Principle and Policy

Barack Obama is NOT Jackie Robinson

2008-11-05T18:01:00.004-06:00

President-elect Barack Obama (D - Illinois) emerged victorious in the 2008 General Election campaign. Principal and Policy wishes the President-elect well, but promises to oppose most, if not all, of his hair-brained governmental schemes.

The blogger is already distressed by the predictable reaction of the P-E Obama's pals in the liberal media. The NBC Nightly News on Nov. 5th 2008 for example reported that P-E Obama won in spite of his race not because of it. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Men like Jackie Robinson, Ernie Davis, and Lee Elder were held back because of their race and in spite of their obvious talents for the games they played. When they emerged into the top-levels of their fields, it was a story a perseverance against a unjust system of racial prejudice.

Unlike these men, P-E Obama was never held back because of his race. Rather, he was in many ways advantaged by it. This is especially true in terms of his election to the highest office in the U.S. government. Consider the evidence from the exit polls. The exit poll results posted at abcnews.com provides support for this thesis. Generating a pie chart for voter's self-reported political philosophy by black racial status shows that 20% of African-American voters described themselves as conservative. This group voted for P-E Obama 89% to 9% for McCain.

Now the margin of Obama's victory in the 8 key swing states was only 838,000 out of nearly 30 million votes cast. Multiply 30 million by the proportion of black voters in the population (13%) and by the 20% conservative produces a number that is very close to this margin. Consider also that self-described Hispanic conservative voters (29% of all Hispanics) went for McCain 56 to 42% while conservative white voters went for McCain 87-11.

Principal and Policy is led to wonder why so many self-described black conservatives voted against the more conservative candidate and in favor of (arguable) the most liberal candidate to ever run (let alone win) the U.S. Presidency?

Let no one wonder, the election of Barack Obama is a key moment in American history. It will be more so if in future elections African-Americans are set free to vote their conscience based on their political beliefs. But make no mistake, grouping Barack Obama with true pioneers like Jackie Robinson belittles both Mr. Robinson and black history in the United States.

Barack H. Obama: The H stands for Handout

2008-09-18T18:37:00.006-05:00

The Democratic Party's nominee for President and junior Senator from Illinois Barack H. Obama has suffered unmercifully on the web for his middle name.

Principal and Policy believes that the H stands for Handout. Consider the following:

- Subsidies to cover the $100 per vehicle cost to install flexible-fuel tanks that can run on biofuels
- Provide generous tax incentives to help automakers upgrade their existing plants in order to accommodate the demands of producing more fuel-efficient vehicles.
- Subsidies to auto manufacturers to partially defray legacy health care costs, but only if the manufacturers are willing to invest the savings right back into the production of more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
- tax credits ($7000!!!) to consumers for the purchase of hybrid and ultra-efficient vehicles
- restore cuts to public housing operating subsidies
- income-related federal subsidies to individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but need assistance to buy into the new public health plan or purchase a private health care plan.
- provide $4 billion in retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers
- Everyone will be able buy into a new national health insurance plan -- If you cannot afford this insurance, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. If you have children, they will be covered.
- we will reduce costs for business and their workers by picking up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses and conditions.
- Earned Income Tax Credit - will double the number of single workers who receive the EITC and triple the benefit for full-time workers making the minimum wage, from the $175 they get today to $555.
- expand the Child Tax Credit to an additional 600,000 more Americans, who would receive $1,000 per child.
- provide an income tax cut of up to $500 per person - or $1,000 for each working family - to offset the payroll tax that they're already paying.
- give retired folks the same kind of relief - no retiree making less than $50,000 each year will have to pay income tax. This will eliminate income taxes for about 7 million Americans, at a savings rate of roughly $1,400 each year. And 22 million seniors won't even have to file a return and hire an expensive tax preparer.
- universal homeowners' tax credit - I'll create a mortgage interest credit so that both itemizers and non-itemizers get a break. This will immediately benefit 10 million homeowners in America. The vast majority of these are folks who make under $50,000 per year, who will get a break of 10 percent of their mortgage interest rate. For most middle class families, this will add up to about $500 each year.
- I will launch a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund that will provide $10 billion a year for five years to get the most promising clean energy technologies off the ground.

It is tempting to believe that ol' Handout never met a subsidy he didn't like. But, I did find three he would cut:

- end to subsidies for oil and gas companies (is this a tax increase?)
- eliminate subsidies to the private insurance Medicare Advantage program
- eliminate subsidies to private lenders in all federal student loans

Well, that might be some savings.... but I am not sure it will offset that long list of subsidies above.

Principle and Policy cannot afford Barack Handout Obama.

Barack Obama: The Anti-Democrat?

2008-09-16T19:20:00.003-05:00

Principal and Policy finds it mildly ironic that Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) would be the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party given his enthusiastic support of Senate Bill 1926.

Obama has been promoting SB 1926 since the Ohio primaries, but even as recently as today at a GM Plant in Janesville Wisconsin he said:

For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we’ll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.”

SB 1926 is summarized as follows:

An independent agency of the Federal government administratively similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The "Bank" would have some strange banking powers: the ability to conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, obtain information from any other federal agency simply by asking (other agencies are required to comply), accept for funding any infrastructure project with a Federal price tag of $75 million or more (the list of possibilities goes on for two pages), unilateral authority to determine the appropriate Federal share of spending for every project accepted, to act as a centralized entity to provide financing for qualified infrastructure projects; to issue general purpose infrastructure bonds, and to provide direct subsidies to qualified infrastructure projects from amounts made available from the issuance of such bonds; to issue project-based infrastructure bonds for the financing of specific qualified infrastructure projects; to provide loan guarantees to State or local governments issuing debt to finance qualified infra
structure projects, under rules prescribed by the Board, in a manner similar to that described in chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code; to issue loans, at varying interest rates, including very low interest rates, to qualified project sponsors for qualified projects; to leverage resources and stimulate public and private investment in infrastructure; and to encourage States to create additional opportunities for the financing of infrastructure projects.

Here's what you didn't read:
- NO votes on these projects in Congress
- NO votes on these projects in the Senate
- NO opportunity for the President to concur or veto.
- NO opportunity for the Congress and Senate to sustain or override a veto.
- NO method for the "loans" to be paid back

This is simply the most ANTI-DEMOCRATIC proposed legislation that Principal and Policy is aware of.

Given that the Bank can issue debt in that name of the taxpayers, it is also likely unconstitutional given Article 1, Section 9 which states in part

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

So the question is: Does Obama believe in Democracy or Not?

Lexington: McCain's Waterloo?

2008-09-15T22:08:00.004-05:00

This blogger has been frustrated throughout the primary season by Senator McCain's (R - Arizona) lack of specificity regarding his policy proposals. Recently the senior Senator from Arizona has become much more specific about his energy plans. The Senator's website contains the following quote:

"In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project -- named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."

Since energy independence is such a critical issue, let's look at some of the specifics the Senator has put forward:
1) A $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car, For other vehicles, a graduated tax credit will apply so that the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.

2)A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.

3)American automakers have committed to make 50 percent of their cars FFVs by 2012. John McCain calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs.

4) John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise

5) eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol

6) John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards. John McCain has long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. John McCain believes that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.

7) John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies and commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology.

8) John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants.

9) A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R and D.

10) John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power. To develop an even-handed system of tax credits .

11) John McCain will greening the Federal Government

12)Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy.

13) reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market

14) John McCain Does Not Support A Windfall Profits Tax.

Of course the 15th point is Senator McCain's cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions.

Of course this plan reflects an inherent distrust of market mechanisms. It is largely a waste of money that will do little but create new special interest groups. The most offensive issue is the plank to give buyers a $5K discount on their new cars at taxpayer expense. What a crock. Why should people who like the car they have or cannot afford the cost of a new 0-emission car subsidize cars for those who do want one and can afford them. Another $2 billion to line the pockets of coal barons, a $300 million prize for some lucky battery maker, a 10% tax credit for firms that engage in R and D, cap-and-trade, etc, etc, etc. This is a list to make any Progressive Democrat salivate.

The only plank the Principle and Policy agrees with is Number 4. That's right, Principle and Policy joins John McCain in believing that alcohol-based fuels hold great promise. At least that didn't cost us any tax money.

Senator McCain - I liked it better when you weren't so specific.

Obama's Ridiculous Rhetoric on the Islamic Republic

2008-09-14T18:51:00.005-05:00

Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Parties nominee for the Office of President of the United States, apparently is ill informed as to international affairs with respect to Islamic Republic of Iran and their nuclear ambitions. Here is the junior Senator from Illinois' issue proclamation from his campaign website:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

But, this is exactly the approach followed by the E-3 (U.K., France, Germany), the E-3/EU (add the Eu foreign minister), and the permament members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1; the E-3 plus USA, China, and Russia). The story can rehashed with a simple search on any news service, I used CNN.

On March 11, 2005 CNN reported that the U.S. had dropped its objections to Iran applying for WTO membership read the story here
As CNN reported on August 5th 2005:

cooperation on nuclear matters would be enhanced between Iran and the EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- allowing Iran access to the international nuclear technologies market. The EU-3 also would "fully support long-term co-operation in the civil nuclear field between Iran and Russia," the summary said.
In February, Russia signed a deal with Iran to transfer nuclear fuel to Iran's $800 million power plant reactor in the southern city of Bushehr and move the spent fuel back to Russia.

