Half the proceeds from the sale of this modestly priced book goes to The Wounded Warrior Project!
Dick Berkowitz, has written a booklet entitled:"A Conservative Capitalist Offers: Eleven Lessons and a Bonus Lesson for Raising America's Youth Born and Yet To Be Born."
By Dick Berkowitz - Non Expert
Dick wrote this booklet because he believes a strong country must rest on a solid family unit and that Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" has morphed into "A Confused, Dependent and Compromised Generation."
He hopes this booklet will provide a guide to alter this trend.
You can order a pdf version you can download and read on your computer, or print out if you want. Cost is $5.99
The book is also available in soft cover format at a cost of $10.99 plus $2.50 shipping and handling.
Simply go to wwwbrokerberko.com/book
Booklet illustrations were by his oldest granddaughter, Emma Darvick, who lives and works in New York.
Testimonials:
Dick, I read your book this weekend. I hardly know where to start. You did an excellent job of putting into one short book a compendium of the virtues which only a relatively short time ago all Americans believed. It’s a measure of how far we have fallen that many Americans, perhaps a majority of Americans, no longer believe in what we once considered truisms. I think your father would have agreed with every word, but the party he supported no longer has such beliefs.
I would like to buy multiple copies of your booklet..
You did a great job. I know your parents would have been proud and that your family today is proud.
Mike
You wrote a great book. The brevity is one of its strong points and I know it was hard to include that in and still keep it brief. Your father in haste once wrote an overly long letter to our client, then said in the last sentence, “I’m sorry I wrote such a long letter, but I didn’t have time to write a short one.”
"Dick, I indeed marvel at how much wisdom you have been able to share with so few words. Not too unlike the experience in reading the Bible. I feel that with each read of "A Conservative Capitalist Offers:…." one will gain additional knowledge and new insights…
Regards, Larry"
Dick ,
Your book is outstanding! Due to illness, I've been unable to read it in entirety until today .Your background is often very similar to mine (e.g. Halliburton's influence was very important in my life), and your thoughts reflect very closely the the teachings that I received from my parents and granddad. I will write a more detailed statement in the near future!
All the best, Bob
Your book is outstanding! Due to illness, I've been unable to read it in entirety until today .Your background is often very similar to mine (e.g. Halliburton's influence was very important in my life), and your thoughts reflect very closely the the teachings that I received from my parents and granddad. I will write a more detailed statement in the near future!
All the best, Bob
Regarding your booklet, I have begun to read it and look forward to finishing it this weekend. Congrats on getting it published and on the great reviews. I know how much this booklet means to you and how important getting this message out to the public is.
P------
About The Author:
After completing his formal education in 1960, Dick Berkowitz began his
professional career as a stockbroker in Atlanta, joining the nation's
largest Southeastern Regional NYSE Member Firm - Courts and Co. becoming a
general partner in seven years. Dick subsequently resigned after Courts
merged and he opened an institutional office for Burnham and Company. Twenty
years later, after Drexel Burnham closed its doors, he moved his staff to
Oppenheimer in 1990, retiring in 2009
During his business career he served on The President's Commission on White
House Fellows '90 - '92, The Board of Visitors St John's College '95 -2001,
The Board of Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars '97 - '98, The
George Bush for President National Finance Committee '98.
Dick also was a Founding Member Univ of Ga. President's Club and Chaired
Blackburn Park Master Plan Committee '98.
Re-locating to Savannah, where he now lives with Lynn, his wife of 40 years,
he continues to manage money for a few clients, remains active serving on
The Board of Visitors of the State of Ga. Museum of Art. He also began The
JEA Speaker Series, serves on The Board of The Savannah Federation
Investment Foundation, The Advisory Board of Spine and Sports and, more
recently, The Board of The Skidaway Island Republican Club - 2012.
Dick Berkowitz also publishes his thoughts on The Middle East, politics and
economics which can be found at: www.Dick-Meom.Blogspot.com
Feel free to forward this to anyone on your own e mail list and encourage
others to order a copy.
professional career as a stockbroker in Atlanta, joining the nation's
largest Southeastern Regional NYSE Member Firm - Courts and Co. becoming a
general partner in seven years. Dick subsequently resigned after Courts
merged and he opened an institutional office for Burnham and Company. Twenty
years later, after Drexel Burnham closed its doors, he moved his staff to
Oppenheimer in 1990, retiring in 2009
During his business career he served on The President's Commission on White
House Fellows '90 - '92, The Board of Visitors St John's College '95 -2001,
The Board of Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars '97 - '98, The
George Bush for President National Finance Committee '98.
Dick also was a Founding Member Univ of Ga. President's Club and Chaired
Blackburn Park Master Plan Committee '98.
Re-locating to Savannah, where he now lives with Lynn, his wife of 40 years,
he continues to manage money for a few clients, remains active serving on
The Board of Visitors of the State of Ga. Museum of Art. He also began The
JEA Speaker Series, serves on The Board of The Savannah Federation
Investment Foundation, The Advisory Board of Spine and Sports and, more
recently, The Board of The Skidaway Island Republican Club - 2012.
Dick Berkowitz also publishes his thoughts on The Middle East, politics and
economics which can be found at: www.Dick-Meom.Blogspot.com
Feel free to forward this to anyone on your own e mail list and encourage
others to order a copy.
---
The local paper endorsed Romney today for reasons one would guess. Time for a change. Obama had his chance. Romney 's business background better suited for the times. Women need not fear him on social issues.
---
The local paper endorsed Romney today for reasons one would guess. Time for a change. Obama had his chance. Romney 's business background better suited for the times. Women need not fear him on social issues.
---
Ne'eman and the Iranian Deal.
He expects Iran will temporarily forgo nuclear development in order to get their economy repaired, strengthen Assad in Syria, continue to react harshly when challenged and to make progress on their plan to dominate the region bringing it under their own influence as our influence, and that of the West's, fades. This should happen shortly after the election.(See 1 below.)
---
Obama cleans house after Libyan fiasco as he replaces generals and admirals all with the intent of taking the spotlight off his own failed leadership.
---
Sociopaths in our midst and their ascendancy in governance. (See 3 below)
--
Clarice Feldman is outraged over Libyan assassinations and failure of Obama to respond and then lie.
Obama incompetency is one thing and is not new but then neither is lying.
The damage done by Obama's reaction could ultimately sink the good ship lolly pop as well as its effort to have women believe Republicans are at war against them.
---
Hamas aims at Israel's Dimona as payback for the IAF's raid on Sudan. Hamas continues to serve as a surrogate for Iranian terror. (See 5 below.)
---
Israeli remote controlled boats are next purchase by U.S. Navy? (See 6 below.)
--
Even some dyed in the wool Liberals are becoming disillusioned. (See 7 below.) But then we still have the leg tinglers. See 7a below.)
---
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The Iranian Deal
By Yisrael Ne'eman
The Iranians are engaged in serious brinksmanship throughout the Middle East but are on the verge of a comeback. They are neither as stupid nor as destructively dogmatic (in the short term) as many assume. Indications are emerging that after the US elections in less than two weeks Washington will engage Tehran is a series of discussions aimed at halting their nuclear program. Dismantlement is not the issue. One can expect the ayatollahs to agree but at a hefty price even if the West refuses to "officially" comply. For Iran the Israel card goes into deep freeze waiting for re-activation at a later date. Suspending their nuclear program in the face of Western sanctions allows the Iranians to shore up other no less important fronts on the verge of collapse.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei needs to restore stability at home and reconsolidate previous gains. Western sanctions are affecting the Iranian economy with the local currency the rial losing tens of percent in value jolting inflation skywards (35,000 rials = $1). Iranian banks cannot do business abroad and pumped oil is stockpiled waiting for buyers. One can expect the Iranians to temporarily trade off advancement in their nuclear initiative for increased influence throughout the Middle East. Four fronts demand their immediate attention – Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Arab side of the Persian Gulf.
* Syria is Iran's biggest headache. Should their staunch ally Pres. Bashar Assad fall Iranian influence throughout the Middle East will be seriously compromised. Projecting power through the minority Alawite regime the Iranians are able to bolster their Lebanese Hezbollah Shiite allies and threaten Israel with massive missile strikes originating in both Damascus and Beirut. At Iranian Pres. Ahmedinejad's request Hezbollah is sending men to battle the Syrian rebels amid reports of Iranian Revolutionary Guard involvement to save the present Baathist regime.
* The Syrian civil war is for export, particularly to Lebanon (and possibly Jordan). Constantly plagued by communal rivalries and the resulting civil war (1975-1990) Syrian forces entered Lebanon in 1976 but only forced a stabilization on their own terms some 14 years later. The multi-ethnic/religious Lebanon was effectively a Syrian province. After implication in the assassination of the anti-Syrian billionaire politician Rafik Hariri in 2005 Damascus was forced to withdraw its troops. Syrian rule continues by proxy through the Iranian directed Shiite military arm Hezbollah, a legally armed militia more powerful than the Lebanese Army and represented by a minority political faction in the government with veto powers. All this may unravel should the anti-Iranian, anti-Assad forces in Lebanon rally to overthrow the present Lebanese government. Opposition forces feared taking action until now but with the assassination of the anti-Syrian Army Intelligence Chief Gen. Wissam al-Hassan last week those hostile to the present order are less deterred by Hezbollah threats than before. Hassan took action against Syrian and Iranian efforts to undermine Lebanese sovereignty by the Assad – Ahmedinejad alliance and paid the price. The murder is seen as a warning not to interfere with Iranian hegemony in Lebanon. The shaky Lebanese mosaic comprising Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Christians and Druze may shatter.
* In Iraq the Americans are gone, the Shiite majority led by President Nuri al-Maliki reigns but physical security and economic stability are in question. Iraq is very much a failed state, frequent massive bombings and little overall security. On the ethnic front the Sunni minority is a threat still seeking redress for its leadership loss after Saddam Hussein's defeat in 2003. The Sunnis still control the western regions including those bordering Syria and appear active in support for the anti-Assad Free Syrian Army rebels. At the moment the Kurds to the north are quiet but change could be sudden should they sense an opportunity to push for even more autonomy. Iran as the Shiite world leader is the greatest beneficiary since the American withdrawal. Traveling from Iran through Iraq to the Syrian border is some 500 kilometers or 300 miles but passes through Sunni territory. Such a supply line raises questions of security. More assured is an air link bringing in men and military supplies to an increasingly besieged Assad regime.
* There is the all important Arab Shiite population in the Persian Gulf. It is always a question of whether they are more Arab or more Shiite. Should Shiism rule the day then Iran is the patron. Although a majority (such as in Bahrain) or a substantial minority in the Persian Gulf Arab nations the Sunni elite rules and Shiites suffer discrimination. Stirring up a Shiite rebellion spreads Iranian influence. Advocating human rights while being dependent on Gulf oil puts Western powers and particularly the USA in a quandary. They need the oil states as allies but democratization could lead to further Iranian influence. Iran relishes the idea of forcing the West into a corner either through violence or democratic reforms. Tehran benefits both ways.
For the moment exterminating Israel can be put on a back burner, Iran is not deterred here, just delayed. The Iranians will gladly trade off a delay for the lifting of sanctions to gain ground on the above mentioned fronts, most likely without either an endorsement or opposition from the American led Western alliance. The West is so weary from the continuing financial crisis and its military efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan that the Iranians can expect to find a willing partner in Washington.
Briefly stated Tehran seeks to lead an initiative from its borders westwards through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Military and diplomatic moves are necessary. They view themselves as leaders in the Arab Persian Gulf with Shiite loyalties given to them and not to the Arab secular (or Sunni religious) regimes. By momentarily dropping the nuclear program and Israel's extermination as policy objectives Iran can shore up its position as a major player in the post 2011 Arab Muslim World. Looking forward a step further, the Turks are their most formidable adversaries and not the Jewish State. The Turkish-Iranian conflict of interests is already engaged in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and even the different Kurdish provinces throughout the region.
On the global level both Russia and China lean towards the Iranians but are not enthralled with a nuclear Tehran. Their support can be construed as anti-West especially in lieu of the NATO intervention in Libya where the two lost points in the international arena for being passive bystanders.
So how far will the USA and the West go? Iran will halt its program and there will be inspections. Washington and the West will not get involved in Syria, Lebanon or Iraq. The Persian Gulf Arab Shiites are another story. Human rights are important to the West but oil supplies trump all. We saw that last year in Bahrain. For sure most of what is agreed upon will not be made public, but this is of little importance since whatever is concluded will be subject to systematic creeping Iranian violations. Most significantly Iran will not be constrained in its other Middle Eastern dealings. Tehran may even be "invited" in by Damascus to help "stabilize" Syria and in the meantime sign an alliance with Iraq.
To achieve all this, the ayatollahs must remain on top. With turmoil continuing to sweep the Arab Muslim World the Iranians are sending a clear message through the massive indiscriminate violence being visited on ordinary Syrians by the Tehran backed Assad regime. Anyone defying Iran will pay the full consequences. We see this in the assassinations in Lebanon and the brutal civil war in Syria. But the target audience is the Iranian population themselves, many of whom oppose the ayatollahs. The point is clear – internal opposition will be crushed in the most horrifying manner.
Whether Iran will succeed in solidifying its sphere of influence has yet to be seen. But one policy objective will not be abandoned – its nuclear program. When conditions are correct the ayatollahs will press the "Restart" button and once again the West (and Israel) will face the Iranian nuclear threat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)
Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi DisasterPosted by Jim Hoft
General Carter Ham
The latest rumor making the rounds is that Barack Obama replaced General Carter Ham at Africom after the general made a move to help the US security officials at the Benghazi consulate and annex. Ham was replaced by Gen. David Rodriquez on October 18.
Tiger Droppings reported:
Tiger Droppings reported:
The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.
Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.
The Stars and Stripes reported:
The Stars and Stripes reported:
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.“Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”
Hat Tip Tom
More…
The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Stars and Stripes reported:
The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Stars and Stripes reported:
The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
Ace of Spades says the move to replace Rear Adm. Charles Baouette is likely not related to Benghazi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)
The Ascendance of Sociopaths in U.S. Governance, Part II
By Doug Casey
It's a pity that President Bush, when he was in office, made such a big deal of evil. He discredited the concept. He made Boobus americanus think it only existed in a distant axis, in places like North Korea, Iraq, and Iran – which were and still are irrelevant backwaters and arbitrarily chosen enemies. Bush trivialized the concept of evil and made it seem banal because he was such a fool. All the while, real evil, very immediate and powerful, was growing right around him, and he lacked the awareness to see he was fertilizing it by turning the U.S. into a national security state after 9/11.
Now, I believe, it's out of control. The U.S. is already in a truly major depression and on the edge of financial chaos and a currency meltdown. The sociopaths in government will react by redoubling the pace toward a police state domestically and starting a major war abroad. To me, this is completely predictable. It's what sociopaths do.
There are seven characteristics I can think of that define a sociopath, although I'm sure the list could be extended…
Sociopaths completely lack a conscience or any capacity for real regret about hurting people… although they pretend the opposite.
Sociopaths put their own desires and wants on a totally different level from those of other people. Their wants are incommensurate. They truly believe their ends justify their means… although they pretend the opposite.
Sociopaths consider themselves superior to everyone else because they aren't burdened by the emotions and ethics others have. They're above all that. They're arrogant… although they pretend the opposite.
Sociopaths never accept the slightest responsibility for anything that goes wrong, even though they're responsible for almost everything that goes wrong. You'll never hear a sincere apology from them.
Sociopaths have a lopsided notion of property rights. What's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs, too. They therefore defend currency inflation and taxation as good things.
Sociopaths usually pick the wrong target to attack. If they lose their wallet, they kick the dog. If 16 Saudis fly planes into buildings, they attack Afghanistan.
Sociopaths traffic in disturbing news. They love to pass on destructive rumors, and they'll falsify information to damage others.
The fact that they're chronic, extremely convincing, and even enthusiastic liars, who often believe their own lies, means they aren't easy to spot. Normal people naturally assume another person is telling the truth. Sociopaths rarely have handlebar mustaches or chortle like Snidely Whiplash. Instead, they cultivate a social veneer or a mask of sanity that diverts suspicion. You can rely on them to be "politically correct" in public. How could a congressman or senator who avidly supports charities possibly be a bad guy? They're expert at using facades to disguise reality, and they feel no guilt about it.
Political elites are primarily, and sometimes exclusively, composed of sociopaths. It's not just that they aren't normal human beings. They're barely even human, a separate subspecies, differentiated by their psychological qualities. A normal human can mate with them spiritually and psychologically about as fruitfully as a modern human could mate physically with a Neanderthal. It can be done, but the results won't be good.
It's a serious problem when a society becomes highly politicized, as is now the case in the U.S. and Europe. In normal times, a sociopath stays under the radar. Perhaps he'll commit a common crime when he thinks he can get away with it. But social mores keep him reined in.
However, once the government changes its emphasis from protecting citizens from force to initiating force with laws and taxes, those social mores break down. Peer pressure, social approbation, and moral opprobrium – the forces that keep a healthy society orderly – are replaced by regulations enforced by cops and funded by taxes. Sociopaths sense this, start coming out of the woodwork and are drawn to the State and its bureaucracies and regulatory agencies, where they can get licensed and paid to do what they've always wanted to do.
It's very simple, really. There are two ways people can relate to each other: voluntarily or coercively. The government is pure coercion, and sociopaths are drawn to its power and force.
The majority of Americans will accept the situation for two reasons: One, they have no philosophical anchor to keep them from being washed up onto the rocks. They no longer have any real core beliefs, and most of their opinions – e.g., "We need national health care," "Our brave troops should fight evil over there so we don't have to fight it over here," "The rich should pay their fair share" – are reactive and comforting. The whole point of spin doctors is to produce comforting sound bites that elude testing against reality. And two, they've become too pampered and comfortable, a nation of overfed losers, mooches, and coasters who like the status quo without wondering how long it can possibly last.
It's nonsensical to blather about the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave when reality TV and Wal-Mart riots are much closer to the truth. The majority of Americans are, of course, where the rot originates. The presidential candidates are spending millions taking their pulse in surveys and polls and then regurgitating to them what they seem to want to hear. Once a country buys into the idea that an above-average, privileged lifestyle is everyone's minimum due… when the fortunate few can lobby for special deals to rake something off the table as they squeeze wealth out of others by force… that country is on the decline. Lobbying and taxation rather than production and innovation have never been able to sustain prosperity. The wealth being squeezed took centuries to produce, but it is not inexhaustible.
In that light, it was interesting to hear Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, speak about the lower, middle, and upper classes recently. Romney is an empty suit, only marginally better than the last Republican nominee, the hostile and mildly demented John McCain.
In any event, Romney is right about the poor, in a way – there is a "safety net," now holding 50 million people on Medicaid and 46 million on food stamps, among many other supposed benefits. And he's right about the rich; there's no need to worry about them at the moment – at least until the revolution starts. He claims to worry about the middle class, not that his worries will do anything to help them. But he's right that the middle class is where the problem lies. It's just a different kind of problem than he thinks.
People generally fall into an economic class because of their psychology and their values. Each of the three classes has a characteristic psychological profile. For the lower class, it's apathy. They have nothing, they're ground down, and they don't really care. They're not in the game, and they aren't going to do anything. They're resigned to their fate. For the upper class, it's greed and arrogance. They have everything, and they think they deserve it – whether they do or not. The middle class – at least in today's world – is run by fear. Fear that they're only a paycheck away from falling into the lower class. Fear that they can't pay their debts or borrow more. Fear that they don't have a realistic prospect of improving themselves.
The problem is that fear is a negative, dangerous, and potentially explosive emotion. It can easily morph into anger and violence. Exactly where it will lead is unpredictable, but it's not a good place. One thing that exacerbates the situation is that all three classes now rely on the government, albeit in different ways. Bankruptcy of the government will affect them all drastically.
With sociopaths in charge, we could very well see the Milgram experiment reenacted on a national scale. In the experiment, you may recall, researchers asked members of the public to torture subjects (who, unbeknownst to the people being recruited, were paid actors) with electric shocks, all the way up to what they believed were lethal doses. Most of them did as asked, after being assured that it was "alright" and "necessary" by men in authority. The men in authority today are mostly sociopaths.
What To Do
One practical issue worth thinking about is how you, as someone with libertarian values, will manage in a future increasingly controlled by sociopaths. My guess is poorly, unless you take action to insulate yourself. That's because of the way almost all creatures are programmed by nature.
There's one imperative common to all of them: Survive! People obviously want to do that as individuals and as families. In fact, they want all the groups that they're members of to survive, simply because (everything else being equal) it should help them to survive as individuals. So individual Marines want the Marine Corps to survive. Individual Rotarians want the Rotary Club to prosper. Individual Catholics leap to the defense of the Church of Rome.
That's why individual Germans during World War II were, as has been asserted, "willing executioners." They were supporting the Reich for the same reasons the Marines, the Rotarians, and the Catholics support their groups… except more so, because the Reich was under attack from all sides. So of course they followed orders and turned in their neighbors who seemed less than enthusiastic. Failing to support the Reich – even if they knew it had some rather unsavory aspects – seemed an invitation to invading armies to come and rape their daughters, steal their property, and probably kill them. So of course the Germans closed ranks around their leaders, even though everyone at the top was a sociopath. You can expect Americans to do the same.
Americans have done so before, when the country was far less degraded. During the War Between the States, even saying something against the war was a criminal offense. The same was true during World War I. In World War II, the Japanese were all put in concentration camps on groundless, racially based suspicions of disloyalty. During the early years of the Cold War, McCarthyism was rampant. The examples are legion among humans, and the U.S. was never an exception.
It's even true among chickens. If a bird has a feather out of place, the others will peck at it, eventually killing it. That out-of-place feather is deemed a badge of otherness announcing that its owner isn't part of the group. Chicken Autre must die.
Libertarians – who tend to be more intelligent, better informed, and very definitely more independent than average – are going to be in a touchy situation as the crisis deepens. Most aren't going to buy into the groupthink that inevitably accompanies war and other major crises. As such, they'll be seen as unreliable, even traitors. As Bush said, "If you're not with us, you're against us." And he might have added, "the Constitution be damned." But of course, that document is no longer even given lip service; it's now a completely dead letter.
It's very hard for an individualist to keep his mouth shut when he sees these things going on. But he'd better keep quiet, as even H.L. Mencken wisely did during both world wars. In today's world, just keeping quiet won't be enough; the national security state has an extensive and growing file on everybody. They believe they know exactly what your beliefs, desires, fears, and associations are or may be.
What we're now facing is likely to be more dangerous than past crises. If you're wise, you'll relocate someplace where you're something of an outsider and, by virtue of that fact, are allowed a measure of eccentric opinion. That's why I spend an increasing amount of time in Latin America. In truth, however, security is going to be hard to find anywhere in the years to come. The most you can hope for is to tilt the odds in your favor.
The best way to do that is by diversifying your assets internationally… allocating your wealth into real assets… linking up with sound, like-minded people who share your values… and staying alert for the high-potential speculations that inevitably arise during chaotic times.
Regards,
Doug Casey
The Ascendance of Sociopaths in U.S. Governance, Part II
By Doug Casey
It's a pity that President Bush, when he was in office, made such a big deal of evil. He discredited the concept. He made Boobus americanus think it only existed in a distant axis, in places like North Korea, Iraq, and Iran – which were and still are irrelevant backwaters and arbitrarily chosen enemies. Bush trivialized the concept of evil and made it seem banal because he was such a fool. All the while, real evil, very immediate and powerful, was growing right around him, and he lacked the awareness to see he was fertilizing it by turning the U.S. into a national security state after 9/11.
Now, I believe, it's out of control. The U.S. is already in a truly major depression and on the edge of financial chaos and a currency meltdown. The sociopaths in government will react by redoubling the pace toward a police state domestically and starting a major war abroad. To me, this is completely predictable. It's what sociopaths do.
There are seven characteristics I can think of that define a sociopath, although I'm sure the list could be extended…
Sociopaths completely lack a conscience or any capacity for real regret about hurting people… although they pretend the opposite.
Sociopaths put their own desires and wants on a totally different level from those of other people. Their wants are incommensurate. They truly believe their ends justify their means… although they pretend the opposite.
Sociopaths consider themselves superior to everyone else because they aren't burdened by the emotions and ethics others have. They're above all that. They're arrogant… although they pretend the opposite.
Sociopaths never accept the slightest responsibility for anything that goes wrong, even though they're responsible for almost everything that goes wrong. You'll never hear a sincere apology from them.
Sociopaths have a lopsided notion of property rights. What's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs, too. They therefore defend currency inflation and taxation as good things.
Sociopaths usually pick the wrong target to attack. If they lose their wallet, they kick the dog. If 16 Saudis fly planes into buildings, they attack Afghanistan.
Sociopaths traffic in disturbing news. They love to pass on destructive rumors, and they'll falsify information to damage others.
The fact that they're chronic, extremely convincing, and even enthusiastic liars, who often believe their own lies, means they aren't easy to spot. Normal people naturally assume another person is telling the truth. Sociopaths rarely have handlebar mustaches or chortle like Snidely Whiplash. Instead, they cultivate a social veneer or a mask of sanity that diverts suspicion. You can rely on them to be "politically correct" in public. How could a congressman or senator who avidly supports charities possibly be a bad guy? They're expert at using facades to disguise reality, and they feel no guilt about it.
Political elites are primarily, and sometimes exclusively, composed of sociopaths. It's not just that they aren't normal human beings. They're barely even human, a separate subspecies, differentiated by their psychological qualities. A normal human can mate with them spiritually and psychologically about as fruitfully as a modern human could mate physically with a Neanderthal. It can be done, but the results won't be good.
It's a serious problem when a society becomes highly politicized, as is now the case in the U.S. and Europe. In normal times, a sociopath stays under the radar. Perhaps he'll commit a common crime when he thinks he can get away with it. But social mores keep him reined in.
However, once the government changes its emphasis from protecting citizens from force to initiating force with laws and taxes, those social mores break down. Peer pressure, social approbation, and moral opprobrium – the forces that keep a healthy society orderly – are replaced by regulations enforced by cops and funded by taxes. Sociopaths sense this, start coming out of the woodwork and are drawn to the State and its bureaucracies and regulatory agencies, where they can get licensed and paid to do what they've always wanted to do.
It's very simple, really. There are two ways people can relate to each other: voluntarily or coercively. The government is pure coercion, and sociopaths are drawn to its power and force.
The majority of Americans will accept the situation for two reasons: One, they have no philosophical anchor to keep them from being washed up onto the rocks. They no longer have any real core beliefs, and most of their opinions – e.g., "We need national health care," "Our brave troops should fight evil over there so we don't have to fight it over here," "The rich should pay their fair share" – are reactive and comforting. The whole point of spin doctors is to produce comforting sound bites that elude testing against reality. And two, they've become too pampered and comfortable, a nation of overfed losers, mooches, and coasters who like the status quo without wondering how long it can possibly last.
It's nonsensical to blather about the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave when reality TV and Wal-Mart riots are much closer to the truth. The majority of Americans are, of course, where the rot originates. The presidential candidates are spending millions taking their pulse in surveys and polls and then regurgitating to them what they seem to want to hear. Once a country buys into the idea that an above-average, privileged lifestyle is everyone's minimum due… when the fortunate few can lobby for special deals to rake something off the table as they squeeze wealth out of others by force… that country is on the decline. Lobbying and taxation rather than production and innovation have never been able to sustain prosperity. The wealth being squeezed took centuries to produce, but it is not inexhaustible.
In that light, it was interesting to hear Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, speak about the lower, middle, and upper classes recently. Romney is an empty suit, only marginally better than the last Republican nominee, the hostile and mildly demented John McCain.
In any event, Romney is right about the poor, in a way – there is a "safety net," now holding 50 million people on Medicaid and 46 million on food stamps, among many other supposed benefits. And he's right about the rich; there's no need to worry about them at the moment – at least until the revolution starts. He claims to worry about the middle class, not that his worries will do anything to help them. But he's right that the middle class is where the problem lies. It's just a different kind of problem than he thinks.
People generally fall into an economic class because of their psychology and their values. Each of the three classes has a characteristic psychological profile. For the lower class, it's apathy. They have nothing, they're ground down, and they don't really care. They're not in the game, and they aren't going to do anything. They're resigned to their fate. For the upper class, it's greed and arrogance. They have everything, and they think they deserve it – whether they do or not. The middle class – at least in today's world – is run by fear. Fear that they're only a paycheck away from falling into the lower class. Fear that they can't pay their debts or borrow more. Fear that they don't have a realistic prospect of improving themselves.
The problem is that fear is a negative, dangerous, and potentially explosive emotion. It can easily morph into anger and violence. Exactly where it will lead is unpredictable, but it's not a good place. One thing that exacerbates the situation is that all three classes now rely on the government, albeit in different ways. Bankruptcy of the government will affect them all drastically.
With sociopaths in charge, we could very well see the Milgram experiment reenacted on a national scale. In the experiment, you may recall, researchers asked members of the public to torture subjects (who, unbeknownst to the people being recruited, were paid actors) with electric shocks, all the way up to what they believed were lethal doses. Most of them did as asked, after being assured that it was "alright" and "necessary" by men in authority. The men in authority today are mostly sociopaths.
One practical issue worth thinking about is how you, as someone with libertarian values, will manage in a future increasingly controlled by sociopaths. My guess is poorly, unless you take action to insulate yourself. That's because of the way almost all creatures are programmed by nature.
There's one imperative common to all of them: Survive! People obviously want to do that as individuals and as families. In fact, they want all the groups that they're members of to survive, simply because (everything else being equal) it should help them to survive as individuals. So individual Marines want the Marine Corps to survive. Individual Rotarians want the Rotary Club to prosper. Individual Catholics leap to the defense of the Church of Rome.
That's why individual Germans during World War II were, as has been asserted, "willing executioners." They were supporting the Reich for the same reasons the Marines, the Rotarians, and the Catholics support their groups… except more so, because the Reich was under attack from all sides. So of course they followed orders and turned in their neighbors who seemed less than enthusiastic. Failing to support the Reich – even if they knew it had some rather unsavory aspects – seemed an invitation to invading armies to come and rape their daughters, steal their property, and probably kill them. So of course the Germans closed ranks around their leaders, even though everyone at the top was a sociopath. You can expect Americans to do the same.
Americans have done so before, when the country was far less degraded. During the War Between the States, even saying something against the war was a criminal offense. The same was true during World War I. In World War II, the Japanese were all put in concentration camps on groundless, racially based suspicions of disloyalty. During the early years of the Cold War, McCarthyism was rampant. The examples are legion among humans, and the U.S. was never an exception.
It's even true among chickens. If a bird has a feather out of place, the others will peck at it, eventually killing it. That out-of-place feather is deemed a badge of otherness announcing that its owner isn't part of the group. Chicken Autre must die.
Libertarians – who tend to be more intelligent, better informed, and very definitely more independent than average – are going to be in a touchy situation as the crisis deepens. Most aren't going to buy into the groupthink that inevitably accompanies war and other major crises. As such, they'll be seen as unreliable, even traitors. As Bush said, "If you're not with us, you're against us." And he might have added, "the Constitution be damned." But of course, that document is no longer even given lip service; it's now a completely dead letter.
It's very hard for an individualist to keep his mouth shut when he sees these things going on. But he'd better keep quiet, as even H.L. Mencken wisely did during both world wars. In today's world, just keeping quiet won't be enough; the national security state has an extensive and growing file on everybody. They believe they know exactly what your beliefs, desires, fears, and associations are or may be.
What we're now facing is likely to be more dangerous than past crises. If you're wise, you'll relocate someplace where you're something of an outsider and, by virtue of that fact, are allowed a measure of eccentric opinion. That's why I spend an increasing amount of time in Latin America. In truth, however, security is going to be hard to find anywhere in the years to come. The most you can hope for is to tilt the odds in your favor.
The best way to do that is by diversifying your assets internationally… allocating your wealth into real assets… linking up with sound, like-minded people who share your values… and staying alert for the high-potential speculations that inevitably arise during chaotic times.
Regards,
Doug Casey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)Stand Down Obama and Biden, Stand Down
Normally, I have no difficulty writing this column. I see it as a way to provide busy readers a coherent narrative of the best of the week's most important news -- largely as reported by the alternative media and ignored by its richer, fatter and lazier media opposition.
This week is sadly different. The latest news coming out about the murder of our ambassador and three other brave Americans in Ben Ghazi is so horrifying and shocking I can take no pleasure in writing about it. It's still largely unreported by the legacy media. Fox News has been a leader and there's been some coverage at CNN by Anderson Cooper, but PBS and the alphabets have been doing their best to keep from you the incompetence, treachery and outrageous behavior of the President, Vice President, Secretaries of State and Defense.
Luckily, their "firewall" -- blaming the tragedy on a hapless producer of a video trailer, the CIA, and lower level State Department officials -- seem (as one might have predicted, and I did), to result in numerous leaks to the press, undercutting that pack of lies.
In summary fashion, here's what we learned last week:
- The security situation in Ben Ghazi had been growing steadily worse.
- Ambassador Stevens had requested additional security and had indicated he feared for his life.
- The request for additional security was rejected and, in fact, a significant portion of the existing U.S. guard force was removed before 9/11 when any reasonable person would have anticipated they'd be most needed.
Along with those facts here's what we learned this week from Jennifer Griffin at Fox News
[A]n urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. [snip]
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators[.]
In the simplest of terms, we knew there was general danger and had made inadequate security arrangements. When those arrangements failed (as they were almost certain to) we had a number of opportunities to protect the Ambassador and others -- nearby military support, assistance from a nearby Spectre gunship and from teams stationed 2 hours away at Sigonella Air Base, All of this help was denied as coldly as the earlier requests for additional security and 4 Americans were murdered, giving our enemies an unwarranted victory .
The Spectre gunship (AC-130U) alone would seem to have done the trick:
There were two AC-130Us deployed to Libya in March as part of Operation Unified Protector.The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets. It has been used numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan to save pinned-down allied forces, and has even been credited with the surrender of the Taliban city of KonduzIt was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the Administration had let it fire. As the excerpt above clearly shows, we had assets on the ground "painting" the targets with the laser.An AC-130U flies in a counter-clockwise "pivot turn" around the target, with the weapons all aimed out the left side of the aircraft.There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a AC-130U, using television sensors, infrared sensors and synthetic aperture strike radar. These fire control systems can see through the dark of night, clouds, and smoke.The two FCSs on the AC-130U control a 25mm gatling gun for area suppression, a precision 40mm cannon, and a 105mm cannon which can engage hard targets.What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists, and saving American lives.
While the administration still is dancing around about the issue of the video trailer, Defense Secretary Panetta offered up this really unpersuasive defense for the order of nearby aid to "stand down" and the refusal to call in support from Sigonella or the Spectre gunship:
But the basic principle here... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on.
Should there be a fire at his home or a holdup as he walks the street, I hope Panetta doesn't run into rescue personnel who share that view. In any event, the point was inapplicable on the facts. There was, as the Fox report makes clear, more than sufficient information upon which to act.
Bgates says it best:
There's a basic principle here, and the basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking placeThere was real-time information about what was taking place. American citizens at the scene observed what was going on and passed along an executive summary which summarized current conditions, extrapolated existing trends into the future and suggested an action plan, roughly: "They are shooting at us, and you need to send help or we are all going to die." [snip]Dem rules for jet use: Armed assault on US embassy? Wait and gather more info. Need to get Sen Brown to DC to pass stimulus? GOGOGO!
These reports are troublesome enough, but they were to be capped before week's end by the account given by Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods one of the Special forces men murdered in this assault:
He said the President was cold and appeared unsympathetic at the ceremony at which the bodies of the slain were returned. Secretary Clinton whispered that the administration was going to have the producer of the film trailer arrested, showing she was still playing the lying game and, at the same time, demonstrating the administration's utter disregard for the Free Speech guarantees of the Constitution. But that wasn't the worst of it. The rock bottom of sleaziness was the question asked by the Vice President:
"Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?"
Stand Down, Obama and your administration. All of you. Stand Down. You've failed to carry out your responsibilities of office. You treated American lives, including that of an ambassador -- the official representative of your country -- with utter disregard for their safety. You've lied to us about this tragedy so many times and in so many ways you can no longer credibly lead. You're crass and vulgar and without regard for truth, law or common decency and deserve to be drummed out of office.
4a)WHY DID OBAMA CHOOSE TO “STAND DOWN” IN BENGHAZI?
By Paul Mirengoff
4a)WHY DID OBAMA CHOOSE TO “STAND DOWN” IN BENGHAZI?
By Paul Mirengoff
As John and Scott point out, the CIA has issued a statement making it clear that “no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need [in Benghazi]; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” That statement surely was issued with the approval, and presumably at the direction, of the CIA’s director, General Petraeus.
Who, then, made the several decisions denying help to the Americans in Benghazi who needed it? Who, initially, told CIA to “stand down” in face of the attack? Who decided that American defense forces an hour or two away in Southern Europe would not be deployed?
Bill Kristol argues that, at least with respect to not sending in the military, the decision must have been made by President Obama. Given what was at stake – the safety of Americans, including an ambassador, in the face of an attack by hostile forces – Kristol surely is right. It is inconceivable that none of the key actors — Secretary of Defense Panetta, Secretary of State Clinton, and General Petraeus — failed to present to Obama the decision of how to respond. And if Obama failed to make a decision, that would be more damning than making the wrong one.
Kristol goes on to ask: “When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?”
The key question is “why.”
Leon Panetta has provided an answer. He says “the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.” At one level, this answer doesn’t work. He and the others involved did know the essence of what was going on, and they did have real time information.
At another level, Panetta’s statement provides a window into the thinking at the White House that day. Although the administration knew, in general, what was going on, there was much uncertainly in Benghazi. We didn’t know for sure what the outcome of the attack on our personnel would be; we didn’t know whether military forces, if deployed, would have succeeded in saving them; we didn’t know how many of our rescuers would have been killed; and we didn’t know (as far as I can tell) what Libya’s reaction to the use of large-scale use of American military force would be.
Faced with uncertainty, Obama apparently opted for caution, hoping that somehow the CIA contingent from Tripoli, aided perhaps by Libyan forces, would save the situation.
This is just the decision one would expect from Obama. By temperament, he is a non-interventionist and (except when pet domestic policies are in play) a non-risk taker. He was highly cognizant of the consequences of a failed U.S. military operation in Libya, including, I suspect, the electoral consequences in an election that he believed on September 11 he was winning fairly handily.
Let’s also remember that, although Obama decided to approve the raid that killed bin Laden, his team apparently considered this (and his campaign has promoted it as) a difficult decision. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden praise Obama’s alleged courage on this occasion, pointing to the adverse consequences to Obama of a failed mission against bin Laden.
If the decision to kill an unsuspecting and poorly defended bin Laden – America’s enemy number 1 for a decade – was difficult for the Obama administration to make, then the odds were always against a decision to fly our military blind into harm’s way in Benghazi in response to situation whose precise contours weren’t well known. Obama’s decision not to intervene was likely less about “the fog of war” than about fear of the fog of war.
In hindsight, Obama made the wrong decision. The extent to which he should be criticized for the decision is difficult to assess because we don’t know all of the information he had at the time the decision had to be made. Perhaps the decision was a reasonable one to make at that time. But let’s keep in mind that our inability to assess this is due mainly to the administration’s unwillingness to speak about the decision and the surrounding events.
Voters, then, must assess the administration’s handling of Benghazi with limited information. But we do know this: (1) the administration erred grievously by leaving open our mission in Benghazi while turning down requests for more security, (2) the administration made the wrong decision on the day of the attack by not bringing our military to bear, a decision consistent with Obama’s instincts, and (3) the administration has not been forthcoming or honest in its discussion of Benghazi after the fact.
These facts, without more, present a serious indictment of Obama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)
amas aims Grad at Dimona reactor – payback for Khartoum raid
Dimona nuclear reactor
Less than 24 hours after Sudanese President Omar Bashir pledged “decisive steps against Israeli interests which are now legitimate targets,” for the destruction of the Iranian missile plant in Khartoum, Palestinian rocket teams early Sunday, Oct. 28, fired Grad missiles as target finders against Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona.
They exploded on open ground in the Ramat Negev district southwest of the town of Dimona.
The nuclear plant is only 42.5 kilometers as the crow flies from the southern Gaza Strip. Saturday night, the Israeli Air Force struck a Palestinian rocket team in the southern Gaza town of Khan Younes, killing one Hamas operative and injuring a second critically.
The Palestinian Hamas has evidently launched a new and expanded targeting-policy marking two developments of grave import: One: Its rulers have submitted the Gaza Strip to Tehran for use as its southern operational arm against Israel, complementing Hizballah’s pivotal role to the north of Israel; and two, having acquired improved surface missiles, Hamas is setting its sights firmly on the most sensitive locations within their reach, e.g., Israel’s nuclear reactor and air force bases and the American X-band radar station in the Negev.
The Islamist rulers of Gaza are expected to keep on trying to perfect their aim.
Israel’s defense ministry and high IDF command sounded at sea Sunday over this dangerous new departure. The IDF spokesperson started out by disclosing that one Grad rocket from Gaza had been aimed at the city of Beersheba, later raising the number to two, both of which exploded outside the city.
Israel’s defense ministry and high IDF command sounded at sea Sunday over this dangerous new departure. The IDF spokesperson started out by disclosing that one Grad rocket from Gaza had been aimed at the city of Beersheba, later raising the number to two, both of which exploded outside the city.
But the Grad launched against the nuclear reactor at 07:44 was followed by hours of official silence. Even then, the army spokesperson reported a missile fired against Ramat Hanegev in general terms, without mentioning the reactor’s location in that district at its northernmost point.
It was the second time in three weeks that Tehran was seen to be focusing on Israel’s nuclear plant.
It was the second time in three weeks that Tehran was seen to be focusing on Israel’s nuclear plant.
On Oct. 6, an Iranian stealth drone which flew over Israel managed to photograph the reactor building and its air defense system’s radar. The data gathered was given to Hamas to help guide its first rocket attack on Dimona.
Not two, as reported earlier, , but four, Grad rockets were fired Sunday morning at Beersheba. They all exploded outside the town and caused no casualties or damage. The mayor decided to keep schools closed for the day since none are fortified against rocket attacks. Beersheba University stayed open for studies. Saturday night, the Palestinians shot a salvo of five Qassam rockets at the Eshkol district. Three exploded over the Gaza Strip; two on the border fence.
The Israel Air Force strike over Khan Younes followed this violation of the informal truce requested by Hamas and brokered by Egypt for the Eid al-Adha festival starting Friday and ending next Monday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)US Navy tests innovative Israeli technology
US reportedly mulls purchasing Rafael's remote-controlled robotic boats, ahead of possible strike on Iran; holds successful test off Maryland coast
By Udi Etzion
Israeli unmanned robotic boats may be used by the US Military in a potential naval confrontation with Iran, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday.
Recent reports revealed that the Iranian military had recently purchased numerous small vessels and manned each of them with Revolutionary Guard officers. The vessels are meant to either block or attack any American aircraft carrier making its way to the Strait of Hormuz.
According to intelligence assessments, Iran will use these vessels as suicide boats, in a manner similar to Japan's use of kamikaze pilots during World War II.
In light of the possible danger, the US Navy is reportedly considering purchasing the "Protector," a remote-controlled boat developed by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.
According to foreign reports, the Israel Navy has recently started using the robotic boats and has armed them with anti-armor "Spike" missiles.
On Wednesday, the US Navy fired missiles from several unmanned surface vehicles (USV) in tests which took place off the coast of Maryland. All six test-fires were reportedly accurate.
"The tests are a significant step forward in weaponizing surface unmanned combat capability," Mark Moses, the US Navy’s drone boats program manager, told Wired Magazine.
"The boats could be used for a number of applications, including harbor security, and in various defensive operations and scenarios, which are of primary concern for the Navy," Moses added.
The "Protector" deal between Israel and the US is expected to amount to millions of dollars. However the Americans might not purchase the Israeli "Spike" missiles and opt for American-made missiles, such as the "Javelin" or the "Hellfire" instead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7)I Too Have Become Disillusioned.
By Matt Patterson ( columnist – opinion writer)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.(An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track.) But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
7a)
The morning was cold and the sky was bright. Aretha Franklin wore a large and interesting hat. Yo-Yo Ma urged his frozen fingers to play the cello, and the Reverend Joseph E. Lowery, a civil-rights comrade of Martin Luther King, Jr.,’s, read a benediction that began with “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” the segregation-era lamentation of American realities and celebration of American ideals. On that day in Washington—Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009—the blustery chill penetrated every coat, yet the discomfort was no impediment to joy. The police estimated that more than a million and a half people had crowded onto the Mall, making this the largest public gathering in the history of the capital. Very few could see the speakers. It didn’t matter. People had come to be with other people, to mark an unusual thing: a historical event that was elective, not befallen.
Just after noon, Barack Hussein Obama, the forty-seven-year-old son of a white Kansan and a black Kenyan, an uncommonly talented if modestly credentialled legislator from Illinois, took the oath of office as the forty-fourth President of the United States. That night, after the inaugural balls, President Obama and his wife and their daughters slept at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a white house built by black men, slaves of West African heritage.
Obama succeeded George W. Bush, a two-term President whose misbegotten legacy, measured in the money it squandered and the misery it inflicted, has become only more evident with time. Bush left behind an America in dire condition and with a degraded reputation. On Inauguration Day, the United States was in a downward financial spiral brought on by predatory lending, legally sanctioned greed and pyramid schemes, an economic policy geared to the priorities and the comforts of what soon came to be called “the one per cent,” and deregulation that began before the Bush Presidency. In 2008 alone, more than two and a half million jobs were lost—up to three-quarters of a million jobs a month. The gross domestic product was shrinking at a rate of nine per cent. Housing prices collapsed. Credit markets collapsed. The stock market collapsed—and, with it, the retirement prospects of millions. Foreclosures and evictions were ubiquitous; whole neighborhoods and towns emptied. The automobile industry appeared to be headed for bankruptcy. Banks as large as Lehman Brothers were dead, and other banks were foundering. It was a crisis of historic dimensions and global ramifications. However skillful the management in Washington, the slump was bound to last longer than any since the Great Depression.
At the same time, the United States was in the midst of the grinding and unnecessary war in Iraq, which killed a hundred thousand Iraqis and four thousand Americans, and depleted the federal coffers. The political and moral damage of Bush’s duplicitous rush to war rivalled the conflict’s price in blood and treasure. America’s standing in the world was further compromised by the torture of prisoners and by illegal surveillance at home. Al Qaeda, which, on September 11, 2001, killed three thousand people on American soil, was still strong. Its leader, Osama bin Laden, was, despite a global manhunt, living securely in Abbottabad, a verdant retreat near Islamabad.
As if to intensify the sense of crisis, on Inauguration Day the national-security apparatus informed the President-elect that Al Shabaab, a Somali affiliate of the Al Qaeda network, had sent terrorists across the Canadian border and was planning an attack on the Mall, possibly on Obama himself. That danger proved illusory; the others proved to be more onerous than anyone had imagined. The satirical paper The Onion came up with a painfully apt inaugural headline: “BLACK MAN GIVEN NATION’S WORST JOB.”
Barack Obama began his Presidency devoted to the idea of post-partisanship. His rhetoric, starting with his “Red State, Blue State” Convention speech, in 2004, and his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope,” was imbued with that idea. Just as in his memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” he had tried to reconcile the disparate pasts of his parents, Obama was determined to bring together warring tribes in Washington and beyond. He extended his hand to everyone from the increasingly radical leadership of the congressional Republicans to the ruling mullahs of the Iranian theocracy. The Republicans, however, showed no greater interest in working with Obama than did the ayatollahs. The Iranian regime went on enriching uranium and crushing its opposition, and the Republicans, led by Dickensian scolds, including the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, committed themselves to a single goal: to engineer the President’s political destruction by defeating his major initiatives. Obama, for his part, did not always prove particularly adept at, or engaged by, the arts of retail persuasion, and his dream of bipartisanship collided with the reality of obstructionism.
Perhaps inevitably, the President has disappointed some of his most ardent supporters. Part of their disappointment is a reflection of the fantastical expectations that attached to him. Some, quite reasonably, are disappointed in his policy failures (on Guantánamo, climate change, and gun control); others question the morality of the persistent use of predator drones. And, of course, 2012 offers nothing like the ecstasy of taking part in a historical advance: the reëlection of the first African-American President does not inspire the same level of communal pride. But the reëlection of a President who has been progressive, competent, rational, decent, and, at times, visionary is a serious matter. The President has achieved a run of ambitious legislative, social, and foreign-policy successes that relieved a large measure of the human suffering and national shame inflicted by the Bush Administration. Obama has renewed the honor of the office he holds.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—the $787-billion stimulus package—was well short of what some economists, including Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, thought the crisis demanded. But it was larger in real dollars than any one of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal measures. It reversed the job-loss trend—according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as many as 3.6 million private-sector jobs have been created since June, 2009—and helped reset the course of the economy. It also represented the largest public investment in infrastructure since President Eisenhower’s interstate-highway program. From the start, though, Obama recognized that it would reap only modest political gain. “It’s very hard to prove a counterfactual,” he told the journalist Jonathan Alter, “where you say, ‘You know, things really could have been a lot worse.’ ” He was speaking of the bank and auto-industry bailouts, but the problem applies more broadly to the stimulus: harm averted is benefit unseen.
As for systemic reform, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which Obama signed into law in July, 2010, tightened capital requirements on banks, restricted predatory lending, and, in general, sought to prevent abuses of the sort that led to the crash of 2008. Against the counsel of some Republicans, including Mitt Romney, the Obama Administration led the takeover, rescue, and revival of the automobile industry. The Administration transformed the country’s student-aid program, making it cheaper for students and saving the federal government sixty-two billion dollars—more than a third of which was put back into Pell grants. AmeriCorps, the country’s largest public-service program, has been tripled in size.
Obama’s most significant legislative achievement was a vast reform of the national health-care system. Five Presidents since the end of the Second World War have tried to pass legislation that would insure universal access to medical care, but all were defeated by deeply entrenched opposition. Obama—bolstered by the political cunning of the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi—succeeded. Some critics urged the President to press for a single-payer system—Medicare for all. Despite its ample merits, such a system had no chance of winning congressional backing. Obama achieved the achievable. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the single greatest expansion of the social safety net since the advent of Medicaid and Medicare, in 1965. Not one Republican voted in favor of it.
Obama has passed no truly ambitious legislation related to climate change, shying from battle in the face of relentless opposition from congressional Republicans. Yet his environmental record is not as barren as it may seem. The stimulus bill provided for extensive investment in green energy, biofuels, and electric cars. In August, the Administration instituted new fuel-efficiency standards that should nearly double gas mileage; by 2025, new cars will need to average 54.5 miles per gallon.
President Obama’s commitment to civil rights has gone beyond rhetoric. During his first week in office, he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which protects women, minorities, and the disabled against unfair wage discrimination. By ending the military’s ban on the service of those who are openly gay, and by endorsing marriage equality, Obama, more than any previous President, has been a strong advocate of the civil rights of gay men and lesbians. Finally, Obama appointed to the Supreme Court two highly competent women, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s first Hispanic. Kagan and Sotomayor are skilled and liberal-minded Justices who, abjuring dogmatism, represent a sober and sensible set of jurisprudential values.
In the realm of foreign policy, Obama came into office speaking the language of multilateralism and reconciliation—so much so that the Nobel Peace Prize committee, in an act as patronizing as it was premature, awarded him its laurels, in 2009. Obama was embarrassed by the award and recognized it for what it was: a rebuke to the Bush Administration. Still, the Norwegians were also getting at something more affirmative. Obama’s Cairo speech, that same year, tried to help heal some of the wounds not only of the Iraq War but, more generally, of Western colonialism in the Middle East. Speaking at Cairo University,* Obama expressed regret that the West had used Muslim countries as pawns in the Cold War game of Risk. He spoke for the rights of women and against torture; he defended the legitimacy of the State of Israel while offering a straightforward assessment of the crucial issue of the Palestinians and their need for statehood, citing the “humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation.”
It was an edifying speech, but Obama was soon instructed in the limits of unilateral good will. Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hu Jintao, and other autocrats hardened his spirit. Still, he proved a sophisticated and reliable diplomat and an effective Commander-in-Chief. He kept his promise to withdraw American troops from Iraq. He forbade torture. And he waged a far more forceful campaign against Al Qaeda than Bush had—a campaign that included the killing of Osama bin Laden. He negotiated—and won Senate approval of—a crucial strategic-arms deal with the Russians, slashing warheads and launchers on both sides and increasing the transparency of mutual inspections. In Afghanistan, he has set a reasonable course in an impossible situation.
The unsettled situations in Egypt and Libya, following the Arab Spring of 2010, make plain that that region’s political trajectory is anything but fixed. Syria shames the world’s inaction and confounds its hopes of decisive intervention. This is where Obama’s respect for complexity is not an indulgence of intellectual vanity but a requirement for effective action. In the case of bin Laden, it was necessary to act alone and at once; in Libya, in concert with the Europeans; in Iran, cautiously but with decisive measures.
One quality that so many voters admired in Obama in 2008 was his unusual temperament: inspirational, yet formal, cool, hyper-rational. He promised to be the least crazy of Presidents, the least erratic and unpredictable. The triumph of that temperament was in evidence on a spring night in 2011, as he performed his duties, with a standup’s precision and preternatural élan, at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, all the while knowing that he had, with no guarantee of success, dispatched Navy SEAL Team Six to kill bin Laden. In the modern era, we have had Presidents who were known to seduce interns (Kennedy and Clinton), talk to paintings (Nixon), and confuse movies with reality (Reagan). Obama’s restraint has largely served him, and the country, well.
But Obama is also a human being, a flawed and complicated one, and as the world has come to know him better we have sometimes seen the downside of his temperament: a certain insularity and self-satisfaction; a tendency at times—as in the first debate with Mitt Romney—to betray disdain for the unpleasant tasks of politics. As a political warrior, Obama can be withdrawn, even strangely passive. He has sometimes struggled to convey the human stakes of the policies he has initiated. In the remaining days of the campaign, Obama must be entirely, and vividly, present, as he was in the second debate with Romney. He must clarify not only what he has achieved but also what he intends to achieve, how he intends to accelerate the recovery, spur employment, and allay the debt crisis; how he intends to deal with an increasingly perilous situation in Pakistan; what he will do if Iran fails to bring its nuclear program into line with international strictures. Most important, he needs to convey the larger vision that matches his outsized record of achievement.
There is another, larger “counterfactual” to consider—the one represented by Obama’s Republican challenger, Willard Mitt Romney. The Republican Party’s nominee is handsome, confident, and articulate. He made a fortune in business, first as a consultant, then in private equity. After running for the Senate in Massachusetts, in 1994, and failing to unseat Edward Kennedy, Romney relaunched his public career by presiding successfully over the 2002 Winter Olympics, in Salt Lake City. (A four-hundred-million-dollar federal bailout helped.) From 2003 to 2007, he was the governor of Massachusetts and, working with a Democratic legislature, succeeded in passing an impressive health-care bill. He has been running for President full time ever since.
In the service of that ambition, Romney has embraced the values and the priorities of a Republican Party that has grown increasingly reactionary and rigid in its social vision. It is a party dominated by those who despise government and see no value in public efforts aimed at ameliorating the immense and rapidly increasing inequalities in American society. A visitor to the F.D.R. Memorial, in Washington, is confronted by these words from Roosevelt’s second Inaugural Address, etched in stone: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide for those who have too little.” Romney and the leaders of the contemporary G.O.P. would consider this a call to class warfare. Their effort to disenfranchise poor, black, Hispanic, and student voters in many states deepens the impression that Romney’s remarks about the “forty-seven per cent” were a matter not of “inelegant” expression, as he later protested, but of genuine conviction.
Romney’s conviction is that the broad swath of citizens who do not pay federal income tax—a category that includes pensioners, soldiers, low-income workers, and those who have lost their jobs—are parasites, too far gone in sloth and dependency to be worth the breath one might spend asking for their votes. His descent to this cynical view—further evidenced by his selection of a running mate, Paul Ryan, who is the epitome of the contemporary radical Republican—has been dishearteningly smooth. He in essence renounced his greatest achievement in public life—the Massachusetts health-care law—because its national manifestation, Obamacare, is anathema to the Tea Party and to the G.O.P. in general. He has tacked to the hard right on abortion, immigration, gun laws, climate change, stem-cell research, gay rights, the Bush tax cuts, and a host of foreign-policy issues. He has signed the Grover Norquist no-tax-hike pledge and endorsed Ryan’s winner-take-all economics.
But what is most disquieting is Romney’s larger political vision. When he said that Obama “takes his political inspiration from Europe, and from the socialist democrats in Europe,” he was not only signalling Obama’s “otherness” to one kind of conservative voter; he was suggesting that Obama’s liberalism is in conflict with a uniquely American strain of individualism. The theme recurred when Romney and his allies jumped on Obama’s observation that no entrepreneur creates a business entirely alone (“You didn’t build that”). The Republicans continue to insist on the “Atlas Shrugged” fantasy of the solitary entrepreneurial genius who creates jobs and wealth with no assistance at all from government or society.
If the keynote of Obama’s Administration has been public investment—whether in infrastructure, education, or health—the keynote of Romney’s candidacy has been private equity, a realm in which efficiency and profitability are the supreme values. As a business model, private equity has had a mixed record. As a political template, it is stunted in the extreme. Private equity is concerned with rewarding winners and punishing losers. But a democracy cannot lay off its failing citizens. It cannot be content to leave any of its citizens behind—and certainly not the forty-seven per cent whom Romney wishes to fire from the polity.
Private equity has served Romney well—he is said to be worth a quarter of a billion dollars. Wealth is hardly unique in a national candidate or in a President, but, unlike Franklin Roosevelt—or Teddy Roosevelt or John Kennedy—Romney seems to be keenly loyal to the perquisites and the presumptions of his class, the privileged cadre of Americans who, like him, pay extraordinarily low tax rates, with deductions for corporate jets. They seem content with a system in which a quarter of all earnings and forty per cent of all wealth go to one per cent of the population. Romney is among those who see business success as a sure sign of moral virtue.
The rest of us will have to take his word for it. Romney, breaking with custom, has declined to release more than two years of income-tax returns—a refusal of transparency that he has not afforded his own Vice-Presidential nominee. Even without those returns, we know that he has taken advantage of the tax code’s gray areas, including the use of offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands. For all his undoubted patriotism, he evidently believes that money belongs to an empyrean far beyond such territorial attachments.
But holding foreign bank accounts is not a substitute for experience in foreign policy. In that area, he has outsourced his views to mediocre, ideologically driven advisers like Dan Senor and John Bolton. He speaks in Cold War jingoism. On a brief foray abroad this summer, he managed, in rapid order, to insult the British, to pander crudely to Benjamin Netanyahu in order to win the votes and contributions of his conservative Jewish and Evangelical supporters, and to dodge ordinary questions from the press in Poland. On the thorniest of foreign-policy problems—from Pakistan to Syria—his campaign has offered no alternatives except a set of tough-guy slogans and an oft-repeated faith in “American exceptionalism.”
In pursuit of swing voters, Romney and Ryan have sought to tamp down, and keep vague, the extremism of their economic and social commitments. But their signals to the Republican base and to the Tea Party are easily read: whatever was accomplished under Obama will be reversed or stifled. Bill Clinton has rightly pointed out that most Presidents set about fulfilling their campaign promises. Romney, despite his pose of chiselled equanimity, has pledged to ravage the safety net, oppose progress on marriage equality, ignore all warnings of ecological disaster, dismantle health-care reform, and appoint right-wing judges to the courts. Four of the nine Supreme Court Justices are in their seventies; a Romney Administration may well have a chance to replace two of the more liberal incumbents, and Romney’s adviser in judicial affairs is the embittered far-right judge and legal scholar Robert Bork. The rightward drift of a court led by Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—a drift marked by appalling decisions like Citizens United—would only intensify during a Romney Presidency. The consolidation of a hard-right majority would be a mortal threat to the ability of women to make their own decisions about contraception and pregnancy, the ability of institutions to alleviate the baneful legacies of past oppression and present prejudice, and the ability of American democracy to insulate itself from the corrupt domination of unlimited, anonymous money. Romney has pronounced himself “severely conservative.” There is every reason to believe him.
The choice is clear. The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work.
The reëlection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves. ♦
* Obama’s speech was given at Cairo University, not at Al Azhar University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment