I just received notice of a class action settlement against Expedia.  Wow!  I get a coupon for $11.79 in the form of an Expedia coupon.  What a deal.  I may not sleep for weeks.  This is about the third similar class action settlement notice I have received this year.  The others were not nearly this valuable.

 But, these class action settlements are great…for the attorneys who file the lawsuits.  While individual settlements are very small, the attorney fees are really cool.  They made $10 million.  Isn’t that great?  I am so proud of this country.  Of course these attorneys will give back to society by contributing millions of dollars to political candidates, like Barack Obama, who will fight tort reform to the bitter end. 

 By the way, Expedia will just increase rates to cover the cost, so in the end the coupon will be nothing more than the return of an overcharge.  

 Now you know why Malpractice Liability reform, which is acknowledged by everyone to be essential to reducing healthcare costs, was not even considered by the Obama administration.

 TDM

I wonder if anyone noticed the incredibly stupid logic used by Rahm Emanual to explain the thinking behind the Russian spy fiasco. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/08/rahm-emanuel-obama-signed-spy-arrests/

What a great idea.  If you come over here and spy for a foreign country, we will watch you for, say ten years, then put you in jail for about a week and then give you a free ride home.

When you think about it, this is brilliant.  There are other areas were we can use the same strategy to solve problems:

We can reduce speeding by lowering the fines and giving more warning notices.  Honestly, wouldn’t you be more likely to slow down if you knew there would be no punishment for speeding?

We can stop bank robberies by reducing the maximum sentence to six months.  Currently bank robbers go to prison for years if they are caught.  That causes them stress.  With this approach, they can quickly return to society, having learned their lesson that nice people don’t like to be robbed.  Crime rates are sure to decline!

We could have a major impact on sexual assault statistics.  Just let rapists off the hook if they plead guilty and apologize.  That would make them think twice before raping someone else!

I am shocked that no one thought of this logic before.  Oh wait.  They did!  They did!   This is just like our Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan.  Our troops are being trained to fight nice and can’t  fire back if there’s any potential for civilian casualties.  We even give a reward for “Courageous Restraint.”  (Usually a posthumous award)

Of course we can’t be this generous for everyone.  After all, all spies are not created equal.   If you spy for Israel, well that is a different matter:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-jew-indicted-as-possible-israel-spy-1.265740

This man allegedly faces a potential death sentence because of the threat of a nuclear attack on the United States by Israel.   Seriously!  It seems like the Obama administration has a little problem with enemy identification.

http://cicentre.net/wordpress/index.php/2010/01/05/delay-for-start-of-dc-spy-trial-of-stewart-david-nozette/

Here is where Nozette made his big mistake.  If he had only realized that spying for Russia is much safer than spying for Israel, he would probably be celebrating his freedom while sipping vodka in Moscow rather than being stuck in a prison cell.  This is the real lesson.  If you want us to treat you nice, become our enemy.  If you want to be treated like crap, then be our friend.  Brilliant!  Absolutely brilliant!

TDM

 Stamp Malfunction

The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama on it. The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation. After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential Commission presented the following findings:
1.The stamp is in perfect order.
2.There is nothing wrong with the glue.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side.

We are missing something big.  Ten Russian spies were captured on June 28, after the result of a long investigation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/world/main6627393.shtml

Obama’s only concern seems to be that this might distract from getting his new nuclear arms deal with Russia approved by congress.  No outrage at catching spies (pardon the pun) “red-handed.”  Nope, his sole concern was that it might slow down his “reset” agenda.  No concern whatsoever about the potential threat to our national security.   No other nation on this earth would have been so nonchalant with regard to foreign espionage.