Despite this Iran resumed nuclear enrichment just three days later on August 8th, 2005. On January 6th, 2006 CNN reported that Iran had removed UN IAEA seals from its facilities and resumed nuclear research activities. Russia stepped into the fold. Russia offered to supply nuclear fuel for Iran's power generation facilities and in late February 2006 Iran rejected this offer. Despite reports in January that the U.S. and EU-3 had given up negotiating with Iran, in June of 2006 EU foreign minister Javier Solanna was dispatched to Tehran with an offer from the five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany (Thus, this is the EU 3, USA, China and Russia). Iran refused to discuss the offer and pressed ahead with its enrichment program bringing on line at least 3000 centrifuges. Almost two years later, in July 2008, the P5+1 tried again. But, Iran refuses to halt its enrichment activities. According to news reports on CNN, Iran now has over 4,000 centrifuges and is planning to bring the total to 6,000 soon. Sanctions enacted by the UN Security Council have had no effect on the Iranians nuclear ambitions.

So the question for Senator Obama is: While will this work now when it hasn't worked for the last 4 years? It cannot be that adding a direct voice for the US at the table will change the dynamic. The Iranians apparently WANT the capability to enrich Uranium and are unwilling to negotiate that right away. Carrots and sticks have not worked for the Europeans, the Russians, or the UN Security Council. Why does Obama believe they will work now?

Because of his charming personality? Or maybe because of his rock star status in Europe?

If Senator Obama wants to be President, he will need to articulate a strategy for dealing with Iran that is something more than what has been tried and failed for the past four years. Principal and Policy bets he will not be up to the task.

Obama's Second Leadership Failure: Biden's Soft Racism

2008-08-24T10:14:00.004-05:00

Senator Barack Obama's (D - Illinois) selection of Joseph Biden (D - Delaware) as his running mate for President and Vice President of the United States represents his second major leadership failure since winning the nomination. Read about his first leadership failure here.

As a blogger I am happy Senator Biden is back in the race. He is a walking gaffe machine which provides a lot of fodder for blogging. For example, read the Senator in his own words here and here.

But, for this blogger the primary evidence of the unsuitability of this individual as the Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate is the debate conducted on June 28th 2007. During this debate the following question was asked:

DeWayne Wickham’s question: Thank you, Tavis. This question is about the link between education and poverty. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2006 the unemployment rate of black high school graduates -- black high school graduates -- was 33 percent higher than the unemployment rate for white high school dropouts. To what do you attribute this inequity, which keeps many black families locked in the grip of poverty?

The Senior Senator from Delaware was given the first chance to answer. He said:

We should remind everybody that the day before a black child, a minority child, steps into the classroom, half the achievement gap already exists. ... And that gap widens... because we do not start school earlier. We do not give single mothers in disadvantaged homes the opportunities that they need in order to know what to do to prepare their children. A mother who talks to her child on a regular basis from infancy to being a toddler, that child when it’s two years old will have a vocabulary 300 words more than a child not talked to.

So it’s simple. You’ve got to start off and focus on the nurturing and education of children when they’re very young, particularly children from disadvantaged families. You’ve got to invest in starting kids in preschool at age four.

This answer is objectionable on several fronts. First, it doesn't answer the question. Early childhood vocabulary doesn't explain why high school drop-outs have a lower unemployment rate than high school graduates. If anything, it explains why there is difference in high school graduation rates. Second, it is racist. What does race have to do with the ability to mother? Note that the Senator did not say that single mothers in disadvantaged homes do not have the time to talk to their children because they must work. He says "know what to do." Third, the proposed remedy doesn't fix the problem. If the problem is that mothers need to talk to their children during early childhood, putting the child in pre-school at age four isn't helpful. First, early childhood is over at age 4. Senator Obama apparently understood this when he said "Early childhood education. And John’s exactly right, it starts from birth." Second, taking the child from the mother will prevent her talking to the child, not help her talk to the child. This apparently was lost on both Senator Obama and Senator Biden.

Senator Obama should have chosen someone who can effectively articulate positions. Instead, he chose Joe Biden who he agrees with on nearly 100% of the issues (notably except Iraq and the War on Terror) and cannot articulate a logical answer to questions from the media.

Senator Obama could have and should have done better.

Obama Still Doesn't Understand the War on Terror!

2008-07-14T21:25:00.003-05:00

In a widely discussed op-ed article published in the The New York Times (Published: July 14, 2008), the junior Senator from Illinois and Presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama outlined his plan for the Iraq war and the war on terror. Here are the relevant quotes:

...That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war. As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees. Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. ...Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face.

On careful inspection, this is not a plan for Iraq. Nor is it a suitable strategy to win the war on terror.

The essence of Obama's "Plan for Iraq" is withdrawal followed by negotiation. If most people took the time to assess this plan, they would be mystified at how any credible candidate for national office could support it. The basic idea, which is captured in Obama's article is that Iraq's political situation and self-defense capability are not proceeding as quickly as he (Actually the entire leadership of the Democratic Party since Obama is just a Parrot on this issue) would like. The Solution? Point a gun at their head. Get moving or we are gone. Your protection from al-Qaeda gone, your protection from Iran gone, Protection of the various factions from each other gone. This isn't diplomacy, it's extortion with malice aforethought.

Obama's legitimizing rationale: 1) the war was a mistake to begin with and 2) the real terrorist war is chasing UBL around Waziristan. But this is not a legitimate view of the war on terror. As this Blog has long maintained, wars are fought between nations not between nations and mobs.

On the morning of September 11th, I awoke and fipped on the TV. Thanks to my satellite dish and Monday Night Football, I was tuned to the New York ABC affililate. They had just picked up coverage of a plane impacting one the Towers. At that early hour the reports suggested the plane was a light plane like a Cessna. It was clear from the smoke and damage that no Cessna did that. I sat with my wife, then 6 months pregnant, and watched the terrible events of that day. I clearly recall the thoughts expressed by friends, family, co-workers, and yes even the media that the World had fundamentally changed. The question today is how did it change?

In a post 9/11 World, the real change must be that state sponsorship of terror is no longer a tolerable or endurable element of state craft. The real war on terror involves ending state sponsorship of terror. Agree with the Iraq invasion or not, the current government of Iraq is not a state sponsor. The government of Afghanistan is also not a state sponsor. Sadly, the two remaining state sponsors, Iran and Syria, still operate their terror networks to the detriment of the civilized world.

As it happens we have sophisticated elements of the finest fighting force in the World on the Eastern and Western borders of Iran and on the Eastern border and Western seacoast of Syria. Add in our Naval presence to Iran's south in the Indian Ocean and we have a formidable deterrent to Iranian and Syrian mischief. A deterrent that would-be President Obama would throw away prior to entering negotiations with these notorious state sponsors. This is backwards thinking. Negotiate first, then withdraw.

The only way to end the war is through victory. Victory only occurs when Iran and Syria are no longer state sponsors of terror.

WALL-E: Is consumption bad for you?

2008-07-13T03:35:00.006-05:00

After reading and hearing some of things said about the new Disney/Pixar Studios movie WALL-E, I almost refused to take my 6 year old daughter to the film. My spouse did refuse to go. Here are a couple of anecdotes that illustrate the conventional wisdom about this film:

The new Pixar feature "WALL-E" is an environmental cautionary tale, as well as a story of budding love between two robots. And for its first half-hour or so, it's possibly the most melancholy cartoon ever made: Even the color palette of that early section, a mosaic of brownish grays brushed with dusty sunlight, speaks of loneliness, and of desperate cheerfulness in the face of a blank future. In the second half, "WALL-E" becomes less lyrical and more satirical, although even then, its bite is surprisingly sharp. But by the end, "WALL-E" has turned into something else again, a picture that's so adamant about ending on a feel-good note (or at least a feel-OK note) that it betrays the sad, subtle beauty of those early scenes. It must be that director Andrew Stanton -- the man behind the enormously successful "Finding Nemo" -- didn't want to make too much of a downer: Can't be sending all those tots home with the blues, can we? But the picture feels weirdly, and disappointingly, disjointed, something that starts out as poetry and ends as product. by Stephanie Zacharek on Salon.com June 27, 2008 |

and

The critics love WALL*E. So much so that there’s now a backlash, much of it from conservative and right-libertarian corners. The cartoon is anti-progress, they say. It’s anti-business. It’s anti-consumer. Its environmentalism is hogwash. It will only further brainwash children into the Al Gore camp. All those charges may be true. from wconger.blogspot.com

I am glad that I watched WALL-E. I am glad that my daughter saw it as well.

Those who on the right who criticize this movie as being another piece of Hollywood liberal doctrinaire, as well as those on the left who celebrate their anti-consumption interpretation of the film are simpletons who did not understand this film. Principle and policy saw the film in starkly different terms.

While it is true that the movie depicts a future earth that has been literally trashed. It is not true that the film argues that consumption is to blame. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In this film, the humans of the future are trapped in a virtual world. They in live in floating chairs, they experience only through virtual reality, they only consume some sort of nutritional beverage, and they are numb to physical environment they inhabit. The people are confined to a space ship floating aimlessly around the galaxy. In short, they have stopped consuming and stopped living.

