An interesting read...

So When did the Cuban Missile Crisis become Kennedy’s “Victory?”

Humberto Fontova / Townhall Columnist

 

That Khrushchev swept the floor with Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis was mainstream conservative conclusion throughout much of the Cold War. Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, for instance, represented opposite poles of the Republican establishment of their time.

"We locked Castro's communism into Latin America and threw away the key to its removal," growled Barry Goldwater about the JFK’s Missile Crisis “solution.”
"Kennedy pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory,” complained Richard Nixon. "Then gave the Soviets squatters rights in our backyard."

Generals Curtis Le May and Maxwell Taylor represented opposite poles of the military establishment.

"The biggest defeat in our nation's history!" bellowed Air Force chief Curtis Lemay while whacking his fist on his desk upon learning the details of the deal.

"We missed the big boat," complained Gen. Maxwell Taylor after learning of same.

"We've been had!" yelled then Navy chief George Anderson upon hearing on October 28, 1962, how JFK "solved" the missile crisis. Adm. Anderson was the man in charge of the very "blockade" against Cuba.

"It's a public relations fable that Khrushchev quailed before Kennedy," wrote Alexander Haig. "The legend of the eyeball to eyeball confrontation invented by Kennedy's men paid a handsome political dividend. But the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal was a deplorable error resulting in political havoc and human suffering through the America's."

William Buckley's National Review devoted several issues to exposing and denouncing Kennedy's appeasement. The magazine's popular "The Third World War" column by James Burnham roundly condemned Kennedy's Missile Crisis solution as "America's Defeat."

Even Democratic luminary Dean Acheson despaired: "This nation lacks leadership," he grumbled about the famous “Ex-Comm meetings” so glorified in the movie Thirteen Days. "The meetings were repetitive and without direction. Most members of Kennedy's team had no military or diplomatic experience whatsoever. The sessions were a waste of time."

But not for the Soviets. "We ended up getting exactly what we'd wanted all along," snickered Nikita Khrushchev in his diaries, “security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey and Italy. Until today the U.S. has complied with her promise not to interfere with Castro and not to allow anyone else to interfere with Castro. After Kennedy's death, his successor Lyndon Johnson assured us that he would keep the promise not to invade Cuba."

In fact Khrushchev prepared to yank the missiles before any “bullying” by Kennedy. “What!” Khrushchev gasped on Oct. 28th 1962, as recalled by his son Sergei. “Is he (Fidel Castro) proposing that we start a nuclear war? “But that is insane!...Remove them (our missiles) as soon as possible!

Before it’s too late. Before something terrible happens!” commanded the Soviet premier.
 
So much for the gallant Knights of Camelot forcing the Russians’ retreat. In fact, the Castro brothers and Che Guevara’s genocidal lust is what prompted the Butcher of Budapest to yank the missiles from their reach.

Considering the U.S. nuclear superiority over the Soviets at the time of the (so-called) Missile Crisis (five thousand nuclear warheads for us, three hundred for them) it's hard to imagine a President Nixon — much less Reagan — quaking in front of Khrushchev's transparent ruse a la Kennedy.

The genuine threat came --not from Moscow—but from the Castros and Che. “If the missiles had remained, we would have fired them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.” (Che Guevara to Sam Russell of The London Daily Worker, November 1962.)

“Of course I knew the missiles were nuclear- armed,” responded Fidel Castro to Robert McNamara during a meeting in 1992. “That’s precisely why I urged Khrushchev to launch them. And of course Cuba would have been utterly destroyed in the exchange.”

Castro's regime's was granted new status. Let's call it MAP, or Mutually-Assured-Protection. Cuban freedom-fighters working from south Florida were suddenly rounded up for "violating U.S. neutrality laws." Some of these bewildered men were jailed, others "quarantined," prevented from leaving Dade County. The Coast Guard in Florida got 12 new boats and seven new planes to make sure Castro remained unmolested.

JFK's Missile Crisis “solution” also pledged that he immediately pull the rug out from under Cuba's in-house freedom fighters. Raul Castro himself admitted that at the time of the Missile Crisis his troops and their Soviet advisors were up against 179 different "bands of bandits" as he labeled the thousands of Cuban anti-Communist rebels then battling savagely and virtually alone in Cuba's countryside, with small arms shipments from their compatriots in south Florida as their only lifeline.

Kennedy's deal with Khrushchev cut this lifeline. This ferocious guerrilla war, waged 90 miles from America's shores, might have taken place on the planet Pluto for all you'll read about it in the mainstream media and all you'll learn about it from Kennedy’s court scribes, who scribbled Kennedy’s Missile-Crisis “victory.” To get an idea of the odds faced by those betrayed Cuban rebels, the desperation of their battle and the damage they wrought, you might revisit Tony Montana during the last 15 minutes of "Scarface."

5 Political Fallacies Too Many Americans Embrace

John Hawkins / Townhall Columnist

 

1) The more democracy we have, the better. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." This is why our Founding Fathers made this country a republic, not a democracy. They believed that the people should have their say, but also that certain underlying rules should remain in place that should take precedence over the will of a simple majority. Ultimately, that's the only way that the wolves and the lambs can happily co-exist over the long haul.

Unfortunately, we've moved so far away from the plain reading of the Constitution that we could fairly be called a post-constitutional society and that has a lot to do with why our government functions so poorly, why politics has become so contentious, and why our nation is slipping into decline. A nation where the law has more to do with the whims of the people in power than constitutional principles is a nation that will become increasingly embittered and unstable over time.

2) When it comes to politicians, morals don't matter. It's no coincidence that most Americans are perpetually disappointed in the honesty of our politicians when they simultaneously believe that the moral failings of politicians have little bearing on their fitness for office. If we put adulterers, degenerates, and crooks in office, they're going to lie to us. Why would anyone expect anything else?

What's worse is that they're changing the culture inside and out of Washington. After Bill Clinton, why should anyone be surprised at Anthony Weiner? After Gerry Studds got away with having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old page, why should anyone be surprised that Barney Frank got away with having a gay prostitution ring running out of his apartment? The impact on society is even greater not only because politicians are prominent, but because it's assumed they are held to a higher standard than the average person. If a pothead who liked to snort a little coke, like Barack Obama, can become President, what message does it send to kids about drugs? If Bill Clinton's adultery is treated like no big deal by his wife, Democrats, and the voters, what message does that send to men across the country? We've allowed Washington, D.C. to become a pig pen and no one should be surprised at how dirty all of us are getting in the process.

3) Income inequality is caused by rich people stealing money from the poor. There is more income inequality today in the United States than there used to be. That's because advances in computers, transportation, and technology have shrunken the world. What that means is that it's more feasible than ever for dirt poor workers in China and India to do low skill work that once would have gone to Americans. The time when a man with an 8th grade education can support himself, a wife, and a kid by doing repetitive, unskilled labor all day long has largely ended.

On the other hand, for highly skilled workers, a smaller world means that people overseas now are more likely to be their potential customers. Bill Gates isn't just selling Microsoft products to Americans, he's selling them to computer users EVERYWHERE. So, the money isn't flowing from the poor Americans to the rich Americans; it's flowing from the poor here to the poor elsewhere and customers elsewhere to the rich here. Moreover, you can tax the rich at a much higher rate (and we do), but since there are relatively few of them, you can't loot enough to make up for the reduced demand for low skill workers. In fact, paradoxically, the more capital you take away from rich Americans, the less money they have to buy products or invest here in America to create jobs.

That's why it isn't about rich versus poor so much as a global economic change that benefits one group while hurting another, like the introduction of sharks into an environment filled with fishermen and tuna. If you're a fisherman, you're going to love the shark fin soup, but if you're a tuna, you're going to spend a lot more time swimming for your life and finding places to hide.

4) There's no need to worry because politicians know what they’re doing. The primary reason most Americans don't pay attention to politics is that they just assume that despite all of the feuding and fighting, politicians generally know what they're doing and won't let anything too horrible happen to the country. This is no longer a safe assumption because the people running the government aren't competent, they're not making decisions based on what's best for the country, and most government employees are just following orders, not trying to improve the system.