The response from Russia was equally bizarre.   Alexander Khramchikhen, Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis even claimed that this alleged spy ring was orchestrated to target President Obama:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2543794/posts

Some of these spies apparently started singing like a canary right from the start.  Within hours there were reports of embarrassing contacts with high level democrats.   Cynthia Murphy, one of the spies, was a long time employee and VP for Morea Financial Services.  This company apparently manages the finances of Alan Patricof, finance chairman of Clinton’s Senate Campaign and apparently a close Clinton associate:

  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/Clinton_friend_may_have_been_spys_target.html

Wouldn’t you really like to know what Cynthia Murphy knew and when she knew it?  Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out if some of that convenient laundered money funded political candidates?  Perhaps some of that money even helped Hillary become United States Senator.  (Just because the Clintons allegedly took a record amount of illegal money from China is no reason to be suspicious!)

Suddenly, the same administration that took weeks to figure out a massive oil spill is a real problem, moved with lightning speed.  Clearly, action had to be taken!  Today we learn that all ten of the “innocent” spies will plead guilty and be swapped for some of our own currently in Russian prisons.  (We are not even sure our people were actually spies).  The speed at which this was done is remarkable.  It is already looking like a done deal.  The administration can sure fly when something matters to them.  The primary hold up appears to be some reluctance on the part of the spies to go to Russia.  Perhaps they liked “pretending” to be Americans.  At a minimum, apparently some of them would really like their kids to stay here.

But, these innocent doves are apparently all going to plead guilty.   They will then be given suspended sentences and shipped off to Russia.   How convenient, for the Obama administration! 

One would think that an administration that even pretended to care about national security would want to find out all the people who had relationships with these spies.  After all, these people were not exactly our friends.  In addition, some of these spies were apparently cut-outs.  They could be the tip of the iceberg with regard to the real spy network.  But, perhaps, the purpose of this deal is to make sure we don’t find out who was connected to these people.  I mean the connection with Alan Patricof is embarrassing enough!  Of course it’s not like President Obama has appointed communist sympathizers and even admitted communists to high level positions!   Who would even think that!

I wonder if anyone in the main stream media is even paying attention.  The odor of cover-up is overpowering, but those who continue to bask in the warm essence of hope and change are unlikely to notice. 

Just got an alert.  The deal is done.  They are on their way to Russian.  I feel warm and fuzzy all over.

TDM

Sometimes the truth hurts.  I understand why Republicans are furious with Michael Steele.   Bill Kristol pointed out that when it comes to war, Republicans believe that the country must remain united behind a U.S.  President,  even if they despise him.   To Republicans, partisanship must end at the nations borders.   That is why they supported Bill Clinton when he launched an attack on Iraq during his impeachment trial.  It is also why they are supporting Obama today.  This is a significant contrast between Republicans and Democrats, since Democrats have no problem at all in undermining a Republican President, regardless of consequences.  With regard to Richard Nixon and later Gerald Ford, the Democrats in congress literally engineered a defeat.   With regard to George Bush, they did everything possible to undermine him, including numerous votes to cut off funding, even though most of them had voted to authorize the war.

But with regard to Afghanistan, Michael Steele may have got it right.  He just did a lousy job of making the case.  I believe that George Bush knew from the start that he could never succeed in building a nation in Afghanistan, but he could remove the Taliban from power and could deal a significant blow to al Qaeda.  During the Bush administration we built very little in Afghanistan and mostly kept a limited force there to keep a lid on things.  Democrats claim that Bush should have concentrated on Afghanistan rather than Iraq, but perhaps Bush never intended much more in Afghanistan, because he knew Afghanistan was very different.   Obama came in and decided that that the real war against al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, even though al Qaeda had been thrown out of Afghanistan by Bush.  It was Obama who decided to make this the front line of the war on terror and who has given orders to our troops designed to win the hearts and minds of people by refusing to fire back. 

