My Beauty Best Teacher

Anti-semitic. Nationalist. Socialist. Corporatist. Totalitarian. Idolizing and exaltating violence, war, and militarism. Emphasizing spiritual renovation, 'better' education, instilling of a will to dominate, and creating national comradeship through the mandatory national military service.

Egypt today is all of these things. Iran is all of these things. The Gaza Strip and West Bank are these things. Syria is these things. These elements are becoming popular in Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These elements swirl through Iraq and Afghanistan. And these are increasingly coming to define the Middle East region.

This is not new. The above elements that I used to describe what is happening in the Middle East are the same exact elements that form the core of fascism.

Fascism did not die with World War Two; it was a very popular ideology that had believers around the world, even here in the United States, and just because the fascist powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan were defeated did not mean that fascism would disappear as an ideology and political alternative to classical liberalism or honest socialism. It did not go away- rather, it changed its name and its focus and attempted to disassociate itself from the worst fascists that were out there, but it did not go away. For many years, the United States and its allies fought for and openly pushed classical liberal ideals on the world, driving fascism into the shadows where it lurked, corrupting socialist movements and swaying liberal governments to its siren call of a 'third way' between life and liberty and death and tyranny.

Fascism though is once more rearing its ugly head, singing its song that if only the people would unite behind certain ideals- be they a united community of Muslims preaching nationalism and death to Jews in a corporatist economy, or a divided nation rallying behind a demagogue who promises change and hope while creating a union-government-big business partnership, or Germans smarting from a dehumanizing loss in WWI seeking out Volk through a third way economic program based on environmentalism and postmodern values. Fascism is still going strong today, luring people into adopting it, working with it, and even preaching it in their own little ways, all while vehemently rejecting it just because it isn't spoken in German and this isn't 1940 and because their own mind shrinks back in horrified rejection over the accusation that perhaps what they really are advancing is fascist.

This isn't really new ground for me to cover- longtime readers of my blog will remember my other posts on fascism such as Fascism Healthcare, The Third Way: Obama and Fascism, State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism ..., Wikipedia Description of Fascist Sounds Like Someone I Know, or The World According to Obama.

What is new to me is the dawning realization that the Middle East is going fascist, that the people of Israel are in grave danger, and that appeasers hold positions of power around the world and are going to let atrocities, rapes, rocket attacks, land grabs, condemnations, and rebukes occur. And we must fight this new fascism.

For more information about fascism, read Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

UPDATE: It is stunning to me the lack of education demonstrated by the teachers and their allies in Wisconsin. There are so many signs about this whole Wisconsin budget battle thing where they make their opponents out to be fascists and have sign after sign with a mustache drawn on the Governor of Wisconsin to make him into some sort of Hitler. Not only is it uncivil and disgusting, it is shocking illiterate and uneducated about what exactly fascism is. Making it so that public employees (who are hired and fired by the government and who have an entire civil service commission set up to supervise them) can not unionize and collectively bargain is not something that any fascist at any point in history even thought about, unless you view unions to be communist and argue that fascists hated communists? I doubt this is it- no, rather this is just another effort to disguise just exactly what fascism is and water down the word so that when you see real fascism- like the kind I believe you see signs of in the Middle East and elsewhere- you won't recognize it and therefore attack and condemn it.

Walter Russell Mead makes an interesting argument in a recent article- in spite of Obama running as the anti-Bush and in spite of his supporters voting for him because he was supposed to be the anti-Bush, his recent actions show that he is in fact working his hardest now to push for Bush's policies in international affairs:

....President Obama’s speech to State Department employees today was billed as a major address on recasting American foreign policy in the Middle East.

It lived up to its billing. President Obama has deep-sixed the ‘realism’ that marked the first two years of his approach to the Middle East. He has returned to the foreign policy of George W. Bush.

The United States is no longer, the President told us in words he could have borrowed from his predecessor, a status quo power in the Middle East. The realist course of cooperating with oppressive regimes in a quest for international calm is a dead end. It breeds toxic resentment against the United States; it stores up fuel for an inevitable conflagration when the oppressors weaken; it stokes anti-Israel resentment when hatred of Israel becomes the only form of political activism open to ordinary people; it strengthens the hold of extremist religion and strangles the growth of liberal forces.

More, he attacked Iran. All that talk about avoiding polarization with Iran is gone. Instead, President Obama singled out Iran as an oppressive, tyrannical regime supporting terror and running an “illicit nuclear program” as well.

He also followed Bush in attacking some US allies, calling on Bahrain and Yemen to make changes. It was a speech that enraged almost every powerful actor in the Middle East and put America out on a limb. Like Bush, Obama is willing to confront some of America’s closest allies (the Saudis, who back the crackdown in Bahrain). Like Bush, he hailed Iraq as an example of democracy and pluralism that can play a vital role in the transformation of the region. Like Bush, he proposes to work with opposition groups in friendly countries.

His policy on Israel-Palestine is also looking Bushesque. Like Bush, he wants a sovereign but demilitarized Palestinian state. Like Bush, he believes that the 1967 lines with minor and mutually agreed changes should be the basis for the permanent boundaries between the two countries — and like Bush he set Jerusalem and the refugees to one side....

Obama is showing quite a bit of courage in abandoning all of his previous principles, opinions, views, and voting records to continue the previous policies of an administration that he personally attacked many times, and his supporters are very brave in supporting Obama's remarkable change in policies from George W Bush to George W Bush. But in spite of all of this change and togetherness and hope and rainbows, I can't help but feel that if Bush's policies are so good and wise now, what sort of damage did Obama do in fighting them in the Senate during the blink-of-eye that he was actually in government prior to becoming President, and what sort of damage did Obama do to our nation in resisting these policies during the first two years that he was getting his ears dried off while playing at being President?

