Wanted - President With Backbone and A Strategy!

Finally got it right!
---
Trade expert discusses dollar devaluation and its demise as a global reserve currency. (See 1 below.)
---
When Obama became president he bashed GW for about a year or more thinking that would gain him stature.

Now he is faced with problems that call for leadership and he is going down in flames.

Will the UAE actually force Obama to gain some backbone?

Were I in charge of the post office I would have a picture of Obama posted with the following: Wanted - President With Backbone and A Strategy!

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is getting more tarnished with the passage of each day. (See
2, 2a and 2b below.)
---
Four very bright and serious men write about nuclear proliferation and the threat such poses to mankind. They offer cogent thoughts but it takes committed world leadership to accomplish something in this arena and there isn't any to be seen. (See 3 below.)
---
Obama has stiffed the American people and believes he can do it to Judge Vinson. Time will tell. (See 4 below)
---
Not all 'crackers' are white. Eric Holder qualifies.(See 5 and 5a below.)
---
Could John Huntsman become a come from 'behinder?'

I know nothing about Huntsman but when the caliber of candidates for any particular office, public or private, is questionable it might reflect the degrading of the office itself.(See 6 below.) ---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Trade Expert: Dollar Devaluation Necessary
By Greg Brown

Author and trade expert Clyde Prestowitz warns that it would take up to a 50 percent devaluation of the dollar against the Chinese yuan and an end to the greenback as the global reserve currency to truly right the global trade economy.

Prestowitz is founder and president of the Economic Strategy Institute and formerly a counselor to the Secretary of Commerce during the Reagan Administration.

In a post at the website of Foreign Policy magazine, Prestowitz details a list of scheduled global banking and trade discussions. Then he dismisses them all, saying that the real problems facing the U.S. economy relate to a fundamental imbalance that cannot be negotiated or smoothed over by simply talking.

“At present, virtually all the world's economies are attempting to grow and create jobs by exporting primarily to the United States, which, despite the recent economic crisis, high unemployment, and a fragile recovery, is still acting as the world's buyer of last resort,” Prestowitz writes.


US dollar is global reserve currency
“But with its budget deficits, and global indebtedness rising and true unemployment hovering around 17 percent, the ability of the United States to continue this role while also acting as the global security provider is questionable,” he explains.

China and “other high-growth emerging economies” cannot grow, either, using cheap currencies, financing domestic construction booms, and maintaining low internal consumption. “Few believe this situation to be indefinitely sustainable,” he says.

The “fix” means the following things are due to occur, Prestowitz says:

• The United States must solve its budget deficits while “doubling present household savings rates.”

• “Massive investment” in U.S. infrastructure and a renewed manufacturing base.

• A 40 percent to 50 percent devaluation of the greenback against the yuan and “some other Asian currencies,” along with “a lesser devaluation” against the euro or “a new German deutschmark” if the euro ceases to exist.

• And finally, possibly the end of the dollar as the global reserve currency.

• An increase in consumption and a reduction in saving, production, and exports by Germany, China, Japan, and the east Asian “tigers” as they revalue their own currencies.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking to the Senate Thursday, said there was "no material risk" to the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency.

The real risk, he said, would be if the United States lost global confidence in its “financial leadership" position in the world. "That is the only risk to the role of the dollar," Geithner said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama's Libyan Abdication

Will the U.S. let Gadhafi slaughter his way back to power? Will the U.S. let Gadhafi slaughter his way back to power?

The battle for Libya has reached a bloody impasse. Moammar Gadhafi continues to hold Tripoli, but his sons and mercenaries have been unable to break the uprising or retake the country's east. Having loudly declared that Gadhafi "needs to step down from power and leave," President Obama now seems to have retreated into a bizarre but all too typical passivity.

We say bizarre because the U.S. has already announced its preferred outcome, yet it is doing little to achieve this end. The greatest danger now to U.S. interests—and to Mr. Obama's political standing—would be for Gadhafi to regain control. A Libya in part or whole under the Gadhafi clan would be a failed, isolated and dangerous place ruled by a vengeful tyrant and a likely abettor of terrorists. We presume that's what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meant the other day when she said that "one of our biggest concerns is Libya . . . becoming a giant Somalia."

