A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders, Rasmussen Reports, 6/20/10

When activists (who are not necessarily students) were able to delay construction of a UC Berkeley sports center by living in trees for 21 months, there was no review of what went wrong.

When protesters with torches vandalized UC Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s home, there was no review. But when UC police arrested 46 people demonstrating against higher-education cuts by occupying Wheeler Hall on Nov. 20, there were complaints that police overreacted. And so — with authorities, not anarchists in the sights — a review was born.

Last week, UC Berkeley released the 128-page report. In academic fashion, it notes two forces that converted “an animated but essentially non-violent protest into a raw power struggle between demonstrators and police” — without overtly taking sides.

There were officers, who in a “series of over-reactions by insufficiently supervised police” at moments overreacted, intensifying fears among students. Then there were demonstrators, mostly “young, sincere, and emotionally mobile” students, but also “a smaller group” that “set out to instigate confrontations with police” and provoke them “into high-visibility over-reactions that could be used to inflame the crowd and escalate its aggressiveness.”

The review served a useful purpose in that it details the need for campus police to prepare for the worst and, when it occurs, to communicate with demonstrators and other law enforcement personnel who come to their aid.

There are also some heroes in the review, like Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard, who took the initiative to advise Wheeler Hall occupiers via megaphone that if they wanted to leave peacefully, they should sit down before the police came in. “As it turned out,” the report notes, “all the occupiers followed this wise advice.”

Two aspects of the report stand out for me.

First, there’s this dubious theory on the use of riot gear by officers from UC and other departments called to aid the scene: “If the police had not worn riot gear, there never would have been a need for it.”

While the review purports not to take a side on this theory, the review board continues, “We wonder whether it was wise to have some of the mutual aid squads try to move through the crowd in rigid, formal, militaristic formation.”

I object.

For nearly two years, UC delivered energy bars and water to trespassing tree sitters lest activists get hungry or thirsty and fall from a tree. Do not tell me that the university is supposed to take every precaution coddling activists breaking the law, then risk the safety of men and women dispatched to ensure the peace in dangerous hot spots.

Which leads to the other issue — that student protest is practically a major at Berkeley. UC police arrested a professor for cutting the crime scene tape outside Wheeler Hall. Some students told the review board that they ended up at the Nov. 20 protest simply because they wanted to be part of “the Berkeley experience.”

Unfortunately, this means, the review notes, “many students reportedly do not understand that disobedience of campus rules (even quite ‘civil’ disobedience) can affect their academic standing, that it can jeopardize their ability to continue their education here, permanently mar their record, perhaps even prevent them from receiving a degree whose other requirements have been satisfied.

“Moreover, the rules as written are not enforced consistently.”

Not enforced consistently? Hey, it’s news to learn that the rules are enforced at all. University spokesman Dan Mogulof told me that the Center for Student Conduct adjudicates these cases, but the majority of Nov. 20 “cases are still unresolved.”

Please observe: The academic year is over.

What is the penalty for occupying a building? Associated Students President Noah Stern told me, “It is not clear what the penalties are for a violation.” He added that due-process options slow down the system.

Student advocate Kelly Fabian explained in an e-mail that punishment for student violations could range from a “warning with community service to suspensions of varying lengths.” Alas, that doesn’t tell students much. If there is punishment, it is veiled.

I want to make this clear: I support all students’ rights to protest and exercise their First Amendment rights. But students and activists do not have the right to take over an institution that is supposed to be dedicated not to protest, but to higher learning.

If students want to engage in civil disobedience that trespasses on the university’s vital education function, they should be ready to pay a penalty — like cleaning bathrooms for an afternoon. They’re adults. They should know this. Yet the occupiers of Wheeler Hall included a general amnesty for civil disobedience as one of their “demands.” They must think they have a right to dodge consequences.

Mogulof noted that the school wants to “communicate early and often with students about the time, place and manner rules that govern protest demonstrations and expression, to explain the consequences of violating those rules.”

He’s right, but there is a rub: If there are no consequences or no consequences within a meaningful timeframe, there’s not much to explain, is there?

http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/5453

Even the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) has now objected to the Democrat Party, suing the Democrats and its leadership for “stealing” their party platform and relabeling it as “progressive”.
According to political hotwire and many other sources, CPUSA claims that the entire so-called “new” Democratic agenda is, in fact, the product of a decades-long, painstaking campaign by CPUSA theorists, agitators, and underground subversive cells – which makes it the intellectual property of the Communist Party USA, protected by American copyright laws. “They stole our entire platform, rebranded it ‘progressive’, and claimed it as their own,” declared a CPUSA spokesperson at a press conference in San Francisco. “And we communists say, not so fast! Not in this country anyway, where we still have property rights and the rule of law, thank God! Actually, let me rephrase that…”, which was a comment to undermine God as both the Democrats and Communists have done. The Communist Party representative further explained that government ownership of the auto and financial industries, redistribution of wealth, and free rationed health care have always been among the glorious CPUSA objectives: “We held on to these goals through all the difficult years of factional infighting, purges, denunciations, and heroic espionage on behalf of the Soviet intelligence services.”

According to the article, CPUSA lawyers presented documents to the press showing that the Democratic platform of 2010, almost line-for-line, reiterates the CPUSA platform of 1963. In other words, the Democrats of today are the Communists of yesterday. I recently laid this all out in a commentary called the “Democrat-Communist Manifesto. The socialist takeover of our government is starting to show its vulnerability to reality. We elected Barack Obama as president without looking into his past. The socialist in control of the executive and legislative branches of government have grabbed more government control on the people. Now their push is for control of the courts as Obama appoints judges that carry out his Communist agenda. He has nominated Elena Kagen to become the next lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court, even though she has never served one day as a judge. She is a lesbian, who, as Dean of Harvard Law School, forced military recruiters off campus due to her distaste of the “Don’t ask. Don’t tell” policy of the military. She also once wrote, “Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.” While the socialist and communist in America try to re-label what they are really doing, they work unified to the same goal – removing capitalism and God and replacing it with control by the government.

Frank Aquila
Manteca
President of the
South San Joaquin Republicans
mantecarepublicans@yahoo.com

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/14388/

Make Mine Freedom (1948)

Perhaps after the shock of the amazing CGI wore off, you stopped and asked yourself, “what exactly was that poorly acted farce all about, anyway”? Yes, the production values are amazing, but not quite as amazing the propaganda value. Don’t let the expensive special effects fool you: a turd in 500 million dollar wrapper is still a turd. Here is everything you need to know about the movie in about 500 words.

The United States is Evil:  that’s right; apparently we’ve done it again. The main antagonist of this gaudy travesty is “The Company”, a familiar allegory for irrational greed that has become the straw man argument for all capitalist ventures. However, The Company is not simply a cautionary tale warning of humanities’ recklessness;  after all its not the “Earth Corps” that act as the Storm Troopers in this cartoonishly evil plot, it’s the US Marines. What could have been an interesting space opera was instead cast into a clumsily disguised jab at the United States involvement in Iraq. Perhaps if the Na’vi Chieftain was a bearded dictator that was hell bent on sentencing his own people to rape rooms, we could start to draw a parallel. Instead it reads like a chapter out of Das Capital. After all, why would a capitalist society be motivated to do anything other than steal the material wealth of others? Clearly the recent activities of the United States sending over the USMC to do relief work in places like Thailand and Haiti was merely sorted scheme to blow up all their trees and steal their Unobtainium.

Magic is the answer to all our problems: Why didn’t we think of that? Worse than the self righteous condemnation of our technological life style (After all, who needs industry when you can just use the USB cord growing out of your head to hotwire a Space Pterodactyl?) is the lack of any realistic alternative present. The Na’vi way of life is portrayed as morally superior to our own; we the audience are supposed to aspire to emulate them. However, they live in a contrived existence that is completely divorced from the human condition, born instead into an absurd ecosystem where magic and evolution have conspired to create a utopia where trees can return the dead to life.

You’re an Idiot: if you join the military. In the cynical world of James Cameron patriotism and other altruistic motivations for joining the service simply cannot exist. People only join the Service because they are too stupid to do anything else, and we are constantly reminded of this throughout the film. Make sure to remind your family members in the service that they are the half retarded pawns of corporate greed next time they come home.

Guns are evil: guns and the military in general are held with such contempt by the left that we actually see a bizarre sort of wish fulfillment born of ignorance and metaplot in which both the USMC and their weapons are outclassed by the natives. Apparently you can go up against heavily armored, death-dealing gunships with bows and arrows with sufficient amounts of handwavium, a material that is apparently more abundant in this film than certain other mineral deposits.

Character is overrated: especially if you’re the main character. Your country, your brothers in arms, and the planet are all counting on you. Hell, the survival of the human race is dependent on you to get the job done! On second thought, why don’t you just blow it all off for an alien booty call?

C’mon, we’ve all seen the movie by now. Why don’t you let us know at VAF what you think? Give me your best shot!

Targeting the Taliban
By Michael Fowler

The simplest and safest way to thwart an enemy’s ability to conduct war is to destroy their supply lines. This is an old and useful tactic from the time of King Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562) of Babylon. His armies would surround their hapless victims who had taken refuge in forts, cut off all supplies, including water and food, until famine weakened their army, and then attack. This is a brutal but effective military ploy. We have been in Afghanistan for eight years—and neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has effectively utilized this strategy.

The solution to winning the war in Afghanistan is to destroy the Taliban’s ability to make war, causing the decimation of the Taliban war machine. The Taliban’s supply lines are the poppy fields. Eliminating those fields as a source of income would strike a fatal blow to the Taliban.

The Taliban are mafia drug-lords wrapped in Middle-Eastern freedom-fighter apparel. They generate $100 to $150 million annually by imposing “taxes” on opium farmers.Selling and exporting opium raises $700 to $800 million annually for the Taliban. This allows for the purchase of arms for insurgency, terrorism and black-market tyranny. Worldwide, Afghan heroin fuels 93 percent of a $65 billion trade, far surpassing all of Mexico, Southeast Asia and South America combined. The United Nations estimates between 15 to 21 million people use this highly addictive drug. Afghan heroin alone kills over 100,000 people each year, outweighing the U.S. combat losses of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Grenada and Vietnam combined.

Our current policy of agricultural transformation allows the cultivation of opium poppies until economic incentives prompt farmers to take up other crops such as pomegranates and grapes. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2009 Annual Report, opium production has doubled under U.S. occupation and is so bountiful that the Taliban has reportedly stored 12,000 tons of opium, which can supply the entire world for three years. We need a new plan.

If the poppy fields in Afghanistan were eradicated, this would annihilate the Taliban’s primary source of funding. This in turn would eliminate their ability to corrupt the Karzi government, buy arms, cause terror, protect al-Qaeda and buy foreign influence. It is the single, clearest solution and would end the havoc in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan while devastating world heroin trafficking in a matter of weeks. This is a win-win strategy.

Proponents against the eradication of Afghanistan’s poppy fields argue that world demand will only increase production in other areas, making poppy destruction a useless endeavor. “If Afghanistan were suddenly wiped out as a producer of opium—by bad weather or a blight or eradication efforts—other parts of the world would simply emerge as new producers,” said Founding Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance Ethan Nadelmann. This assumption, while based on the law of supply and demand, ignores the difficulties associated with expanding any type of production from clearing and preparing new land and setting up irrigation. Moreover, counter-drug operations performed in the United States and elsewhere use crop eradication as a means. Focused on the drug factor alone, Mr. Nadelmann misses the larger point: Destroying Afghan’s poppy fields would bankrupt the Taliban, preventing them from resupplying arms and killing Americans.

Others believe increased Taliban recruitment is the primary objection to field destruction. U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates are both on record saying that destroying the poppy fields would strengthen the Taliban and that every disenfranchised farmer would become a Taliban recruit. That may be the case with the devastation of one or two fields, but it will not be the case with total destruction of any and all poppy fields.

A counterargument to this is that when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan almost three decades ago, opium production increased in response to increased arms expenditures. This shows that the economic needs of the insurgent army drive production. Moreover, eight-years of permissiveness have allowed the Taliban to strengthen their forces to an all-time high. In fact, 2009 was the highest loss of life for U.S. and NATO forces. Permitting opium production did not eliminate or curb the Taliban. Another point is that when seasonal cultivation ends, the Taliban gains strengths as most of the opium farmers become fighters and take up arms after the harvest.

One of the fiercest arguments against the destruction of Afghanistan poppy fields is that if opium production is eliminated it will destroy the Afghanistan economy. First, no one makes that argument for Mexican drug-dealers or marijuana cultivators in California. Second, if the crops were removed the Taliban would collapse, Afghanistan would become safe and foreign investment money would flow into that country. More to the point, Afghan farmer’s gross revenues from opium is about $1 billion dollars according to 2007 U.N. estimates, while our 2007 U.S. Military operations cost taxpayers $35 billion. Therefore, the plan should be: burn the fields, crush the Taliban, send the boys home, send one billion in aid and save $34 billion a year.

The U.S. dominates the air in Afghanistan. Poppy fields grow in full sunlight, and forests do not obscure the poppy fields. Eradication efforts will not be hampered by a lack of discovery. Modern herbicides are quite safe and effective, as well as the use of tractors to plow the fields under. When the Afghan farmer is faced with the choice of taking U.S. assistance to grow legal crops or face total eradication of his crops and imprisonment, he will be far more motivated than he currently is to switch his crops.

In the past, the United States did not have the ability to eradicate those fields. Now, we are the occupier of Afghanistan and have the capacity and the duty to destroy this trade. Every poppy that grows empowers the Taliban with more artillery that will be used to kill American soldiers and Marines. No one has more power than Mr. Obama to dispatch the largest source of heroin export in the world. If he really wants get out of Afghanistan and cares about our troops, he must destroy those fields.

-Michael Fowler is the director of Veterans for Academic Freedom, a former Force Recon Marine, instructor of Christian apologetics, author and talk-radio host.

By Scott Swett