John Perazzo

Socialist Bernie Sanders Lauds Socialist Healthcare

2009 July 7

Self-identified socialist (and U.S. Senator from Vermont) Bernie Sanders joined MSNBC host Ed Schultz yesterday to discuss what each of them views as Barack Obama‘s noble quest to transform the American healthcare system into a government-run, taxpayer-funded enterprise.

Sanders, who founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus — which features a host of far-left luminaries like Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters — told Schultz: “The real solution of course is a single-payer national health-care program, which is the only way … that you’re going to provide universal, comprehensive, cost effective health care to all of our people.”

“The drug companies and the insurance companies,” Sanders asserted for good measure, “have historically spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure we remain the only country in the industrialized world without a natonal health-care program, and that we continue to pay the highest prices for prescription drugs.”

By making the foregoing statements, Sanders demonstrated that, as a socialist, he is entirely ignorant of basic economics — an ignorance he attempts to mask behind a well-rehearsed litany of lamentations condemning the greed that purportedly motivates all manner of capitalist ventures, most notably the drug-manufacturing industry. Meanwhile, he entirely missed the obvious. 

For instance, Sanders didn’t mention that prescription drugs are sometimes expensive because they cost a great deal to develop. Only one in every 5,000 to 10,000 compounds that are tested ultimately make it through the 15-year, $1.3 billion process of research & development, clinical trials, and FDA approval before ending up on the pharmacy shelf. The senator never evinced the barest shred of awareness that when a company produces a successful drug, it needs to recoup not only the money that was spent developing it, but also the money that was spent developing the failures.  Indeed, only 20 percent of FDA-approved drugs generate enough profit to cover the cost of research and development.

From listening to Sanders, one would never realize that drug prices in fact have not skyrocketed in recent years, but rather have barely risen at all. In September 2007 the annual inflation rate for drug prices was a mere 1 percent — a thirty-year low. This was chiefly the result of the ever-increasing use of generic drugs, whose prices have fallen because of free-market competition–the very antithesis of what Sanders, the socialist, proposes.

And of course, Sanders was silent on the fact that the very health-care system which he routinely savages has been responsible for fully 90 percent of the lifesaving drugs produced worldwide.

Nor did Sanders see fit to mention that countries with government-run health care invariably keep prescription-drug prices down by imposing price controls and rationing. As a result, many of the cutting-edge medications from which Americans benefit are not even available in places like Canada, Britain, France, Italy, and virtually every other country where price controls are in force.

Senator Sanders, who understands nothing about the financial risks that entrepreneurs like drug manufacturers take on a regular basis, is quite content to sit back and accuse the evil capitalists of being excessively greedy — in stark contrast, presumably, to himself and all the other selfless altruists who populate the United States Congress.

Though Ed Schultz presented Sanders as some sort of expert who “tells it like it is” on the subject of healthcare, it would have been virtually impossible for the talk-show host to have unearthed anyone less knowledgeable, less capable of counseling a wise course of action, or more certain to waste every moment of his viewers’ time, than Sanders.

Obama's Multiple Crusades Are Straight out of Alinsky Playbook for Social Revolution

2009 July 6

Political strategist Dick Morris, appearing with guest host Mike Huckabee on The O’Reilly Factor last Thursday, spoke about the significance of the confrontational exchange (see video here) that took place at the most recent White House press briefing, where correspondents Chip Reid and Helen Thomas criticized the administration for having pre-selected the participants and questions at President Obama’s health-care town hall meeting. Said Morris: “The media works like a pendulum…. I believe that every week President Obama’s support on health care drops [i.e., will drop] four or five points, and he is going to run out of time and run out of votes.”

Obama, being a shrewd political operative, is clearly aware of this possibility. That explains why he has repeatedly exhorted Congress to pass health-care reform legislation as soon as possible, characterizing it as a matter of extreme urgency that must be addressed within the confines of a narrow window of opportunity.

Americans of all political stripes have marveled at how Obama seamlessly shifts his focus, like a juggler, from one monumentally transformative  item to another—from healthcare reform, to immigration reform, to cap and trade (which would devastate the national economy), etc.  The president’s admirers marvel at his apparently irrepressible work ethic and his ability to multi-task, while his detractors recoil in horror at the degree to which he aims to remake, almost overnight, American society and its economic foundations.

But in point of fact, what Obama is doing is not the least bit surprising to anyone who understands who the president’s political mentors are. Indeed, what he is doing is straight out of the playbook of the late Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals.

Alinsky was a Chicago Marxist who, in the aforementioned books, laid out the techniques by which “community organizers”—like the Barack Obama of 1980s- and 1990s-era Chicago—could lead movements for social revolution and upheaval. Extensively trained in Alinsky’s methods, Obama became a master of those methods. He then went on, in the 1990s, to teach them to an army of agitators belonging to ACORN. At that time, ACORN played a central role in demanding that banks issue subprime loans to undercapitalized nonwhite borrowers—a practice that eventually would lead to our current economic and housing crisis.

According to Alinsky, it was vital for “community organizers”–like Obama–to focus on multiple crusades and multiple approaches, rather than on a single agenda item. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag,” Alinsky wrote. “Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time … New issues and crises are always developing…”

Alinksy advised organizers to be sure that they always kept more than one “fight in the bank.” In other words, organizers should have, in reserve, a stockpile of crusades which they are fully prepared to pursue, and to which they can instantly turn their attention whenever it’s politically expedient do do so–for example, after they have won some type of victory regarding another matter, or after their efforts in that other matter begin to attract some unwelcome scrutiny. These “fights in the bank” serve the dual purpose of keeping the organizers’ momentum going, while not allowing any single crusade to get “stale” from excessive public exposure.

“Multiple issues mean constant action and life,” Alinsky wrote.

Barack Obama, the community organizer-turned-President, is simply practicing, quite methodically, the Alinsky techniques he learned so long ago. It isn’t multi-tasking; it isn’t brilliance. It is, focused, relentless, steel-hearted strategy.

Poor Keith Olbermann Knows Nothing about Missile Defense … or Anything Else

2009 July 3

Poor Keith Olbermann. He’s so tormented by his own blind, reflexive hatred, that he literally can’t see the world as it is. Consider his perspective on missile defense, for instance—a highly relevant topic, in light of the fact that North Korea provocatively test-fired four missiles off its east coast Thursday and is pledging to launch more in the very near future.

But Keith Olbermann dismisses missile defense as a foolish endeavor, a “system into which we have spent billions [of dollars but] is still nothing more” than a fantasy, and an ill-advised fantasy, at that. He even uses the derisive term “Star Wars” to drive home the point that it’s all just science fiction—worthy of a movie, perhaps, but not of national defense policy. In a recent exchange with MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell (a self-described “European socialist” whose raging tirades against Republicans are well-documented), Olbermann emphatically agreed with his guest’s assertion that “whenever we test [missile defense], it doesn‘t work.”

Poor Keith Olbermann. He hasn’t yet heard that since December 2002, the U.S. military has had a 97-percent testing success record (37 hits in 38 attempts) with its ground-based, sea-based, and air-based defensive systems. And just last year, the system paid dividends of a most practical nature—by destroying a malfunctioning satellite in space and thereby preventing it from crashing down dangerously to earth.

Poor Keith Olbermann probably brayed yesterday when Air Force General Victor Renuart, the commander of the U.S. Northern Command, told reporters what would happen if a North Korean missile were to threaten U.S. territory:

The nation has a very, very credible ballistic-missile defense capability. Our ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, I’m very comfortable, give me a capability that if we really are threatened by a long-range ICBM, that I’ve got high confidence that I could interdict that flight before it caused huge damage to any U.S. territory.