Ghadafi can also only prevail at this stage through a murderous campaign that will make U.S. passivity complicit in a bloodbath. Media reports relate stories of his secret police terrorizing Tripoli's population and killing indiscriminately. Al Jazeera is already comparing the West's failure to act in Libya to the slaughter of Iraq's marsh Arabs in 1991 and of the Bosnian Muslims by Serbs later that decade.

The Administration is explaining its reluctance to act by exaggerating the costs and the risks. It rolled out Pentagon chief Robert Gates last week to mock "loose talk" of military options. "It's a big operation in a big country," he said. "We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East." Centcom Commander James Mattis offered a similar warning.

We can understand if our war-fighters are trying to make sure that civilians understand the costs and are totally committed before they order U.S. forces to action. But no one is talking about introducing U.S. ground forces a la Afghanistan or Iraq. The Libyans want to liberate Libya. The issue is how the U.S. can help them do it, which includes humanitarian, diplomatic and perhaps military assistance.

Three weeks into the uprising, Mr. Obama has finally approved a humanitarian airlift. The U.S. should also recognize the provisional government known as the National Transitional Temporary Council, which has issued a declaration of principles that is at least as enlightened as the average Arab constitution. U.S. officials may not know these men well, but we will have more influence with them if they see us helping their cause when it matters.

The U.S. should also bar Gadhafi's agents from U.S. soil and world councils. His government has requested that senior diplomat Ali Abdussalam Treki be recognized as Libya's new ambassador to the U.N. A U.N. spokesman naturally says this is Libya's right, but the U.S. ought to deny Mr. Treki a visa. If Libyan officials realize they are going to be persona non grata around the world, more of them might defect.

The U.S. and U.N. may also be repeating their Bosnian mistake with their arms embargo on Libya. In the 1990s, a U.N. embargo didn't hurt the Serbs, who were already well-armed, but it crippled the Bosnians, who lacked the weapons to defend themselves.

The current U.N. embargo may have been intended to apply only to Gadhafi's government, but we saw conflicting reports on the weekend that some countries may be interpreting it to apply to the opposition too. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama ought to correct the world's understanding straightaway, or rewrite the resolution. Even short of providing arms—which we would support—the U.S. could help by jamming Gadhafi's propaganda or military communications, as well as providing intelligence.

As for the no-fly zone, the Administration is far too solicitous of U.N. and Arab approval. The approval that matters is from the Libyan opposition. The Arab League is heavily influenced by the Saudis, who have their own budding problem with popular dissent. Moscow and Beijing don't want a no-fly zone in Libya, but so what?

We didn't need Chinese or Russian support to keep Iraqi Kurds safe from Saddam Hussein's bombers in the 1990s. NATO can act without U.N. approval, or at least it could before this Administration. Even Senator John Kerry thinks the Administration is making too much of the risks of a no-fly zone. "This is not a big air force," he says about Libya. "It's not an enormously complicated defense system."

We suspect the real reason for Mr. Obama's passivity is more ideological than practical. He and his White House team believe that any U.S. action will somehow be tainted if it isn't wrapped in U.N. or pan-Arab approval. They have internalized their own critique of the Bush Administration to such a degree that they are paralyzed to act even against a dictator as reviled and blood-stained as Gadhafi, and even though it would not require the deployment of U.S. troops.

Mr. Obama won't lead the world because he truly seems to believe that U.S. leadership is morally suspect. But if Mr. Obama thinks George W. Bush was unpopular in the Arab world, he should contemplate the standing of America—and the world reputation of Barack Obama—if Gadhafi and his sons slaughter their way back to power.

2a) While Obama Dithers
By Ronald G. Pittenger

As I watch the unfolding of events in the Middle East and see no clear policy developing, I'm reminded of many decisions that were delayed or put off by my superiors during my career, both during my enlistment in the Marines and since in business.


"We need to wait for more information" was the usual excuse for the indecision, and sometimes, it was even true. More often, it was because there was more than one course of action available and no one wanted to pick one for fear of choosing a path that would later turn out to be less than ideal. It was unclear which course was "best," in other words. Not for fear of an actually bad outcome, simply fear of less than perfect results.


