Ariel Sharon Is Missed

6 01 2014

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

It seems like ages since Ariel Sharon slipped into a coma from which he never returned, much less as a political force in this earthly world.  Yet, perhaps he was there after all, resting with the knowledge that he was a man of his times, who had shaped and reshaped history.

He was a complex human being who produced seemingly inconsistent policies.  By being the architect of Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank and Gaza, despite Palestinian and international protests, he appeared to be forever at odds with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and thus an opponent of peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and lasting peace in the Middle EastHenry A. Kissinger noted some years ago: “For most of his career, Sharon’s strategic goal was the incorporation of the West Bank into Israel by a settlement policy designed to prevent Palestinian self-government over significant contiguous territory.”

However, he came seemingly full circle and withdrew from Gaza and removed Jewish settlers from both Gaza and the West Bank, and returned their lands to the Palestinians.  Like the hard-liner Richard Nixon who opposed communists and their ideology throughout his life, yet opened the door to China, Sharon was an enigma.  Both were skilled chess players; and perhaps Sharon supported expansive settlements merely as a bargaining chip that would be discarded when it served the interests of peace, or no longer had any strategic value.

He seemed to be a pragmatist who concluded that it was in Israel’s best interests to defend only those lands that were militarily and politically defensible, and sacrifice the rest, and to jettison the settlers who had served as pawns in a larger chess game.  By zigging and then zagging, and by being a key player in the establishment of the right-wing Likud Party and then breaking from it to found the centrist Kadima Party, Sharon proved to be an able and skillful politician right up to the end of his career.

He fought in a Jewish militia opposed to British control; and he served in Israel’s war of independence with the Arab states and in subsequent wars, and was considered a war hero by many Israelis.  He was wounded in a battle to break the siege of Jerusalem and carried its effects all of his life, including near blindness in one eye; and he was grazed by a bullet in the head during a battle many years later.

He visited the Temple Mount to emphasize Israel’s claim of sovereignty, outraging Muslims and provoking widespread violence; and he is blamed for the ruthless killing and suffering of countless Palestinians.  Yet, his strength was being more in tune with Israeli public opinion than anyone else.  Ghazi al Saadi, a Palestinian commentator, described Sharon as “the first Israeli leader who stopped claiming Israel had a right to all of the Palestinians’ land.”  He added:  “A live Sharon is better for the Palestinians now, despite all the crimes he has committed against us.”

Like Yitzhak Rabin before him, whose mantle he assumed, history will judge Sharon’s accomplishments and speculate as to what a difference his continued leadership might have meant in the future.  It is certain, however, that Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu is no Ariel Sharon, nor does he hold a candle to Rabin.  Indeed, Rabin’s widow Leah—who was described by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and former Prime Minister Shimon Peres as a “lioness”—believed it was the climate of hate that Netanyahu created during the election campaign of 1995, which laid the groundwork for a Jew to assassinate her husband.  She never forgave Netanyahu and detested him.[2]

The fact that Netanyahu attained his coveted goal of leading Israel again, after his scandal-ridden previous attempt at it, may have changed the region’s history forever.  He was the nemesis of both Rabin and Sharon, two giants; and his return from political oblivion may still be marked by untold chaos at a time when political and military adventurism and demagoguery are the last things that are needed from the leader of Israel.

It was a fateful day, however, when a born-again Christian and a Jew, one slim and fit and the other decidedly rotund, shared a helicopter ride; and Sharon gave then-Texas Governor George W. Bush a tour over the Israeli-occupied territories.  On that day and in the days that followed, a bond of mutual respect emerged between Bush and Sharon that would survive the roller coaster of international politics.  They were a political odd couple who seemed to instinctively trust each other at a time in history when trust was a rare currency vis-à-vis the seemingly intractable problems of the Middle East.

Trust has been a missing ingredient during much of the political life of Netanyahu, who has been perceived as being untrustworthy by countless Israelis and leaders of other nations.  Indeed, he has served as a foil against which Sharon’s accomplishments may be viewed and measured.  Sharon emerged as the right leader for Israel at the right time, just as Rabin had done before him.  Netanyahu’s presence on Israel’s political scene makes Sharon’s greatness and that of Rabin stand out in bold relief by comparison.

Sharon’s stroke and coma deprived the Bush administration of its closest working partner in the Middle East.  The clock began ticking in the region again; and there have been reports that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear installations.  I am forever reminded of what a prominent American (who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel) told me several years ago: “I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression.  All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel’s [government].”

I was stunned by this person’s words, and I have reflected on them many times since.  Henry Kissinger added several years ago: “Far too much of the debate within the Palestinian camp has been over whether Israel should be destroyed immediately by permanent confrontation or in stages in which occasional negotiations serve as periodic armistices.”  I do not subscribe to the notion that anything is inevitable or “written.”  However, it is courageous and visionary men like Rabin and Sharon who have guided Israel through perilous times, when lesser men would have foundered.

Netanyahu campaigned on a hard-line platform that would grant to a new Palestinian state only a fraction of West Bank land; and effectively, he has brought the peace process to a screeching halt because he opposes such a state entirely, whether he articulates it or not.  When Likud suffered a defeat in the Israeli elections, with Netanyahu at its helm, he characteristically tried to deflect blame from himself by claiming that a comatose Ariel Sharon was responsible for the political “crash.”

The Wall Street Journal put it mildly in an editorial:  “[Netanyahu’s] attempt to blame a dying and helpless Mr. Sharon for Likud’s drubbing . . . was not a class act.”  Indeed, it was tasteless, opportunistic, and among the reasons why so many people view Netanyahu as being pathetic and demonic—but it was certainly consistent with his treatment of both Rabin and Sharon.

Most Israelis believe at least one of two long-time dreams is unattainable; namely, the idea of a “Greater Israel,” and of a negotiated peace with the Palestinians.  Contrariwise, the Palestinians have steadfastly refused to repudiate their dream of a “greater Palestine,” stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, which—in the words of Yossi Klein Halevi, an Israeli journalist and writer—“would supplant and destroy the Jewish state.”

Halevi further opined: “The settlement movement ignored the moral corruption of occupation and the demographic threat to Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state posed by the forcible absorption of several million Palestinians into Israeli society.”  And he added: “Israel will almost certainly find itself without Greater Israel—and without peace.  . . . Confronted with the possibility of a nuclear Iran committed to Israel’s destruction and with a terrorist state emerging in Gaza and the West Bank, Israelis need the sustenance of dreams.”

President Bush pledged to help create an independent Palestinian state before the end of his second term, which suffered a fatal blow with the loss of Sharon, and ended Sharon’s personal ambition to set Israel’s permanent borders too.  The Times of the UK quoted one official as saying: “It [was] unbelievable.  He was the Prime Minister.  Nothing moved without going through him.  Everything was connected to him and then he faded away,” the official said, with a click of his fingers.

Perhaps the return to business as usual showed the strength of Israel’s democracy and political system, which has been surprisingly stable; or maybe it was a sign that his stroke had not shaken the country to the same extent as the assassination of Rabin.  Or maybe it was simply another reminder of how fame is fleeting, and the public’s attention span is short in Israel and other media-driven societies, especially in the age of 24-hour news cycles.  Yet, Sharon is missed; that much is certain—and I never thought that I would write those words or feel this way.[3]

I disagreed with his settlement policies for many years, believing they were harmful to the settlers who trusted him because ultimately they would feel betrayed; and that such policies were unnecessarily confrontational and antagonistic to the Palestinians.  However, I have missed “Arik,” and I know people in various parts of the world, Jews and non-Jews alike, feel the same way.  He was a giant of Israeli politics.  More than that, he was a lion—albeit a rotund one—God love him.

© 2014, Timothy D. Naegele

Ariel Sharon


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass).  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com; see also Google search:Timothy D. Naegele

[2]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran/ (“Israel’s Senseless Killings And War With Iran”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/the-madness-of-benjamin-netanyahu/ (“The Madness Of Benjamin Netanyahu”) (see also the comments beneath both articles).

[3]  See also http://world.time.com/2014/01/03/israel-wakes-up-to-ariel-sharon-as-former-prime-minister-nears-death/?iid=gs-main-lead (“Israel Wakes Up to Ariel Sharon as Former Prime Minister Nears Death”) and http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/01/ariel-sharon-war-of-independence-disengagement-settlements.html (“Ariel Sharon’s decisions shaped today’s Israel”) and http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/01/23/060123fa_fact_shavit (“THE GENERAL”); compare http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/ariel-sharon-final-mission-peace-israel (“Ariel Sharon’s final mission might well have been peace”) with http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/35072-sharon.html (“The Guardian Laments Sharon”)






China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That

13 01 2011

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

While it would certainly be nice to think of China as a benign, friendly, democratic nation, if not an ally of the United States—which makes the computers and cellphones that Americans use, and provides most of the products sold in Walmart stores—the fact is that China is our enemy, now and in the future.  A failure to recognize this fact has serious national security implications for our great nation.  Those who cavalierly dismiss this and similar assessments, as nothing more than the rantings of “Cold Warriors,” may be condemned to repeat and relive the world wars of the past.

Does this mean that we will be in a shooting war with China any time soon, or that we should gird for war in the future?  No, but it means that we must maintain and strengthen our military might, and do nothing to diminish it.  We face deadly challenges elsewhere in the world too: for example, from North Korea, Iran, Russia and terrorists.  However, we must never underestimate the threat from China, America’s rising Asian rival globally.  Among other things, there is a “disconnect” between China’s civilian and military leaderships, which may grow dramatically—and it does not bode well for the future.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

China conducted the first test flight of its stealth fighter just hours before U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sat down with President Hu Jintao here to mend frayed relations, undermining the meeting and prompting questions over whether China’s civilian leadership is fully in control of the increasingly powerful armed forces.[2]

In early 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s presidency, China’s military tested his metal by forcing down one of our spy planes near the island of Hainan. There were serious questions raised then—as they are being raised now—about whether China’s civilian leadership was fully in control of the country’s military.

Also, the New York Times had a fine article recently, which stated in part:

Older Chinese officers remember a time, before the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 set relations back, when American and Chinese forces made common cause against the Soviet Union.

The younger officers have known only an anti-American ideology, which casts the United States as bent on thwarting China’s rise.

. . .

Chinese military men, from the soldiers and platoon captains all the way up to the army commanders, were always taught that America would be their enemy.[3]

Viewed in its starkest terms, China has threatened a nation-ending EMP Attack against the United States already—which went largely unnoticed by most Americans, even though such an attack might kill all except 30 million of us.[4] In addition to its submarine forces that have been expanded greatly in the past decade, China’s military is deploying new ballistic missiles that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers, and are potentially game-changing, unprecedented threats to our supercarriers and their carrier battle groups.[5]

Also, China is preparing to build an aircraft carrier, which symbolizes the ambition to move far beyond its own shores[6].  Its growing anti-satellite capabilities and quite soon its fifth-generation fighter, not to mention its ongoing Cyberwarfare and economic warfare, are alarming to say the least.

Barack Obama manipulated the 2010 lame-duck session of Congress to ratify the “90 percent useless and 10 percent problematic” New START Treaty with Putin’s Russia—from which the next Republican administration should withdraw[7], just as George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty, which had expressly prevented major American advances in missile defense.  However, the United States’ focus must be on China, not on an essentially-Third World, backwater country like Russia.[8]

As one China military-affairs specialist put it:

Clearly, China’s communist leadership is not impressed by the [Obama] administration’s ending of F-22 production, its retirement of the Navy’s nuclear cruise missile, START Treaty reductions in U.S. missile warheads, and its refusal to consider U.S. space warfare capabilities. Such weakness is the surest way to invite military adventurism from China.[9]

On the positive side, China represents an enormous consumer market.  Yet, even on that front, caution is advised and prudence is required.  As the Wall Street Journal noted:

It’s tempting for U.S. companies to believe they can rely on access to hundreds of millions of new consumers in China and other emerging-market countries for the lion’s share of future profits. But they had better be prepared for a wide variety of unforeseen barriers.[10]

The United States has other issues and problems with China, including but not limited to Chinese adoption policies that foist “sick” children on unsuspecting, needy American adoptive parents, leading to tragic human suffering and other consequences[11]; China’s human rights abuses, including political prisoners who often serve their terms in an archipelago of labor camps scattered across the country called Laogai[12]; North and South Korea—and their respective international protectors, China and the U.S.—which might be heading for a showdown in the future[13]; and China’s expanding influence in the world, such as its willingness to bail out debt-ridden countries in the euro zone[14].

China has a violent history, which is of recent vintage.  Indeed, the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin and China’s Mao Tse-tung were the most ruthless killers of their own people in the 20th Century, and perhaps in the entire history of mankind.  Mao was directly responsible for an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960, as a result of what his regime hailed as the “Great Leap Forward.”[15] Even though human rights activist Liu Xiaobo won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize—after having been sentenced to prison for putting his name to the “Charter 08″ human-rights manifesto, which says that the Chinese people “see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values”—he was denied the right to have a representative collect the prize for him.[16]

Perhaps the best hope for a democratic China at peace with the world rests with the expansion of human rights in the country, as well as consumerism and capitalism; and greater civilian control over the country’s potentially-renegade military.  Whether this hope comes to fruition, or ends up as a pipe dream, remains to be seen.  Will China’s bluster and swagger lead to war, or dissipate over time; and are the United States and China on a collision course in the Western Pacific and elsewhere?[17] Only time will tell.  However, one can never forget that China’s violent past was only a short time ago, and its human rights abuses continue to this day.

© 2011, Timothy D. Naegele


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass).  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704428004576075042571461586.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

[3] See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/world/asia/12beijing.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

[4] See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/

[5] See, e.g.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/

[6] See, e.g.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa7f5e6a-09cc-11e0-8b29-00144feabdc0.html#axzz18PUuKHZh

[7] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1014: see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1167 and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1245

[8] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/

[9] See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/

[10] See, e.g.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704852004575258541875590852.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks

[11] See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/problems-with-foreign-adoptions/; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-348 and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-434 (“[B]oth Russia and China have used the U.S. as dumping grounds for their ‘sick’ children”)

[12] See, e.g.http://www.naegele.com/documents/BretStephens-FromAthenstoBeijing.pdf (“How strong can China be if it is terrified of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo?”); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-824

[13] See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/the-next-major-war-korea-again/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1012

[14] See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1177

[15] As I have written:

Like Stalin, Mao’s crimes involved Chinese peasants, many of whom died of hunger from man-made famines under collectivist orders that stripped them of all private possessions.  The Communist Party forbade them even to cook food at home; private fires were outlawed; and their harvests were taken by the state.  Those who dared to question Mao’s agricultural policies—which sought to maximize food output by dispossessing the nation’s most productive farmers—were tortured, sent to labor camps, or executed.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-voices-of-stalin%E2%80%99s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao%E2%80%99s-chinese-holocaust/

[16] See infra note 12; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo#Nobel_Peace_Prize

[17] See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1188





Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected

3 12 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Like former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson before him, in 1980 and 1968 respectively, Barack Obama will not be reelected in 2012.[2] The twin pincers of a domestic economy in the throes of the “Great Depression II”[3]—which economic historians will describe as such, or by using similar terms 20-40 years from now—and his failed Vietnam-like Afghan war[4] will seal his political fate.  Other factors will contribute mightily too, such as the perception that he is “out of touch” just as Jimmy Carter was; and that Obama is a silver-tongued, narcissistic “foreign born” demagogue who is un-American.[5] Perceptions often become reality, certainly in politics.

We are witnessing the end of Obama as a politician now.  The zenith of his presidency occurred with the enactment of ObamaCare, just as Hillary Clinton’s health care efforts marked the “high water mark” of her influence during Bill Clinton’s presidency.  Obama’s nadir is yet to come, but the 2010 mid-term election debacle represented an important milestone on the slippery downward slope of his presidency.  The domestic economy will get far worse; his Afghan war is a morass that seems unwinnable and inescapable; and national security issues loom—such as North Korea and Iran—which may prove “hazardous” at best.

Barack Obama is a failed politician whose “magic” has come and gone.  He is not merely a bad president. He may have the distinction of going down in history as one of the worst presidents that America has ever had, or perhaps the worst depending on what happens during the remainder of his term in office.  That he is presiding over a failed presidency is not in dispute. The only question becomes: how bad will things get for the American nation, its people and for him, before he leaves public office?[6] It is fair to surmise that we have only seen the tip of an enormous political, economic, social and national security “iceberg”—or nightmare—reminiscent of the one that the RMS Titanic struck in 1912.

It is not beyond the pale to believe that scandals will engulf Barack Obama’s presidency as more and more is learned about who he is and how he has governed, and what he and others in his administration have done during the time they have been entrusted with the presidency.[7] Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton: a “cat” with seemingly nine lives politically. He is a “mix” between Carter who was perceived as cerebral and out of touch, and Johnson who was viciously maligned and prevented from running for reelection.

When I was a young Army officer stationed at the Pentagon, before working on Capitol Hill, I remember bumper stickers on cars in the District of Columbia that asked: “Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that we really need him?”—a reference to John F. Kennedy’s killer.  Johnson was hated, and such implied threats were real.  There are rising negative sentiments about Obama today, involving large numbers of Americans who are not racially prejudiced or merely disillusioned.  Indeed, two Democratic pollsters and advisers to Presidents Clinton and Carter respectively, Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell, wrote an important op-ed piece in the Washington Post recently, which stated:

[W]e believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

. . .

[T]he president has largely lost the consent of the governed.  The [2010] midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency.[8]

However, his raving and overarching narcissism will likely drive his decision making to put his own perceived best interests ahead of the good of the country and his political party; and he will probably fight on to the bitter end.  More and more Americans are concluding that he does not deserve a second term in the White House.[9] Political pundit and former adviser to Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, argues that he will be challenged by both those on his left and right politically.[10]

Barack Obama is an unsuccessful “community organizer” from Chicago—and before that, Hawaii and Indonesia—who became a black man when it suited him, despite the ethnicity of his mother and her parents who nurtured him like no one else in his life.  The best of him, he has readily admitted, is what the three of them gave him; and clearly he cherishes their memories.[11] Yet, it is not such personal qualities that will determine his political fate.  Jimmy Carter was perceived as likable too.

With respect to the economy, we are in the midst of the “Great Depression II,” and there is nothing he can do about that fact.  The economic tsunami that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan unleashed has been rolling worldwide, with no end in sight. At most, government policies can affect it at the margins—because it will run its course, essentially oblivious to government intervention. Where and when it stops, no one knows; however, Obama’s actions to date have only made it worse.[12] His so-called “stimulus package” has done little or nothing to help the economy; and his reform of the financial markets is akin to shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic[13].

His signature legislation, ObamaCare, was opposed by a majority of the American people, but that did not stop Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from arrogantly shoving it down their throats, as if to say that the two of them knew what was best for their wards.  ObamaCare is likely to be a tragedy for Americans who need health care the most, such as senior citizens; and according to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, 58 percent of American voters favor its repeal, while 37 percent are opposed.[14]

His policies with respect to Russia’s “dictator-for-life” Vladimir Putin are a travesty to say the least, which simply reflect his almost-total naïveté that is stunning—America’s “Hamlet” on the Potomac.  His negotiation and endorsement of the New START Treaty is a perfect example.[15] Also, he stood by helplessly while those Iranians who advocated freedom were tortured or killed.  His positive contributions with respect to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians are essentially nonexistent, at a critical juncture in the history of the Middle East.[16] And the list goes on and on.

Writing for Germany’s Der Spiegel, Klaus Brinkbäumer stated bluntly:

[N]obody in the US understands [the Afghan] war any more.  The conflict long ago ceased to be Bush’s war, and is now Obama’s.  Worse still, it will inevitably end with an inglorious withdrawal.  Why, then, should the US send in yet more troops?  Why spend $100 billion a year waging war when train stations and schools back home are falling to pieces, and the money would be better spent on other American projects and research?  Congress refuses to approve extra spending on renewing America: The money has already been spent.

. . .

The problem is simply that Obama is smaller than the promise he made, and tiny in comparison to the hopes an entire nation placed on him in 2008. There’s one thing that Barack Obama failed to do. That was his real failure, the big mistake he made, back when everything seemed possible.

. . .

[H]e didn’t even try.[17]

The fact is that Barack Obama is a professional politician and nothing more.  And Americans have come to loathe such creatures, not love them.  So “out of touch” is he that when the BP oil spill was polluting the Gulf of Mexico, Michelle Obama and their youngest daughter flew to Spain—and she was described as America’s “Marie Antoinette.”  More importantly, Obama is not fit to serve or govern, and he never has been.  He is a demagogue and a liar[18], and an embarassment to this great nation and its people.  He is incompetent[19]; and yes, he is evil.[20] Before his presidency ends, he is apt to do even more irreparable damage to our national security, our economy, and with respect to a whole host of critical areas.

He should be relieved of command, and end his political career with dignity like his former military commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal.  This is what Democrat pollsters Schoen and Caddell have urged Obama to do.  The good General McChrystal, who was forced by Obama to resign his command, might be the first public official (or former-public official) to call for Obama’s resignation.[21] He knows, better than most people, about Obama’s ineptitude and recklessness with the lives of U.S. military personnel and America’s honor—which are at stake and on the line each and every day in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.

The fact that Obama named General David Petraeus to replace McChrystal as commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and that Petraeus was willing to accept the job and step down from his position as Commander of the U.S. Central Command—which oversees American military efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Central Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of Africa—speaks volumes about the character, talent, loyalty and integrity of Petraeus.  However, it does not change the verdict with respect to Obama and his failed presidency.

There is nothing positive about his administration or what he has done to date, nothing.  Despite projecting an upbeat, positive, personable image on the campaign trail, which enthused millions of voters and gave them hope, at best he has proved to be an “empty suit.”  If Americans read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” they will realize that his radical beliefs are in tune with Indonesia where he lived—or perhaps some other foreign country—but not with the United States.[22] The “change” he espoused has not been consistent with the beliefs and goals of mainstream American voters.

The critical words that General McChrystal and his staff spoke in a Rolling Stone interview[23] were true and needed to be said—even though lots of Americans might have preferred not to hear about the acrimony and dissension between our military and the Obama Administration.[24] We have a president who is a far-Left neophyte and wrong for America; and he is presiding over a presidency that almost surely will get dramatically worse with the passage of time.  And we have a lovable but utter buffoon for vice president, who is a pathological liar and the laughingstock of the world, and who makes former Vice President Spiro Agnew look brilliant by comparison.[25]

With respect to Afghanistan, at the same time that Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 American troops, he said the U.S. would begin pulling out by July of 2011—just before his anticipated reelection campaign begins in earnest[26], and only one year after our forces will have been deployed fully.  If implemented, it would be tantamount to conceding the country to our enemies sometime in 2011; and it would result in the shedding of American blood and that of our allies for nothing, like Vietnam.

While Obama may be in the process of jettisoning that unrealistic timeline, his thought processes are not surprising because he is an anti-war politician who never served in the U.S. military, and he knows nothing about running a war.  His goals—which never refer to the possibility of “victory” in Afghanistan—are designed to appease his political soul mates and constituency, America’s anti-war far-Left.  He is focused on an “exit strategy” instead of winning.  He has not been successful at running anything, ever[27]; and it is unlikely that Afghanistan will be an exception.  Since when does a failed, anti-war, far-Left “community organizer” from Chicago, who was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, know how to run a war, much less successfully?

Independents and Republicans helped elect Obama and Democrat candidates in 2008; and they  joined with “disenchanted” Democrats and members of the Tea Party movement in November of 2010 to produce an opposite result.  The combination of Afghanistan—which is apt to be Obama’s Vietnam—and growing economic problems may doom his presidency, just as similar issues converged to deny Lyndon Johnson’s reelection in 1968.  Like John F. Kennedy before him, who inspired so many people and caused legions to enter politics, Obama has feet of clay and is dashing Americans’ dreams and political fantasies.[28]

In the final analysis, it is increasingly clear that Obama is a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history—unless he tragically alters the course of American history.  His naïveté is matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter.  Indeed, it is likely that his presidency will be considered a sad and tragic watershed in history; and the American people are recognizing this more and more with each day that passes.[29] Hopefully he chooses to end his political career with dignity by not running for reelection in 2012, instead of continuing to drag this great nation down with him.[30]

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass).  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama [Please note: the postings beneath this article are important as well]; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/sarah-and-todd-palin-the-big-winners and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-speech—is-barack-obama-smoking-pot-again/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor/

[3] See, e.g., http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/173_212/-365185-1.html and http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html and http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-great-depression-ii/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/is-financial-reform-simply-washingtons-latest-boondoggle/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/will-the-eus-collapse-push-the-world-deeper-into-the-great-depression-ii/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally

[4] See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/are-afghanistan-iraq-and-pakistan-hopeless-and-is-the-spread-of-radical-islam-inevitable-and-is-barack-obama-finished-as-americas-president/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/

[5] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

[6] See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/

[7] In his book, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama wrote:

Junkie.  Pothead.  That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.

See Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004), p. 93; see also pp. 120, 270; https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/.

Regardless of whether he has taken illegal drugs or not since his college years, he is occupying our White House; and sooner or later, stories will trickle out about the time he has spent there.

[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-974

[9] See http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1538; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-999

[10] See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-may-face-left-wing-primary/; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-968 and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/sarah-and-todd-palin-the-big-winners/ (“[I]t is not beyond the pale to believe that two women might face off for the American presidency in 2012, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, which would be historic!”)

[11] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ and Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004).

[12] Paul Krugman has written a New York Times’ article entitled, “The Third Depression,” which states:

Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.

. . .

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost—to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs—will nonetheless be immense.

. . .

[T]he recession brought on by the financial crisis arguably ended last summer.

But future historians will tell us that this wasn’t the end of the third depression, just as the business upturn that began in 1933 wasn’t the end of the Great Depression.  . . .  [B]oth the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html

This conclusion is consistent with the thesis of articles that I have written and interview responses that I have given; namely, we are in the midst of the “Great Depression II”—certainly in terms of the 20th and 21st Centuries—which will continue to unfold during at least the balance of this decade.  See infra n.3.

Krugman added:

As far as rhetoric is concerned, the revival of the old-time religion is most evident in Europe, where officials seem to be getting their talking points from the collected speeches of Herbert Hoover, up to and including the claim that raising taxes and cutting spending will actually expand the economy, by improving business confidence. As a practical matter, however, America isn’t doing much better. The Fed seems aware of the deflationary risks—but what it proposes to do about these risks is, well, nothing. The Obama administration understands the dangers of premature fiscal austerity—but because Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress won’t authorize additional aid to state governments, that austerity is coming anyway, in the form of budget cuts at the state and local levels.

Why the wrong turn in policy? The hard-liners often invoke the troubles facing Greece and other nations around the edges of Europe to justify their actions. And it’s true that bond investors have turned on governments with intractable deficits. But there is no evidence that short-run fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy reassures investors. On the contrary: Greece has agreed to harsh austerity, only to find its risk spreads growing ever wider; Ireland has imposed savage cuts in public spending, only to be treated by the markets as a worse risk than Spain, which has been far more reluctant to take the hard-liners’ medicine.

It’s almost as if the financial markets understand what policy makers seemingly don’t: that while long-term fiscal responsibility is important, slashing spending in the midst of a depression, which deepens that depression and paves the way for deflation, is actually self-defeating.

So I don’t think this is really about Greece, or indeed about any realistic appreciation of the tradeoffs between deficits and jobs. It is, instead, the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.

And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy?  The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.

Amen.  Where I differ with Krugman is that his solution is more Keynesian governmental spending, with the goal of spending our way to prosperity.  As stated in articles that I have written and interview responses that I have given, the economic tsunami that Alan Greenspan unleashed has been rolling worldwide, with no end in sight.  At most, government policies can affect it at the margins—because it will run its course, essentially oblivious to government intervention.  Where and when it stops, no one knows.  Originally I predicted the 2017-2019 time frame, but it may take longer than that because of misguided and wasteful government “tinkering.”

In an editorial entitled, “The Keynesian Dead End,” the Wall Street Journal concluded that spending our way to prosperity is going out of style—and the editorial essentially rebuts the solution that Krugman recommended:

For going on three years, the developed world’s economic policy has been dominated by the revival of the old idea that vast amounts of public spending could prevent deflation, cure a recession, and ignite a new era of government-led prosperity. It hasn’t turned out that way.

. . .

The response at the White House and among Congressional leaders has been . . . Stimulus III. While talking about the need for “fiscal discipline” some time in the future, President Obama wants more spending today to again boost “demand.” Thirty months after [Obama economic adviser Larry] Summers won his first victory, we are back at the same policy stand.

The difference this time is that the Keynesian political consensus is cracking up. In Europe, the bond vigilantes have pulled the credit cards of Greece, Portugal and Spain, with Britain and Italy in their sights. Policy makers are now making a 180-degree turn from their own stimulus blowouts to cut spending and raise taxes. The austerity budget offered this month by the new British government is typical of Europe’s new consensus.

To put it another way, Germany’s Angela Merkel has won the bet she made in early 2009 by keeping her country’s stimulus far more modest. We suspect Mr. Obama will find a political stonewall this weekend in Toronto when he pleads with his fellow leaders to join him again for a spending spree.

Meanwhile, in Congress, even many Democrats are revolting against Stimulus III. The original White House package of jobless benefits and aid to the states had to be watered down several times, and the latest version failed again in the Senate late this week.  . . .  Mr. Obama is having his credit card pulled too—not by the bond markets, but by a voting public that sees the troubles in Europe and is telling pollsters that it doesn’t want a Grecian bath.

The Journal adds:

The larger lesson here is about policy. The original sin—and it was nearly global—was to revive the Keynesian economic model that had last cracked up in the 1970s, while forgetting the lessons of the long prosperity from 1982 through 2007. The Reagan and Clinton-Gingrich booms were fostered by a policy environment for most of that era of lower taxes, spending restraint and sound money. The spending restraint began to end in the late 1990s, sound money vanished earlier this decade, and now Democrats are promising a series of enormous tax increases.

Notice that we aren’t saying that spending restraint alone is a miracle economic cure. The spending cuts now in fashion in Europe are essential, but cuts by themselves won’t balance annual deficits reaching 10% of GDP. That requires new revenues from faster growth, and there’s a danger that the tax increases now sweeping Europe will dampen growth further.

President Obama’s tragic mistake was to blow out the U.S. federal balance sheet on spending that has produced little bang for the buck. . . .

With the economy in recession in 2008 and 2009, we argued that some stimulus was justified and an increase in the deficit was understandable and inevitable. However, we also argued that permanent tax cuts aimed at marginal individual and corporate tax rates would have done far more to revive animal spirits, and in our view would have led to a far more robust recovery. . . .

What the world has now reached instead is a Keynesian dead end. We are told to let Congress continue to spend and borrow until the precise moment when Summers and Mark Zandi and the other architects of our current policy say it is time to raise taxes to reduce the huge deficits and debt that their spending has produced. Meanwhile, individuals and businesses are supposed to be unaffected by the prospect of future tax increases, higher interest rates, and more government control over nearly every area of the economy. Even the CEOs of the Business Roundtable now see the damage this is doing.

A better economic policy will have to await a new Congress, which we hope at a minimum can prevent punishing tax increases. But for now the good news is that voters and markets are telling politicians to stop doing what hasn’t worked.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703615104575328981319857618.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Thus, economic “thinkers” continue to flail around, while the Great Depression II takes its toll in terms of horrendous human suffering worldwide, with no end in sight.

[13] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/is-financial-reform-simply-washingtons-latest-boondoggle/

[14] See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

[15] See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/#comment-1014

[16] See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran/ [Please note: the postings beneath this article are important as well]

[17] See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,723814,00.html

[18] In his announcement with respect to McChrystal, Obama stated:

I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with Gen. McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult.

See http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/23/obama-on-mcchrystal-nothing-personal/

It has been said before, and it bears repeating, that if one wishes to watch Barack Obama lie, all one needs to do is watch his lips move.

[19] See, e.g., http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/07/28/leaked-report-hurts-obama/#more-1230 (“Having already lost all Republicans and almost all independents, Obama is shedding Democrats these days.  . . .  [W]hile liberals have increasing reason to question Obama’s performance on their litmus-test issues, they also have increasing cause to wonder at his competence”).

[20] He is not evil in the sense of being the “antichrist,” as some would suggest, but evil in the sense of leading the United States in the wrong direction and having lied to the American people in the process of doing so.  As stated previously:

It has been said: “Jimmy Carter may be heading to #2 on the [list of] all-time worst presidents in American history, thanks to ‘O.’” This is an understatement.  When history is written, Barack Obama may be hated more than George W. Bush has been by the Democrats, more than Bill and Hillary Clinton have been hated by the Republicans, more than Nixon was hated by the Democrats, and even more than Johnson was hated by a broad swath of the American electorate . . . and the list goes on and on.  Obama may emerge as the most hated president in history.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama

[21] With McChrystal’s military career at an end, there will be nothing to prevent him from lashing out at Obama and telling the truth (e.g., in memoirs released shortly before the 2012 presidential elections, which tell the unvarnished truth about Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan and sear Obama in explicit terms):

Obama seemed to suggest that McChrystal’s military career is over, saying the nation should be grateful “for his remarkable career in uniform” as if that has drawn to a close.

McChrystal left the White House after the meeting and returned to his military quarters at Washington’s Fort McNair.

See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37866754/ns/us_news-military/

Former adviser to President Bill Clinton and political pundit Dick Morris adds:

Relieving the general of command sends a message that Obama is thin-skinned, arrogant, and easily offended.

Coming at the same time that the failure of the Obama Administration to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf is already rankling liberal voters, the McChrystal comments will add to their doubts about Obama. They already are against his decision to send additional troops there and have long believed that we should not be fighting in Afghanistan. By calling attention to how badly the war is going and the disarray in the president’s foreign policy apparatus, the McChrystal interview can only highlight and underscore these concerns and further dampen liberal enthusiasm for Obama.

Neither the oil spill nor the Afghan War will drive any liberals to vote for conservatives or induce Democrats to vote Republican. But they both will hold down Democratic turnout and reinforce cynicism about the Obama presidency on the left. Those initially attracted by Obama’s charisma will be driven away by these twin failures.

The Democratic Party is really a synthesis of environmentalists and peace advocates with a few gay rights activists and public employee unions thrown in. Now, Obama has alienated both the green and the anti-war segments of the party. And the continuing spillage from the Gulf oil well and from the General’s mouth will further damage his standing with his political base.

Whatever the fate of General McChrystal or of the American involvement in the war, the mounting casualty lists will drag down Obama’s prospects in November still further and depress his ratings in the days ahead.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/06/23/mcchrystals-attack-hurts-obamas-left-wing-base/#more-1096

[22] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

While some of his far-Left “true believers” may have read the book and agreed with his core beliefs, the majority of Americans did not; and they had no idea how much his future policies would differ from what they perceived as the mainstream views that he was espousing on the campaign trail.

[23] For example, the author Michael Hastings writes:

The general’s staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs . . . , and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority.

. . .

[McChrystal] also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It’s a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war.

See “The Runaway General” by Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone (June 22, 2010), http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236#

Barack Obama is quoted by the national media as having said that the article showed “poor judgment,” and that he wanted to talk with McChrystal before making any decision about whether he should remain the U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

See, e.g., http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704853404575322354071542896.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

While it was surprising that McChrystal gave the Rolling Stone any access, much less seemingly unfettered access to his innermost thoughts and beliefs—especially given the Rolling Stone‘s reputation—the fact is that he did, and he and his staff spoke their minds, and their words are now part of American history.

The article adds:

After arriving in Afghanistan last June, [McChrystal] conducted his own policy review, ordered up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked to the press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn’t send another 40,000 troops—swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly half—we were in danger of “mission failure.” The White House was furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to bully Obama, opening him up to charges of being weak on national security unless he did what the general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was determined to kick the president’s ass.

. . .

Obama has quietly begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it’s precisely the kind of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said he didn’t want.

It is reminiscent of “Brer Rabbit And The Tar Baby,” and Afghanistan is becoming Obama’s “tar pit.”

See, e.g.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Uncle_Remus%3A_His_Songs_and_His_Sayings/The_Wonderful_Tar-Baby_Story

The article continues:

In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama’s top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a “clown” who remains “stuck in 1985.” Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, “turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it’s not very helpful.” Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal’s inner circle. “Hillary had Stan’s back during the strategic review,” says an adviser. “She said, ‘If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.'”

. . .

 

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. “Oh, not another e-mail from [Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard] Holbrooke,” he groans. “I don’t even want to open it.” He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

“Make sure you don’t get any of that on your leg,” an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

. . .

When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal’s side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan—and he wasn’t hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny.

. . .

The very people that [McChrystal’s military strategy known as counterinsurgency, or] COIN seeks to win over—the Afghan people—do not want us there.  . . .  There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word “victory” when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.

The media and politicians like Barack Obama said the same thing about George W. Bush’s—and David Petraeus’—”surge” in Iraq, and they were mistaken.

[24] The highly-respected Rasmussen polling organization found in results that were released on June 25, 2010:

Forty-seven percent (47%) of U.S. voters agree that it was appropriate for President Obama to fire America’s top commander in Afghanistan this week, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and say the president should not have removed General Stanley McChrystal from his command. Another 17% are not sure.

Just 32%, however, believe it was appropriate for McChrystal to criticize the president and other top U.S. officials in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. Fifty percent (50%) feel the general’s public comments were not appropriate. Nearly one-out-of-five voters (18%) are undecided.

Publication of that interview prompted the president to call McChrystal back to Washington and, during a private White House meeting, to accept his resignation. Obama then announced that General David Petraeus, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq in 2007 and 2008, will take his place.

Forty-seven percent (47%) view the naming of Petraeus as the new top commander in Afghanistan as good for the U.S. war effort there. Only nine percent (9%) say it’s a bad move, while 30% think it will have no impact. Fourteen percent (14%) aren’t sure.

Voter confidence in the course of the war in Afghanistan has been falling in recent weeks. Just 41% of voters now believe it is possible for the United States to win the nearly nine-year-old war in Afghanistan. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and say it is not possible for America to win the war. Another 23% are not sure.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/june_2010/47_support_obama_s_decision_to_fire_mcchrystal_36_oppose

[25] In an editorial entitled, “The Petraeus Hail Mary,” the Wall Street Journal pointed out the divisive effect that Biden has had with respect to American policies and their implementation in Afghanistan.  Biden has been a “loose canon,” who was fully capable of fabricating facts if not engaging in outright lies.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325073086949444.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop (“Mr. Obama said yesterday that no one individual is indispensable in war, but if any single person is, it is a President. Mr. Obama too often gives the impression of a leader asking, ‘Won’t someone rid me of this damn war?'”); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/#comment-169

Former President Bill Clinton was reluctant to take on the military politically, and wisely so—much to the chagrin of his far-Left constituents, some of whom believe America does not need to be strong militarily.  As I have stated before: “America’s economic and military strength go hand in hand. Both are indispensable ingredients of our great nation’s future strength.”

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html

[26] If Obama’s presidency does not end before 2012, it is likely that he will not run for reelection, just as Truman declined to run in the midst of the Korean War, and Lyndon Johnson declined to run in the midst of the Vietnam War.

[27] See, e.g., http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1FF04086-18FE-70B2-A8502AE14AB8C592 and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

[28] See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character

[29] Also, there is the issue of personal Obama family extravagances at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, especially at a time when so many Americans are suffering.  See, e.g.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1298063/Michelle-Obama-takes-daughter-Sasha-Spanish-getaway–leaves-birthday-boy-Barack-behind.html (“Michelle Obama is set to holiday with daughter Sasha on Spain’s Costa del Sol.  . . .  Mrs Obama . . .  has reserved 30 rooms at a five-star hotel”)

[30] Lyndon Johnson chose not to run for reelection in 1968; and Obama advised New York Congressman Charles Rangel to end his political career with dignity as well.  Hopefully he follows his own advice.

See http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0710/Obama_Time_for_Rangel_to_end_career_with_dignity.html





Are Afghanistan, Iraq And Pakistan Hopeless, And Is The Spread Of Radical Islam Inevitable, And Is Barack Obama Finished As America’s President?

9 09 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Arnaud de Borchgrave—editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International—has written another brilliant and very sobering article entitled, “Playing with fire,” which is worth reading and reflecting on.[2] In it, he states:

Unless [Gainesville, Florida Pastor Terry Jones, who decided to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11 by proclaiming “International Burn a Koran Day,”] canceled his Koran book burning . . . , Christians throughout the world’s 1.2 billion-strong Muslim nations and Muslim communities would suddenly feel threatened. Those who converted from Islam to Christianity would be prime targets.

I will always remember the senseless killing of film director Theo van Gogh, who was the great-grandson of Theo van Gogh, the brother of the famous painter Vincent van Gogh.[3] I vehemently disagree with a burning of the Koran or the Bible.  However, is the Western world and culture going to be intimidated by and held hostage to the radical followers of Islam?  Is this “The Clash of Civilizations” that political scientist Samuel P. Huntington and former President Richard M. Nixon were concerned about?[4] Will Westerners be forced to subjugate their beliefs on the subject of Islam and Islamic terrorists, to the will of Islamic fanatics?  I think not.

Arnaud de Borchgrave adds:

Even if a superannuated preacher canceled the public burning of the Koran, the damage had already been done.

Yes, it would appear so.  Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall already.

Next, de Borchgrave notes:

NATO members pledged 2,796 trainers [to Afghanistan] but only 500 showed up. The NATO bureaucracy in Brussels couldn’t make it happen, according to one U.S. officer involved in the program. Most NATO countries are steadily reducing their defense budgets.

This is ominous.  Among other things, Germany’s “vaulted” military has been a paper tiger for years, in actuality.  Also, it seems that all of Europe will be weak, which might foretell America’s military future too—certainly if Obama were to get a second term in office, which is unlikely.

Lastly, de Borchgrave compares the collapse of the South Vietnamese army with that of the Afghan army, and describes the hopelessness of America’s Afghan adventure.  While there are certainly parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan, the stakes are even higher now with a nuclearized Pakistan next door.

If Obama cuts and runs from Afghanistan, the war’s failure will be hung around his neck politically like Vietnam was hung around Lyndon Johnson’s neck.  It prevented Johnson from running for reelection in 1968; and the same thing might be true of Obama as the presidential election of 2012 approaches.  The foremost concern, however, is America’s position in the world and that of our military, which has been so brilliant in recent years.

Enormous amounts of money are being spent on the Afghan war—while the country’s GDP is a mere fraction of that amount—which seems absurd.  Also, there is no al Qaeda presence worth mentioning in Afghanistan today.  And even if the Taliban were to return to power, it is not likely to invite al Qaeda back to its former safe havens. After all, the Taliban lost Afghanistan because of al Qaeda and 9/11.  Thus, why should anyone care whether the Afghans’ future is led by men who feel more comfortable living in prior centuries?  The answers are complex but clear.

Afghan women and their supporters around the world care deeply.  Afghan women will suffer greatly if the Taliban return to power.  Americans and our NATO allies would become parties to the process of turning back the clock once again, and subjugating Afghan women and destroying their lives and any hopes for the future.  The plight of women in Afghanistan is something that America has been addressing, with the help of former First Lady Laura Bush and others.

Also, a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan would be another step in the process of spreading Islam beyond the region, and destabilizing Pakistan, thereby potentially unleashing its nuclear arsenal on the world (e.g., for terrorists to buy and sell weapons-grade materials, at the very least).

Some Americans argue that Iraq is hardly a U.S. geopolitical success story, because it cost America enormous monetary and human treasures to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who—it is argued—was our best defense against Iran; and that Baghdad today has less electricity, among other services.  I was against our Iraqi “adventure,” primarily because I believed Saddam had WMDs, which he would not hesitate to use against our military, just as he had used them against the Iranians and the Kurds.  Also, I believed we were “fronting” for Israel, and doing its dirty work, which some people (such as former UN Ambassador John Bolton) are arguing we should be doing right now vis-à-vis Iran, which is madness.

However, the “surge” worked, which George W. Bush, General David Petraeus and Senator John McCain championed; and at least Iraqis have a real chance to build a viable and stable democracy.  I agree with the Wall Street Journal’s assessment that was contained in an editorial prior to Barack Obama’s recent speech to the American people concerning Iraq:

The U.S. kept hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for decades after World War II, and it still has tens of thousands in South Korea and Japan. It would be a tragedy if after seven years of sacrifice, the U.S. now failed to assist Iraqis as they try to build a federal, democratic state in an often hostile neighborhood.[5]

I agree too with the assessment that Iraq and Afghanistan together will probably be Obama’s undoing unless the American economy does it first.  They are all running neck and neck, but my betting is on the economy.  It will be sinking even farther during the balance of this decade, despite occasional “green shoots” appearing—which is similar to what happened during the last Great Depression.

The economy and the wars will be Barack Obama’s undoing, if something more tragic does not define his presidency (e.g., assassination, an EMP Attack), which I hope and pray never happens.[6]

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass).  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2] See http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/2010/09/08/Commentary-Playing-with-fire/UPI-32611283952855/

[3] See, e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)#Assassination

[4] See, e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations

[5] See http://www.naegele.com/documents/ThePresidentonIraq-WSJ.com.pdf and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-speech—is-barack-obama-smoking-pot-again/

[6] See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-great-depression-ii/ and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/





Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple

30 07 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1][2]

Every American is an immigrant, or his or her ancestors were immigrants. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists. America is the world’s only true melting pot, with people here from every other country on the face of the earth. Indeed, that is one of its strengths. Yes, we disagree and we squabble and we even discriminate, but we are a nation of immigrants, and we pull together and bury our differences when times get tough or 9/11s occur. Then, we are all Americans, white or brown or black or whatever the color or religion or political persuasion.

My ancestors came from Germany, Scotland, Ireland and England, and the heritage of most Americans is equally diverse. The spouses of my daughter and son have one parent who is of Mexican ancestry, and so the story goes throughout this great country. For me, however, the immigration issue is simple, and its solution is equally straightforward. All illegal immigrants must be deported now, or as soon as humanly possible; and if workers are needed to fill their jobs, they should be drawn first from Americans who are here legally and willing to work, and then from the lists of those from other countries who have been waiting in line patiently to come here. The latter group should be admitted first, and today’s illegal immigrants should go to the back of the line—if they decide to apply at all, once they have been sent back to their countries of origin.

That may seem harsh to some people, but no other solution is fair and just. I met a lovely Irish woman in Dublin 23 years ago when she was 23 years old; and we traveled across the Atlantic for many years to be together, before she joined me here in the States. Each of us made 12 trips, with some of them lasting as long as three weeks; and both of us got to know and appreciate Ireland and the United States even more during our times together. Among other things, I came to appreciate my country, as seen through the eyes of an immigrant. I have old friends from Germany and other countries too, and I have seen America through their eyes as well, which is always enlightening and generally very positive.

My German ancestors, a husband and wife who had 16 children, landed in New York on September 18, 1849; and in 1860, the husband served with his fellow Minnesotans in the Union Army.  The assimilation had taken only 11 years, but he was proud to serve; and I am sure many other immigrants felt that way who served with the Confederacy.  An Irish ancestor of mine first came to the States in 1850; and an English ancestor came almost a century before, in 1760. I am not entirely certain when my Scottish ancestors came here, but my mother’s maiden name was “Duncan” before she married my father, and it is my middle name.  I am proud of all legal immigrants; and I am equally proud of those of Mexican and Hispanic heritage.

What I found when my Irish love moved to California to live with me at the end of 1996 was that she could not get a job because she did not have a “Green Card.”  She wanted to work, but she could not.  The U.S. had a lottery for Irish immigrants, and her sister applied on a whim and received a Green Card, so she came too and got two jobs, but my Irish love could not work at all.  Could she have found work anyway, and used a phony Social Security number and ID like so many illegal immigrants?  Sure she could have, but neither of us was willing to take the risks involved.

We played by the rules and she was never able to work, and finally she got homesick and returned to Ireland.  We did everything legally and it got us nowhere.  She did not overstay her visas, and she did not work illegally, and she is in Ireland today.  Why should illegal immigrants from Mexico or any other country be treated differently than she was?  Why shouldn’t they be required to wait in line just like she did?  Why shouldn’t they be arrested and deported just like she would have been if she had broken the laws?

Having been born and raised in Southern California, I love its Mexican and Spanish heritage, and Spanish architecture is my favorite, and I love Mexican food, and some of the hardest workers whom I have ever met are Hispanics.  They are wonderful people; however, all immigrants should be subject to the same rules that my Irish love adhered to, or no one should be required to obey those laws.  It is just that simple.  No frills—the same rules for every immigrant, regardless of where he or she is from.  Fundamental fairness requires that; and we owe it to all who have come to this country legally and who have contributed so much to our heritage.

I have watched President Bush’s speeches on the subject, and I have seen the demonstrations on TV, and I have listened to the debate. However, I am fed up with the fact that no politician is willing to do what is right.  Again, from my vantage point, the issue is simple and its solution is straightforward.  There is no mystery about what needs to be done.  Whether any of our politicians will have the courage to do the right thing remains to be seen, but I am not optimistic.  If they fail to do so, the problem will fester for generations to come, and immigration will be an area of the law that applies to some people but not to others, which is wrong and fundamentally unfair and unjust.

Finally, how much does the plan outlined by President Bush before a national television audience on May 15, 2006, differ from what I believe must be done? The first objective of his plan calls for this country to secure its borders, using the National Guard to strengthen and supplement our Border Patrol; and I agree with that as long as the Guard remains in place to effectively shut the border to illegal immigrants, criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.  The second objective is to create a temporary worker program.  I have doubts about such a program, and believe it would be best to eliminate temporary workers altogether, and replace them with Americans who are willing to work, or immigrants who are seeking entry to the United States legally and have been waiting patiently to get in.

The third objective is to hold employers to account for the workers they hire, and I agree with that as long as it is enforced vigorously.  The fourth objective is essentially amnesty for those illegal immigrants who are here already, and I disagree with that.  The president’s fifth objective is described as recognition of the fact that “we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples.” Few Americans disagree with that; however, it can be achieved best by legalizing only those immigrants who followed the rules, not those who ignored this nation’s immigration laws.

At best, the president’s plan would close our southern border, but do nothing about our northern border; and it would stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants, which might send them scurrying back to their countries of origin, to get in line and come here legally. Thus, actual deportation would work in tandem with attrition, and the goals that I believe are necessary might be achieved over time. However, any notion of amnesty is a mistake, as is the idea of a temporary worker program. While many of the president’s proposals constitute steps in the right direction, they do not go far enough.

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles

[2] This article was published first at MensNewsDaily.com on May 16, 2006.  See http://www.naegele.com/documents/IllegalImmigration.pdf

More than four years have passed, and George W. Bush’s presidency ended and Barack Obama’s presidency began.  However, the underlying issues remain the same and are still as relevant and timely as when I wrote it.  Our national immigration policies continue to be a disgrace.  Some people play by the rules, such as my long-time Irish love, and they are penalized for doing so.  All immigrants should be subject to the same rules, or no one should be required to obey our immigration laws.





The Catholic Church At A Crossroads

5 04 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

When my father’s ancestors first came to America from Rottweil, Germany in 1849, they consisted of a husband and wife who had sixteen children, and were Catholics.  Sometime early in the 20th Century, the family moved away from the Church because of tithing—or so I was told—and became Lutherans.

On my mother’s side were Scots, Irish and English, many of whom were Catholics too.  My mother was an Episcopalian and my father sang in a Lutheran choir in Minneapolis where they met in grade school, but I grew up with kind feelings toward the Catholic Church.  My first two girlfriends were Catholics, which has been true of others since.

Fast forward to April of 1983, and I met a lovely Irish woman in Dublin, and we spent many years together.  She had attended Catholic schools, but would not set foot in a Catholic church in Ireland because of what she had witnessed as a young girl, and because of what she described as the “hypocrisy” of the Church (e.g., a high ranking Church official had a “wife” and child).  Later, I met another Irish woman whose closest friend had been impregnated by the local parish priest, and she had given birth to his child.

When the reports of pedophilia and other child abuses began to surface dramatically in the US and Ireland, I was not surprised.  Obviously the victims had suffered more than any of us can fathom.  I discussed the issue with someone who was much more knowledgeable than I was; and the person emphasized that being a Gay priest was different than being a pedophile.  Also, nuns committed child abuses in large numbers, certainly in Ireland.

One of my close Catholic friends pointed out some years ago that the Church had taken steps to remove pedophiles from its ranks, which was long overdue.  Also, I believe the Church-made rule of celibacy has outlived its usefulness and should be jettisoned.  The earliest Christian leaders were largely married men; and the Church’s hierarchy today should include the married and unmarried, both men and women.

Some people argue that the latest crises might bring down a Pope.  Surely, the Church has withstood other assaults throughout history, and it will withstand this one too.  The Church’s supporters will continue, while its detractors and haters will be present too.  The larger issue is whether true reform is possible, after the latest “blood-letting” about pedophilia has passed.

In many ways, the Church is like a giant oil tanker or aircraft carrier that cannot be turned on a dime.  In a sense, this is good because it is not blown off course by the societal trends or scandals of the moment.[2] As the enormous worldwide force that it is, the Church makes changes incrementally, not dramatically or overnight.  Pedophilia and child abuses of any kind must be condemned and never happen again.  The task today is to rectify the wrongdoing and bring the wrongdoers to justice, and to institutionalize lasting reforms.

The hard-earned monies of parishioners should not be used to pay the Church’s legal fees or legal settlements with the victims.  Instead, the monies should come from the Church’s vast coffers and resources worldwide, which are invested in office buildings, other real estate and the like.  When I attend Catholic churches regularly—which I do, even though I am not a member of the Church—I see Hispanics and other devout worshippers contribute what little money they have.  To use such monies to address the Church’s wrongdoing seems morally wrong and repugnant.

Next, there are vast numbers of child prostitutes in the US and throughout the world[3], who are victims of human trafficking[4].  Just as pedophilia must be stopped in its tracks, so too must human trafficking of all types, and child prostitution and pornography[5].  The Catholic Church can take a leadership role worldwide with respect to all of these issues—which is long overdue.  Its moral obligation to do so is clear.[6]

Lastly, one’s religion is very personal, and mine certainly is.  I do not want anyone telling me how to worship or what is important; and most people feel exactly the same way.  Any thoughts I have about the Church represent an effort to move beyond the scandals of today, and to seek a brighter future.

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles

[2] I have been drawn to the Church more and more over the years because among the American churches, at least it stands for issues in which I believe, such as the sanctity of life and family values.  We live in a society today that is guided too much by secular values, with which I do not agree.  If it feels good, do it—or so many people believe.  God has been driven out of our children’s classrooms and elsewhere in society. and I do not agree with that.

Until Ronald Reagan focused public attention of the right to life as opposed to abortions that were often a matter of convenience, I had never given much attention to the issue.  If anything, I just went along with the idea that abortions were OK, as well as a woman’s right.  Then, I saw a film about the birth of a human being, from almost the moment of conception to when it emerged from the womb.  How it was filmed, I do not know, but I will never forget it.  At about the same time, I read an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times (as I recall), written by a doctor who had performed lots of abortions, many of them late-term.  He gave up his medical practice because he was having nightmares and other reactions, and I was stunned by his words.

I defy anyone to define with precision when a human life begins, and when an abortion constitutes something other than the taking of a human being.  For me, life begins with conception; and thereafter, I believe this life is taken if an abortion occurs.  Should that act be criminalized, or does a woman have the right to have it done?  These are heady issues, with respect to which people disagree, sometimes violently.  I side with the Catholic Church, and feel that adoptions are preferable to abortions.  A cousin of mine and his wife found it almost impossible to adopt in the U.S., and were forced to adopt two children from Asia, whom they love unconditionally.  Clearly, there are many loving American couples who would welcome the chance to adopt someone else’s child.

[3] See, e.g., http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/prostitution.html

[4] See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/human-trafficking/

[5] See, e.g., http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/childporn.html

[6] Former President George W. Bush took a leadership role in dealing with the issue of human trafficking; and the Catholic Church must do the same.  See, e.g., http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/trafficking.html





The Rise Of Independents

31 03 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The job for Republicans between now and November of 2010 will be to elect opponents of ObamaCare—which means opponents of Barack Obama—and undo the election results of 2008 and what they wrought.  A growing number of Americans believe they were sold a far-Leftist in “sheep’s clothing,” instead of a relatively-moderate centrist[2], so the task should not be a daunting one at all.

Independents comprise about 35 percent of the American electorate[3], and their ranks may grow even larger in the years to come. They do not care much about either the Republican or Democrat parties. Enough of them hated George W. Bush, and were not enamored with John McCain, that they gave the White House to Obama. Now, enough may turn against the Democrats and Obama to hand victories of a similar magnitude to the GOP.

Obama and the Democrats misread the election results of 2008.  The price they pay in the future may be staggering—and reminiscent of the sea changes that took place in 1968 when Lyndon Johnson was effectively run out of the White House and prevented from seeking reelection, and in 1980 when the Reagan “Revolution” swept into Washington and threw out Jimmy Carter and his ilk.

For many Americans, Ross Perot’s candidacy in 1992 was a breath of fresh air; however, he turned out to be nothing more than a flash in the pan, and he failed to produce anything lasting.  He seemed more enamored with himself than in building a viable and sustainable Independent movement.  In the final analysis, all he accomplished was to deny George H.W. Bush a second term—for deep-seated reasons that are best known to Perot and Bush—and hand the presidency to Bill Clinton.

As the ranks of Independents continue to grow if not swell, it is unlikely that they will be driven by another “savior” like Perot. Most Independents do not have lasting allegiances to either party, albeit most have come from one party or the other—or perhaps both, as I did. They will be seeking like-minded candidates from the “Tea Party” movement or wherever they can be found; and ultimately politicians will not be afraid of running as Independents and defying both established parties.

Some day in the not too distant future, we will see an Independent president; and both houses of Congress will have more and more Independents who are proud to identify themselves as such.  In turn, this may draw both the Republican and Democrat parties toward the center, as they vie for the support of voters, and jettison the extremist elements in their ranks.

First, we witnessed a turning away from the GOP because of Bush, the war in Iraq and the economy. Next, we may witness the abandonment of Obama and the Dems.[4] At some point, there will be a breakdown of our two-party political system; and ObamaCare may have served as an important stepping stone toward achieving that result, and thrusting Independents into the forefront of American politics.

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles

[2] See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

[3] See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(voter)

[4] See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/