Take a Powder: You Voted for Him

Oh, this is just rich.

They’re ready to jump off a real cliff.

New Yorkers of all income levels got a rude awakening yesterday when they saw in The Post how much more they will pay in taxes next year without a fiscal-cliff deal by Jan. 1.

“It’s that much higher?” asked IT worker Vikas Kataria, 34, who discovered that his combined household income of about $250,000 per year will cost him nearly $10,000 more in taxes.

“I thought it was a couple thousand — but that’s a lot,” said Kataria, who works at Merrill Lynch in Manhattan and is married to a systems analyst for a brokerage firm. “That’s huge!”
...
Small-business owner Haim Hagon, 51, said it’ll be tough to afford college for his two high-school-aged children.

“Every dollar counts when the situation is tough,” said Hagon, who makes about $150,000 and already moved his son from a private school to a public school due to financial concerns.

“Another $6,000 could have gone to my daughter’s tuition. I’ll have to find that money another way.”

He works 12 hours a day, six days a week to keep his children’s-clothing store in Forest Hills, Queens, afloat — and is now mulling staff and pay cuts.

“What am I supposed to do, work harder?” Hagon said. “I don’t want to find myself in front of my store dead with a heart attack!”

---

There's more at the NYPost. Read it and laugh like Tim the Enchanter.

Take a powder, hopey-changy kiddies

Wait until they figure out that on top of it all - they are the ones who will have to pay off all the trillions of dollars of debt he has brought on.

Reality hurts.

A very large proportion of recent university graduates have soured on President Barack Obama, and many will vote GOP or stay at home in the 2012 election, according to two new surveys of younger voters.

“These rock-solid Obama constituents are free-agents,” said Kellyanne Conway, president of The Polling Company, based in Washington, D.C. She recently completed a large survey of college grads, and “they’re shopping around, considering their options, [and] a fair number will say at home and sit it out,” she said.

The scope of this disengagement from Obama is suggested by an informal survey of 500 post-grads by Joe Maddalone, founder of Maddalone Global Strategies. Of his sample, 93 percent are aged between 22 and 28, 67 percent are male and 83 percent voted for Obama in 2008. But only 27 percent are committed to voting for Obama again, and 80 percent said they would consider voting for a Republican, said New York-based Maddalone.

That’s a drop of almost 60 points in support for Obama among this influential class of younger post-grad voters, who Maddalone recruited at conferences held at New York University and Thomson-Reuters’ New York headquarters.

The bad news for Obama was underlined May 19 with a report by a job-firm Adecco that roughly 60 percent of recent college-grads have not been able to find a full-time job in their preferred area. One-in-five graduates have taken jobs far from their training, one-in-six are dependent on their parents, and one-in-four say they’re in debt, according to the firm’s data.

I feel their pain.

Welcome to Realville. No one can start a company without capital. No one ever gets a job from a poor person - and when you have a government that is hellbent on stopping anyone from building personal wealth to be invested - then no one is going to hire you.

Take a powder, Bushitlerhaters

Hat tip Paul.

10 tons of Marines in a 5 ton sack ...

This will only be shocking to those who look at nothing but happy-talk PPT, vignettes and White Papers that are not critically reviewed - and those who actually believe in the Easter Bunny.

The federal government has given powerful reasons to worry to the 180,000 residents of Guam, a balmy tropical island whose military importance derives from its location as by far the closest U.S. territory to China and North Korea.

The Environmental Protection Agency said last month that the military buildup, as described in Pentagon documents, could trigger island-wide water shortages that would "fall disproportionately on a low income medically underserved population." It also said the buildup would overload sewage-treatment systems in a way that "may result in significant adverse public health impacts."

A report by the Government Accountability Office last year came to similar conclusions, saying the buildup would "substantially" tax Guam's infrastructure.

Slow roll. So, who wins this fight?

"We're trying to identify and understand the current conditions on Guam and the potential impact of the relocation," said Nancy Sutley, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who on Tuesday will lead a delegation to the island. "There's no question that the environmental conditions on Guam are not ideal."

Besides a new Marine base and airfield, the buildup includes port dredging for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, a project that would cause what the EPA describes as an "unacceptable" impact on 71 acres of a vibrant coral reef. The military, which owns 27 percent of the island, also wants to build a Marine firing range on land that includes one of the last undeveloped beachfront forests on Guam.
...
The Marine Corps is sensing a populist backlash on Guam, which is three times the size of the District of Columbia and more than 6,000 miles west of Los Angeles.

"I see a rising level of concern about how we are going to manage this," Lt. Gen. Keith J. Stalder, the Hawaii-based commander of Marine forces in the Pacific, said in a telephone interview. "I think it is becoming clearer every day that they need outside assistance."

Hey look - we can even include this in the "Take a Powder" label,

Many residents have hoped that Obama -- a fellow Pacific islander, who was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia -- might understand their anxieties and unlock federal resources. The White House said Obama will visit Guam when his Asia trip is rescheduled, perhaps in June.