The robot, WALL-E, and his pet cockroach are the only apparent inhabitants of planet Earth. WALL-E though has learned to consume and to Live. He finds and collect treasures from the garbage he is programmed to incessantly compact. He turned his support vehicle into a home. He has a collection of Zippo lighters, lights, a VHS tape of Hello Dolly he watches. Through this consumption WALL-E learns what it is to dance, sing, and love. In short, WALL-E is essentially a child that is curious about his world and enamored with the simple joys of it. When the humans send another robot to check on the situation back on the home world, WALL-E finds a friend, a companion, and eventually a mate. He shares with EVE his curiosity and the joy of his treasures.

The simple, truthful message of WALL-E is this: don't get so busy surviving that you forget to live.

This is a message that people of all political stripes should wrap their arms around.

McCain's Impotence on Tax Policy

2008-06-16T18:59:00.006-05:00

Somewhat Republican (meaning RINO) nominee for the Office of President of the United States Senator John McCain (R - Arizona) has a tax plan that needs help from a little blue pill. Read a summary of the Candidates' intentions on page 5 of this document.

Rather than try to reform the tax code to achieve specific policy objectives, the Senior Senator from Arizona has put forward a lukewarm tax proposal that reflects his years in the Senate. His policy is to doodle around the edge with incremental changes or, in his most questionable policy moves, no changes at all.

The centerpiece of Senator McCain's proposal is keeping the status quo. He would sign legislation to make permanent the 2001/2003 tax cuts approved by the Republican majority in Congress and signed by President Bush. One wonders why they were made temporary anyway... but that is fodder for another article. He would also make permanent changes to the death tax and changes to the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) exemption. Other than that, his proposals mostly involve corporate taxation including a reduction of the corporate rate from 35% down to 25%.

As a policy this lacks coherence, particularly in as much as Principle and Policy believed the 2001/2003 tax cuts lacked coherence. The great issue in the wake of the internet bubble burst and the despicable events of 9-11-01 was capital formation. That is, there was great concern that the capital markets would be underfunded in the wave of defaults and bankruptcies in the tech sector. Reducing taxes on capital therefore made sense. But what about the $1000 per child tax credit that is "refundable" (refundable being Beltway speak for welfare payments to those with no tax liability)? Was baby formation a large problem after 9-11? What possible rationale is there for continuing such a policy?

Principle and Policy strongly supports reduction to corporate tax rates because 1) the U.S. rates are now among the highest in the world and 2) corporations don't pay taxes, people do. But other than that, there doesn't seem to be a solid reason for McCain's proposals other than he doesn't want tax increases. Senator Obama on the other hand seems to have such a guiding philosophy. He would continue to build in special breaks for the blessed groups at the expense of the others. He would turn the tax code into the welfare state that existed under President Carter.

The best tax proposals are those that see the tax code as a coherent whole and reform the code to achieve specific objects. Certain flat tax proposals probably meet this criteria. Senator McCain would implement an optional flat tax system with no deductions. Principle and Policy wonders why not continue to protect IRA/401k/HSA contributions to encourage these important savings vehicles? The U.S. has the lowest savings rate of all developed economies and capital formation continues to be in the long term interest of the country. Principle and Policy also questions why we should implement an optional flat tax when the AMT is a flat tax and already exists?

In the short-run McCain's resistance to raise taxes is likely preferable to Obama's tinkering. But Principle and Policy longs for a visionary tax reform plan that would dramatically alter incentives to encourage capital formation, investment, and wider stock ownership by the population.

Not Non-Partisan Tax Policy Studies

2008-06-16T10:30:00.004-05:00

This past Friday news services were reporting with glee a "preliminary" study comparing the tax plans of Presidential candidates Senator Barrack Obama (D - Illinios) and Senator McCain (R - Illinois). One reason this report was so widely reported (or should I say celebrated) is the sponsoring think tank.

The report was issued by the Tax Policy Center. According to the tank's website

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.

.

The report was widely acclaimed as being from a "non-partisan" think tank. See the report on CNN for as an example.

But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.

It is true that these two think tanks label themselves as "non-partisan". But the only just description of these two think tanks is "left-leaning". The Brookings Institute has been a vociferous critic of the war in Iraq. The urban institute demonstates its bias with statements such as:

An even larger fallacy in the President's claim is that it rests on the assumption that the tax cuts are a costless gift from a beneficent government. In fact, deficit-financed tax cuts eventually have to be paid for.

Apparently the Tax Policy Center is taking after its joint venture parents. This report on the candidates tax policies tries to be even-handed but cannot contain its wholesale adoption of left-leaning dogma. For example, the report states:

It should be noted that both the Republican Study Committee and the presidential campaign of Senator Fred Thompson have proposed optional alternative taxes. We estimated that those plans would result in dramatically reduced revenues—by as much as $6–7 trillion over the next decade compared with current law (Burman, Leiserson, and Rohaly 2008). Those proposals would have disproportionately benefited those with very high incomes, making the tax system less progressive.

and

Given the large pending increases in public spending on senior citizens due to the forthcoming retirement of the baby boomers, it seems inappropriate to target special income tax breaks to this group.

Thus, the authors of the report fail to recognize that tax cuts stimulate growth and adopt wholesale that progressive tax codes (and class warfare) are preferred over other tax codes.

Most egregious is the author's total failure to comment on the Obama effective average tax rates for those earning $20K or less. They do manage to comment that:

But his plan would drastically alter the distribution of tax burdens and make the tax system significantly more progressive. Households in the bottom quintile of the cash income distribution (the 20 percent of the population with the lowest incomes) would receive an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) and those in the middle fifth of the income distribution would receive an average cut equal to 2.4 percent of income ($1,042). In contrast, taxes would rise by an average of 2.0 percent of income ($4,092) for households in the top quintile. And the increases would be even more dramatic within the top quintile. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent would see their taxes rise by an average of 8.7 percent of income or about $116,000. The top 0.1 percent—the richest 1 in 1,000—would face an average tax increase of more than $700,000, or 11.5 percent of income.

and

Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution would be hit hard by the increase in the top two tax rates from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent as well as the increase in the top tax rate on capital gains and qualified dividends to 25 percent.

But, the report fails to discuss that for individuals in the lowest quintile (those making less that $18,981) the average tax rate would by -.7%. It might seem trivial but for 2005 tax data (the latest available on the irs.gov website) this would represent a $50 billion net transfer of money from the rest of the U.S. to this low earning income group. The negative sign indicates that those in this group would receive welfare payments amounting to $7 billion the first year. You may have thought the welfare era was over here in the U.S., but not if Obama has his way.

Agree or disagree with the incorporation of welfare into the U.S. tax code, agree or disagree with Obama's various schemes to transfer funds to the lowest income quintile, it must be obvious that this is a topic that should be discussed in a truly non-partisan tax policy analysis.

This report has bias, it is left-leaning, and the intelligent observer should examine the candidates tax policy positions and this report, then reach their own conclusions. My analysis of Obama's tax plan can be read here.

Supreme's Battle Congress

2008-06-14T08:19:00.002-05:00

The recent Supreme Court decision in Boumediene et al. V. George W. Bush represents another turn in an ongoing pissing contest between the Congress and the Supreme Court, or at least the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.

What the majority refer to as a conversation between the branches, is in reality a contest with respect to the separation of the branches. In this decision, the majority are dead set on declaring unconstitutional an act of Congress declaring that the judiciary may not entertain habeas corpus petitions from detainees at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The prime motivation is transparent: that Congress shall not tell the Judicial Branch what it can and cannot do.

This is the fourth major decision with respect to detainees. In all four cases, the prime motivation of the majority appears to be to reject Congressional intrusion into the prerogatives of the judicial branch. Previous cases were Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Rasul v. Bush.

The problem with this "conversation" is that the result is poor law and poor policy.

This outcome is not restricted to the actions of the Court either. Congress' actions are just as weak.

These are unique circumstances brought on by the unique times in which we live and the unique status of the Guantanamo Naval Station in Cuba. It is precisely in these circumstances that we need our various branches of Government to develop policy based on principle. But that principle ought not to be "stay out of our business" separation of powers arguments. Instead the principles that should be honored, and developed if needed, are those that most important. What policy furthers the cause of liberty and freedom? What policy furthers the ability of the Executive to transform warfare into lasting peace?

Principle and Policy doubts that entertaining habeas pleas from the detained in the U.S. court system is the optimal policy. The dissent of the Chief Justice is persuasive on this point. If results in the detained being released to take up arms against our forces or our citizens, then it clearly is suboptimal. The Principal now visible is this:

Peace isn't just the absence of conflict it is the presence of Justice, but arguments over the separation of powers bring neither Peace nor Justice.

Obama the Tardy Leader

2008-06-06T11:12:00.002-05:00

This morning word broke that Senator Barrack Obama (D - Illinois), the Democratic nominee for President, finally met with Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York) to try to achieve party unity.

Too bad this happened 5 days too late.

Interestingly, national radio correspondent Jamie Dupree recognized today in his appearance on the Neal Boortz show that Sen. Clinton has been driving Sen. Obama since the Texas primaries. Further testimony to the lack of leadership skills in the junior Senator from Illinois.

Obama's First Leadership Failure

2008-06-03T22:38:00.002-05:00

Congratulations may be in order to Senator Barrack Obama (D - Illinois) for apparently securing the Democratic Party's nomination for the Office of President of the United States. Condolences are probably in order for the wider Democratic Party.

