Fleeced
by Dick Morris
Are you a little pissed off? Do you feel this country is going in the wrong direction? This book falls into the category of pundit books that may change your mind about the source of your discontentment as the once political advisor to Bill Clinton takes aim at Democrats He may bore you with a plethora of facts. Some of which you may challenge because you believe contrary pundit input. Some of which you may challenge because you do not find the fact to be directly or even remotely relevant to his case in point. But if there is one rule Morris holds to it is the one where he does not engage in any rivalry diatribe with other pundits, which really has him in a unique political analyst stature of which you may find enjoyable for a change. What I find puzzling is Dick Morris was Bill Clinton’s political advisor and you would assume he leans left. But oh-contraire! What never comes out in his book, unlike most other political pundit or political figureheads in exile is any personal agenda. What I find intriguing is Morris’s targeting seems to fall largely with the Democratic Party of which he enjoyed a high degree of success and notoriety.
Morris covers many different subjects spanning big government, big business, and unions where he demonstrates how Americans as individuals are being fleeced by an organized entity with its own sense of self. I only provide a commentary to a few of Morris’s subjects, simply because I have a sense of priority that one may rather call a sense of urgency.
Morris begins the book with a chapter on Barack Obama. The statistician he is, Morris provides a twelve-point list of reasons not to send Barack Obama to the White House. While there are numerous books on the doom that would fall on the United States during an Obama presidency, this book sums it up in one chapter. Below is the list of talking points of which I highly recommend that you go to the bookstore and read the narrative to fully digest and articulate to others the consequence of poor judgment before November 4, 2008.
1. Double capital gains taxes on stock and real estate sales
2. Increase FICA taxes by 14 points on all income over $100,000
3. Double taxes on dividends
4. Expand the inheritance
5. Weaken the PATRIOT ACT
6. Curb anti terror wiretapping
7. Extend health care insurance benefits to illegal immigrants
8. Give children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition at state universities
9. Expand the number of immigrants who can enter the United States
10. Weaken education standards, by making it illegal to base a teachers pay on the test results of their students
11. Expand health insurance so drastically that it forces us to ration medical care, particularly to the elderly
12. Expand the welfare state, dividing America between tax-payers and tax consumers.
Morris makes his case for wire tapping in an argument for terrorist surveillance. His argument is much like video surveillance and laws enacted in Britain. Quoting authorities he states “there is a difference between surveillance aimed at prosecution and that which seeks to “learn the identity of people who may be planning atrocities”. For Information gathering alone, warrants are utterly beside the point. Quoting judge Richard Posner as saying once you grant the legitimacy of surveillance aimed at detection rather than at gathering evidence of guilt, requiring a warrant to conduct it would be like requiring a warrant to ask people questions or to install surveillance comers on city streets. Connecting the dots with the Obama chapter, to find the Democratic left media, and the Democratic Party, and specifically Barack Obama would make it a priority to remove an essential tool to our national security.
Morris discusses the Fairness Doctrine in draft form that is being pushed by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama where not only does the government control the content of what is broadcast on the airwaves it dictates who works there at each station based on there political orientation. Does that sound like socialism, or communism. or Nazism? It certainly does not sound like a free press. But one thing for sure is under a Obama presidency us Americans will never see it coming!
What’s coming you ask? McCain and Obama tried to push a bill through Congress to police for foreign lobbyists. Hillary Clinton led the effort to kill it. One can only conclude that this was due to her husbands special lobby interest in Dubai under the guise of a not for profit fund. Why a US Senator who is running for president has a husband so closely tied to Dubai is not drawn into question by the media is a good question that can be answered in the preceding paragraph. . Many foreign lobbyists lined up behind the Clintons with Hillary campaign run. In other material we are now learning since the Democratic Convention that Obama may have lately received as mush as $65M from foreign entities. This is all illegal under our current campaign finance law. If you wonder where it ends or why folks go to Washington to “serve their country” Clinton’s post administration advisors are on the take and earning a pretty dollar, you don’t have to look far when you read that Bill Clinton’s chief political strategist was on the lobbyist take for Central American trade bill. Penn is now a post Clinton lobbyist millionaire
Freddie and Fannie have found the personal integrity and agenda of prominent Democrats as in Christopher Dodd, and Charles Schumer to be in question. While he points this out here is what Morris missed. Forget about Obama’s association with radical leaders walking through life with spinning moral compasses. Lets look at his connection with Tony Rezko. While running as a reformer, Obama has had a 17-year relationship with an convicted Chicago con man now in prison for fraud, extortion, and money laundering. Rezko benefited from Obama’s role in the Illinois Senate by receiving millions in state funded housing.
Was the favor returned and is big business involved well consider this: A former Illinois bank official, now claiming whistleblower status, says bank officials replaced a loan reappraisal that he prepared for a Chicago property that was purchased by the wife of now-convicted felon Tony Rezko, part of which was later sold to next-door neighbor Barack Obama. In a complaint filed Thursday in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Kenneth Connor said that his reappraisal of Rita Rezko’s property was replaced with a higher one and that he was fired when he questioned the document. Only in Chicago’s Hyde Park!!!! The questions are why is Barack Obama not brought up on charges for fraud? There is a thin veil… a very thin veil. But then why has the Senate ethics committee not even included this on their agenda? Look at the names mentioned in the preceding paragraph. One thing for sure, this goes to the very heart of our current credit crisis.
This book includes many chapters that show government and big business working in concert to fleece American citizens. We clearly understand that in 1999 the Democrats put America on that slippery slope ( I am now calling it the Rezko Slope)to easy money in the hands of those who can’t make responsible decisions. There is an old saying that once government gives away an entitlement, no subsequent administration can take it a away. I will also add that once government gets in bed with big business, it is the citizens that get screwed. In the six years of Republican rule, they made the problem worse. Why Morris’s indictment appears in this book to tilt against the left may lay with an overwhelming preponderance of fact. Morris is a fact and stat man. While Morris leads with a chapter that takes aim against Obama, many of the remaining chapters find Obama’s hand behind the scenes. This book could have been stronger in its indictment on the Democrats, and I give Morris credit for keeping the facts down the middle and his opinion to himself. Had I written it using the same facts with a little pointed narrative, you would see a cover that reads Obama’s Conspiracy by Paul Murphy. Reading this book and talking about it to as many people as you can before November 4, 2008, is paramount to arm Americans with the right intellect to avert Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi efforts in bamboozling America.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Churchill's Folly
Churchill’s Folly
by Christopher Catherwood
This book is a history book spanning a short three-year period of time in the Middle East following WWI. The title suggests there is an agenda to foil the reputation of Sir Winston Churchill. It suggests that history should blame Winston Churchill for the boarders and subsequent 80 years of turmoil culminating to our situation in Iraq today. As Catherwood lets the pedals of his story unfold, the bloom of his story finds the British Prime minister pulling the strings rendering our poor Churchill a puppet of shortsighted policy. This is not to let Churchill entirely off the hook; as his prime agenda was British centric with sole aim to reduce British financial Mesopotamian exposure. This stands out as his Achilles Heel and there is a corollary lesson to be learned in today’s Iraq. It is a lesson that Senator Barak Obama is blind to and Senator McCain, gives his full appreciation. But let me ask you, which title would sell more books’ Lloyd George’s Folly, or Churchill’s Folly.
Catherwood creates a backdrop to the “folly” first by describing a snap shot of history of the Middle East beginning with the family Ur. I get no further than the 2nd page and I learn the word anachronism and the family Ur, the beginning lineage of Abraham began in Iraq, is in opposition to Michener’s book “The Source” where Ur began in Israel. You also learn that the Fertile Crescent is limited to the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and Israel has nothing to do with Fertile Land. By page 38 the reader is briefed on the history of the Middle East, which I found pretty concise. Added to the backdrop is a brief dossier on Churchill where the reader is then is introduced to Churchill’s fallibility. The son of a politician, he began as a liberal, and switched parties a few times in the early part of his career. Causes were more important to him than party. He is known to have had key failures leading to political exile. The first prominent one was Galapoli, which draws in Lloyd-George and haunts him throughout the book. I found it interesting to read in this book that in 1919 Britain was the largest Muslim power in the world. Finally Catherwood addresses what I call counter history where he disputes other historians including Sir Lawrence of Arabia.
Churchill was basically sent to the Middle East to settle on boarders for the area of land designated to Britain in 1919 as their sphere of influence (see my review on 1919). His mandate was to withdraw from the region with limited exposure. His challenges were first the Sykes-Picot Agreement when exposed appeared colonialist to the Arabs. Second was imperialism, as much with Feisal’s imperialism as British/French. Feisal was in import dictator. A case is made for the British to divert the alleged betrayal of the Arabs by the West on to Kemal Ataturk, who abolished the Caliph rule in the new Turkey. While not the main focus of the book the Greek-Turkey and the Palestine situations were also included as distractions to Churchill’s decisions in Iraq.
The appointment of Feisal as ruler of Iraq set in motion a minority rule of Sunni over Shia. The irony in today’s problems as portrayed in this book is there were ''democratically '' appointed Sunni Caliphs and Shia were not. Catherwood suggests installing a democracy goes against the majority within the boarders yet to be settled on. Outside the book however we find Iran is also ruled from a democratic foundation, albeit heavily influenced by Shia Umma. The reader learns that local leaders Naqib and Sayyid had aspirations to rule Iraq and this would have been in the interest of Iraqi’s. However this would have gone against the promises made to the Arabs that spawned from the British – France Sykes-Picot Agreement and perpetuated through the agenda Sir Lawrence of Arabia.
Pressure on Churchill for withdrawal came from five directions. First was Churchill’s penchant for an appointment to be the Exchequer of Britain, hence his overbearing conservative fiscal focus. Second a case is made for Churchill to appease the people of Mesopotamia as Britain was stretched too thin after the war. This plus the social discord and fighting in Britain was much the same as today. Britain walked away from an unsolved problem that they perpetuated. In 70 years what has changed both internally in any World Power country and internationally amongst the World Powers? Will we ever learn?
The third force in Churchill’s folly was Lloyd George second-guessing the decision to fight Turkey in 1914-1915 in Iraq. Had we left Kurdistan to Turkey, imagine its oil wealth Turkey, a democratically ruled and Western leaning country would hold today. Imagine that oil wealth in a democratic nation striving as hard as they do to be a part of the E U. That is indeed what is hoped for today in Iraq. Forth, in 1914-15 the prevailing world strategy was centered around colonialism, hence the Suez Cannel, hence Egypt. Fifth it was Sir Allenby and Sir Lawrence that pushed Hashemite rule in 1915 and on through this book. These five cards happened to be the only hand Churchill could play. He came to realize he was playing a losing hand while he was playing it. Hence the title of the book, Folly, which is as unfair as conceded in the letter Lloyd-George wrote to Churchill after he dealt the cards.
With Churchill’s dealt hand he formed a commission referred to by historians including Catherwood as Forty Thieves. Catherwood portrays Churchill’s task of bringing a consensus in Cairo in what was cast as a fate accompli as dictated by 10 Downing Street. It was a fate accompli giving Iraqi rule to the Hashimites’, Abdullah and clan. Israel was brought into the mix as well as Kurdistan only to represent distraction to Churchill in this book. At that time there were ''the people'' and a cause, and a rationale in both regions; but their was no leader to take immediate control and provide economic relief to the money thrown at the collapsed Ottoman Empire.
Churchill’s consistent refrain in Cairo was money driven. He had aspirations to head up the Exchequer in London so he sought all ideas that got Britain out of Iraq ASAP. Other factors contributing to the folly of decisions made in Cairo were France’s need for Aslace-Lorainne, a strong consideration for inclusion of Kurds into Iraq was to accelerate a reduction of British forces in lieu of Kurds to fend off Turkey. I have to make a note in the irony of the Kurds being commissioned by Turkey to exterminate Armenia only to be later met with Britain using the Kurds against Turkey and finally the Kurds being left with no sovereignty. I guess crime and violence that comes with being a “hired gun” doesn’t pay.
It was also interesting to read when the Allies liberated Arabs from Turkish rule; they also entitled them to a new rule over Kurds and Mesopotamians. They complied with Wilson’s 14 Points and violated them at the same time. Churchill’s did contemplate but did not execute on withdrawal plans to Basra that would have put in to affect the same partitions in Iraq as what Joe Biden proposes today, excluding a sovereign Kurdistan. Is there a final justice to be found in this equation? Imagine a Western leaning Turkey with expanded boarders to include Iraq’s northern providence, southern Kurdistan. Turkey would have oil wealth, but would they welcome in the large voice of the Kurds? Would the international voice accept this? All of a sudden Biden’s idea, while worth a closer examination, has question marks.
What Catherwood suggests in conclusion is that the job done right would have Churchill looking for a legitimate leader in the eyes of the people with a keen sense for a national identity coalesced around a.) A united international cause, b.) A shared enemy, c.) Separation of church and state, d.) Democratic process, or e.) Revert back to Ottoman style of local government, which is essentially to teach western city government, f.) Teach world humanities, g.) Focus/unite on economy, h.) Re focus on people assets. From 1921 to 1958 the government changed hands 58 times. Today in 2008 we need to be complete and on purpose this time or we may just be that common enemy.
by Christopher Catherwood
This book is a history book spanning a short three-year period of time in the Middle East following WWI. The title suggests there is an agenda to foil the reputation of Sir Winston Churchill. It suggests that history should blame Winston Churchill for the boarders and subsequent 80 years of turmoil culminating to our situation in Iraq today. As Catherwood lets the pedals of his story unfold, the bloom of his story finds the British Prime minister pulling the strings rendering our poor Churchill a puppet of shortsighted policy. This is not to let Churchill entirely off the hook; as his prime agenda was British centric with sole aim to reduce British financial Mesopotamian exposure. This stands out as his Achilles Heel and there is a corollary lesson to be learned in today’s Iraq. It is a lesson that Senator Barak Obama is blind to and Senator McCain, gives his full appreciation. But let me ask you, which title would sell more books’ Lloyd George’s Folly, or Churchill’s Folly.
Catherwood creates a backdrop to the “folly” first by describing a snap shot of history of the Middle East beginning with the family Ur. I get no further than the 2nd page and I learn the word anachronism and the family Ur, the beginning lineage of Abraham began in Iraq, is in opposition to Michener’s book “The Source” where Ur began in Israel. You also learn that the Fertile Crescent is limited to the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and Israel has nothing to do with Fertile Land. By page 38 the reader is briefed on the history of the Middle East, which I found pretty concise. Added to the backdrop is a brief dossier on Churchill where the reader is then is introduced to Churchill’s fallibility. The son of a politician, he began as a liberal, and switched parties a few times in the early part of his career. Causes were more important to him than party. He is known to have had key failures leading to political exile. The first prominent one was Galapoli, which draws in Lloyd-George and haunts him throughout the book. I found it interesting to read in this book that in 1919 Britain was the largest Muslim power in the world. Finally Catherwood addresses what I call counter history where he disputes other historians including Sir Lawrence of Arabia.
Churchill was basically sent to the Middle East to settle on boarders for the area of land designated to Britain in 1919 as their sphere of influence (see my review on 1919). His mandate was to withdraw from the region with limited exposure. His challenges were first the Sykes-Picot Agreement when exposed appeared colonialist to the Arabs. Second was imperialism, as much with Feisal’s imperialism as British/French. Feisal was in import dictator. A case is made for the British to divert the alleged betrayal of the Arabs by the West on to Kemal Ataturk, who abolished the Caliph rule in the new Turkey. While not the main focus of the book the Greek-Turkey and the Palestine situations were also included as distractions to Churchill’s decisions in Iraq.
The appointment of Feisal as ruler of Iraq set in motion a minority rule of Sunni over Shia. The irony in today’s problems as portrayed in this book is there were ''democratically '' appointed Sunni Caliphs and Shia were not. Catherwood suggests installing a democracy goes against the majority within the boarders yet to be settled on. Outside the book however we find Iran is also ruled from a democratic foundation, albeit heavily influenced by Shia Umma. The reader learns that local leaders Naqib and Sayyid had aspirations to rule Iraq and this would have been in the interest of Iraqi’s. However this would have gone against the promises made to the Arabs that spawned from the British – France Sykes-Picot Agreement and perpetuated through the agenda Sir Lawrence of Arabia.
Pressure on Churchill for withdrawal came from five directions. First was Churchill’s penchant for an appointment to be the Exchequer of Britain, hence his overbearing conservative fiscal focus. Second a case is made for Churchill to appease the people of Mesopotamia as Britain was stretched too thin after the war. This plus the social discord and fighting in Britain was much the same as today. Britain walked away from an unsolved problem that they perpetuated. In 70 years what has changed both internally in any World Power country and internationally amongst the World Powers? Will we ever learn?
The third force in Churchill’s folly was Lloyd George second-guessing the decision to fight Turkey in 1914-1915 in Iraq. Had we left Kurdistan to Turkey, imagine its oil wealth Turkey, a democratically ruled and Western leaning country would hold today. Imagine that oil wealth in a democratic nation striving as hard as they do to be a part of the E U. That is indeed what is hoped for today in Iraq. Forth, in 1914-15 the prevailing world strategy was centered around colonialism, hence the Suez Cannel, hence Egypt. Fifth it was Sir Allenby and Sir Lawrence that pushed Hashemite rule in 1915 and on through this book. These five cards happened to be the only hand Churchill could play. He came to realize he was playing a losing hand while he was playing it. Hence the title of the book, Folly, which is as unfair as conceded in the letter Lloyd-George wrote to Churchill after he dealt the cards.
With Churchill’s dealt hand he formed a commission referred to by historians including Catherwood as Forty Thieves. Catherwood portrays Churchill’s task of bringing a consensus in Cairo in what was cast as a fate accompli as dictated by 10 Downing Street. It was a fate accompli giving Iraqi rule to the Hashimites’, Abdullah and clan. Israel was brought into the mix as well as Kurdistan only to represent distraction to Churchill in this book. At that time there were ''the people'' and a cause, and a rationale in both regions; but their was no leader to take immediate control and provide economic relief to the money thrown at the collapsed Ottoman Empire.
Churchill’s consistent refrain in Cairo was money driven. He had aspirations to head up the Exchequer in London so he sought all ideas that got Britain out of Iraq ASAP. Other factors contributing to the folly of decisions made in Cairo were France’s need for Aslace-Lorainne, a strong consideration for inclusion of Kurds into Iraq was to accelerate a reduction of British forces in lieu of Kurds to fend off Turkey. I have to make a note in the irony of the Kurds being commissioned by Turkey to exterminate Armenia only to be later met with Britain using the Kurds against Turkey and finally the Kurds being left with no sovereignty. I guess crime and violence that comes with being a “hired gun” doesn’t pay.
It was also interesting to read when the Allies liberated Arabs from Turkish rule; they also entitled them to a new rule over Kurds and Mesopotamians. They complied with Wilson’s 14 Points and violated them at the same time. Churchill’s did contemplate but did not execute on withdrawal plans to Basra that would have put in to affect the same partitions in Iraq as what Joe Biden proposes today, excluding a sovereign Kurdistan. Is there a final justice to be found in this equation? Imagine a Western leaning Turkey with expanded boarders to include Iraq’s northern providence, southern Kurdistan. Turkey would have oil wealth, but would they welcome in the large voice of the Kurds? Would the international voice accept this? All of a sudden Biden’s idea, while worth a closer examination, has question marks.
What Catherwood suggests in conclusion is that the job done right would have Churchill looking for a legitimate leader in the eyes of the people with a keen sense for a national identity coalesced around a.) A united international cause, b.) A shared enemy, c.) Separation of church and state, d.) Democratic process, or e.) Revert back to Ottoman style of local government, which is essentially to teach western city government, f.) Teach world humanities, g.) Focus/unite on economy, h.) Re focus on people assets. From 1921 to 1958 the government changed hands 58 times. Today in 2008 we need to be complete and on purpose this time or we may just be that common enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)