"I just want to remind President Obama that his story is our story," said Victoria-Lola Leon Guerrero, an English instructor at the University of Guam and a leader of a group opposing the buildup. She said her students read Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," focusing on a coming-of-age passage from his years in Hawaii, in which he describes his realization that he was "utterly alone."

"That's how we feel here," she said. "We feel like we are not being listened to, like we are not being respected."

I don't care who you are - that thar' is funny. And then this:

...a third of the population receives food stamps and about 25 percent lives below the U.S. poverty level --

Yep - you would do a lot better without a single US dollar.

Even more funny is the economically myopic.

"This is old-school colonialism all over again," said LisaLinda Natividad, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Guam and an activist opposing the buildup. "It boils down to our political status -- we are occupied territory."

Silly Marxist - LisaLinda, not that other dude on page 101 of his book.

I don't hold anything against the citizens of Guam. They are great Americans - and too much is too much. I very much sympathize with them. I also feel sorry for the Sailors, Marines, and Airmen stationed or due to be stationed there. It is a hard place to be stationed now - squeeze that many Marines in there .... well ... there are better places to put Marines.

Now, back to the BRAC discussion ..... and LBG - could you please remind everyone again what Guam stands for in the Fleet?

I told you they would miss "W"

It was only a matter of time before reality set in. Was GWB perfect - oh heck no. But .... even in Europe, they are starting to feel that the morning after is a b1tch,

Despite George W. Bush's defiant "you're with us or you're against us" public stance, he actively solicited advice and input from his NATO partners. Obama, by contrast, is saying all the right things in public about transatlantic relations and NATO but adopting a high-handed policy and paying little attention to Europe. And Europe is taking a hint.
...
Even in Britain, where the public loves Obama, the government has been obsessed, after repeated slights -- the infamous CD set gifted to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a press conference canceled due to light snow (or was it fatigue?), being denied a private meeting with Obama at the Pittsburgh summit, etc. -- with the notion that the two countries' "special relationship" is over. To be sure, some of this is overblown -- and hardly new -- but Obama has been less solicitous of his country's most natural ally than any U.S. president in memory.

America's relationship with France bounced back markedly after Nicolas Sarkozy was elected to replace Jacques Chirac. But there have been more than a few bumps since Obama took office. "Obama's policies are not the Atlanticism that Sarkozy was expecting," Macleans quotes Hall Gardner, a professor of international politics at the American University of Paris, as saying. "There've been several elements of disagreement between the two."
...
And indeed, while most European heads of state dutifully congratulated Obama after the surprise announcement of his Nobel win, the European press was as stunned as their American counterparts. The Independent's Ian Birrell assessed that Obama was being "once again lauded for his symbolism and potential rather than his actual deeds." Peter Beaumont of The Guardian equally snarked, "The reality is that the prize appears to have been awarded to Barack Obama for what he is not. For not being George W. Bush. Or rather being less like the last president."

It would be ironic, indeed, if the Europeans started longing for the good old days of the Bush administration. But that nostalgia is closer than you might think.

... and closer to home, the core of the man was made evident again - and the contrast exceptional.

As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack.

FOR HOURS.

The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.

If there are any of you out there with any connection at all to the Bushes, we implore you to give them our thanks…you tell them at a bunch of gay Hillary guys in Boystown, Chicago were wrong about the Bushes…and are deeply, deeply sorry for any jokes we told about them in the past, any bad thoughts we had about these good, good people.

You may be as surprised by this as we are ourselves, but from this day forward George W. and Laura Bush are now on the same list for us as the Clintons, Geraldine Ferraro, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and the other political figures we keep in our hearts and never allow anyone to badmouth.

Criticize their policies academically and intelligently and discuss the Bush presidency in historical and political terms…but you mess with the Bushes personally and, from this day forward, and you’ll answer to us.

We hope someday to be able to thank George W. and Laura in person for all they’ve done, and continue to do. They didn’t have to head to Ft. Hood. That was not their responsibility.

The Obamas should have done that.

But didn’t.

Wouldn’t.

Thank goodness George W. is still on his watch, with wonderful Laura at his side.

All you Bushaters - take a powder - he wasn't all that bad.

Take a powder: multilateralists

This is change that is a waste .... and will get you killed.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, initially dubbed Sarko the American for his pro-U.S. stance, is finding it much tougher to deal with Washington than he had anticipated and is recalibrating his policies accordingly.

Stung by perceived snubs from U.S. President Barack Obama and encouraged by the growing importance of the G20, Sarkozy is increasingly reaching out to non-aligned states in an effort to extend France's international influence.

He has forged especially close ties with Brazil, is seeking alliances in central Asia and is intensifying his activities in the Middle East, using multi-billion dollar military and civilian nuclear trade deals as his calling card.

One of the great opportunities of the second half of this decade was the election of a Americanophile as President of the Republic of France.

Believe it or not - the French have a deep and abiding affection for the USA - anyone who has spent more than a couple of days in Paris know this to be true. All the French people needed was a President who could take that affection and show it in a French way.

Sarkozy was that President.

I understand (but do not excuse) President Obama's personal grudge against the British - and in his narcissistic way his inability to keep that out of his official functions - but the break with France, Poland, and the Czech Republic is a strategic error of the greatest degree.

From getting partners in the future - to getting additional support in AFG in the near to mid-term; we have thrown away the good will that decades of Democrat and Republican foreign policy (in fits and starts) have nurtured. If you wanted to decrease American soft-power through the world - then spitting in the face of your best allies is a sure way to do it.

More to follow on this sad front.

The change in AFG

This started out as a much longer post - but I have decided to just boil this down to the basics without a bunch of the usual commentary.

I have been saying, rightly, that all the things happening in AFG right now are not "new" - that they are the results of what has been in the work for well over a year. That is true. That is no longer going to the the case though.

Gen. McKiernan's firing should signal one thing to all - the USA (and because it has not choice, NATO) is going to change radically what it does in AFG sooner more than later. You won't see the changes on the ground for at least 6 months, but they are coming.

The ground truth for the why and how Gen. McKiernan was fired will come out at some time, I don't want to add to the speculation about it. That is looking backwards, I want to talk about forward.

I want you to focus on two open source reports that I believe will shine some light on where we are going. First for Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

Mullen said additional forces and new tactics can help the United States turn a discouraging tide in Afghanistan. He said he was hopeful that "in the next 12- to 24 months, that we can stem the trends which have been going very badly in Afghanistan the last three years."

There may be a bit of circular reporting on this, but the 24-month mark is starting to creep more and more into the picture.

Second, is this little window into McKiernan's firing;

Unidentified Pentagon officials and fellow officers were quoted today saying McKiernan was too conventional in his thinking, that he had tried (and failed) to force out the allegedly corrupt Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and that as Nato commander he was too chummy with the mostly flaky European allies. In this latter respect, this week's developments mark another stage in the "re-Americanisation" of the Afghan war.

The problem is, the charges against McKiernan don't stick. In a media briefing last autumn, shortly after taking command, McKiernan set out a clear, thought-through, and politically subtle strategy. More troops were needed, especially in the south, after years of neglect due to Iraq. But reinforcements alone were not the answer.

"We can win all the tactical battles but that doesn't mean we win. To win, we have to win the battle of ideas," he said. "We must define winning in Afghan terms: meaning improved security, reduced civilian casualties, trustworthy government, economic and social progress."

Bingo. Those familiar with the plan in AFG know that there was little conventional or excessively kinetic about the plan. It was about as comprehensive and integrated as you can get.

What we may want to look at here is a bit of strategic impatience. NATO is slow. Working with the international community is slow. If you driven by a calendar-based plan instead of a conditions-based plan, then you do not have time to talk with your Global Partners; you just do what you want and let a "Coalition of the Willing" catch up to you when they can.

In a great irony, it looks like the Obama Administration if totally repudiating not the Bush Doctrine, but he Kerry Doctrine. Sound like they want out soon, not out right. A valid opinion, but one that will not likely be a success in the long run. If they sacked McKiernan because he was too interested in working with our Allies and the international community than was the new Administration's taste - then all those on the foreign policy Left need to take a powder - you just became a charactiture of the Bush protest puppets you built in mid-decade.

Allies and friends be damned. We are doing it our way. Is that the new line in Afghanistan? Funny, but there it is.

The one hope we have is that LTG McChrystal and Rodriguez can convince the new Administration to go condition-based vice calendar based. If we are going to be calendar based, then to be blunt, we might as well leave this year before the passes freeze over. AFG cannot be fixed or won in 24 months. This is at least a 10 year project - as it will take 10 years to build momentum towards a more literate society with the 8 year old whose behind is in his school seat.

Let's hope this change isn't towards the calendar based approach. If it is, we'll be back.

Sen. Webb (D-VA): Neocon

Take a powder Skippy. LMAO.

NB: the first clip is normal, but click the pic on the second to see the rest. Embed doesn't work.

Webb was wrong about the surge ... he was wrong about GTMO ... but now he is right, about GTMO. LMAO. Senator Webb, welcome aboard!

Hat tip Allah.

Take a powder: Bushitler types

I am laughing like Tim the Enchanter again.

President Barack Obama will restart military tribunals for a small number of Guantanamo detainees, reviving a trial system he once said the Bush administration had abused, but with new legal protections for terror suspects, U.S. officials said.

Of course, they will do it "smarter." Snerk.

Take a powder - Bushitler spouters

Via Dissenting Justice - a moment of zen to send you on your way this week.

Human Rights Watch: Before
Human Rights Watch, a very respected and passionate defender of civil liberty, was one of the most vocal critics of the CIA's rendition program. In fact, Human Rights Watch prepared a comprehensive document that reports incidents of alleged torture of rendered individuals. The report makes the following policy recommendations:

The US government should:

Repudiate the use of rendition to torture as a counterterrorism tactic and permanently discontinue the CIA's rendition program;

Disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001, including detainees who were rendered to Jordan;

Repudiate the use of "diplomatic assurances" against torture and ill-treatment as a justification for the transfer of a suspect to a place where he or she is at risk of such abuse;

Make public any audio recordings or videotapes that the CIA possesses of interrogations of detainees rendered by the CIA to foreign custody;

Provide appropriate compensation to all persons arbitrarily detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody (emphasis added).

Human Rights Watch rightfully opposed the practice of torture by the Bush administration, but it also demanded the cessation of rendition and that victims of the practice receive compensation.

The organization's recommendations went even farther, however. In order to make sure that the program ended, Human Rights Watch recommended that other countries should:

Refuse to cooperate in secret detention and rendition efforts, and disclose all information about past cooperation in such efforts (emphasis added).

Human Rights Watch: After
Now that the L.A. Times reports that rendition will continue during the Obama administration, Human Rights Watch has apparently altered its position. According to Tom Malinowski, the organization's "Washington advocacy director," the risk of torture and other abuses does not mandate the prophylactic cessation of rendition. Instead (quoting the L.A. Times):

"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured -- but that designing that system is going to take some time."

Malinowski said he had urged the Obama administration to stipulate that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court. "Producing a prisoner before a real court is a key safeguard against torture, abuse and disappearance," Malinowski said (emphasis added).

No shock to me, I have always held as a core belief, having seen the cycle a few times, that most of these "Human Rights" fronts are just that - fronts to help push a Leftist agenda (why they almost never go after the Hugos and Fidels and Hos of the world) through the discredit of other political agendas - and to provide cover for their fellow travelers. If you are of the Left and also happen to be anti-American, then you get double cover.

There are, however, true believers out there - those who right now are heartbroken .... and should simply take a powder. You see, the world is what it is - and you true believers will come to see that you were used. Used because very dangerous people out there wish harm on this nation and there are certain things that must be done. Just wait until the final shoe drops WRT Gitmo....

Hat tip Mark Heming.

The hollowing begins ...

In the middle of a war. It has started.

The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Last year's defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend "burning the midnight oil" looking at ways to cut the budget -- looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said.

Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.

Elections mean things.

We cannot leave troops in the field hang'n can we? Nope, therefore look for more than the fair share to come from the USN and non-AMC USAF.

$55 billion? What does the Navy throw on the alter? At the low end, I would think that we will have to eat at least 30% of that - let's call it $18.3 billion that needs to go as a baseline. Where do you start? Eat the sunk cost and kill DDG-1000 like they did the USS United States (CVA-58)? Cut SSN production in half? Kill LCS (not going to happen, sadly, because it is the "cheapest" way to get new CDR Command slots)? Kill the new CVN design, eating those sunk costs, and go back to Nimitz with a slide to the right? Cut personnel faster, going down to the 311-300,000 line? For the USMC - kill the EFV? Does that get us to $18.3 billion? I need a stable of staff weenies to run some numbers ... but that is what people are doing this weekend.

USAF, you're done with F-22. As for BMD - Sen. Levin ain't playing.

If you were wearing a uniform and hoped for change - you're going to get it good and hard. If that makes you mad, take a powder.

Hat tip MajHam.

---

Hmmmm, more nuance?

The Pentagon refused to comment publicly on why it would need the higher amount. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said the fiscal 2010 Defense budget must contend with the realities of the bad economy and stop the trend of steep increases in military budgets since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Gates also has said the department will deliver Congress a formal request for a second tranche of fiscal 2009 war funding “in the coming weeks.” He sent Congress an estimate for that tab of $69.7 billion.

“I believe that the FY 2010 budget must make hard choices,” Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 27.

Is someone in uniform playing games - or are requirements requirements?

Take a Powder - anti-victory Moonbats

What a wonderful dish this is.

Keeping Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the helm would help give Obama political cover for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq,
Photo: AP

Democratic officials said they see new signs that President-elect Barack Obama will ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates to stay in his post.

If Gates stays, no reconfirmation hearing would be needed, officials said.

Keeping Gates at the helm would help give Obama political cover for a gradual reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq and would enhance his relationship with Gen. David Petraeus, the former U.S. commander in Iraq and now the head of the U.S. Central Command, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan.

The officials said emissaries of the presidential transition have talked to Gates about very detailed issues like who should be the assistant secretaries, the Pentagon’s structure and his philosophy of how he runs the operation.

