Nervous Dictators from Riyadh to Havana Rushing Out Populist Concessions while Quietly Preparing for the Worst...

Recent developments in North Africa
have tyrants spooked worldwide

At this rate North Korea's scrawny, gnarled slaves 

might even see an extra bowl of gruel or two...

Saudi Arabia (FT):

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia announced financial support measures, worth an estimated $36B US in a bid to avert the kind of popular unrest that has toppled leaders across the region and is now closing in on Libya’s Muammer Gaddafi.

The measures include a 15% salary rise for public employees to offset inflation, reprieves for imprisoned debtors, and financial aid for students and the unemployed.

Saudi Arabia’s ruling family has thus far been spared the type of popular discontent that has toppled presidents in Tunisia and Egypt and brought Libya to the brink of civil war.

.......

The cash-rich Saudi government has pledged to spend $400bn by the end of 2014 to improve education, infrastructure and healthcare. “The king is trying to create wider trickle- down of wealth in the shape of social welfare,’’ said John Sfakianakis, chief economist at Banque Saudi Fransi. 

“The budget can handle that, but it is an aspirin to ease medium-term pain, not a solution for the long-term housing, and unemployment issue.” 

The Castros look a little bit nervous in Cuba (RNW):

Here we go. The dissidents.... In jail since 2003, 75 of them in total, serving decade-long prison sentences for expressing their opinions. But now they're set free.

.......

For years dissident bloggers and journalists like Yoani Sánchez were blocked by Cuba and could only be read abroad. Now, with the snap of a finger, they're back! Give Raúl Castro a hand! Say what you like, surf where you like...

We've seen it in Egypt - social media chase away dictators. Soon Cuba will be Twittering and Facebooking too. 

Just a pity there are no Cubans in the audience, they couldn't afford the tickets. No one has internet at home and in the hotels it costs six dollars an hour... a week's wages for a Cuban.

But The People's Republic of China -facing vague, anonymous online calls for a 'Jasmine Revolution'- surely isn't offering any carrots to the disgruntled: typically, they're focused on spying on their citizens and delivering more 'stick' with comprehensive plans to pre-emptively snuff any dreams of democracy:

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is pulling out all the stops to prevent a Chinese-style 'Jasmine Revolution'. 

Dissidents, energised by the success of the public revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, used the Internet to mobilise peaceful demonstrations in a dozen major Chinese cities on Sunday (February 20). On Wednesday (23 February 2011), they called for these protests to continue.

At a meeting of top officials held on the eve of the rallies, Chinese President Hu Jintao urged tighter control of cyberspace and "specific groups of people", a term used to refer to dissidents, rights defenders and the disenfranchised.

Provincial heads, ministry chiefs and senior military officials were summoned to attend the meeting, according to the official Xinhua news agency. All nine members of the powerful CCP Politburo Standing Committee, which includes Hu, were present.

Hu made it clear that the session was meant to unify the minds of senior CCP cadres in the light of the "new changes in domestic and foreign situations", an oblique reference to the upheavals in the Arab world and their repercussions on China.

He stressed that social management must be strengthened in order to ensure the CCP stays in power. 

Hu defined social management, for the first time, as "managing the people as well as serving them". Traditional communist-speak usually mentions only "serving the people".

According to Hu, the overall objective of social management is to "maximise harmonious factors and minimise non-harmonious ones".

He outlined several ways in which this could be achieved, including: 

-- Strengthening control of Internet-transmitted information and management of cyberspace, and improving guidance of public opinion over the Internet.

-- Strengthening management of the migrant population and specific groups of people, and keeping data on them at the national level.

-- Strengthening control of non-public economic and social entities.

-- Nipping social unrest in the bud. 

Meanwhile the apocolyptic, 7th-Century savages in Tehran are taking advantage of the fact that only secular tyrants have been targeted in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya to spin the events as a Muslim world tossing-out western influences... while at the same time dismissing their own similar pro-democracy activists as losers who should be killed:

Despite all the [West's] complicated and satanic designs ... a new Middle East is emerging without the Zionist regime and U.S. interference, a place where the arrogant powers will have no place," Ahmadinejad told the crowd. 

He also urged Egyptian protesters to persevere until there is a regime change. "It's your right to be free. It's your right to exercise your will and sovereignty ... and choose the type of government and the rulers."

After his address, Ahmadinejad carried a placard reading, "Death to Israel."

The Iranian leadership's attempt to capitalize on the Egyptian uprising is underscored by its effort to deprive its own opposition of any chance to reinvigorate a movement swept from the streets in a heavy military crackdown in 2009.

Ahead of the anniversary, Iranian security forces arrested several opposition activists, including aides to Iran's opposition leaders. 

Authorities also placed Mahdi Karroubi, one of Iran's opposition leaders, under house arrest, posting security officers at his door in response to his calls for an Iranian opposition rally in support of anti-government demonstrations in Egypt.

Then you have to wonder if Putin hasn't a warehouse full of gift-wrapped fifths of Stoli ready to hand out on Red Square... as any good dictator who hasn't a populist 'Plan B' up his sleeve these days is skating on thin-ice.

That goes double for they guy with the funky Groucho (Marxist?) mustache in 'Putin's North Korea'...

Radio Netherlands   Financial Times   mysinchew.com   
Haaretz   Pookie's Toons

Saudi Arabia, nervous, Cuba, China, jasmine revolution, concessions, day of rage, opposition, protests, worried, Lukashenko, Putin, belarus, saudis nervous, castros nervous, iran nervous xxx saudis nervous, castros nervous, iran nervous xxx     Saudi Arabia, nervous, Cuba, China, jasmine revolution  concessions, day of rage vvv Saudi Arabia, nervous, Cuba, China

WHERE is the Left on Iran?

Throughout the Cold War years, the self-appointed moral watchdogs of the American left preached to us ad-nauseum on the perils of supporting anti-communist dictators like The Shah, Samoza, and Pinochet. We only damaged our own credibility when backing those who did not uphold human rights above all- regardless of the complex security challenges and/or decidedly undemocratic opponents that confronted these allies. This according to the McGoverns and Carters of the world, anyway.

And the pragmatism that lay behind the defense and intelligence policies that they so heavily criticized -these were in actuality proxy struggles with the expansionist Soviet Union- was brushed aside by liberals as cynicism and a lame excuse for continued US "imperialism". But these views were decidedly in the minority in the United States- and the narrow appeal of such short-sighted thinking surely contributed to McGovern's drubbing in the 1972 election.

Later, pollyana do-gooder Jimmy Carter showed us all how it's done with his withdrawal of support of Samoza over human rights concerns- perhaps it never occurred to him that we'd get something 10x worse with the communist Sandinistas: armed and trained by Moscow, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia... and allied with Havana in a Kremlin-funded enterprise to export communist revolution throughout central and South America.

Now we have a President Obama that basically got elected trashing America's proud history and defense policy-as he continues to do- as well as proposing that we downgrade our position as leader of the free world. All in all, there's not much daylight between Obama's zeitgeist and the finger-wagging, simplistic moral assumptions of the Cold War left.

So with the president's astounding silence and even apparent disinterest in today's Iranian crisis, WHERE is the moral concern of the holier-than-thou left now? Shouldn't these hypocrites being asking a few questions now that Barack Obama has kissed-up to Ahmedinijad and the Iranian theocracy since before he was even elected? We're talking about a former kidnapper and Holocaust-denying president of what all can now see is a brutal police state; one racing towards constructing nuclear weapons with the oft stated aim of wiping Israel from the map; a regime that cozies up to most or all of America's enemies; who supplied a large amount of Iraq's instability; one that publicly stones adulterers and petty criminals after burrying them up to their necks... and today is shooting unarmed protesters in the street. (Gateway Pundit).

