep waiting for them to say something like this:

“The real question is why doesn’t President Obama just sign a release authorizing Hawaii to release his records.”  If he has nothing to hide, why wouldn’t he do that?

Repeat as often as necessary.  Democrats never answer questions, why should we?

We all know that Democrats use talking points all the time.  For example they never fail to blame Bush for the Obama deficit.  This is because they know the “prevent defense” loses.  When they don’t have a good answer, they just attack Bush. 

I am sick and tired of Republicans always being on the defensive with regard to topics where we actually have the moral high ground.  The questions about Obama’s birth certificate are the result of Obama’s refusal to sign a release.  They are not the result of a Republican conspiracy.

The questions about Obama’s religious faith are also the result of actions and statements made by Obama.   But our leaders are so afraid of being considered politically incorrect that they don’t put out the obvious.  The reason some people believe Obama is a Muslim is that he has a Muslim father, a Muslim step-father and a Muslim name.  This type of reasoning also explains why most people assume someone named Bill O’Reilly is probably an Irish Catholic.  When a Republican is asked about Obama’s religious faith I would like someone to say something like this: 

Barack Obama is the only one who can answer that question.  I don’t expect Barack Obama to comment on my religious beliefs and I see no point in my commenting on his.  You are asking the wrong person. 

Then if pressed further say:

If you want to know why some people think Barack Obama is a Muslim I would suggest you ask them. 

Finally, drive a stake in their heart with the following:

The only reason the liberal left keeps bringing up these issues is to distract people from the pathetic performance of the Obama administration on fiscal policy and foreign affairs.

Repeat as necessary.  These are loser issues for Obama and for Democrats, unless the Republicans continue to use the prevent defense.

TDM

The fires of rebellion are spreading throughout the Middle East.  Since most countries are much less tolerant of foreign journalists than Egypt, we don’t have much news coverage.  We do know that there were clashes in Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Palestine, and Iran.  There have also been reports of unrest in Lebanon, Gaza, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  We also don’t even know the final results in Egypt. 

So far the pattern has been for the governments to make desperate concessions in an attempt to end civil unrest.   At some point, this will end.  Unfortunately, it will probably end in bloodshed.  I fear we are on the eve of destruction.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.  Following is a statement given by Alexander Guchkov on May 10, 1917.  Mr. Guchkov was the Minister of War and he was a key figure in the “Revolutionary Government” and personally had accepted the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II.  The similarity between the Russia of 1917 and Egypt today are remarkable.  We do well to read his word and pay attention, because history has a dreadful habit of repeating itself.

Alexander Guchkov on Russian Civil Unrest

Unfortunately the first feeling of radiant joy evoked by the revolution has given place to one of pain and anxiety.

The Provisional Government explained the cause of this in its recent declaration, in which it was pointed out that the destruction of the old forms of public life, to which an end had been put by the revolution, had been effected more rapidly than had the creation of new forms to replace them.  ….

Gentlemen, some time ago the country realized that our motherland was in danger.  Since then we have gone a step further, for our motherland is on the edge of an abyss.

If you want to read more on this subject, following is the link to the website:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/russia_guchkov.htm

Guchkov warned that the destruction of the old forms of public life is much easier than the creation of new forms to replace them.  This is the problem in Egypt and it is the problem all over the world.  Those who are unhappy are inspired to destroy the existing form of government.  That is understandable.  But it is always easier to destroy something than to build it up. 

We do not know what governments may fall as a result of this wave of unrest.  But if there is a rush to form a new government, without taking the time to get it right, the results are likely to be disastrous.  

The Revolutionary war was fought from 1775 to 1783.  Following the war our country was governed by the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles of Confederation were written in 1777 and they were designed to manage a war.  Our current constitution was not signed until September 17, 1787 and the government it created did not start to function until March 4, 1789.  It took us 4 years to develop a working form of government and even after agreeing on the constitution it took another year and a half to hold elections and have that government take power.

President Obama wants Egypt to form a new government tomorrow.  He wants the transition to start now.  He apparently believes that speed is the essential ingredient in the transition to democracy.  The only question is whether he is ignorant of our own history or he just chooses to ignore it?