I like President Elect Obama more and more ..... (don't worry, it's all relative).

Ed at HotAir and John at PowerLine make two very good points. First Ed.

Keeping Gates is a wise choice, and sends some important signals to the DoD and to our military allies. Rather than expecting wholesale Change, they can expect continuity in important areas, especially strategically in the current war theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politico notes that keeping Gates may help keep David Petraeus happy and on the job — critical to Obama in the first few months of his administration as he gets up to speed on military matters.

Now John.

I think that Obama is similar to Bill Clinton in one important respect. Clinton famously wanted to be President not because there was anything in particular he wanted to do, but because he craved the status of being President. In Clinton's case, this seems to have been due to an insatiable need for approval and affection. Obama, likewise, wants to be President not in order to do anything, but because he believes that for Barack Obama to be President is an end in itself. In Obama's case, this view is due not to a psychological craving, but rather to the historical importance of being the first African-American President.

If I'm right about that, it makes sense for Obama to be reasonably moderate. He makes history simply by being a President with dark skin; what he desperately wants to avoid is for his Presidency to be seen as a disaster or a fiasco. Thus his sudden moderation on foreign policy: Obama is smart enough to understand that it is always possible for things to go wrong, but if the public perceives that an international setback is due to weakness, the President is in trouble. He's Jimmy Carter. If a President is perceived as tough on foreign policy and something goes wrong, voters will say that they're glad we have a hard guy in the White House.

Interesting to watch. Where is Code Pink in all this ..........

Take a Powder - Change Fetish Types

All those people wanting change in DC .... I guess they meant pocket change.

Obama, for example, is enlisting former Senate leader Tom Daschle as his health secretary. Hillary Rodham Clinton seems more likely than ever to be his secretary of state. Clinton is deciding whether to take that post as America's top diplomat, her associates said Wednesday.

And Obama is ready to announce that his attorney general will be Eric Holder, the Justice Department's No. 2 when Clinton's husband was president. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, is another veteran of the Clinton White House.

I must say I am enjoying a lot of "I told you so" schadenfreude with this. This is exactly what everyone should have expected, and there is nothing wrong here. The list will get even longer of inside DC Politocrats.

The one thing that is actually quite sad and worrying is Holder as AG. Plenty of stuff at The Corner about him. Here is a sample.

...Holder and then-Attorney General Janet Reno claimed to have the authority to seize Elian Gonzalez. In retrospect, it seems like a joke made for Mickey Kaus — they declared the boy an illegal alien and then went after him with all the power available to them. And then, when they had Elian in custody, they declared him legal again.
...
...greased the skids to pardon 16 FALN terrorists, two Weather Underground terrorists, and Marc Rich...
...
One of my favorite Eric Holder stories involves his role in the Justice Department's handling of the Elian Gonzalez case. In the period before armed agents seized the child, the Justice Department had been leaking its intention to avoid any sort of armed intervention. It would all be done quietly, they suggested. When top Department officials were asked about it, they said nothing to change that impression. About two weeks before the raid, Tim Russert asked Holder, "You wouldn't send a SWAT team in the dark of night to kidnap the child, in effect?" Holder answered, "No, we don't expect anything like that to happen." Then the Department did precisely that. The day after the seizure, Holder appeared again with Russert, who asked, "Why such a dramatic change in position?" "I'm not sure I'd call it a dramatic change," Holder answered. "We waited 'til five in the morning, just before dawn."

...and yes - I have a pro-Cuba Libre bias for, ahem, my own reasons.

To ponder Holder in more details - read this.

He is convinced justice in America needs to be “established” rather than enforced; he’s excited about hate crimes and enthusiastic about the constitutionally dubious Violence Against Women Act; he’s a supporter of affirmative action and a practitioner of the statistical voodoo that makes it possible to burden police departments with accusations of racial profiling and the states with charges of racially skewed death-penalty enforcement; he’s more likely to be animated by a touchy-feely Reno-esque agenda than traditional enforcement against crimes; he’s in favor of ending the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay and favors income redistribution to address the supposed root causes of crime.

In any other time, Holder would simply be an uninspired choice. But these are not ordinary times — we face a serious, persistent threat from Islamist terrorists. At the same time, Democrats have expressed outrage over both the alleged politicization of the Justice Department and the reckless disregard of its storied traditions. For these times, it is difficult to imagine a worse choice for AG than Eric Holder.

Much has been made, and appropriately so, of Holder’s untoward performance in the final corrupt act of the Clinton administration: the pardons issued in the departing president’s final hours. Of these, most notorious is the case of Marc Rich, an unrepentant fugitive wanted on extensive fraud, racketeering, and trading-with-the-enemy charges — but granted a pardon nonetheless thanks to the intercession of his ex-wife, a generous donor to Clinton’s library and legal-defense fund.

