Saturday, March 29, 2014

The Grandfather, The autumn of patriarch Harry Reid



The Grandfather
The autumn of patriarch Harry Reid
Matthew Continetti, Free Beacon

Another man might have assumed, correctly, that launching a campaign of insult and insinuation against two billionaires would result in renewed attention to his own finances. Not Harry Reid. The Senate Democratic leader since 2005, and the Senate majority leader since 2007, is not one to reflect before speaking. His mouth runs far ahead of his brain.

In recent years Reid has declared an American war “lost” while our troops still fought overseas; praised President Obama for his “light” skin and “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”; asserted falsely and without evidence that Mitt Romney had not paid any taxes for a decade; and said “Why would we want to do that?” when asked if he would fund cancer research during the government shutdown.

Now, with his majority in danger, his president unpopular, his floor agenda obstructed by members of his own caucus, Reid thrashes about uncontrollably. He calls Obamacare horror stories “untrue.” He says Obamacare numbers are not as high as projected because Americans “are not educated on how to use the Internet.” His Senate Majority PAC launches a $3 million ad campaign tying Republican candidates to two men most Americans have never heard of, two men who, funnily enough, are more popular than Reid.

From the floor of the Senate Reid says these two men, Charles and David Koch, are “un-American,” are trying “to buy America.” Without the terrible specter of the Koch brothers Harry Reid would be disarmed. He has no issue for his Democratic Senators to run on; the minimum wage and climate change are not enough. Nor has he another means of inspiring donors to open their checkbooks. He only has fear, fear of the Kochs, fear of extractive industry, fear of the portion of the elite that favors economic freedom. The Koch brothers, Reid says, “rig the system to benefit themselves.” He should know.

The fact that Harry Reid’s political and influence operation includes his five children has been established for some time. A few weeks ago, when I first heard Reid accuse private citizens of being un-American, I dredged up a Los Angeles Times article from 2003 with the headline, “In Nevada, the Name to Know Is Reid.” Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper’s meticulously researched and reported article begins with the story of the “Clark County Conservation of Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002,” a land bill of the sort that puts people to sleep. “What Reid did not explain” when he introduced the bill in the Senate, Neubauer and Cooper wrote, “was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations, and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons’ and son-in-law’s firms.” I wonder why he left that part out.

Firms tied to the Reid family, the Los Angeles Times reported, earned more than $2 million from 1998 to 2002 “from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.” How much more have they earned in the 11 years since this article was published? Land, energy, water, gaming, and mining—the Reids manage a diversified portfolio. They are not financial investors but political ones. Reid’s four sons are lawyers, as is his son-in-law. They make their money furthering the interests of paying clients, clients operating businesses in the state represented by Reid.

Those businesses are not necessarily American. After a 2011 trip to China Harry Reid began touting the virtues of ENN Energy Group, a Chinese firm that sought to build a $5 billion solar farm in Nevada. Reid’s son Rory represented ENN, though Rory claimed in a 2012 Bloomberg article never to have discussed “the project with my father or his staff.” Somehow, though, commissioners friendly with the Reid family agreed to sell property to ENN for one-sixth of the land’s appraised value.

The senator repeatedly expressed his support for the project. But ENN could not find a customer for its energy, and dropped its plans last June. In another instance Reid pressured Homeland Security officials to approve the visas of Chinese casino investors represented by Rory Reid. Rory’s brothers should not feel left out, however. Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer says Papa Reid has “sponsored at least $47 million in earmarks that directly benefited organizations that one of his sons, Key Reid, either lobbies for or is affiliated with.”

Who could have been surprised, then, when the Washington Post in 2012 “uncovered nearly 50 members who helped direct millions of dollars in earmarks to projects that either held the potential to enhance the surroundings of a lawmaker’s own property, or aided entities connected to their immediate family,” and one of those members was Reid. The Post zeroed in on an almost $22 million earmark, passed close to a decade ago, that financed a bridge over the Colorado River. The bridge connects the gambling resorts of Laughlin, Nev., to Bullhead City, Arizona. Harry Reid owns 160 acres in Bullhead.

Reid and his family appear to work within the confines of the law, which should not be surprising, because Reid writes that law, and illegal activity hurts the bottom line. Others are not so careful. Last year one of Reid’s longtime donors, Nevada lobbyist Harvey Whittemore, was sentenced to two years in prison after being found guilty of violating campaign finance laws. Whittemore used associates as “straw donors” to run around donation limits, giving more than $130,000 in dirty money to Reid’s campaign. His sentence is delayed pending appeal.

This week we learned that Reid’s willingness to funnel other people’s money to members of his family extends to a third generation. On Wednesday the veteran Nevada journalist Jon Ralston reported that Harry Reid had used $31,000 in campaign funds to buy “gifts for my staff and supporters” from his granddaughter, Rory Reid’s daughter, Ryan Elisabeth Reid, a “performing arts professional” living in Brooklyn.

Ryan Reid is the artistic director of the Sprat Theatre Company, which says it receives donations from the likes of the Caesars Foundation, the NV Energy Foundation, the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Keep Memory Alive, one Peter Palivos, and the Clinton Global Initiative. The Caesars Foundation is the charitable arm of Caesars Entertainment in Las Vegas, a Harry Reid contributor. A Caesars spokesman told Real Clear Politics that the Caesars Foundation had funded a proposal from Keep Memory Alive to bring Ryan Reid’s play to Vegas, because she needs the help. Keep Memory Alive and the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health are philanthropies founded by Larry Ruvo, general manager of Southern Wine and Spirits of Nevada, member of the American Gaming Association board of directors, and donor to Harry Reid’s Searchlight Leadership Fund PAC. Peter Palivos is a Las Vegas developer, Reid donor, onetime client of Rory Reid, and convicted felon. NV Energy is another Reid donor; a spokesman for that company told Real Clear Politics, and should probably tell the Sprat Theatre, that the theatre’s grant proposal is still under consideration. You have heard of the Clintons.

I have not seen the Sprat Theatre’s new piece, “One Day in the Life of Henri Shnuffle,” which concerns “moments of the title character’s life, from youth to old age, to demonstrate a fuller understanding of aging, Alzheimer’s, and the way others live,” but I do not doubt for a moment that it is so innovative, so compassionate, so compelling and cathartic that the numerous corporate and private sponsors who are financing its Vegas stint this coming October are writing their checks based totally on merit, without a moment’s thought to who Ryan Reid’s father and granddad are. There can be no other way: We all know the motives of liberal Democrats are pure, their hearts true, their lives guiltless of the favoritism and nepotism and self-interest and ideological blindness of Republicans and conservatives. Harry Reid is willing to go the extra step. He did nothing wrong in handing $31,000 of his donors’ money to his granddaughter, he told reporters, but he plans to reimburse his campaign anyway. What a saint.


“I must study politics and war,” John Adams said, “that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.” In Harry Reid’s America a man must win political office so that his sons may have the liberty to practice law and register as lobbyists, engage in rent-seeking and government relations and crisis management and communications, in order to give their children a right to live in Brooklyn, to enroll in the New School, to visit the Vermont Studio Center, to have cronies finance their off-off-off-Broadway shows, to enjoy their allowance from grandpa. This is the arrangement put before the voters this coming Election Day; this is the “system” rigged to benefit the family Reid; this is the configuration of power that Charles and David Koch want to disrupt. How awful of them. How “un-American.”

Friday, March 28, 2014

Condi at the Bat...


What can you do but laugh.

Condi Rice Blasts Obama on Weakness, Leadership

Says we can't afford to be war weary.

Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Barack Obama of dramatically weakening the United States' position in the world, drawing a straight line between Obama’s ever-yielding foreign policy and the increasing troubles around the world.
“Right now, there’s a vacuum,” she told a crowd of more than two thousand attending the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual dinner last night in Washington, D.C. “There’s a vacuum because we’ve decided to lower our voice. We’ve decided to step back. We’ve decided that if we step back and lower our voice, others will lead, other things will fill that vacuum.” Citing Bashar al Assad’s slaughter in Syria, Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, al Qaeda’s triumphant return to Fallujah, Iraq, and China’s nationalist fervor, she concluded: “When America steps back and there is a vacuum, trouble will fill that vacuum.”
Rice – measured in tone, but very tough on substance – excoriated Obama administration policies without ever mentioning the president by name. She mocked the naïve hope that “international norms” would fill the vacuum left by U.S. retreat and blasted the president for hiding behind the weariness of the public.
“I fully understand the sense of weariness. I fully understand that we must think: ‘Us, again?’ I know that we’ve been through two wars. I know that we’ve been vigilant against terrorism. I know that it’s hard. But leaders can’t afford to get tired. Leaders can’t afford to be weary.”
Rice’s speech was the highlight of an evening that brought in $15.1 million for House Republicans. The former secretary of state has mostly limited her political appearances since leaving office to major events. She delivered a well-received speech at a donor event that Mitt Romney held in Park City, Utah, in 2012 and addressed the Republican National Convention in Tampa that summer. But those familiar with her thinking say she’s determined to help Republicans pick up the Senate and maintain the House heading into the 2016 presidential elections.
House majority whip Kevin McCarthy introduced Rice and raised the prospect that she might become even more involved in politics in two years. After listing various prestigious positions she’s held, he noted, “There’s one thing that’s not on her resume and I want her to put her mind to it to resolve that in 2016.”
Rice has downplayed those suggestions and there’s little reason to believe she’s angling for a run. Still, she has been increasingly active on behalf of her fellow Republicans. Earlier this month, Rice spoke at a Kentucky fundraiser for Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and the spring convention for the California Republican party. Rice appeared in an ad touting Alaska Senate hopeful and Marine reservist Dan Sullivan, a spot paid for by Karl Rove’s super PAC, American Crossroads. In the coming months, she will make appearances for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Rice began her speech Wednesday with something of a civics lesson, praising the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution for the limits they placed on government and noting that Americans, despite being the “most individualistic people on this earth, are also the most philanthropic and communitarian.” Rice trundled through well-worn Republican lines on lower taxes and less regulation before once again touting the American system for its recognition of a “vast private space into which the government should not intrude” and a “personal space, where we respect each others’ choices.”
Before turning to foreign policy, Rice urged the crowd, including many Republican House members, to keep America a “nation of immigrants” and strafed liberals who send their kids to private schools but write New York Times op-eds claiming that school choice will ruin public schools.
But the most powerful part of her speech came when Rice expressed her frustration with Obama on national security. “As Ronald Reagan said: Peace only comes through strength,” she recalled.

“So, what are we doing? What are we doing when our defense budget is so small that our military starts to tell us that we may not be able to carry out all of the requirements put upon it? What are we doing, when a couple of weeks before Russia invades Crimea we announce that we are going to have an Army smaller than at any time since the Revolutionary – I’m sorry, not the Revolutionary War, but World War II. What are we doing? What are we doing? What are we signaling when we say that America is no longer ready to stand in the defense of freedom?”

Monday, March 24, 2014

Least Transparent Ever



One More Reason Why the Obama Administration is the Least Transparent Ever


John Hinderaker, Powerline

The Obama administration has a standard response to all scandals: it stonewalls. Getting information from the administration is like pulling teeth, only slower. Document requests and subpoenas go unanswered, or inadequately answered, for years.

So far Obama’s stonewall strategy has worked quite well. After a year or two, a scandal is treated as old news, even though the administration has never produced the information that would allow Congressional committees, reporters or the public to evaluate it. If the administration stalls long enough, it wins.

In perfecting the art of the stall, Obama has done something that has been tried by no previous president: he has put the White House into the loop when federal agencies respond to subpoenas and Freedom of Information Act requests. A group called Cause of Action has uncovered an April 15, 2009 memo by White House Counsel Greg Craig that lays out the administration’s unprecedented stonewall strategy. Craig’s memo went to every executive department and federal agency. You can read it here. The memo says, in part:

This is a reminder that executive agencies should consult with the White House Counsel’s Office on all document requests that may involve documents with White House equities. …

This need to consult with the White House arises with respect to all types of document requests, including Congressional committee requests, GAO requests, judicial subpoenas, and FOIA requests. And it applies to all documents and records, whether in oral, paper, or electronic form, that relate to communications to and from the White House, including preparations for such communications.

The phrase “White House equities” is undefined. It is not a legal term; it cannot be found in the Freedom of Information Act. Apparently a document has “White House equities” if it potentially could embarrass the Obama administration.

Mark Tapscott reported on Cause of Action’s discovery last week in the Washington Examiner:

The FOIA requires federal agencies to respond within 20 days of receiving a request, but the White House equities exception can make it impossible for an agency to meet that deadline.

In one case cited by Cause of Action, the response to a request from a Los Angeles Times reporter to the Department of the Interior for “communications between the White House and high-ranking Interior officials on various politically sensitive topics” was delayed at least two years by the equities review.

“Cause of Action is still waiting for documents from 16 federal agencies, with the Department of Treasury having the longest pending request of 202 business days.
“The Department of Energy is a close second at 169 business days. The requests to the Department of Defense and Department of Health and Human Services have been pending for 138 business days,” the report said.

There are two problems with the unprecedented White House review that the Obama administration has instituted. The first is that it takes forever. White House lawyers can simply sit on a subpoena until a year or two have gone by, and the potentially embarrassing issue has been forgotten. But the second problem is still more diabolical. The White House is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This means that if White House lawyers decide to cover up an Obama scandal by shredding documents that make the administration look bad, no one–no reporter, no Congressional committee, no private citizen–can serve a request that requires the White House to disclose what documents it destroyed. So adding a layer of White House lawyer review to the production of any sensitive documents–those with “White House equities”–means that inconvenient information may sink without a trace. We have no way of knowing how often this has happened over the last five years.

Which is, of course, exactly the way the least transparent administration in history wants it.

Monday, March 03, 2014

Thoughts on Ukraine


Thoughts on Ukraine
Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

All,

Many in Western Europe and the United States who never listened to the realists have been caught flat-footed over Putin's aggression against Ukraine. Eastern Europe is a different story. Expect a  build up of military muscle in Poland and elsewhere.

The old saying goes that you cannot have a first rate military without a first rate enemy. Putin just created that enemy.

The question is: Where will Putin draw the line?

The Crimea has never been a historic region of Ukraine. In fact, it was never part of Ukraine until the 1960s. After the breakup in 1991, it was very awkward to have major Russian naval bases and it largest fleet in another country. That was a problem from the start. 

If Putin stops with the Crimea, holds a relatively free and fair referendum for union with Russia, they will likely vote to join.

Then we will be in a pickle if we oppose the transfer.

But what if the Crimea is not enough?

If Putin goes into eastern Ukraine, it will be a big problem.

Even though there are millions of ethnic Russians and millions more of Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians (which side they will pick is up in the air), that still leaves millions of Ukrainians, so will they start a bloody insurgency? Will we see the most massive wave of displaced refugees since 1945? That would be a humanitarian disaster of untold proportions.

If he goes for the whole enchilada, conquering all of Ukraine, he will be in deep s---.

The Russian Army has about 160,000 troops available. Ukraine has maybe 45,000 troops, 25,000 border guards, and 20,000 interior ministry paramilitary troops. Add in the reserves and the Russian Army could have a real fight on its hands.

But let us assume the talking heads are right and the Russian Army wins quickly, it will still be very bloody and now what? 

The place is too big. 

The entire Russian Army could not garrison a hostile Ukraine and it would be bled dry in a never-ending guerrilla war. Further, that war would not stop at the Ukrainian border. 

The guerrillas will necessarily take their terror campaign into Russia proper. What if they ally themselves with other ethnic separatists to include radical Islamists fighting the Russians now? It could turn into the bloodiest mess for Russia since the Nazi invasion.

It would only be a matter of time before the Russians realized that holding a hostile Ukraine exceeded the cost in blood and treasure that they would be willing to pay. 

Mike






IRS Abuses: Relearning Our History



IRS Abuses: Relearning Our History
Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

Sixty years ago, the civil rights movement began in earnest an epic struggle to end legal discrimination.

That fight serves as an object lesson for those speaking out against the abuses of the IRS directed against our fellow citizens.

To set the record straight, I am not a member the Tea Party as I disagree with many of its policies, not the least of which is a sense that it stands for whatever any one of its proponents says on any given day, no matter how confusing or contradictory.

But the IRS targeting of the Tea Party is a moral wrong.

It is an abuse of power that every American, regardless of their political positions, should oppose. It is a threat to our political freedoms. History teaches why.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” laws enforced by the government were unconstitutional as they created an inferior class of citizens who were adversely discriminated against. That is exactly what the IRS is doing when it targets the Tea Party.

Let us take an example from Little Rock during the school desegregation struggles in 1957. The state government’s target then was the NAACP and here is what was done:

Legislation was enacted that “required organizations and individuals ‘challenging the authority’” of government officials [i.e. opposing segregation laws] “to register…and make regular reports of their budgets.” It further required the NAACP to reveal its members names.[1]

Back then, the purpose was to use government power to silence opposition to the state-sanctioned status quo of racial segregation and today, silencing the opposition is the aim of IRS Tea Party targeting.

In 1957, the government also tried to divide their opponents by “trying to get ‘good’ Negroes, and none of the ‘radicals’ who sued them” into the desegregated schools.[2] The goal was to punish those who spoke out against the status quo.

Now compare that to what the IRS is doing to Tea Party groups:

“The deal boiled down to this: We’ll do our job, the IRS said, if you give up your rights.”[3] When confronted with this government imposed inequality, Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots stood her ground and refused to allow what the IRS apparently deemed ‘good’ organizations to be granted greater rights “than those of us who had been targeted.”[4]

As in the 1950s, the goal of the IRS is to use the law to create an inferior class of citizen as punishment for speaking out against the status quo.

Civil rights mean civil rights for all.

Free speech means free speech for all.

When the government targets American citizens and offers “separate but equal” rights to silence them then it has done a great injustice to our nation and its people.

It was wrong in the 1954 and it is wrong sixty years later.



[1] See Juan Williams, Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965, 25th Anniversary Edition (New York: Penguin, 2013), p. 96. This is a “must read” book for any serious student of American history.
[2] Williams, Eyes on the Prize, p. 97.
[3] Kimberley A. Strassel, “All the President’s IRS Agents,” The Wall Street Journal, dated 28 February 2014.
[4] Strassel, “IRS Agents,” dated 28 February 2014.

Sunday, March 02, 2014

Whither goest Ukraine?



Whither goest Ukraine?
Mike walker, Col. USMC (Retired)

Courage is a hard and costly word.

It seems the world is once again at a crossroads where courage is demanded and the junction is called Ukraine.

The Unites States has sailed into the path of isolationism to a degree not seen since the 1930s.

This isolationism is a bipartisan consensus and not simply an American problem. Europe, for example, has been more feckless than the United States and like the 1930s, never has an appeal to brute force been better received in the darkest quarters of humanity.

The parallels to the 1930s are frightening.

As then, the world’s liberal democracies are going through trying economic times, authoritarian regimes are rising in number and seem to be embracing naked military aggression to achieve their aims.

The appeasers and apologist are many. We recently had a United States senator sing praises of the repressive Cuban Regime that beggared belief to an extent unheard since Lindberg’s praise of the Nazi Germany.

Do not the destabilizing and cynical acts of Putin, falling on the heels of the Sochi Olympics, bring to fore memories of Hitler after the Berlin Olympics?

Is today’s conflict in Syria any less brutal, less significant, than the Civil War in Spain?

Are North Korean labor camps that different than those of the Nazis in the 1930s?

And what are we to say to the Filipinos who recently vowed to protect their nation from rapacious ultranationalists that hold too great a sway in Beijing? One leader compared their “David versus Goliath” struggle against Chinese militarist with that that of Czechoslovakia when it faced Nazi Germany.

What are we to make of a China who this week officially referred to our outgoing ambassador as a “banana,” a base racial slur aimed at his Chinese ethnicity meaning “yellow” on the outside and “white” on the inside?

Just who are these men in charge in Beijing?

Just how wrong were the appeasers and apologists for Putin and his host of likeminded tyrants?

Do we have the courage to do the right thing? 

Are we fated to repeat the mistakes of the past?


Whither goest us?