TDM

Watching the Egyptian people celebrate is like watching the ultimate party.  But, following every party there has to be a morning after.  Egypt is probably going to experience a gigantic hangover.  For those who are celebrating the resignation of Hosni Mubarak from Egypt, I attach the following news article regarding the departure of the Shah of Iran.  This was published on January 16, 1979.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1979/jan/16/iran.martinwoollacott

The idea appears to be to confront Ayatollah Khomeini with a choice between dealing with the moderates or facing military intervention and massive repression. The situation itself suggests that such a coup might be attempted if the Ayatollah goes for a takeover.

No was predicting that the Ayatollah Khomeini would take over in Iran.  Instead, they felt that if he “tried” to take over there would be a military coup and even more repression.  The “experts” expected the Ayatollah Khomeini to moderate.  But moderation is not in the Muslim extremist dictionary.  As we all know, those predictions were very wrong.  Within a very short period of time the Muslim extremists took over.   

There is one big difference between the situation in Iran and that in Egypt.  In this case what really happened was a military coup.   In Iran, there was a coalition government.   The protestors are celebrating a major victory, because they successfully forced Mubarak out.  But, he was not exactly replaced with a coalition government.  Instead the military took direct control, which means the Egyptian constitution is no longer in effect.   

This could go in one of two directions quite quickly.  The military may decide that they have learned from Iran, and they may move in boldly to re-establish control.  They would allow the people to celebrate, tell them they have won, and get them to go home.  Then, quietly when the cameras are turned off, they would re-take control.  It would not be surprising for them to clamp down hard on the Muslim Brotherhood and anyone else they consider to be a threat.  If this happens, the military government may be even more repressive than now.  Suleiman will probably be the public face of the new government.  But, if things don’t calm down, the military will probably put someone else in place.  The military, not the constitutional government, now runs Egypt.

The protests may also be far from over.  There does not appear to be any leader that the people are willing to accept.  The protests appear to be focused on getting Mubarak to go.  Ok, he’s gone.  What now?  Do they go home and celebrate victory?  Or do just keep upping the ante?  The only leaders available seem to be connected with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Fortunately, so far, most of the protestors do not appear to be very interested in turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood.  That means is there is no leader.  Since there is no leader, this could literally head off in almost any direction. 

The people in Egypt are feeling great, but unfortunately, not necessarily thinking great.  It is precisely at these times that tyrants often seize opportunity.  The Muslim Brotherhood will try to slip their guy in, probably disguised as a moderate.  The military will try to retain control.  Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the military will lie about their true intentions.  One will never be satisfied with anything less than a true Islamic state.  The other is unlikely to willingly turn over control to democratic civilian rule.

We could get lucky.  There could be a moderate Egyptian General that is both capable of taking over and willing to facilitate true democracy.   But, such people are very rare.  One tyrant is often exchanged for another.  South Africa was blessed with Nelson Mandela.  However, most countries are not nearly that fortunate.    

The Obama administration continues to be clueless.  The daily, if not hourly, flip flops on this situation have made them look foolish.  In addition Capper, our head of intelligence, said that he considers the Muslim Brotherhood to be a “secular organization.”  That is absurd.  If the Obama administration really believes that, they are hopelessly naïve.  It is, after all the “MUSLIM Brotherood.”  One would think that would provide an important clue.    

Regardless of what happens in Egypt, the overthrow of Mubarak means that these protests will spread throughout the Middle East.  They are also likely to spread to places like Iran and China.  The fuse has been lit.   Much of the world is on fire and it is far from being controlled.  We do not know how far or how fast it will spread, but we do know that it won’t stop in Egypt.  U.S. insurance carriers that specialize in global risk are strongly warning U.S. companies to prepare for worst case scenarios with regard to evacuating personnel.  We seldom realize our greatest hopes or our worst fears.  In Egypt we are likely to get one or the other.  Because of the speed at which this is moving, the lack of leadership in Egypt and the incompetence of the Obama administration, a bad result seems more likely than not.

Obama was just on TV, celebrating the party.  I wonder if he will be as thrilled about the coming hangover.

TDM

How many times have we listened to people claiming Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq.  On January 6, 2011 the government declassified the status report given to Donald Rumsfeld by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 9, 2002.  This report was in response to a request from Rumsfeld to find out what the U.S. knew and didn’t know about the WMD in Iraq.  This memo reveals the truth about the intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq.

