'76 Blog

The President has failed on national security and can't credibly campaign as a tough guy, says John Andrews in the May round of Head On TV debates. Just the opposite, replies Susan Barnes-Gelt: in eliminating bin Laden and removing Qadhafi, Obama has proved the strongest commander-in-chief since FDR. John on the right, Susan on the left, also go at it this month over Romney's chances, Denver's budget woes, and how to help the homeless. Head On has been a daily feature on Colorado Public Television since 1997 and presentation of Centennial Institute since 2009. Here are all Four scripts for May: 1. SHERIFF OBAMA? NOT SO MUCH John: Obama was deservedly condemned by left and right after he crudely politicized the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death.  This president has failed on national security. His swagger is unconvincing as well as tasteless.  He has dangerously slashed our defenses. He has been weak against Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Susan:   President Obama has consistently performed on National Security. In four years, Obama has foiled several attacks on the US, killed the 9/11 master-mind – Bin Laden - and dozens of key operatives, eliminated Quadafi and begun an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. He’s the toughest commander-in-chief since FDR. John: I got the talking points.  Now let’s be real.  FDR knew who the main enemy was, mobilized massively and gained victory over the Axis. Reagan knew his main enemy, rearmed, and won the Cold War.  Obama seeks to disarm.  He doesn’t want victory. He’s clueless about our enemy in Iran. Susan:  I sincerely hope Willard and the Wing-nuts make the President’s foreign policy the centerpiece of their campaign.  Doing so serves a dual purpose: reengages lefty libs who worry Obama’s caved to the generals and proves beyond reasonable doubt that Romney desperate and hopelessly out of touch. 2. ROMNEY GAINING BY THE DAY John: Challenger Mitt Romney has the White House worried, and with reason.  The former governor has economic savvy and leadership that the former professor can’t match. GOP rivals are closing ranks with Romney, while key Democratic voting blocs are underwhelmed with Obama.  November will be close, but the incumbent’s in trouble. Susan:  Which Romney?  Anti-auto bailout Romney, now taking credit for US auto rebound?  Innovative Gov. Romney author of the first public healthcare program?  Entrepreneur Romney who made a fortune in the US, but has untold investments abroad?  Conservative Romney? Moderate Mitt?  Liberal Willard?  Who is that masked man? John: Cute, Susan.  Sort of Jon Stewart in a skirt.  But the problem for you Democrats is that it’s very hard to win an election like this one, where the incumbent seeks a second term amid economic distress and looming war clouds.  It’s a referendum on Obama, and Romney is gaining by the day. Susan:  It’s a long, long while from May to November – which is good for Romney who’d better figure out who he is, what he stands for and why.  Obama continues to face challenging times: a lackluster recovery, uncertainty abroad and the public’s disgust with politics.  But . . .you can’t beat something with nothing. 3. SHOULD DENVER RAISE TAXES? Susan:  Denver Mayor Michael Hancock must address structural problems in Denver’s operating budget.  Fixed expenses – largely personnel driven – are increasing faster than revenues.  He should standardize employee health care and pension formulas before raising taxes.  He must chose between pleasing and making long-term decisions. John: Susan, we’re meeting minds again.  It worries me. Running leaner on public employee pay and benefits is the right answer, even though unions will push back. Raising taxes will only make Denver a less desirable place to live and do business.  It’s the wrong answer.  Can I hold you to that? Susan:  Absolutely NOT!  Denver’s taxes are among the lowest in the region.  Efficient government and capital investments are necessary to maintain and enhance the City Denverites have built through generations. But before raising taxes and fees, the mayor must focus on more than re-election, and set measurable outcomes and priorities.  John: America is drowning in taxes, spending, regulation, entitlements, debt, unfunded pension obligations, yada yada yada, next stop Greece.  Denver’s on that train. If Hancock and the council are smart, they’ll get off the train and make the city a magnet for economic growth. Step one: No new taxes.     4.  TOUGH LOVE FOR STREET PEOPLE Susan:  Denver’s Mayor approved a tough anti-loitering ordinance - aimed at controlling the explosion of homeless, occupiers and summertime drifters overtaking downtown, Civic Center and the river.  Though well-intended, it should have been thoroughly analyzed prior to being jammed through the City Council. John:  Sometimes common sense overtakes political correctness, even with a bunch of liberals like this mayor and council, and you just want to cheer.  I’m still pinching myself that Hancock would lead the way and do this.  Denver has shelters and compassionate programs aplenty.  Enough with the street camping. Susan:  That’s the problem.  Good for Hancock for making a tough call.  However Denver doesn’t have the shelters, outreach workers, police resources or partnerships to mitigate this growing dilemma.  Time will tell if the city is able to meet the expectations of compassion and control this bold ordinance promises. John: Step one is to think about it differently.  Street people used to be called vagrants, emphasizing their chosen behavior.  Political correctness now calls them homeless, emphasizing victimhood.  Some are victims, but many chose the streets.  Denver now offers one less incentive for that dead end.  The camping ban is tough love.

 Poor Bubba.  Not only is he exposed as Obama’s messenger boy in the sleazy Sestak affair, but now friends report he is absolutely livid over the devastating portrayal of him in the new HBO drama “The Special Relationship” in which Dennis Quaid’s spot on Clinton tries hiding behind every international institution- U.N., NATO, EU – to avoid a decision on the Kosovo genocide until he is shamed into action by a decisive and principled Tony Blair.  This fact based revelation of Clinton’s proclivity for appeasing dictators- in this case the murderous Serbian Milosovic- eerily parallels Jimmy Carter’s contemplated sell-out of West German and South Korean freedom in response to rampant Soviet aggressiveness until a leaked White House document (Presidential Review Memorandum-10) caused a Congressional uproar that sent Peanut Man ducking for cover.  Clinton and Carter however were minor leaguers compared to their ideological descendent Barack Obama who has taken appeasement to unimagined new heights.  Just a glance at current headlines suggests just how much damage this multitasking appeaser can do in a very short time.  Iran – Americans were incredulous when Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad arrogantly announced he would no longer discuss his nuclear program until the United States agreed to discuss giving up its own nuclear weapons.  Now just a few months later the United States voted with Iran to hold a United Nations conference on a “Nuclear Free Middle East”.  The wording of the resolution however makes clear that the real problem is not Iran getting nuclear weapons but Israel having them.  Korea – When a North Korean submarine sent forty-six South Korean sailors to a watery grave the United States promptly demanded that “something be done” – by someone else.  Hillary Clinton spoke ominously of a “possible U.N. resolution” and swiftly high tailed it to Beijing to petition the Chinese for help.  China as is their recent habit simply said “No” and declared that things should be resolved by the two Koreas “without outside interference”.  Happy to cede this wobbly stage to Hillary, Obama much preferred acting tough with British Petroleum than with North Korea’s lunatic dictator Kim Jong-Il.  Mexico – Just so we won’t think Obama only apologizes for the U.S. when abroad, he stood beside visiting Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the White House and decried Arizona’s “misguided” illegal alien control law.  To add insult to injury Calderon the next day had the temerity to stand before a joint session of the U.S. Congress and add his own denunciation of Arizona while omitting to mention Mexico’s far more draconian treatment of illegal aliens.  For this shocking breach of diplomatic protocol Calderon received a standing ovation from Democratic lawmakers.  To round out the picture that same week Assistant Secretary of State Richard Posner- former head of an Open Borders advocacy group- told visiting Chinese officials that “abuses” like the Arizona law demonstrated that China wasn’t the only country guilty of human rights violations.  Syria – Touting the virtues of “engagement” with this charter member of the “Axis of Evil” Obama appointed a U.S, Ambassador to Damascus for the first time in five years at the very same time Syrian dictator Bashar Assad was busy shipping advanced rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv to the Lebanese terrorists of Hezbollah.  Israel – As if the above item wasn’t enough to justify Israeli citizens booing Rahm Emanual in Jerusalem just days later when a Hamas affiliate in a purposeful provocation attempted to run Israel’s blockade of Gaza Obama promptly expressed his “regrets” and joined the usual leftist suspects at the U.N. in calling for an investigation.  What’s next- a joint Obama-Chavez family vacation on Martha’s Vineyard?  What will it take to make the mainstream media see that for Obama and the Democrats “engagement” is simply a synonym for “appeasement”?  Is it not obvious that this serial apologizing and appeasing has gained us absolutely nothing by way of gratitude or cooperation, but has instead earned us what such weakness has always merited: contempt and ever bolder provocations?  Americans, however, should not view this sorry record as random blundering, or simple incompetence.  What we are seeing is a consistent, carefully thought out realization of a long held Progressive/Liberal vision of the way the world ought to be: All global problems- legal, political, or military- should be handled in a collectivist manner by the long yearned for World Government. Liberals have long understood that reasons of short term political safety precluded openly advocating this vision, but any objective analysis of the historical and intellectual underpinnings of the Progressive Movement show that such is their goal.  In keeping with this vision, Progressives have always given the highest priority to the “transformation” ( a favorite Obama word) of American society as a necessary precondition for the New World Order.  The United States historically as a sovereign independent country pursuing its own national interests is seen as a Bad Thing – spawn of war, racism, imperialism etc- and a major obstacle to the evolution of the Better World to Come.  Thus appeasement abroad is no more an aberration than the entire Obama domestic program of fast-tracking America toward dramatically expanded government, ever shrinking private sector, wealth redistribution, and the conversion of the population from freedom loving entrepreneurial individuals into a collectivist mass of dependents.  Recall those words of long ago: “None So Blind as Those Who Will Not See." William Moloney is a Centennial Institute Fellow and former Colorado Education Commissioner (1997-2007).  Hiss columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Human Events.    

I recently got an email from a university professor in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova.  He was my colleague, when I was a visiting Fulbright professor to his country five years ago, and he visited CCU in 1998, debating me publically on whether Vladimir Putin was responsible for the decline in personal freedom in Russia and a threat to the United States.  So the other day he wrote me to ask, “How is the current US President viewed in Colorado, specifically knowing your state's political view.  You know I was always interested in U.S. politics, elections.”  Since my friend is a leading expert in his country on western politics and often serves as an advisor to his government, I felt compelled to respond: Dear Vitalie: America was born in a tax revolt.  A European king was trying to squeeze as much money as possible from his subjects to fund his global agenda.  Those very settlers had already fled Europe to avoid tyrannical government.  Their dream, what we know call “The American Dream” was to create a better life for themselves and their family, to build their own wealth, which would not be siphoned off by a government claiming to represent their interests. When they finally began to organize their own government, they made sure there were certain safeguards built in their explicit written constitution to insure their freedom. They wanted:1) Free Markets, not manipulated by government bureaucrats, who would claim to speak for the masses but actually look out for their own corrupt special interests.  In a free market everybody gets a voice. Every time one spends a dollar, it is a vote for more of that product to be produced. They spent that dollar because they felt they got the best product at the most reasonable price.  If the government had set that price, it would have been a bureaucrat not the people who affected the economy. As in any command economy, bureaucrats look out for their own interests, which results in a corrupt system where those who know the bureaucrat get the product.  When I lived in your country, I was amazed at the level of corruption within the government.  Free markets empower the people.  Governments subjugate the people.  For that reason America’s founders also wanted: 2) Limited Government.  If governments made decisions for individuals, those decisions would benefit bureaucrats, not the people.  Who knows what is best for you and your family, a government official or you?  Who cares most for you and your family, a government official or you?  Statist political experiments from both right and left have been tried around the world and have failed. They have only brought massive violence, death and poverty.Most Americans I know prefer the ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith, to those of Karl Marx and Mao Tse-tung.  Locke and Smith wanted personal political and economic freedom, and produced untold prosperity.  Marx and Mao wanted to control the masses, and brought untold suffering to hundreds of millions.  Many here in Colorado with whom I have spoken fear that Obama will not bring the hope many expect, but instead bring another failed experiment in social planning and human deprivation.  Respectfully, William Watson

(Centennial Fellow) WASHINGTON, JAN. 17 - When judgment is rendered on the success or failure of U.S. foreign policy in 2010 the verdict will depend more than anything on the outcome of our confrontation with Iran. The threat to U.S. global interests from Iran is immense, but so too is the opportunity for a historic and transformational advancement of those interests.  Converging circumstances in both Washington and Teheran strongly suggest that a decisive turning point is at hand. The sudden leap of Yemen onto the front pages of U.S. newspapers has underlined how far reaching are the dangers Iran poses for the United States and its allies.  Both the Bush and Obama administrations chose to narrow the focus on Iran to that country’s nuclear ambitions correctly seeing that issue as the most critical and most likely to rally international support.  The fact that Iran by supplying sophisticated weaponry to its proxies in both Iraq and Afghanistan is killing American soldiers has been downplayed by both administrations.  The fact that murderous violence aimed at Israel and the United States in Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, and Yemen has been powerfully fueled by Teheran’s money and fanatical ideology has similarly been acknowledged but in a very low key. Both Bush and Obama repeatedly denounced the wickedness of al-Qaeda but failed to connect the dots regarding the obvious implications of the religious zealotry and violent strategies that are common to Bin-Laden and the Iranian mullahs e.g. pathological hatred of Israel, predilection for blowing people up, and determination to take the battle to the heartland of the Great Satan America. Bush’s Iran strategy was to isolate and not talk to them.  Obama reversed field and opted for engagement.  Both approaches utterly failed to modify Iranian objectives; Teheran’s response to both isolation and engagement has been a mix of arrogance, insult, and continued bad behavior culminating most recently in Ahmadinejad’s bombastic demand that Israel and America give up their own nuclear weapons as a precondition for any Iranian response. Obama’s oft declared end of year deadline for positive Iranian response has come and gone.  He now must be prepared to implement those “serious consequences” he has long spoken of.  This will not be easy, particularly in light of China’s recent declared intention of using its veto to block sanctions in the United Nations Security Council. Given the U.N’s almost limitless capacity for procrastination Obama’s best hope for support lies with the European Union, but despite encouraging rhetoric from Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy, action from that multi-lateral body is far from certain. In the end Obama must consider an approach he has long decried: unilateral United States action. So, amidst these growing threats, where is the grand opportunity? It principally lies in the very realistic chance of achieving “regime change” in Iran by boldly siding with the growing opposition in that country.  Once they merely sought honest elections.  Now clearly their goal is the overthrow of the dictatorship.  The Iranian people- now chanting in street demonstrations “Obama, are you with us or them?” – are the most educated and sophisticated populace between Israel and India and as they showed in 1979 they have the capacity to bring down an intolerable regime. In his Nobel Address President Obama eloquently stated some realities that much of the world sometimes forgets.  He said that evil exists, and that peaceful means would not have stopped Hitler and will not stop al- Qaeda.  He reminded his audience that American power had for half a century been the principal guarantor of their freedom, and while collective security is always preferred, sometimes one nation i.e. the United Stated must act alone. Many saw President Obama’s speech as a justification of his Afghan escalation, but he was also laying down a marker for Iran and clearly signaling that he was ready for a major course correction is his own approach to world affairs. Absent a pathologically hostile regime in Iran, U.S. foreign policy challenges from Pakistan to Israel dramatically shift in our favor, the entire Middle East is transformed, and U.S. global influence, and the cause of freedom  reaches a pinnacle unmatched since the Second World War. Heady stuff.  Not easy, not certain, but once again History offers America an opportunity to be the great catalyst for human progress. Centennial Fellow Bill Moloney was Colorado Education Commissioner, 1997-2007.  His columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post.  

(CCU Student) Since Barack Obama has entered office, the emotional state of the country has shifted from a polarized sense of hope to constant unease and skepticism.  To understand how and why this has occurred, it’s first and foremost a necessity to learn about where Barack himself has obtained such principles and agendas that shadow his seemingly slick modus operandi.  In particular, a closer look at the notable radical and social organizer named Saul Alinsky will reveal a much darker, yet detailed picture. Alinsky’s creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer whom he so unreservedly called the ‘first radical’.  As David Horowitz puts it in a pamphlet summarizing the Alinsky-Obama connection, Saul Alinsky was an avatar of the post-modern left.  His weapon, deception; his goal, destroy the American system of government, by any and all means.  Like Obama, Alinsky gathered his followers with the catchy “social change” adage, which more intimately reveals itself more as a blueprint for utter chaos rather than a progressive ideal.  In a nutshell, his proposal was to make ‘revolution’ the ultimate and final mark on the history and end of American democracy as we know it, this being devised from his devil-worship schemes, power-hungry radicalism, and deceptive tongue to lure the naïve. So what does this radical-frenzied organizer of the 1960s have to do with the current American standing and threat to the survival of democracy?  Referring back to the beginning, Barack Obama is one of Alinsky’s most prominent followers and admirers, never knowing him personally, but becoming an adept practitioner of his methods.  Knowing this, Americans have a due right to worry and question the leadership and direction of our country.  With this in mind, it’s also a solid reminder that we should never cease to pray for our leaders.  The Bible tells us both “to be vigilant, for the devils walks about like a roaring lion seeking to devour us,” (1 Peter 5:8) and to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17).  The disciples of Alinsky can and will be countered by speaking the truth, defending democracy, and relentless prayer and hope. Editor's Note: For a free copy of the David Horowitz pamphlet mentioned above, "Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution," email us at Centennial@ccu.edu with your name and postal address.

('76 Contributor) During a recent “Meet the Press” the host, with feigned indignation, asked a Senator, “You’re not calling the President a Socialist, are you?” Without waiting for a response, he repeated the question for emphasis. This performance highlights the hijacking of political semantics. “Socialist” was replaced by “Liberal” which, in turn, became a pejorative, and now “Progressive” is preferred, and used in titles of dozens of political and welfare advocacy groups.  Constantly morphing ideas and permutations of definitions make it hard to compartmentalize politicians. An accepted basic view is that Socialism advocates state or collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. That essential hallmark of freedom, private ownership of property, is prohibited. Note how the current abuses of eminent domain stretch the traditional definitions of public use. Marx called Socialism a transition between capitalism and Communism. As any high school sophomore should be able to recite from Marx’s Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei, “To each according to his needs; from each according to his ability.” An advocate of these ideas is indeed a Socialist. To quote National Socialist German Workers’ Party leader, Adolph Hitler, “The needs of society come before the individual’s needs.” Before labeling Obama and his inventory of actions, we must also note the academic definition of Communism. “All economic activity is controlled by the state, dominated by a single political party.” Further: “A system based on holding all property in common, with actual ownership by the state.” Differences between the categories, reduced to simplest form: Socialism actually takes ownership while Communism totally controls enterprise, which ostensibly could remain private. This administration’s actions overlap both, with the common goal of doing away with Capitalism. Degrees of success are temporarily limited by public resistance. Constitutional protections are rejected as archaic annoyances. Obama, equipped with glibness and arrogance, was dismissed as a buffoon by serious economists. His experience was largely limited to preaching Alinsky to ACORN volunteers. Without apologies, he surrounded himself with cabinet and advisor appointees, and a cadre of czars with no accountability, most of whom have serious ethical, legal and moral taints. The czars have no Congressional approval. Uniformly visible in that group is the disturbing tendency to demonize the concepts of private property ownership and free markets. The last 18 presidents averaged 46% of their advisers from the private sector. Obama has 8%. As perennial presidential candidate Norman Thomas, and others, famously said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Fabianism (strategy of establishing Socialism by gradual means), used with patience by subversive movements world-wide, is not in vogue with this administration. To some degree or another, the administration has addressed all the elements of the Socialist or Communist state, with varying degrees and a common thread of shrinking Capitalism with alarming speed. The advice of Obama mouthpiece Rahm Emanuel is, “Never miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis.” Tactics of Chicago-style patronage, populism and corruption, unabashedly taken to the national level, have caught many flat-footed. To correct what he blames his predecessor for, “long years of drift,” Obama is moving to control major industries in Communist fashion. What better start than the showpiece of American industry for a century, automobile manufacture?  The President has no desire to own the auto companies, merely to control them. Perhaps he has read of the disastrous Soviet attempts at controlling manufacture with bureaucrats making all decisions. Obama wants control while allowing experienced management to take care of the details. Bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler certainly were never meant to be loans, but rather a grab of equity. The action instantly took 78.3% of General Motors by the government, followed by a gift of 17.5% to the auto workers union. Bond value was whittled down to maybe 10% of GM equity. Investors without rational recognition of Communist control strategy held out hope for a rebound. A sidebar of the auto industry takeover was the “Cash for Clunkers” fiasco which, at taxpayer expense, amounted to a marginal cost per car of $24,000. It had an effect of about 32 thousandths-of-one-percent CO2 reduction. It stimulated car purchases at the expense of future business a few months down the road. For example, by the end the year, Colorado new car registrations were 29.8% less than last year.  

(Centennial Fellow) In my article on "Afghanistan: The Untold Story" back in May, I noted President Obama’s oft-stated assertion that Afghanistan was the “right war”, the one we “had to win” and commended his decision to send an additional 17,000 troops.  I concluded optimistically saying that “In continuing along this necessary road of many difficult steps he deserves our strongest support”. In October with General McChrystal's call for 40,000 troops still stuck in the White House “In-Box”, public sniping at the general, the eruption of the Democrat’s left wing, the emergence of the “Biden Alternative”, endless meetings, spreading confusion, and “dithering” to the  nth power, I perceived a Viet Nam obsessed Democratic Party consumed by fear that once again an unpopular foreign war would doom their precious domestic agenda.  Accordingly I wrote (“Escaping Afghanistan: Democrats Hunt for Excuses”) that “Obama –true to form- will try to have it both way, splitting the difference between his military and political advisors” and thereby- like Lyndon Johnson before him – “ spawn a series of self-defeating half measures that will bring disaster upon himself, his party, and his country”.  Last week at West Point the President began that baleful journey of contradictions. Telling us that the 30,000 troops he was sending who wouldn’t be fully deployed for six months would start leaving twelve months after that was literally unbelievable and made a mockery of his assertion that the stakes in Afghanistan were of worldwide importance.  The near universal incredulity that greeted these remarks led to the subsequent parade of “clarifiers” –Gates, Clinton, McCrystal, Eikenberry etc- whose message was effectively “Obama didn’t mean what he said”. All of this created suspicion, uncertainty, and confusion in Europe, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States.  To our enemies it is yet further evidence that with a little  patience, and pressure this guy Obama can be had without serious risk to themselves. What is clear is that the Democratic Party badly-very badly- wants to be out of Afghanistan ASAP but doesn’t know how to say it or do it without committing political suicide.  Therefore they say and do things they don’t believe in, and hope their bad faith will go unnoticed. In the inner councils that led to all of this Obama’s heart was with his little known but long trusted political advisors Axlerod and Emanuel but his head told him he dare not face down his well known but little trusted senior Cabinet members Gates and Clinton who vigorously supported the analysis and requests of  Patraeus and McChrystal.  Reliable reportage portrays Obama as frustrated, unhappy with all presented options, furious over pressure building “leaks”, and feeling very trapped.  This goes far to explain the repeatedly postponed decision masquerading as “due diligence”. At the heart of all this confusion are two blatantly absurd and arrogant policy conceptions: 1.  Afghanistan is a deeply flawed and corrupt democracy unworthy of continued American support. While rampant government corruption and dicey elections are the exception in the U.S.A., they are the rule throughout most of Africa and Asia.  American troops are in Afghanistan for the same reason they turned up in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and other places – not to promote democracy or nation building, but rather to defend America’s vital national interests.  Throughout our history we have been quite properly willing to associate with some pretty unsavory characters (e.g. Joe Stalin) whenever doing so advanced those interests. 2.  If the Afghans and the Pakistanis don’t “step up” and more vigorously attack the enemy they are unworthy of continued American support. These two countries have had far more of their soldiers and policemen killed than has the U.S., not to mention the thousands of their civilians who have been blown up.  Whatever their political, religious, and historical imperfections it is repulsive to suggest that these people have no “skin in the game”.  Every one of their officials who publicly associates with Americans knows he has an excellent chance of having his head cut off soon after the U.S. heads for the exits.  That’s commitment. The United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are in partnership because it is in their current national interest.  Throughout History this is the stuff of which alliances are made.  This is called reality.  Unfortunately the present American regime is devoted to agendas quite apart from this reality.  This disconnect poses the gravest danger to our national security. William Moloney is a Centennial Institute Fellow and former Colorado Education Commissioner. His columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore sun, Rocky Mountain News, and the Denver Post.