It has been a while, too long, since I posted at Townhall, hopefully it was worth the wait.

It didn’t take long for the Dems to get caught in a scandal and do what the voters in 2006 feared if the they became the majority of the 110th Congress - members of the "Moon Bat" community …

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) seems to be able point fingers, like other members of her political elite of Sociocrats, at political opponents and at the same time get caught in a congressional ethics concern – and as usual without any repercussions other than stepping down from her position in a committee:

CNSNews, Fred Lucas:

Government watchdog groups want more answers as to why Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) stepped down from a military appropriations subcommittee at a time questions were being asked billions of dollars in federal defense contracts going to her husband’s companies.[1] Feinstein resigned her post as chairwoman of the Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations last week. The decision came less than two months after Metro Newspapers, a group of alternative weekly papers in northern California, detailed the number of defense contracts awarded to Perini Corp. and URS Corp., both of which her husband, Richard C. Blum, has ownership, according to the newspapers. The investigation was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute, a non-profit organization affiliated with the liberal magazine The Nation.[2]
”This was a critique from the left,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, told Cybercast News Service. “These were left-leaning papers. The fact that she stepped down from the committee lends credibility to the charges.”
… The California weeklies detailed examples that included a subcommittee hearing in which Feinstein asked Pentagon officials about increasing anti-terrorism protection for Army bases. The next year, in March 2003, Feinstein asked why the funds for anti-terror protection had not been spent. Just a month later, URS announced a $600 million contract to provide services for U.S. Army bases that included anti-terrorism force protection. In another instance, Feinstein asked another military official when money would be spent on a maintenance facility for the C-17 Hickham Air Base in Hawaii. URS later announced a $42 million contract to build it. Also, Feinstein’s subcommittee in mid-2005 approved funds to reinforce roofs at military stations in Iraq, and in October of that year, Perini got a $185 million federal contract for that purpose, the papers reported.
The matter should be probed further, said Kenneth Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative government watchdog group. However, he isn’t that confident in the Senate’s ability to police itself.[3] … “Congress needs an independent watchdog. The ethics committees are partisan. They have an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, but the reality is that things don’t get looked at that should get looked at.”
Meanwhile, Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, reportedly said the Feinstein matter could eclipse other congressional scandals.
… “You would think that, considering all the money Feinstein’s family has pocketed by waging global warfare while ignoring the plight of wounded American soldiers, she would show a smidgen of shame and resign from the entire Senate. Not just a subcommittee,” Bryne wrote.[4]

Voters in California who have continued to retain such a person representing that state and voting upon issues that concern all American while in Congress – should be ashamed. Just as I am ashamed of voting for President Bush, despite the fact that the choice between Senator John Kerry being president and Bush #2, as a pick of the best of the worst. The key element in the voting procedure is to get the right candidate for the final vote for presidency – which means more people need to quit abstaining from voting in the primaries and leaving their vote for the final election. In addition, it should be allowed to vote in primaries concerning any political entity, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or whatever – anyone should vote in the primaries of any political candidate. This would help to ensure that quality candidates reach the point of the final vote for presidency. In the case of voting for congressional members, Americans must quit voting strictly by the election rhetoric from the candidate and look objectively at their past voting record and periods in public office. What is said is not as important as what they do. Again, President Bush is a prime example. He has disassociated from members of his own party, and insulted and ignored the people who put him in office. But, why should he care? After FDR, Congress passed an amendment that doesn’t allow a president to serve more than two consecutive[5] terms. This can be a good thing, but we also see a bad thing. President George W. Bush will get his presidential library. In that library his legacy, in his eyes, will be established. But his legacy is only positive when looking at the basic fundamentals of his foreign policy, with his domestic policies being a record of shame, as well as turning his back upon the political platform from which he did not adhere to. Yet, if asked the question” “Which is a better president, William J. Clinton or George W. Bush?” – the answer would, for me, be a no-brainer – President George W. Bush – and not just because of the Lewinsky scandal, as some may surmise.

And, for those of you who are contemplating replacing GW Bush with Hillary Clinton, remember that her scandals amount to almost as much and a part of the William Clinton scandals. She has changed her political rhetoric during the course of her tenure as Senator of the US Congress, not because she has changed her views, but wants to encourage more voters. Her recent action, at least by those who represent her in her campaign efforts to be noted and voted for a possible presidential candidate involving a fellow sociocrat, Barack Obama (D-IL) is a prime example that she has not changed her vicious means of obtaining votes for her continued zeal in involving herself in the affairs of the US government and her personal ideology of American socialism.

Moral of the story: Voters who complain about the actions or inaction of those they voted for should look upon themselves to be a more responsible voter and quit being loyal to political parties that are nothing but a “good fellow club”.

I authored a book in the late 1980s entitled: History of the 1st Squadron, 4th U.S. Cavalry: The Quarterhorse during the period of my military career as a soldier assigned to the “Quarterhorse”, the 1st/4th US Cavalry, short for 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry, and a lifetime membership awarded in 1983 by Command Sergeant Major Tuemler, whose wife made me a 4th Cavalry banner as a going-away gift when I was reassigned to Fort Riley Commanding General’s Office. I thought I would pass on some of the highlights of the history of this famous cavalry that represents an era long gone in history, but still remains as a symbol of the U.S. Army cavalry’s heritage. Maybe one day I will reprint the original limited edition volume that is registered and exists at the Library of Congress and a copy within the 1/4th Cavalry Museum that is located within their HQ at Fort Riley, Kansas. The only unit, to date, who is authorized a unit museum at their headquarters location. It is now attached to the 1st Infantry Division (Big Red One is historically famous onto itself).

The United States 4th Cavalry Regiment can be traced back to the middle of the 19th century. It was most effective against Army operations against Indian uprisings on the Texas frontier. As stated above, only two elements remain of the original regiment – the 1st and 2nd Squadron of the 4th US Cavalry. The 1st Squadron of the 4th Cavalry has a nickname – “Quarterhorse”, in honor of the breed of horse that was customary to use in horse cavalry operations. It is the only operational element of the old 4th Cavalry that still has a horse unit that attends change-of-command ceremonies and other official functions, such as parades. The riders are trained to ride the horses and are uniformed and saddled in the historical tradition of the US cavalry. The rider wears the period blue uniform and his accoutrements include a US cavalry sword. The saddle used is the famous McClellan saddle. During certain events, the riders will demonstrate a cavalry charge with their swords drawn. Training techniques and other interesting facts about the cavalry can be found at the post museum at Fort Riley, Kansas and is open to the public. The 2nd Squadron of the 4th Cavalry is also part of the 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas.
The 4th United States Cavalry regiment was established as part of a growth of mounted U.S. Army units that started in the early 1850s, mostly used in Indian Territory operations. It was officially organized on March 26th, 1855 at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri as the U.S. 1st Cavalry Regiment. One year after it was established, the 1st Cavalry Regiment’s first military action was a peacekeeping mission in what became known as Bleeding Kansas, where pro-slavery and Free State factions were fighting each other. During this period the 1st Cavalry also fought against hostile Plains Indians in the area. The first commanders were Colonel Edwin V. Sumner and Lieutenant Colonel Joseph E. Johnston; both would later become Civil War generals. The regiment fought its first combat on July 39th, 1857 at the Battle of Solomon River in Kansas against a large force of Southern Cheyenne warriors. The regiment was under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee, which was his last command in the Federal Army before the outbreak of the American Civil War. When the War Between the States officially began in 1861, the 1st Cavalry Regiment was dissolved and then reorganized immediately. Many of its commissioned officers became famous during the American Civil War, including Robert E. Lee, mentioned above, as well as George B. McClellan (the cavalry saddle named after him) and J.E.B. Stuart.
The War Department, as early as 1854, wanted to redesignate all mounted regiments as cavalry by renumbering them in order of seniority. As the 1st Cavalry Regiment was the fourth oldest mounted regiment in terms of active service, it was redesignated as the 4th United States Cavalry Regiment on August 3rd, 1861. Most of the regiment was assigned in the Western Theater, but fought against Confederates in Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and the Indian Territory . In 1861 and 1862, two companies served (with distinction) in Virginia in the Army of the Potomac before they were reunited with the rest of the regiment in Tennessee. Those companies fought in the major battles of the First Bull Run Battle, the Peninsula Campaign, Fredericksburg, and Antietam. Most of the regiment fought continuously in the western theater from Shiloh to Macon and participated in fights at Chickamauga, Stones River, and Battle of Nashville. All these names being familiar with Civil War buffs.
So many regiments were sent east to support the war that the 1st U.S. Cavalry was kept (initially) on the frontier until other units were established to protect settlers and townsfolk from Indian raids. On June 22nd, 1861, former 1st Cavalry officer George McClellan, who became a major general, requested Company A and Company E to serve as his personal escort. These two companies were the units that fought at Bull Run, Peninsula, Antietam, and Fredericksburg campaigns and did not rejoin the main unit again until 1864. The rest of the 1st Cavalry was commissioned to support operations in Mississippi and Missouri. The 4th Cavalry company units became scattered from the Mississippi River to the Atlantic Coast. Their missions consisted of the traditional operations of reconnaissance, screening and raiding – not too much differently than what they are designed to do today, only instead of horses and light artillery they incorporate helicopters, scouts and light armor in their missions.
On December 31st, 1862, a two-company squadron of the 4th Cavalry attacked and caused the retreat of a Confederate cavalry brigade near Murfreesboro, Tennessee. From 1863 to 1864, companies of the 4th Cavalry saw action in Tennessee, Georgia and Mississippi. On June 30th, 1863, another squadron of the 4th Cavalry charged a six-gun battery of Confederate artillery near Shelbyville, Tennessee, capturing the entire battery and three hundred prisoners.
By the time of spring of 1864 came, the success of the Confederate cavalry corps under the command of J.E.B. Stuart had convinced the Union to form their own Cavalry Corps in the east under General Philip Sheridan. The 4th Cavalry was ordered to reunite as a regiment and, on December 14th, 1864, it joined in the attack on Nashville, Tennessee as part of the Western Cavalry Corps commanded by General James Wilson. The 4th helped turn the Confederate flank that sent them in retreat. A Confederate force attempted to delay action at West Harpeth, Tennessee, but an element of the 4th Cavalry led by Lieutenant Joseph Hedges charged and captured a Confederate artillery battery. For his bravery, Hedges received the Medal of Honor, the first one as a member of the 4th Cavalry.
General Wilson, in March of 1865, was ordered to take his cavalry on a drive through Alabama to capture the Confederate supply depot at Selma. As the column of cavalry moved south into Alabama, it encountered the famed Confederate cavalry leader Nathan Bedford Forrest. Wilson’s cavalry had superior numbers and firepower, so it defeated the Confederates, which allowed the Union troops to arrive in Selma the next day. The 4th Cavalry led a mounted charge on April 2nd, 1865 where they were stopped by the railroad and fence line. They then dismounted and stormed the town on foot. Selma’s storage of munitions and supplies were destroyed and foundries and arsenals were leveled. Next Wilson joined General Sherman who took Montgomery, Alabama, and Columbus, Georgia before arriving in Macon, Georgia. It was there that the word came that General Lee and General Johnston has surrendered their armies. The regiment stayed in Macon as occupation troops. The last battle of the war for the 4th Cavalry was the Battle of Columbus, where the regiment assisted in capturing the Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
In August of 1865, the 4th Cavalry was sent to Texas. During the next thirteen years its units of twelve companies occupied military posts between the Rio Grande River and Jacksboro and between San Antonio and San Angelo. Before 1871, the 4th Cavalry’s operations were limited to guarding the US Mail and settlements against Indian attacks and attempted to overtake bands of Indians on raids. The skirmishes were commanded by Colonel Lawrence Pike Graham, which none of the Indian skirmishes were of any major significance.
When Colonel Ranald S. Mackenzie took command in December of 1870 this changed and orders were received to stop Comanche and Kiowa raids along the Texas frontier. On February 25th, 1871, Mackenzie set up command at Fort Concho. One month later he moved the headquarters to Fort Richardson, near Jacksboro, while some companies of the 4th Cavalry remained at Fort Griffin and Fort Concho. In May of 1871, Kiowa near Fort Richardson brutally mutilated teamsters from a wagon train at nearby Salt Creek Prairie (see Warren Wagon Train Raid). A few days later General William T. Sherman had three leaders of the raid brought to Fort Sill, Oklahoma – Satank, Satanta and Big Tree where they were taken to Jacksboro to stand trial for murder. Satank killed a trooper while attempting to escape along the way; Satanta and Big Tree were sentenced to life imprisonment.
In August of 1871, General Mackenzie led an expedition into Indian Territory against the Comanche and Kiowa who had left the agency, but he was later ordered to return to Texas. He then led eight companies of the 4th Cavalry and two companies of the 11th US Infantry (600 men) in search of Quahadi Comanches, who had refused to live on the reservation. On October 10th of 1871, a skirmish took place in Blanco Canyon, near the site of present-day Crosbyton, but the band of renegades escaped across the plains. The following summer of 1872, Mackenzie, with six companies of the 4th Cavalry, continued its search for the Quahadis. On September 29th, 1872, 222 cavalrymen surprised and destroyed Chief Mow-way’s village of Quahadi and Kotsoteka Comanches on the North Fork of the Red River about six miles of the present-day site of Lefors. It was estimated that 52 Indians were killed and 124 captured with a loss of 3 cavalrymen killed and 3 wounded. For at least one year, Kiowa and Comanche remained peaceful.
After the Southern Plains Indians initiated the Red River War in June of 1874, the Grant administration cancelled the Quaker peace policy and authorized military control of the reservations in order to subdue the hostile Indians. During this period, Indians who had settled in Mexico began to perform raids in Texas. In 1878 General Sherman, at the request of the Texans, transferred General Mackenzie and six companies of the 4th Cavalry to Fort Clark. At this time Mackenzie led a large and extensive expedition into Mexico, restored the system of cavalry patrols, and reestablished peace in the region of South Texas. After the annihilation of George Armstrong Custer’s command at the Battle of Little Bighorn in June of 1876, General Mackenzie forced Red Cloud and his band of Sioux and the Northern Cheyenne to surrender. In the autumn of 1879, Mackenzie with six companies of the 4th Cavalry subdued the hostile Utes in Southern Colorado without firing a shot and in August 1880 forced them to move to a reservation in Utah Territory. The 4th Cavalry was then transferred to the Arizona Territory, where Mackenzie assumed command of all military forces and subdued the hostile Apaches. Within one month the Apaches surrendered or fled to Mexico, and on October 30th, Mackenzie and the 4th Cavalry were transferred to the new District of New Mexico. From 1884 to 1886 the 4th US Cavalry operated against the Apaches in Arizona and was instrumental in the capture of the legendary Geronimo. This operation ended the regiment’s participation in any Indian Wars that remained. In 1890 the regimental headquarters was moved to Walla Walla, Washington.
In the early part of the 20th century, the 4th Cavalry served on the Mexican border in Texas from 1911 to 1913. For the next six years, the regiment served at Schofield Barracks in the Territory of Hawaii, but did not participate in World War I.
However, by World War II, the regiment exchanged horses for armored vehicles and tanks. It was put ashore in the allied operation of D-Day on islands off the coast of France. The regiment experienced fierce fighting in the hedgerows of Normandy and in the Hurtgen Forest during the Battle of the Bulge.
In 1965, the First Squadron of the 4th Cavalry (1-4 Cavalry) deployed to the Republic of Viet Nam, spending eight years fighting in the jungles of Southeast Asia. The unit became known as the Fire Brigade because of their firepower, effective mobility and the shock effect of hit-and-run tactics used since the Civil War.
In 1990, after the period of reconstruction of military units initiated by the Reagan administration due to the ending of Cold War tactics, the First Squadron deployed to Saudi Arabia, as part of Operation Desert Shield. This led to the Squadron’s spearhead of the division assault into Iraq during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. On May 4th, 1991, the 1-4 Cavalry received the Valorous Unit Award for service in the Gulf.
During the Balkans Conflict, in 1995, the 1-4 Cavalry was the first cavalry unit deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina, supporting the peacekeeping mission that was under the Dayton Peace Accord that lasted for a period of eleven months at Camp Molly, called the “Dog Pound” and Eagle Base at Tuzla Main. From 1999 to 2000 the 1-4 Cavalry, its air-cavalry elements of the Quarterhorse (D Squadron) returned to the Balkans to serve at Kosovo as members of Operation Joint Guardian II. In the middle of 2002, soldiers with the 1st Infantry Division’s 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment (1-4 Cavalry) were suddenly told their mission was canceled and that they would not be deploying to Kosovo for peacekeeping missions. A spokesman of the U.S. European Command stated that he could not comment on the change and referred it back to V Corps. The first trainload of the squadron’s equipment that was headed for the Balkans from Germany had to be called back. The Schweinfurt unit of the Quarter Cavalry was to be a rotating task force under the command of the 1st Infantry Division. The squadron was to lead the aviation task force with their OH-58 Kiowa and Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, as well as provide perimeter guards from their scout troop units at the headquarters at Camp Bondsteel. To date, the reason for the change is unknown, and apparently was still classified at the time – thus the reluctance of the 1-4 Cavalry and European Command leaders to make any comment.
During the 4th Cavalry’s long history, it did not participate in two wars – World War I and the Korean War.
Its unit awards include: (1) Presidential Unit Citation (Army) for Binh Thuan Province; (2) Valorous Unit Award for Quang Tin Province; (3) Valorous Unit Award for FISH HOOK; (4) Meritorious Unit Commendation (Army) for SOUTHWEST ASIA; and (5) Valorous Unit Award for Desert Storm 1st Squadron.
BIBLIOGRAPHY -
History of the 1st Squadron, 4th U.S. Cavalry: The Quarterhorse, Izmir Press & Binding, Izmir, Turkey; LC #87200809; 1987 by Keith A. Lehman
4th U.S. Cavalry Regiment Association
United States Army Center of Military History; CMH Publication 60-1; “Army Lineage Series: ARMOR-CAVALRY, Part I: Regular Army and Army Reserve.” Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 69-60002.
Order of Battle: U.S. Army, World War II; Presidio Press, 1984; ISBN 0-89141-195-X by Shelby L. Stanton
Spurs to Glory: The Story of the U.S. Cavalry; Rand McNally, Chicago 1966 by James M. Merrill
Battle of the Red River
4th US Cavalry and the Lee-Peacock Feud (Texas) 1869
Wikipedia
Encyclopedia Britannica
Answers.com
Kansas Civil War Soldiers
New York Tribune – Horace Greeley Civil War Coverage
Unit History – SC 4th Cavalry
Regimental History of 4th Cavalry (Mary Lee Stubbs and Stanley Russell Connor)
4th NY Cavalry Regiment During Civil War (NY Military Museum)
SUGGESTED READING -
A History of the 4th Wisconsin Infantry and Cavalry in the American Civil War by Michael Martin.
Cooke’s Cavalry Tactics by Philip St. George Cooke, Brig, Gen. U.S. Army, Lippincott Publications, Philadelphia, 1862.
United States Military Saddles 1812-1943 by Randy Steffen, Oklahoma University Press, 1973.
Crossing the Border with the 4th Cavalry – Mackenzie’s Raid into Mexico in 1873 by Richard A. Thompson, Texian Press, Waco, 1986.
The Old Sergeant’s Story by Captain Robert G. Carter, Hitchcock Press, 1926. (Biography of the days of the 4th Cavalry via letters to Captain Carter) Rare, out-of-print; may find at e-Bay or Biblio.com.
On the Border with Mackenzie by Captain Robert G. Carter, circa 1910 (first-hand account of the 4th Cavalry in Texas).

I would like to take a moment to commend and thank the Native Americans web site for their preservation of Indian history and their invaluable information in the form of biographies of famous tribal leaders. History must be preserved, and it is good that the history of the "original" Americans remain for all to study and know that it is all part of American history.

On November 3^rd, 1984, Andrew Kopkind wrote in America’s oldest weekly journal of political and cultural news, opinion and analysis that was established in 1865 – The Nation:

Not since the era of the late junior Senator from Wisconsin has an American political figure given this country an eponymous ism. Reaganism is now an established movement and an important historical event. Its roots can be discerned in periods long past, and its consequences will carry beyond the Presidential tenure, and perhaps the earthly existence, of the man who gave it a name. … Like other native American movements – Populism, Progressivism and the various “new radicalisms” of this century – Reaganism lacks sharp ideological definition and programmatic coherence. It has not yet produced a unitary creed to resolve the differences among its components: the Moral Majority, the corporate class, blue-collar ethnics and the country-club set. … those who are making the movement have a precise idea of their goals and a fair sense of the strategies to achieve them. … The rise of Reaganism is focused in the electoral arena this year, but it is not primarily a phenomenon of political campaigns, public office or even Republican Administrations. A landslide victory for Reagan and his allies next week would certainly advance the movement, but a good Democratic showing would not stop or reverse it. For power is already in place to continue the movement’s mission in the coming years. The first targets of choice are clear: all those liberal institutions that have defined and shaped American culture for fifty years or more – the press, the churches, unions, academia, local public education, urban government, philanthropic foundations, the artistic establishment, Hollywood, publishing, Federal service, the liberal professions and their organizations. They will come under increasing pressure to redirect their orientation along lines that have already been drawn, to change their social roles, to reassess their values – even the term “liberalism” has been dropped from political discourse. A major ideological conflict is under way. It’s not necessary to establish a conspiracy or identify a cabal to confirm the reality of Reaganism. … Reaganism underscores the issues and subsumes the symbols of the electoral debate. Grenada, Central America, the Pentagon budget, taxes and deficits, school prayer, abortion, family values, patriotism, leadership – those words have specific referents, and in an ordinary campaign they would acquire no larger meaning. … Reaganism’s long-term policy of destroying socialism and preventing revolution in the Third World … Defense spending is not a set of figures but a way of increasing militarization of America’s political economy, and its cultural life as well. Taxes and deficits are tools for increasing the power and enriching the coffers of the corporate class. Family values refer to more rigid social controls, leadership means authoritarianism, school prayer and support for religious education are means of hastening the privatization of American society – a key strategy. … Reaganism has developed from the several trends and transient phenomena that followed the convulsive social activity of the 1960s. It takes ideas, energies and some personnel from such varied elements as the George Wallace movement, neo-conservatism, the New Right, neoliberalism, fundamentalism, post-feminism, the “back-to-basics” movement in education, the “return to roots” trend in Judaism, Catholic orthodoxy, the white backlash to integration and affirmative action, the straight-male hostility to women’s liberation and gay rights, the Anglophobe aversion to bilingualism. It also draws on historic American Populism, especially its racist, nativist and regional themes. It twines with some curiously contradictory threads in Progressivism: America Firstism and moral imperialism, a distrust of politics and politicians, an antagonism to Wall Street and monopolies. For its personal values it draws on social Darwinism, but its economic vision looks quite the other way, to a heavenly city of corporate control. Chronologically, Reaganism belongs to a late period of America’s imperial drama, as fear of impending doom and a sense of inevitable loss prepares the actors for unwonted roles. Many people or groups of people feel that they lost something, or lost out, in the Vietnam era and after. … There is nothing new or inherently sinister in the process of ideological institution building. Liberals did a good job of it for many decades and succeeded in creating a liberal value system for the whole country. Radicals made a stab at the same thing in the 1960s. … Reaganism grasps that simple and profound reality, and is taking appropriate measures. … For a long time liberals carried on a painful search for “new ideas,” a self-defeating maneuver which merely confirmed the popular impression that the liberal intellectual and political program was finished. Next, liberals began adopting Reaganist constructs – family values, national security, and patriotism – and attempted to give them progressive content.

But what about the founder of what has become known as Reaganism? In the next part I will examine and relate the history and diversity of one of the best presidents to date in American history; and while George W. Bush has, on occasion, alluded that he falls into the ideology established by Ronald Reagan, he doesn’t come close in his actions and policies during the two terms he served as president. Ronald Reagan was not great because he belonged to a certain political party; he was great because of his character, genuine love for America and appreciation of the American people, America traditions and American history. Something to keep in mind as you formulate your pick of a presidential candidate for 2008.

I believe the author is referring to the death of Senator John W. Reynolds, Democrat who died of heart failure in 1984, World War II veteran (1942-1946) and was also the Governor of Wisconsin from 1963 to 1965.

Progressivism has given way to liberalism after its long history of gradual change, but continued to strive to assimilate the concept of socialism and the welfare state. In other words, the change in descriptive terminology has changed, but their concept of the basic population remains clear within the concept of its inceptors – Karl Marx, Lenin, et cetera – who all proclaim the common public as useful idiots.

The primary decade of the advent of progressive socialism in America, and those who committed themselves as protesting college students then are now a part of the academic and political group who still remain in the mind set of the 1960s. And how can this be so when that decade represented the birth of the Civil Rights movement, long overdue after the Civil War, in which the phrase “all men are created equal” became more than just written words in the preamble of the American institution?

To be continued ...

Last summer, the New York Times perceptive and thought-provoking columnist, Thomas L. Friedman,[*] wrote an article in the journal Foreign Policy that didn’t receive the attention it deserved – entitled - The First Law of Petropolitics.[†] Friedman’s piece laid out a law that relates to both this piece on failed and failing states and even more directly to the previous one on the Red Storm Rising in Russia.

The First Law of Petropolitics, as Friedman explains, is that as oil prices rise, the pace of freedom and democratization in oil-rich nations’ declines.  Conversely, as oil prices fall, these same regimes are forced to find new ways of economic survival other than sticking a straw into the earth and sucking it dry, resulting in more freedom for their people.

As the price of oil has plateaued at historically high levels, we are seeing this scenario play out in country after country.  Rich with oil wealth, countries like Russia, Venezuela, Iran and others have become increasingly bold and bellicose.  Since they don’t have to tax their citizens to spend growing amounts on the latest military hardware, WMD programs and other ways of suppressing their own citizens and threatening those of other countries, they become increasingly disconnected from their own populations and world economic realities.  Spending their oil wealth like a party-prone frat boy with a hefty trust fund, these countries don’t have to connect with the rest of the world to make ends meet.  Their leaders, like Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad in recent weeks and months, are flush with cash to carry out whatever grandiose visions they might have.

Now look at the other side of the coin.  As Friedman notes, the first Arab state to run out of oil was Bahrain.  Is it a coincidence that as the oil spigot trickled to a halt, Bahrain became the most democratic state in the Persian Gulf, the first Gulf state to sign a free trade agreement with the US and the most egalitarian for women’s rights?  In order to survive, Bahrain’s leaders recognized that they had to tap a new source of wealth, their people.  And the standard of living in Bahrain today is among the highest in the Arab world, including those countries sitting on vast oil reserves.

You don’t have to search very hard to find a common denominator for the wealthiest nations in the world, the ones with the highest standards of living and the highest incomes.  The common denominator is freedom.  Simply put, those states without artificial wealth created by oil or other natural resource riches have to make money the old fashioned way.  Their people must be free to become creative, productive and innovative.  To unleash their human economic potential, you have to unleash their spirit to provide opportunities for people to succeed.

But when you are sitting on a pot of gold, especially black gold in today’s world, those realities go out the window.  And as oil prices remain high, those countries sitting on vast oil wealth are not only disconnected from the realities of world politics but also from the need to broaden their economies to spread wealth more evenly throughout their societies.

Iran is a fascinating case study.  With somewhere between 7% and 10% of the world’s oil reserves, depending on which study you believe, the country should be awash in cash as crude prices hover near $60 a barrel.  Yet recent studies, including one here (http://www.cfr.org/publication/12661/irans_dire_oil_straits.html?breadcrumb=%2F ) done by the Council on Foreign Relations, show the country is actually spending itself into the poor house.  The combined effect of a dilapidated energy infrastructure, combined with U.S. and international sanctions related to its nuclear program, is actually putting a bad pinch on the Iranian economy.  It’s as hard to imagine as Greenland importing ice cubes from Mexico, but Iran has actually become a net importer of energy.  With price subsidies on everything from gasoline to food in order to keep its own people happy, the country may literally be spending its oil wealth faster than it can produce it, even at today’s prices.  Some analysts even speculate that some of Ahmadinejad’s more belligerent policies, like his insistence on pursuing nuclear technology, may be designed to promote regional instability for no other reason than to keep oil prices high.  If Iran could be headed for an internal economic implosion, like the Soviet Union when confronted with its own economic failings in the 1980s, you have to wonder why we don’t just sit back and watch it happen rather than play into their hands by providing Iran’s leaders with a convenient scapegoat for their own failings with saber-rattling policies of our own.

There are really two major implications for American policy implicit in the First Law of Petropolitics.

First, to the extent that we can help lower world oil prices by lowering American demand, we are actually advancing the cause of freedom and democratization.  By reducing our own dependence on foreign oil supplies, we can actually make the world a safer place.

This won’t be as easy today as it was back in the Carter administration, when tougher CAF?standards and other conservation measures actually reduced American oil consumption by 16% over a three-year period with a minimum of pain and suffering.  First, we’ve already picked the low-hanging fruit.  Although we can still make dramatic reductions in our own energy demand, there will be costs and trade-offs in other sectors of our economy.  But to the extent that we can make the world safer and reduce our need for a far-flung military that currently has more than 2.5 million men and women under arms throughout the world, the costs may well be worth it.

Second, we aren’t the only energy hogs on the block anymore.  As China and other nations industrialize, they are demanding an increasing amount of oil.  China has been especially aggressive about forging economic ties to oil-producing countries in Africa, South America and, of course, the Middle East to quench its growing demand for fuel.  Friedman has elsewhere advocated the equivalent of a new Manhattan Project to harness the best brains throughout the industrial world in a crash program to develop new, alternative energy sources that will help us reduce the world demand for oil while cutting pollution.

The second major implication of Friedman’s law is that we need to engage more with the rest of the world, not less.  And that includes engaging our enemies and potential adversaries, not just our friends.  You and I part company here a little Keith.  You are absolutely right that allowing China into the WTO without corresponding concessions on their part for political freedom and human rights was a setback for those causes.  But I would argue that while we temporarily lost that battle, we are actually winning the war.  I think the evidence shows that the rapid modernization of the Middle Kingdom, especially evidenced by the entrepreneurial spirit that is rampant throughout the Chinese economy, is creating irresistible internal pressures for change.  What politics and diplomacy failed to accomplish, capitalism is doing very nicely.  As the Chinese people see the benefits of economic growth and engagement with the rest of the world, the pressures for more internal freedom and democracy are growing.  I predict that we will see capitalism eating out the rotten core of the decrepit Chinese communist political system within our lifetimes.  And I think similar outcomes are possible throughout the world as nations slowly realize that economic progress depends on freedom.

As far as Bahrain and what Friedman wrote[‡] - Bahrain[§] is expected to run out of oil. It is a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy, but of course better than the theocracy that surrounds it. “morality issues” are still on the platform of politics, Wikipedia states:

 The opening up of politics has seen big gains for both Shia and Sunni Islamists in elections, which has given them a parliamentary platform to pursue their policies. This has meant that what are termed “morality issues” have moved further up the political agenda with parties launching campaigns to impose bans on female mannequins displaying lingerie in shop windows, sorcery and the hanging of underwear on washing lines. Analysts of democratization in the Middle East cite the Islamists’ references to respect for human rights in their justification for these programmes as evidence that these groups can serve as a progressive force in the region.

But, as Ken points out, women’s rights have moved forward there, and for the first time in 2002, women voted. Thus far, however, women do not hold public office.

Ken also describes the economic situation, via Friedman, excerpts from Wikipedia give a background on the country of Bahrain:

In a region currently experiencing an unprecedented oil boom, Bahrain has the fastest growing economy in the Arab world, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia found in January 2006. Bahrain also has the freest economy in the Middle East according to the 2006 Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation /Wall Street Journal, and is twenty-fifth freest overall in the world. In Bahrain, petroleum production and processing account for about 60% of export receipts, 60% of government revenues, and 30% of GDP. Economic conditions have fluctuated with the changing fortunes of oil since 1985, for example, during and following the Persian Gulf crisis of 1990-1991. … A large share of exports consists of petroleum products made from imported crude. … Unemployment, especially among the young, and the depletion of both oil and underground water resources are major long-term economic problems.[**]

Unlike other nations of the Middle East, there is a well-defined middle-class because of the political and economic reforms. The middle class and upper class are cosmopolitan, not always dressing according to the custom of the region, and presently Bahrain’s youth favor the mainstream hip hop music of the West. The most detailed and updated facts concerning Bahrain can be found at The World Factbook published by the CIA and what I used while serving in the U.S. Army.

If Bahrain is running out of oil or as stated, already has – than how can the statistic of oil being 60% of Bahrain’s export receipts?[††] The Bahrain government has wisely diversified and privatized its economy to reduce the country’s independence on oil – not just because it is “running out of oil” but because they are shrewd knowing that diversification is best, especially when the oil market fluctuates so often.  I can see the view of Ken and Friedman on this respect, but one must realize the tiny country has more limited real estate, unlike Saudi Arabia. This is a key factor in their diversification program because they know that oil production may decrease, as well as the market is expected to change in the future.

As far as Russia, the “rich with oil wealth” scenario doesn’t face up to facts. If Russia is doing so well in oil production, why are they selling – against international sanctions that they have agreed to – illegal weaponry and associated products under the table?  It is mainly because of Putin’s yearning for the “good old days” in communist Russia, formerly known as the Soviet Union. Putin, despite his outward display, is working towards moving back to communism; and that communism, of course, would be different than what was practiced during the days of the Soviet Union.

Ken is right – free trade will change things, even in China – but it doesn’t mean we should trust them any farther than the present leadership in Russia. The point I was making in the “Red Rising” article was that China should have been forced to comply with the United Nations professed concerns of human rights before giving China carte de blanche in respect to world trade and the fact that the Chinese intend to "flood " the market - they have not lost their desire to dominate the world. When I say "they" I am referring to the leadership and political infrastructure of China. Once we had the same concerns about Japan (except not in a peace-threatening scenario). If China's goals are so noble, why are they trying, with Russia at its side, to  increase their military (even in space) in a threatening manner - not as America that is preoccupied with defense measures? Red China has been and still is militarily aggressive.

The wealth acquired from crude oil in the Middle East has done little to help the common folk there. They are acquiring the wealth, but it is limited to only the elite of the nation, and despite the ability to change it, their social life is still medieval in respects – because of the leaning towards theocracy.

If Iran is spending itself into the poor house – it is because they are making the mistake the Soviet Union did – it is militaristic and spending it on means to comply with their publicly announced intentions in the world of foreign affairs. They are also, as Ken points out, being stifled because of sanctions due to their behavior in world affairs, their insistence that Israel be obliterated, and its theocratic stance concerning Western and free nations.

Ken states:

If Iran could be headed for an internal economic implosion, like the Soviet Union when confronted with its own economic failings in the 1980s, you have to wonder why we don’t sit back and watch it happen rather than play into their hands by providing Iran’s leaders with a convenient scapegoat for their own failings with saber-rattling policies of our own.

Saber rattling – Iran and North Korea are good at this, more so than even China. Americans do not realize how, back in the early 1990s how close we came to confrontation with North Korea. In a now unclassified subject, Operation Silver Bullet was real, and messages came into our headquarters that were emphasized as not being a “scenario training mission” – information that I knew then, but could not discuss because of signing a military document that stated that nothing from that operation or pertaining to it could be discussed by any means seven years from the year of discharge from military service in 1994. At the time I held a Top Secret/Atomal clearance. And while the situation was defused, it is not wise to ignore “saber-rattling.” And, accusing the US of “saber rattling” is not correct – the policies of Ronald Reagan have proven this. His stance of “peace through strength” is appropriate – not the liberal-progressive way that has been set in recent times that began during the Vietnam conflict period. Harry Truman was a Democrat, yet he used common sense when it came to this topic. He saw that by participating in “police actions” or small wars entitled “conflicts” – it prevented escalation into a world war. Unfortunately, the Western nations failed to see the indications of danger when it came to the era of terrorism, and when they did not nip the problem while organized terrorism was a fledgling process, it resulted into what it has become today. Terrorists were treated as a criminal entity, rather for what they were – organized and yet without any specific nation. The main problem with dealing with terrorism or fighting against it, as what is happening in Iraq is because it is something America has not dealt with in such a large scale before. We are fighting an enemy with no specific nation, non-uniformed armies, and people who will willingly sacrifice themselves to kill as many as they can in the process – whether military or civilian. Unfortunately, after all that has gone on since September 11^th, 2001, there are still too many of those who just do not get it.

I have been an advocate for American independence when it comes to crude oil, as Ken states … so why do the people who agree keep voting for those who have put a monkey wrench in the goal to become self sufficient? It was the Democrats who put a stop to the Alaska