I guess I'm just nit-picking though- I should be happy that Obama finally is learning that all of his instincts and ideas regarding foreign policy are wrong and that George W Bush was right about a great many things. Obama's greatest foreign policy successes have come by following on Bush's heels- from killing OBL to the surge in Afghanistan- and maybe one of these days he'll begin to follow in Bush's domestic policy heels too and we'll go back to the awful days of 5% unemployment growth and positive GDP growth.

UPDATE: To be serious for a moment, I still can't figure out why the Jewish community voted for Barack Obama so strongly last election. I've always thought that something about how he deals with Jewish people bothers me- he appears at times to be against Jewish people, demanding more evidence from them and less from others, not believing them and believing others, and being cold and vaguely disrespectful towards Israel's leaders while warm and inviting towards the leaders of Israel's enemies. The National Review Online actually did some analysis of his speech, and picked up on a couple of these tendencies of Obama- his tendency to blame the Jews, his tendency to order the Jews to do things, and his tendency to minimize threats to the Jewish people. These are all vaguely disturbing tendencies for the President of the United States to have.

Listening to Sean Hannity show and Ed Schultz show yesterday, I was listening to liberals calling in to talk about the problems facing our nation, and inevitably, most liberals identify the problems facing us today as conspiracies perpetrated by Big Oil, Wall Street, Big Business, etc.

For example, the reason they lose elections is not that they nominated poor candidates- it must be a Republican plot! In fact, it's always a plot. Once you really press a liberal, they always fall back on the fact that the reason why things are not working is that there is some group out there with nefarious ends. It's not the fact that their policies fail, it's always that there is some mysterious group out there trying to screw us over. It's not that their stopping drilling and pushing ethanol down our throats that made gas expensive- it's Big Oil. It's not their easy credit and house for everyone mentality that caused the mortgage racket to collapse- it's Wall Street. It's not their ineffective Middle East peace talks that don't work, it is the Jewish lobby.

To a liberal, there is no cause and effect, there is no reason, there is no logic- there is only some evil mechanisms going on in the background. Listening to liberals call in, some hinted at who might be behind all these bad things... some group of people with connections and money... located in the Middle East and America... these liberals hint about it... someone has to be controlling all these forces... someone... wait a minute... thinking like a liberal now... Jewish people make money, Jewish people got us involved in the Middle East... Jews must be at the root of all problems!

There is something very important happening in Tunisia. On January 14, a spontaneous popular uprising ousted President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali from power and ended his decades of autocratic rule. For the first time, many in this nation have the freedom to speak and the freedom to demand justice for those who have been unjustly killed by Ali's regime. Although the ending to this story is uncertain- exactly how far does this revolution go and what kind of retribution will fall on Ali's party- the story is very much one that is hopeful and to be celebrated by those people who love and support freedom, liberty, and protection of property.

But it isn't being celebrated by many in America. President Barack Obama (Democrat) issued a weak statement praising “the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people”, and then turned around and made a phone call in support of Egypt's autocratic dictator Hosni Mubarak. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (Democrat) commented that the US was not “taking sides” in Tunisia, reinforcing that it is the policy of the (Democratic) administration not to support good in its battle with evil around the world.

It shouldn't come as a surprise though that Obama's (Democratic) administration is not being supportive or even very happy about the overthrow of an autocratic Middle-East dictator. Ali was 'our guy' a neo-liberal who ran a semi-modern nation and seemed to support us in our wars against extremism in the Middle-East, a description that also fits Mubarak and Egypt. Still, although he was 'our guy', his overthrow might lead to a 'better guy', and so the administration should have been able to react quickly and move decisively to support and praise the freedom movement in Tunisia.

But yet, Obama's (Democratic) administration isn't moving fast and quick and reacting to modern-day events in ways that would support the flowering of democracy and freedom and bring more life, liberty, and protection of property to more people of the world. Why?

Obama is stuck in the past- the past of his Harvard college years, the past of his term papers, the past of his Jerimiah Wright church, the past of his own rhetoric- and this uprising in Tunes, much like the uprising last year in Iran, wasn't expected or even smelled by his advisers and they lack the skill and intelligence and competence to change their policies on the fly. So they sit there, letting world events swirl around them, reacting to uprisings in ways that betray their lack of abilities and vision, and for that reason, voters should severely punish Obama and Democrats in Congress who supported him and his stuck-in-the-past policies.

The Middle-East has been opened to a revolution of freedom and liberty by the successful policies of Republicans and Bush, and Obama's administration has had these successes unfold and fall into his lap, where he has done nothing noteworthy to earn the Peace Prize that was awarded to him before his administration took its first steps. We demand more and better from our Presidents and his advisers- not lukewarm statements and bored non-interest, but real action and real policy and real support.

One wonders why Obama and his Democrats in Congress have been so reluctant to speak out against corrupt regimes that build their power by demonizing their enemies, speaking harshly against them, personally attacking them, criminalizing their political activities, transferring citizens wealth to favored constituents, confiscating the wealth of unfavored individuals, having no oversight to its actions, and in other ways acting as a corrupt and autocratic tyrannical regime that attacks the life, liberty, and property rights of its citizens. Perhaps Obama doesn't express his support for revolutions in Tunisia though because he and his cronies identify more with the autocrats and dictators who run them.

