constitutionalley.us

This just in from the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington:

China Reform Monitor No. 987, September 10, 2012

On July 24 the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) strategic missile force, the Second Artillery Corps, test fired a state-of-the-art 10-warhead Dongfeng-41 (DF-41) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The military unit fired the missile toward the western desert thousands of miles from the Wuzhai Missile Test Center in Shanxi, the Chosan Ilbo reports. According to a military expert quoted in The Global Times: “The third generation ICBM equipped with multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) is exactly the developing direction of the Second Artillery. Research is underway with the purpose of developing the next-generation ICBM that can hit targets anywhere in the world.” This is the first time state-owned media have acknowledged China is developing an ICBM equipped with multiple nuclear warheads that could defeat U.S. anti-missile defenses. The DF-41 has a range of 10,000-14,000 km, which would cover the entire U.S. Its predecessor, the DF-31, had a range of 7200-8000 km.

A bit more detail can be found at China Defense Mashup.

Perhaps Romney’s foreign policy and defense advisor gurus should do a little re-thinking. Ya think?

Did anyone notice if at the Demvention Slick Willie mentioned his role in the transfer of American missile and nuclear weapons technology to the Chinese?

Guess he was only following-up on Reagan-era policy.

Would you feel safer if you knew Obama had a real Social Security number? I know I would.

Have a nice day.

Ciao,
Dennis

Responding to one of my bottled messages, an ol’ B-school sectionmate of mine garnished his return email with a poem that includes the lines:

“Will señor tell me of my future?”
Her future is all too clear — it has been decided in Berlin.

Which was a bit puzzling until I happened upon Stephan Richter’s piece in the Globalist, “Germany and China: The New Special Relationship”:

Now that the German Chancellor (Angela Merkel) is once again visiting China, accompanied by scores of her top ministers and an outsized contingent of CEOs, the world is beginning to take note.

The Chinese are extremely meticulous when it comes to symbolic moves and announcements. Every step they take, especially regarding expressing favor or disfavor, is calculated to the nth degree. Such is the hallmark of a highly refined, court-centered political culture that reaches back thousands of years.

Thus, when the two countries announced two years ago — in July 2010, during Angela Merkel’s fourth visit to China as German Chancellor — that that they would start a strategic dialogue, it was a significant event.

At the time, most of the world did not notice that the Chinese leadership had just anointed a nation other than the United States the privileged status of conducting a “strategic dialogue.”

That image of things being “decided in Berlin” came even more clearly into focus when next I spied what Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had to say in the Telegraph about ECB goings-on:

The European Central Bank’s ground-breaking plan for mass purchases of Spanish and Italian bonds is fraught with political risk and may soon be overwhelmed by nationalist anger in the crisis states, leading economists and statesmen warned at a gathering of the European policy elites in Italy.

[snip]

Professor Roubini said the German Bundesbank and will insist that “severe” conditions are imposed on Spain once the country requests a rescue from the eurozone EFSF/ESM bail-out funds and signs a memorandum ceding budgetary sovereignty.

“Plenty of accidents can still occur. There is austerity fatigue in the periphery and bail-out fatigue in the core. Eveybody is restless,” he said at the Ambrosetti forum at Lake Como.

It is unclear whether Madrid will accept conditions harsh enough to satisfy hardliners in the German parliament, which must sign off on any new rescue programme.

There’s that darn Berlin going ahead and deciding again.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S.A., we were, understandably, focusing on our upcoming election where this past week’s spotlight shone upon the Democrat’s dog ‘n’ phony show. Putting such distraction aside as much as possible, I did my weekly checkout of Bill Gertz’s “Inside the Ring” column wherein I discovered:

Romney’s policy liberals

Several conservatives who sat in on closed-door meetings at last week’s Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., came away worried by GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s foreign and defense policies.

Of particular concern were statements by Richard Williamson, a former ambassador who was introduced as the top adviser on foreign policy, and former Sen. Jim Talent, the senior defense adviser who in several meetings asserted that Russia is the United States’ “main geopolitical foe.”

By contrast, the advisers described the strategic threat from China as a less-threatening, manageable trade, currency and intellectual-property challenge.(Oh, really?)

Both advisers spoke about Mr. Romney’s Asia policy and were critical of the Obama administration’s new, tougher China policy, called the Asia “pivot,” which seeks to bolster U.S. military forces and build up alliances in the region to counter China’s growing military power and regional aggressiveness.

The advisers said the rebalancing toward Asia is a mistake and that Mr. Romney will not agree to support it as president. Mr. Talent, in one meeting, described the Asia pivot as a “fig leaf” with no substance.

It is true that China is not our only foreign policy concern and this was recently made ever more obvious by Michael Ledeen when he said:

As I’ve written at considerable length, Russia is part of a global alliance aimed at us. Putin et. al. are in cahoots with Khamanei, Chavez, the Chinese, Bolivians, Ecuadorians, Nicaraguans and North Koreans and of course Assad. The Russians don’t have much of an army, but they are helping the terror masters arm and train our would-be assassins. And they work very closely with the Iranians, especially on intelligence matters. A few years ago I was told by an official of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry that if we wanted to understand what the regime was up to, we had to look carefully at the Russian connection. I took him seriously (he was very precise and very accurate, and eventually the regime killed him), and ever since our conversation I’ve sniffed about, trying to figure out what the Russians are up to. . .

That certainly doesn’t let China off the hook. But, could refuge from the uncertainties and dangers of the outside world be found in the proclamations and speechifyin’ wafting out of the Democratic convention? After all, a goodly number of Americans are distracted by political circus as well as our potentially suicidal fiscal/economic shenanigans. Perhaps Mark Steyn can enlighten:

Any space aliens prowling through the rubble of our civilization and stumbling upon a recording of the convention compatible with Planet Zongo DVD players will surely marvel at the valuable peak airtime allotted to Sandra Fluke. It was weird to see her up there among the governors and senators — as weird as Bavarians thought it was when King Ludwig decided to make his principal advisor Lola Montez, the Irish-born “Spanish dancer” and legendary grande horizontale. I hasten to add I’m not saying Miss Fluke is King Barack’s courtesan. For one thing, it’s a striking feature of the Age of Perfected Liberalism that modern liberals talk about sex 24/7 while simultaneously giving off the persistent whiff that the whole thing’s a bit of a chore. Hence, the need for government subsidy. And, in fairness to Miss Montez, she used sex to argue for liberalized government, whereas Miss Fluke uses liberalism to argue for sexualized government.

No, no refuge there. No solace for those of us with extra-national concerns was to be found at the convention. Only distraction. On the other hand, establishment Republicans, including senior Romney policy advisors, appear to be as patriotically self-distractive as their GOP predecessors. Oh, well, there’s always 2016 — if we’re still around at the time.

The Germans proclaim “Deutschland über alles!” Wonder what the equivalent expression is in Mandarin?

Ciao,
Dennis

P.S. New linking style stolen from Remus at the WoodpileReport. Much neater. However, IMHO, the suggestion of always linking to a single-page format doesn’t necessarily work well at times.

Yesterday, during a live CNN convention floor interview, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chairwoman, asserted that there had been no discord on the floor over the God and Jerusalem language MIA in the Democrat’s 2012 platform statement. After said assertion by Ms. DWS, CNN’s Anderson Cooper (beginning at 3:55 in the clip) commented, “That’s an alternate universe.”

Mr. Cooper’s description of DWS as living in an “alternate universe” is, I must point out, merely an application of PPUP, the “Parallel Political Universe Postulate.” I claim authorship of this description of political discourse, and offer as proof the following letter which I sent to a number of conservative pundits back in May of 2004. At that time, the mutually exclusive opinions regarding one Mr. Ahmed Chalabi held by the Defense Department, on the one hand, and State/CIA on the other, was the circumstance that led to my formulation of PPUP. Here’s the letter:

Dear __________,

I believe I’ve stumbled upon a political theory of fundamental import as described below:

There has been little ink and few electrons spared over the last several days regarding L’affaire Chalabi. Having read opinions from opposite sides of the issue, one wonders whether or not these differing accounts are of events on the same planet. Descriptions of Ahmed, his activities, loyalties and history are so dramatically different that they must be mutually exclusive. This does, at first, seem self-evident to the casual observer. However, upon closer consideration of this and other events extant within the body politic, I have reached a radically different conclusion. Both descriptions are true. “How is this possible?”, you ask. My response is that the parsing of politics demands the inclusion of the parallel universe postulate.

Science fiction has for a long time hypothesized the existence of a parallel universe and String Theory embraces the concept of multiple universes. Modern political discourse has proven to be the incontrovertible evidence supporting these assertions. For how else can one explain the simultaneous existence of such mutually exclusive perceptions within the consciousness of diverse segments of the populace? How can it be that so many persons adamantly believe things that cannot possibly be true? And simultaneously believe that those holding the inverse are either lying, befuddled, epsilon-minuses or members of the competing political party?

For brevity’s sake and for the purpose of being consistent with modern acronymity, let’s agree to use PPUP – Parallel Political Universe Postulate – as our shorthand notation. That’s pronounced “Pee-Pup.” This has the advantage of mnemonically reminding one as to the action one should take when one is suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with a PPUP manifestation. This will not, of course, in any manner whatsoever affect or diminish the ghastly apparition. It will, however, provide comforting relief.

PPUP also has the advantage of affording competing political camps the capacity to live with the beliefs of the other party without their having to logically formulate or justify their opinions. These contradictions are just “True” in the space-time of the alternate universe. Once this concept has been fully integrated into our political discourse, the level of acrimony and name-calling will inevitably and substantially subside.

Not so sure about that last bit. But, at least Mr. Cooper has been kind enough to acknowledge my contribution to political science, albeit unwittingly. Now, if I could only get paid for it. . .

Ciao,
Dennis

HatTip: HotAir

Here’s an update to the  “Pro Forma Federal Deficits & Total Debt” spreadsheet, better know as the “Whoop-de-doo-doo Budget Deal.” Since everyone, well, maybe not everyone, is talking about the total U.S. federal debt reaching $16 trillion (Trillion? Where’s Senator Dirkson when you need him?), I thought I’d update my debt spreadsheet. Courtesy of Microsoft’s new and improved SkyDrive, here’s direct access to this wonder of wonders. For a full view in a seperate window, please click on the lower right-hand corner icon titled “View full-size workbook.” Enjoy.

Ciao,
Dennis

There’s been quite a bit of scuttlebutt going around the internet regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s purchase of 450 million rounds of .40 caliber hollow point handgun ammo. Mark Levin even addressed this issue on his show and mentioned the original source for the information. The question on everyone’s keyboard is, “Why the hell does the DHS need all that ammo?” This head scratcher, along with other observations and postings, has a fair number of cyberspace denizens wondering if the imposition of martial law is just around the corner. I was marginally attempting to address that issue when yesterday I broadcast-emailed a link to a FOX News story that included this introductory note:

However, the following makes no mention of the 450 million rounds of .40 cal hollow point handgun ammo going to the DHS:

Agencies tamp down speculation over hollow-point ammo purchases
Published August 17, 2012
FoxNews.com

Obscure federal agencies triggered a firestorm of conspiracy theories this week after they put out orders for thousands of rounds of deadly hollow-point bullets.

But the agencies, most recently the Social Security Administration, are trying to put a damper on the speculation — noting the ammunition is “standard issue” and simply used for mandatory federal training sessions.

“Our special agents need to be armed and trained appropriately,” said a message on the official blog for Social Security’s inspector general office explaining the purchases.

To which I received the following response:

Dennis, any idea how many DHS agents there are?

They are correct that the other orders add up to 500-600 rounds per agent, which makes sense for training. The 450 (million) rounds of 40 S&W seems like a lot more than that, unless DHS is far bigger than I thought.

Best,
Bob

To which I responded:

Good question. Haven’t got a clue. But if I ever come across the information in my internet travels, I’ll be sure to let everyone know. Main reason I’m sending this stuff around is there seems to be a lot of b.s. floating about that’s got people thinking we will soon be subjected to martial law. Just trying to separate fact from fiction as best I can with limited resources. Must confess I’m having some difficulty dealing with it myself.

I have one correspondent who’s spoken to the office of a Congressman on the Homeland Security Committee and they are aware of the martial law rumors. If I learn the response to that inquiry, I’ll pass it along. If the 450 million rounds issue is naught but conspiracy theorist smoke, maybe the DHS or Congress should come out and say so. Wouldn’t hurt.

Crankin’ some numbers we have:

450 million rnds over 5 years is 90 million per year.
90 million rnds/600 rnds per “agent” = 150,000 agents
Considering all the agencies within DHS, that could be a good number.

So, if to stay qualified they shoot 600 rnds/year, the 450 million rnds wouldn’t be but an ordinary buy. Right? Hmmm. . .

Have a good weekend.

Waking early this morning with 450 million rounds still bouncing in my head, I cooked up the following spreadsheet to test the reasonableness of that 150,000 armed DHS agent number:

Note: All percentages shown are WAGs – that’s military speak for “Wild Ass Guesses”

The reasonableness of the 450 million round purchase over five years also depends on the assumption that all DHS armed agents use the same caliber and chambered sidearm.  I have no idea as to whether or not that’s the case. So, it’s still possible that there’s something “fishy” about all this.

Ciao,
Dennis

P.S. From Yahoo News we learn that:

Texas Senator Cornyn Demands Answers on Russian Sub in Gulf of Mexico
by Mark Whittington
August 17, 2012

Guess we don’t need the aircraft since their Caribbean basing on Puerto Rico disappeared when the Rosey Roads naval air station closed. We have Karl Rove to mostly thank for that. You might also consider that closing the base was the objective of the Vieques gunnery range brouhaha in the first place.

The DHS folks aren’t the only ones we may want to worry about.

Hat Tip: Elaine B.

Update: A personal acquaintance of mine who is in the scrap metal business (buys the used casings from the county) informs me that 800 rounds/person/year is not an exceptional number when it come to maintaining one’s firearm qualification as a law enforcement officer.

Hat Tip: Joe T.

Update II: The NRA quotes Rep. Westmoreland and his rebuttal to the 450 million round controversy:

After receiving numerous questions from his constituents regarding the contract, pro-Second Amendment U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and his staff set out in search of the truth. In a press release, Rep. Westmoreland’s office explains:

If you take the number of agencies that will be using this ammunition – CBP, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), ICE, the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, the DHS police force, and all the guards that protect the various buildings these agencies are housed in, and spread that out over 5 years, you start to see that 450 million rounds really isn’t that large of an order. Especially considering it is used for training purposes like firing range and live fire exercises, on-the-job use (though that is very limited), and to shore up their supplies. In fact, there are 65,000 – 70,000 law enforcement personnel at DHS who would be covered under this … ammunition contract. If DHS were to purchase all 450 million rounds over 5 years, then that would equate to only about 1,384 rounds of ammo per year per law enforcement [officer] … assuming the lower estimate of only 65,000 law enforcement personnel at DHS. Considering those agents go through training exercises several times per year, that is not a lot of ammunition.

[snip]

As most gun owners will agree, skepticism of government is healthy. But today, there are more than enough actual threats to the Second Amendment to keep gun owners busy. With two key Supreme Court decisions hanging by a one-vote margin, the Justice Department deeply involved in a cover-up of a disastrous Mexican gun smuggling operation, and President Obama touting a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms, there is no need to invent additional threats to our rights.

Hat Tip: George F.

This past Wednesday, August 8th, former federal prosecuting attorney Andrew McCarthy spoke at the National Press Club in Washington about the Muslim Brotherhood and its growing influence within the corridors of our country’s governing institutions. Here’s how he started out:

Imagine, if you will, the following scenario.

A candidate for a high position in an executive branch agency — a position that entails a great deal of influence over public policy, a position that requires access to highly classified national security information — comes in for an interview by the FBI.

This is a routine background investigation. Even people being considered for low-level positions in the executive branch are subjected to them. It is not because we question their patriotism or suspect that they are bad people. It is just common sense — in addition to being the subject of a good deal of statutory law and federal regulation.

Naturally, as government positions get higher, more important, and more sensitive, the background investigations get more detailed — probing not only a candidate’s background, experiences, finances and associations, but those of the candidate’s close family members.

One matter that is of particular importance is connections to foreign countries, organizations, persons and movements. There’s an entire section devoted to these concerns in Form 86, the form that all candidates for national security positions in the federal government are required to complete.

Let’s assume that our candidate truthfully completes the form. What do you suppose our FBI agent is thinking as he flips through the form, asks some follow up questions, and gets the following story from the candidate:

“I’ve worked the last dozen years at an institute that was founded by a wealthy, influential Saudi who is intimately involved in the financing of terrorism.”

“Are you just speculating about that?” the candidate is asked.

“Speculating? Oh, no, no, I’m not speculating. You see, this Saudi guy actually started an ostensible ‘charity’ that the United States government has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It is a designated terrorist because it lavishly funded al Qaeda — you know, the jihadist network that we’re at war with. As a matter of fact, one of the men this Saudi guy brought in to help him run the specially designated terrorist organization, was so close to Osama bin Laden, that he actually helped bin Laden start al Qaeda.”

The agent figures, “You’ve got to be kidding me. I guess you didn’t know this Saudi guy who was funding al Qaeda, right?”

“Well,” our candidate responds, “as a matter of fact, we overlapped for seven years at that institute I worked at. Remember I told you that he’s the one who started it and I eventually worked there for twelve years? Well, turns out he stayed involved in it for decades — it was his baby … he gave the institution its mission and its vision. He was still there advising it and shaping it for my first seven years there. Then they took him off the masthead … right around the time he became a defendant in the civil lawsuit filed by the victims of the 9/11 attacks.”

The agent is stunned. All he can think to ask is: “Why did you leave the institute?”

“Oh,” our candidate replies, “I got offered a full-time job at the State Department, helping the secretary of State make U.S. foreign policy.”

I really wish that was a farfetched story.

Couldn’t be talking about Huma Abedin, could he? And what might that tell you about her husband, disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who’s hinted at running for NYC mayor? Oh, well, wonders never cease.

Must be something else going on. Wouldn’t you think?

Ciao,
Dennis

P.S. Et tu, Hillary? Mr. Maverick, McCain?

Update: Et tu, Karen Hughes? In his response to an op/ed criticism by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, Mr. McCarthy discusses a visit by Karen Hughes of the Bush II Administration to the college in Saudi Arabia founded by Huma Abedin’s mother, “Dar al-Hekma.” Milbank asserts that this incident negates McCarthy’s criticism of the Obama Administration. McCarthy retorts:

But anyone who has followed what I’ve been arguing here and elsewhere for years knows that I was extremely critical of the Bush administration’s outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. Contrary to Milbank’s intimation, I was not making a partisan argument; I was making a national-security argument.

Mr. Milbank?

If nothing else, Ms. Hughes  seems to have planted a suffragette seed during her 2005 trip to the Arabian Peninsula as Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy: Saudi Women to Get Their Own Wheels?

Yesterday, I sent a fellow political malcontent and skeptic a link to a Washington Times article titled “Tea party candidate wins in Texas GOP runoff” with the following question attached: “Wonder how many of these it will take to awaken the Establishment GOP? If ever, that is!” Her reply: “The Establishment GOP can’t be living in a cave.  Cheney ripped Sarah Palin apart over the weekend. If they can publicly turn on their own, there must be something else going on.” Indeed, there must, but what? I can’t answer that question, but I can tell you that my skepticism regarding the GOP began in the summer of 2001 even before the Twin Towers came a-tumbling down.

One thing that struck me as odd was Karl Rove’s insistence at the time on carrying water for the Democrats regarding the closing of the naval gunnery range on the island of Vieques just east of Puerto Rico. This went directly against the grain of many Congressional Republicans who felt that the range was a vital adjunct to our military preparedness and a key training facility. Progressive Democrat Hillary Clinton, a freshly minted Senator from New York in 2001, along with the all-around utility race-baiter and Vieques-protester jailbird, the Reverend Al Sharpton, had, since the death of a range guard in a bombing accident, fanned leftist Puerto Rican flames calling for the closing of the range. A number of alleged but ludicrous health issues for Vieques residents were concocted in an effort to justify the closing of the range. And closed it was, even after the events of 9/11. A few years later the closing of the naval base and air station at Roosevelt Roads, located at the eastern end of Puerto Rico itself, was accompanied by much Puerto Rican wailing and gnashing of teeth at the loss of thousands of jobs associated with the facility, as well as to the gleeful cheers of Puerto Rican Communists. As a result, the Navy had to lease landing rights in non-U.S. territory in order to continue operating the Caribbean patrols that had previously flown out of Roosevelt Roads.

Now, Karl Rove has always been branded as a political guru and go-to guy for winning your next election. So I must assume that the Vieques and Roosevelt Roads decisions were basically politically motivated and not defense policy decisions. But why help your political opposition? How many New York Puerto Ricans would become card-carrying Republicans because you close an important defense facility at the behest of Senator Hillary and the no-longer-quite-as-Big Al? Maybe it was a campaign promise:

Other factors may have come into play. Later this year Rosewood Hotels & Resorts of Dallas plans to open a luxury resort on Vieques. The company, which last year gave $100,000 in soft money to the Republican National Committee, is half-owned by Caroline Rose Hunt, whose half brother was Bush’s Texas Finance chairman. According to one source intimately familiar with the Vieques dispute, the Navy’s bombing “had raised concerns” about development plans on the island. But a Rosewood spokeswoman insisted that the company had not spoken to anyone in the administration about the project.

On Vieques, No Hispanic Is an Island
Banding together, Latino muscle forces W to cave
By Arian Campo-Flores and Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK, June 25, 2001 issue

“Latino muscle forces W to cave”? Good job, Karl.

So, when Rove’s telling of his W-Administration adventures was published, I went and bought a copy to satisfy my curiosity regarding the Vieques brouhaha. What did I learn? Nothing. Nada, naught, nil, zip, zero, zilch is to be found in the book’s index regarding Vieques, Puerto Rico or even the Caribbean.  The only Chavez therein is Linda, not Hugo; despite the latter having noticed the Devil’s smell of sulfur while addressing the U.N General Assembly in 2006 the day after President Bush had spoken to the opening session. Nor is there any mention of Panama and how the Chinese were doing two years after their operational takeover of the Canal when we decided to militarily bail out of Puerto Rico. Latin America was now an historical curiosity and the Monroe Doctrine shredded.

Next time I’ll check the index prior to purchase. Anyone care to buy a copy of Karl’s opus? Cheap?

Ciao,
Dennis

P.S. Via HotAir: “Rick Warren: Chick-fil-A’s owner told me they set a new world record in sales today.” Must be something else going on.

In today’s American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord refreshes our memories regarding the Alger Hiss/Whittaker Chambers controversy that graced the American political scene a few decades ago. At that time, New Deal progressives quickly and vehemently came to the defense of Hiss. That kind of reaction seems not at all unlike the vindictiveness establishment Republicans have recently exhibited by excoriating Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for her straightforward inquiries into the thoroughness of State Department security clearance vetting. As Lord asks in “Is Huma Abedin the New Alger Hiss?“:

Is Huma Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood what Alger Hiss was to the Soviet Union?

Why are Republican Senator John McCain, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rodgers (R-MI) acting in the growing Abedin controversy as Washington Establishment Democrats of the 1940s did in the Hiss episode? Which is to say, writing off the dangers of a foreign enemy whose goal is to infiltrate the U.S. government — because, well, the people in question are part of the Washington Establishment?

And last but certainly not least, why is the Republican Establishment pursuing a losing strategy in the war against Islamic radicalism? Is it returning to the losing strategy it pursued during the Cold War — a strategy that was overturned over Establishment opposition by Ronald Reagan’s victorious “we win, they lose” strategy?

The article is well worth reading in its entirety for both its description of the current brouhaha and as an Alger Hiss controversy primer, including Richard Nixon’s treatment at the hands of the Establishment for his part in the Hiss investigation when he was a young Republican Congressman.

However, left out of the analysis is another major event associated with the Cold War that is not often mentioned nowadays: Nixon’s trip to China. If we consider China’s American-boosted rise as an industrial and military power, the Middle Kingdom’s seemingly incessant hostility towards the U.S. that includes continuing and ubiquitous espionage efforts, and ask ourselves what have the Chinese ever done that’s been to our strategic benefit, another question comes to my mind:

Was Henry Kissinger Richard Nixon’s Alger Hiss?

Just wondering.

Ciao,
Dennis

Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism [IPT] is the producer of the hit 1994 PBS special “Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America” (Updated post-9/11 version). Given below are links to Mr. Emerson’s pre-9/11 testimony before both houses of Congress that may be found, along with the rest of his testimony and that of other IPT contributors, here. I read numbers 7 through 10 shortly after 9/11, and it is upon this foundation that I have built my current opinions of radical Muslim activities in and against the United States. Especially informative is no. 7, “Foreign Terrorists in America: Five Years After the WTC Bombing“.

(Post continues after the listing)

1. Terrorism in Buenos Aires, Panama, London
   The U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights
   08/01/94
2. Africa and the Middle East, The Expanding Threat of Terrorism
   The U.S. House International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Africa
   04/06/95
3. Hamas, the PLO, and Terrorist Attacks Against Israel
   The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations
   03/12/96
4. Origins and Activities of Hamas in the U.S.
   The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia
   03/19/96
5. Syrian Terrorism and US Policy
   The U.S. House of Representatives International Relations Commitee
   07/25/96
6. Terrorism, Sudan and US Counter-Terrorist Policy
   The Senate Foreign Relations Commitee, Subcommittee on African Affairs
   05/15/97
7. Foreign Terrorists in America: Five Years After the WTC Bombing
   The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information
   02/24/98
8. Tehran and Terrorism: Iran Under President Muhammad Khatami
   The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Near East and South Asia Affairs
   05/14/98
9. The Operations of Terrorist Networks in the US and Canada
   The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
   01/26/00
10. Classified Information to Prevent the Presence of Terrorists
    The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
    05/23/00

In his testimony, Mr. Emerson names individuals and organizations associated with or directly involved in radical Islamist activities in the U.S. and the Middle East. Included among these is the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR which was among those embraced by the Bush Administration immediately after 9/11 in an effort to constrain potential backlash against American Muslims. Why President Bush found CAIR to be an appropriate group for this purpose is beyond me. Whether Bush was aware of CAIR’s associations or merely acted upon the recommendations of Republican insiders such as Grover Norquist, who is married to a Muslim woman, I have no notion. And if there really are any “moderate Muslims” in the U.S., I can fully appreciate why they might be reluctant to speak up when organizations such as CAIR are already inside the White House and pandered to by the FBI.

I am emphasizing Steve Emerson’s Congressional testimony because all the work he did and the information he thereby provided was essentially and “officially” tossed out after 9/11 as irrelevant.  If there’s anything one should take away from the volumes of testimony prior to 9/11 by Mr. Emerson and others, it’s that the Islamist leopards are quite unlikely to change their spots. They’ve been at this game for a very long time, are dedicated and highly motivated, and have little compunction about declaring their intentions . . . at least in Arabic. Just ask MEMRI. So it just astonishes me that there are those, i.e., Senator John McCain, who still insist on carrying water for those who desire and intend to establish themselves as the primary moral force in America.

Senator McCain’s latest bloviation involves his criticism of Rep. Michele Bachmann and other Republicans for their concerns regarding the influence that the Muslim Brotherhood may have within Hillary Clinton’s State Department. And from whence would such influence propagate? The Secretary’s deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, has family members, including her mother, closely associated with the Brotherhood. Nothing to be concerned about there, right?

Lined-up in support of Ms. Bachmann are Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom at FrontPageMag.com along with Andrew McCarthy at the National Review. McCain prodders include the usually suspect Huffington Post and Daily Beast. There’s even been a threat against Ms. Abedin that’s prompted increased security on her behalf provided by the FBI. Oh, my!

In a country with 5 percent of the world’s population and 50 percent of the world’s attorneys, everything seems to turn on “proof” and “evidence” and not just a reasonable facsimile thereof. Paul Mirengoff at Power Line had this to say about the Bachmann/Abedin/McCain kerfuffle and a “problem” with the Congresswoman’s letter to the State Department:

But Bachmann presents no evidence showing that State Department policy is the product of Muslim Brotherhood influence. The only evidence she offers is the fact that Abedin has a position of influence and that members of her family are connected to the Brotherhood. This is insufficient because it assumes that Abedin shares the sympathies and views of family members. It’s possible that she does, but that ought not be assumed.

Mr. Mirengoff wouldn’t happen to be an attorney, would he? :)

I think a peek at what some of what Bill Gertz had to say in last week’s “Inside the Ring” may help clear things up a bit:

U.S.-Egypt alliance

Reports from Egypt indicate that the Obama administration has entered into a covert alliance with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Egyptian news reports and commentary and at least one Egyptian official were quoted this week in reports as saying the Brotherhood and its leader, Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi, made the alliance after a meeting earlier this month between Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and following comments by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Egyptian presidential election results.

The covert deal is said to involve U.S. support for Mr. Mursi’s reinstating of the dissolved People’s Assembly in exchange for agreement by the Egyptians to support peace with Israel, a key target for the Islamists.

Does McCain have any notion as to what or with whom he is dealing? He is either totally block-headed or really was the “Manchurian Candidate” as I suggested in 2008. Back then I pointed out that he had carried water for George Soros. But now, the Muslim Brotherhood?

Butt-kisser or Boot-licker, the choice is yours.

Ciao,
Dennis

Some thoughts on ToD (Topics o’the Day) for those of you who’ve had your fill of Aurora, Colorado.

From the Brigadier came the following:

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
Posted on June 28, 2012
by I.M. Citizen
at White House 2012 

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

To which I replied:

I’ve seen a number of articles on the subject. Some judge Roberts positively, others negatively. My go-to guy for the law, Chicago & NYU law professor Richard Epstein, wasn’t very kind to Roberts on this decision when judging it from a legalistic viewpoint. Personally, if the decision negatively impacts Obama, I’m all for it. However, even if Romney gets elected, he will not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so Obamacare will not be repealed wholesale. All Romney would then be able to do is refuse to enforce some or all of it. But that would create chaos in the healthcare insurance biz because no one would know what they are or are not legally obligated to do.

The whole business is a frickin’ mess and I do believe that’s precisely what was intended when originally passed by the Democrats. They absolutely knew it would never be completely tossed out while moving the chess pieces in a socialist direction. Anyone believing the Republicans will be starting over from scratch is kidding himself.

And then, there’s the states. What will they do? Collectively or individually?

Frankly, politically motivated legislative and jurisprudential brinkmanship is no way to run a country.

From B-school buddy Harry came the following, though included with the email was his strong disclaimer regarding any concurrence with Ms. Warren’s political  philosophy:

Washington Post
Libor fraud exposes Wall Street’s rotten core
By Elizabeth Warren, Published: July 19

Elizabeth Warren chaired the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel from 2008 to 2010. She is the Democratic nominee for a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.