Amidst the hubhub of the final primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton's speech set off alarms across the punditry landscape. These know-it-alls claim that Hillary should have conceded; should have urged people to unite behind Obama.

But what of the junior senator from Illinois? This was his first leadership test... how to unite a divided party behind him on the most important, and final, day of the primary season. He failed miserably.

Rather than spend the past few days huddled with Hillary's people to work out a scenario that all could support going forward, Senator Obama apparently awaited regally for the court to curtsy to his glory. As a result, his campaign missed a significant opportunity.

This indecisive leadership, marked by a lack of foresight, does not bode well for the candidates chances in November. Ask former Senator Fred Thompson (R - Tennessee), whose apparent difficulty in pulling the trigger to get in the GOP race made him look indecisive and ruined any momentum he might have had. Actions often speak louder than words. The electorate does not elect weak leaders.

UPDATE: As of about 11:20pm EDT, CNN and other news networks started reporting that Senator Obama had begun to reach out to the Clinton campaign. Too little, too late... we'll see.

W's Big Mistake and the Republican Brand

2008-05-25T22:48:00.002-05:00

As the primary season comes to end, there is much discussion about the state of the Republican brand and the apparent hopelessness of the GOP in the November general elections. For examples read the articles here, here, and here.

The basic premise behind the "stale brand" argument is that: 1) Through President George W. Bush's incompetence, Vice-President Dick Cheney's lust for power, and Karl Rove's tactical brilliance but strategic incompetence, the republican's are no longer trusted by the public and 2) that current republicans are married at the hip to a failed war policy and have no leader to unite the factions and no ideas to inspire the masses. In view of this argument, it is worthwhile to assess what President Bush's real mistake has been.

Briefly, it has been his failure to realize that modern warfare is always a two front war. One front in the field, the other in the media of back home. A little historical perspective:

The lead up to the 2004 general election set the stage for all that transpired politically since. The Democrats decided to rhetorically attack the war in Iraq as a mistake. To do so, they needed to separate the Iraq from the wider global war on terror. Senator John Kerry (D - Massachusetts), the Democrat's nominee was a major cog in the wheel. Consider the following from his acceptance speech at the 2994 convention:

I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a secretary of defense who will listen to the best advice of the military leaders. And I will appoint an attorney general who will uphold the Constitution of the United States. ...

My fellow Americans, the world tonight is very different from the world of four years ago. But I believe the American people are more than equal to the challenge. Remember the hours after September 11th when we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland. We drew strength when our firefighters ran up stairs and risked their lives so that others might live; when rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon; when the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation's Capitol; when flags were hanging from front porches all across America, and strangers became friends. It was the worst day we have ever seen, but it brought out the best in all of us. I am proud that after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger.
There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming "Mission accomplished" certainly doesn't make it so.

As president, I will ask the hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so policy is guided by facts and facts are never distorted by politics.

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.
And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure. We will double our Special Forces to conduct terrorist operations, anti-terrorist operations, and we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists. To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say: Help is on the way.

As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might, our principles as well as our firepower. In these dangerous days, there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words.

It is interesting the Senator Kerry never uttered the word Afghanistan. But, his meaning was clear. We were all united in the war on terror until the incompetent President (mis)led us into this mistaken adventure in Iraq. Senator's Kerry value proposition: vote Kerry and I'll fix this mistake, I'll get us out of Iraq, add 40K troops, and kick serious terrorists forces using our newly doubled special forces units.

In fact, I deduced at the time, and still firmly believe, that the 2004 Democratic Party convention was a four day argument that Iraq was both not part of, and a distraction from, the wider war on terror. After the Junior Senator from Massachusetts was sent back to the Senate, the Democrats did not cease the argument. They ramped it up and kept hammering the public with the same ideas over and over. It is I suppose always easier to criticize than to cook.

President Bushes reelection campaign was never able to forcefully parry this rhetoric to the detriment of the GOP in the 2006 midterms and the current concern over the state of the GOP's brand. The GOP convention in 2004 was largely off-point. The only effective rebuttal of the Democratic Party theme was given by Rudy Giuliani (R = New York). Read the speech here
The President's re-election campaign made only the most feeble attempts to deal with the war issue. Rather, under the leadership of Karl Rove the re-election campaign focused on "the ground war" and raising questions about Senator Kerry's suitability to be serve as Commander-in-chief. That these were effective is not a defense of the inattention paid to the importance of influencing public opinion during a time of war.
Of course, the only popular wars are 1) the one just about to start or 2) the one just ending with the patriotic forces victorious. Lincoln, of course, faced the same situation during the Civil War. At the time, Lincoln deduced that the only course that would save his Presidency and policies was a victory over the Confederate forces. In Lincoln's time, battles were fought on a rather discrete basis over a period of a few days.

President Bush seems to have tried to follow Lincoln's precedent. Regrettably, the current war is asymmetric. There are no real battles, save for the large thrusts to clean out Ramadi and Fallujah, only skirmishes. Winning a skirmish doesn't exactly thrill the people at home. Instead, the public was treated to an incessant stream of daily obituaries for the troops who gave the last measure of devotion for their country. But, amidst this death there were few victories reported by the media, nor even a hint of it. In this type of warfare the executive cannot rely on battlefield exploits to influence public opinion. That must be done directly, constantly, and personally by the executive. Whenever President Bush spoke about the war he was effective, but his speeches were far too few.

In this vacuum, the public only heard the voice of the left. The war in Iraq began to be perceived as one in which are troops were serving only as targets.

So the Republican brand is left with the remains. A war that a large majority of the population were for, the Congress voted in favor of, that was successful in ending the regime of a principal sponsor of terror and eliminating the uncertainty surrounding that sponsor's WMD programs, has been cast as a failure.

But I expect that most Republicans who seek election will be too timid to face public opinion on this issue. Senator McCain seems willing to try. It is not too late for the President to engage public opinion on the war on terror and Iraq specifically. But, I doubt he has the intention to do so. Instead, we are all held hostage to President Bush's big mistake... and the only option is to pray for immediate and ultimate victory in Iraq.

McCain's Impotence on the Global War on Terror.

2008-05-16T20:22:00.004-05:00

A good preface to this is to read my earlier posts on the global war on terror (see this, this, and this too!)

This past week's dust=up between Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois), Senator John McCain (R - Arizona), and President George Bush has brought to the forefront the main issue in the 2008 campaign for the Office of the President of the United States: the global war on terror. In an earlier post, I argued that Senator Obama was not an appeaser, but that his policies would produce dire consequences for the United States, including a probable loss in the global was on terror. But what of Senator McCain's plans should he become President? Let's go straight to his website's verbiage:

John McCain believes that economic progress is essential to sustaining security gains in Iraq.... The Iraqi government can jump-start this process by using a portion of its budget surplus to employ Iraqis in infrastructure projects and in restoring basic services.... The international community should bolster proven microfinance programs to spur local-level entrepreneurship throughout the country. Iraq's Arab neighbors, in particular, should promote regional stability by directly investing the fruits of their oil exports in Iraq. ...

Call for international pressure on Syria and Iran

Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents. The answer is not unconditional dialogue with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention.

Level with the American people

John McCain believes it is essential to be honest with the American people about the opportunities and risks that lie ahead. The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. They deserve a candid assessment of the progress made in the last year, of the serious difficulties that remain, and of the grave consequences of a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal.

Senator McCain's position is more helpful, but still short sighted. As principle and policy has argued previously, Iran and Syria must be treated like the petulant children they seem to be. When Iran misbehaves, it must be immediately and directly punished. A full engagement on every level, international organizations, diplomatic channels, covert action against the Iranian intelligence services, overt action against Iranian military assets, and a continual information campaign to inform, remind, and persuade the World to the dastardly acts of these two sponsors of terror.

But, the over-arching goal must be to end all state sponsorship of terror. And this is where the senior Senator from Arizona falls short. His main goal isn't to win the global war on terror by eliminating state sponsorship, it is to achieve a stable Iraq by holding Iran in check. If the Senator cannot lead us to the end of Iranian and Syrian support for Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Then the war on terror will have severely damaged Sunni-based Islamic terror, leaving Shia sponsored terror unchecked, undisciplined, and a very real threat.

Come on Senator McCain, give us the straight talk on this one...

Is Barack an Appeaser or Just a Loser?

2008-05-16T19:37:00.004-05:00

Hint: Barack Obama is not an appeaser.

Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois), the presumptive but not yet Democrat nominee for the Office of President has chose to get into an exchange with current President George Bush (R - Texas) and the GOP nominee for the Office of President, John McCain (R - Arizona). The stink is that Obama thinks he has been called an appeaser, although I didn't get that from the President's remarks. Both McCain and the President have responded with something on the order of "If the shoe fits, wear it"

Does the shoe fit? Well, according to Wikipedia:

Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principle.

So let's look at Obama's intentions per his campaign website:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.

Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria

Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

This is probably not appeasement, because Obama is not intentionally trading acceptance of imposed conditions for agreements to peace. But, that doesn't mean Obama has the correct policy. Obama's intention is to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq and then try to negotiate conditions for peace. This is a recipe for disaster. As principle and policy has long maintained (see this, this, and this too!) the presence of our armed forces in Iraq is our foremost strategic advantage, and thus, is our foremost negotiating chip. Removing it without gaining concessions gives the game away to the Iranians and the Syrians. This would be a large mistake.

What I found more interesting, is that the War on Terror isn't even an issue on the Senator's campaign website. Neither is Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran or Syria. The words "state sponsor of terror" do not appear there either. When it comes to terror the only issue Obama's campaign recognizes is homeland security. The Illinois' junior Senator apparently intends to hunker down and wait out the next terrorist attach. Read his plan here

I'll address McCain's stance on this issue in the next post. As for now, if someone asks if you think Obama is an appeaser reply "No, he's just going to lose the war on terror!"

Operation Chaos Goes Too Far?

2008-05-04T16:21:00.002-05:00

Operation Chaos is the name given by Conservative Radio Personality Rush Limbaugh to efforts by non-democrats to keep the Democratic Party's Presidential Nomination Race going as long as possible.

The theory is that by keeping the Democrats fighting each other, they will not be fighting McCain, they will bleed money, and ultimately they will show that neither is capable of winning.

principleandpolicy.blogspot.com has doubts about this strategy. Generally, I believe that competition makes the competitors stronger not weaker. Note that while Operation Chaos is ongoing it is Senators Clinton and Obama competing. Senator McCain is sitting on the sidelines. (a counter-thesis might be that everyone's favorite quarterback is the second stringer...). Think of it this way, the primary beneficiary of Senator Obama's Wright problem has been Senator Clinton not Senator McCain.

On realclearpolitics.com, average poll numbers show Senator McCain trending down against both Obama and Clinton. Sunday morning talk shows are being dominated by Democrats, often with no conservative present at all. Nightly news shows are pre-occupied with super-delegates and end-game strategies. It is notable, however, that the Iowa Electronic Markets, have not followed the opinion polls.

In politics, as in other venues, nature abhors a vacuum. We now have a vacuum in which the bulk of the American electorate are being carpet bombed with Democratic Party talking points almost exclusively. This is not healthy for republican democracy, for the United States, and especially not for the Senior Senator from Arizona.

Operation Chaos has gone on long enough, the big question is: Has it gone too far?

Obama's Racial Spin: Don't Believe it!

2008-03-24T16:25:00.003-06:00

In the wake of ABC's publication of extremist remarks by Senator Barack Obama's "former" Minister, the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, the junior Senator from Illinois attempted to distance himself from the Reverend, condemn the remarks, and repair his political positioning as the so-called "post-Racial" candidate. But, the Senator's speech is pure political spin. Here's why:

To refresh, the Reverend Wright made extremist anti-american comments during sermons at various points in time. See the wikipedia page here. The main thrust of the remarks is that United States acts like god, treats people as sub-human, and is responsible for various crimes that directly led to 9-11 terrorist attacks. The pinnacle is when the Reverend urges his flock not sing God Bless America, but "God Damn America."

Senator Obama's response is to cast the remarks in racial terms. In his speech of March 18th, Obama stated inpart:

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

See the complete text of the speech here among other places.
Thus, Obama's argument is that the Reverend's comments must be viewed as part of a racial commentary on the government and the racial history of the U.S.
But, this almost totally false. In reality this is part of the standard progressive right (liberal) critique of the U.S.'s capitalist economic system and Republican form of government. The evidence of this is contained in comments, contemporaneous with those of the Reverend's, by other progressive and socialist ideologues.

Consider the following:

No doubt this is the result of injustice the U.S. practices against the weak in the world.
Sheik Ahmed Yassin, Leader of Hamas, published in the October 15th, 2001 edition of the New York Times.

During my lifetime, America has been constantly waging war against much of humanity: impoverished people mostly, in stricken places. Moreover, far from being the main perpetrators of terrorism, Islamic peoples have been its victims -- more often than not of an American fundamentalism and its proxies.
Editorial in British newspaper The Guardian as quoted in The New Republic, Oct 12, 2001 edition.

Chomsky, himself an American, refers to the United States as a "leading terrorist state," using as an example the Reagan administration's invasion of Nicaragua in the 1980s and the subsequent "devastating economic war" in that country. Though the invasion was condemned by the World Court, the United States responded by ignoring the ruling and escalating its attack on the country, killing thousands of people in the process. A review of Noam Chomsky's 9-11. As quoted in
The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo) January 27, 2002 Sunday

And please read the column by Walter Williams of October 29, 2001 published in the Washington Times on Nov 4, 2001. Read the complete text here.

In fact, the Reverend attributes his post 9-11 comments to former Ambassador Edward Peck (see the wikipedia entry).

Yassin isn't black, neither is Chomsky, neither is Peck. This IS NOT A racial issue, it is a political ideological issue, a progessive left viewpoint writ large. Senator Obama claims to not agree with it but also claims to be a progressive. Make your own judgements of the Senator's ideological beliefs, but do not for minute buy this spin that Reverend's Wright anti-americanism is reflective of a black critique of the American experience.

How Obama Plans to Increase Unemployment

2008-03-02T21:34:00.004-06:00

Senator Obama (D - Illinois) likes to call it Tax Relief for Working Families/The Middle Class. Let's explore:

Making Work Pay - The kind Senator from Illinois will institute a new tax credit of $500 per person/$1000 per 'working family'. The intent is to offset the FICA (social security tax) on the first $8,100 of income by eliminating income taxes. Obama claims this will eliminate the income tax for 10 million Americans. Obama would make the credit refundable if it resulted in a negative tax due.

The Junior Senator from Illinois has heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit, because he also plans to increase it. Here is what the IRS page says about the EITC:

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. When the EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit.

Hmmm.... sounds a lot like the Obama Making Work Pay plan....
Except it is a lot larger... The EITC is little complicated (hey, it is part of the United States Tax Code) but currently the max is $428 for a single/married with no children; $2833 for single with one child, and $4716 for a single/married with two children. The EITC is on a sliding scale, the max is in the range of approx. $10K to $17.4K of income. It slides toward zero as the income moves toward zero or towards the cap AGI of $39,783 for the married/single with two children. So Obama's plan would add on a kicker...

The result of this is that the marginal tax rate on the lowest income earners will increase. That is, Obama will build into the tax code an incentive to not make more money. Don't take that second job.... if you do your income will go down not up.

Obama will create a whole new group of income non-earners to fill those open 'second jobs' by unemploying millions of tax preparers/accountants. You see Obama will have the IRS send you the completed the tax form, you just need to check their work then send it back. Of course, they can't get my birthday correct (two years in a row now) so they will be able to figure my taxes correctly... no problem there....

In case the low income earner/former tax preparers do not know what to do with their free time, Obama has that covered too... a $4K college tuition tax credit. That will add to your refund and, get this, is available prior to you actually enrolling in courses.

Of course while you are busy (not?) taking classes and working 20 hours a week, your children will need to be cared for. The kindly Senator from Illinois has thought of that too. He will increase the Child Care Tax credit from 35% of eligible expenses to 50% and make the credit... you already know the answer... REFUNDABLE.

So, a married couple with two children each adult working 20 hours a week at minimum wage and taking courses at the local college will make around... $13,000 per year gross (not counting Obama's plan to raise the minimum wage). They will have pay about $975 in FICA. Their income tax withholdings will be completely refunded, they will receive tax credits of $2000 for the child tax credit, $4716 for the EITC, $1000 for Making Work Pay, $8K for tuition credit, and 50% of their Child care expenses. An expected refund of $15,716 + half the day care bill.

Thus, these individuals will suffer a net loss of income from full employment unless they find a job that pays them an after tax net of nearly $30,000. Which means finding a job that pays at least $50K.

Yeah, that's gonna happen. So Obama will increase unemployment by reducing the number of people working multiple jobs to reach full employment and by eliminating millions of jobs in the tax preparation business.

Senator, you are not the change we seek.

Honestly, this blog would fully support setting tax preparers and IRS agents free to pursue other career options by, say, implementing a flat tax with no deductions and no tax credits. This a much simpler and more straight forward approach than Obama's nightmarish web of tax credits. Obama would make the tax form so complex that the working poor, who tend to be under-educated, will need someone else to fill out for them. A flat tax would completely eliminate the need for them to perform a calculation... just send in the year-end paystub showing you made less than bar (what ever number that is... most ideas peg it around $65K) and no tax is owed.

That would be a change you could believe in.... Too Bad Obama doesn't see it that way.

Obama's Outsized Rate of Return: No Wonder He's So Popular

2008-03-01T19:55:00.010-06:00

In a previous post here on principle and policy, I referred to Senator Obama (D _ Illinois) as a market manager. It turns out he is also a financial wizard. Read on...

First we have a quote from the Senator's speech on the Economy given in Ohio on Febraruy 24th 2008.

We can also invest in American jobs by investing in America, and rebuilding our roads and bridges. I've proposed a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs - many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by the housing crisis we're facing.