UPDATE: So it is now several days later, and Egypt and Yeman have both also broke out in revolutions, demanding an end to autocractic government and more democracy. Obama's response? No clue. As usual, Obama is reacting to events on the international stage rather than driving events, and doing so in a slow manner, demonstrating once again that he is imcompetent- he and his advisors don't know what they are talking about, don't know how to react to situations, don't do their homework, and don't understand what is going on- and that explains why we hear nothing about how the greatest nation in the world reacts to these revolutions around the world.

Although Obama might not view what is happening in the Middle East as all that important- he is going to basketball games and concerts and instead directing attempts to riot in WI- I think it is very important because the Middle East region sits on a very important resource- oil. So for fun, I put together a graph this morning to demonstrate the amount of oil production that is affected by the crisis in the Middle East. The graph shows oil production by country based on the most recent data I found in the CIA World Factbook, and shows each nation currently in crisis or about to be in crisis, and then the gray area represents all other nations not currently affected.

Any change in oil production likely will cause the price of gasoline to go up, and as you can see, a large percentage of the world's oil comes out of this affected region, although if Saudi Arabia stays stable, then the percentages is considerably less although still significant. In my amateur opinion, gas prices are going to rise, the economy will dip again, and Obama will react to this all by supporting our enemies and lowering our oil output. Here is the graph:

These wikileaks may have revealed something important- that foreign policy of the liberals is based on false narratives and extreme naive, whether the liberal be a lame-duck liberal Bush or a lame-democrat liberal Obama. Via Powerlineblog's post Deadly fictions I saw this link to a post by Lee Smith, who analyzed the wikileaks and realized several points:

1. While the Israelis are deeply concerned about Iran's march toward a nuclear program, it is in fact the Arabs who are begging the United States to "take out" Iranian installations through military force, with one United Arab Emirates official even proposing a ground invasion. Calling Iran "evil," King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urged the United States to "cut off the head of the snake" by attacking Iranian nuclear installations.

2. It is not just Israeli leaders who believe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reminiscent of Hitler; U.S. officials think so too, as do Arab leaders, who use the Hitler analogy to warn against the dangers of appeasing Iran.

3. North Korea, an isolated country that enjoys substantial diplomatic and economic backing from China, is supplying Iran with advanced ballistic missile systems that would allow an Iranian nuclear warhead to hit Tel Aviv--or Moscow--with a substantial degree of accuracy. Taken in concert with the North Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria, it would appear that North Korea--acting with the knowledge and perhaps direct encouragement of China--is playing a significant and deliberate role in the proliferation of nuclear equipment and ballistic delivery systems in the Middle East.

4. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not a model Middle Eastern leader who has found the right admixture of religious enthusiasm and democracy, as U.S. government officials often like to suggest in public, but "an exceptionally dangerous" Islamist. U.S. diplomats have concluded that Erdogan's anti-Israel rhetoric is not premised on domestic Turkish electioneering or larger geo-strategic concerns but rather on a personal, visceral hatred of Israel.

5. Tehran has used the cover of the ostensibly independent Iranian Red Crescent--a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, whose pledge of neutrality allows it access to war zones--to smuggle weapons and members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force into Lebanon during the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war, and into Iraq, to fight against U.S. soldiers.

6. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman are more worried about Hamas than about Israel and are staunchly opposed to the expansion of Iranian influence in the region.

7. The Amir of Qatar is a dubious ally, who plays Washington and Tehran off each other. "The Amir closed the meeting by offering that based on 30 years of experience with the Iranians, they will give you 100 words. Trust only one of the 100."

8. America's Arab allies do not believe that the Barack Obama Administration can separate Syria from Iran through any foreseeable combination of carrots and sticks. According to one cable, the UAE's Sheik Mohamed Bin Zayed "showed no confidence that Syria could be separated from the Iranian camp" and quoted him directly as saying "If you want my opinion ... I think not." He advised that Syria would continue hedging on key regional issues (Iran, support for Hezbollah, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process) for the foreseeable future.

What comes through most strongly from the Wikileaks documents...is that U.S. Middle East policy is premised on a web of self-justifying fictions that are flatly contradicted by the assessments of American diplomats and allies in the region. Starting with Bush's second term and continuing through the Obama Administration, Washington has ignored the strong and repeated pleas of its regional allies--from Jerusalem to Riyadh--to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the documents is the extent to which both the Bush and Obama Administrations have concealed Iran's war against the United States and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and the Arab Gulf states, even as those same allies have been candid in their diplomatic exchanges with us. U.S. servicemen and -women are being dispatched to combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan where they are fighting Iranian soldiers and assets in a regional war with the Islamic Republic that our officials dare not discuss, lest they have to do something about it.

Liberal talk radio and liberal bloggers are all pretty much using the same talking point over the last couple days- that Republicans are wrong on Libya. They feel that Republicans should have been against US involvement early and supportive of Obama's involvement of the US in Libya late, and see current Republican criticism of Obama as just opportunist hypocritical games. But, as is usual, they are wrong, and there is a good article on National Review counting all the valid and good reasons for conservatives and Republicans to be critical of Obama's recent actions in Libya.

From Let Us Count the Ways...

1) Timing: If the administration believed this monster should have left, it should have acted when the rebels had the momentum, and not issued threats and demands for Qaddafi to go without commensurate efforts to follow such saber-rattling up. Fairly or not, the administration established a goal that it now seems to be backing away from, as it talks of toning down the operation before it is even a week old. We boasted about storming Vienna, pulled up at its outskirts, froze, and are now bewildered that someone inside actually is fighting back.

2) Approval: To start a third war in the Middle East, the president should have first gone to Congress, especially since he and Vice President Biden have compiled an entire corpus of past speeches, some quite incendiary, equating presidential military intervention without congressional approval with illegality to the point of an impeachable offense (cf. Biden’s warning to Bush over a possible Iran strike). And why boast of U.N. and Arab League approval but not seek the sanction of the U.S. Congress?

3) Consistency: Why is meddling okay in Libya but was not okay in Iran when dissidents there were likewise making headway? Is there any rationale that determines our response to unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, or Libya? It seems we are making it up ad hoc, always in reaction to the perceived pulse of popular demonstrations — always a hit-and-miss, day-late-dollar-short proposition.

4) Aims and Objectives: Fact: We are now and then bombing Libyan ground targets in order to enhance the chances of rebel success in removing or killing Qaddafi. Fiction: We are not offering ground support but only establishing a no-fly zone, and have no desire to force by military means Qaddafi to leave. Questions: Is our aim, then, a reformed Qaddafi? A permanently revolutionary landscape? A partitioned, bisected nation? What is the model? Afghanistan? Mogadishu? The 12-year no-fly-zone in Iraq? A Mubarak-like forced exile? Who are the rebels? Westernized reformers? Muslim Brotherhood types? A mix? Who knows? Who cares?

5) Hypocrisy: This Libyan war is transpiring in a political climate where, for the last ten years, Obama and his supporters have lectured us that it is not only amoral and unwise but illegal for America to attack an oil-producing Muslim country that does not threaten our national security, a sin magnified if committed without congressional approval. It also follows similar demagoguery on Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventative detentions, etc. — measures blasted as near-criminality under Bush but embraced or expanded under Obama. In this regard, the prior rhetoric of an Eric Holder or a Harold Koh bears no resemblance to their present action — a hypocrisy that follows from the president himself.

6) Means and Ends: The monthly federal budget deficit now exceeds the yearly deficit prior to when Bush went into Iraq — at a time when we are engaged in two other Middle East theaters, gas is soaring, inflation is back, and we have borrowed $5 trillion since this administration took office.

7) Leadership: This is a Potemkin coalition, far smaller than the one that fought in either Afghanistan or Iraq, notwithstanding loud proclamations to the contrary. We are not even done with the first week of bombing, and yet no one seems in charge: What body/country/alliance determines targets, issues communiques, or coordinates diplomacy? The U.K. goes after Qaddafi, and we plead “They did it, not us”? Again, fairly or not, the impression is that Obama dressed up preponderant American intervention under a multicultural fig leaf, earning the downsides of both. A loud multilateral effort could be wise diplomacy, but not if it translates into a desire to subordinate American options and profile to European and international players that are not commensurately shouldering the burden — and not if all this is cynically used to advance a welcomed new unexceptional American profile.

When we talk of “European leadership,” we mean the U.K. and France, not Germany, Italy, or most of the EU. When we talk of the “Arab League,” we mean essentially zero military assets. And when we talk of the “U.N.,” we mean zero blue-helmeted troops. So, like it or not, there is a level of understandable cynicism that suspects Obama’s new paradigm of multilateral, international action is simply the same-old, same-old, albeit without the advantages that accrue when America is unapologetic about its leadership role, weathers the criticism, and insists on the options and prerogatives that a superpower must demand in war by virtue of its power and sacrifice.

These are all valid criticisms of Obama's involvement on the US in Libya, and he should be made to answer for them in 2012.

“John! Yaksan! Katie! Ahkmed! Tayler! Latecia! Steve! Muhammad! Violet! Sonwalbie!” 

And now, my friends, as we fly over Stockholm, and we rush on, I shall dream and know that when I am roused from my slumber, that the best dreams are the ones you see when you’re awake

Earlier last week I was critical of Obama's response to Tunisia's revolution, where it appeared that rather than take an active role in events, Obama's administration simply sat on the sidelines and tried to figure out where Tunisia was (I'm kidding- I heard that he had a 40 minute briefing on Tunisia after the revolution broke out- I'm sure he learned about it then). He is dangerously incompetent, especially on important world events that our President is supposed to be the primary actor on in our political system. The revolution in Tunisia though was just the start of something bigger, something that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 has taught us will have repercussions lasting decades, and that is the revolution that is taking place right now in Egypt.

For the past couple days I have been trying to get a handle on events there, much like our President, and like usual, my reactions have mirrored Obama's. First I first supported the young revolutionaries against the bad dictator, while Obama supported the bad dictator. But now I support the bad dictator over the evil militant terrorist groups who want to take power in Egypt, while Obama now supports the evil militant terrorist groups (he supports them by not saying anything bad about them while saying bad stuff about Mubarak- that's an upgrade over his usual 'voting present' by showing support for the bad guys). Obama is dangerously incompetent again and once again, anyone who voted for him or his party made our nation and world a worse place by doing so.

The best article that I have found to help me get a handle on what is going on in Egypt appeared today in the Jerusalum Post by Caroline Glick called Our World: Clueless in Washington. I am going to pass on some of the better parts of it to you to help you too understand a little bit better what is going on in Egypt...

The Egyptian multitudes on the streets of Cairo are a stunning sight. With their banners calling for freedom and an end to the reign of President Hosni Mubarak the story these images tell is a simple one as old as time.


On the one hand we have the young, dispossessed and weak protesters. And on the other we have the old, corrupt and tyrannical Mubarak. Hans Christian Andersen taught us who to support when we were wee tots.

But does his wisdom apply in this case?

Certainly it is true that the regime is populated by old men. Mubarak is 82 years old. It is also true that his regime is corrupt and tyrannical. Since the Muslim Brotherhood spinoff Islamic Jihad terror group murdered Mubarak’s predecessor president Anwar Sadat in 1981, Egypt has been governed by emergency laws that ban democratic freedoms. Mubarak has consistently rejected US pressure to ease regime repression and enact liberal reforms in governance.

This reality has led many American commentators across the political spectrum to side enthusiastically with the rioters. A prestigious working group on Egypt formed in recent months by Middle East experts from Left and Right issued a statement over the weekend calling for the Obama administration to dump Mubarak and withdraw its support for the Egyptian regime. It recommended further that the administration force Mubarak to abdicate and his regime to fall by suspending all economic and military assistance to Egypt for the duration.

The blue ribbon panel’s recommendations were applauded by its members’ many friends across the political spectrum. For instance, the conservative Weekly Standard’s editor William Kristol praised the panel on Sunday and wrote, “It’s time for the US government to take an active role… to bring about a South Korea/Philippines/Chile-like transition in Egypt, from an American-supported dictatorship to an American-supported and popularly legitimate liberal democracy.”

The problem with this recommendation is that it is based entirely on the nature of Mubarak’s regime. If the regime was the biggest problem, then certainly removing US support for it would make sense. However, the character of the protesters is not liberal.

Indeed, their character is a bigger problem than the character of the regime they seek to overthrow.

According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

WHAT ALL of this makes clear is that if the regime falls, the successor regime will not be a liberal democracy. Mubarak’s military authoritarianism will be replaced by Islamic totalitarianism. The US’s greatest Arab ally will become its greatest enemy. Israel’s peace partner will again become its gravest foe.

What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.

The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy? And why are conservative commentators and Republican politicians urging them to be even more outspoken in their support for the rioters in the streets?

Does the US not understand what will happen in the region as a result of its actions? Does the US really fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood either forms the next regime or is the power behind the throne of the next regime in Cairo?...

...As Prof. Barry Rubin wrote this week, “There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama administration may be adopting something close to the worst option.”
 
Unfortunately, given the cluelessness of the US foreign policy debate, this situation is only likely to grow worse.

Two more years remain in President Obama's term of office. Hopefully voters in America will wake up and realize how dangerously incompetent his administration has been and how destructive the impulse to take a flier on this unknown was.

Gasoline prices are climbing higher and higher, and it's not even summer yet, when gasoline prices traditionally go real high. These high prices cut into discretionary spending in families, and also put increasing inflationary pressure businesses who need to pay more for fuel costs and transportation, and they then pass these higher costs on to consumers as higher prices, further cutting into discretionary spending. High gasoline prices are a threat to our prosperity and will increasingly work to lower economic growth, cause unemployment, and lower real incomes of the lower and middle class who are most affected by rises in gasoline prices.

There are likely many reasons for the rise in gasoline prices, but at the heart of the matter is that there is increasingly demand for the product and yet the supply of the product is not increasing. There is no documented evidence of evil rich millionaires hoarding billions of gallons of gasoline in black-painted tankers that float in the middle of Hades, and there is considerable evidence that the Middle East is growing more unstable, partly due to Obama's policies of throwing allies under the bus and yet supporting enemies to stability and international commerce.

Last week the House of Representatives and the Senate both debated and passed legislation to do something about the rising price of gasoline in our nation. Let's look at what each chamber did:

In the House of Representatives, Republicans shoved through a bill that would force the Interior Department (controlled by Democratic President Barack Obama) to act within 60 days on all applications for offshore drilling permits. You see, under Obama, offshore drilling permits are not being acted on, naturally leading to less discoveries of supplies of oil and natural speculation that oil prices will go higher because of this. Democrats worked to oppose this measure, believing that exploring for and discovering and selling more oil will not provide income, jobs, or cheaper gasoline for the poor citizens of our nation.

For those interested, in Michigan, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (GOP) voted in favor of lowering gasoline prices and provide jobs and income for our citizens, and Congressman Gary Peters voted against the bill, since he owes green industries a lot for their campaign support over the last several years.

The House then turned to a second Republican-sponsored bill that would open much of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic shorelines to new oil and gas exploration- again, working to for real expand the supply of oil, which would lead to a real decrease in the cost of gas. Democrats are expected to oppose this measure as well.

In contrast, the Democrats in the Senate are working to demonize oil companies that are doing well because they are doing well, believing that success in producing a product demands punishment. Specifically, they want to cut off taxpayer subsidies to any firm they don't like, and continue to use the money that they suck off of profitable firms to subsidize unprofitable and inefficient 'green' companies, who kick back massive amounts of campaign funding to Democrats as a thank you for this obvious corruption.

These higher taxes will either be passed on to consumers as higher gasoline prices, or if is not passed on to consumers it will work to reduce the profitability of these firms so that they have less money to invest in improving efficiency and greening their operations, less money to look for new supplies of oil and gas, and less money to pay their employees. Investors will be paid lower dividends, leading to those people on fixed incomes from investments to suffer, and these important stocks will be sold off, leading to a fall in the stock market.

No good will come of the actions of the Democrats in the Senate; instead, many bad things will occur. Supporting this sort of legislation is Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, who believes that demonizing and attacking private profitable companies and increasing taxes on them will somehow lower the cost of the product that they produce.

It could not be clearer- the policies of the Democrats in the Senate are making our nation less, and the policies of the Republicans in the House are making our nation more, and more is almost better than less.

The following are my impressions from Democrat Barack Obama's 2011 State of the Union (SOTU) address. As a social studies teacher, perhaps I will have some comment or analysis that you might think is interesting...

• Before the President even speaks, I was flipping around the various channels listening to their comments, and what I heard over and over is that this speech will continue Obama's attempt to portray himself as a moderate, or that this would speech would help make it look like he was moving more to the center, or that this speech would help him to court independents... he's been in office for 2 years and is still in campaign mode trying to fake people out and disguise who he really is. I can't believe that voters might fall for it- he is who he has always been, a committed leftist liberal Democrat who believes in government control over our lives, less individual freedom and liberty to you, and abortion on demand to correct for the mistakes of humanity.
• His first several minutes were pretty good- hopeful, uplifting, and commenting on how great America was and how we were a tough, innovative country. Then he started lecturing me about how he knows better than me about how to innovate and about how I'm so weak so I need a bunch of help- that was less good.
• About 15 minutes in, and most of this has been some pretty general language about why education is important and why it is important to be smart. I guess this was all to set up that RTTT was a good law (which I disagree with, see earlier post). That's a pretty weak lead-off.
• Around 20 minutes in, I guess in the spirit of 'bipartianship', he re-proposes amnesty to illegal immigrants and pushing for the DREAM Act, which just was shot down by both parties in Congress.
• About 25 minutes in, Obama time-travels back to his childhood in Indonesia, when a nation's prosperity was based on the amount of railroads and roads that the nation had. He suggested that this will be done by having the government coerce private investment and then form a Big Government-Big Business-Big Labor partnership to force us to travel on railroads. I'm not a big fan of fascist proposals from the 1930's myself.
• About 30 minutes in, he begins to lecture Republicans on cutting deficits that he says started "a little over a decade ago" (the election of Bush in 2000?) and lectures the GOP on reforming massive entitlement programs that he has vastly expanded and enlarged and added to over the past 2 years. Is this some sort of Cloven-Piven strategy- wreck everything beyond repair and then talk a good game about unwrecking things? Will voters buy this sort of garbage?
• About 40 minutes in, Obama brags about a series of successful foreign policy initiatives that were begun under Republican President George Bush and that Obama bitterly opposed and fought against. He then talks about his foreign policy ideas that haven't quite worked out yet (but that is not to say that they won't eventually).
• About 45 minutes in, Obama gave a good statement of support for Tunisia. Perhaps he read my blog post criticizing him of being too weak on this issue? Although I wouldn't read too much into this statement- he said something last week of a similar nature and then turned around and called another Middle East dictator and said he really didn't mean it, so we'll see.
• He had a lot of good lines and well-written stuff in there- I really liked the criticism he had for central governments and the defense for our democratic process- that was nice and really jumped out as new and different. I think someone other than him wrote the beginning and end of his speech, but the middle was all his usual liberal hope-and-change nonsense.
• I really liked the fact that there was not a lot of applause and few delays. He delivered a good summary of what he saw as the 'state of our union', which is still strong, with a few problems he needs addressed. Overall, I generally liked it.
• Listening to the commentary, a couple things I heard- 1) Obama still picked enemies- oil companies, Wall Street, the rich, etc; 2) Obama really didn't feel like focusing on foreign policy, showing that he is still mainly a 'Legislator-in-Chief'; 3) Obama spoke about a lot of new 'investments', but there is no money for that; 4) Obama seemed to be going 'small-ball'- talking about 'big things' but really proposing only small little tweaks and nothing big, and this likely indicates that he is just going to play defensive from now until the election, simply sitting in the weeds and criticizing any solutions to the problems that he created, rejecting proposals to deal with any of the long-term issues in favor of winning short term political points. Just imagine if this guy gets a second-term and how unrestrained he will be.
• Republican response thoughts: Ryan delivered one of the best 'reponses' that I have seen. He approached it from the perspective of a calm parent who was non-partisan, and dissected and destroyed Obama's policy responses over the past two years the the challenges that he confronted, from discussing Obama's failed stimulus plan, failed Obamacare, and failed regulations. He was a sound and reasonable voice in response to the empty hope-and-change of Obama. He quoted the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and translated it to the times of today- so sweet! He delivered a fantastic speech that spoke to what makes our nation great- our freedom and liberty and capitalism and businesses and property protection and limited government and free enterprise- that compares favorably to Obama's speech which was about all the things that government can do (poorly). Congressman Paul Ryan for President!
• Comments from the media about Ryan's response were that he didn't deliver any specifics (neither did Obama), that he didn't show leadership (neither did Obama), and that he wasn't serious enough (neither was Obama).

UPDATE: Comments from Sean Hannity's panel- "I feel like I was taking crazy pills while watching that," "he wants to cut spending and proposed more spending on investments and freezing spending on other items- that isn't 'cutting spending'," "let's look at the facts," and "he's doing his best" (this is a key phrase- his best isn't good enough to be President).

UPDATE II: Saw former Speaker-of-the-House Congresswomen Democrat Nancy Pelosi give her thoughts, and she just said that Obama has created more jobs in our nation in his two years than George W. Bush did his entire eight years as President. She just said that. Really. I think she believes it too. If this is true, give me Bush's unjob creation and unemployment of 4% instead of Obama's job creation and unemployment of 10%- at least under Bush jobs weren't created but we all had them, rather than Obama who creates jobs that no one has (it makes no sense Pelosi- I just ingested crazy pills listening to her).

Pelosi followed this with some Kennedy quote about how it isn't about GOP and Democrat and how it is about rising above differences, but those darn GOPers need to be crushed first and only Democratic policies should be passed (crazy pills).

There was something buried way down in the news, under Libya going up in flames, the Middle East collapsing, oil exploding in price, budget battles in DC, a looming Democratic-government shutdown, rioting and protesting in Wisconsin, pirates shooting American citizens off Somalia, and the economic forecasts being seriously downgraded. You probably missed it, and that's probably exactly what Democratic President Obama wanted you do to, because if you found out that he had just abandoned another important campaign promise and decided to let special interest groups legalize gay marriage at the federal level, you and many other moderate voters might be a little upset.

Via The Fix, I read Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that the Justice Department would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. The DOMA, for those of you who don't know, is an act of legislation that was passed in 1996 by the Republican Congress with considerable support from the Democrats and then signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. It is an important act which candidate Obama said he would defend, but now President Obama is no longer going to. Although he himself is married to one woman and his wife would likely get pretty mad if he re-defined marriage to allow him to marry other men and women or animals or whatever, he is abandoning his stated principles and has decided to no longer fight in court for his views and beliefs.

In a practical sense, it means that lawsuits will soon go forward, unchecked by the executive of our nation who is supposed to execute and defend the laws of our nation, that will work to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA in courts that are favorable to liberal views.

In my humble opinion, Section 2 of the Act is clearly constitutional- it excludes same-sex marriages from the Full Faith and Credit Clause in language that quotes from the Constitution itself, which is important because otherwise one liberal state could have a single judge make it legal and thereby make it legal over our entire nation, while Section 3 is also constitutional, in that it defines the word marriage to mean a legal union between one man and one woman, which is the accepted definition of marriage since the beginning of time. In my opinion, there isn't a whole lot that lawsuits could attack, unless they feel that the language in the Constitution itself is 'unconstitutional' (only a matter of time until liberal judges start arguing that) or that the word marriage doesn't mean the union of one man and one woman and perhaps means anything at all (one rock and one man, three women and one man, one man and one man, three man and three dogs, a million men and a million women, etc).

Obama's stance on this issue is one more indication that when you put someone in the White House who believes in everything, you put someone in the White House who believes in nothing. He is an empty suit of a man, weak and unsure of his own beliefs and unwilling to defend or fight for that which he believes is right. America deserved to be punished for the mistake of electing him, it's just too bad that my kids and grandkids are also being punished too for voters stupidity in electing him President.

Jonathan Elendu's Elendu Reports and Sowore Omoleye's Sahara Reporters are a pointer to the promise of bottom-up methods. More familiar but maverick instruments like Al-Jazeera have been positively disruptive to the social-political fabric of the Middle East and beyond,however their establishment and operational costs have been prohibitive and a barrier to scrappy potential new entrants. Elendu Reports demonstrates the potential of diligent no holds barred investigative reporting for the continent of Africa enabled by the tools of web 1.0 and 2.0 . Recent reports of corrupt goverment officials with the accompanying images of their ill-gotten luxury properties in Western cities is threshold breaking,the denials and obfuscations of the past by the officials is now indefensible the brigandage seemingly more brazen . The effect of this is undeniable, it brings the third dimension of texture to accusations of corruption, in the flesh so to speak, the world can now see what happens to the revenue and resources of some of the most impoverished countries in the world, while the leaders don the caps of debt-relief and aid. This medium yet to include podcasting (sound) and vodcasting (video),are the developing worlds alternatives to '60 Minutes' etc. The erosion of the digital divide and its interactive enabling nature could have an accelerated cleansing effect on the hitherto incorrigibles that rule the roost, accountability and transparency sought so long in Africa's leadership might now be within its grasp.

My friend who lived over in Germany told me once that an interesting feature of a political system that preaches equality is the marked inequality that exists. The countries that push the most for their citizens to be equal have leaders who live unequal lifestyles, whether it was in East Germany or the Soviet Union in the past, or Venezuela or Cuba today. Similarly, the politicians today that push the most for equality appear to be living it up on the people's dime (Obama throwing lavish parties and remodeling limo's), or using the people's dime to implement policies that support the elite in our country. As surprising as it is to some, conservatives and Republicans and the policies they promote lead to more equality than liberals and Democrats. As an example of this, I found a really good post over at Jack McHugh's Blog:

My colleague noticed an announcement on the website of the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic growth about a state government “Vibrant Small Cities Initiative” program to hand out some $6 million in federal money to subsidize “façade improvements” on downtown buildings.

She was pondering the distinction between “vibrant cities” and the “cool cities” that Gov. Granholm has touted as another government central-planners’ vision of how to revitalize Michigan. I suspect there’s no difference, that both are buzz-words describing an particular elite class’s vision of an ideal setting that in many cases they themselves do not choose.

Here’s my attempt to define the contents of that vision. (Granholm wants to give taxpayer money to support places) with high-density population that are inhabited by: older, upper-middle class singles or empty-nesters, college students who are the offspring of upper-middle class families, or unmarried or childless college grads in their 20s or early 30s from the same upper-middle class background.

(Granholm does not want to support) suburban or urban neighborhoods inhabited by: families with children (or any income level), individuals or families who prefer the privacy and space of single family homes, or working people with limited incomes and leisure time, or the poor who can't afford to live in the cities.

For all the blather about “diversity,” the inhabitants of this ideal world of Democrats and liberals is a narrow class-driven vision of elites.

The Ft reports:

Gulf-based private and public equity fund managers have this year shifted some of their vast wealth from Asia and the Middle East/North Africa region to the world’s poorest region: sub-Saharan Africa. These portfolio flows to a half-dozen countries have been accompanied by direct investment in property and other sectors...The Gulf push into the sub-Sahara reinforces pioneer efforts, notably by Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal whose Kingdom Holdings created a $125m joint venture in 2004 with New York-based Zephyr Investment for African private equity. Its best-known success was a $20m stake in the pan-regional mobile provider Celtel, which was later acquired at a hefty premium by Kuwait owners. The prince has joined HSBC in a separate dedicated vehicle.
As petrodollars head towards these locations, western wealth advisers who have shunned them may re-examine their assumptions and consider participation a viable emerging market option.

TED Global Fellow and author of "Beasts of No Nation" Uzodinma Iweala writes:

It seems that these days, wracked by guilt at the humanitarian crisis it has created in the Middle East, the West has turned to Africa for redemption. Idealistic college students, celebrities such as Bob Geldof and politicians such as Tony Blair have all made bringing light to the dark continent their mission. They fly in for internships and fact-finding missions or to pick out children to adopt in much the same way my friends and I in New York take the subway to the pound to adopt stray dogs...This is the West's new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back.

photo courtesy of cody's books

Often overlooked on this blog and others is foreign policy. Those who follow the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan usually only do so as a reflection on US domestic policy. Events in North Korea or Georgia serve only to give citizens of the United States a chance to test responses by political actors. Few really truly appreciate that importance of foreign policy, but it was foreign affairs that dragged our nation into the War on Terror, the Cold War, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc. It was foreign policy that led to crisis in the Balkans, Rwanda, Somalia, etc. It was foreign policy that opened up markets to our products.

Walter Russell Mead never losses sight of foreign policy and its importance and today put together an excellent article that surveys the major challenges facing the world. Here are some highlights from his article Things Fall Apart, via The American Interest:

...There are times when the ideas of the world’s rulers and the institutions through which they govern are adequate to the needs of the era, and there are times–like the present–when they are not. It is not just the Obama administration that seems mentally and even culturally unprepared to understand much less to guide the events now sweeping through the world. In Brussels, Beijing, Moscow, Tokyo and Delhi — to say nothing of Washington – leaders seem equally clueless, equally committed to outmoded, inaccurate approaches to the issues of our time...

Europe

...The European Union is perhaps the most feckless of the world’s power centers. Its currency is built on a foundation of hopeful assumptions that haven’t panned out: for example that countries as disparate in culture and situation as Greece, Germany, Finland, Ireland and Italy can all live happily under a common currency. There has been no shortage of warning signs for the last decade: there was no secret about the housing bubbles in Ireland and Spain. The falsity of Greek statistics was well known, as were the imprudent habits of its governments and the dysfunctional nature of its economic culture....

...Meanwhile, Europe continues its relentless failure to manage urgent challenges at home and abroad. The Europeans are unwilling (and in some cases, unable) to make the investments that would keep NATO strong; the continuing refusal to take Turkey’s application for EU membership seriously further and decisively marginalizes Europe in the Middle East. Wishful thinking cannot substitute for policy when it comes to the question of immigration, and Europe’s deepening demographic crisis ensures not only a future of population decline but of economic decline and welfare state bankruptcy as well...

China

...Europe is not the only place where leaders don’t measure up to the problems. Although China is not as democratically governed as Europe, on the whole the technocrats of Beijing have handled the last twenty years better than the bureaucrats of the EU. Nevertheless Beijing is confronting a confluence of economic, environmental and social challenges that pose problems which even China’s leadership is unlikely to overcome. Arguments about China’s currency undervaluation, while real, miss the main point: Whether China revalues the renminbi or not, its model of rapid growth based on manufactured exports is reaching fundamental limits... Rising raw material prices combined with consumer fatigue in the malls is squeezing the profitability of Chinese industry just as workers are demanding higher wages. Meanwhile, food price inflation in China is triggering mass anxiety and the financial system appears vulnerable to the kind of bubbles that have wreaked such havoc in the West....

China’s problems go beyond economics. Chinese public opinion, smarting from what it sees as two centuries of humiliation, and now elated by (overblown) press reports of China’s rise, wants its government to follow a more assertive and even aggressive foreign policy. Disputes with Japan, Korea and Vietnam over offshore islands stir deep currents of emotion, and public opinion judges the Chinese government by its ability to prevail in these disputes.

...Looming environmental disasters threaten China’s future, with issues of water, air quality and the usual environmental devastation that accompanies communist governance on a massive scale already taking a toll. The consequences of the one-child policy threaten a demographic disaster as an aging Chinese population will place a growing burden on a society not yet affluent enough to support it...

Russia

Emerging from the sordid shadows of the Soviet Union, Russia faced four great challenges. It needed to come to terms with the horrors and failures of the past, recognizing the enormous evil that Russia both suffered and inflicted during the Soviet period... It has failed, and Russian life and culture remain poisoned by the residue of unrepented horrors and uncomprehended crimes.

...Second, Russia needed to build a modern and competent state that in turn could provide the framework for a new economy and a new society... but with every passing year the critical failure of the Putin presidency to build the stable institutions and solidify the rule of law that a genuinely strong Russian state would require becomes more clear — and more costly....

...The third task, of building the kind of capitalist economy that could provide its citizens with dignity and affluence, has also been left undone. There is no one who thinks that the rule of law is secure in Russia, or that investors (foreign or domestic) have any real security for their investments....

...The fourth task, of finding a suitable world role for a new Russia, has also been decisively botched. Russia has no real friends anywhere in the world; there are those it can bully and those (a much greater number) that it can’t...

Mead also touches on Japan ("a pale shadow of its former self"), India (scandals, poverty, political chaos), Israel, Turkey, etc. His conclusion is one that I also echo:

I hope and pray that the generations of today will not know the sick despair of September 1939; if we are to avoid that kind of fate under even uglier circumstances, we need to start demanding more of our leaders — and of ourselves.

For those interested, check out some books by Walter Russell Mead such as Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World, God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World (Vintage), or Walter Russell Mead.