Naturally some people will quickly seize on this as lacking in hard core evidence.  But, that is hardly news.  Everyone agrees that the intelligence on Iraq was pathetic.  Iraq was a very secretive state and one of the problems for everyone was the lack of solid intelligence. 

George Bush undoubtedly used this report to help him evaluate the level of threat from Iraq.

It basically says the following:

1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that Iraq was making significant progress in WMD programs.
2. The U.S. had little or no hard intelligence with regard to the Iraqi nuclear programs.
3. Iraq was engaged in a program of Cover, Concealment, Denial and Deception (“CCD&D”) program that made it very difficult to evaluate their WMD program.
4. Iraq definitely had the knowledge needed to build a nuclear weapon.
5. The U.S. believed he already had a viable weapon designe.  They did not know how far Iraq had progressed with regard to enrichment.  They did not know the location of any nuclear weapons facilities.
6. Iraq definitely had the knowledge necessary to build biological weapons.
7. Iraq had all the processes required to produce biological weapons and had produced anthrax, ricin toxin, botulinum toxin and gas gangrene. 
8. The U.S. could not confirm the identity of any specific facilities.
9. They knew what biological weapons Iraq could produce, they did not know how and where they were produced.
10. Iraq definitely had the knowledge needed to build chemical weapons.
11. The U.S did not know if the processes required to produce a weapon were in place.  Iraq had already produced mustard gas and nerve agents. 
12. Iraq had facilities producing feedstock chemicals suitable for chemical warfare precursor.
13. The U.S. did not know the location of any Iraqi sites that could produce the final chemical agent.
14. Iraq had the knowledge to build ballistic missiles.
15. They could produce short range ballistic missiles.
16. The U.S. did know where most of the missile facilities were located.

In summary, intelligence showed that Iraq was an extremely dangerous state.  Iraq was actively promoting terrorism; Saddam Hussein was literally paying the families of suicide bombers.

There was a high risk of Iraq becoming a nuclear power with very little warning. We did not know the location of any nuclear weapon facilities.

Iraq had the capability to produce biological weapons and chemical weapons.  We did not know the location of any facilities.

Note:  In the past, intelligence had always been surprised to learn that Iraq had more than they suspected.  That was an opinion held by both Democrats and Republicans.  If the intelligence was wrong, most people experienced in intelligence suspected it was understating the problem.

Bush did not have the option of ordering air strikes or cruise missile attacks, because U.S. intelligence did not know where the facilities were located.

His choices were as follows:

1. Hope that the UN Sanctions that had not worked for over 8 years would suddenly start having an impact.
2. Attack Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and end the threat.
3. Do nothing and kick the problem down the road for someone else to handle.

What would you do?  What do you think most Presidents, including Bill Clinton and even Al Gore would do, particularly after 9-11?

This certainly explains all those speeches in support of the war by John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller and virtually every other Democratic leader.  It also explains why then Senator Barack Obama who had opposed the war said that if he had seen the intelligence available he might have made a different decision.  He danced around the issue during an interview with Tim Russert in 2007:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-speak.html

The main stream media owes George Bush a huge apology.  This memo should be the lead in every news broadcast and the headline should scream that “U.S. Intelligence confirmed that Iraq was a serious threat prior to the war.”  Instead they perpetuate the myth by saying that the intelligence was light.  It was light, as least in part because of drastic cuts to the defense budget under Clinton.  It was also light because in response to the Frank Church committee report, there were serious limitations to our ability to collect intelligence.  

The American people need to know the simple truth on this subject.  The memo is there for all to see.  Judge for yourself:

Iraq Intelligence Status Report

Somebody lied.  People died.  It wasn’t Bush.

TDM

We never really learn how great or bad, a leader is until a time of crisis.  Aaron Rodgers just showed that he is true leader with his performance in the Super Bowl.  Unfortunately, with regard to Egypt, Barak Obama has proved the opposite.  He is a PINO, President In Name Only. 

Obama followed the same pattern he does with every crisis.  He starts by doing nothing.  He tries to appear calm and composed, but in reality, just doesn’t know what to do.   He tries to appear Presidential, but never really IS Presidential.  Then he tries to figure out which way the politically correct winds are blowing so he can pretend to be in charge.  Finally, if things turn out bad he quickly shifts the blame and if things turn out good, he is even quicker to claim the credit.