We have an unsustainable level of debt that we're not addressing. We're in the midst of a radical and dangerous experiment with our medical system. The Federal Reserve is deliberately trying to reduce the value of our money by 1/3 over the next 20 years. Our response to the government-inspired housing crash that wrecked our economy at the tail end of the Bush Administration is to try to artificially reinflate the housing bubble using the same techniques that got us into the mess in the first place. All the money that has been contributed to Medicare and Social Security has already been spent and our plan to pay those Americans back is to borrow trillions indefinitely. Responsible government has left the building in America and like a Bible salesman walking towards Mecca, we're veering into strange and dangerous territory.

5) Any sort of debt-related crash is a long way away. A decade ago, prepping was for militias, Mormons, and survivalist nuts. Today, it has gone mainstream and guns, gold, and survival seeds are growth industries. There's a reason for that: tens of millions of Americans believe the country isn't that far away from a Greece-style economic crash caused by our debt. This is not an unreasonable belief. In 2010, Mike Pence (who's now governor of Indiana) told me that, "unless we produce national leadership that is willing to confront our mounting fiscal crisis head-on, that America will be Greece within 10 to 15 years." Senator Tom Coburn wasn't as optimistic. In 2010; he said we could be Greece in as little as 4 years.

When you consider the fact that we've lost our AAA rating, there are no realistic prospects of balancing the budget in the foreseeable future, and we can't sell all of our debt on the open market, it's already clear that we're in deep trouble.

Now consider the fact that by 2020, we'll need roughly 19% of the PLANET'S GDP to finance our debt and that by 2030, just the INTEREST PAYMENTS ON THE DEBT will take up about 58% of our budget -- and ask yourself how much longer we'll be able to hold it together. We're already at the point where we appear to need massive action by both political parties to avert a financial catastrophe and not only are both sides barely even discussing the problem, the Democrats are upset that we're not ramping up our spending even more. We're like a patient whose doctor just warned him he could have a heart attack at any time who insists on eating nothing but bacon cheeseburgers for every meal.

The question isn't whether there's going to be a heart attack sometime in the near future; it's how bad is it going to be?

No Delay, GOP - Let the Dems hang themselves.

Larry Kudlow/ Townhll Finance Columnist

One huge political question surrounds the catastrophic launch of Obamacare: Will the administration's double-talk, cancelled insurance contracts, terminated doctor-patient relationships, sticker shock from higher premiums and deductibility, and damage to job hiring and economic growth get the GOP off the shutdown hook for the 2014 midterm elections?

That is the question. Donald Rumsfeld would call it a known unknown. And right now nobody knows the answer.

But Christopher Ruddy, founder and CEO of Newsmax, makes an interesting point about this: “The key to stopping Obamacare is for its opponents to win in congressional elections in 2014. Delaying Obamacare only helps the Democrats who support this boondoggle.”

So far, with all the problems plaguing the Obamacare website, Senator Marco Rubio is leading the Republican charge to delay the March 31 enrollment deadline and tax penalty. And a lot of Republicans are lining up behind him. But is that the right tactic? On the Democratic side, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and nine of her colleagues are urging the White House to push back the same deadline. But is that just to save their reelection hides next November?

Now, Obama recently appointed a new team to fix the website. And that team promptly predicted a successful fix by the end of November. So if that happens, it’s possible the whole Obamacare-disaster issue dies.

But according to highly respected health-industry expert Bob Laszewski, the chances of that are low. He says it will take at least a year to fix the “back end” problems -- the technical links between the website, the HHS, and most importantly the insurance companies, which are receiving massively error-laden information.

Laszewski says this is more important than the front-end disaster, where somebody in the Obama administration -- literally at the last minute in mid-September -- gave the order that the website require a detailed account-registration process before a user can shop for insurance.

Nobody knows why that decision was made. Perhaps it was to stop the media from seeing unsubsidized premium prices that undermine Obama’s promise for cheaper insurance. Or maybe the Obama folks wanted to block potential registrants from pricing-structure sticker shock. Either way, the decision to put registration ahead of shopping blew up the whole system.

And it may also have blown up Obama’s attempt to break the Republican party in half and carry a Democratic House in 2014.

And that’s Ruddy’s point: If Republicans hold the House and win the Senate next year, there’d be two houses to repeal Obamacare. But if the March 31 delay effort works, will voters forgive and forget a botched website launch?

Experts like Laszewski are now talking about the possibility of 16 million people getting pink slips for their current insurance. That’s no insurance. No doctor. Nothing. Already, over 1 million people have lost their insurance, with cancellation notices actually soaring above Obamacare enrollment rates.

Of course, President Obama said none of this would happen. Remember? But everything has changed. And unless the system gets fixed by January 1, a lot of folks are going to be very angry as they’re left out in the cold.

Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal calls the whole Obamacare effort a con job. By that he means a key Obama constituency, the young and healthy, are not going to buy overpriced insurance policies. They are the losers. And the winners are the older and sicker shoppers who allegedly are going to be subsidized by the young.

But the young are not stupid. They’d rather pay the minor tax penalty to stay out of this mess. And that means the system may go bankrupt because older and sicker customers will experience soaring premiums if the young and healthy don’t show up to subsidize their care.

And guess who’s going to do that subsidizing? We are. The taxpayers. And the whole cost structure of Obamacare will take another giant leap upwards -- above the CBO’s already tripled cost estimates.

The net economic effects of Obamacare also will become more apparent as large companies with heavy numbers of low-wage workers cut back on hiring, reduce hours worked, take on part-timers whenever possible, and send their workers into the Obama exchanges. But those workers won’t wind up in the exchanges. They’ll end up in Medicaid, which is already going bankrupt.

And who’s paying for that bailout? We are. The taxpayers.

The mainstream media have in large part turned against Obamacare, and all these factoids are going to be reported. So that raises the question regarding 2014: Do Republicans really want to bail out Obama by handing him a year’s delay? If all the flaws in Obamacare do pan out, they may well overshadow the shutdown negatives suffered by the GOP.

I think I am lining up on Chris Ruddy’s side. There’s an old political adage: If your opponent is determined to hang himself, for Heaven’s sake, don’t take away the rope.

Washington Post: "Anti-Christian terror is everyone’s concern" -- but never identifies the terrorists

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

This is a remarkable article for its glaring omission. Steven B. Nasatir, president of the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, compares the persecution of Christians to Kristallnacht, but everyone knew who perpetrated Kristallnacht, and why they did it. Nasatir, I am sure, knows full well who is persecuting Christians today, and he may even know why despite ubiquitous attempts to cover up the reasons, but in his entire piece he fastidiously avoids mentioning who is behind the persecution. This sort of thing can be expected from the egregiously compromised Washington Post, but it does raise a question: how does Steven B. Nasatir, and the WaPo for that matter, propose to combat this persecution if we are not even allowed to name the persecutors? How can we combat an enemy we cannot even name?

"Anti-Christian terror is everyone’s concern," by Steven B. Nasatir in the Washington Post, October 24 (thanks to Filip):

The persecution of any religious minority anywhere by anyone is an evil injustice. It requires all persons of conscience to speak out and, when possible, take action. 

The upcoming 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht makes this an auspicious time to raise awareness about the contemporary violence targeting religious minorities and their places of worship. Of particular concern are attacks against Christian minorities that have occurred with alarming frequency from Syria to Egypt, from Iraq to Pakistan, and from Kenya to Sudan.

Hmmm. What do all those have in common? Kenya is the only one that isn't a majority-Muslim state, but the only people terrorizing Christians in Kenya are, yet again, Islamic jihadists.

But Nasatir refers only to "contemporary violence targeting religious minorities and their places of worship" -- as if "contemporary violence" had a mind and will of its own, and it just decided to start persecuting Christians.

November 9 marks 75 years since the pogrom against Jews committed by mobs throughout the Nazi Reich. Often called Kristallnacht, or the “Night of Broken Glass,” when rioters killed or injured hundreds of Jews; burned over 1,000 synagogues; destroyed 7,000 Jewish-owned shops and businesses; vandalized cemeteries and schools, and; [sic] sent 30,000 Jews to German concentration camps. It marked a turning point in the escalating campaign of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. 

These events, seared into Jewish collective memory, make us doubly aware—and duty bound—to raise our voices when the deadly brew of religious bigotry and wanton violence are mixed.

Today in Syria, a once thriving Christian population—a community nearly as ancient as that country’s once great Jewish community—has been depopulated by 25 percent, according an estimate the Patriarch Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch ["Patriarch Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch"? WaPo needs a copy editor -- RS] Gregorios III Laham shared with the BBC.

In September, The Associated Press reported that Syrian Christians in Maaloula—a community dating to the birth of Christianity and that still speaks Aramaic—were driven out or forcibly converted to Islam by rebels aligned with al-Qaeda.

This, along with a glancing mention of the Taliban below, is as close as Nasatir gets to identifying the persecutors. But the ill-informed reader might have no idea that the persecution of Christians in every other place he mentions is also perpetrated by Islamic supremacists and jihadists. And he certainly doesn't say so.

“It is chaos, it is violence, it is blood, it is death. Life has been paralyzed. We have lost everything,” said Archbishop Theophile Georges Kassab of Homs.

In Egypt, some supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi last summer unleashed their rage against that nation’s Christians, a historic community constituting 20 percent of the country’s population. Mobs burned dozens of Christian schools, convents, monasteries, institutions, and churches of any, and all Christian denominations. And just days ago, gunmen on a motorcycle opened fire outside a Coptic Christian church during a wedding, murdering four, including an 8-year-old girl.

Note that Nasatir doesn't mention that "some supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi" are part of a group called "the Muslim Brotherhood."

“It never happened before in history that such a big number of churches were attacked on one day,” Bishop Thomas, a Coptic Orthodox bishop in Assiut told Al Jazeera. “We normally used to have attacks once a month or so.”

Convicted Palestinian Muslim terrorist granted US Citizenship due to lax U.S. Immigration enforcement
From Bare Naked Islam

Was it just lax? Or was it intentional as ordered by the pro-Palestinian Obama Regime? Palestinian pressure groups in Chicago are outraged after indictment of a Muslim woman accused of hiding her conviction for two 1969 Jerusalem bombings when she applied to become an American citizen.

 

Algemeiner  The anger is not about Rasmieh Yousef Odeh’s alleged lies and secret, murderous past. Rather, the activists are upset with Federal law enforcement officials for daring to charge her. “An attack against any community organizer is [an] attack against us all. Rasmieh Odeh is not alone,” the U.S. Palestinian Community Network wrote in a Twitter post Tuesday.

 

Odeh’s arrest represents “another example of the continuing repression of Palestinians and people who stand in solidarity with them,” a group called the Committee to Stop FBI Repression said in a statement. “Homeland Security, the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Attorney’s office now are carrying out enforcement of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.”

 

Odeh spent 10 years in an Israeli prison after being convicted in connection with two February 1969 bombings by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP); one at a crowded supermarket that killed two people, and one at the British Consulate in Jerusalem that caused property damage.

She failed to disclose her arrest, conviction and incarceration when she applied for a visa to come to America and then, in 2004, for naturalization as a citizen. Immigration forms specifically ask about an applicant’s background and associations. Odeh’s failures to disclose, and her sworn signature that her applications were true, are the basis for the new prosecution.

 

“The United States will never be a safe haven for individuals seeking to distance themselves from their pasts,” William Hayes, acting special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit, said in a statement. “When individuals lie on immigration documents, the system is severely undermined and the security of our nation is put at risk.”

 

Odeh is an associate director with the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) in Chicago. Last spring, she was honored as a “2013 Outstanding Community Leader” by the Chicago Cultural Alliance, a group which describes itself as a “consortium of Chicago’s ethnic museums, cultural centers, and historical societies whose mission is to effect social change and public understanding of cultural diversity through first voice perspectives.”

 

Terror-linked CAIR Chicago Executive Director Ahmed Rehab called the investigation “a waste of taxpayer dollars,” “a new low,” and “an example of FBI overreach when it comes to activism or commentary on the (Middle East) conflict.”

 

If Odeh is found guilty, she would become the latest in a long series of people who enjoyed community support even after their ties to terrorists and support for terrorist groups has been exposed. Cleveland Imam Fawaz Damra was convicted on a similar immigration fraud and later deported. He is shown on video below openly raising money for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Brothers Bayan and Basman Elashi were deported last year after being convicted for their parts in a Hamas-financing network. And former Florida professor Sami Al-Arian, exposed as a Palestinian Islamic Jihad board member, faces a deportation order once a pending contempt case against him is resolved.

 

Click on link to see and hear video.  http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/10/26/convicted-palestinian-muslim-terrorist-granted-us-citizenship-due-to-lax-u-s-immigration-enforcement/

Ted Cruz says he knows how to unite the GOP
Jennifer Jacobs / Des Moines Register 

Conservative purist Ted Cruz addressed the concerns of any Iowa Republicans who reject him as too rigid, arguing he knows exactly how to unify the GOP and how to turn the country around.

The answer: "Restore historic economic growth," he said.  er Jacobs, Des Moines Register 2:43 a.m. EDT October 26, 2013

Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas, who has been drawn to the presidential testing grounds of Iowa three times now in less than three months, told an audience of about 600 at the Republican Party of Iowa's annual Ronald Reagan fundraising dinner: "We need to come together."

"And let me tell you, growth and principles are ideas that unify Republicans," he said. "They are principles and ideals that unify the evangelical community, the liberty movement and the business community. Growth and freedom are principles that bring together Main Street and the tea party."

Last month, Cruz kicked off a controversial campaign to stymie Obamacare, the federal law requiring almost all Americans to carry health insurance, with a 21-hour pseudo-filibuster. The battle between conservative and Democratic members of Congress led to a 16-day federal government shutdown and took the country to what some Americans considered an alarming near-default on its debts.

The Des Moines Register reported Friday morning that some Iowa Republicans believe Cruz is the embodiment of the war inside the GOP. They see him as the tip of the spear of anti-establishment rage that is tearing apart the coalition of Republicans that has existed since the Reagan era: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and national security conservatives.

If Cruz were to run for president, his campaign might leave him with only the fiercest tea party defenders, those center-right voters and political strategists say.

In a 45-minute speech, Cruz said over and over that working "collectively" is the only way to protect the nation from those who want to impose health insurance mandates, pile on more national debt, assault gun rights and hurt other constitutional rights.

It was the GOP's failure to stand together, he said, that killed the effort to defund Obamacare.

"We didn't accomplish our ultimate policy goal in this battle, and we didn't because unfortunately a significant number of Senate Republicans chose not to unite and stand side by side with House Republicans," he said. "Had we stood together I'm convinced the outcome of this fight would be very, very different. But listen, none of us ever thought that taking on the Washington establishment was going to be easy."

He added: "Right now I'm more encouraged than ever."

As Cruz took the stage, the audience greeted him with a 36-second standing ovation.

"I promise that I'll do everything humanly possible to try to speak for less than 21 hours," Cruz told them. "You know I'm nearing to end when I bring out and begin to read 'The Cat in the Hat.'''

Twenty-one hours, he said, referring to his Sept. 24 speech on the Senate floor, is a long time.

"That's almost as long as it takes to sign up on the Obamacare website," he joked, referring to the troubled rollout of healthcare.gov, a site meant to help millions of uninsured Americans sign up for health insurance.

When Cruz came to Iowa in July, he had his father, a Cuban immigrant, in tow. This time his wife, Heidi, was by his side, and he made repeated references to their two young daughters, Catherine and Caroline.

Some center-right Republicans skipped the traditional fundraising dinner to express distaste for both Cruz and the current liberty movement-oriented leadership at party headquarters.

Republican Party of Iowa Co-Chairman David Fischer referenced that rift in his opening remarks.

"There are some of the old guard in the Grand Old Party that frankly don't approve of the kind of principled leadership being shown by the new conservative leaders like Sens. Cruz, (Rand) Paul and (Mike) Lee," he said, referring to the conservative senators from Texas, Kentucky and Utah.

"Some Republicans have even gone so far as to call them names. Well, I have a name for these new leaders, too," Fischer said. "I call them the future."