Obama has now gotten his 3am-crisis-call- and so far he's done little but pound the snooze button. The complete inaction and lack of leadership is stupifying. Of course, the irony is that while the Ayatollah Khamenei is now laying blame for his Iranian citizens' uprising on the "Americans" and "the Jews"- the United States under Obama is really not doing anything of substance to support the protesters and would be counter-revolutionaries. To add insult to injury for the freedom-seeking patriots of Iran- the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010... just as protests in Iran are ramping up (Newsmax).

Khamenei is now hinting strongly of a much harder crackdown to come- he's already using Hamas thugs imported from Gaza, who are showing their appreciation for the funding, arming, and training of their Islamofacist terrorist organization by cracking heads in the street alongside Iran's own plainclothes security forces.

Compare this all to Ronald Reagan's brave and unwavering support for Solidarity in Poland in the early 80's: in collaboration with Pope John Paul and Polish anti-communists, Reagan helped those seeking freedom in any way possible- with money, training, equipment such as radios and stepped-up VoA broadcasting to help liberate those behind the Iron Curtain.

Obviously -although it’s the last thing Team Obama want to hear- Ronald Reagan’s support of Poland’s Solidarity in the dark days of the Soviet-ordered crackdown is the model- not the preposterous straw-man argument of “what are you going to do, invade?” disingenuously presented by the do-nothing, Obamapologist left/MSM.

Most importantly, Reagan brought the Poles moral support with consistent public statements that gave the revolutionaries hope. The Gipper did this not only because of his belief in the cause of freedom worldwide; he also recognized the larger geopolitical implications of peeling the Warsaw Pact away from a weakened USSR bit-by-bit (similar to the effect that a free Iraq and free Iran could have on the Middle East today). While most referred to European states behind the Iron Curtain as Soviet "satellites"- Reagan insisted on calling them "captive" nations. And not only was Reagan right, visionary, and victorious... but the Poles remember who was with them when it seemed all was lost... that's why Poland is one of America's strongest allies for over 20 years now.

Shamefully, it seems Obama's primary concern is to bide a little more time for the the Mullahs and Ahmedinijad to pull themselves up by their bootstraps... while they beat-down any hope of actual democracy. Barack's already bet all his chips on legitimizing this vile regime- a democratic revolution in Tehran could be downright embarassing at this point. Once the Mullahs put a lid on things over there, these boys can all get back to talking business... just like they do it back in Chicago.

A liberated Iran does little to help Obama politically... which is all that ever really interests him in the end. Besides the obvious embarassment that would result from a new Iranian revolution -or even a substantially more moderate regime in Tehran- Obama appears to lack a Plan B. And if Iran becomes a struggling young democracy, trying to create a better society while battling the country's darker forces (a development any normal US president would have welcomed) -like, say, Columbia- it looks like Obama might just turn on them, too- as he's far more interested in cozying-up to the Castros, the Chavezes, and other tin-pot bullies who hold America in contempt... while snubbing the allied nations that share traditional American values of freedom, democracy, and free-market enterprise.

In other news, Obama's poll numbers are headed south: Rasmussen's daily tracking has him at a weak +1% rating- only once before has it slipped lower -to zero- and that was last week. The more friendly Gallup has him at a job approval of 58%- still a new low for this administration- looks like the deprogramming of the delusional Obamamania cult has begun.

UPDATE 6.21.09: make that Rasmussen poll differential a negative two (-2%)... a new low, and the first time in negative territory for the Obama Administration.

What Must Our Enemies Think?

Barack Obama has made it to the White House despite a dearth of international experience by saying moderate-sounding things on security issues, making reassuring statements regarding Israel, and by gathering some retired military men around him to voice their support.

And Colin Powell has now stated that Obama is "qualified" to be US Commander-in-Chief.  But by what, or whom? Given the new President's comprehensive lack of experience in foreign policy, let alone defense issues, one has to wonder if the nominally-Republican Powell's endorsements have more to do with some sort of revenge on the Bush Administration in which he served- or perhaps a desire for some perceived redemption.  And it also begs the question:  why hasn't Colin Powell previously endorsed any liberal, inexperienced white candidates?

Obama currently expounds an internationalist, multilateralist, pacifist, one-world approach, clearly fashioned as a rubuke to the neocons- one that will supposedly restore our credibility in the world after the "dark days" of the Bush Administration.  And while he appears to believe in what he says, he's far from a pure idealogue- because with Obama, political expediency always trumps all other considerations. His flip-flopping stances, refusal to answer questions, and serial opportunism all point to a man who's main goal has always been getting elected to the next-higher office.  As one of his earlier associates had noted, "he was always running for something."

This week, in a cynical gesture, Obama signed orders for withdrawal from Iraq, apparently to fufull his now-extraneous campaign promise.  As with his first-day Executive Order to shut-down Gauntamino Bay, he and his staff had almost no details sorted-out... it was just "the beginning of the process."  Team Obama apparently felt the need politically to get something in the newspapers that looked like "action" on these touchstones of his campaign, but in the end, the actual results might take only slightly different form than could have been expected under a Republican administration.

Obama is not above trying to take credit for "ending" the war in Iraq,  even though the only reason he is not being handed a civil-war infested with Al Qaida is the dramatic success of "The Surge" strategy, which actually won the war... and which both Obama and Biden opposed vehemently.   During the campaign, when it became obvious that Bush and McCain were right, and Obama wrong, he simply changed the subject.  While his advisors felt that Iraq was no longer a useful talking point once General Petreus had won it, they now see an opportunity to put Obama's face on the withdrawal... and lend a facade of legitimacy to his previous, ill-advised cut-and-run  proposals.   And didn't Bush's Status-of-Forces Agreement with the Maliki government in Baghdad already set the timetable for the withdrawal over the next three years?  Obama's little skit here is simply fodder for the ill-informed.

Our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the US will be implementing an "intelligent" approach to the Middle East, and has big plans for the region.  But obviously, Israel has already made the decision to deal with Hamas as they saw fit, rather than cast their lot with Team Obama.  The Israelis have too much at stake to put any trust in Obama's pollyanna world-view, as they are facing aggressive enemies sworn to their destruction.   US and Israeli policy is now headed in completely opposite directions, with the pugnacious nationalist Benjamin Netanyahu favored to win the February 10th election.  Bibi will not be forced into nonsensical, dangerous deals with the Palestinians, nor acquiesce to an Iranian Bomb... regardless of what Barack thinks is an "intellectual" or "cool" foreign policy.

Team Obama's plans to place diplomats in Iran for the first time since 1979, and to hold "talks" is clearly not what the Israelis, who face an existential threat, are looking to hear.  These same Iranians that are frantically developing a nuclear weapon to point at us and Israel are the ones who stirred-up maximum trouble in Iraq, sponsor, train, and arm the bloodthirsty terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas, and boast publicly of plans to "wipe Israel off the map."

So the IDF will go-it-alone if they must, bombing Tehran's nuclear facilites into the ground.  The Israelis took-out Saddam's Osirak reactor in 1983, while enduring the world's condemnation... so they are used to doing the right thing while being shunned by those lacking the same strategic and moral clarity.  While it is good that tiny Israel can handle what Obama lacks the sense and courage to do, sadly America will end-up looking irrelevent and powerless as the result.

The Kremlin seems to think that there's opportunity for Russian gains in Obama's election... and is already challenging him with a flurry of threats and daunting pronouncements.  Starting on the day he was elected, the Russians announced major weapon programs and new-generation ICBMs, then threatened to point nuclear missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic.   Ex-KGB Kremlin thugs vs. our Yes-We-Can community activist, striving to make the world like us... yeah, that's how the Russians see it, too.

Obama has also expressed a desire to form a new relationship with Communist Cuba.  This week had Fidel Castro stating publicly that he "trusts" Obama to be "truthful".  But only a fool would trust the Machiavellian Castro, given his record of deceit and inflexible Communist dogma.  Jimmy Carter reached-out to Castro in the 1970s, but later KGB archives revealed that Fidel was laughing behind his back to whole time, calling Carter a "useful idiot".  And the popular, clever, and charming JFK was comprehensively outwitted by Castro in the Bay-of-Pigs debacle.  This error by the young President opened the door for the USSR to install missiles 90 miles from US shores... bringing the world to the precipice of WWIII.

Regarding the Pentagon budget, Obama was, of course, vague on the campaign trail... but he has now signaled that cuts are on the way.  Unsettlingly, Obama has attacked our greatest practical technology asset, missile defense- by stating that "unproven" systems will be cancelled.  This comes at a time in history when missile shields seem like an idea who's time has come, given Al Qaida's quest for nuclear weapons, the instability of nuclear Pakistan, continued North Korean instragence, Russian beligerence, and of course an apocolyptic Iran.

Disturbingly, there is also a widespread suspicion in the US military that Obama's election has emboldened radical Islam.  There is a fear of a new terror attack being put into action to test Obama, who generally faces a skeptical rank-in-file.  The Military Times found in a recent poll that 68% of active and retired service personnel backed John McCain in the Presidential race... while only 28% supported Obama.

The last time war-weary Americans elected an inexperienced, liberal "peacemaker" with issues regarding our "morals" abroad was 1976, with the ill-fated Jimmy Carter... and other parallels between his and Barack Obama's policies/rhetoric are indeed alarming.  While Carter somehow still feels his opinions are relevant, calling his Presidential legacy an "unmitigated disaster" would actually be mighty charitable.

In words that sound a lot like Obama's, Carter's national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that the tasks of foreign policy lay not with the "political" issues of war and peace, but with the "human issues" of poverty and development... and that America's "preoccupation" with "national supremacy" should yield to a more global perspective.  And also like today, Carter sought a "more equitable" international order, and saw the world in terms of an emerging division between rich and poor. 

Like Obama, Carter has in recent times made it clear he thinks that George W Bush's calling evil by it's name, and confronting it, was actually the cause of our problems.  But apparently neither Carter, Obama, nor "foreign-policy expert" Joe Biden have learned a thing from the myriad foreign policy failures of the Carter Administration. 

Upon his election in 1976, Carter enjoyed enormous Democratic legislative majorities, and a broken and demorilized GOP... much like the situation in Washington today.  And Carter was determined to refurbish America's image abroad after Vietnam, but not through strength-  like today's Democrats, Carter felt that America's "arrogance of power" was the primary source of international tension, and that the time was ripe for a new, more humble United States... to better fit a diminished, defeatist role in the world.

Underlying Carter's approach was an over-arching focus on human rights issues.  He felt that we had betrayed our own democratic principles in Vietnam and elsewhere, and the time had come for "change".  Governments that violated their own citizens' rights would therefore no longer receive support- but instead would become our opponents.  Carter thought that this would encourage indigenous democratic movements at the expense of more radical ideologies.

But in reality, just the opposite happened.  The withdrawal of support from petty dictators in Latin America and elsewhere instead meant significant losses of American interests to the USSR and Cuba, with damaging Marxist systems ruled by even worse dictatorships.  These events already had a clear precedent that should have been heeded, in Cuba in 1959- but it happened again, repeatedly, to the misguided Carter.   In Nicaragua, he cut-off aid to the corrupt and often-brutal Somoza regime, only to see it replaced by a Soviet/Cuban/East German proxy, the Communist Sandinistas.  And Carter was quite anxious to see Samoza fall;  he wanted to show the world America's new, honorable "post-Vietnam intent."  Sadly, his myopic and ineffectual human rights focus instead cost millions their freedom.  And worse, Nicaragua would go-on to become a key hub for the export of Castro's influence, including support for Communist insurgencies in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Regarding America's primary adversary at that time, the USSR- Carter actually scolded Americans that they harbored an "inordinate fear of Communism". He planned to reach-out to Moscow, reasoning that when they saw his sincerity, lack of 'imperial designs", and good-will, they eventually would learn to like us. 

Carter cancelled B-1 Bomber production, the first move in a direction that allowed the Soviets to gain real military superiority, while hiding behind the SALT treaty. And after Brezhnev met with him and saw what he was dealing with, the Red Army promptly invaded Afghanistan —just six months after Carter had embraced and kissed the Soviet president, publicly praising his cooperativeness in the conduct of world affairs. 

On his watch, the USSR went on an unrestrained rampage in which the Communists took over not only Afghanistan, but also Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia (Pol Pot), Mozambique, Grenada, and Nicaragua.  In spite of all this, Carter's last defense budget proposed spending 45% below pre-Vietnam levels for fighter-aircraft, -75% for ships, -83% for attack submarines, and -90% for helicopters.   And the Russians had a field day... until they were finally confronted by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Another high priority for Carter was giving-up control of the Panama Canal-  to him, a symbol of the bad-old-days of American imperialism.  The agreement, it was said, would bring a bright new future for Panama, and for Latin American relations in general. Unfortunately, nearly as soon as the Americans left, Panama descended into a cesspool of corruption and violence, and then became a center for the international drug trade.  Ruthless Panamanian dictators spent Canal revenue to entrench their power, while brutally oppressing the population that Carter thought he was freeing from Yanqui imperialism.  Eventually, under GHW Bush, America toppled the last and worst of them, Manuel Noriega-  thus providing and ironic, and what should have been educational, ending to the Carter-era's non-interventionism.  And today, the canal is freely utilized by Russian warships on the way to Venezuela... thanks to Jimmy Carter.

While focusing on the supposed "split" between developed and developing nations -as Barack Obama proposes as well- Carter turned the United States into an impotent spectator as a global shift of power unfolded... to the great advantage of the Soviet Union.

In perhaps Jimmy Carter's greatest blunder, he basically handed Iran to the Ayatollah Khomeini.  After supporting the Shah early in his Presidency, Carter abruptly abandonded this staunch US ally over human rights issues alone.   Carter was said to have thought that the Mullahs would be more "moral" leaders, since they were "men-of-religion"(!) 

In the event, the revolution was resolutely anti-American in tone, the US embassy invaded by radical students, and the entire staff taken hostage.  One of the leaders of this takeover was none other than Iran's current vengeful, holocaust-denying President Ahmedinijad.  Through it all, Carter rufused to consider any stronger military action against the Iranian hostage-takers;  he even expressed disgust when Ronald Reagan called them "barbarians" and "criminals" in the 1980 campaign.

Thirty years later, Iran stands on the verge of attaining a nuclear weapon... but also of being bombed by Israel before they can aim the missile at Tel Aviv.  Inexplicably, Obama still plans to hold "talks without preconditions" and send dipolomats to Tehran as they continue to flaunt their weapons programs in our face. This valuable time wasted while talking in circles with Tehran would provide them just the weeks they need to get their first bomb screwed-together.   Obama last month stated that he plans to extend the American "nuclear umbrella" to Israel... a defensive, deterrent strategy that sounds like willingness to meekly accept a nuclear Iran.  

Jimmy Carter had also made it a priority to clean-up what he saw as dirty business at the CIA, and bring a new openess to the agency... as Obama has appointed the Leon Panetta to do today.  The priority is, once again, anything but an aggressive and effective focus on defending the United States and her interests.

Except for sheer arrogance, why exactly does Barack Obama think that he can lead the US to a secure, yet respected and admired place in the world?  His proposals are largely based on the failed ideas of the past-  like a pacifist foreign-policy steeped in appeasement, coupled to a new "modesty" abroad, none of which has any precedent of success in this, or any other, country.

Such false hope for an "intelligent" approach purported to be "new", while disregarding history's lessons and almost identical past policy mistakes, guarantees us nothing but failure... and decreased security for Americans.  Any other expectations are purely wishful thinking.

                        

Of Political Courage, & The Company You Keep

Ronald Reagan's views regarding the USSR, communism, and the then emerging Cold War were initially formed by his experiences in the Hollywood labor strike of 1946.

According to author Peter Schweizer's (Reagan's War) research of Soviet archives, strike leader Herb Sorrell was being funded by the Communist Party... and received operational help from Soviet agents. Sorrell was head of the Conference of Studio Unions (CSU), and the goal was nothing less that control of the Hollywood film industry. He had said at the onset of the of the strike "There may be men hurt, there may be men killed before this is over"- and had brought in crews of goons, just in case things got rough as he was predicting... which of course, they did.

The Screen Actors' Guild voted on whether to join-in, and a majority decided not to honor the strike. Reagan's employer, Warner Brothers Studio, was determined to keep up to production schedule, but advised actors crossing the picket line to sneak-onto the lot through a drainage pipe. Reagan saw that as being intimidated by an unjust cause, and one with underhanded methods. His response to this advice from WB security was "if I'm going to cross the picket line, I'm going to cross the picket line"- and he did just that. He soon emerged as a leader of the anti-strike, anti-communist movement in Hollywood.

It wasn't long before Reagan received a phone call in which he was told that if he continued to oppose the CSU strike, he would never be able to work in films again... as a crew would find him and disfigure his face with acid. He soon obtained a gun for the protection of himself and his family, which he kept handy in a holster each day, and placed on his nightstand every night. Communist sympathizers in Hollywood denounced him as a "fraud", a "stooge", and a "fascist"... even old friends turned on him. His wife Jane Wyman blamed Reagan's new political mission and the environment of fear created by his ruthless new enemies for their divorce.

But, when all was said and done, the strike had collapsed- and Reagan's leadership and courage had impressed even his most bitter opponents. In 1947 several actors, writers, and directors testified before the Un-American Activities Committee of the US Congress on communist influence in Hollywood. Both the Congress and press were extremely impressed with Reagan's poise and intelligence in testimony, and it was clear he had done his homework.


Later, in 1951, in front of the same committee, actor Sterling Hayden testified that the 1946 Hollywood strike had failed because the CSU had run into Reagan, who he described as a "one-man battalion".

His brave, and often lonely fight against Communism became, and was to remain for 40 years, highly personal. When others were seeking an accommodation with the Soviet Union, from the 1950's on-through the Carter Administration, Reagan's belief in the American capitalist system told him that if the USSR was forced to compete in a real all-out arms race with the US, their weaker economic system simply "couldn't keep up". Few agreed with this at the time, and it was actually widely ridiculed. However, this truly insightful viewpoint was 100% validated when he was President in the 1980's.

The his hard-line strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union earned him criticism from all quarters of the press and academia as a "warmonger", and a trigger-happy, "self-assured bumpkin" with an overly simplistic world view, among other things. While most feared what they saw as invincible Soviet power, Reagan said that "the Russians aren't ten-feet-tall" and spoke of inherent weaknesses in the communist system that few others saw. This was a difficult position to take, but Reagan always displayed true, visionary leadership.

He also said while campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964, regarding appeasement to avoid war, that: "there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace... and you can have it in the next second: surrender!". Such unwavering views were often unappealing to a large chunk of the electorate... but the man was sincere in his convictions above all else, and had no taste for political opportunism. Reagan's KGB file defined him with grudging respect as a "convicted anti-communist" and a "firm and unbending politician, for whom words and deeds are one in the same."

Even once elected President in 1980, his military buildup and confrontational approach with the USSR were unpopular. With both double-digit inflation and unemployment inherited from the Carter administration, his own cabinet in 1981 was highly divided on the issue of increased military spending and new weapons systems... but President Reagan held firm with plans to confront both militarily and economically in a concerted manner what he famously dubbed the "Evil Empire". When others called the Warsaw-Pact nations of eastern Europe "Soviet satellites", he more accurately referred to them as "captive" states.

Reagan's foreign opponents felt threatened by his influence long before he became President. KGB agents stationed in the US were told in the 1970's that someday, they may be called upon to "get rid of Reagan". There was also a stillborn mission by Cuban agents to nip this problem in the bud in the 1960's... and assassinate him. There were three known attempts on Ronald Reagan's life before deranged lunatic John Hinckley shot him in 1981.

As California Governor in the late 1960's, Reagan was well-known for his outspoken views on topics ranging from campus radicalism to Cuba and the Soviet Union. He became the number one opponent of Berkeley radicals, whom he didn't hesitate to call "brats" and "freaks" at press conferences and in his speeches. In 1967, Secret Service agents fired upon two men lighting gasoline bombs next to the Governor's mansion. Reagan's brave stands soon earned him a spot on the hit-list of the Weather Underground... the group even kept a bullet with Reagan's name on it at their headquarters. These radicals were planning an armed, Marxist overthrow of the US Government, and they had contacts with the intelligence services of countries such as Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and North Vietnam. They had also collaborated with a Cuban agent on a plot (broken up by the FBI) to assassinate Reagan.

And where does Barrack Hussein Obama fit into this story of valour, honor, and principle?

Unlike Reagan's brave political stands, which had earned him at best lost friends and public condemnation (and at worst a divorce and death threats)- Mr Obama has a record of consistently adopting pragmatic, self-serving platforms that get him the power and positions that serve his aspirations... first and foremost. This of course includes support of, and promotion by, the Chicago Democratic machine- one of the most corrupt in the country, with whom he certainly made no waves... just "get along to get ahead".

.

And there was no shame in seeking the advice and support of powerful, yet controversial figures in Chicago politics to aid his career, and perhaps get some "street cred" (with south-side African Americans that didn't grow up in Hawaii or go to Harvard).... anti-American racist Reverend Wright, Nation of Islam rabble-rouser Louis Farrakhan, and shady political mover/racketeer Tony Rezko, among others.

Later, when the DNC had adopted him as their prodigal son, he was more than willing to slavishly serve the party's entrenched interests (i.e. unions) and it didn't seem to violate his principles to win elections by disqualifying opponents with questionable legal maneuvers...and thereby running unchallenged.

Mr Obama was also received an early boost from former bomb tossing members of the very same Weather Underground that had planned a Marxist overthrow of the US Government... and attempted to put a hit out on Ronald Reagan.

Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (who had bombed numerous US Government buildings in the 1960's) hosted a meet-and-greet for Obama at their home in 1995. Obama of course denies any significant connection, but records show that he had in-fact e-mailed and called Ayers repeatedly after 9/11... relevant due to the fact that Ayers stated after the Al Qaida terrorist attacks that ""I don't regret setting bombs".

Of course, during the 2008 presidential campaign , Obama distanced himself from all these controversial figures. Not too surprising, considering the shocking opportunism and lack of character this man has displayed throughout his political career- from thrown elections fixed by the party to gangster connections like Tony Rezko- whatever it takes. Most or all previous candidates never would have been able to dodge such issues... but the media's complete abandonment of their traditional vetting role (at least on the Democratic side) allowed the DNC to present an appealing, yet plastic, manufactured-to-order product for electoral consumption... and consume they did.

Meanwhile, Obama had spoken during the campaign of reaching an accommodation with determined and aggressive foes of the United States, such as Iran and Syria... exactly the kind of appeasement of an insatiable enemy that Reagan warned us about for years. What else can a militarily and economically weaker nation like Iran, Syria, or North Korea- or a terrorist organization like Al Qaida- do to get their way with us, except to attempt to scare a majority of our electorate with frightening brinkmanship?

What a contrast this specious and ruthless political chameleon is to the brave and visionary principles of Ronald Reagan. And to add insult to injury, we already have Obama taking a classless cheap shot at Nancy Reagan at his first post-election press conference (while she's just out of the hospital, and 87 yrs old). The problem with the smiling, charming Barrack is that a quite different one tends to leak-out when he's not chained to a teleprompter.

This scheming opportunist is clearly no messiah. And regarding issues of judgement, principle, character, political courage... and true leadership?

Barrack Hussein Obama couldn't hold The Gipper's jockstrap.