What kind of financial magic is this? If Senator Obama (D - Illinois) put $6 billion in every year for 10 years at 6%; the investment would grow to approximately $78.5 billion at the end of ten years. If Senator Obama (D - Illinois) put in $60 billion in year one at 6%, the total at the end of ten years would be around $101 billion. Even if Senator Obama (D - Illinois) invested in an index fund that earned the market's long term average return of 10% the thing would slightly more than double to $141.5 billion.
How is the Senator planning to achieve an out-sized financial bonanza wherein the Taxpayers can yield 26.57% return necessary to turn $60 billion in year one to 500 billion in year 10? More research is necessary.
This blogger found that the alleged Bank is a now a key element of Senator Obama's economic plan:

New Jobs Through a New National Infrastructure Investment: Barack Obama believes that it is critically important for the United States to rebuild its national transportation infrastructure – its highways, bridges, roads, ports, air, and train systems – to strengthen user safety, bolster our long-term competitiveness and ensure our economy continues to grow. Investing in national infrastructure is especially important in our efforts to bolster our homeland security to meet international terrorism and natural disaster threats. Additionally, a robust federal
infrastructure investment program today will help strengthen the U.S. economy and provide at least one million more U.S. jobs at a time when the housing and construction industries are slowing. Barack Obama will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation. These projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs per year and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity.

Read the entire plan here

It turns out that this is based on proposed legislation by Senator Chris Dodd (D - Connecticut). While you can read the full text of the proposed bill here. I summarize it as follows:

An independent agency of the Federal government administratively similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The "Bank" would have some strange banking powers: the ability to conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, obtain information from any other federal agency simply by asking (other agencies are required to comply), accept for funding any infrastructure project with a Federal price tag of $75 million or more (the list of possibilities goes on for two pages), unilateral authority to determine the appropriate Federal share of spending for every project accepted, to act as a centralized entity to provide financing for qualified infrastructure projects; to issue general purpose infrastructure bonds, and to provide direct subsidies to qualified infrastructure projects from amounts made available from the issuance of such bonds; to issue project-based infrastructure bonds for the financing of specific qualified infrastructure projects; to provide loan guarantees to State or local governments issuing debt to finance qualified infra
structure projects, under rules prescribed by the Board, in a manner similar to that described in chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code; to issue loans, at varying interest rates, including very low interest rates, to qualified project sponsors for qualified projects; to leverage resources and stimulate public and private investment in infrastructure; and to encourage States to create additional opportunities for the financing of infrastructure projects.

WOW! Don't see too many Banks with subpoena power! The borrowing authority of this "Bank" is capped at $60 billion outstanding (the number Senator Obama used as his investment amount); one percent of which is used to fund the bank operations. Thus, this new government agency could cost $600 million the first year.

In my first examination of the bill's text I saw not one word on how the billions of new debt will be paid for. It appears to operate under the premise that the U.S. Government need not use tax money to pay for things. We can just borrow it, and when the debt comes due, we will borrow more, and when that comes due we will borrow more.

I wonder how much of the proceeds will go to fund Amtrak, the sacred of cow of the bill's sponsor Senator Chris Dodd (D - Connecticut).

So now you know how Senator Obama can turn $60 billion into a $.5 trillion using Senator Dodd's new Bank. No wonder Senator Dodd has endorsed the candidacy of Senator Obama.

McCain Missing Opportunity

2008-02-26T21:39:00.003-06:00

Presumptive GOP Presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R - Arizona) is missing, or at least is slow moving, on the tactical opportunity presented him to define his potential opponent, Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois).

The GOP frontrunner has all but locked up the nomination, and will likely go over the top on March 4th. Meanwhile Sen. Obama continues to fight a close battle with Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York).

Senator McCain should use this time to define Obama. Here is why. Clinton is already well-defined by the right. Her negatives are constantly above 50%. Sen. Obama on the other hand is a relatively less well known politician on the national scene. His negatives are not high and likely soft. While he is focused on winning the Democrat nomination, McCain should begin to define him for the general election.

The popular critique of Senator Obama, one initiated, at least in part, by Sen. Clinton's campaign is that he is an empty suit. All fancy rhetoric with no content. Senator McCain should resist the urge to use this line. It ultimately complements Sen. Obama on his rhetorical skills. He doesn't need any more reinforcement, judging from the crowds at his campaign events.

Senator McCain's campaign should take an opposite line of attack. I would use something like this:

I am not going to call Senator Obama an empty suit. But I do question why a candidate would so passionately argue for unity and bipartisanship and then in the next breath advocate radical positions that most Americans strongly disagree with. For example....

As pointed out by a friend of Uncommon Sense, this line is a two-fer. First, it calls him an empty suit while pretending not to. Second, it positions him, if skilfully done, as far left of center of the electorate.

The opportunity to define the opponent in a Presidential campaign is the critical point. Senator McCain should not let this opportunity pass.

The NIE and Iran: Continuing the Stupidity

2007-12-05T16:28:00.000-06:00

The recent NIE that concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, adn the response to it by the Administration, the presidential candidates, the Congress, and the media pundits, has precisely missed the point.

Our issues with Iran are not solely about nukes. Rather, the issues with Iran derive from its long-term support, training, financing, and direction of terrorist organizations, especially the Hezbollah.

President Bush's policy has been the leading problem in that has focused on the nuke issue to the exclusion of all else. The nuke issue is a BIG issue, but not the ONLY issue. Read here
The United States now faces an opportunity to redefine the Iran problem as being a multi-attribute issue tightly integrated into the global war on terror. Regretably, the President's speeches and White House Spin reveal they do not possess the broad range view needed for dealing with this problem.

The question now is: Do any of the candidates have it?

More Edwards Double Speak

2007-09-27T22:07:00.000-05:00

During Wednesday's Democratic Debate, former Senator John Edwards (D - North Carolina) responded to a question on health care. Here is his opening comment:

I listen to this discussion and this is what I hear -- a bunch of people who have been in Washington a long time who think that everything needs to be done there. It's like the rest of America doesn't exist. They're going to have a bunch of Washington insiders who sit around tables... and figure out... what should be done about health care.

He then said something that should make the hair on your neck stand on end:

And the thing that I have committed to do is the first day that I am President, I will say to Congress, to myself, to the vice president, to the members of the cabinet, if you have not passed universal health care by July of this year.... you lose your health care because there is no excuse for politicians in Washington to have health care coverage when America has no health care coverage.

Way to take the time to listen to the American people Senator.

P.S. Unless you plan on appointing yourself dictator you cannot fulfill this commitment. I hope the American people are not fooled by your demagoguery on this issue.

Senator Joe Biden: In his Own Words

2007-09-27T21:58:00.001-05:00

During Wednesday's Democratic Debate, Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) responded (in part) to a question from NBC's Tim Russert on health care with the following:

But the fact of the matter is, it's much more difficult to go out and convince a group of Republicans, I would argue, getting something done that is of a major consequence. I have experience doing that.

Thanks Joe.

2007-09-20T09:20:00.000-05:00

I found the following sturied buried on page 11 of my local newspaper under the headline "Plant Explosion", I had to hunt for it at FoxNews.com where it, interestingly enough, is not on the "most read" stories list. Here is the link and here is the big news buried in the story:

But Jane's cited Syrian defense sources as saying the explosion took place during a test to fit a "Scud C" missile with a mustard-gas warhead. It quoted the sources as saying the explosion occurred when fuel caught fire in the missile production laboratory. .... Jane's, based in southern England, said the chemical weapons program was part of a strategic co-operation accord signed between Syria and Iran in November 2005.

Obviously, this is very disturbing news. It underscores the one of the basic themes of this blog: the United States must stop its lethargy in the face of these provocative actions by Iran and Syria. Such instances must be met with strong signals of escalating tension coupled with diplomatic efforts that demand these provocateurs cease and desist in these type of activities.

John Edwards' Terrifying Counterterrorism Strategy

2007-09-14T22:04:00.000-05:00

In a speech given this week (Sept. 7th) at Pace University in New York, former Senator John Edwards (D - North Carolina) laid out his counterism policy ideas in a speech entitled "A New Strategy Against Terrorism." Read the entire speech here.

Senator Edwards ideas are both mystifying and terrifying. Here is the meat of the plan :

Instead of Cold War institutions designed to win traditional wars and protect traditional borders, we need new institutions designed to share intelligence, cooperate across borders, and take out small, hostile groups. ... As president, I will launch a comprehensive new counterterrorism policy that will be defined by two principles—strength and cooperation. The centerpiece of this policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO). Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.
CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.

And thus, it seems that Senator Edwards is advocating a new international police force that will have the prerogative to violate national sovereignty at its own whim. It makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, doesn't it? I wonder where are the principles that our nation was founded under? Principles like checks and balances, a government properly constituted and constitutionally limited, responsibility to the people, and on and on and on....

But, the kindly Senator from the Tar Heel state is not done yet. Read this:

There is no more urgent task than preventing terrorists from acquiring a nuclear weapon or another weapon of mass destruction. And we will all be better off when the world is free of nuclear weapons. Diplomacy is key to progress against nuclear weapons. The recent agreement with North Korea to shut down their nuclear programs in exchange for the release of frozen assets is long overdue, but encouraging. It is telling that the few successes of the Bush Administration come from the diplomacy it has derided.
As president, I will create a Global Nuclear Compact to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would support peaceful nuclear programs, improve security for existing stocks of nuclear materials, and ensure more frequent verification that materials are not being diverted and facilities are not being misused. And I will lead an international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Again unbelievable. Strengthen the NNPT? The Senator who sees two America's apparently cannot see the reality of the modern world. Korea has continually flaunted the NNPT and has violated its agreements whenever it needs economic assistance. The success Senator Edwards sees in Korea is the success of bribery and payola, not diplomacy. Iran is another country that continually flaunts the NNPT and the UN's IAEA. The so-called big three EU powers have failed to negotiate a diplomatic deal with Iran, even with the assistance and backing of both the U.S. and Russia. Re-writing treaties and discussing the issue in committee is not going to solve the problem, it is the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

Ready? Here is the payoff pitch:

And during my first year in office, I will establish a "Marshall Corps," patterned after the military reserves, that will include at least 10,000 civilian experts. Its members will be deployed abroad to serve on reconstruction, stabilization, and humanitarian missions.
Rethinking our approach to terrorism also means rethinking our approach country by country, cell by cell. And in each place where terrorism has taken root, there is a lot more we can do.
We must begin with one of the greatest generators of terrorism in the world today: Iraq.

So let me get this straight, we want to pull out 130,000+ troops from Iraq on the grounds it is failed and unconnected to terror... then send out TEN THOUSAND civilians to ???? deliver payola? Come on, Senator... this is ludicrous.

The Senator then lays out the tough talk:

As president, I will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan, including strengthening the reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. But I want to be clear about one thing: if we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will.
And Saudi Arabia is a country we have given too much in return for too little. We must require the Saudis to do more to stop the flow of terrorists to Iraq. As president, I will condition future arms packages on Saudi Arabia's actions against terrorists.

But Senator, what happened to CITO?????

President; Democrats; Still Do Not Get It.

2007-09-13T21:48:00.000-05:00

Amazingly, the President of the United States and the Congressional Leadership of the Democratic Party seem not to be reading principleandpolicy.blogspot.com.

What else explains the moronic, today is yesterday all over again, political dialogue regarding the war in Iraq?

The Democrats are insisting on sticking to their mind-numbingly stupid political and policy positions: the war was a mistake, it is a distraction from pursuing bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network, that the American people want our troops out of Iraq, etc, etc, etc.

As for the POTUS, he insists on maintaining that Iraq must be free and democratic in order to hold the line on terror. We must stand-by Iraqis who are fighting Al Qaeda elements until Iraqis can stand on their own.

Missing from this discussion is the strategy of the war on terror. The Democrats' rhetoric fails to recognize that the war on terror is larger than just Al-Qaeda and that Iraq is part of the war. POTUS has failed to lay out a clear strategy for the war on terror, which necessarily must address state sponsorship of terror.

In the age of terror, our only hope for lasting security is ending of state sponsorship of terror. Leaving Iraq now will empower Iran and Syria, the two major remaining state sponsors. It will also empower bin Laden by giving him a rhetorical victory with the Arab public. But, sticking it out in Iraq, however noble, is not the same as voicing a strategy that is designed to end state sponsorship and ultimately defeat the terrorist networks. Long time readers of this blog are familiar with this unavoidable logic.

The Drums of War: A Failure of Principled Policy

2007-09-11T16:31:00.000-05:00

Fox has reported here that German opposition to further U.N. sanctions against Iran has led the U.S. to begin to develop attack plans against Iran's nuclear production facilities.

While some Democrats, and even Republicans like Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas), may scream, it is clear that the World cannot allow the Iranian Theocracy to acquire nuclear weapons. In fact, given their long and inglorious history of supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, it is dangerous for this regime to possess any type of radioactive material.

One cannot help but feel that feckless inaction {not} taken by the U.S.A. in the face of Iranian treachery over the last 30 years has lead to this point. I still believe that if the U.S. began responding to Iran in effective ways, that hostilities may be avoided. Note, this does not mean "diplomacy"... it means acting to increase tensions when the Iranians engage in provocative acts and acting to decrease tensions when the Iranians act in encouraging ways. It means sending clear and unmistakable signals of intent to the Iranians. Actions like increasing our military, forward deploying forces, capturing and detaining Iranian operatives, inspecting vessels bound for Iranian ports, etc. should all be on the table and under consideration whenever the Ayatollahs cross the line.

Regrettably, the current administration will likely deliver an ultimatum, then authorize weapons release. This may ultimately be necessary, but it is also a action that might produce an undesirable widening of the war in the middle east.

bin Laden's Sense of Humor

2007-09-09T20:46:00.000-05:00

I read bin Laden's communique here.

They must have been really giggling like school girl's back in the cave when they thought this one up. What a hoot. The main idea in the message seems to be "Why don't all you godless Americans give up Democracy in favor of an autocratic theocracy based on Islam and led by me?" I had milk coming out my nose....

On a more serious note, this communique gives lie to the notion held by some, including GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R - Texas), that UBL and the boys are only angry because U.S. troops are in the Arab lands. The truth is, which is clearly evident from this message, that UBL is trying to rally the Arab people together by making the U.S.A. their common enemy. His only hope of establishing his precious caliphate is to convince the masses they have a common external enemy. This is the tried and true strategy of the megalomaniac -- and UBL is certainly one of those.

Fortunately, there are many more Arabs who realize that 1) UBL and his fanatic associates are the leading cause of Arab deaths, and 2) the U.S. is the only force protecting them from this murderous rampage.

Godspeed to U.S. Forces in all parts of the world.

Republican Candidates Still Don't Get IT.

2007-09-06T08:03:00.000-05:00

Well, the August lull is over and the campaign season begins in earnest with last nights GOP debate in New Hampshire.

The big picture taken away from the debates is that the GOP field of candidates still do not get it. The election of 2008 is about winning the war on terror, a necessary component of which is ending state sponsorship of terror. There was little discussion of the topic and no plans laid out for victory.

When will they get it? The public wants to win, the public wants to here about victory.

The Danger of Withdrawal from Iraq

2007-08-20T15:55:00.000-05:00

News reports today have suggested that Senators Carl Levin (D - Michigan) and John Warner (R - Virginia) found that the surge is working. But these articles also highlight the danger from the ill-conceived premise of the Democratic Party that immediate withdrawal is necessary.

Consider the following quote from a story on FoxNews.com:

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, an on-again, off-again supporter of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told a British newspaper on Monday that the Iraqi government is on the brink of collapse. "Al-Maliki's government will not survive because he has proven that he will not work with important elements of the Iraqi people," the cleric was quoted by The Independent as saying. "The prime minister is a tool for the Americans, and people see that clearly. It will probably be the Americans who decide to change him when they realize he has failed. We don't have a democracy here, we have a foreign occupation."

Al-sadr is the biggest obstacle to peace and Democracy in Iraq. His positioning of the government as a non-democratic, foreign puppet, government is a pre-text for a fundamentalist takeover by shia loyal to himself and supported by the Ayatollah's in Tehran.

Beware of all Democrats and Republicans (like erstwhile Presidential Candidate and Congressman Ron Paul) that advocate immediate withdrawal. Such a move empowers Iran, which a major state sponsor of terror and a sworn enemy of the U.S.

Again Iran Misbehaves: The U.S. Response?

2007-08-08T08:15:00.000-05:00

News stories at FoxNews.com and the NYTimes indicate that Iran has been arming Shiite militias with advanced bombs.

These weapons are killing our troops. The U.S. government needs to act. Instead there is diplomatic jawboning going on. This is disgraceful.

My plea to the President: PLEASE ACT NOW to stop Iranian interference in Iraq.

Ron Paul in Disgrace

2007-08-02T14:51:00.000-05:00

Today the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 3159 which is, imho, an unconstitutional intrusion by Congress into the prerogatives of the President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. Decisions regarding troop assignments, including deployments and rotations, are his alone. Read about the bill here.

One of the few Republicans voting for this bill, as reported on C-Span this afternoon, was Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas). The official record confirms Congressman Paul voted "Aye."

I cannot understand how a person who seeks the office of the President could so cravenly conspire to usurp the constitutional authority of that office.

The Congressman should be ashamed.

Missing the Point: The Reaction to Obama's Tough Talk

2007-08-01T20:25:00.000-05:00

Much of the literate world is contemplating the tough talk of Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois), candidate for the Democrat nomination to the office of President of the United States. The following passage from Senator Obama's speech is drawing all of the attention:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

The Senator is obviously trying to buck-up voter's perceptions of his foreign policy credentials. His rivals for the Democrat nomination are pummeling him with criticism. This kind of talk will not play well with the anti-war/pacifist wing of the Democratic base. It is thus deserving of debate and analysis by observers.

But, honestly there is far more in this speech that would make one pause before pulling the lever for the junior Senator from Illinois. For example, early in the speech Senator Obama makes this observation:

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland. Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. emphasis added

I would probably disagree with just about every thought in this paragraph, but the heart of the matter is the italicized statement about stateless terror. What we are facing is state supported terror. Without the aide, succor, and support given by these criminal regimes organizations like Al Qaeda could not even contemplate the strikes they have executed against US in this county, abroad, and against other Western countries.

Then too, he ignores the true nature of the terrorist threat: The network of terrorist minded individuals and small groups who seek funding, training, and other support from the financiers of terror. Certainly Al Qaeda is one such organization, but it is not the only such organization. The Islamic Brotherhood and Hezbollah are certainly involved in these activities.

Whether Senator Obama likes it or not, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a major state sponsor of terror. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a major state sponsor of terror. Iran is to this day a major state sponsor of terror, as is Syria. As I have noted previously on this blog (read here, here, and here), the war against terror cannot be won without ending state sponsorship of terror.