I've always called this "design engineer's thinking." A common saying among design engineers is "The Perfect is the enemy of the Merely Good." In an ideal world with unlimited time to ponder, this saying is true. New innovations are still improving things first invented long ago. New materials and new uses of old ones make changes possible that were beyond the dreams of our ancestors -- even those of just a year or two ago.


The problem with design engineer thinking is we don't usually have unlimited time to gather infinite information to form those Perfect Plans. Real decisions have to be made with limited information by people whose crystal balls are cloudy. And those decisions need to be made when they can still affect the outcome of events.


A Perfect Plan, decided after the action is over, is useless. A timely decision that is only approximately correct, but that is made in time to impact the outcome favorably, is worth at least 1,000 Perfect Plans that are all made too late to change anything.


As a young Marine Corporal preparing to go to Vietnam, I was privileged to attend a brief course on the West Coast for junior Non-Commissioned Officers. It was designed to teach us how to lead patrols in the bush. One of the lessons has stuck with me all these years.


A personal note here: my "job" was as a radio repairman, but all Marines are riflemen first. I figured that while the chances of my ever leading a patrol in the bush were minimal, if the need did arise, I'd better have some idea what I was doing because things must be in sad shape or I wouldn't be doing it. So I did my best to learn everything the old Gunnery Sergeant instructor was trying to teach us. I read all the handouts and asked a lot of questions during the classes. I was even allowed to lead several of the practice patrols (still safely at Camp Pendleton in California).


One of the first exercises was how to react to being ambushed. (Some variation of this training is probably still given and may the reason Marine patrols aren't ambushed as often as those of other forces.) The scenario was we were scouting a trail -- not on the trail, but close enough to it to see it because trails were expected to be booby trapped -- when our patrol of 10 men is suddenly taken under hostile fire. As the guy in charge, I had been told if this occurred, I was to immediately attack the source of the ambush.


Sure enough, firing broke out from our front, but I couldn't tell whether it was to the left or right of the trail. So, I dithered for perhaps 8 or 10 seconds before shouting "Attack Forward!"


"Halt!" shouted the gunny, standing up from behind a bush. "You Marines are all dead."


"Huh?" was the best response I could muster. "What do you mean we're all dead? I ordered an attack as soon as I figured out where to go."


With a pained look, the gunny said "In the first instant, you'll lose at least one dead and two or three wounded. Every second after that, expect another one or two dead and another two or three wounded. All of you were dead before you gave the order."


"What should I have done?" I asked, feeling about two inches tall.


"You should've cleared out of the area. The quickest way to do that is to order an attack."


"But, I didn't know which way to go," I protested.


"It almost doesn't matter," the gunny said. He looked at the startled expression on my face and continued. "Even if you attack in the wrong direction, at least you've gotten most of your Marines out of the kill zone. And, when you get lucky and attack in the right direction, you might roll up the whole ambush. But, at least you're still alive to fight again when the odds of success are better."


Few decisions in foreign policy are this immediate, though they can be far more costly (just ask Mr. Chamberlain). But delay raises the cost. In a very real sense, dithering is trading lives for information. So, we can only delay for a while. After that, it won't matter what we decide. We'll all be dead.


Ron Pittenger is now retired from the retail industry and was once a Marine Corporal.


2b)Obama builds up US-NATO military option for Libya

Intelligence and Washington sources report the administration was behind the appeal Monday by UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan for UN Security Council protection for the Libyan people. The appeal's purpose was to extend the sanctions resolution against Muammar Qaddafi to include military intervention. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded instantly that Moscow is against any "foreign intervention" in Libya, indicating a Russian veto would block a new resolution.

In Brussels, NATO sources reported that Awacs surveillance flights over Libya would be extended from 10 to 24 hours a day. Military sources report the US Air Force alone is capable of this mission, which would be tantamount to preparations for an aerial operation against pro-Qaddafi forces.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denied that the enforcement of a no-fly zone was planned - only operations against Libyan helicopter gunships and air control towers.
He appeared to be signaling that the Obama administration was weighing different options for disabling the Libyan air force without directly intervening in those zones. That limitation was apparently applied in consideration of the objections of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Command, Adm. Mike Mullen and US Air Force chiefs to putting a large number of US warplanes in jeopardy. They have warned that Qaddafi has enough up-to-date air force and advanced anti-air missiles to blow US warplanes out of the sky.

Carney added: "The option of providing military assistance to the rebels is on the table."

He was responding to earlier reports from British sources that Washington had asked Saudi Arabia to send weapons to the Libyan rebels. Reports that there was no such request of Riyadh. However, Monday night, the Libyan rebels were reported to have taken delivery of a batch of anti-air missiles.

For the first time, Washington and Brussels have received certain information partially supporting Muammar Qaddafi's claim that al Qaeda is calling the shots for the Libyan rebellion. If this intelligence is confirmed, Obama may have to back down from his intended military intervention on the side of the anti-Qaddafi insurrection.

It was also rumored in Washington Monday, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who had strongly objected to US military action in Libya had reconsidered her position and informed the president she was now in favor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Deterrence in the Age of Nuclear Proliferation
The doctrine of mutual assured destruction is obsolete in the post-Cold War era.
By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER
AND SAM NUNN

As long as there has been war, there have been efforts to deter actions a nation considers threatening. Until fairly recently, this meant building a military establishment capable of intimidating the adversary, defeating him or making his victory more costly than the projected gains. This, with conventional weapons, took time. Deterrence and war strategy were identical.

The advent of the nuclear weapon introduced entirely new factors. It was possible, for the first time, to inflict at the beginning of a war the maximum casualties. The doctrine of mutual assured destruction represented this reality. Deterrence based on nuclear weapons, therefore, has three elements:

• It is importantly psychological, depending on calculations for which there is no historical experience. It is therefore precarious.

• It is devastating. An unrestrained nuclear exchange between superpowers could destroy civilized life as we know it in days.

• Mutual assured destruction raises enormous inhibitions against employing the weapons.

Since the first use of nuclear weapons against Japan, neither of the superpowers, nor any other country, has used nuclear weapons in a war. A gap opened between the psychological element of deterrence and the risks most leaders were willing to incur. U.S. defense leaders made serious efforts to give the president more flexible options for nuclear use short of global annihilation. They never solved the problem, and it was always recognized that Washington and Moscow both held the keys to unpredictable and potentially catastrophic escalations.

As a result, nuclear deterrence was useful in preventing only the most catastrophic scenarios that would have threatened our survival. But even with the deployment of thousands of nuclear weapons on both sides of the Iron Curtain, the Soviet moves into Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 were not deterred. Nor were the numerous crises involving Berlin, including the building of the Wall in 1961, or major wars in Korea and Vietnam, or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In the case of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons did not prevent collapse or regime change.

Today, the Cold War is almost 20 years behind us, but many leaders and publics cannot conceive of deterrence without a strategy of mutual assured destruction. We have written previously that reliance on this strategy is becoming increasingly hazardous. With the spread of nuclear weapons, technology, materials and know-how, there is an increasing risk that nuclear weapons will be used.

It is not possible to replicate the high-risk stability that prevailed between the two nuclear superpowers during the Cold War in such an environment. The growing number of nations with nuclear arms and differing motives, aims and ambitions poses very high and unpredictable risks and increased instability.

From 1945 to 1991, America and the Soviet Union were diligent, professional, but also lucky that nuclear weapons were never used. Does the world want to continue to bet its survival on continued good fortune with a growing number of nuclear nations and adversaries globally? Can we devise and successfully implement with other nations, including other nuclear powers, careful, cooperative concepts to safely dismount the nuclear tiger while strengthening the capacity to assure our security and that of allies and other countries considered essential to our national security?

Recently, the four of us met at the Hoover Institution with a group of policy experts to discuss the possibilities for establishing a safer and more comprehensive form of deterrence and prevention in a world where the roles and risks of nuclear weapons are reduced and ultimately eliminated. Our broad conclusion is that nations should move forward together with a series of conceptual and practical steps toward deterrence that do not rely primarily on nuclear weapons or nuclear threats to maintain international peace and security.

