THINK TANK: NEOCONS’ INFLUENCE REMAINS STRONG UNDER OBAMA

By Allen McDuffee

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010 -- 9:36 am

For those who thought the end of the Bush Administration spelled doomsday for the neoconservative movement, think again.

According to a May report (pdf) from the Brookings Institution, a Washington, DC think tank, neoconservatives associated with prominent figures like former Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and pundit Richard Perle are still broadly active, despite policy failures associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Brookings Institution senior fellow Justin Vaisse, author ofNeoconservatism: A Biography of a Movement, argues that because neocons never had the degree of influence that opponents credited them with, and also because of a general unawareness of their history, observers don’t fully understand the trajectory of the neoconservative movement that began long before the Iraq invasion and one continues today.

“Neoconservatism remains, to this day, a distinct and very significant voice of the Washington establishment,” Vaisse insists. In May he published the report Why Neoconservativism Still Matters.

Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School and co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, says that the most obvious place the neocons are still influential is in U.S. policy toward Iran, where the Obama administration is “continuing the Bush administration’s basic approach, albeit with a ‘kinder, gentler’ face.”

Walt’s assessment squares with a number of recent op-eds in the pages of the Wall Street Journalby Richard Perle, Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith and Danielle Pletka, the latter of whom also testified on Iran before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs earlier this month.

Walt calls attention to two major reports produced by the Bipartisan Policy Center on Iran, where neoconservative Michael Makovsky was staff director for the studies and Dennis Ross -- whose role “in the administration remains something of a mystery," according to Walt -- was directly involved. The studies, Walt says, “are quite hawkish” and promote the use of force against Iran if diplomacy doesn’t work. Walt also points out that Ross has argued that diplomacy is necessary in part to win international support for military action later.

Following the neocon lead, says Walt, the Obama administration’s insistence “that Iran give up its enrichment capability is simply a non-starter, and keeps us on the same road as Bush’s policy did."

Benjamin Balint, a fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine that Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right, says that even despite their overly rosy predictions surrounding Iraq, neoconservatives have remained steadfast.

They've offered “not a heart-searching mea culpa, not a re-examination of first principles, but very nearly the opposite,” Balint says.

In part, Brooking's Vaisse suggests, the continued influence of the neocons has to do with the organizing principles of the movement and the persistent concerns of U.S. foreign policymakers even under the Obama administration.

Among issues of importance during the Bush administration that have not subsided in the Obama years include: the role the U.S. plays in the world; the U.S. as the sole superpower; a tendency toward unilateralism (whether intentional or by default); the question of militarism; and the exportation of democracy. These issues provide an opening for neocons to assert their leverage.

The three generations of currently-operating neoconservatives show “their substantial presence and political dynamism in Washington,” making it “difficult to imagine that they will not play a significant role in the future of American foreign policy,” according to Vaisse.

Numerous prominent neocons still active

The report indicates that there is still an active and influential older generation of neoconservatives, such as Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey. The middle generation includes The Weekly Standard publisher Bill Kristol, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholar Robert Kagan, New York Times columnist David Brooks and AEI scholars Danielle Pletka, and Tom Donnelly. Former AEI scholar David Frum is also counted among their ranks.

Vaisse says that there is also a younger group in their 40s, 30s and 20s “whose formative experience is not the Cold War, but the 1990s and, more to the point, 9/11 and the Bush administration’s response.” They include Max Boot, Dan Senor, Jamie Fly, Rachel Hoff, Abe Greenwald and Daniel Halper.

“In this sense, neoconservatism is regenerating itself and keeping a balanced age pyramid,” writes Vaisse. “After all, its idealistic, moralistic and patriotic appeal may be better suited to attract young thinkers than the prudent and reasonable calculations of realism.”

But Vaisse argues that it’s not just the individuals who make the neoconservative movement. Just as important -- perhaps more so -- are the “institutions that support them and the publications that relay their views and shape the public debate,” and Vaisse offers the assessment that in this respect, “neoconservatives are well positioned.”

Citing the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, Project for a New American Century,Commentary, and The Weekly Standard, Vaisse writes “These younger neoconservatives have generally received their first internships and jobs, and published their first articles in the old network of friendly think tanks and publications built by the older generation of neoconservatives.”

One of the more recent and robust institutions, according to the report, is the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), created in the spring of 2009. Operating under the direction of Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and Dan Senor, FPI is “animated by young operatives” and according to Vaisse “is already making its mark on the Afghanistan and human rights debates, notably by sending public letters signed by neocons and non-neocons alike,” a technique that is a hallmark of neocon action.

Financial support for these institutions, which comes from various conservative donors and foundations, such as the Scaife family, Bradley, Earhart, Castle Rock, and Smith Richardson foundations, “shows no sign of abating,” according to Vaisse.

Sustained financial, institutional and publication support has provided the platform necessary for neoconservatives to have influence long after they were broadly thought to have been run out of the White House.

The report refers to the 2007 Iraq troop surge as a specific, significant, recent development where neocons have had tremendous influence. It was partly devised by Fred Kagan, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who is also an influential voice on the current counterinsurgency debates. He was, for example, part of the team of civilian experts who advised General McChrystal on his Afghanistan review in July 2009.

Perhaps more important than the institutions and financial support is the modus operandi of the neoconservatives, according to Janine Wedel, professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University and author of Shadow Elite. In particular, a small subset of neocons, a “neocon core,” has been working together for more than 30 years “to remake American foreign policy according to their own vision.”

According to Wedel, this is done through the neocons' creation of alternative versions of official information and their ability to market those accounts as the more credible ones to audiences in the media, government and other political circles.

The neocons are able to achieve their goals, according to Wedel, “by undermining the rules and standard processes of the government they supposedly serve and supplanting them with their own, all the while making public decisions backed by the power and resources of the state.” Because their undermining of these processes often goes undetected, it is likely many remain in place under the Obama administration.

While the report points out that Obama’s foreign policy team is composed of liberals and realists “whose positions are far from the neocons,” Vaisse also recognizes that “opposition is not total.” On occasion, neoconservatives coordinate with liberal groups on human rights issues, or engage in conversations with senior administration officials, but they “lined up behind the administration” on the war effort in Afghanistan -- this time against the liberal left and some realists in both parties, according to the report.

Earlier this month, when Egypt announced it was renewing its long-standing emergency law, which has been used as the basis for many of its human rights violations, a letter was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by the Carnegie Endowment’s Working Group on Egypt. This group was composed of think tank scholars of various colors but was heavily populated with neoconservatives like Elliott Abrams, Robert Kagan and Ellen Bork. The letter called on Clinton to use U.S. leverage as Egypt’s major donor to “encourage them along a path toward reform.” The same day, the State Department released a statement from Secretary Clinton echoing the letter's sentiments.

Vaisse also points out that just as important as the neocons' persistence and coordination with non-neocons is the fact that American foreign policy is cyclical and that frustration with the Obama administration’s “realist and pragmatic” approach will “inevitably create a more congenial environment for the neocons.”