Most Americans would be happy to hear such an assessment. But not poor Keith Olbermann. He has no choice but to disparage the very concept of missile defense, no matter how much progress is made toward perfecting the technology. After all, missile defense was first proposed by Ronald Reagan. And Olbermann hated Reagan, therefore he is obliged to oppose missile defense. Missile defense was also supported by President Bush, and Olbermann hated President Bush, therefore he is obliged to oppose missile defense. And of course, Barack Obama has called for cuts in the funding of missile defense. Olbermann worships Barack Obama, therefore he is obliged to oppose missile defense.

Poor Keith Olbermann. He’s really a very pitiable fellow.

Lies, Lies, Lies about the Healthcare "Crisis"

2009 July 2

Last night, David Shuster guest-hosted for MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. Shuster interviewed Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed socialist and U.S. Senator from Vermont, on the prospective glories of universal healthcare. Calling for a government-run alternative to our present system, Sanders said gravely: “We have a disastrous health care situation in this country. Forty-six million uninsured, more underinsured, 20,000 people dying every year because they don’t get to a doctor on time.”

But as Sally Pipes explains in her monumentally important book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care, the 46 million figure cited by Sanders is pure, unadulterated fiction.

First, about 14 million of those uninsured are low-income Americans who are fully eligible for government assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP—but who simply haven’t gotten around to enrolling in these programs. They could visit a doctor, clinic, or hospital anywhere in the country and enroll in those programs, on the spot, and receive treatment. Can any honest person really argue that these 14 million people are “uninsured”? Of course not.

Another 10 million of the uninsured are not even U.S. citizens; many of them are illegal immigrants. Is it good public policy to burden American taxpayers with the health-care costs of non-citizens and illegal immigrants? Of course not.

And, while Sanders broadly paints the uninsured as people who are financially unable to afford health insurance of any kind, the fact is that some 28 million of the 46 million uninsured earn more than $50,000 annually – well above the national median income.

Many of those 28 million are healthy young adults who are not insured by their employers and who choose not to buy insurance on their own because they would rather use their money for other things. Indeed, Americans aged 19 to 29 represent one of the largest and fastest-growing segments of the uninsured population.

One reason why young people commonly forego insurance is that the price is too high for their needs and their finances. Why? Because the government has imposed many hundreds of mandates on insurance companies, forcing them to offer only policies that cover a sweepingly broad range of ailments and treatments, rather than allowing them to offer (much less expensive) policies that are more narrowly tailored to the specific needs of particular demographics.

For example, not all people who desire insurance necessarily want to be covered for massage therapy, breast reduction, hair prosthesis, contraceptives, dieticians, drug-abuse treatment, prostate cancer, hormone-replacement therapy, in-vitro fertilization, speech therapy, or varicose-vein removal. But because of mandates, they are forced to choose between paying extra for such coverages or going without insurance altogether. In 1979 there were only 252 mandate laws in force nationwide. By 2007, that number had risen to 1,901. These mandates drive up the cost of insurance by as much as 50 percent.

The demographic groups cited in the paragraphs above are not mutually exclusive; there is some overlap. And indeed some people do “fall through the cracks.” These are mostly people who earn less than $50,000 per year but too much to qualify for government assistance. There are roughly 8 million of these chronically uninsured, and they are indeed in need of assistance.

But there’s an enormous difference between 8 million and 46 million. Bernie Sanders isn’t too dumb to understand the facts presented above. Neither is Barack Obama, who is leading the charge toward universal healthcare.

What motivates them, then, to exaggerate the numbers so greatly? Could it be that if chronically dishonest political opportunists like Sanders and Obama were to present their case with real numbers rather than fictitious ones, they wouldn’t be able to frighten the public into agreeing that we must hurriedly dismantle the most effective and innovative healthcare system the human race has ever known? Of course.