The first step is to recognize that there is a daunting new spectrum of global security threats. These threats include chemical, biological and radiological weapons, catastrophic terrorism and cyber warfare, as well as natural disasters resulting from climate change or other environmental problems, and health-related crises. For the United States and many other nations, existential threats relating to the very survival of the state have diminished, largely because of the end of the Cold War and the increasing realization that our common interests greatly exceed our differences. However, an accident or mistake involving nuclear weapons, or nuclear terrorism fueled by the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and nuclear know-how, is still a very real risk. An effective strategy to deal with these dangers must be developed.


The second step is the realization that continued reliance on nuclear weapons as the principal element for deterrence is encouraging, or at least excusing, the spread of these weapons, and will inevitably erode the essential cooperation necessary to avoid proliferation, protect nuclear materials and deal effectively with new threats.

Third, the U.S. and Russia have no basis for maintaining a structure of deterrence involving nuclear weapons deployed in ways that increase the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon, or even a deliberate nuclear exchange based on a false warning. Reducing the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles with verification to the levels set by the New Start Treaty is an important step in reducing nuclear risks. Deeper nuclear reductions and changes in nuclear force posture involving the two nations should remain a priority. Further steps must include short-range tactical nuclear weapons.

Fourth, as long as nuclear weapons exist, America must retain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear stockpile primarily to deter a nuclear attack and to reassure our allies through extended deterrence. There is an inherent limit to U.S. and Russian nuclear reductions if other nuclear weapon states build up their inventories or if new nuclear powers emerge.

It is clear, however, that the U.S. and Russia—having led the nuclear buildup for decades—must continue to lead the build-down. The U.S. and its NATO allies, together with Russia, must begin moving away from threatening force postures and deployments including the retention of thousands of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons. All conventional deployments should be reviewed from the aspect of provocation. This will make America, Russia and Europe more secure. It will also set an example for the world.

Fifth, we recognize that for some nations, nuclear weapons may continue to appear relevant to their immediate security. There are certain undeniable dynamics in play—for example, the emergence of a nuclear-armed neighbor, or the perception of inferiority in conventional forces—that if not addressed could lead to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and an increased risk they will be used. Thus, while the four of us believe that reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective, some nations will hesitate to draw or act on the same conclusion unless regional confrontations and conflicts are addressed. We must therefore redouble our efforts to resolve these issues.

Achieving deterrence with assured security will require work by leaders and citizens on a range of issues, beginning with a clearer understanding of existing and emerging security threats. The role of non- nuclear means of deterrence to effectively prevent conflict and increase stability in troubled regions is a vital issue. Changes to extended deterrence must be developed over time by the U.S. and allies working closely together. Reconciling national perspectives on nuclear deterrence is a challenging problem, and comprehensive solutions must be developed. A world without nuclear weapons will not simply be today's world minus nuclear weapons.


Nations can, however, begin moving now together toward a safer and more stable form of deterrence. Progress must be made through a joint enterprise among nations, recognizing the need for greater cooperation, transparency and verification to create the global political environment for stability and enhanced mutual security. Ensuring that nuclear materials are protected globally in order to limit any country's ability to reconstitute nuclear weapons, and to prevent terrorists from acquiring the material to build a crude nuclear bomb, is a top priority.

Moving from mutual assured destruction toward a new and more stable form of deterrence with decreasing nuclear risks and an increasing measure of assured security for all nations could prevent our worst nightmare from becoming a reality, and it could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations.

Mr. Shultz was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. Mr. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. Mr. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. Mr. Nunn is former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)'Borders on Misrepresentation'
Judge Vinson calls out Justice on its ObamaCare dishonesty..

When Roger Vinson struck down ObamaCare as unconstitutional in January, Justice Department lawyers filed an unusual "motion of clarification," essentially claiming they were confused by the Florida federal judge's plain language. Judge Vinson replied last week, and the government lawyers are probably wishing they hadn't pretended they couldn't read.

The press is painting the ruling as a setback for the 26 states and other plaintiffs, because Judge Vinson stayed his original ruling and allowed the law to be carried out pending appeal. But in fact he hardened that ruling in important ways, and Justice's gambit gave him an opportunity to respond to his critics, which judges are rarely able to do.

Look out below. The motion to clarify, he writes, "borders on misrepresentation."