Allen McDuffee is a New York-based journalist and has recently launched a blog called Think Tanked.

MORE AUSTRALIAN'S KILLED IN FUTILE AFGHANI INVASION THAT IS REMINISCENT OF FAILED VIETNAM INVASION

Two Australian soldiers killed by bomb on first tour of Afghanistan
June 8, 2010 - 12:05PM
By Tetractys Merkaba in red, & AFP, AAP and Paul Tatnell in black.

Two Australian soldiers and a sniffer dog have been killed by a roadside bomb during their first tour of duty in Afghanistan.

The Diggers -A nice propagandistic label, that is untrue, because, as previously discussed, the digger appellation, was originally applied to the A.N.Z.A.C's of WW1 who engaged in the failed invasion of Gallipoli. This label is designed to steer your mind into thinking that these invaders are cut from the same cloth as the original diggers- belonged to the Mentoring Task Force and are the first Australians to die in 11 months, bringing the total number of deaths in the campaign to 13.

Acting Defence Force chief David Hurley said the troops were based in Brisbane with the 2nd combat engineer regiment.

They were killed by a roadside bomb explosion in the Mirabad Valley on Monday morning Afghanistan time.

One soldier was killed instantly. The second was given emergency first aid by his fellow soldiers and taken to a nearby hospital but later died.

Lieutenant-General Hurley said the two soldiers, who were part of a foot patrol, were evacuated to the Tarin Kowt base by helicopter following the explosion.

"It was about 10 minutes out to the site and back.

"It was 38 minutes from wheels off, from the incident being announced, to the two soldiers returning to the base."

Lieutenant-General Hurley said Monday had been "a hard day in theatre".

"There's a lot of troops in action and a lot going on.

"This has just been a difficult day for us."

He said military investigators were already looking into the deaths.

"We have sent in our weapons intelligence team to conduct a technical inspection," he said.

Asked if the NATO-led coalition was winning the almost decade long war, he said: "Bodies aren't going to tell whether you win or lose this war.

"Some good things are happening and we're heading in the right direction."

Lieutenant-General Hurley said it was the first time since the Vietnam war that two Australian soldiers had died in combat on the same day.

10 NATO soldiers killed

In total 10 NATO soldiers were killed on Monday.

Lieutenant-General Hurley said there were no other Australian or Afghan casualties.

"However, an explosive detection dog also died in the incident," he said.

An investigation will be held to determine the "exact details of the incident".

"I speak for the entire ADF [Australian Defence Force] and Defence community when I tell you I am deeply saddened by the loss of these two brave Australian soldiers," Lieutenant-General Hurley said.

Houston devastated

Defence force chief Angus Houston in a statement read out by his deputy said he was devastated to hear about the deaths.

"Foremost in my thoughts at this time are the families of these two soldiers ... who today are suffering overwhelming shock and anguish." It was a pity that these soldiers and there families were not foremost in Houston's mind before they were killed in a futile, dangerous and unsuccessful invasion.

It was too early for words to provide comfort to the families of the men, but Air Chief Marshal Houston said he wanted them to know both were outstanding Australians. I say they have paid too high a price for their ignorance, that their leaders in the chain of command failed them by allowing them to participate in a pointless & failing invasion.

"Quietly serving our nation and demonstrating every day the very best of what Aussies pride themselves on displaying to the world - courage, determination, mateship and selfless service."

He also had a message to Australian troops still serving in Afghanistan.

"I ask you to look after and support each other. Because you know damn well that the Un-Australian "Defence" Force, the Australian Government, the opposition, & the corporate media will not support you under any circumstances. In fact, ALL of these aforementioned groups will seek to capitalise on your efforts for their own gain.

"We will support you but I need you to make sure you seek any assistance that you may need to come to terms with your loss.

"Draw strength from one another and pay tribute to your mates."

Air Chief Marshal Houston, who is overseas with Senator Faulkner, asked the media to respect the wish of the families not to make public the names of the dead soldiers.

Constant dangers: Faulkner

The deaths were a reminder of the constant dangers faced by Australian troops in Afghanistan, Defence Minister John Faulkner said in a statement, which was read out by Defence Personnel Minister Greg Combet.

"While all Australians will mourn along with those two families, the immensity of their grief cannot be shared," Senator Faulkner said.

"The manner of their deaths from an insidious and indiscriminate improvised explosive device again shows the callous and truly despicable nature of our enemy." I say that it is not callous to defend your homeland against an invading force. It is callous, and truly despicable to try to capitalise on these deaths to score political points, or, to sell newspapers.

It was a great loss to the nation -but obviously not significant enough to end this pointless and futile invasion- and Senator Faulkner sent his sincere condolences to the families of both men.

Seven US soldiers killed

Five US soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) in eastern Afghanistan, while another American died in a separate IED attack and the seventh one from small arms fire in the south, said Lieutenant Colonel Beth Robbins in Washington. Three other NATO service members from other countries were also killed in attacks on Monday, two of whom were the Australians.

The French government announced that one of the deaths was a sergeant in the French Foreign Legion.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy "forcefully condemned this blind violence and expressed France's determination to continue working as part of the International Security Assistance Force [ISAF]", his office said. France too knows how to use propaganda to shift blame from themselves as an invasive force, and onto the victim of this invasive force when they defend themselves. Israel has been unsuccessfully trying this tactic to defend its disgraceful attack on the humanitarian boats running the Giza Blockade recently.

Suicide attack on an Afghan police training centre

Separately, two foreign contractors, -notice how casually the phrase foreign contractors is inserted. This means private employees of a private corporation and is another example of the blurring of the lines between the private and the government. This is because your government is actually a registered for profit corporation, and lets not get into the murky waters of the connections between the people who walk from government to private company and -stand up Mr. Dick Cheney- back to government and then to the the private sector again- one of them an American, were killed on Monday in a suicide attack on an Afghan police training centre in the southern city of Kandahar, the US embassy said. Three militants armed with bombs and guns were killed in the attack.

One of the rebels -dehumanizing these people helps the ignorant to work out the good & bad guys easily, just the same as the movies- detonated a bomb-filled car along the wall of the facility hoping to punch open a route for his comrades, the interior ministry said in Kabul.

The two others were shot dead by police guards, ministry spokesman Zemarai Bashary told AFP.

There was no claim of responsibility for the bombing but Afghanistan's Taliban is leading a nearly nine-year insurgency to bring down the Western-backed government and evict foreign troops.

Elsewhere, in the southern province of Ghazni, police said five Afghan security guards were killed in two separate attacks while they were escorting NATO logistics convoys.

"There were two roadside bomb attacks against the convoys in Andar and Ab Band districts. Three guards were killed in Andar district and two were killed in Ab Band district," said Ghazni police chief Khial Baz Shairzai.

NATO, US and Afghan troops are preparing their biggest offensive yet against the Taliban in Kandahar province, with total foreign troop numbers in the country set to peak at 150,000 by August.

US President Barack Obama hopes the counter-insurgency strategy focused on the south can allow US troops to start withdrawing next year.

According to an AFP tally, based on one kept by the independent website icasualties.org, 245 foreign soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year. Last year was the deadliest yet with 520 killed.

Monday's toll was the highest for a single day since the deaths of 11 French soldiers on one day in August 2008. The latest deaths follow Sunday's killings of five NATO soldiers, four of them Americans, in two separate attacks and a vehicle accident.

Plan to reintegrate Taliban fighters

In Madrid, US special envoy Richard Holbrooke said more funds for Afghanistan's plan to reintegrate Taliban fighters who renounce violence -More employment of the Orwellian language known as 'doublespeak'- were likely to be pledged next month at a conference in Kabul.

The July 20 conference is a follow-up to a London summit in January, when donors pledged an initial $US140 million to a so-called Afghanistan Peace and Reconciliation Programme trust fund.

"Almost $US200 million has been committed under a programme led by the Japanese ... and there will more developments on this at the Kabul conference," Mr Holbrooke said.

US soldier charged with murdering civilians

In Washington a US army spokeswoman said an American soldier had been charged with the murder of three civilians in Afghanistan -It's murder when it is not authorised, or not performed by an authorised agent, or, it was authorised, but the wrong guy was hit, or, it was authorised and the right guy was hit, but we were not technically supposed to hit him- and four others had been implicated but not charged in the crimes.

Specialist -What is a "specialist"?- Jeremy Morlock, 22, was charged on Friday with premeditated murder and assault in three separate incidents that occurred in Kandahar province between January and May this year.

AFP, AAP and Paul Tatnell

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/world/two-australian-soldiers--killed-by-bomb-on-first-tour-of-afghanistan-20100608-xreo.html

Still Abusing Detainees At Bagram.

Marc Ambinder confirms that there is a secret facility at Bagram run by the Pentagon's Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center where detainees are subject to abusive interrogation techniques, under "secret authorization" from the Obama administration to ignore the executive order the President signed last year:

However, under secret authorization, the DIA interrogators use methods detailed in an appendix to the Field Manual, Appendix M, which spells out "restricted" interrogation techniques.

Under certain circumstances, interrogators can deprive prisoners of sleep (four hours at a time, for up to 30 days), to confuse their senses, and to keep them separate from the rest of the prison population. The Red Cross is now notified if the captives are kept at the facility for longer than two weeks.

When interrogators are using Appendix M measures, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Gen. James Clapper (Ret.) is the man on the hook. Detainees designated as prisoners of war cannot be subjected to Appendix M measures.

The administration says that the Red Cross is given access to detainees and that they are not abused, but this is false on its face, in two ways. The BBC has previously reported that as many as nine detainees have reported being subject to abuse at Bagram's "black jail."

The second is that the use of sleep deprivation is torture. As former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin wrote of his time in the custody of the KGB:

In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep... Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it.

Reducing people's minds to mush also has the downside of making it difficult for them to answer questions coherently.

Let's also not let "confuse the senses" slip by. This is possibly a euphemism for sensory deprivation, which can be among the most excruciating forms of torture imaginable. Here's an excerpt from an account on early experimentation with sensory deprivation that Hilzoy flagged last year:

Dr Donald O. Hebb at McGill University found that he could induce a state akin to psychosis in a subject within 48 hours. Now, what had the doctor done? Hypnosis, electroshock, LSD, drugs? No. None of the above. All Dr Hebb did was take student volunteers at McGill University where he was head of Psychology, put them in comfortable airconditioned cubicles and put goggles, gloves and ear muffs on them. In 24 hours the hallucinations started. In 48 hours they suffered a complete breakdown.

II don't know if this is what "confuse the senses" means in the context of Bagram, but it's worth more looking into.

Whatever credibility the Obama administration had remaining on the subject of breaking continuity with the Bush administration on issues of human rights is fast eroding. The irony is that the torture wing of the Republican Party will both feel vindicated and argue that the Obama administration represents a radical departure from the policies of the last administration.

-- A. Serwer

Posted by Adam Serwer on May 14, 2010 10:39 AM

---

Kagan Involved In 9/11 Cover Up
Supreme Court Nominee Helped Obama Shut Down 9/11 Families Lawsuits

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

In addition to the attacks on free speech, detainee rights and the close connections to Goldman Sachs, another noteworthy black mark on the record of Elena Kagan, the president's nominee to the Supreme Court, is that she played a significant part in killing off the efforts of 9/11 victims' families to bring lawsuits against members of the Saudi Royal family for financial links to the conspiracy.

Last year, thousands of family members filed suits claiming that Saudi Arabia and four of its princes actively aided in financing the terrorist attacks through front groups posing as charities.

The New York Times ran a report in June highlighting how documents uncovered by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.”

The documents consisted of “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families, according to the report.

The families also pointed to a 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks.

Had the cases been heard, the exposure given to the Saudi connection would have undoubtedly opened the flood gates for more suppressed evidence surrounding the attacks to emerge.

"The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies." writer Barry Grey noted at the time in his excellent piece on the government's effort to shut down the lawsuits.

"Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington." Grey wrote.

Enter Elena Kagan.

In her previous role at the Justice Department as Obama's Solicitor General, she declared that “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” owing to “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

Kagan effectively protected the oil rich Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action to hold it liable for the attacks.

The move just happened to come less than a week before Obama was scheduled to meet and bow before Saudi King Abdullah as part of his "rebuilding" trip to the Middle East.

More than 6000 9/11 family members denounced the move as an "apparent effort to appease a sometime ally" in a public statement.

Less than a month later, The Supreme Court ruled that it would not allow any of the lawsuits to go ahead, agreeing that the Saudi princes should be protected by sovereign immunity - a concept that seems to have no bearing on CIA drone delivered missiles raining down on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Following the debacle, Senators Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham introduced legislation to allow US citizens to sue foreign governments if there is evidence they may be supporting terrorist activity. Spector said of Kagan "She wants to coddle the Saudis".

The Saudi 9/11 Connection

Senator Bob Graham, who sat on the 9/11 Commission, has also charged that Saudi involvement in the attacks has been covered up.

As we have previously reported, US authorities, including the FBI, allowed the entire Bin Laden family to fly out of the US, and back to Saudi Arabia, in the days after 9/11, without questioning any of them.

Furthermore, agency documents later revealed that the FBI were aware that Osama Bin Laden himself may have personally chartered one of the flights. They subsequently redacted his name from the records in order “to protect privacy interests.”

The documents provide clear proof that the FBI was protecting the Bin Laden while the rest of the world was being told that he had masterminded the biggest terror attack in history. The FBI then attempted to cover up this fact.

The same documents revealed that the Bureau did not consider a single Saudi national nor any of the Bin Laden family worthy of investigative value.

The protection of Bin Laden by federal authorities has been ongoing since BEFORE 9/11 when agents were told to "back off the Bin Laden family" in order to protect business interests that the Bush family had with the Bin Ladens and other Saudi nationals.

The FBI asserts that no one on the planes that left had any terrorist links, yet documents (specifically FBI document 199I WF213589) uncovered back in November 2001 prove this to be a falsehood.

The Obama administration is now continuing the exact same long running policy as the Bush administration by obediently backing the Saudi monarchy and keeping secret this vital information on 9/11.

BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE HEALTH BILLS REQUIRE THE MICRO CHIPPING OF AMERICANS – 3/18/10

Required RFID implanted chip
Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 – The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. What does a National Medical Device Registry mean?

National Medical Device Registry from H.R. 3200 [Healthcare Bill], pages 1001-1008:

(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that— ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘(B)and is— ‘‘(i) a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”

Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1,

section B:
‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to information respecting a device described in paragraph (1), including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”

See it for yourself: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072191.pdf

This new law – when fully implemented – provides the framework for making the United States the first nation in the world to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country.

Don’t believe it? Look it up yourself. Healthcare Bill H.R. 3200: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Pages 1001-1008 “National Medical Device Registry” section.
Page 1006 “to be enacted within 36 months upon passage”
Page 503 “… medical device surveillance”

Why would the government use the word “surveillance” when referring to citizens? The definition of “surveillance” is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people and often in a secret manner. The root of the word [French] means to “watch over.”

In theory, the intent to streamline healthcare and to eliminate fraud via “health chips” seems right. But, to have the world’s lone superpower (America, for now) mandate (page 1006) a device to be IMPLANTED is scary!

Microchiping included in Healthcare Bill?
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/105079

Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip?
http://current.com/items/90842279_coverage-under-obamacare-will-require-an-implantable-microchip.htm

Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups

By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 -- 10:48 pm

In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups.

As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs," according to the White House Web site.

Sunstein's article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncovered by blogger Marc Estrin, states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."

By "crippled epistemology" Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public -- the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government "enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."

Download a PDF of the article here.

Sunstein argued that "government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories." He suggested that "government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

"We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI," Estrin writes at the Rag Blog, expressing surprise that "a high-level presidential advisor" would support such a strategy.

Estrin notes that Sunstein advocates in his article for the infiltration of "extremist" groups so that it undermines the groups' confidence to the extent that "new recruits will be suspect and participants in the group’s virtual networks will doubt each other’s bona fides."

Sunstein has been the target of numerous "conspiracy theories" himself, mostly from the right wing political echo chamber, with conservative talking heads claiming he favors enacting "a second Bill of Rights" that would do away with the Second Amendment. Sunstein's recent book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some on the right as "a blueprint for online censorship."

Sunstein "wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading 'rumors,'" wrote Ed Lasky at American Thinker.

U.S. SPEEDING UP MISSILE DEFENCES IN PERSIAN GULF

January 31, 2010
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.

The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran. After months of unsuccessful diplomatic outreach, the administration is trying to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Western nations say control a covert nuclear arms program.

Mr. Obama spoke of the shift in his State of the Union address, warning of “consequences” if Iran continued to defy United Nations demands to stop manufacturing nuclear fuel. And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warned China on Friday that its opposition to sanctions was shortsighted.

The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — including a rare public discussion of them by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran.

The deployments are also partly intended to counter the impression that Iran is fast becoming the most powerful military force in the Middle East, to forestall any Iranian escalation of its confrontation with the West if new sanctions are imposed. In addition, the administration is trying to show Israel that there is no immediate need for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, according to administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

By highlighting the defensive nature of the buildup, the administration was hoping to avoid a sharp response from Tehran.

Military officials said that the countries that accepted the defense systems were Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. They said the Kuwaitis had agreed to take the defensive weapons to supplement older, less capable models it has had for years. Saudi Arabia and Israel have long had similar equipment of their own.

General Petraeus has declined to say who was taking the American equipment, probably because many countries in the gulf region are hesitant to be publicly identified as accepting American military aid and the troops that come with it. In fact, the names of countries where the antimissile systems are deployed are classified, but many of them are an open secret.

The general spoke about the deployments at a conference at the Institute for the Study of War here on Jan. 22, saying that “Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the gulf front.”

General Petraeus said that the acceleration of defensive systems — which began when President George W. Bush was in office — included “eight Patriot missile batteries, two in each of four countries.” Patriot missiles are capable of shooting down short-range offensive missiles.

He also described a first line of defense: He said the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles. Those systems would not be useful against Iran’s long-range missile, the Shahab 3, but intelligence agencies believe that it will be years before Iran can solve the problems of placing a nuclear warhead atop that missile.

Iran contends that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, and that its program is for energy production. The White House declined to comment on the deployments.

But administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the moves have several aims. “Our first goal is to deter the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don’t feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well.”

As Iran’s nuclear program proceeds — more slowly, American intelligence officials say, than the United States had once thought — Israel has hinted at various times that it might take military action against the country’s military facilities unless it is convinced that Mr. Obama and Western allies are succeeding in stopping the program.

Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, took an unannounced trip to Israel this month, partly to take the temperature of the Israeli government and to review both economic and covert programs now under way against the Iranian program, according to officials familiar with the meeting.

American officials argue that the willingness of Arab states to take the American emplacements, which usually come with a small deployment of American soldiers to operate, maintain and protect the equipment, illustrates the region’s growing unease about Iran’s ambitions and abilities.

Gulf countries are also taking steps of their own to harden their defenses. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have bought more than $15 billion in American arms in the past two years, including missile defense systems. The United States is helping support a plan by Saudi Arabia to triple the size, to 30,000 people, of a Saudi force that protects the kingdom’s ports, oil facilities and water-desalinization plants, a senior military officer said. The Washington Post reported both steps on its Web site on Saturday.

One senior military officer said that General Petraeus had started talking openly about the Patriot deployments about a month ago, when it became increasingly clear that international efforts toward imposing sanctions against Iran faced hurdles, and the administration’s efforts to engage Iran were being rebuffed by the Tehran government. In October, the two countries reached an agreement in principle to move a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear fuel out of the country, but Iran backed away from the deal.

In discussing the Patriots and missile-shooting ships, General Petraeus’s main message has been to reassure allies in the gulf that the United States is committed to helping defend the region, said the military officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the topic. But the general’s remarks were also a pointed reminder to the Iranians of American resolve, the officer said.

WHO Scientist: Swine Flu Pandemic Was “Completely Exaggerated”

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Jan 28th, 2010

A scientist with the World Health Organisation has testified, during ongoing hearings in Strasbourg, France, that the swine flu pandemic was part of an overblown “angst campaign”, devised in conjunction with major drug companies to boost profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Professor Ulrich Keil, director of the WHO’s Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology, slammed the organization and its flu chief, Dr Keiji Fukuda while giving evidence before The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

“With SARS, with avian flu, always the predictions are wrong…Why don’t we learn from history?” Keil said. “It [swine flu] produced a lot of turmoil in the pubic and was completely exaggerated in contrast with all the really important matters we have to deal with in public health.”

The WHO adviser on heart disease, added that the decision had led to a “gigantic misallocation” of health budgets.

“We know the great killers are hypertension, smoking, high cholesterol, high body mass index, physical inactivity and low fruit and vegetable intake,” he said. “In spite of all these facts, governments instead wasted huge amounts of money by investing in pandemic scenarios whose evidence base is weak.”

PACE, a 47 nation body encompassing democratically elected members of parliament, will determine whether a “falsified pandemic” was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of medical advisors, many of whom have close financial ties to the very pharmaceutical giants – GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, – that produced the H1N1 vaccines.

It will also look into the controversy surrounding the fact that two shots were initially advised when it was later revealed that one dose was entirely suitable, as well as investigating concerns over hastily developed vaccines containing adjuvants.

Pharmaceutical companies are thought to have made a profit of somewhere in the region of $7.5-$10 billion on H1N1 vaccines, recouping the billions they had invested in researching and developing pandemic vaccines after the bird flu scares in 2006 and 2007.

The worldwide death toll from H1N1 is thought to be around 13,500, just over a third of the number who die from regular flu every year in the U.S. alone.

Heading the hearings is the former chairman of the Health Committee of PACE, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. A former German lawmaker, a medical doctor and epidemiologist. Wodarg has referred to the swine flu pandemic as “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century.”

Wodarg has pointed out that the WHO softened the definition of a pandemic from an outbreak in several continents at once with an above-average death rate, to one where the spread of the disease is constant.

Just one month after changing the definition, and with just 144 people having died from H1N1, the flu was given the highest threat classification possible, a “stage-six pandemic alert”. By comparison, the mildest 20th Century pandemic killed a million people.

“I have never heard such a worldwide echo to a health political action,” Wodarg, an epidemiologist who formerly led the health committee for the Council of Europe, said at Tuesday’s hearing.

“It was stated in panic- stricken terms that this was a flu that could threaten humanity and a great number of humans could fall ill. This is why billions of dollars of medications were bought.” Wodarg said.

He added that the the change in definition “made it possible for the pharmaceutical industry to transform this opportunity into cash, under contracts which were mainly secret.”

“In my view, the WHO undertook an incomprehensible action, which cannot be justified by scientific evidence. The Council of Europe should investigate this to see how WHO can undertake this kind of dangerous nonsense,” said Dr Wodarg.

WHO’s flu chief, Dr Fukuda, insisted that its swine flu scientists do not have conflicts of interest owing to close links with pharmaceutical companies.

“Let me state clearly for the record – the influenza pandemic policies and responses recommended and taken by WHO were not improperly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.” Fukuda told the inquiry.

He said those calling the epidemic fake were wrong and irresponsible.

PACE’s findings are expected to be announced January 29 and will likely be followed by an in-depth study and recommendations to European governments.

Sources for this story and further reading:

Swine Flu Didn’t Fly

Drug firms ‘drove swine flu pandemic warning to recoup £billions spent on research’

Obama Admin. Opposes 9/11 Health Funding

Obama Admin. Opposes 9/11 Health Funding »

By Michael McAuliff

The Obama administration stunned New York’s delegation yesterday, dropping the bombshell news that it does not support funding the 9/11 health bill.

The state’s two senators and 14 House members met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just hours before President Obama implored in his speech to the nation for Congress to come together and deliver a government that delivers on its promises to the American people.

So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11, and the untold numbers now getting sick.

“I was stunned — and very disappointed,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who like most of the other legislators had expected more of a discussion on how to more forward.

“To say the least, I was flabbergasted,” said Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.

The 9/11 bill would spend about $11 billion over 30 years to care for the growing numbers of people getting sick from their service at Ground Zero, and to compensate families for their losses.

The legislators were shocked the idea was falling lower on the administration priority list than other parts of the war on terror and financial bailouts.

“She made it clear that the administration does not support any kind of funding mechanism that goes into the bill,” said Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel.

“I think it’s fiscal restraint… but you know what? They find money for everything else, they need to find money for this,” Engel said. “We were attacked because we’re a symbol of our country.”

McMahon was furious that caring for the heroes of Sept. 11 would take a back seat to anything but military funding.

“I thought there was a complete lack of understanding of the issue by the secretary and quite frankly, I did not expect that lack of compassion and failure to understand the urgency of the issue.”

Victims and advocates of 9/11 families are similarly stunned.

Lorie Van Auken, whose husband died on 9/11 and who supports the White House in its push to try the terrorists in New York, was crestfallen at the news.

“I thought that these people would be taken care of. I would have expected better from this administration,” Van Auken said, adding that she thought it sends the wrong message to all of America’s would-be heroes that the government won’t be there for them.

“These people put their lives on the line to help people who live here and who were in danger, and now the government doesn’t want to support them,” Van Auken said. “What happens in the future when something else happens? Are people going to say, ‘No, sorry, I’m not going to help?’”

The legislators did hold out hope, though. McMahon and others said they would appeal to the President to consider adding 9/11 money to the list of mandatory items, rather than discretionary measures subject to the White House planned budget freeze.

Health and Human Servicices officials and the White House did not have an immediate response.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/01/obama-opposes-911-health-fundi.html#ixzz0e0RlLTo1

BERNANKE BACK AS HEAD OF FED RESERVE FOR ANOTHER 4 YEARS

January 29, 2010

Senate, Weakly, Backs New Term for Bernanke

By SEWELL CHAN

WASHINGTON — The Senate gave Ben S. Bernanke a second four-year term as the head of the Federal Reserve on Thursday after critics excoriated the central bank’s conduct in the years leading up to the financial crisis.

The 70-to-30 vote was the weakest endorsement ever extended to a chairman in the Fed’s 96-year history.

The confirmation was a victory for President Obama, who had called Mr. Bernanke an architect of the recovery, but also signaled the extent to which the Fed, once little known to the public, has become the object of outrage over high unemployment and bank bailouts.

In several hours of debate, senators said that the Fed had abetted, then ignored, the housing and credit bubbles and allowed banks to keep dangerously low capital reserves and to make reckless lending decisions that ruined consumers. Some even blamed Mr. Bernanke for the falling dollar and questioned his commitment to free enterprise.

In contrast, Mr. Bernanke’s supporters were muted. They reiterated that the Fed had made mistakes but said that Mr. Bernanke had helped save the economy from a far worse recession.

After a week in which top White House officials and Mr. Bernanke met with Democratic leaders in the Senate to secure support, the Senate first voted 77 to 23 to end debate, with more than the 60 votes needed to overcome the threat of a filibuster.

On a second vote, to confirm, the 30 dissents came from 18 Republicans, 11 Democrats and one independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont.

On Thursday evening, Mr. Obama congratulated Mr. Bernanke in a statement. “As the nation continues to face the consequences of the worst recession in a generation, Ben Bernanke has provided wisdom and steady leadership in the midst of the financial and economic crisis,” he said.

While an arm-twisting campaign by the administration limited the opposition, the outcry against the Fed will most likely continue rippling through economic policy generally, and Mr. Bernanke’s leadership of the Fed in particular. The effects could be felt first in the debate over how to reform financial regulations. The Obama administration has proposed consolidating risk regulation under the Fed, while some in Congress want to strip away its oversight authority.

“The institutional prestige of the Fed, even apart from this vote, had taken a hit, and it started back around the disaster of September 2008,” said Stephen H. Axilrod, who worked at the Fed for 34 years and wrote a history of its monetary policies. “I don’t think it has recovered. This is a low point in the Fed’s recent history, that’s for sure.”

The vote also made clear Congress’s insistence on transparency from a historically secretive institution that has made extraordinary interventions in the market since 2008.

“The Fed is going to have to work hard, for a long period, to regain the public confidence of the sort it enjoyed during the halcyon days when everything was going so swimmingly,” said Barry Eichengreen, professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley.

Senators from opposite ends of the spectrum formed unlikely alliances. After Mr. Sanders, who calls himself a socialist, finished denouncing Mr. Bernanke, Jeff Sessions, a conservative Republican from Alabama, rose to do the same.

Another Alabaman, Richard C. Shelby, the top Republican on the banking committee, which approved the nomination last month by a 16-to-7 vote, laid out a bill of particulars, saying Mr. Bernanke’s handling of the financial crisis did not make up for his failings before that time.

“Considerable economic devastation occurred as a result of Chairman Bernanke’s loose monetary policy and weak regulatory oversight,” Mr. Shelby said. “If we don’t hold Chairman Bernanke accountable, what precedent are we setting for future regulators?”

To an extent, the rhetoric against Mr. Bernanke reflected a spilling-over of frustration at two of his collaborators: the former Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., and the current one, Timothy F. Geithner.

And looming over it all was the role of Mr. Bernanke’s predecessor, Alan Greenspan, whose once-sterling reputation has been diminished as his decisions to keep interest rates low after the 2001 recession have been brought into question.

Mr. Bernanke, 56, was a member of the Fed’s board for part of that period, from 2002 to 2005, when President George W. Bush named him to lead his Council of Economic Advisers. He rejoined the Fed, as chairman, in 2006, and Mr. Obama renominated him last year. Mr. Bernanke is a Republican economist and an authority on the Depression.

“I knew that he would continue the legacy of Alan Greenspan, and I was right,” said Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, who was the lone vote against Mr. Bernanke in 2005.

Mr. Bunning cited a half-dozen statements from 2007 to 2009 in which Mr. Bernanke expressed optimism about the housing market, bank capital ratios, the capitalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the unemployment rate. Saying that Mr. Bernanke had been repeatedly wrong, he declared, “We shouldn’t be paying the Fed chairman to learn on the job.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, echoed that, saying Mr. Bernanke had shown “a troubling pattern of false confidence.” Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, went further, saying the Fed had “helped set the fire that destroyed our economy.”

While less passionate, supporters of Mr. Bernanke said he had acted deftly and decisively, at least since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.

“He basically allowed the Fed to become the lender of the nation,” said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire. “Nobody had ever done that. The way he did it was extraordinary in its creativity, and the results were that the country’s financial system did not collapse.”

ISRAELIS REJECT US LOAN 'THREAT'

Israelis reject US loan 'threat'

Israeli officials have shrugged off a suggestion that the US could withhold loan guarantees to pressure Israel over the Middle East peace process.

The finance minister said Israel did not need the guarantees, while the prime minister accused the Palestinians of holding up peace negotiations.

US envoy George Mitchell said this week the US could withhold loan guarantees to extract concessions from Israel.

The guarantees allow Israel to raise money cheaply overseas.

'Doing fine'

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz reacted by saying the Israeli economy was doing well.

“ Under American law, the United States can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel ”
George Mitchell US Middle East envoy

"We don't need to use these guarantees," he was quoted by Israeli media as saying.

"We are doing just fine. But several months ago we agreed with the American treasury on guarantees for 2010 and 2011, and there were no conditions."

In response to Mr Mitchell's comments, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said: "Everyone knows that the Palestinian Authority is refusing to renew the peace talks, while Israel has taken important and significant steps to kickstart the process."

Palestinian officials say Israel must completely halt settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it occupied during the 1967 Israeli-Arab war, before negotiations can resume.

Since he came to office in 2009, President Barack Obama has focused closely on trying to get Israeli-Palestinian peace talks moving, but with little success.

Mr Mitchell, who is due to return to the Middle East this month in his latest attempt to restart negotiations, was asked on Wednesday in an interview with America's PBS how the US could bring pressure to bear on Israel.

"Under American law, the United States can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel," he said.

Precedents

He noted that support for the guarantees had been reduced in 2003, but added that no sanctions were being considered and that he preferred persuasion.

Former US President George W Bush's administration whittled down backing for the guarantees after Israel built part of its West Bank barrier.

In 1991, $10bn of loan guarantees were withheld under former President George H W Bush to pressure Israel over the peace process.

The Israeli comments on the loan guarantees came after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signalled a shift in the US approach by saying that agreeing the borders of a future Palestinian state would deal with Palestinian concerns about settlement building.

Both sides should resume peace talks as soon as possible and without preconditions, she said.

But chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat played down the chances of peace talks, citing settlements.

The Israeli government has refused Palestinian demands for a complete halt to settlement building.

It has limited building work for 10 months in the West Bank, but not in East Jerusalem.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8450715.stm

Published: 2010/01/10 15:47:04 GMT

© BBC MMX

AMERICAN THINKER ARTICLE ON BARACK OBAMA

January 08, 2010
Obama and the White House Chicago Boys
By Ed Lasky
Barack Obama has a problem. His polls numbers are dropping and his policies are fueling an angry backlash across America. The Democratic party is held in disrepute, and congressional Democrats are dropping like flies. This imperils Obama's radical agenda and his own 2012 prospects. What to do? Game the system and rig the future elections. That is how things are done in the streets of Chicago.

Signs are emerging that the Chicago Boys -- the triumvirate of Obama, Emanuel, and Axlerod -- are up to their old tricks, as I touched upon in a previous American Thinker column. My recent interest was piqued by two news items that floated across my screen in the last week.

One was the release of the White House visitor logs that showed visits by Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and named by Fortune Magazine as "the most powerful woman in the labor movement. " We know Andy Stern, head of the SEIU, routinely visits the White House and has boasted of the tens of millions of dollars and man-hours the union spent in electing Barack Obama to the presidency. We can expect a repeat performance come 2012.

But Anna Burger is far more than an SEIU honcho; she also is the vice-chairman of a shadowy group called the " Democracy Alliance," composed of billionaire funders and savvy political operatives who set out a few years ago to change politics as we know it in America. Among their projects was something called the Secretary of States Project that set about electing secretaries of state in key battleground states.

These are the very officials who are charged with maintaining the integrity of the voting process. Recall the controversies in Ohio and Minnesota -- including ACORN problems -- regarding the accuracy of the votes in those states last year? The secretaries of state who gave a stamp of approval to these elections (where Democrats won) were Democrats supported by the Democracy Alliance. Various state chapters of the Democracy Alliance have formed to use a range of controversial methods to ensure Democratic victories. (See "The Colorado Model" by Fred Barnes for a display of the type of tactics that can be used to manipulate elections. These include creating faux controversies, spreading them through supposedly non-partisan groups created by Democrat activists, and relying on an echo chamber effect until the mainstream media picks up the "story" and broadcasts it far and wide. Other groups are formed to harass journalists and editorial writers who don't push the liberal line.)

Was Burger in the White House to plot future strategies with, say, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod? These are putatively the Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser, respectively, to President Obama. But before that, Emanuel was the maestro of political fundraising and spending, and Axelrod was a veteran political strategist who has run numerous political campaigns over the years (including Obama's). The Democracy Alliance has helped form front groups to get Democrats elected. Axelrod is a master at this type of tactic.

The Alliance's handiwork played a role in the victory of Al Franken over Norm Coleman, which helped secure a sixty-seat majority in the Senate. There was a group -- Alliance for a Better Minnesota -- that posed as a group of concerned citizens. The Alliance was funded by outsiders, namely the wealthy, hyper-partisan Democrats behind the Democracy Alliance. This was a so-called astrotruf group: it falsely appeared to be a true grassroots effort.

Tellingly, the Obama team has killed off disclosure rules mandating that unions reveal how they spend the billions of their members' union dues. These, in turn, are often poured into "front groups" and other "funds" each year. Anyone care to wager whether these funds will flow to help Democrats? Thanks to Obama, we will never know. So much for transparency. But we do have change.

The second item that sparked my interest was Obama's move to ditch the superdelegates' role in nominating Democratic candidates for the presidency.

These superdelegates include Democratic members of Congress, national party figures, and established leaders of the Democratic Party. They vote at the nominating convention. The system was established in the wake of the 1972 Democratic Party nominating process, when anti-war radicals seized control of the party and ended up nominating George McGovern. The superdelegates were supposed to ensure that radicals did not take over the party's nominating process. Well, apparently that sort of restraint does not appeal to Obama, who now has taken steps to shape the nominating process to play to his preferred territory: the caucuses, where his brand of populism holds sway. The Wall Street Journal noted the trick:

One reason for the superdelegates in the first place is the disproportionate role of activists in states like Iowa, which rely on caucuses rather than primaries. Mrs. Clinton held in her own in the primary states but Mr. Obama crushed her in the caucus states where his supporters found it easy to dominate proceedings where older and frequently busier people weren't able to invest the time to counter them. Take the case of Texas, which has both a caucus and a primary: Mrs. Clinton won the state's primary in which 2.8 million people voted, but Mr. Obama so controlled the caucuses where far fewer people (some 800,000) participated that he ended up with more delegates overall. The new rules, if approved, would likely mean even more of the same.


Since Obama's policies are sacrificing the careers of Democratic congressmen to fulfill his agenda, these politicians may withhold their support at a future nominating convention. What is the solution? Remove them from the equation by stripping their vote. Out they go, joining the ever-increasing number of bodies under the bus.

Of course, the boys who earned their stripes in the rough-and-tumble world of Chicago politics (where the phrase "vote early and vote often" should be the city's motto) will not stop there in their drive to win.

Why should they? Customs, rules, ethics, and traditions were thrown under the bus to get ObamaCare bills passed by the House and the Senate. Why stop there when there are so many ways to skin Americans? Skullduggery comes naturally.

There are other cards to play (and Obama is an avid poker player).

How else will the Chicago Boys game the system and gin up victories?

There was the plan to bring the census operations into the White House. That would have been a neat trick -- put Obama acolytes in charge of the process that determines each state's electoral votes (a strategy akin to Obama's role in gerrymandering districts to favor his own campaign as a state senator).

While that seems to be off the plate for now, there is still the prospect that sampling may be used to collect census figures. That is a statistical method that has been denounced by, among others, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal as a formula that could be abused to exaggerate the number of residents of certain states and municipalities. This would affect the number of House seats awarded to each state. Those figures also play a role in the amount of federal funding flowing to those areas. Those are also the very figures used to determine electoral votes.

Will census figures compiled by community groups chosen by this administration be reliable? Remember that this team earned their stripes in Chicago and has ties to ACORN, which is embroiled in voter registration and other scandals across our nation.

There will be a strong desire to boost numbers in blue states, especially since red states seem poised to pick up seats and electoral votes, as people vote with their feet and move to red states. This won't do for the Obama team -- not at all.

So what to do? Fool 'em with some other numbers, this time the ones with dollar signs in front of them. But the Chicago Boys may have tipped their hands by revealing one of their cards:

The government, reports The Hill newspaper, will target $80 million of those dollars to racial and ethnic minorities and non-English speakers -- groups that vote disproportionately Democratic. Nor will Democrats permit efforts to limit the count to those here legally. An effort by Sen. David Vitter (R., La.) to exclude illegal aliens from the count went nowhere.

Illegal aliens don't (usually) vote of course. But when they are counted in the Census they do affect representation in Congress. So some of the money you pay in taxes will go toward increasing the legislative clout of one party.


And those illegal aliens will also boost electoral votes of those blue states. We can also expect a campaign to allow felons to regain their right to vote. Anything to boost those numbers and rack up some wins.

But wait, there's more.

The push to "Rahm" through universal voter registration is a ploy ripe for voter fraud, as noted so well by my American Thinker colleague James Simpson in his recent column. This is a proposal to impose a federal mandate regarding voter registration. State laws will be overridden by federal law drafted and passed by Democrats. As John Fund notes:

The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be ...'


What is the problem? Many of these lists include vast numbers of illegal immigrants, there will be felons, there will be duplicates, and there will be a lot of people who never cared enough about the country or democracy to take the simple steps to register under state laws. What will be the end result? A huge pool of likely Democratic voters will be created out of thin air -- and then Obama's army of volunteers and Democratic Party activists and paid contractors (think ACORN) will shepherd them to the voting booths. Between the pickup at home and the pulling of the lever, a lot of steps can be taken to ensure they vote the left way.

Are there any more ways for Obama and the boys to stack the deck?

The Federal Election Committee monitors how campaigns raise and spend money. Obama has appointed John Sullivan, SEIU's in-house lawyer, to serve on its six-member panel. Obama's campaign was marked by fundraising and spending scandals. (Among them were foreign donations being received and hundreds of thousands of dollars going to the SEIU, and to Obama-linked ACORN for "get out the vote efforts." Hmm..."get out the vote"...is that anything like "street money"?) Community groups are being used, by the way, to collect census numbers. Given the record of "community groups" and vote fraud, is that a bright idea? The answer depends on which side of the aisle you sit.

The Department of Justice under Eric Holder, a close ally of Barack Obama , has shown a very lax attitude towards prosecuting Obama supporters for voter intimidation (à la the New Black Panthers Party travesty). Conversely, the DOJ is aggressively challenging state voter verification laws meant to ensure the integrity of the voting process. The steps that Obama's DOJ is taking will allow non-citizens to vote and will also boost the number of votes, legitimate or not, for Democrats in 2010 and Obama in 2012. Does anyone think Holder's Justice Department will prosecute criminals that help Democrats, given the example of the New Black Panther case?

The administration has also telegraphed a plan to push for illegal immigrants to become citizens. How many of the estimated twelve-million-plus new citizens will vote for the man, and party, that bestowed upon them U.S. citizenship? Quite a few, I imagine. It's true that there will not be a quick payoff for this effort, since citizenship will take some time. However, there will be some Democratic voters created, and the effort will curry favor with groups that favor such immigration reform.

Many blue states are indeed blue (emotionally) these days because their economies are a wreck. Think California, New York, and Michigan. All are states that may no longer be so rich when it comes to money, but they are rich with electoral votes. These states might pose a problem for Obama in 2012 (vote the bum out). How to salve their anger?

How about billions and billions in stimulus money that is disproportionately being showered upon Democratic districts, and that often does not correlate as well with unemployment numbers as it does with partisan makeup? This is stimulus money, all right -- designed to turbocharge Democratic turnout and reward Democratic interest groups (teachers, government workers) for their fealty to Obama. This is a far bigger pot of money than what's collected when we voluntarily choose to fund elections on our tax forms.

There are other steps that Obama and the Chicago Boys are taking to help Obama. Obama may have won the Nobel Peace Prize, but he knows how to fight when it comes to his own career. Let's remember that this is the candidate who un-presidentially boasted that he brings a gun to a knife-fight -- one more sign that he does not play fair! Of course, if he had only a knife, he would likely use it to stick someone in the back, as is his wont. He did this with drug companies when he suckered them into a deal to back health care reform and then reneged on his pledge to oppose drug re-importation efforts after their support was in the bag. Israel is one small voodoo doll to him, given his proclivity to stick it to that nation. All the pledges and people thrown under the bus...

Will the Chicago Boys sic the recently expanded Internal Revenue Service on Obama's ever-expanding scroll of enemies? He joked that he would do so when Arizona State University had the temerity to question his bona fides when it came to awarding him an honorary degree. A joke, yes -- and like the jibes at Special Olympics contestants and Joe Biden, not a particularly witty one.

What happens when a media outlet does not kowtow to Obama? They get the treatment meted out to FOX News. What happens when a pollster reports Obama's plummeting popularity? The Chicago Boys rev up the vast Oval Office conspiracy, as they did when their liberal shock troops attacked Scott Rasmussen. What happens when talk radio ticks off the Obama team? Threaten to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Then apply a dose of Media Matters criticism. Lather it up with some insults, and then rinse and repeat.

If that doesn't do the job, release the dogs of war (bloggers, Air America, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow) to spread some misinformation and insults ("teabagging").

And of course, there is always, always the race card. Obama's ace in the hole.

There are other perfectly fine steps Obama is taking to prepare for 2010 and 2012. For example, the Obama drones are being prepped to swarm our neighborhoods again. That is legitimate, at least, if annoying.

But are the tricks outlined above legitimate? Weren't we promised the most transparent administration in history, one that would transcend partisanship? That was so 2008. Sweet talk has been replaced by trash talk, and promises have been and will be betrayed.

What we got was a team that will stoop very low indeed to win elections, honesty and transparency be damned. Obama may be a good basketball player, but he and his team excel in the blood sport of politics, and they will use every trick and tactic, no matter how disgraceful, to win. That may be the Chicago Way, but it is not the American Way.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/obama_and_the_white_house_chic.html at January 08, 2010 - 03:37:22 AM EST

---

November 19, 2009

Obama Takes Stern Tone on North Korea and Iran

By HELENE COOPER and MARTIN FACKLER

SEOUL, South Korea — President Obama delivered a stern message on Thursday to North Korea and Iran that they risk further sanctions and isolation if they do not rein in their nuclear ambitions.

Appearing at a joint press conference with President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea, Mr. Obama singled out Iran, where leaders have apparently rejected an offer from the West to take Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium to another country to turn it into fuel rods, which would buy time for diplomatic negotiations.

“We’ve seen indications that for internal political reasons or perhaps because they are stuck in some of their own rhetoric, they are unable to get to ‘yes,’ ” Mr. Obama said. “As a consequence, we have begun discussion with our international partners” on sanctions, he said.

He said that over the next few weeks the United States would be developing a package of “potential steps we can take that will indicate our seriousness.”

Mr. Obama’s words were his strongest to date and seemed to signal that he was ready to move to sanctions.

On the North, Mr. Obama said he was sending his North Korea envoy to Pyongyang next month for talks designed to try to get the nation back to the bargaining table. But he warned that even getting the North back to the table would not be enough.

“I want to emphasize that President Lee and I both agree on the need to break the pattern that existed in the past in which North Korea behaves in a provocative fashion, then is willing to return to talks, and then talks for a while, and then leaves the talks and seeks further concessions,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama’s visit to Seoul is the last — and perhaps easiest — leg of an Asia trip in which he was forced to deal with a newly assertive Japan and an increasingly powerful China.

South Korea quickly proved true the predictions that it would be more accommodating to Mr. Obama, with whom Mr. Lee has been cooperating closely on key issues, including efforts to eventually halt North Korea’s nuclear program.

On Thursday morning, the Koreans put on a rousing welcoming ceremony for Mr. Obama. On the terraced lawn in front of the Blue House, the presidential offices in Seoul, a colorful array of ceremonial guardsmen, band members and local children greeted Mr. Obama, playing “The Star-Spangled Banner” and waving American flags.

South Korean government officials and diplomatic analysts said that the visit represented a chance for Seoul to raise its profile with the Obama administration by stressing its reliability as a partner in Asia.

Mr. Lee is more closely aligned with American policy than were his liberal predecessors, who saw President George W. Bush’s tough stance on North Korea as counterproductive, and he was elected on a platform of getting tough with Pyongyang. But Mr. Lee has been criticized by the left for his decision to send more aid workers and a small military contingent to Afghanistan in support of the American-led effort there.

During large antigovernment protests last year over beef imports from the United States — an issue that tapped into an undercurrent of anti-American feelings — Mr. Lee was accused of kowtowing to American leaders. In anticipation of demonstrators this visit, the government says it will deploy about 13,000 police and soldiers.

The only potential point of contention on the visit was that Washington still was not moving to ratify a free-trade agreement agreed upon two years ago. Mr. Obama said that he wanted to get it done but acknowledged that “there is obviously a concern in the United States of the incredible trade imbalances that have grown in the past few years.”