Obama's "Transparency" Hypocrisy

2009 July 1

Under the righteous-sounding banner of “consumer protection,” President Barack Obama has thought of yet another way to expand the size of the federal government. Yesterday he asked Congress to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to oversee and regulate the fine print on consumer products like credit cards and mortgages. This agency, and not the credit card companies or lending institutions, will be authorized to determine what fees, penalties and interest rates are “fair” to charge.

As Americans struggle to survive the current economic windstorm, which was caused largely by the government’s forcible meddling in the mortgage-lending and housing industries, they must now weather the indignity of their President telling them that yet another dose of government meddling is what they need to put them on the right path.

“Those ridiculous [mortgage and credit card] contracts with pages of fine print that no one can figure out — those things will be a thing of the past,” our Great Protector said.

Presumably, Mr. Obama didn’t notice any irony in the fact that his purported call for plain talk and simplicity bore neither of those attributes. You see, the draft bill outlining the new “transparency” standards did not fit on a single typewritten page; nor did it fit on 2 pages, or 5, or 10, or 20, or 50, or 100. The bill is fully 152 pages long.

But this is nothing new for Mr. Transparency in the Oval Office. After all, he was utterly untroubled by the 1,071-page, $787 billion “stimulus package” which he signed in February; the $410 billion spending bill he signed in March, a labyrinthine maze of expenditures complete with some 8,600 earmarks; and now, most recently, the 1,500-page “cap-and-trade” monstrosity by means of which the President will impose massive additional costs on every American household each year.

Not a shred of simplicity; nor of transparency; nor of honesty.

And the President has plenty of support in foisting upon the American people these monuments to waste, doubletalk, and deception. Among the key congressional advocates of cap-and-trade, for instance, are such luminaries as Nancy Pelosi, who never met a tax she didn’t like; Charles Rangel, a corrupt political hack who is up to his eyeballs in income-tax and real-estate scandals; Barney Frank, who for years promoted the subprime mortgages that caused the housing market to collapse; and John Conyers, a longtime ally of ACORN (which likewise intimidated banks into making high-risk loans).

Terrorist-Sponsor Jerrold Nadler Hangs U.S. Troops out to Dry

2009 June 11

The House of Representatives is now deliberating over a military-spending bill to finance battlefield and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the coming year. One of those House members, Democrat Jerrold Nadler of New York, is aiming to strip the bill of a key provision whose purpose is to protect the lives of American soldiers. By trying to expunge it, Nadler is exhibiting the same disregard for innocent Americans as he showed eight years ago when he persuaded then-President Clinton to pardon a pair of violent domestic terrorists.

The provision in question was inserted into the Senate version of this spending bill (which was passed Thursday in an 86 to 3 vote) by Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham. Specifically, the provision bans the release of the infamous “torture” photos involving U.S. military personnel—the photos that Barack Obama had originally pledged to make public, until the CIA and the Defense Department persuaded him to reverse course. While the images in the photos are reputed to be no more inflammatory than those that came out of Abu Ghraib in 2004, if they were to be made public Al Jazeera television—the very voice of anti-Americanism in the Arab world—would swiftly dangle them before every pair of eyes in every town and hamlet across the Middle East. That would, of course, expose American service personnel in the region to potentially grave and needless retaliatory violence.

But none of that matters to Jerrold Nadler, Barney Frank, and a number of additional members of the House of Representatives who want to strip the bill of the photo-ban provision. From their safe havens in the United States, these fashionably attired, well-fed, self-absorbed, self-satisfied fools couldn’t care less about the possibility that their actions will cause any number of U.S. soldiers to die horrible, senseless deaths in a faraway land.

Nadler’s opposition to the ban is particularly odious. In the latter days of the Clinton presidency, the congressman disgraced himself by giving aid and comfort to two incarcerated domestic terrorists, Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg.