Normally, when courts void an entire statute, it is considered a de facto injunction and the government files a motion for an immediate stay. The Obama Administration decided to ignore the order for nearly a month and continued with implementation as if nothing had happened, and then played dumb in Judge Vinson's courtroom.

The Judge said the Administration is making bad-faith arguments that are "manifestly incorrect" and contrary to the well-established legal precedents "that they themselves had identified and specifically insisted they would honor" in earlier proceedings and motions. The transparent political goal is to string out the legal challenges as long as possible.

Therefore, Judge Vinson decided to treat the dilatory tactics as a motion for a stay, and granted it. But he also gave the Justice Department a mere seven days—that is, this Thursday—to file an appeal and required that it seek an expedited appellate review. He writes that "the battle lines have been drawn, the relevant case law marshalled, and the legal arguments refined." There is no reason for further delay.

Along the way, Judge Vinson argues that the Administration's case depends on "stretching existing Supreme Court precedent" about the reach of the Commerce Clause "well beyond its current high water mark and further away from the 'first principles' that underlie our entire federalist system. . . . It is not for a lower court to expand upon Supreme Court jurisprudence, and in the process authorize the exercise of 'highly attractive power' that Congress has never before claimed in the history of the country" (his emphasis).

Judge Vinson has put this important case on a direct chute to the High Court.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)The View from Crackerland
By Robert T. Smith

Certainly the recent vexation expressed by Eric Holder over being questioned regarding the New Black Panther voter intimidation case -- i.e., his defense of "my people" -- depicts a new low in race relations here in America. The liberal media and many politicians are curiously not outraged at what is an arguably race-based federal civil rights case.


We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president. As so eloquently described by one of Mr. Holder's people, this post-racial era is not so evident in the view from here in Crackerland.


Post-election of President Obama, the only racial agreement apparent to those of us who reside in Crackerland was Eric Holder's admonition that we are cowards to not discuss awkward racial issues here in America. Here, then, is an offering to contribute to the discussion.


Here in Crackerland, there was some consternation when we noticed then-presidential candidate Obama's unique past and the unusual relationships he had throughout his life. There seemed to be an underlying racial anger and confusion as a mixed-race person in his autobiography Dreams from My Father. An example is Mr. Obama's being so moved by the notion that "white folks' greed runs a world in need."


Mr. Obama's long-term black liberation theology minister and mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, represents many other African-American religious leaders. These leaders have perspectives and sermons that seem to be a whole lot more about justifying their racism than supporting Christian theology itself. There is an apparent seemless link between black liberation theology and the racist, bigoted radicals in the Nation of Islam and among the New Black Panthers. Our view from Crackerland was of Mr. Obama as a relatively unknown politician infused with an adult life of racist relationships and thoughts.


Here in Crackerland, we noticed an almost 100% voting rate for Mr. Obama from the African-American community. Difficult to miss were the many formerly non-Democrat African-American persons who stated their support for Mr. Obama based solely on his color -- a clearly racist vote.


As viewed from Crackerland, this affiliation between the Democratic Party and the African-American community appears to be based on the promise that the Democrat politicians will provide for the living conditions desired by the African-American community. The individualism of Crackerland recognizes these government-supplied conditions as dehumanizing, reducing people to veritable chattel of the government. Human chattel of the government is not a condition we crackers wish upon any person, irrespective of race.


Here in Crackerland, we took note that Mr. Obama was elected by both cracker and non-cracker alike. However, it didn't take long for the signs of racism to appear in association with our new president.


The invocation by Reverend Lowery at Mr. Obama's swearing in ceremony seemed a bit inappropriate for such an auspicious, racially historic occasion. The Reverend Lowery was intent on bringing racial issues to the forefront, and he used the occasion and captive audience to vent his lingering racism by means of a recitation of hopes for the various non-white races while admonishing those who are white to embrace what is right. This appeared here in Crackerland to imply that whites somehow had prevented and/or are preventing the other races from achieving their desired hopes -- a racist lie.


The history of America we learned here in Crackerland included hundreds of thousands of dead crackers in the Civil War, decades of cracker-led civil rights struggles, an altering of the very foundation of America's Constitution and laws facilitated by the crackers, and billions and probably trillions of cracker dollars poured into the non-cracker communities -- all of which was only incidental in the Reverend Lowery's mind to doing what is right. Arguably, the view from Crackerland was that the Reverend Lowery outed himself as a racist and perhaps a bigot while serving as an integral part of Mr. Obama's historic day for race relations in America.


Here in Crackerland, we pursue happiness for ourselves and our families' benefit, because self and family are the basic building blocks of society. In Crackerland, we set a lofty ideal in our founding documents and celebrate unalienable rights for all men, endowed by our Creator and not arbitrarily assigned by government officials based on race. We inhabitants of Crackerland don't wake up thinking about how to stick it to other Americans, cracker or non-cracker; we work for ours and expect you to work for yours.


We crackers see our pursuit of happiness realized as the property, money, land, and all other possessions we work hard for, and not as community property to be confiscated by government officials and dispensed to others based on racial status and conditions. The relationship between redistributive socialism and black liberation theology in which President Obama has been steeped and which he has embraced in his policy decisions is viewed by us here in Crackerland as both racist and the antithesis of Americanism.


The racism we see from Crackerland in our current Obama administration, those surrounding the administration, and those who support it looks a whole lot more like retribution than like a brave discourse on race relations here in America. We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president, but that is not so evident to many of us here in Crackerland.


Cowards, as Mr. Holder so ineloquently characterized them, should step aside so that this discussion will not have to be absurdly carried on into posterity. With slavery and civil rights issues distant in the rearview mirror of America's history, the changes in our social structure over time, and the integration of all Americans into all portions of our society regardless of race, this black/white race discussion is now bizarre within the context of racial reparations. It can be viewed now only as a purely political power play.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5a)How the Obama Justice Department is making miserable the lives of former public servants By Debra J. Saunders


Last month, the website Politico reported that the Department of Justice dropped its representation of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his former deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and other defendants in a lawsuit filed by convicted al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla and his mother. The Department of Justice continues to represent Defense Secretary Robert Gates, but no longer the Bushies.

Padilla, you may recall, is an American citizen who was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002; authorities claimed that he was plotting to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb." After the Bush administration designated Padilla as an "enemy combatant," he was held in a South Carolina Navy brig for 44 months.

Padilla was not convicted for plotting a U.S. terrorist attack — largely because the case against him was built on information gleaned during harsh interrogations. But in 2007, Padilla was convicted for "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country" and "material support for terrorism." A judge sentenced him to 17 years in prison.

From his cell, Padilla now is suing Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others on the grounds that his "enemy combatant" status, military detention and the harsh interrogations — the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation and threats — were unconstitutional. The suit originally named former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a number of lower-level officials from the brig and 48 unnamed John Does — including guards and orderlies whose name tags were covered — against whom Padilla later dropped his complaint.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel of South Carolina threw out Padilla's suit.

In a way, it doesn't matter. Padilla can't lose. He's in prison already. It won't hurt him to appeal Gergel. In 2005, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Padilla's military detention — and still he can sue. The ACLU is involved. Padilla is only seeking $1 in damages — but the big money, as far as taxpayers are concerned, is in the legal fees his attorneys seek.

In the meantime, defendants have had to live with a nightmare hovering over their heads. Now they face the added expense of legal bills to defend themselves for defending this country. The DOJ only pays legal fees of up to $200 per hour. Former CIA attorney W. George Jameson observed, "$200 an hour, that's kind of a junior attorney in a big law firm. That doesn't get you very far."

Padilla also is suing former Justice Department official John Yoo for writing memos that authorized the use of harsh interrogation techniques. In 2009, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco ruled that the case against Yoo, who was told to hire a private attorney, can go forward. Please note: The courts haven't looked at whether Padilla's charges are factual.

Jameson recently co-founded the nonprofit Council on Intelligence Issues to provide legal assistance and other services to current and former intelligence officers. The Politico story, he told me, made the intelligence community somewhat nervous, although "it's hard to tell how nervous to be." It depends on why the DOJ did what it did.

Alas, the Justice Department won't say why it won't represent Rumsfeld and crew. Spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler explained that such "matters are confidential and covered by the attorney-client privilege." Personal counsel ensures that employees "receive full, complete and independent legal advice." An unnamed private attorney source involved in the case told Politico that the DOJ can't fulfill its duty to represent clients "zealously" for policy reasons.