If Bush had stayed in office, I do not believe he would have sent many more troops to Afghanistan.   I think he would have opted for some version of the status quo:  enough troops to keep the Taliban and particularly al Qaeda out of power, but no major commitment of forces.  Unfortunately Bush will not say, because unlike Bill Clinton, George Bush refuses to undermine a sitting U.S. President.  In any event, Steele may be more right than not.  We did go into Afghanistan for the right reason, we needed to remove the Taliban from power and we definitely had to destroy those al Qaeda safe havens.   But, we did not need to try and bring civilization to a part of the world that has resisted it for over 2,000 years.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/06/michael-steele-right-about-obama-and-afghanistan-war/

TDM

The following link, from HealthCare BS by Catron will make your 4th of July weekend complete:

http://www.healthcarebs.com/2010/07/01/psa-for-progressives-with-electile-dysfunction/

Happy 4th of July.  Enjoy the Summer of Recovery (from Obama)

TDM

The Russians are complaining about their spies being arrested.  But, they are not apologizing for spying on the U.S.  No, they are upset because:

they presumed that hawkish elements within the U.S. government had engineered and timed the arrests to embarrass President Obama and undermine the “reset.” Mr. Putin echoed that concern during a meeting at his residence outside Moscow with former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103904575337041000860662.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Why would this embarrass Obama?  Shouldn’t Obama have been on TV bragging about capturing this spy ring and demonstrating to the world that we will stand up for America.  Shouldn’t he have been outraged that while Medvedec was meeting with him, pretending to be our friend, they were actually running a major spy ring to conduct espionage against the United States.  Prior Presidents, even limp wristed liberals like Carter and Clinton would have at least pretended to be upset.  Most Presidents would have immediately expelled Russian diplomats in retaliation.  Instead we are told that Obama was informed, but he wasn’t paying much attention.  This simply was not important to him.

I have tried to evaluate the significance of this.  The stated goal of the spies was to influence American policy making.   Putin said that the Russian’s primary concern is that the arrest of these spies will embarrass President Obama.  Obviously the Russians believe that President Obama is their greatest asset in their strategy to achieve their stated goals.  It sure seems like the Russians really like Obama policy making decisions.  Of course it not like Obama cancelled our missile defense system.  It’s not like he caved with regard to the Republic of Georgia.  It’s not like he is planning on a unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States.  And it’s certainly not like we have a President who is traveling around the world apologizing for the United States.  Now if something like that happened, then we should be concerned!

TDM

We are about to find out if there is any hope for the Republican Party.  It is increasingly clear that confirming the nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court will be giving a life-time irreversible appointment to a hard-core, left wing, liberal radical.  When one considers all the stunts Democrats pulled to try and prevent the confirmation of main stream judges like Thompson,  Alioto and Roberts, it is unbelievable that Republicans appear to be willing to roll over on this.  Republicans should stop this by any means necessary, including a lengthy filibuster, if necessary.  Even if this fails, it will allow Republicans to inform the American people about this dangerous appointment.  Republicans rolled over on Ruth Bader Gingsberg because they thought a President had the right to his own appointment, as long as they were legally qualified.  Democrats show no such restraint with regard to appointments by Republicans.   They are more than willing to oppose judge simply for being a conservative.  Obama himself wanted to filibuster Alioto, purely on ideological grounds.   Republicans already blew it with regard to Sotomayor who backtracked on every single promise she made during her confirmation hearings.  Being polite, when asked to confirm someone like Elena Kagan is no virtue.  Opposing a judge who shows every sign of being a dangerous radical is no vice.  If anything, it is a duty to defend the Constitution of the United States.  This isn’t even a close call.

Democrats will be out of power by the end of November.  Obama will be out of office by the end of 2012.  But the damage from confirming Elena Kagan to the United Supreme Court could last for decades.

Today Democrats used the hearings to slam the current Supreme Court.  Yet Republicans are expected to avoid offending sensibilities by appearing to pick on Ms. Kagan.    This is one time when the Republicans should demand more diversity on the Supreme Court.  There is something missing.  Every current justice is either Jewish or Catholic.   There is not a single protestant on the court.  Our Supreme Court represents every segment of society, except the majority.   Some diversity.

TDM

McCarthy warned us, but we didn’t listen.  On February 5, 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy published a name of 57 known communists working for the State Department.  He said that allowing known communists or communist sympathizers in positions where they had access to sensitive information, and where they had input on policy making, constituted a serious threat to our national security. McCarthy was discredited and today McCarthyism is associated with an irresponsible witch hunt used to smear innocent people.  But the problem is that most of the people investigated by McCarthy were not innocent at all.  To our everlasting shame, Democrats were more interested in destroying McCarthy than they were in finding out if he was right.  Republicans were more concerned about distancing themselves politically from McCarthy than they were in standing up to a threat to our national security.  Even today, Republicans routinely run from a challenge, if threatened by being branded with McCarthyism.

The Venona project started in 1942.  It was a 38-year special project by the NSA to decode intercepted soviet dispatches.  As a result of brilliant work by our cryptographers, it was established that there were soviet spies in our government, and many of them were arrested and convicted.  Some of these people were very highly placed.

Following is the official NSA summary of the Venoma project:

http://www.nsa.gov/about/_files/cryptologic_heritage/publications/coldwar/venona_story.pdf

Although the main stream media downplayed the problem, General Omar Bradley, Army Chief of Staff knew better.  He deliberately withheld direct information about Venona to President Truman and to his administration.  (Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR was removed from the list of people given direct access to the code breaking of the Japanese diplomatic code.)  The reason, in both cases, was that the security leaks from the White House were so serious that intelligence officials felt, correctly, that our national security was at risk.  While neither FDR, or Truman, were considered threats to our national security, many of their associates clearly were threats. 

The Venona Project was not declassified until 1995.  At first the liberal left tried to discredit the information because it did not fit with their widely held belief that people did not represent a threat just because they were communists.  However, subsequent research into Soviet archives provided confirmation with regard to most of the people identified as threats to our security by the Venona project.  The NSA kept working on translating these documents up until 1980.  Ironically, if this information had been released in 1950, today we would be celebrating Joseph McCarthy as an American hero.

Now we once again have an administration where people have been appointed to critical positions with little or no regard to their potentially dangerous associations.  One thing that is very clear from the Venona project and other documents is that the American Communist Party was an active participant in espionage against the United States of America.  McCarthy felt that anyone who was a communist, or who had a close relationship with a communist, should be removed from sensitive positions.  He did not try to blacklist them, or imprison them, he just considered them security threats who should not be allowed access to sensitive information.

It is important to note that there was more than just espionage.  The Soviet Union also infiltrated people into positions where they could influence policy.  Alger Hiss was a well known radical.  He also happened to be a member of the Harvard Law review.   His background was full of relationships with very radical people.  But, he was a family friend of FDR, and even when FDR was directly confronted with evidence that Hiss might be a soviet spy, FDR ignored it.   Alger Hiss was a strong advocate for the socialist New Deal programs.  He was also closely connected with Harry Wallace, who went on to become Vice President of the United States under FDR, from 1941 to 1945.  Wallace was replaced by Truman in 1945.  After FDR died, Wallace personally criticized Truman for his uncompromising stance against the Soviet Union.  In 1948, Wallace ran for President of the United States for the Progressive Party.  His campaign was literally managed by the communist party.  By replacing Truman with Wallace, FDR just may have spared this country from having a communist or at least a fellow traveler, as President of the United States.  

Harry Hopkins, FDR’s closest advisor, has been alleged to have been a soviet spy.  A soviet defector, Oleg Gordievsky, was a KGB officer smuggled out of the Soviet Union by British intelligence.  He claimed that Iskhak Ahkmerov, the KGB officer who controlled illegal soviet agents in the United States said that Hopkins “was the most important of all soviet wartime agents in the United States.”  We may never know whether this is true or not, but we do know that it was Hopkins who insisted that aid be extended to Stalin with no strings attached and it is even alleged that he may have arranged for the shipment of uranium to the Soviet Union that allowed them to develop the atomic bomb.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/the-treachery-of-harry-hopkins/

Now fast forward to today.  We have a President of the United States who was allegedly mentored, as a teenager, by a card-carrying communist, Frank Marshal Davis.  The same President had a close personal relationship with William Ayers, who has admitted to conducting terrorist attacks designed to overthrow the government of the United States.   He has appointed numerous people with extreme left,  radical, if not communist backgrounds, to high-level positions. 

Glenn Beck has been warning people that we ignore President Obama’s radical connections to our peril.  The main stream media is out to destroy Glenn Back as an out-of-control maniac.  This is the same strategy that was successfully used to destroy Joseph McCarthy.  (Of course McCarthy contributed to his own downfall.)   But, while they were successful in destroying Joseph McCarthy, that did not make them right.  In restrospect, destroying McCarthy did grave risk to our national security.  Even if Obama himself is not a threat, history has proven that just appointing radicals people to positions of high influence is definitely a threat to our national security.

Now, the FBI has apparently arrested 10 Russians spies, who are allegedly long term agents “SENT TO INFILTRATE POLICY MAKING CIRCLES.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/29/fbi-breaks-up-alleged-russian-spy-ring-deep-cover

They describe this as a long-term deep cover network of agents.  I do not know the full significance of this event.  But it at least appears that the Soviet Union never changed its strategy.  We just stopped paying attention.  Now, ask yourself:  “Does this matter …or not?   I do not know if anyone appointed by Obama is a threat to national security.  I do not know if anyone appointed by Bush, or Clinton or any other President was a security threat.  However, at a minimum, shouldn’t SOMEONE be asking the question?

TDM

The current ROE (Rules of Engagement) in Afghanistan are really Rules of Embrittlement.  The only possible result is to weaken, possibly terminally, the offensive capability of the greatest military in the history of the world. 

The real story with regard to General Stanley McChrystal is the ridiculous rules of engagement that are currently in force in Afghanistan.  The soldiers are totally pissed that they are expected to expose themselves to enemy fire, but can’t even fire back if there is any risk of civilian casualties.  They blamed McChrystal for that.  The ONLY criticism of McChrystal from the troops, that I have seen, is in regard to the rules of engagement.

Almost immediately there are rumors that a:  Petraeus is going to reverse those rules, followed closesly by b: no he is not.  Odds are pretty high that those brilliants rules of engagement came from the White House, not McChrystal and that when Obama talks about keeping the same strategy that is exactly what he has in mind:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/

If these rules of engagement remain in place, Petraeus is going to have serious problems.  If they are changed, it will be hard to argue that this was not a change in strategy.  Interesting thought:   McChrystal has been getting phone calls and letters from the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan blaming him because of the rules of engagement.  That would be hard to take, even if the rules were your own idea.  It would be nearly impossible to take if those rules were jammed down your throat.

I can speak from experience that sometimes when I was an Executive Officer for ABM I was ordered to do things with which I had strongly disagreed.  While it was perfectly acceptable for me to express my disagreement, once the decision was made, my duty was to implement the decision with the same enthusiasm as if it were my own decision.  In order words I couldn’t say something like: “ I disagree with this, but these are orders. “  That was never an option.  If I felt I couldn’t fully support the rules,  I would have been expected to resign. 

The same is true of McChrystal.  He may have strongly disagreed with the rules of engagement.  That seems likely since he was a hard-nosed take no prisoners, unless you want to torture them, kind of guy in Iraq.   But, it would have been his duty to implement the rules, enthusiastically and never give even a hint that he disagreed with the decision. 

The real question is:  “ what is he going to do now? “ Anyone losing a job suffers some stress.  Being fired from one of the post powerful positions in the world, in a publicly humiliating fashion, has got to be overpowering.  It will be interesting to see how he responds. 

Here is what to watch.  If Petraeus is successful in getting the rules of engagement changed, that may push McChrystal over the edge.  He would not likely be thrilled at being blamed for those rules of engagement unless they really were his idea.  On the other hand, if the rules of engagement are not changed, Petraeus is going to have a major moral problem with the troops.  That will quickly tell the troops that it wasn’t McChrystal’s policy, it was Obama’s policy.  At least some of them are going to become vocal about it.  Seeing your buddies die unnecessarily because of idiotic decisions like the current rules of engagement tends to bring out hate and discontent.

TDM