His handling of the Egyptian crisis is beyond pathetic.  He started out pretending to be neutral.  Then when it looked like the Egyptian government was in trouble and the main stream media was showcasing the “pro-democracy” movement, he started giving the protestors more and more support.  While he never actually told Mubarak he had to go, he went publicly on the record saying the time to start the transition is now.  He even invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the table.  But the reality is that there is no current leader of any opposition group, including the Muslim Brotherhood, that could possibly govern Egypt.

Obama became frustrated and started pretending someone cared about what he was saying.  He pointed a finger at the camera and demanded that the transition to a new government in Egypt must start now.  Mubarak just ignored him.   He hasn’t been in power for 30 years because he is a push over.  In addition his friends in the Middle East from Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan and even Palestine are urging him to stay.  They agreed with Mubarak when he said that if he left he feared his country would descend into chaos and that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over.  At this point things appear to be calming down in Egypt, but that could change.  Mubarak may or may not leave, but it seems likely that the military will remain in control:    

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8307210/Egypt-uprising-falters-as-negotiations-with-government-begin.html

To make things worse, Obama made a big deal about appointing Frank Wisner to travel to Egypt to meet with both the Muslim Brotherhood and Mubarak. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/world/middleeast/03wisner.html

Apparently Wisner was supposed to negotiate a play nice agreement with the brothers and to tell Mubarak it was time to go.  But, Wisner came back with a strong message for Obama.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-administration-distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html

Wisner told anyone who would listen that; in his opinion, Mubarak needed to stay in office in order to oversee a responsible transition.  This, of course, was the exact opposite of what Obama was saying.  The Obama administration responded by desperately trying to explain how the guy Obama specifically appointed to speak for him, doesn’t actually speak for him.

To complete the insanity, today, there are reports that Obama has decided Wisner was right after all and perhaps Mubarak should stay:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/ss_egypt0108_02_07.asp

Of course now that Obama appears to have decided to support Mubarak, again, the latest rumors are that Mubarak may go anyway, on a medical leave.  (That is exactly the same maneuver recommended by Carter to get the Shah out of Iran and we all know how well that worked.)

 In the meantime the situation is Egypt is resolving itself without regard to anything said or done by Obama.  He just looks arrogant, silly, incompetent, naïve and irrelevant.  It is becoming difficult to find anyone who still takes Obama seriously.

We still don’t know the final outcome in Egypt.  The word is out that Obama has put the Marines on standby for an emergency deployment to evacuate Americans from Egypt.   Obviously someone is very concerned that things are going to deteriorate rapidly.

The only good news here is that even if Mubarak leaves it appears that Omar Suleiman will take his place, at least temporarily.   So far, Suleiman seems like a good choice.  He was in charge of the effort to keep the Muslim Brotherhood under control under the Mubarak regime.  The only negative I have heard on Suleiman is that Jimmy Carter thinks highly of him.  But since just about everyone else also likes him, that is probably insignificant.   Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

Obama has now lost credibility with both the left and the right.  He has now reduced the power of the Presidency to roughly the same as the English Monarchy.  He gets to stay in the White House and make speeches that people pretend matter, but no one seriously considers him to be the leader of the United States.   At a time when we desperately need leadership, we have Obama, the President In Name Only.

TDM

The Obama administration is condemning violence in Egypt, but only if it is done by the government.  Apparently violence by the protestors is ok.  Robert Gibbs:

“If any of the violence is instigated by the government it should stop immediately,”

Robert Gibbs is demanding that the government fold “yesterday” and Obama is openly embracing the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now we have vicious pro-Mubarak protestors fighting back against the “freedom and democracy crowd.”  What could possibly go wrong?

