The Cool Blue Blog

Captain Ross Pixler

On patrol in al Bawi, Iraq, First Lieutenant Ross Pixler was in the lead inside his armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle on an October day when the fiery blast of an IED shattered the daily monotony. The deeply buried IED exploded as the Bradley passed over, ripping the vehicle apart and killing three fellow soldiers.         

Still dazed by the carnage, Pixler exemplified the strength of an army soldier by ignoring his injuries, finding his rifle, and getting to work. Already the three other vehicles in the convoy were approaching the attack site, but Pixler wasted no time in checking on the unconscious driver and gunner, and taking up a defensive position. He later reflected, “Everything goes really fast and I wasn’t really stopping to think about what I was doing. I was doing what I was trained to do.”         

Just as Pixler and the rest of his unit began recovering from the attack, scattered mortar and small arms fire bombarded the site. Pixler, rattled by his concussion, did not hesitate to raise his rifle and take a key role in the defense of the position while assistance came to recover the bodies of the Americans.         

As the hours wore on, Pixler and the other surviving members of his team were loaded onto another Bradley and pulled out of the waning firefight. The safety of the rescue vehicle was broken when another IED crippled it, forcing the men to exit the vehicle and repulse another attack.         

It would be many hours from the initial attack to the time Pixler and his men were within the walls of an American base, but during that time his focus on the mission and his men never wavered.         

For his bravery under such austere conditions and his tenacity in the face of adversity, he earned the prestigious Silver Star medal. Pixler considers it not an award for himself but, “an award for every single one of the soldiers that were out there, and the ones that can’t come home.”         

An example of our power

President Clinton wisely ignored his assigned foreign policy topic given to him by the Obama campaign. He also ignored, again wisely, his 10 minute speech allotment. What resulted was the best partisan speech of the Convention and the first speech that actually made a case for the candidate.

Obama may be a great orator, but Clinton is still the best politician the Democrats have on their bench.

Unfortunately, Clinton, in order to recommend Obama had to exaggerate: Not only Obama's qualifications, but his own accomplishments.

He also had to misrepresent Bush's legacy.

Our nation is in trouble on two fronts: The American dream is under siege at home, and America's leadership in the world has been weakened.

Middle-class and low-income Americans are hurting, with incomes declining; job losses, poverty and inequality rising; mortgage foreclosures and credit card debt increasing; health care coverage disappearing; and a big spike in the cost of food, utilities, and gasoline...

American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They've worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than one-quarter as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s.

But according to the most recent Census Report

America's poverty rate remained flat, but the median household income reached $50,233 in 2007, a modest increase of 1.3 percent from 2006 after adjusting for inflation, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Tuesday. The number of people without health insurance dropped from 47 million to 45.7 million.

The figures showed incomes rose for whites and blacks across the country, but stayed flat for Hispanics and Asians.

This contradicts Clinton's entire domestic argument. And there's this:

The US economy grew faster than expected in the second quarter of 2008 due to rising exports, falling imports, more consumer spending and less inventory reduction than initially reported, the Commerce Department said today

The economy grew at a 3.3% annualized rate in the second quarter, a sharp upward revision from the 1.9% growth reported in Commerce's first estimate a month ago and higher than the 0.9% gain in the first quarter. The 3.3% GDP increase is the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2007, when GDP grew at a 4.8% annualized rate.

Jobs today are declining. But they were declining when Clinton left office as well. They declined further after the attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. But in between, the economy grew tremendously. By January of 2008, there had been 52 straight months of job growth.

Clinton left office with the GDP growing at an anemic 0.7% rate

And gas prices have been higher, but one can place the blame squarely on those, mostly Democrats, who refused time and again to allow drilling for domestic oil. And it was Clinton who vetoed a bill to drill in ANWAR back in 1996.

Bill Clinton continued

Our position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation; a perilous dependence on imported oil; a refusal to lead on global warming; a growing indebtedness and a dependence on foreign lenders; a severely burdened military; a backsliding on global nonproliferation and arms control agreements; and a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy, from the Middle East to Africa to Latin America to Central and Eastern Europe.

Too much unilateralism? Who was it that went to war in Kosovo without a UN mandate? Did Clinton forget the most significant Foreign Policy decision he made (that is after turning tail and running away in Mogadishu)?