Jameson tells me it is not uncommon for the feds to drop representation when there is disagreement on a case. It can be advantageous for a defendant to have a private attorney if the feds are lukewarm. One reason he is not as troubled as you might expect: "I think the president understands the importance of continuity."

Fair enough, but in dropping the Padilla defendants, Justice changed course in what seems to be a partisan move.

I fear for the next set of John Does. They're not going to be able to afford $1,000-per-hour attorneys who specialize in this area of litigation.

In August 2001, FBI supervisors impeded agents' efforts to get a search warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop. He later pleaded guilty to helping plan 9/11. Want more?

I feel for the muckety-mucks, too. They must go to sleep painfully aware that their public service now can mean endless litigation tomorrow. If they anger the other political spectrum's lawyers, the reward will be depositions, attorney consultations — and now more likely, the lion's share of the legal tab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) The Campaign Spot: Election-driven news and views . . .
By Jim Geraghty.

How Jon Huntsman Could Debut With a Bang

In the Morning Jolt, you’ll see some conservative bloggers expressing great skepticism about the potential presidential bid of Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and soon to depart as ambassador to China. Scoff if you want, but there’s at least one way for a Huntsman bid to quickly generate a lot of buzz.

Picture it: It’s early summer 2011. Huntsman has launched his campaign to a generally “meh” reception, and now, in his first major policy address, he goes to Washington, D.C. He gives a lunch speech at the Brookings Institution or some other centrist, non-conservative foreign policy think tank — his natural base of support, really.

With the campaign correspondents in the back and all of Washington’s foreign-policy cognoscenti sitting in front of him, Huntsman begins by hitting predictable notes: He joined the Obama administration with the best of intentions and the highest of hopes, a desire to prove that politics stops at the water’s edge and that when dealing with a challenging, threatening world, America’s political leaders act in unity. He admits he knew he had some disagreements with Obama, but he felt that he could steer foreign policies in the right direction by having a seat at the table.

And then, in detail, Huntsman paints a picture of an administration that is flailing, frozen with indecision, short-sighted, often at war with itself, disorganized, and ultimately lacking any sense of what it wanted to do after Obama had finished his apology tour.

He says things like, “The charm offensive wasn’t just this president’s first foreign-policy tool; it was his only one. And when it failed to achieve significant concessions from either our allies or our foes, the president and the team around him had no plan B.”

He points out that Obama and Hillary’s constant invocation of a “reset” button reflects an immature yearning to go back to some earlier, simpler time, out of a misplaced nostalgic belief that foreign-policy challenges were easier to solve in past years, and a tacit admission that they cannot make progress in current circumstances. “We have to deal with the world as it is; yelling ‘do-over’ doesn’t even work in the schoolyard.”

Huntsman sets a record for talking out of school, sharing a series of anecdotes that make Joe Biden look cloddish, Hillary Clinton frustrated, dismissed, and quick to lash out, David Axelrod meddling in areas he doesn’t understand, and the man at the top so far out of his league he terrifies Huntsman.

Huntsman shares frustrating tales of trying to be the voice of reason while the president tried to tailor his foreign policies to the whims of congressional Democrats. He laments that Obama’s Middle East vision begins and ends with Israeli settlements, that he effectively sold out Iranian democracy protesters in pursuit of a Quixotic dream of a summit with Tehran, and that in two short years he has snubbed India and insulted almost every major ally. He laments that the administration was caught flat-footed time and again: cartel violence in Mexico spilling over the border, North Korean shelling, WikiLeaks, the uprising in Egypt and beyond.

He ends his litany, “And I told him the president of the United States isn’t supposed to bow.”

Huntsman closes his speech, now generating furious reaction from the administration, “It was only when I saw how poorly this administration was serving America that I felt the need to leave, and to take steps to help steer us back on the right course . . .”

Would a dramatic whistle-blower-like series of revelations like this win Huntsman the nomination? Probably not. But it would definitely get a chunk of the ‘he’s a RINO’ crowd to take a second look. And it would probably inflict serious damage on Obama and leave the eventual nominee grateful . . ..