The rest of the world is stunned to learn that yes; Obama really is that naïve and incompetent.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142101

The Egyptian government, meaning the military, is underwhelmed by the anointed one.  They view his irresponsible comments as inciting violence.

http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt-protests/2011/02/02/egyptian-foreign-ministry-says-obama-inciting-violence

They also view his recommendations as hopelessly contradictory.  He is demanding a quick, immediate, orderly transition to representative democracy, by embracing the Muslim Brotherhood.  Right!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_us/us_us_egypt_cairo_view

Gibbs is literally throwing gas on the fires of rebellion.  The U.S. is now cheerleading for the protestors:

 http://www.latimes.com/news/la-egypt-obama-violence-20110202,0,3875781.story

In summary, the Obama administration has bet it all on the protestors overturning the Mubarak regime with the Muslim Brotherhood leading the way to freedom and democracy.  I am not even sure which is worse.  Obama being right, or wrong?.  At least from this angle, it would seem that if he is wrong, the Egyptian government maintains control and perhaps some stability is retained in the Middle East.  However, I wouldn’t count of them being willing to cooperate with Obama on anything.  It is really hard to believe that any government including the Muslim Brotherhood is going to turn out to be our BFF in the Middle East.

This is really dumb.  Does the Obama administration really think the Mubarak regime is just going to roll over and play dead because Obama doesn’t like them anymore?  For one thing, if the mob takes over at this point members of the current government will be lucky to escape with their lives.  For another, it would be wise to remember that the military has controlled Egypt for a long time.  While the military may be unhappy with Mubarak, they are unlikely to just willingly hand over the keys to their sworn enemies.  They are far more likely to do what they did before, replace Nassar with Sadat and replace Sadat with Mubarak.

Frequently the protestors are seen begging Obama for help.  What do they expect?  Do they really think Obama is going to send in troops to fight a battle with the Egyptian military?  Or do they think Mubarak will be so inspired by the annointed one that he will just gleefuly dance away into a peaceful and happy retirement?  The truth is that Obama can’t do squat.  In the end, I suspect it will be a very close contest to see who hates America most when this is done:  The Egyptian government that was abandoned by Obama, or the protestors who discovered Obama’s support meant less than nothing.

If the military fights back, which seems more and more likely, they have a lot of advantages.  They have planes, tanks, guns, fuel, food, water, money and ammunition.  Latest reports even have the pro-Mubarak crowd riding in on horseback and camels.  The “freedom and democracy” group has primarily taunts and tonsils.  Unless a significant segment of the military switches sides, bet on the guys with the most guns.

The least likely result seems to be a wonderful new Egyptian democratically elected government that offers peace and prosperity for all.   If the Obama administration had allowed Mubarak to leave gracefully and to allow for a smooth transition over several months to a fair election, that might actually have been possible.  Now we seem to be headed toward one of two options, both of which are worse that before.  If the Egyptian miltitary maintains control they are likely to crackdown even more on dissidents.  On the other hand, if the mob wins, Egypt is likely to make Iran look good in comparison.  Nice!

TDM

Carter lost Iran.  Obama is very close to losing Egypt.  Losing Iran was a major mistake, but it was isolated to one country.  Losing Egypt will be far more damaging.  It will not stop in Egypt.

The difference between a strong leader and a weak leader is the ability to make the tough decision under pressure.  The strong leader will make a decision and act boldly.  The most recent example of that was when George Bush ordered the surge in Iraq.  He had widespread opposition from the Democrats and lack luster support from the Republicans.  Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not enthused.  But Bush decided he had to act, because failure to act would result in certain disaster.  He was right.  His bold leadership snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

The public demonstrations in Tunisia have now spread around the globe.  They quickly ignited a fire storm in Egypt.  Our only hope now is that the military takes control.  Any provisional government acceptable to this mob will be a disaster.  The provisional government in Iran lasted for about 30 days before the hard liners took over.

Our leaders would be wise to re-read Niccolo Machiavelle’s “The Prince.”  Machiavelli lived in Florence during the renaissance.  The following words are as true today as they were in 1505:

for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse.

The following words are stunning with regard to current events in Egypt:

there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.

The Obama administration and other liberals fail to understand this.  Being liberal is only possible if first you have control.  We would all like to see Egypt and every place else enjoy the same democracy and freedom we enjoy.  But the first step toward democracy is the establishment of a government with enough power to enable it to allow personal freedom.  Where there is no rule of law, the lawless rule.  That is why Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and shut down newspapers during the Civil War.  The following quote from a letter written by Lincoln says it all:

I did understand…that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government—that nation—of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation.

True leadership requires understanding the difference between a threat to the nation’s very survival and political correctness.  No one, in Egypt or anywhere else, will benefit by swapping the brutal regime of Mubarak for an even more brutal fundamental Islamic state.  President Bush was a strong advocate for reforms in Egypt, but he was very careful to not undermine a government that was an important pillar of security in a volatile world.  When this crisis broke, first Obama tried to remain totally neutral, which satisfied no one.  Then he began making statements that clearly undermined Mubarak.  His warning to Mubarak to not use brutal tactics to suppress a rebellion only increased the level of violence itself.  Now he is sitting in the Oval office wringing his hands and calling around the world asking for someone to tell him what to do.  The leaders in every Arab world are asking themselves the same question.  Who do we fear more, the United States under Barack Obama, or the Muslim Brotherhood.  Sadly, I think we already know the answer.

I fear we are going to pay a terrible price for electing a naïve radical when we needed an experienced and strong leader.

The following article by Andrew McCarthy does an excellent job of explaining what is at risk.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258419/fear-muslim-brotherhood-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

The only thing certain is that if the government in Egypt falls, it will not end there.  The world is on fire and the one country on earth that has any chance to put out the fire is paralyzed by lack of leadership.

TDM

The revolt in Tunisia appears to have set off a spark that is rapidly spreading around the world.  Lebanon was overtaken by Hezbollah.  There are reports of problems in Jordan, Albania, Yemen and Iran.  Now it appears that it will take a miracle for the Egyptian government to survive.   Unfortunately, unless we are very lucky, this is unlikely to end well. 

When there was wide spread resistance in Iran, Obama did absolutely nothing.  That was a situation where people were rebelling against a dangerous Islamic regime, but Obama never said a word in support.   Contrast that with the situation in Egypt where Obama is publicly warning Egypt to not use force to quell the protests.  Egypt has a repressive government, but there is a lot more freedom in Cairo than there is in Tehran.  While Obama did nothing to help the people in Iran, he is more than willing to push Mubarak into the night. 

This is reminiscent of the way Jimmy Carter handled Iran.  Jimmy Carter was determined to spread “human rights” around the world.  Naturally places like China and the Soviet Union weren’t listening, so he only put pressure on “our friends.”  He warned the Shah of Iran to avoid using violence to suppress the resistance.  The Shah tried to warn Carter that he was dealing with Islamic fundamentalist and that the Shah would likely be replaced with something far worse.  Carter did not listen.  Instead Carter pushed the Shah to show restraint toward those who only understand brute force.  Ultimately, the Shah was over-thrown and he was replaced with the most radical and dangerous Islamic regime in the world.  That regime quickly thanked Carter by attacking our embassy and humiliating the U.S. in front of the world. 

Obama is following the exact same strategy in Egypt.  Egypt is the closest thing we have to a friend in the Arab world.  It is, after all, the Arab country that signed a peace treaty with Israel.   Now Obama not only seems reconciled to letting Mubarak fail, he is giving him advice that makes this a near certainty.   Mubarak has warned Obama that if he loses control Egypt could be dominated by Muslim extremists, just like in Iran, but Obama is not listening.

The following article explains the problem:

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/01/bbc-egyptian-tanks-surround-us-uk.html

Perhaps Obama does not get it, but clearly the Government of Egypt does.  Those tanks are surrounding our embassy and the UK embassy because they know what will happen if they are not there.  Ironically, Mubarak appears to be more interested in protecting our interests than our own President.  Obama has only been encouraging Mubarak to show restraint: 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/axelrod-president-obama-has-on-several-occasions-directly-confronted-mubarak-on-human-rights-for-the.html

But the question is restraint with regard to whom?  The major opposition party in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood.  The roots of al Qaeda can be traced directly to the Muslim Brotherhood.  The stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is as follows:

The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state”.

There are some people who believe that the Muslim Brotherhood has moved past its history of violence and that we should learn to get along with them.  But, where in this statement is there the slightest hint that these people are willing to tolerate anything other than radical Islam?  Whether they achieve this goal through violence or the ballot box, the outcome is the same, a society that has zero tolerance for other ideas.  This is why no Muslim country embraces freedom of religion.  Freedom of religion is incomparable with Islam itself.   

The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt for years, but it obviously still exists.  Recently its leaders have run for office as “independents.”  The opposition leader in Egypt who was recently imprisoned may fall into that category.  Mohamed ElBaradei gave an interview with Der Spiegel a few days ago saying: 

We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. … [They] have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them,”

He is represented in the main stream media as a Nobel Peace Prize winning reformist.   But he is also an activist who strongly opposed the Bush administration with regard to Iraq.  He tried to convince the world that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions were not a serious threat.  We now know that Saddam Hussein had a lust for nuclear weapons that was only restrained by his inability to obtain sufficient enriched uranium.  One thing is certain, Mohammed ElBaradei was no friend of the U.S. in the past and it would be foolish to assume he would be a friend now. 

Iran clearly sees this situation as perfect for turning Egypt into another Islamic fundamentalist state:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?_r=2&hp

Obama told Mubarak that: “suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.”  That sounds good, but it is incredibly naïve.  It assumes that all ideas are equal.  But the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood is to force everyone to become Muslims.  They believe only in tolerance of them, not tolerance by them.  If someone says that their mission is to take away your freedom, you either fight or you lose your freedom.  Compromise leads only to slavery.  Suppressing ideas may never make them go away, but it can sure prevent them from enslaving you.

Some people believe in the rule of law and fair play.  But others reject the rule of law and are unconcerned about the interests of anyone but themselves.  Every civilized society got that way by first squelching the ideas of criminals.  It is really quite simple.  If good people do not intervene, evil people always rule.  Evil is never silenced by good intentions, it is silenced by good people willing to fight for what is right.  Contrary to what Obama said in one of his speeches, German, Italy and Japan were not defeated by good intentions and ideals.  They were defeated by overwhelming military force.  Only after the military victory was it possible to allow our former enemies to enjoy the chance at true democracy.

Egypt is on the verge of meltdown.  Regardless of who remains in power, if the mob rules the result is unlikely to be good.   I hope and pray that the end result will be a more democratic and free Egypt.  I fear that the opposite is more likely. 

At a time like this it is important to remind ourselves of the contrast between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.  The American Revolution was let by men who knew the importance of having a government powerful enough to maintain control, but balanced enough to facilitate freedom.  The French revolution was an angry mob that descended into anarchy and ultimately led to Napoleon.  Angry mobs may destroy governments, but they rarely create democracies.  Right now Obama seems to be primarily focused on seeing Mubarak out of power.  He is cautioning Mubarak to not use violence to suppress protest.  But, EVERY government has a right to maintain civil order.  Tonight the police in Cairo have withdrawn and citizens are being told they need to defend themselves.  That should be a stark reminder that there is a huge difference between peaceful protest and mob rule.  Obama has no right to ask Mubarak to stand by and watch his country disintegrate into anarchy. 

So far it looks like the Egyptian government, particularly the military remains in control.  It appears that the Egyptian people are willing to accept the presence of the military and there is a chance that there will be a peaceful transition of power.  I suspect that most Egyptians are not interested in living in a state dominated by Islamic fundamentalists.  If given a choice, they are likely to choose freedom and democracy.  But if the decision is made by an angry mob, such an opportunity for choice is extremely unlikely.  Instead of Obama warning Mubarak to not resort to force to control angry mobs, he should be encouraging the citizens to keep the protests peaceful so that no force is necessary. 

Shortly after 9-11 there was an eye opening experience for me.  Vladimir Putin called George Bush and gave support.  He said:  “now you understand what we are dealing with in Chechnya.”  I did some research I found out that I had been incredibly naïve about Chechnya.  If you want to check this out for yourself, read the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/2565049.stm

 I had assumed this was people just wanting to be free from the dominance of Russia.  That was certainly true to a large degree.  But, there was also a problem with Chechnya rebels who wanted to turn Chechnya into an Islamic fundamentalist state.  Putin used the 9-11 attack as an excuse to subdue the Chechnya separatists.   The Chechnya Separatists were not interested in a peaceful resolution.  The point is that there is a big difference between those who believe in freedom and those who only believe in freedom to force everyone to follow their bidding.

The opposite of tyranny is not democracy, it is anarchy.  Democracy is only possible by suppression of evil so that good can live in peace.   Tolerating intolerance is a recipe for disaster.

TDM