Obama, wants to unilaterally engage Iran even though Europe wants no such initiative.

That's unilateralism.

Bill Clinton said

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

That's not true: Some people in the world are impressed by the power of our example.

And some are only impressed by an example of our power.

The next leader of the Free World needs to have the wisdom to distinguish between the two group and to provide the right example to the right group.

Who that is is for you to decide.

All I'll say on that is that had Obama been President over the last 4 years, we would have had another Mogadishu moment in Iraq.

Or more precisely, a Saigon moment.

Clueless in Vermont

So according to the Census Bureau, things are heading in the right direction even though we are currently in a bit of an economic rut

America's poverty rate remained flat, but the median household income reached $50,233 in 2007, a modest increase of 1.3 percent from 2006 after adjusting for inflation, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Tuesday. The number of people without health insurance dropped from 47 million to 45.7 million.

The figures showed incomes rose for whites and blacks across the country, but stayed flat for Hispanics and Asians.

But in Vermont, things look a bit different

A Census report released Tuesday offers a dim picture of Vermont's economy: the state's median household income for 2006-07 dropped by 4.7 percent from 2004-05.

"Experts" in Vermont are clueless as to why this should be so.

Woolf also said indicators paint a different picture of Vermonters' income. The state's income withholding tax revenue grew during that time period and continues to grow, he noted.

"Those numbers have been fairly healthy," Woolf said. "How do you reconcile that?"

Hmmm. Let's review a few facts and see where that leads us.

First, is something I noticed back in May of 2007:

On the heels of the announcement that Vermont's tax burden on individuals is the highest in the country, comes the news that the State coffers are overflowing with cash.

Secretary of Administration Michael Smith said financial analysts expected the flow of taxes into the state's General Fund might exceed official targets by about $15 million. "I don't think anybody expected this."

Now you'd think that these two stories, when put together would indicate that people are taxed too much. I mean clearly, if you have a surplus, then you have taken in more money than you need to run the government.

Now as any person who has played SimCity knows, when the tax rates go up higher than the perceived value they receive, people tend to move away. Is there any evidence that people are moving away from Vermont?

Why yes there is.

New estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau show that more people are leaving Vermont than moving into the state. There's nothing really new there, but the decline is steeper than earlier estimates....

"The estimates are showing that Vermont has a net decrease of people moving around from state to state," Sawyer said, "so people moving out of the state, there's a net decrease in the past seven years -- of about 300 people. There's a net increase of around 5,000 based on international migration," he added.

International migration. Vermont is only growing at all because of refugees from other countries

This means that refugees and other immigrants are arriving in enough numbers to reverse what would have been an outright loss of population in Vermont into a slight gain. In each of the seven years since 2000, the census has estimated slow growth in Vermont up from 609,909 to 621,254. That's a little less than 2-percent.

And high taxes might lead businesses to go elsewhere.

Why yes there is.

One crucial fact they have recently discovered is that though the late 1990s seemingly produced sunny economic forecasts, there was a dark side to the state of the state's economy. Low unemployment rates and non-wage income masked an economy with an eroding base of strategic industries that was also too dependent on a handful of companies.

That was from 2002, but the situation has not gotten better since. Unemployment in Vermont is higher than the national average.

Meanwhile, the Vermont Legislature under Douglas' opponent Gaye Simington were more concerned in the last session about impeaching President and Global Warming than they were about addressing Vermont's business climate.

And then they wonder why incomes in Vermont are falling.

Sergeant First Class Frederick Rowell

Sergeant First Class Frederick Rowell of the United States Army was deployed to Iraq for two tours, both of which took place during some of the most pivotal moments of that ongoing campaign, and both times he distinguished himself with valor and heroism.          

In the “blitzkrieg” invasion of Iraq, then-Sergeant Rowell was involved in the critical fight for the Baghdad International Airport. April 4, 2003 was the first great test of this young non-commissioned officer’s dedication to his fellow soldiers. After dismounting its Bradley fighting vehicle, Rowell’s unit came under heavy automatic and rocket-propelled grenade fire. After assessing the severity of the fire, Rowell covered his comrades as they fell back to their Bradley when he noticed another squad was pinned down far from cover and taking heavy fire. Once his own squad was in the relative safety of its armored vehicle, Rowell did not hesitate to act.         

Charging across open terrain under the aim of Iraqi forces, Rowell arrived at the scene of the isolated squad to find it without leadership and one soldier severely injured. Rowell sprang into action, laying down cover fire and applying first aid to the injured private. As the enemy attack became more focused and more intense, Rowell threw himself on top of the soldier, using his own body as a shield while a rescue vehicle closed in on their beleaguered position. Rowell took a direct hit from an AK-47 round in his back, luckily stopped by his body armor – a round that would have almost certainly killed the private under Rowell. With the evacuation vehicle blocked from coming any closer, Rowell hoisted the wounded private onto his back and ran some 100 meters to save the injured soldier.         

With the “Surge” operations intensifying in Iraq in September of 2007, Rowell, now a Staff Sergeant, was in charge of a squad on a scouting mission to observe insurgent activity in a volatile part of Baghdad. His squad – split into two observation posts in two buildings – came under fire from multiple directions.         

As enemy fire poured in on them, Rowell planned to move his team to the other observation post, but as the first soldier was severely injured by an IED as he stepped out of the door. Rowell was knocked unconscious by the blast, but regained his focus – despite being later diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury – and rose to his feet, running to the aid of his comrade. Under heavy fire, Rowell pulled the man back into the building and defended him from the numerous attackers. With a group of Stryker combat vehicles arriving on the scene, Rowell helped evacuate the wounded soldier, directed the reinforcements to the enemy positions. On the way out of the kill-zone, Rowell manned the roof gun on the Stryker as they evacuated the injured to a combat hospital.         

In these two events, Rowell’s heroism was undeniable. By ignoring his own safety and using his body as a shield to protect a wounded soldier in 2003, he earned the Silver Star. For coming to the aid of another wounded soldier and displaying steadfast courage under harrowing fire in 2007, he earned the Bronze Star Medal with Valor.

Ban Brothers

Well, first I must admit I was wrong. At least I'm pretty sure Senator Biden is not, and never has been, a woman.

But Senator Obama's pick of Joe Biden as his running mate confirms my worst fears about what an Obama Presidency would mean to the Right to Self-Defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment: it would be legislatively erased.

I have recounted Senator Obama's record of hostility to the Second Amendment here. Senator Biden, however, isn't just talk. He has been in Congress for many decades and used his position to take positive action to attempt to deprive law-abiding citizens of their right to bear arms.

He's a guy who, during the Democratic Debate in in July of 2007 took credit for writing the Assault Weapon ban legislation. While there is no actual evidence to support this claim, it is true that Senator Biden

• Voted to allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
• Voted to allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
• Voted against more penalties for gun & drug violations.
• Voted to require gun dealers to sell guns with gun locks

And during that same debate, became an instant psychiatrist and declared a gun-owning questioner not qualified to own guns due to mental incapacity. On the spot.

"If that's his baby, he needs help,"

“I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don’t know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun.”

“I’m being serious,” Biden chuckled. “Look, we should be working with law enforcement, right now, to make sure that we protect people against people who don’t — are not capable of knowing what to do with a gun because they’re either mentally imbalanced and/or because they have a criminal record, and . . . “

Finishing up his mental evaluation with "I hope he doesn’t come looking for me."

Clearly in those few seconds Senator Biden could in no way determine the mental stability of the questioner and it was unfair to assume the man had an aggressive nature that would make him want to "come looking" for the Senator simply because they disagree. As far as I can tell, Senator Biden contemptuously slandered a citizen for political gain.

In the South Carolina Democratic Debate, Senator Biden said

"We should not have let the assault weapons ban lapse."

It seems that he and Senator Obama are the perfect pair: The Ban Brothers.

The Gun Ban Brothers.

Expert opinions

Senator Obama is getting ever closer to admitting the "Surge" worked. Of course, his most recent step towards this admission came while he was addressing the Veterans Of Foreign Wars

Sen. Barack Obama, edging away from a long-held position, tacitly acknowledged the success of the Iraq troop-surge strategy during an appearance Tuesday before the country's largest organization of combat veterans.

"Let's be clear, our troops have completed every mission they've been given," Mr. Obama said at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Orlando, Fla., where the likely Democratic presidential nominee courted military voters who are expected to play a pivotal role in several swing states. "They have created the space for political reconciliation."

It was the closest Mr. Obama - who has long opposed the surge - has come to agreeing with President Bush or likely Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain on the Iraq strategy.

It gets increasingly more difficult to deny the results. Especially when Foreign Policy Magazine's newly published survey results showed that most Foreign Policy Experts were also forced to agree "The Surge" has worked.

What a difference a year makes. When the index’s experts were asked a year ago about the so-called surge of U.S. troops into Iraq, 53 percent   believed it was doing little good. Today, 60 percent of the experts see   the surge as a reason for progress. Seventy-nine percent say the surge   helped to lift Iraq’s economy. Nearly 9 in 10 say the surge benefited Iraq’s security. And about half say that the surge assisted Iraqi   political reconciliation.

A year ago, 22% of these experts thought that Iraq was likely to become an al Qaida stronghold while 35% thought that would be Pakistan. Today, 0% of these experts think Iraq will be in the al Qaida column while 51% think Pakistan.

But I have to put quotes around the word "experts". Why? Simply this.

Only fifty one percent of them think Pakistan is the al Qaida stronghold? What the hell is wrong with the other 49% of "experts"? Are you nuts or just blind?

What's worse, only 35% of these experts thought this last year yet it has been apparent for years that Western Pakistan was the nexus of al Qaida activity. The only question about Iraq was: Would they be able to move and assume the reigns of a nation-state.

Even though only 51% of "experts" think that Pakistan is not al Qaida Central,

70 percent recommend that the majority of U.S. forces be withdrawn and redeployed to Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf in the next 18 months.

Now why would you recommend such a redeployment if Pakistan is not the new home of al Qaida? Wouldn't one want to redeploy to wherever al Qaida has taken root, wherever that might be.

Perhaps, the problem is, many of these Foreign Policy "experts" do not believe in the global reach of Islamicism. In fact, it is clear that many of them do not. Counter-terrorist expert Jeffrey Imm wrote

On July 13, 2008, the Washington Post published a column by former CIA member Glenn Carle who stated "[w]e do not face a global jihadist 'movement' but a series of disparate ethnic and religious conflicts involving Muslim populations, each of which remains fundamentally regional in nature and almost all of which long predate the existence of al-Qaeda." This denial of anything "global" about Jihad and Islamic supremacism is the mantra of the mainstream media, intelligence agencies, government leaders, and too many in the counterterrorism community.

The idea that the Islamic supremacist ideology that is at the root of the women murdered by the Taliban in Pakistan on August 20, 2008 (crushing one of their faces) -- is the same Islamic supremacist ideology that drove MILF Jihadists to dismember innocent Philippine citizens on August 18, 2008 -- does not make sense to a policy world that view threats by regions, not by ideologies.

It is also clear, that many of these "experts" also view threats by region and not by ideology.

These "experts"

when asked what the most important U.S. policy objective during the next five years should be, only 8 percent of the experts listed a stable, secure Iraq.

Yet these "experts" think that the most significant outcome of the war in Iraq is

... not the end of Saddam’s dictatorship, a rise in militant Islam, or even a war-torn Iraq. Rather, almost half of the experts say that the most important outcome is the emergence of Iran as the most powerful country in the Middle East. Worse, three quarters of the experts believe that the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions is rising.

If that's the case, then a stable, secure Iraq should be the number 1 priority. I mean if these guys are saying that it was better to have Saddam around to counter Iraq, than it should be even better to have a stable, secure and friendly Iraq to counter Iran. What am I missing?

But being an expert doesn't mean you know what to do. While many of these experts recognize Western Pakistan is a security problem for America

Asked if the United States should take military action in Pakistan if there is a chance to capture or kill high-ranking members of al Qaeda, assuming Islamabad has not given the ok, 65 percent of the experts say they are unsure which course of action is correct. In a country so volatile, there appear to be more dangers than easy answers.

Ultimately, this is why we have single Commander-in-Chief.

And this is why we need someone in the job who has the judgment to see beyond the experts.

Because if you look at the data presented by Foreign Affairs magazine, there are "experts" who believe that the Surge was not working a year ago and is not working today.

A position echoed by Senator Obama up until very, very recently.

 

Navy Seal Master-At-Arms Second Class Michael Monsoor

Remarks by President Bush at Michael Monsoor's Medal of Honor Ceremony:

The newly minted frogman became a beloved member of the SEAL team community.  His teammates liked to laugh about the way his shiny Corvette would leave everybody in the dust.  But deep down, they always knew Mike would never leave anybody behind when it counted.  He earned their confidence with his attention to detail and quiet work ethic.  One of Mike's officers remembers an instructor once asking after an intense training session, "What's the deal with the Monsoor guy?  He just says, 'Roger that,' to everything."

When Mike deployed with his team to Ramadi in the spring of 2006, he brought that attitude with him.  Because he served as both a heavy machine gunner and a communications operator, he often had a double load of equipment -- sometimes more than a hundred pounds worth.  But under the glare of the hot desert sun, he never lost his cool.

At the time, Ramadi was in the clutches of al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents.  Together, the SEALs and the Army 1st Battalion of the 506 Infantry Regiment took the offense against the enemy.  The SEALs carried out a broad range of special operations -- including providing sniper cover in tough urban conditions, and conducting raids against terrorists and insurgents.  Overall, Mike's platoon came under enemy attack during 75 percent of their missions.  And in most of these engagements, Mike was out front defending his brothers.

In May 2006, Mike and another SEAL ran into the line of fire to save a wounded teammate.  With bullets flying all around them, Mike returned fire with one hand while helping pull the injured man to safety with the other. In a dream about the incident months later, the wounded SEAL envisioned Mike coming to the rescue with wings on his shoulders.

On Saint Michael's Day -- September 29, 2006 -- Michael Monsoor would make the ultimate sacrifice.  Mike and two teammates had taken position on the outcropping of a rooftop when an insurgent grenade bounced off Mike's chest and landed on the roof.  Mike had a clear chance to escape, but he realized that the other two SEALs did not.  In that terrible moment, he had two options -- to save himself, or to save his friends.  For Mike, this was no choice at all. He threw himself onto the grenade, and absorbed the blast with his body. One of the survivors puts it this way: "Mikey looked death in the face that day and said, 'You cannot take my brothers.  I will go in their stead.'"

The Citation reads

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as automatic weapons gunner for Naval Special Warfare Task Group Arabian Peninsula, in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM on 29 September 2006.

As a member of a combined SEAL and Iraqi Army Sniper Overwatch Element, tasked with providing early warning and stand-off protection from a rooftop in an insurgent held sector of Ar Ramadi, Iraq, Petty Officer Monsoor distinguished himself by his exceptional bravery in the face of grave danger. In the early morning, insurgents prepared to execute a coordinated attack by reconnoitering the area around the element’s position. Element snipers thwarted the enemy’s initial attempt by eliminating two insurgents. The enemy continued to assault the element, engaging them with a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire. As enemy activity increased, Petty Officer Monsoor took position with his machine gun between two teammates on an outcropping of the roof. While the SEALs vigilantly watched for enemy activity, an insurgent threw a hand grenade from an unseen location, which bounced off Petty Officer Monsoor’s chest and landed in front of him. Although only he could have escaped the blast, Petty Officer Monsoor chose instead to protect his teammates.  Instantly and without regard for his own safety, he threw himself onto the grenade to absorb the force of the explosion with his body, saving the lives of his two teammates. By his undaunted courage, fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of certain death, Petty Officer Monsoor gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

Top Secret

According to Wikipedia's entry on Bill Ayers

The groups Ayers headed in Detroit and Michigan became one of the earliest gatherings of what became the Weatherman. Between the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the June 1969 SDS convention, Ayers became a prominent leader of the group, which arose as a result of a schism in SDS.^[4]

"During that time his infatuation with street fighting grew and he developed a language of confrontational militancy that became more and more extreme over the year [1969]", former Weatherman member Cathy Wilkerson wrote in 2001...

In June 1969, the Weatherman took control of the SDS at its national convention, where Ayers was elected "Education Secretary".

What type of "Education" was Mr Ayers interested in? As a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Steve Diamond writes:

He argued then, as he does now, that “white supremacy” is the original sin of American life.

White racism represents for him the same kind of “oppression” that the maoist movement he was influenced by then said was responsible for the plight of poor countries. Just as rich countries (like the United States or Germany) exploited poor countries (like China or Cuba) on an international scale, the Weather Underground argued, white people in the United States exploited black people. Thus, the role of the “revolutionary vanguard” of students was to support black revolutionary groups at whatever cost, including armed robbery and bombings. While Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn no longer engage in violence their political views have not changed.

Senator Barack Obama was Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 1999 and after stepping down as Chairman, remained on the Board of Directors until the CACs demise in 2001.

But according to the Senator,

When Obama was asked about Ayers during Wednesday's debate, he described him as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." He said he does not exchange ideas with him "on a regular basis."

It seems, though, that a reasonable person could conclude otherwise:

During Obama’s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest. With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues. With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”). So when Ayers and Dorhn hosted that kickoff for the first Obama campaign, it was not a random happenstance, but merely further evidence of a close and ongoing political partnership. Of course, all of this clearly contradicts Obama’s dismissal of the significance of his relationship with Ayers.

But in trying to ascertain which story is correct, NRO Contributing Editor Stanley Kurtz ran into a roadblock: The Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).

Within UIC resides a large cache of documents containing the internal files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. "The records in question are extensive, consisting of 132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material."

But even though he was given permission to access these records, his access was revoked at the last minute.

The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access....

Just before my plane took off, I received an e-mail from the special-collections librarian informing me that she had “checked our collection file” and determined that “access to the collection is closed.” I would be permitted to view the single CAC-related file from the Office of the Chancellor records, but nothing from the CAC records proper....

After arriving in Chicago, I found a message, not from the special-collections librarian, but from Ann C. Weller, professor and head, Special Collections Department. In answer to my question of who had authority over access to the collection, Weller said, that “the decision was made by me” in consultation with the library director. Weller stated that no one currently has access to the collection and added that: “The Collection is closed because it has come to our attention that there is restricted material in the collection. Once the collection has been processed it will be open to any patron interested in viewing it.”

...I then noted that I had studied the CAC finding aid with considerable care. It was clear from that finding aid, I said, that only five out of the 947 folders were in any way restricted. Four folders, containing auditor’s reports, where clearly marked, in bold type, “THESE FOLDERS ARE RESTRICTED VIA ANNENBERG CHALLENGE until further notice.” A fifth folder, containing records of eight CAC Board of Directors meetings in 1995, when CAC was first set up, had a notation nearby with the word, “Consent.” It would be a simple matter, I said, to pull these five folders, allow me access to the remaining 942 folders, and contact the relevant authority for consent to view the records of the 1995 board meetings...

Weller replied to this message by dropping the restricted documents issue and saying instead that the donor of the CAC records “has alerted us to the fact that we do not have a signed deed of gift.” According to Weller, this means that UIC’s library has no legal right to make the material available. The donor, said Weller, is now working with UIC library to resolve the problem, and “we hope to be able to provide access within the next few weeks.”

...There are a number of disturbing elements to this story. Recall that, according to the graduate assistant, the collection had, in fact, already been “processed.” Yet Weller’s initial message to me used the unprocessed state of the collection as a reason for restricting access. And when I pointed out how easy it would be to remove the restricted files, Weller quickly came up with yet another reason to block access. At the moment, I have no way of verifying Weller’s claim that the library has no signed deed of gift, but how likely is it that a collection of such size and importance would have been housed in the library, and listed in publicly accessible international library catalogues, without this very basic detail having been attended to? It’s also puzzling that UIC now raises the absence of any formal agreement with the donor — and thus the absence of any formal restrictions by the donor — as a reason to deny access to a collection placed in library custody precisely to facilitate public access.

It appears that a critical biographical information regarding the connection between Senator Obama and the 1960's terrorist William Ayers is unavailable for independent verification.

What we do know is that Mike Klonsky is a member of the Obama Campaign.

Who is Mike Klonsky?  Well, on one level, he might just appear to be a protege of Bill Ayers in the education world.  He received, as I detail below, a $175,000 grant from the Ayers/Obama-led Annenberg Challenge to run the Small Schools Workshop that he and Ayers started in Chicago to push their school reform agenda.

But that is only half the story.  Klonsky was one of the most destructive hardline maoists in the SDS in the late 60's who emerged from SDS to form a pro-Chinese sect called the October League that later became the Beijing-recognized Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).  As chairman of the party, Klonsky travelled to Beijing itself in 1977 and, literally, toasted the Chinese stalinist leadership who, in turn, "hailed the formation of the CP(ML) as 'reflecting the aspirations of the proletariat and working people,' effectively recognizing the group as the all-but-official US Maoist party." (Elbaum, Revolution in the Air, 228).

I know of no indications that Klonsky has ever expressed any regrets about that activity.  Perhaps like his SDS comrade, Ayers, he, too, thinks he did not do enough back then.  In my view they did more than enough.

And the Obama crowd has the audacity to complain about a McCain Advisor who once lobbied for the Democratic country of Georgia?

Well, given that many of Obama's associates are Communists, it's not much of a surprise. And given the goals of the CAC, it's no surprise that he was a member of Rev Wright's Church.

But the nature of Obama's associations are clearly Top Secret.

Whose interest do they serve?

Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are attempting to foster the illusion that they are dealing with America's energy problem.

For a generation of Democratic politicians, the notion of opening protected sites to drilling was toxic. But with soaring gas prices, public opinion is shifting toward anything that promises relief at the pump ­ and congressional politics is moving with it.

In a shift on Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the House will take up comprehensive energy legislation next month that includes partially lifting the 1981 ban on offshore drilling.

“It will consider opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil,” she said in the weekly Democratic radio address on Saturday.

On Friday, Senate majority leader Harry Reid said that the Senate will also examine lifting the ban, which now covers all but central and western portions of the Gulf of Mexico and some parts of Alaska....

Until Saturday, Speaker Pelosi called the notion that more drilling would lower prices at the pump a hoax and said that there would be no votes on this issue on her watch.

They claim they will take up the issue next month. But none of this is good enough for House Republicans.

Since Aug. 1, 109 Republicans have returned to Washington to argue the case for offshore drilling on the floor of an adjourned House.

“Our members are finding at home that what we¹re doing here in Washington is appreciated,” said Rep. Roy Blunt, the House Republican whip, at a press briefing off the floor of the House on Thursday. “At least somebody is willing to fight for the No. 1 issue for their families today ­ and that’s gas prices, soon to be followed by energy prices, as we get to the fall.”

And on closer examination, Republicans have found the proposed Democratic legislation to be deeply flawed

The plan mandates the release of some 700 million barrels of oil from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to “reduce the price at the pump within 10 days,”Pelosi said on Saturday.

The plan also requires oil companies to pay the billions of dollars in royalties to be invested in clean energy resources and aims to rein in speculation in energy markets, viewed by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle as a factor in the run-up of gas prices.

In response, House Republican leaders called on the speaker to immediately reconvene the House to vote on a GOP bill to ‘drill here, drill now, and pay less.’

The combination of a windfall profits tax and a release from the Strategic Reserve is the poison pill that assures Republicans can not support the bill.

Republicans soundly rejected Pelosi’s proposal – indicating it was too little too late.

“Madame Speaker, we ask you to work with us to help Americans feeling pain at the pump by developing more American energy,” said Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas).  “If you refuse, we simply ask you get out of the way and allow us to help the people that sent us here.They understand how flawed and out of touch your caucus is on energy issues, and so do we.”

Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) added, ““There is no better, more qualified spokesperson for the Democratic Party’s failed energy policies than Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”

Except, perhaps, Senator Obama who proposes a 50% windfall profits tax on Energy producing companies and a release of 70 million barrels from the Strategic Oil Reserve.

But the same criticisms I made with regards to this proposal still remain; with one additional concern: Russia.

As I noted in that previous post

...as the Senator pointed out, our enemies control most of the oil production. As a result, while the strategic oil is reserve is depleted by the 70 million barrels we are vulnerable to an energy "attack".Our enemies in Iran and Venezuela could see this as an opportunity to cut supply. Al Qaida could step up it's pressure on Nigerian Oil production and they could increase piracy activity off the coast of Somalia. The worst case scenario is that our enemies could put us in a position where we could not run our Army, Air Force and Navy with severe rationing on the ordinary citizen.

I guess then we would know we were at war, huh?

And now Russia has become more threatening and could, by itself, restrict the oil that everyone but they themselves use. Not only would that spike world oil prices, but it could leave us short: a situation that is precisely what the Strategic Oil Reserve was intended to mitigate.

And a plan that Senator Obama once supported:

"I agree with the President's decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help replenish supply shortages resulting from Hurricane Katrina. Nearly all oil and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico has been shut down, and releasing this oil will help increase production and stabilize prices. However, I do believe that this tragedy makes it very clear that that the reserve should only be used in the event of an emergency, and that we shouldn't be tapping the reserve to provide a small, short-term decrease in gas prices.

"Catastrophic events like Hurricane Katrina are the reason the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created, and releasing oil at this time is appropriate. But to truly provide Americans relief from skyrocketing oil prices, we must get serious about decreasing America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil by increasing fuel efficiency and investing more in the renewable fuels that can lead us down the path to energy independence." (emphasis is mine).

By crippling our capacity to produce oil, by depleting our Strategic Oil Reserve, and by punishing the very people who explore, extract, refine, and deliver our petroleum products, are not the Democrats helping our enemies, and most specifically Russia?

Russia has become a resurgent threat precisely because of high oil prices. They are the ones who have benefited most from "windfall" profits. And now they have taken those profits, rebuilt their military, and are now on the march.

And it was Democrats who produced this windfall for our enemies.

Remind me again: Whose interest do the Democrats serve?

America's or her enemies?

Forget about it

The Russians have pretty clearly stated their position on the former "member" of the Soviet Union

Russia's foreign minister declared Thursday that the world "can forget about" Georgia's territorial integrity, and American and Georgian officials said Russia appeared to be targeting military infrastructure — including radars and patrol boats at a Black Sea naval base and oil hub.

I have for a long time now pointed out that Russia is not our friend. (See this and this too.)

So has John McCain

The intensifying warfare in the former Soviet republic of Georgia has put a new focus on the increasingly hard line that Senator John McCain has taken against Russia in recent years, with stances that have often gone well beyond those of the Bush administration and its focus on engagement.

Mr. McCain has called for expelling what he has called a “revanchist Russia” from meetings of the Group of 8, the organization of leading industrialized nations. He urged President Bush — in vain — to boycott the group’s meeting in St. Petersburg in 2006. And he has often mocked the president’s assertion that he got a sense of the soul of Vladimir V. Putin, who was then Russia’s president and is now its prime minister, by looking into his eyes. “I looked into his eyes,” Mr. McCain said, “and saw three letters: a K, a G and a B.”

The current situation in Georgia has to be dealt with strongly, not with equivocation.

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

A few days ago, the Obama campaign took McCain to task for talking tough on Russia. Susan Rice, the Obama campaign's foreign policy advisor said

"John McCain shot from the hip, [with a] very aggressive, very belligerent statement," she said. "He may or may not have complicated the situation."

More belligerent than Russia bombing facilities in Georgia? More belligerent than Russia saying that everyone can just forget about Georgia's territorial integrity?

So how is One to deal with such aggression?

In a statement issued on August 9th, Obama said

“Over the last two days, Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through its clear and continued violation of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. On Friday, Aug. 8, Russian military forces invaded Georgia. I condemn Russia’s aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire. Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia. Both sides should allow humanitarian assistance to reach civilians in need. Russia also must end its cyber war against Georgian government websites. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.

But talk is cheap, and an Obama Presidency would be a cheap executive

“As I have said for many months, aggressive diplomatic action must be taken to reach a political resolution to this crisis, and to assure that Georgia’s sovereignty is protected.

I wonder if Russia's statement about people forgetting about Georgia's territorial integrity was a direct rebut of Obama's statement.

Bush has sent Secretary Rice into the hot zone along with military flights to bring aid. And we are not asking Russia for permission to enter their airspace to do these things.

This is the danger point.

We have stated we do not want to directly engage Russia in a shooting war, and Russia has condemned our aiding Georgia.

Bush is daring Russia to attack the US contingent.

Russia's bet is that the world too desperately needs their oil to piss them off. Russia is betting that the world will not interfere militarily with their adventure in Georgia.

And they are probably right on that.

But the game will change if any US airship is attacked.

Do you think we will stand down if either Rice or the humanitarian aid we are bringing are in anyway attacked?

Forget about it.

UPDATE: New York Times: McCain Displays Credentials as Obama Relaxes

Meanwhile, Russia threatens Poland

Western leaders engaged in intense diplomacy Friday to persuade Russia to pull troops out, but regional tensions soared after a top Russian general warned that Poland could face attack over its missile defense deal with the United States....

As the West pressed for peace, Russian Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn was quoted by Interfax News Agency on Friday as saying that by accepting a U.S. missile defense battery Poland "is exposing itself to a strike."

He pointed out that Russian military doctrine permits the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them," Interfax reported.