In the 1970s, Evans and Rosenberg had been members of the Weather Underground, a Marxist-Leninist cult that was launched under the name Weatherman in 1969. Trained in Marxist philosophy and urban warfare by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and the Soviet KGB, this violent group formally declared war on “Amerikkka” (which it spelled that way to convey its belief that the nation was irredeemably racist to its core) and dedicated itself to fomenting social chaos and racial warfare against the “white” United States on behalf of the non-white, allegedly exploited Third World. At a 1969 “War Council” in Michigan, Weatherman leader Bernardine Dohrn (who today is a board member of the ACLU) praised the serial murderer Charles Manson and his accomplices. During its reign of terror, the Weather Underground set off at least 30 bombs in such strategic locations as police stations, corporate offices, military draft offices, ROTC buildings, the US Capitol building, National Guard headquarters, FBI headquarters, courthouses, the Pentagon, the State Department, the National War College, the Navy Yard Computer Center, and the Navy Yard Officers Club.

In 1981 Evans and Rosenberg, their anti-American radicalism undiminished, took part in the deadly Brinks armored-car robbery in Nyack, New York, where two security guards and two police officers were shot, three of them fatally. Three years later, the women were finally apprehended. At the time, they had 740 pounds of explosives (which they admitted were earmarked for bombings) in their possession. Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years in prison, Evans to 40 years.

But in early 2001, Congressman Nadler suddenly intervened on the incarcerated terrorists’ behalf. It seems that Rosenberg’s mother had assembled documents from her daughter’s parole hearings that purportedly showed the latter to be a model prisoner; the mother presented these materials to Rolando Matalon, her rabbi at New York’s liberal Congregation B’nei Jeshurun Rolando Matalon. Rabbi Matalon then gave the documents to Nadler, who was also a member of the congregation, and Nadler in turn passed them on for President Clinton to consider as evidence that Rosenberg might merit consideration for a presidential pardon.

Clinton in fact decided to pardon not only Rosenberg (42 years before her sentence was due to end), but Evans as well (24 years early, in her case)—over the strong objections of Mary Jo White, the US attorney in New York. After her release from prison, Susan Rosenberg was given a job at Congregation B’nei Jeshurun. As attorney Alan Dershowitz put it, “This was a congregational victory.”

Why did Nadler go to these lengths to secure Susan Rosenberg’s release? Perhaps the congressman, who was a leftwing, anti-Vietnam War activist in the years that the Weather Underground was conducting its own brand of “protest,” felt sympathy for Rosenberg and her radical supporters. And perhaps whatever personal acquaintance he had with Rosenberg’s mother gave him an extra motive for getting involved.

Why did Clinton, for his part, oblige Nadler’s request? Perhaps it was payback to the congressman, who, as a member of the Judiciary Committee in the 1990s, had used his influence to oppose the impeachment proceedings against the President.

By seeking to have the so-called “torture” photos made public, Jerrold Nadler has allied himself with the loathsome ACLU, which has been busy in federal court seeking to force the government to release those same pictures. Though it piously characterizes itself as America’s “guardian of liberty,” the ACLU, in matters involving American security and terrorist threats, consistently sides with the terrorists. Obviously, partisanship of that nature is not altogether alien to Congressman Nadler.

North Korea Defies U.S. — Again

2009 April 6

While President Barack Obama is in Europe pushing for a nuclear-free world, the Supreme Leader of the North Koreans, Kim Jung-Il—along with representatives of the Supreme Leader of Iran—has taken advantage of the world’s distractions with Obama-mania to test-launch a rocket, in defiance of the muted protestations of the West.

A 15-strong delegation of missile experts from Iran was dispatched to North Korea to help Pyongyang prepare for the launch. These experts (which included senior officials from the Iranian rocket and satellite producer Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group) brought a letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong-Il stressing the importance of cooperating on “space technology.”

Previous rocket tests have given the North Koreans (and by extension, the Iranians) the confidence to know what the response of the United States and its allies would be after this latest launch—nothing.

“North Korea broke the rules once more by testing a rocket that could be used for a long-range missile,” Obama said. “This provocation underscores the need for action—not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.”

To the North Koreans, this was a predictably tepid response. Do you think the North Koreans really care about yet another hollow condemnation by the impotent United Nations Security Council? By now, the Supreme Leader has collected enough of those to wallpaper his bathroom. What he does care about is money, because the inhabitants of his Socialist paradise are starving. Where the money comes from—whether from China (which could have stopped the launch if it really wanted to), Syria, or Iran—makes no difference to Kim Jong Il.

Meanwhile the Iranians, who are flush with petrodollars, have been looking for an effective launch medium for the nuclear weapons which they are developing, also in defiance of the UN Security Council. President Ahmadinejad, as you recall, has openly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” With North Korean missiles providing the long-range capacity to carry a nuclear payload, Ahmadinejad may soon have the capability to carry out his pledge.

This post was written by Claude Cartaginese.

Ward Churchill: Heading Back to the Classroom?

2009 April 3

Yesterday a Denver jury ruled that Ward Churchill, the disgraced former Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, had been wrongly fired from his job there in 2007. Churchill, the liar and American Indian-imposter who considers the U.S. to be a genocidal nation, had been relieved of his $115,000 post as tenured professor because of research misconduct — specifically, plagiarism and fabrication.


According to the jury, however, the real (and insufficient) reason for which Churchill was fired was because of an essay he had written disparaging the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns” who, like obedient Nazis, silently and passively acquiesced while their nation brutalized innocents around the world.


Though the court awarded Churchill only $1 in damages (the minimum allowed by law), the University will be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and may have to give him his old job back. A reinstatement motion is being filed, and a hearing may be held as early as June.


What type of signal would Churchill’s re-instatement send?


Former University of Colorado President Hank Brown — who supported the firing of Churchill — said it would be a “travesty of justice” if the school is forced to re-hire the professor. “This is someone who has disgraced his profession and disgraced his academic colleagues,” Brown elaborated. “To require the university to hire someone who is dishonest is a real travesty.”


So who is Ward Churchill?


Regarding the Sept. 11 attacks, he had this to say: “[I]f you make it a practice of killing other people’s babies for personal gain … eventually they’re going to give you a taste of the same thing.”


Years ago, he was involved with the Students for a Democratic Society, which aspired to overthrow America’s democratic institutions and remake its government in a Marxist image. He also joined the Weather Underground, a violent domestic terror group that declared “war on Amerikkka.”


Churchill has written books likening the United States to Nazi Germany, and as late as 2004 he suggested that “more 9/11s” may be “necessary” to awaken Americans to the consequences of their country’s evil policies. Moreover, he has condemned Israel as a “terrorist state,” and he proudly counts the former terrorist Bill Ayers and the America-hating radical attorney Lynne Stewart as two of his staunchest supporters.


With yesterday’s jury ruling and the prospect of Churchill’s possible re-instatement, he may soon be back in the classroom poisoning the collective mind of a new generation.

This post was written by Claude Cartaginese.

Obama Picks Another Despot to Befriend

2009 April 3

In the past few days, we have seen the Obama administration repeatedly extend a hand of friendship to sworn enemies of America. One by one, those foes have rebuffed each offer. Syria, Iran and the Taliban (in Afghanistan) have barely taken Obama seriously and have given his overtures a cold shoulder.


Undeterred, the administration has now determined that the time is right for another attempt at groveling, this time with Sudan. Our President has selected a retired Air Force general to be his special envoy to that nation, with which the forging of a better relationship has suddenly become a “priority for this administration, particularly at a time when it [Sudan] cries out for peace and for justice).”


And who is it, exactly, that we will be negotiating with?


Sudan’s President, Omar Bashir, has an International Criminal Court indictment against him for war crimes. Within the last month, he has expelled all international aid groups from Darfur, where people who are unsympathetic to his regime are currently being slaughtered. It is estimated that since 2003, more than 2 million people have been displaced and 300,000 lives have been lost. All this comes after an even bloodier conflict which pitted the Muslims of the North against the Christians and animists of the oil-rich South; that conflict began in the 1980s and only recently ended in a fragile peace.


In addition, Bashir’s government has been hostile to its neighbors (specifically Chad) and has supported the bloodthirsty terrorists of al-Qaeda in word, if not in deed. And let’s not forget that Osama bin Laden himself lived in Sudan for many years and based his terrorist operations there.


And yet, the Obama administration remains undeterred. Once again it will seek to negotiate with a ruthless leader of a terror-supporting backwater Islamic state, expecting the latter to negotiate in good faith.


If Obama is looking for another foreign policy initiative to fail, he will find it in Sudan. Fear not, however. This administration is persistent. In a few days North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jung Il, will test-fire a rocket capable of reaching Alaska. This might be a nice time for our President to dispatch an envoy to Pyongyang.


This post was written by Claude Cartaginese.

Terror-Sponsoring Regimes Snub Obama / Clinton Overtures

2009 April 2


Hillary Clinton’s delusional campaign to forge closer relationships with such parties as the terror-sponsoring Iranian regime and Afghanistan’s al Qaeda-aligned Taliban is off to a humiliating start.


In Afghanistan, for example, the Obama administration is pursuing “honorable reconciliation” with “moderate” Taliban elements. But Taliban forces, which have been fighting since 2001 to re-impose their extremist version of Islam upon their country, have candidly called this a “lunatic idea.” In fact, they have displayed considerable irritation at the offer. Taliban spokesman Zabihulla Mujahid sardonically advises Mrs. Clinton to seek out her so-called “moderates” elsewhere “and speak to them” — because he certainly doesn’t count himself (or any of his comrades) among them.


But of course, Mujahid has sent Mrs. Clinton on a fool’s errand, knowing full well that the existence of a moderate Taliban is a myth. One would think that a Secretary of State would understand that “moderation” cannot be found among seventh-century throwbacks who advocate a legal system (Sharia) that calls for the degradation of women, the execution of homosexuals and apostates, and the brutal oppression of “infidels.”


According to Clinton, however, the Taliban “should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society, if they are willing to abandon violence, break with al Qaeda, and support the constitution.” Perhaps Hillary will ask further that they agree to sell Girl-Scout cookies as well.


Over in Iran, meanwhile, early news reports that Mrs. Clinton would hold “cordial face-to-face” talks with Iranian representatives at an international conference in the Netherlands were discredited almost immediately by the Iranian regime, when it said that no such “talks” would take place. Poor Hillary. She was most eager to build on the groveling YouTube video that President Obama recently directed to the Iranian people. Tehran, predictably, interpreted that eagerness as a sign of weakness by a “hasty” and desperate adversary.


This is becoming the modus operandi of the current administration: Make overtures to those who despise you, offer them everything, ask for nothing in return, and beg them for better relations.


The Iranians and the Taliban know with absolute certainty that in the long-term, Obama will have no stomach for a prolonged conflict, especially one that’s not resolved before the next election. They are entirely comfortable with their anti-Americanism. (For their part, the Iranians have made anti-Americanism the focus of weekly mass rallies for the last 30 years.) They have nothing to gain by warming up to U.S. overtures. They know that all they need to do is wait, and the Obama administration will eventually meet all of their demands unilaterally.


This post was written by Claude Cartaginese.

Maxine Waters Lauds Obama’s Unprecedented Deficits

2009 April 2


Rep. Maxine Waters, who in the past has praised the Marxist dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba, is now heaping scorn on the budget proposal which Republicans have put forth to counter the potentially bankrupting budget unveiled recently by the Obama administration. In a televised interview with Keith Olbermann last evening, Waters called the alternate Republican plan “absolutely shameful.”


As it stands, the Republican budget plan advocates fiscal restraint for the purpose of reining in our national debt and preserving the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off than its predecessor.


Many people would find such goals laudable, not shameful.


Waters then blasted former President Bush for having turned the budget surplus he had inherited into a huge deficit by “spending like a drunken sailor.”


Conveniently, Waters omitted any mention of 9/11, the overthrow of the Taliban, the beefing up of American national security, and a host of other pressing issues that demanded federal funding. Nor did she mention that the Bush deficits were dwarfed by the projected multi-trillion-dollar shortfalls with which the Obama plan will saddle not only present-day taxpayers, but also generations of Americans to come. This, Waters does not find “shameful.”


Waters further complained that the Republicans have put forth their plan “without numbers.” But very recently, Waters herself blindly endorsed President Obama’s thousand-plus-page budget which neither she nor any other member of Congress had read before hastily signing off on it. Yet now she is bothered about “numbers.” The only numbers that don’t trouble her are the unprecedented Obama deficits, which, in Waters’ view, constitute the “blueprint” for an economic recovery that the new President will engineer.


Remarkably, this was no April Fool’s joke on the part of Rep. Waters. She actually believes it. Now that’s shameful. 


This post was written by Claude Cartaginese.

Journalist Accuses Bush and Cheney of Sabotaging Obama

2009 April 1

This post was written by Claude Cartaginese.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker’s investigative journalist who was dubbed “my little commie” by his former boss (New York Times Executive Editor A.M. Rosenthal), is seeing monsters under the bed. Known for basing much of his reportage on unnamed sources, Hersh has now begun reporting on the existence of “stay-behinds” from the most recent presidential administration—unnamed individuals who were allegedly “planted” by former Vice President Dick Cheney to sabotage the noble foreign-policy initiatives of Barack Obama. Hersh revealed the details of this purported scheme in a TV interview yesterday with the truth-distorting Keith Olbermann of MSNBC.


In short, Hersh wants us to believe that the Bush-Cheney administration—which for eight years he (and his fellow leftist luminaries in the media) portrayed as hopelessly myopic and incompetent—somehow transmogrified into an efficient agent provocateur that was forward-thinking enough to plant these “stay-behinds” who, like members of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, would activate at some future date in order to derail the Obama administration’s efforts to bring stability to the Middle East.


Could Hersh be specific about how he had learned of this nefarious scheme? Absolutely not; he merely informed the credulous Olbermann that “I’ve been told.”


Calling himself a “one-man gang against Cheney,” Hersh explained to Olbermann that the seeds of this time-release sabotage were planted specifically by Cheney prior to Obama’s inauguration. The effects of the sabotage, he elaborated, were first felt in January, when the new President was trying to persuade the Israelis to stop their bombing of Gaza and to withdraw their ground troops. According to Hersh, Cheney’s mysterious “stay-behinds” were advising the Israelis not to trust Obama because he was “pro-Palestinian” and “not ready for the major leagues.”


Hersh also praised the Obama administration for speaking “a different language” than the Bush team had spoken to Mideast political leaders in the past. For example, Hersh lauded Obama’s rhetoric of “mutual respect”—but expressed concern that the Cheney “stay-behinds” might undermine Obama’s recent diplomatic outreach to the terrorism-supporting regimes in Tehran and Damascus.


Moreover, Hersh praised Obama for having broken with the Bush policy of refusing to negotiate with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad unless he would first agree to shut down the Damascus offices of the genocidal terror group Hamas. Hersh endorsed Obama’s “much more subtle, much more sensible” policy of imploring Syria to try to “moderate” Hamas and to make the terror group more “conciliatory.” He did not mention that Hamas’ founding charter explicitly calls for the mass murder of Jews and the permanent destruction of Israel as non-negotiable objectives.


So there you have it: In Hersh’s view, if Obama’s foreign-policy initiatives fail, it will not be because of the administration’s reluctance to take a tough stand against committed terrorists and mass-murderers. Rather, it will be because of behind-the-scenes treachery by the Bush-Cheney “stay-behinds.”


Hersh’s delusion illustrates clearly why the Left cannot be trusted with foreign policy.


Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry