Moody's Cuts Rating for Portugal

The debt crisis in Europe continues to worsen. Now, Moody's has cut the ratings on debt held by the Portuguese.

Moody's credit rating agency downgraded Portugal's debt on Tuesday, casting fresh doubt on the country's ability to weather its debt crisis as the economy weakens.

Moody's Investors Service cut Portugal's government bond ratings to A1 from Aa2. The move deepens the country's financial woes because foreign lenders will likely demand higher interest returns for the risk of loaning it money.

Portugal's financial ordeal is part of a government debt crisis that has engulfed the euro zone and weighed on the shared currency. The cuts in Portugal's rating by international agencies in recent months have stoked market concerns that the crisis, which led Greece to the brink of bankruptcy and a bailout, could spread to other financially troubled countries in the euro zone.

It's only a matter of time before the US faces a similar fate. No one framed the issue better than Erskine Bowles.

"This debt is like a cancer," Bowles said in a sober presentation nonetheless lightened by humorous asides between him and Simpson. "It is truly going to destroy the country from within."

That's where we are at and the President simply isn't willing to acknowledge it yet. He continues to claim that he inherited this deficit and that he has worked to reduce it. Markets don't respond to nonsensical rhetoric and ignoring reality won't solve it. That seems to be the only thing that Obama is doing so far.

Hannan Does an Obama 180

Because this video went viral, some may not know that the same Daniel Hannan publicly supported Barack Obama for president in 2008. Now, he's taking all those words back.

In three and a half years of blogging, this has been my single most unpopular post. There’s little point, I know, in reminding readers that my support for Barack Obama was qualified; that I simultaneously endorsed GOP Congressional candidates; that I never saw Obama as a messiah and, indeed, was repelled by the millenarian fervour of his supporters. Nor is there much purpose in rehearsing John McCain’s shortcomings. The fact remains that I backed the Democrat.

I was wrong. Not that Obama is without his good points, obviously. His commitment to school choice is unfeigned. His foreign policy has been a jolly sight cheaper than McCain’s would have been. The election of a mixed-race president who opposed the Iraq war has made the USA slightly more popular.

None of these advantages, however, can make up for the single most important fact of Obama’s presidency, namely that the federal government is 30 per cent larger than it was two years ago

It should surprise no one that Hannan has no use for Obama's massive government expansion policies. More interesting is how Hannan, like most Brits, views Obama's anti British policies. He sees some of the slights: the bad gift to Brown, sending Churchill's best back, etc., as a "nuisance". In fact, Hannan was most concerned with the Obama administration siding with the "Peronist" in Argentina over Britain in a dispute over the Falkland Islands. That story has gotten little attention in the U.S. but it continues a trend of the Obama administration siding with Leftists.

Hannan, like most Brits, is none too happy with Obama's demonization of BP. First, he points out that British Petroleum doesn't exist since it's 40% owned by Britain and 39% owned by Americans. Second, he also points out that American companies Halliburton and Transocean haven't been demonized the way that BP has been. Britain joins Israel, Eastern Europe and Colombia as American allies not sure where they stand with the Obama administration.

Greece Secures a Bailout

Greece finalized its bailout from the Eurozone.

Euro-region ministers agreed to a 110 billion-euro ($146 billion) rescue package for Greece to prevent a default and stop the worst crisis in the currency’s 11-year history from spreading through the rest of the bloc.

The first payment will be made before Greece’s next bond redemption on May 19, said Jean-Claude Juncker after chairing a meeting of euro-region finance ministers in Brussels yesterday. The 16-nation bloc will pay 80 billion euros at a rate of around 5 percent and the International Monetary Fund contributes the rest. Greece agreed to budget measures worth 13 percent of gross domestic product.

They say the crisis is over in the Euro's currency but that's only until the next time Greece or another nation winds up in this situation again. That's when not if.

Who Will Pay Greece's Bills?

It appears there's a power struggle forming for who will NOT help Greece pay off its debts.

After weeks of backing a European rescue for the financially troubled Greece, Germany shifted course on Thursday, signaling that help should come from the International Monetary Fund rather than Greece’s neighbors.

Meanwhile, France would like to see the EU help to bailout Greece. Greece is hoping to get a break on the rate their bonds are currently paying. Their bonds currently have a premium of 6.25%, almost three percentage points higher than Britain and the U.S. A lot of this comes down to geopolitical ego. Greece doesn't want to approach the International Monetary Fund because that's generally reserved for the developing world and Greece wants to maintain the appearance that it's already developed.

So, no one wants to step. The whole affair has shown just how flawed and vulnerable the EU is. A few years back, some were claiming this would challenge the U.S. in terms of economic might. With Greece's problems, the Euro has simply gotten crushed. Thus, a massive weakness has been exposed. The EU is driven as much by its weakest link as by its strongest.

Gore's Global Warming Debacle

Al Gore is involved in a global warming bruhaha.

In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Meanwhile, there was a dispute between developing and developed nations yesterday that caused the contingent of developing nations to leave the conference.

On Monday, the talks were temporarily suspended after a delegation representing developing nations withdrew their co-operation.

Following the action by the African group, supported by the wider G77-China bloc of developing nations, some sessions ran long into the night as negotiators tried to make up lost time.

The Danish conference hosts had been accused of trying to sideline negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol by packaging discussion of outstanding difficult issues from across the various strands into a single informal session.

Developing countries are adamant that developed nations still inside the protocol - all except the US - must commit to further emission cuts under its aegis.

So, so far the conference has been full of drama and of little consequence. No agreements are on the horizon. In fact, if nothing else, both the agreement and the science itself have both been turned mor murky since the beginning of the conference. That's after climategate. So, with Obama on his way in the next couple days, things look very murky and no agreement seems imminent.

War On Bonuses

There's news all over the world that signals that bonuses at financial services firms will be under attack. First, Goldman Sachs, in response to public pressure, has cut back cash bonuses for most of its top executives.

Goldman Sachs moved to quell public anger over executive pay on Thursday by unveiling plans to eliminate cash bonuses for its top 30 executives this year and give shareholders a vote on compensation.

The new policies come as some of the world’s financial capitals weigh steep taxes on bonuses paid to employees of banks that drew government support during the credit crisis. Goldman’s rapid recovery from the downturn, and the likely windfall many employees will reap next month thanks to surging profits, has made the bank a frequent target
for politicians and shareholders.

Meanwhile, France, Britain and Germany are all on the verge of setting so called sur tax on bonuses at financial firms.

The British special tax on banker bonuses unveiled this week received crucial backing from France, but other important countries have so far declined to follow the U.K.'s bid to curtail banker compensation.

Reaction to the U.K.'s move underscored how difficult it is to coordinate reform efforts globally. While France said it would likely enact something similar, Germany expressed support for the concept but had no immediate plans to do anything similar. On the other side of the Atlantic, the U.S. showed no signs of following suit.

Domestically, Kenneth Feinberg is now in full swing trying to determine bonus structures for the second tier of executives.

The Obama administration's pay czar plans to announce on Friday his next wave of rulings as bailout recipients struggle to get out from under his thumb.

Kenneth Feinberg has said these rulings will likely reduce pay for the 26th to 100th highest-paid employees at the six firms still under his authority.

Those firms, all of which received "exceptional assistance" from the taxpayers, are: Citigroup Inc (C.N), American International Group (AIG.N), General Motors Co (GM.UL), Chrysler, Chrysler Financial and GMAC.

Now, the problem is that financial executives are totally unsympathetic. So, no one will be all that bothered by a war on their compensation and many will cheer. Such an environment creates a mob mentality. That's the worst kind of an environment.





All of this is essentially class warfare. It has no economic benefit. It is filled with unintended consequences. Puntive taxes on bonuses in financial firms means that talent goes to other firms. It also means that talent goes to countries where the same punitive measurements aren't in place. We tried something similar in the 1990's. That lead to bonuses being structured in stock options and that contributed to the bubble at the end of the decade.

Obama's IOC Speech

I am torn by this speech. On the one hand, this was a fairly marginal speech made by the President. He did a much better job of selling the vision of the Olympic games. He certainly did a good job of telling the IOC how Chicago could benefit from the games. Yet, he was rather flat in selling the city itself. He listed off a series of individual neighborhoods like Ukranian Village and Hyde Park and he gave a short history of the city, including the great Chicago Fire that nearly burnt it down. Still, most of what he said could have been said by any representative of any city. Given that the president is from Chicago, I was expecting a much more personal appeal. He did talk about how Chicago became his own home after moving around most of his life, but I was disappointed by his salesmanship of the city itself.

That said, I am against the game coming here. So, a flat sales job helps the cause. President Obama said

No one expects the Games to solve our collective challenges. But we do believe that in a world where we have too often witnessed the darker aspects of our humanity, peaceful competition between nations represents what is best about our humanity.

That's an ironic and curious statement considering that the beating death of Derrion Albert has been broadcast around the world. Many in Chicago would ask how the Olympic games will do anything to solve that sort of violence in the city. The speech, for obvious reasons, didn't address that death nor any of the negatives of bringing the games to the city.

All in all, I am underwhelmed. If this puts Chicago over the top, then the IOC was simply hypnotized by his celebrity because no one can say this speech swayed them to Chicago.

UPDATE:

Chicago and Tokyo were both just eliminated.

Do the Brits Have A Lot to Answer For

The London Times has a shocking article in which new details are discovered regarding the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber.

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

If this report is accurate, it leaves no doubt that 1) the release of this mass murdere was orchestrated by Britain and not Scotland, and 2)it was done for cynical financial reasons. Of course, the Brown government has denied both issues. In fact, according to the letters, the current fall guy, Kenny McCaskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, appears to be acting on the orders of the British Justice Secretary Jack Straw.

It also raised questions of whether or not the bomber really is dying. After all, these correspondence start about two years ago. In them, clear quid pro quo is discussed. BP was struggling in finalizing an oil deal in Lybia. Meanwhile, Lybia wanted the bomber back. Now, the deal has been finalized and the bomber is free.

For all those that will rush to blame the Obama administration, remember these correspondence go back two years. As such, it's more accurate to blame the State Departments of both administrations for not making it more clear that Britain had more to lose by releasing the bomber.

The President in Russia: A Preview

Later today, the president will travel to Russia as part of a week trip through Europe and Africa. He'll stop at the Vatican, meet with the other leaders of the G8, and travel to Ghana.

President Obama is scheduled to leave Washington tonight on a week-long trip that will help determine whether his personal popularity and fresh policy approaches can yield concrete results on difficult issues including arms control, missile defense and nuclear nonproliferation.

After seeking support for U.S. policies from allies in Europe and appealing for a new relationship with the Muslim world in Cairo on previous trips, Obama arrives in Moscow tomorrow for his first foray into high-profile, nuts-and-bolts negotiations with the leader of a nation that might be deemed an unfriendly rival.

On Wednesday, Obama will travel to L'Aquila, Italy, where he will meet with leaders of the world's major industrial powers. Climate change and the continued shaky global economy are expected to dominate the agenda. He is also to meet with Pope Benedict XVI.

The president is wise to understand Russia's motive in the region and in the world. Russia is looking to increase its reach both in the region and the world. Russia currently supplies Europe with about 75% of it energy needs. Russia is also a major player in the natural gas market. In fact, Russia may even be angling to lead a group of nations to create an OPEC like cartel in natural gas. In all these ways, Russia will once again become a major player in the world's geopolitics.

Russia is also looking to exert as much control over its former republics as possible. That was put on display last summer when Russia invaded Georgia. Finally, much of Russia's economic wealth is dependent on artificially high oil prices, and in fact, Putin opponent, Garry Kasparov, believes that Putin's entire geopolitical agenda is based on maintaining this artificially high oil prices.

There will be several issues on the agenda between Russian leaders and President Obama: nuclear non proliferation, missile defense, and NATO membership for many former Georgian satellites.

President Obama would be wise to keep all of this in mind as ne negotiates with the Russians. Nuclear non proliferation is his pet issue but from the view of Vladimir Putin, he would gladly give up his nuclear stock pile if it meant the U.S. backing away from a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Missile defense in Eastern Europe make most of the former Russian satellites a lot more secure from the influence of Russia. The same goes for NATO membership of many of these satellites. Putin frankly sees the potential of a natural gas cartel as a significantly more promising way of exerting force than his nuclear stock pile. As such, Russia would gladly sign onto any nuclear non proliferation agreement if it means that the U.S. backs off missile defense and NATO membership for the Ukraine, Georgia and other former Russian satellites. Any such agreement would NOT be in our best interest, nor our friends.

There's more. Israel recently discovered a major natural gas discovery. Israel is now instantaneously a player in the natural gas market. With relations between the U.S. and Israel frosting, Russia could use this as an opportunity to try and include them in any such OPEC style cartel. In fact, the recent visit by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, of Russian descent, could be a sign of warming relations between the two nations. Russia can and will use the growing rift between the U.S. and Israel to their advantage.

Vladimir Putin knows that President Obama is desperate to achieve nuclear non proliferation. Putin is desperate to increase the scope of influence by Russia in the world. Putin could easily puppeteer Obama into an agreement that gives Putin exactly what he wants. Russia has several agendas in the world. They are not America's allies. They must be viewed as threats and rivals and all potential agreements must carefully be viewed with all of this in mind.

The Hubris of Humility

In last night's talking points memo, O'Reilly did a fine job of describing President Obama's strategy so far in foreign policy.

In Europe, Mr. Obama went out of his way to tell the world how he is going to correct what he believes were the mistakes of the Bush administration

...

The Obama strategy is to clear the decks of any anti-Bush hostility and present a new day dawning. He wants to make the nations of the world our partners in problem solving, and if he has to eat a little crow to do that, he'll butter up the bird.

Of course, while former President Bush is the biggest recipient of his ire, the current president is in fact criticizing our modern day foreign policy in general. After all, as he once said

too often we dictate the terms of the debate

and

we speak when we should listen

He will turn the page not only the wrongs of President Bush, but on all the wrongs of America. He will listen. Listen he did. He listened for nearly an hour while Marxist Daniel Ortegan went into an anti American diatrobe and said nothing. Later on, he only mused that he was glad that Ortega didn't blame him (President Obama) for things that happened when he was very young. That was rather revealing. The president wasn't terribly concerned if Ortega blamed his country, just not him personally.

President Obama will have a new sort of a foreign policy philosophy. This starts with a whirlwind tour in which he apologizes for every previous American wrong, real and imagined, all over the globe. It started in Europe, move to Mexico, and hat its latest stop in Trinidad and Tobago. What is the effect? Well, his advisor, David Axelrod, summed it up.

What’s happened is anti-Americanism isn’t cool anymore,” Mr. Axelrod said, speaking to an audience of a few hundred at a conference in Washington sponsored by the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

“This president has not only engaged the leaders of the world, he’s engaged the people of the world,” Mr. Axelrod said, arguing that Mr. Obama’s approach to foreign policy has restored “a sense of humility” that “was missing” in the past.

He's right. It isn't cool to bash America anymore. After all, why bash America, when its leader beats you to it. It is an old trick. Beat your critics to the punch. Before they have a chance to bash you, you bash yourself. It's the best part of self deprecating humor.

There's a bit of irony in all of this. President Obama is convinced that America has been doing it wrong all this time. America has been far too arrogant. It's time for more humility and he's just the one to do it. In fact, the only real arrogance is his own. He isn't merely bashing President Bush's foreign policy but America's in general in our recent history, all the way back to JFK. This nation, which brought freedom and democracy to millions in multiple continents, is the one that has been getting it wrong all this time. It's his job to fix it all. Job one is telling the rest of the world about each and every mistake. Job two is taking seriously the views of each and every tyrant and despot that has a beef with us.

Of course, so far at least, all of this "humility" has given us absolutely nothing tangible. We got no troops in Afghanistan. We got nothing of substance on North Korea. Iran put an American in prison for years on trumped up charges. His supporters continue to say that these things take time. That's true. His presidency has a lot more days left than days past. Maybe, we, critics, are wrong. Maybe after some more buttering up soon everyone will come to work with him constructively. They just haven't yet. I'd just like to know how much time he needs. At what point will he see that maybe, just maybe, his approach is wrong.

For me, it's rather simple. What sort of arrogance can be behind a belief that hundreds of years of history is wrong while your own view point is right. If America is so wrong, why are we more often than not on the right side of history? if we are on the right side of history more often than not, maybe that's what you tell the rest of the world rather than focusing on each and every mistake. That's what I would have told Ortega, but then again, my view of foreign policy isn't nearly is humble as the president's.

Spain Walks Back from the Edge

Bill O'Reilly was threatening to lead another boycott a la the one he lead of France while Jacque Chirac was its leader. Some far left zealots were on the verge of creating an international incident with reverberations everywhere. Charges were brought in a Spanish court to prosecute up to six former Bush officials for war crimes for their sanction of various interrogation techniques like waterboarding, GITMO, and the terrorist surveillance program. One of those bringing charges was an individual named Gonzalo Boye, who himself was once put in prison for assisting a Spanish terrorist group by the name of MIR.

Such a spectacle would have lead to an international disaster. First, it would have put the U.S. on trial and presented the image that in the GWOT it is the U.S. that is the villain. Second, relations between Spain and the U.S. would have been irreperably harmed. That the Spanish government would cede to such a radical as Boye would have been a slap in the face to our nation.

It appears that Spain's Attorney General, Candido Conde-Pumpido, has finally added some reason to the debacle. (H/T to Hot Air)

Spain's attorney general has rejected opening an investigation into whether six Bush administration officials sanctioned torture against terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, saying Thursday a U.S. courtroom would be the proper forum.

Candido Conde-Pumpido's remarks severely dampen the chance of a case moving forward against the Americans, including former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Conde-Pumpido said such a trial would have turned Spain's National Court "into a plaything" to be used for political ends.

We can only hope that this nonsense is now over.

Obama in Europe: All Style, Little Substance

There is no doubt that President Obama is even more of a rock star in Europe than he is in most places in America. His wife, Michelle, may in fact be even more of a rock star. The European press had a field day commenting on the attire of Ms. Obama and Nicholas Sarkozy's model wife. There was also a report that Italian PM Silvio Burlesconi nearly trampled over people in order to get himself into a photo with President Obama. The president did multiple townhall meetings and press conferences and at each he was treated much like royalty. Unlike his predecessor, there is no doubt that those abroad have a genuine affection for him. Now, comes the important question. What does all this genuine affection get the new president? So far, the answer is absolutely nothing. For all his popularity, President Obama can't get anything of substance for it.

For me, the European trip was all sorts of style and very little substance. The president spent the entire campaign complaining that President Bush had alienated the world and as such, we can't get any cooperation. So, he asked for NATO troops in Afghanistan and got a few trainers. North Korea shot off a missile and he went to the UN. Only at the UN, he got absolutely nothing. Furthermore, he suggested in Turkey that Turkey became a part of the EU. This created an immediate rebuke from most of the official EU nations. So, on foreign policy, all the popularity translated into nothing of substance.

Economically, the president got similar results. The rest of the world dismissed out of hand his idea for a world stimulus. Most of the rest of the world simply can't afford that kind of debt. The only agreement to come out of the G20 is an agreement for a world regulatory body. This is an idea championed by Nicholas Sarkozy and he threatened to leave the meeting without it.

It's very easy to tell just how much of a failure the trip was. Just look at how supporters viewed the trip.

It is difficult to see this trip as a failure. He was warmly received--which is not insignificant given the diminished stature of the United States overseas that made it extraordinarily difficult to obtain assistance on international affairs—promises were made to deal with the financial crisis, and Obama was able to open some dialogue in parts of the world where dialogue has been shut down for years. The critics might have something to talk about down the line, but as an opening move this certainly cannot be characterized as a failure.

With nothing of substance to point to, you immediately look at tangential matters. Of course, he was able to open a dialogue. That's what happens when world leaders get together for a week at a time. What kind of a low bar is this? Are we now treating as success the mere fact that our president was able to speak at length with other world leaders? Isn't that what is supposed to happen?

Of course he was warmly received but then denied everything he asked for. Either his supporters are blind or they are hoping the rest of us are. If a warm reception and open dialogue are the standards for success, they have set the bar awfully low for the president.

The President's Missing Narrative

Any agenda must have a story, a narrative if you will. The people must understand where the administration is going and why they are going there. Most modern day presidents have things they want to accomplish, their agenda. To get the American people on board presidents must explain what they are trying accomplish and how they plan to get there. That's what I mean by a narrative.

This president has plenty that he wants to accomplish: health care for all, energy independence, better education, fixing the economy, and cutting the budget deficit. What is missing is a narrative to tie it all together. No one is really sure how he is going to do any of it and much of it seems to conflict with each other. No one can really explain how it all ties together.

Now, let's compare that to narrative of his opponents. The president's opponents see a president that sees a crisis as an opportunity. This is an opportunity to create an orgy of liberal causes that the ideology has been craving for decades. This crisis is nothing more than an excuse for an unprecedented expansion of government and power grab. Furthermore, this expansion is meant to make our country look more like a socialist Democracy in the model of Europe. Finally, this expansion will create debts and deficits that are unsustainable and ultimately will either bankrupt us or create hyperinflation.

Now, I am not here to argue the validity of either side. Anyone who has been reading this space knows where I stand. There can be no doubt though that at the moment it is the president's opponents with the clearer and more effective narrative. Until and unless he changes that his popularity will continue to erode.

Mr. President: If We Have To Ask...That is the Problem

The President seems to have been rather confounded by one specific question asked by a New York Times reporter. So much so, that he called the reporter back following their interview on Air Force One to elaborate. The spat followed a New York Times reporter asking the president if he thought he was a socialist.

Opening the unusual presidential call to reporters by saying that there was "just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter," he said it wasn't he who started the federal government's intervention into the nation's financial system.

"I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -– the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can’t say the same."

Cathy Young has written a great deal on Obama's quasi socialist tendencies and how they have been perceived from all sides.

For Obama's more strident detractors, the label is practically synonymous with "communist." Back in October, Washington Times columnist Jeffery T. Kuhner predicted that Obama's victory would usher in "the U.S.S.A."—the United Socialist States of America. This catchy phrase is now showing up on bumper stickers, along with the self-explanatory moniker, "Comrade Obama."This kind of rhetoric is not just the province of marginal firebrands. The New York Times reports that, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last weekend, Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and presidential contender, fulminated about the creation of "socialist republics" in America and asserted that "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff."

To those who remember the murderous horror that was the USSR, this flippant use of Communist and Soviet analogies should be deeply offensive, indeed obscene—the right-wing equivalent of the leftist habit of flinging Nazi metaphors at conservatives. Lenin, Stalin, and Obama are as much of a trio as Hitler, Mussolini, and Bush. Lenin and Stalin did not want to tax the rich a little more; they wanted to confiscate all their property and either kill them or send them to concentration camps (and to eliminate all political opposition and independent opinion).Less wild-eyed critics acknowledge that the socialism they invoke is the "European-style" variety—in other words, not the system of our totalitarian Cold War enemy but that of our democratic allies. This is not to say that European-style socialism is something we should embrace, only that it's not a particularly terrifying bogeyman.

Young makes a rather intuitive point. Some of the more extreme Republicans, most recently Mike Huckabee, do themselves no favors when they attempt to put the most extreme labels on the president. The president isn't trying to model our country on Venezuela or even Russia. Yet, a very strong argument could be made that he is trying to model our nation on much of Western Europe which are all socialist democracies.

Moving the United States toward Western Europe is no utopian dream. Even prior to the economic downturn most of Europe faced stagnating growth. The population is not pro creating (as explained rather well by Mark Steyn in his book America Alone). The population regularly faces near ten percent unemployment and taxes are almost always above 50% of income.

Now, I myself, could be accused of using provocative and counter productive language against the president. Back during the campaign, I wrote a piece comparing him to Karl Marx. However, even back then, I made the same point that is relevant today.

is Barack Obama a Marxist? No, he is not totally a Marxist. Liberals will point out that it is ludicrous to point out he is a Marxist since Marx believed in the nationalization of industry, total government control, and a totalitarian state. That's true. Barack Obama pays lip service to the free markets from time to time. He doesn't want to create a totalitarian state. He doesn't want full nationalization of industry. He does however subscribe to the philosophy of wealth redistribution. He does want to partially nationalize health care. He does want the government playing a much more significant role in job creation and in regulation. The point is not to make Barack Obama an exact replica of Karl Marx. The point is how close do we want our President to be to Karl Marx. I reject everything that Karl Marx believed in. I want a President that is as far away from Marx as possible. Liberals seem to believe that if someone only believes in some of Marx' teachings that it is no longer an issue. It would be beyond the pale to compare Barack Obama to Karl Marx if our "only evidence" was his belief in wealth redistribution, government creation of jobs, more
government role in regulation, and the partial nationalization of health care. I think that is far too much resemblance to Marx myself.

The reason this question is relevant, and the reason that it strikes such a nerve in the president everytime asked, is because there are frankly far too many socialist tendencies. Every single domestic policy proposal that President Obama has either enacted or proposed is in one form or another from the socialist handbook. He's raising taxes on the wealthy and corporation, while funding all sorts of programs aimed at the poor and middle class. That is classic wealth redistribution right out of the socialist handbook. His universal health care idea is pseudo socialized medicine. He wants the federal government to lead on energy independence. Furthermore, his tax scheme has created a dynamic where more than half of Americans pay no income taxes, meaning more than half the country is now dependent on the government. He's nearly nationalized the banks and it's possible he will nationalize the automakers. I haven't even yet talked about his cap and trade scheme and his plans for a new "regulatory framework", all of which will mean the state is significantly more involved in commerce.

All of this socialistic in one manner or another. The reason that the president is so sensitive to this question is that on many levels he is socialist. He is certainly not in the mold of Lenin and Chavez and comparing him to them is counter productive. That said, he absolutely wants to move our country toward the Western European model. He is doing it under the guise of a crisis, and he's attempting ram this agenda through before anyone has a chance to digest what it all means. Finally, the reason he is so sensitive is that given a chance to reflect, Americans will by and large reject any plan to make America like Western Europe. Try as he might to mask that intention, there is no question that President Obama is attempting to move our country toward that model.

President Obama and the 25 Hour Day

(H/T to Hot Air ) The Telegraph has a startling and very troubling article that recounts both what lead up to the trip by Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, and the reaction of the administration afterwards. First, we need a recap. Much of the British media, the political establishment, and society at large feel as though the administration snubbed both Brown and the country at large because not only was there not a formal press conference but the administration presented as gifts to Brown a set of 25 DVDs. Among Brown's gifts to Obama, he handed him a pen carved out of a ship that was involved in ending the slave trade.

According to the article, the Obama administration's behavior can be attributed to a combination of total exhaustion and a lack of care.

Barack Obama's offhand approach to Gordon Brown's Washington visit last week came about because the president was facing exhaustion over America's economic crisis and is unable to focus on foreign affairs, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.

...

But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

...

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly.

In addition to passing the largest stimulus package and the largest budget in US history, Mr Obama is battling a plummeting stock market, the possible bankruptcy of General Motors, and rising unemployment. He has also begun historic efforts to achieve universal healthcare, overhaul education and begin a green energy revolution all in his first 50 days in office.

The Sunday Telegraph understands that one of Mr Obama's most prominent African American backers, whose endorsement he spent two years cultivating, has told friends that he detects a weakness in Mr Obama's character.

"The one real serious flaw I see in Barack Obama is that he thinks he can manage all this,"

There are several troubling things revealed in this report. First, there is a reason why more often than not governors rather than senators are elected president. That's because it is governors that understand the day to day grind of being the chief executive. George Allen was fond of saying that he made more decisions in a week as governor than he did in his entire six years as senator.

President Obama faces near unprecedented pressure even beyond the general pressure of any president. Clearly, this article makes the case that he isn't handling all this pressure. He has put so much focus on domestic issues that foreign policy has become nothing more than an afterthought.

Except it isn't an afterthought. We are involved in two theaters in a larger world war. Furthermore, dismissing foreign policy is no way to "renew our standing in the world" as President Obama promised. We need to try and put this mistake into perspective. If an administration doesn't understand gift giving, how exactly will they be able to formulate a policy for Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran? Think about all the criticism that George Bush took, and yet, his administration never made a mistake this elementary.

The more troubling part is that the president seems to think he can handle the economic crisis, the real estate crisis, the banking crisis, health care, energy independence, and education all at once. Clearly, he can't. We know this because as a result he couldn't handle simple customs when an important foreign leader visits.

Anyone that thinks that Britain is no different than any of the other 190 countries has little appreciation for even the most basic history. They have no place in the administration let alone speaking anonymously to the media.

What this article reveals is that the disrespect shown to Brown is not just some simple oversight. Instead, it reveals a White House not only in over its head but one that shows a destructive hubris. Here is a White House that is trying everything all at once and as a result they overlook basic functions like handling a visit from an important foreign dignitary. All of us that wondered aloud about then candidate Obama simply not being ready to be President Obama. We can only hope that his on the job training is short as the country simply cannot withstand many more disastrous visits like the one just made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

President Obama's Multi Pronged Strategy for the Near Total Socialization of America

What we are witnesssing, right before our eyes, is the nightmare that all free market, small government conservatives have feared from President Obama. In the last week, we have had several different reports about only mildly related issues and each one of them points in the same direction. President Obama is determined to turn the United States of America into a Socialist Democracy on the order of France and Sweden.

The most obvious bit of news is the stimulus package. There are several things that are clear from this package. First, this will entail a massive expansion of government. Second, whatever jobs will be created will be created by the government. Third, the deficits will wind up being so high that it will be nearly impossible to cut taxes in the future and thus give stimulus to the private market. As such, the end result of this stimulus will be the government playing a far more important role in our economy than it ever has before.

The second announcement is the announcement that the Obama administration will allow individual states like California to set their own emission standards. Now, it's important to understand that the big three are soon going to need more money. They will of course come to the federal government for more money. President Obama will likely oblige however there will no doubt be strings attached. President Obama will demand that as a stipulation of getting this money the big three go on a serious campaign to build energy efficient automobiles. In fact, they will have no choice regardless. With stringent emissions standards in states like California, the big three will have to or they won't be complying with the law. Now, of course, everyone is in favor of energy efficiency. However, some are more than happy letting the government dictate it, while others would like to see the free market dictate energy efficiency. The Obama administration will be more than happy having the government tell the automakers just how energy efficient their cars have to be.

The last bit of news is the news that the Obama administration is likely to ask for a second round of bailout money for the banks. (that's on top of getting the second $350 billion released). Now, CNBC reports that full nationalization is the least likely option following the second TARP. Of course, ultimately it won't matter much. President Obama has already been on record as being displeased with the lack of oversight of how previous TARP money has been spent. As such, you are sure to see President Obama demand that it be spent exactly as he likes. After all, the TARP money is the government's money. One way or another, once the second TARP is rolled out, we will effectively have banks be nationalized.

So, in one fell swoop, President Obama will expand the size and scope of government exponentially. At the same time, he will effectively nationalize two major industries. The sum total will be an America that is much like the Socialist Democracy of France.

Europe, Russia, and the United States in the Age of Obama

His liberal opponents as well as the folks in the MSM have misconstrued the geopolitical position of the United States with regard to Europe under the Presidency of George Bush. Bush's opponents make the incorrect claim that as a result of his foreign policy choices we lost standing among our European partners. In fact, in reality what we saw was a reallignment of our alliances. No doubt that the Iraq War caused serious friction with much of Western Europe. Yet, what critics and opponents of George Bush fail to recognize is that while Western Europe thawed their alliance with the U.S. under Bush, our alliance with Eastern Europe saw a renaissance. Our alliance with countries like Poland, the Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltics has never been stronger. In fact, the U.S. has never seen better relations with most of the former satellites of the Soviet Union than we have under George Bush.

If President Obama holds to this fallacious world view, he may commit some serious geopolitical blunders. For instance, Charles Kupchan, of the Council on Foreign Relations, believes there is a window of opportunity for improved relations between Europe, Russia and the United States. There is however an inherent fallacy in such a policy. Many of our new allies fear Russia and see that nation as a threat to their own safety. In fact, Georgia got a first hand look at that threat when Russia invaded that much smaller nation and did as it pleased. This tension appears to be irrelevant to Kupchan.

The different American and European reactions to the Georgia war reveal a deep divergence in perspective. The United States tended to defend the Georgian government and put most blame squarely on the shoulders of Russia and wanted to react to the war by taking concrete steps to punish Russia and break off contacts, particularly within the context of NATO. And the Europeans had a somewhat more balanced view about the causes of the war, and saw the Georgian government as being partly responsible for the conflict which erupted over South Ossetia. Europe was less willing than the United States to see the war as a cause for a serious degradation of relations with Russia, and the EU has taken the lead in restoring dialogue between the European Union and Russia, and in restarting contacts between NATO and Russia.

If the Obama administration were to take the Western European view of Russia, he would also be jeopardizing our new allies in Eastern Europe. It's also important to note that Europe is more "balanced" as Kupchan characterizes it because they rely on Russia for much of their own energy needs. Western Europe wants a conciliatory policy toward Russia for this reason and because the Europeans are generally weak. As such, in order for the U.S. to renew our old alliances with Western Europe, at least as it relates to Russia, it would mean jeopardizing the safety of our new allies in Eastern Europe.

This very important geopolitical reality is something you'll never hear from any Bush opponent because that would mean acknowledging a significantly more complicated geopolitical reality under George Bush than they would ever admit. It is however a reality.

Our relationship with Russia is also significantly more complicated than folks like Kupchan will admit either.

During the campaign, Obama's position was for principled support for a missile defense system, but a more relaxed time frame for development and deployment, based upon the fact that the testing by the Pentagon has not yet been completed, and the quality of the technology remains in question; that is to say it's not clear how effective the system would be.

...

The administration will back the system in principle. In the aftermath of 9/11, and in light of the continuing nuclear activities of Iran, it would be imprudent to suggest that some kind of missile defense system is unnecessary. But there will be a deliberation about when and how to deploy such a system, and that might involve moving at a slower timetable to ensure that the technology is ready, but also doing due diligence on the diplomatic front. Many felt that the Bush administration moved in a clumsy fashion and dealt in too bilateral of a way, that is to say it negotiated with Poland and with the Czech Republic, without consulting NATO and without doing enough to try to bring in the Russians. And you might recall that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice actually went to Moscow at one point and said, "Let's make this a system for all, let's secure Russian participation." So it may well be that a new dialogue is started with the NATO allies and including Russia to try to defang the political antagonism that the system has created. It may well be that the system can be deployed in a more favorable political atmosphere.

Russia is vociferously against the missile shield and anything that brings any of the former satellites into NATO because Russia is determined to intimidate its neighbors in a long term goal of exerting as much control over the area as possible. The reason that the missile system has created "political antagonism" as Kupchan describes it is because the missile shield is a direct threat to Russia's goals in the region. It's also why there is "political antagonism" with Russia when any of the former Soviet satellites have their names floated for entry into NATO.

Once again, there is a natural tension between renewing our alliance with Western Europe and continuing our new alliance with Eastern Europe. The Western Europeans have a natural and an economic motivation not to confront Russia whenever it is aggressive toward any of its neighbors. Yet, a lack of a missile shield (or even a slow down of finishing the system) and a lack of entry into NATO, is a direct threat to most of the former Soviet satellites. As such, once again, there is a natural tension between our new allies and the allies with which our relationship thawed under Bush.

Kupchan also places a fair amount of value on Obama's affinity toward confronting global warming and closing GITMO. While those two moves may in fact mean that the United States will poll better in some poll of Europeans, it is unclear what geopolitical advantage this will give the United States.

The geopolitical reality of the situation is this. Russia is a tyrannical regime with imperial aspirations. Those aspirations threaten the safety of all our allies in Eastern Europe. Our traditional allies in Western Europe want nothing more than to look the other way while this occurs. In Europe our alliances have shifted, and soon enough, we will need to decide whether we stand with our new allies or drift toward our old ones.

The Ironic and Terrible Case of Geert Wilders

I had a chance to travel through Amsterdam when I was a junior in college in 1996. Much of what everyone has heard about that city is true. It's most famous of course for its libertine attitude including the availability of marijuana in most coffee shops and the red light district which houses an endless array of prostitutes that stand in front of a glass door posing for any passer by. In Amsterdam, as much of the Netherlands, the folks believe in a live and let live attitude.


For this reason the case of Geert Wilders is just that much more shocking. Wilders is a member of the Netherlands parliament and he has been an outspoken critic of Islam. Recently, he helped make the movie, Fitna, which criticized Islam.The Dutch Court of Appeals recently charged Wilders with "incitement to hatred and violence" because he made this film. This is all parts stunning, tragic, and very ironic that the same place that sees no problem with women standing nearly naked in front of a full sized window will send someone to jail because they have made a movie that a religion finds offensive.

It appears that the libertarian attitude of the Dutch only goes so far. Prostitution and drug use are protected under the guise of libertarianism while free expression is deemed to be "incitement to hatred and discrimination".

Of course, if the establishment continues on this obscene road to multiculturalism, they will soon be shocked by how far it will go. After all, merely having prostitutes stand in front of a glass door and offer their bodies for money is no less an affront to Islam than is making a movie that challenges the religion. The long road toward multiculturalism only starts with jailing someone that makes a movie deemed insulting to religion. Soon, the establishment will realize that much of their society as they know it is in and of itself an affront to Islam.

Obama's Citizen of the World Test 1: Afghanistan

For the last eight years we have heard liberal political opponents bemoan our "diminished image in the rest of the world". They have all put a premium on having great relations with countries like France and Germany. Those opponents include the soon to be President Barack Obama. So now, the country and the world will see if all those folks were merely making something out of nothing or if our image does translate into something tangible.

The first test of this theory will be on the subject of Afghanistan. President Obama has committed to a new strategy, a new focus, with plenty more troops in that country. We will soon thousands more American fighting men and women deployed into Afghanistan. If image in the rest of the world means anything, then with them will be thousands more European troops. If opinion polls mean anything, then Barack Obama is soon to be in for a rude awakening.

The Financial Times said 60 percent of German respondents in the survey
opposed Berlin sending more troops to Afghanistan.

In Britain, the second biggest contributor to NATO's mission in Afghanistan with more than 8,000 troops, 57 percent of those polled rejected sending more forces.

In France and Italy, 53 percent were opposed. Only in Spain was there a majority willing to consider sending extra troops, the Financial Times said.

The poll of 6,299 people, conducted online between January 8 and 15, found voters in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain believed the international financial crisis must be at the top of Obama's agenda.

Make no mistake, Barack Obama has a lot of goodwill in the rest of the world. As such, it is paramount that he transfer this into something tangible. The first place will be Afghanistan. If the United States sends in 20-30 thousand more troops and Europe sends in another thousand, then we should know right away that good will means pretty much nothing. If Obama's goodwill means that European countries will send in even half as many troops as the United States, then we will all know that the critics had a point for eight years. The first test of Obama's citizen of the world status will be played out in Afghanistan and that battlefield will also be a testing ground for ideological fights in foreign policy.

The Absurdity of Obama's Citizen of the World View

Defenders of the Bush administration point to the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 as one of his best accomplishments. Now, it remains debateable how much of an accomplishment this is and how much this will help his legacy. It is of course beyond debate that we haven't been hit since 9/11.

Barack Obama sees the world in a different way. Regardless of their effectiveness, Barack Obama sees Bush's tough anti terror tactics as harming our world image. This, Obama sees, as much more damaging, Furthermore, he is either willing to risk American lives or he simply doesn't believe that any of these tactics saved lives. Now, it has long been established that Iyman Faris was stopped from blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge in part due to the terrorist surveillance program, or warrantless wiretaps. The U.S. received intelligence that the Brooklyn Bridge might be a target. The NSA began intercepting phone calls from Pakistan in which the words "Brooklyn Bridge" (which apparently doesn't translate) and eventually authorities were lead to Faris. In his place, they found plans for the bridge along with bomb making materials that experts later confirmed would have blown up the bridge.

It's also been widely reported that waterboarding eventually broke Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, mastermind of 9/11, and the information we received from him lead to a plethora of intelligence.

As such, if Obama thinks that these techniques didn't save lives, he is taking a massive risk with American lives. With that risk in play, it must be examined if appeasing world opinion is so important. Watching the current conflict in Gaza, world opinion is generally condemning of Israel. They call their response disproportionate and some even call it a genocide. World opinion would have us believe that terrorists can launch rockets at civilians at will and a Democracy should only be allowed to counter in some sort of tit for tat manner. The same world opinion called Ronald Reagan a cowboy right until the Berlin Wall came down. The same world opinion cheered on Neville Chamberlain while he sacrificed Czechoslovakia. To me, world opinion doesn't necessarily have much credibility.

In fact, world opinion has any aggressive counter terrorist action as out of bounds. There is a larger question. Who cares? Why is it so important that some French person on the street likes America? What Barack Obama will soon realize is that world opinion is with him as long as he does as the world wants. I know a lot of pretty girls like this. They love you as long as you shower them with adoration but as soon as you say something negative you are suddenly a leper.

More than that, world opinion doesn't necessarily translate into any geopolitical advantage. Does anyone believe that the French, Spanish and Germans will suddenly commit more troops and resources to the GWOT now that Barack Obama is President. The fact is that the world criticizes the U.S. until they need something and then they demand it. I also know a lot of pretty girls that act like that. To me, the idea of making foreign policy based on world opinion is ludicrous. The rest of the world does no heavy lifting. They simply do heavy criticizing. That's easy. They leave the difficult tasks to the U.S. That's just the nature of the beast when you are the world's only superpower. If that's the case, their opinion should mean absolutely nothing in determining policy especially when that policy puts lives in danger.

On top of all of this, countries that practice much more tolerant practices are not immune from attacks. No country is more tolerant of the Muslim world than France and yet that hasn't stopped multiple riots. The Netherlands is also tolerant but that didn't stop an islamist from killing Theo Van Gogh. Writers in Denmark are under constant threat of death because they dared to criticize the prophet Muhammad. Spain, Britain, Jordan, and the Phillipines have all been hit with terorist attacks. Most of these nations have criticized the U.S. for its own tough anti terror policies.

Finally, world opinion is one of those intangible things. When Barack Obama says that our image in the world has been harmed by Bush's anti terror tactics, that is awfully simplistic. The reality is that our critics are louder than our allies. In reality, Bush has gained plenty of allies despite, or maybe because of, his tough tactics. While most of Western Europe has criticized, most of the former Soviet Bloc has become much greater allies under his Presidency. The President has also secured the friendship of Colombia. Beyond that, his policies have created new allies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, those that scream about world opinion don't seem to notice these allies. If Barack Obama wants to be a world philanthropist, let him govern as a citizen of the world. Now that he is President of the U.S., I for one hope that world opinion plays little if any role in his decision making.