Holder’s role was aptly described as “unconscionable” by a congressional committee. He steered Rich’s allies to retain the influential former White House counsel Jack Quinn (Holder later conceded he hoped Quinn would help him become attorney general in a Gore administration); he helped Quinn directly lobby Clinton, doing an end-run around the standard pardon process (including DOJ’s pardon attorney); and he kept the deliberations hidden from the district U.S. attorney and investigative agencies prosecuting Rich so they couldn’t learn about the pardon application and register their objections.

There’s more. In 1999, over the objections of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and prosecuting attorneys, Holder supported Clinton’s commutation of the sentences of 16 FALN conspirators. These pardons — of terrorists who even Holder has conceded had not expressed any remorse — were issued in the months after al-Qaeda’s 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, when the Clinton administration was pretending to be the scourge of terrorism. The commutations were nakedly political, obviously designed by Clinton to assist his wife’s impending Senate campaign by appealing to New York’s substantial Puerto Rican vote.

Equally noxious were the stealthy pardons of Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans — Weather Underground terrorists associated with Obama’s friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn — issued on the same day as the Rich pardon. Rosenberg and Evans had been serving decades-long sentences for bombings targeting American government facilities. With Holder again helping to circumvent the pardon process and to evade objections from prosecutors, the terrorists’ jail terms were commuted just weeks after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

Under Holder’s stewardship, moreover, the Justice Department chose, in the Dickerson case, to oppose its own prosecutors and seek reversal of the conviction of a bank robber whose voluntary confession had been elicited without Miranda warnings. Taking the Justice Department's signal, the Supreme Court overruled the lower courts and vacated the conviction, upending 30 years of precedent which had held that Miranda was not part of the core Fifth Amendment guarantee. Thanks to this ruling, rendered in the comfort of pre-9/11 complacence, terrorists tried in civilian courts — which is where Obama and Holder want them to be tried — will enjoy a powerful argument against the admission of critical confession evidence.

Remember, it isn't Obama that you need to worry about - it is who he appoints that will make the impact. At least we will have the Senate to balance things out .... oh - nevermind.

Take a Powder – multilateralists

Ahhhh, the glories of change. Doesn’t everyone know that the world doesn’t hate, envy, and despise the USA as a nation – or the USA as an idea – but only George Bush? Why, if it wasn’t for Bushitler – the world would be so much more accommodating to the USA. They would see that we are a force for good in the world. It is only Bush that is stopping the international community from doing more from Darfur to Afghanistan. Once we atone for our collective sins and elect The One – why all that anti-Americanism and lack of support will just drift away like the bad dream that the last eight years have been. You know its true.

Multilateralists; Take a Powder.

There are some things that are put out there in an election that are so ungrounded in reality of the world as it is, that you almost think that they aren’t worth commenting on because they are so cluelessly presented.

Well dear readers, I have failed you. What I failed you on was the statements by Obama supporters and policy makers (some who should have known better) that the reason no one is contributing more troops to Afghanistan all has to do with the Bush Administration and the poisoned relationship they created. In their one-dimensional world – that is what they were putting out there.

Of course, that is just foolish – but I didn’t call them on it. However, other nations policy makers were seeing that trial balloon and are not taking any chances – at least when it comes to putting more troops into AFG. No, before Obama takes office they want to make it very clear that who is in the White House has no impact on their policy.

First, Canada.

President-elect Barack Obama's pledge to boost U.S. military operations in Afghanistan "will not change Canada's position" on a troop pullout in 2011, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Sunday.

Cannon said Canada will start to withdraw soldiers from the war-torn country on schedule, as promised by Prime Minister Stephen Harper during the federal election.

Then Australia.

"Both Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama have said that Afghanistan is the ‘right war’ rather than Iraq, so there’s a lot to work with there," says Garrett.

But with continuing rumblings of discontent -- particularly from the U.S. and Australia -- over perceptions that some of the 41 nations contributing to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to Afghanistan are not accepting their share of the burden, Garrett expects Obama to request more from Australia.

He argues that with the U.S. military "running on empty" -- as well as the public’s likely opposition to an increased involvement in Afghanistan -- and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members Germany, France and the Netherlands not likely to boost troop numbers, a request to Rudd could well be made in 2009.

But in what is a potential sticking-point between the U.S. and Australia -- the largest non-NATO contributor to Afghanistan with around 1,100 troops in the country -- Rudd dismissed, last week, suggestions that Australia’s commitment will grow.

"We have got no plans to increase [troops] in the future," he said.

Then Germany where they loved him so much - RTL Television's survey found,

A majority of Germans are opposed to a greater commitment of the Federal Republic of Germany in Afghanistan...four out of five Germans rejected a relevant request voiced by US president-elect Barack Obama.

...but they marched for him!

Now Britain.

Mr Obama has spoken of his desire to see a surge in troop numbers in Afghanistan, similar to that which appears to have had success against extremists in Iraq, to finally quell the Taliban insurgency.

But Sir Jock said that British troops were already struggling to cope with fighting in the two theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan, and could not take on more demands.

His words were echoed by David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who agreed that other Nato countries should take responsibility for any fresh surge in Afghanistan.

Both men also ruled out sending British troops to the Congo to bolster the United Nations force in central Africa.
...
Sir Jock said that they should not be redeployed to Afghanistan once their mission in Iraq ended, adding: "I am a little nervous when people use the word 'surge' as if this were some sort of panacea.

"We welcome more military force being sent to Afghanistan. Everybody needs to do their share, we are very clear on that.

"In the context of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are shouldering a burden which is more than we are able to shoulder in the long term, so we expect the others to take up their share of that burden."

BTW, you have to admit that only the Brits can get away with having a GOFO with the name "Jock Stirrup."

One of the great ungrounded pie-in-the-sky half-truths of the elections should be seen clear as day for what it was – misty-eyed hope. Hope is not a plan – but it is what people rested their vote on.

With all these penguins already off the ice shelf - expect more to follow, if they haven't already. I have a feeling that hope is going to have a rough few years. At least in national security issues – regardless who is in the White House; America more often than not is The Little Red Hen.

Take a Powder anti-zionists

Hey! We have the first real no kidding episode of "Take a Powder" a lot earlier than I thought. Cool.

So, who needs to Take a Powder today? Folks from the other side of the fence. All those Anti-Semitic, Anti-Zionist, general Jooooo-hating moonbats from LA to Gaza who invested all that time and money in getting President Elect Obama to the top. You didn't think that just because he hung out with Anti-Zionists when it was a way to get money and influence with the "correct" parts of the left, that when he was elected that, how did some of you say, the Rule of Israel would be over?

Suckers. I have a name for 'ya: Rahm Emanuel.

I disagree with this guy on about 95% of things, but I share one thing with him - a core belief in and support for Israel. I also have to grudgingly respect him for being the hard-nosed SOB that he is; his loyalty, his spine, and the fact that he is very good at what he does.

I will give credit where credit is due: President Elect Obama - you picked a good one - though outside Israeli issues, he won't do my side much good.

If you don't quite know what Rahm Emanuel does to the Anti-Zionists out there - spell his name wrong (teh smart Joooooooo-haters) in google - like this and read a little. Joe should feel a little better too - because some of Obama's friends are, shall we say, a bit from the "drive them into the sea" camp. They are wondering what all went wrong ....

2 out of 3 ain't bad

At least we managed to dodge Gore and Kerry.

First of all; be happy! You hold a US passport (most of you) and you live in a nation where the mixed race son a a foreign national with the name Barack Hussein Obama can be elected to the highest office in the land. Ignore the man's politics for a moment - and just know that the election puts a lie to most of the junk the anti-American Left, International Left, and US Navy Diversity Bullies say about this country and race - not that this will stop them. They have self- righteousness and paychecks to feed. Of course, the real fun parts has been watching the Europeans fawn all over Obama knowing full well that they would never elect, say, the mixed race son of an immigrant from Gabon as the President of the Republic...but that is ok. We are us and they are them. Also, we should all bask in the glory that to much of the Muslim world that knows their Sharia - we just elected and apostate to Islam as our President. That should twist the knickers of a few folks out there. In summary; the Republic will survive, do not despair - for the wheel will turn.

Now for the sober bits. Give credit to Sen. Obama and his supporters, they ran a great campaign and did what few thought could be done. Don't sneer with luck and excuses at team Obama - luck is when opportunity meets preparation. They were prepared. I will tip my hat to them. You also have to give credit to the Democrats in Congress. From '06 to '08 the Democrats did an almost perfect rope-a-dope WRT their policy pushes. They showed, with a few leakers, remarkable discipline waiting for the Republican veto to go. They waited for the clear shot - and boy-howdy they have it now. Gird your loins Shipmates; there is a huge backlog built up that will gush forward in '09 as they see nothing but sunshine and the Old Horses try to take advantage of a Democrat President's honeymoon period (and he will have a big one) and his lack of Executive experience to get the "held in strategic reserve" agenda of the House and Senate through - not so much the Obama agenda as it will take some time for form from clay. Now they have to govern - that is the tricky bit.

Now, clear the cheese cloth from our eyes and lets take a sober look at what decision the American voters have made. We now have waiting for us in the new year the most Leftist government this nation has seen arguably in 70 years or 40 years depending on what formula you want to use. You can also argue that the potential exists for this to be the most Left - only time will tell.

In the unlikely event that the gamblers of hope like Christopher Buckley et al works out - Obama may demonstrate the Executive Leadership he has never had to learn fast enough to be pragmatic and try to lead from the Center - but I wouldn't count on that. This is a very unique window of opportunity to make huge changes in this country - changes Obama has always wanted to make - and he only has 2 years to really get it done - really 1 as by 01 JAN 10 all of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate will be looking at re-election and will avoid any far-Left programs that may cost them their seat.

It would be nice if Obama has the background and instincts of the Center-Left William Jefferson Clinton, but he doesn't. He is what he is - the most Leftist Senator, and we should expect his Presidency to mirror the man. He may be pragmatic, but one thing I do know, he will be fed bills by a Leftist Legislature and you cannot vote "Present" as President. He will have to take a stand. By mid-summer, the "I didn't vote for that" will start to come in from the squishy middle.

The danger we face without any Republican ability to check and balance is that a deal will be struck between the Executive and Legislative Branches. Obama signs all the Dem's Bills into law - and in return they will fund his pet projects and approve all his appointments quickly. The taxpayer will be stuck in the middle - but hey - sometimes you make your own luck. Once Obama gets his footing though, that '10 election will be coming around and then things will get interesting - but the next 18 months will be - well, we'll find out.

America, be careful what you wish for - because you most surely have received it.

I think we should also take a moment to give Sen. McCain a nod for his Shakespearian run. Arguably one of the most qualified and deserving people to run for President, he lost to one of the least experienced and deserving men to run for President. He fought a bit too honorably against a foe who had few qualms using the race card, abuse campaign finance laws, and supported voter fraud - all things Obama didn't need to do to win, and takes away a little of the luster from his shine today. No, McCain lost the '08 race to the same person he lost the '00 primary to - George W. Bush. Sure, McCain has a few daggers in his back, the worst being Colin Powell's, but he was brought down mostly by the stones in his backpack.

GWB was the largest stone with an extra lead coating of his Administration's inability to exercise some control over the Republicans when they were in power through the veto. There were also the stone that came with the GWB stone called Bremmer, Brown and Paulson. Shame - as none of those were there because of McCain himself. Rest assured that tonight's results would have been much worse if for one thing - his VP nom. Gov. Palin is the one reason that much of the Republican base that was going to sit out came out of the sidelines. There was no enthusiasm for McCain until he picked Palin. The proof of her power are the enemies she picked up for no reason, and the reaction of some that bordered on misogynistic self-hate. Sure, she ganked an interview or two - but none of that was even close to what Biden did - but that didn't matter, and I have no use for excuses. Watch Palin on the fund raising circuit over the next 2-years. She is a draw, and with another tough Senate fight on the way in '10 (yes, the Republicans have to defend more seats then Democrats) and a chance for at worst a dead-cat bounce in the House - she can make some friends early in the party - and hone her skills.

As for recriminations, as you may have gathered, I am not all that interested in them. I don't want to look back - I want to look forward. Go back to my post from a little over 2 years ago before the '06 election - I think the cleansing is mostly done. It is time to turn - something I will address in a post in a few days - but until then, let me give my friends a warning and a directive.

Warning: Do not fall into the right "Black Helicopter" wing-nut conspiracy hell hole. The Left's version you can find at DemocratUnderground, KosKids, HuffPo and others. Just don't go there - that is a children's game. If you are one of those guys who sends emails about birth certificates - then you may be in a place you don't want to be. You are on the fringes of wing-nut land - come back and educate yourself on real issues and real paths to make an impact. Otherwise, you are dead to me.

Directive: Tune in, turn on, drop in like a Daisy Cutter. The Democrats now have to govern. They will show themselves. You now have your liberty and Constitution to defend. Attack their policies. Attack their proposals. Expose their Rangle like corruption. Through the marketplace of ideas lies the next victory. This is a Center-Right country that has stumbled into electing a very smart Leftist to the Presidency and increased their power in the Legislative Branch. There is nothing evil about President Elect Obama - he is just a Leftist. He and Congress will act like such; don't be shocked. Prepare. They will over-reach, and will over-reach early. Stop it via your elected Representatives if you can - if not, turn it around and use it as a weapon to destroy them in the next election. They will leave weapons all over the place - don't be shy to pick them up and use them.

Cowboy Up! We're in for a rough ride - and a fun one if you want to make it that way. Obama's voters have great, unrealistic expectations based on feelings, hope, desire, and in come cases delusion. When they sober up, some will feel cheated, some lied to , some disappointed. The McCain voters will just sit there and say "I told you so" and hand you a BC Powder.

Hey, "Take a Powder" could be a new recurring post-theme. "I told you so" seems so trite and childish. I like "Take a Powder." Consider it done - I even have a pic. Should be fun. Regular readers, feel free to send in news reports over the next 4-8 yrs of people going "I never voted for that....." or "I thought Obama was going to pay my mortgage and take care of my kids ..." They will be taken in as possible "Take a Powder entries."

In a Representative Republic you lose some and you win some. If allowed to work right, it is a self-cleansing system. Everyone will be ok. Finally, we should all wish President Elect Obama a long and healthy life - because does anyone want Sen. Biden as President?