Hopefully, enough American voters will see the truth of this and prevent Senator Obama or any other like-minded individual from assuming the Office of President of the United States.

Strolling the Streets of Ramadi: Must Read in NYTIMES

2007-07-30T09:43:00.000-05:00

I don't usually recommend reading from the NY Times... but today is different. Please read the entire article here.

The basic import of the article has two aspects. The first is the report of the turning tide against Al Qaeda in Iraq. This has been reported on previously and recorded on this blog.

The second is the insinuation that the only goal in Iraq is stability. This is patently false. As I have detailed on this blog, the key factor for success in the war on terror is eliminating state sponsorship of terror. Since Iran and Syria are the two leading, remaining state sponsors the U.S. has a responsibility to do everything within its power to terminate that state sponsorship. Iran and Syria have the most to gain by the U.S. failing in, or even prematurely evacuating, Iraq. We must stay the course or we will be forced to return to even more desperate situation.

But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack writing in the July 30th, 2007 edition of the New York Times.

Hillary the Instrument Confesses to her Socialist Beliefs

2007-07-25T21:23:00.000-05:00

During Monday's CNN/YouTube Debacle, Hillary Clinton made a startling confession of something I have believed true for many years.

This was the question:

Hi. My name is Rob Porter, and I’m from Irvine, California. I have a question for Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal"? And would you use this word to describe yourself? Thank you.

Senator Clinton's Response was:

You know, Rob -- (laughter) -- you know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their families. So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics. (Applause.)

See the entire transcript here.

So the junior senator from NY associates herself with early 20th century progressives? I encourage interested readers to investigate the progressive movement a good place to start is Wikipedia.

One interesting thing in the Wikipedia file is this passage:

Socialism (in the strict or radical sense) aims to establish a fundamentally different society from the one that currently exists in most countries. While there are different schools of socialism, which often tend to have differing views of the ideal socialist society, some general examples of socialist concepts are: The desire to abolish capitalism, to place the means of production under the collective ownership of the people, and to achieve a very high degree of economic and political equality. Socialists argue that capitalism exploits the working class, and they desire for workers to play a vital role in moving society from capitalism to socialism (either by rising up in a revolution [ citation needed ] or general strike, or by voting en masse for socialist political parties).
In contrast, by definition progressivism aims to achieve gradual social change, and most progressives are outright opposed to any form of radical revolution. Nevertheless, the end goals are the same; the only difference is the pace at which the change occurs.

Progressive ideology was responsible for some interesting, some might argue critical, reforms in the U.S. political system. None-the-less, Wikipedia is correct, it was and still is an ideology based in marxist socialism.

Another disturbing element in progressive ideology finds an outlet through Senator Clinton - the belief that science can produce a "correct" solution and those with knowledge have a duty to impose those "correct" solutions on society. Back to Wikipedia:

The reformers of the Progressive Era advocated the Efficiency Movement. Progressives assumed that anything old was encrusted with inefficient and useless practices. A scientific study of the problem would enable experts to discover the "one best solution." ...Progressives shared a common belief in the ability of science, technology and disinterested expertise to identify all problems and come up with the one best solution. ...Many progressives argued that governments would function better if they were placed under the direction of trained, professional administrators. ...Many progressives sought to make government more rational through centralized decision-making. ...The progressives' quest for efficiency was sometimes at odds with the progressives' quest for democracy. Taking power out of the hands of elected officials and placing that power in the hands of professional administrators reduced the voice of the people in government.

This world view permeates the Clinton agenda. See for example her desire to appoint a government office for "Sorting out the competing claims and to the best of the scientists' abilities, telling us what to believe." See also her desire to create a service academy of higher education, modeled on the military academies, to produce a new breed of professional administrator/bureaucrat. This should disturb all Americans. For one example see her speech here.

Finally, there is this on Wikipedia:

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations.

enough said.

Some things the Dem's Got Right in the YouTube Debacle

2007-07-24T20:47:00.000-05:00

I have 35 years of being an instrument

Hillary Clinton (D - New York)

you know, it is a word (i.e. liberal) that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York).

We were asked about -- that we’re united. We’re not united. I’m not united on many of their views.

Former Senator Mike Gravel (D - Alaska)

Democrats Adopt Hagel

2007-07-24T18:33:00.000-05:00

A stunning development during Monday's CNN YouTube Debate was the adoption of Senator Chuck Hagel (R - Nebraska) by the Democrats.

Asked

"If you had to pick any Republican member of Congress or Republican governor to be your running mate, who would it be?

the responses were:

At the risk of hurting his reputation -- and it will hurt him -- but I would pick Chuck Hagel,

Joe Biden (D - Delaware).

Actually, I think Chuck Hagel is a good choice.

John Edwards (D - North Carolina)

The most interesting question is WHY HAGEl? He is not a liberal or even a moderate. See the ratings here and here.

There are far more moderate Republicans with which they could establish a working relationship including: Lincoln Chaffee (I - Rhode Island), Olympia Snow (R - Maine), and Susan Collins (R - Maine).

Okay, one reason might be electoral politics. A running mate that might help flip a red state or two to the blue column. But if this were the case, the choice might be Senator Hagel's far more moderate partner from Nebraska Senator Bill Nelson or even Senator John McCain (R - Arizona).

No, there is only one reason to choose Hagel: He is war vet who has broken with the President and his Party on the war.

It is clear that the war is THE ISSUE in this campaign.

YouTube Debacle: Backwards and Double Backwards

2007-07-24T18:28:00.000-05:00

And so I say we achieve strength through peace.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D - Ohio) inviting a massacre.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York) explaining how 100 year old ideology is "progressive".

More women are affected by the minimum wage than men are affected by the minimum wage. I have been the most aggressive -- in fact, I would challenge every Democrat on this stage today to commit to raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by the year 2012.

Senator John Edwards (D - North Carolina) promising to nearly double the wages of high school students.

QUESTION: I’m Gabriel. And I’m Connie, from a refugee camp near Darfur.
Before you answer this question, imagine yourself the parent of one of these children. What action do you commit to that will get these children back home to a safe Darfur and not letting it be yet another empty promise?

COOPER: Governor Richardson, what are you going to do? Would you commit American troops?

RICHARDSON: I was at that refugee camp. And there was a refugee, a woman who came up to me. She’d been raped, her husband had been killed and she said, "When is America going to start helping?" This is what I would do: It’s diplomacy.

Governor Bill Richardson (D - New Mexico) vowing to do everything possible to not help those in Darfur.

If we get U.N. peacekeeping troops authorized for Darfur, there’s some already there, it’ll take six months for them to get there. Genocide is continuing there; 200,000 have died; close to 2 million refugees in that region. America needs to respond with diplomacy, with diplomatic leadership.

Governor Bill Richardson (D - New Mexico) explaining his answer on not helping by calculating how many more people will die while he's not helping.

You don’t understand -- they don’t understand. They think we can save them. And guess what? We can. Twenty-five hundred American troops

Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) showing more courage than the Governor by offering to send an insignificant number of troops.

The problem goes a little bit deeper than that. It’s because we haven’t owned up to our responsibilities to a sense of global governance.

Former Senator Mike Gravel (D - Alaska) explaining how Darfur is our fault because we haven't instituted a proper global government.

I agree completely that what we need to do is start acting instead of talking. That means accelerating the United Nations peacekeeping forces along with the African Union. It means moving more quickly on divestment and sanctions on the Sudanese government, including trying to use the diplomacy to get China involved. And, finally, it does mean a no-fly zone. We can do it in a way that doesn’t endanger humanitarian relief.

COOPER: How about American troops on the ground?

CLINTON: I think NATO has to be there with the no-fly zone, and I think that only the United States can provide the logistical support and the air lift to make a no-fly zone and the actual delivery of humanitarian aid work.

COOPER: Just in the spirit of trying to get the answer, does that mean no American ground troops?

CLINTON: American ground troops I don’t think belong in Darfur at this time. I think we need to focus on the United Nations peacekeeping troops and the African Union troops. We’ve got to figure out what we’re doing in Iraq, where our troops are stretched thin, and Afghanistan, where we’re losing the fight to al Qaeda and bin Laden.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York) explaining that U.S troops cannot help in Darfur because we are too busy figuring out to make them lose in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My question for all the candidates: How do we pull out now? And the follow-up, are we watching the same blankin’ war? I certainly wasn’t a big fan of the invasion/liberation. It sickens me to hear about soldiers wounded and getting killed daily, not to mention innocent Iraqis, but how do we pull out now?

OBAMA: At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. ... So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight.

Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) explaining that we have to pull out because, well, we have to pull out.

I’m the only one that’s offered a political solution. And it literally means separate the parties; give them jurisdiction in their own areas; have a decentralized government, a federal system. No central government will work.

Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) explaining that we divide Iraq so that Syria, Iran, and Turkey will not have to do it themselves.

And here’s how we can do it. It doesn’t take legislation. That’s a phony excuse to say that you don’t have the votes. We appropriated $97 billion a month ago. We should tell President Bush, no more funds for the war, use that money to bring the troops home, use it to bring the troops home.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D - Ohio) explaining we must leave because it will save us some money.

It’s because we’re bogged down there at $10 billion a month, we’ve lost our moral leadership in the world. No one listens to us when it comes to foreign policy. That has to change in this country. That’s the difference here.

Senator Chris Dodd (D - Connecticut) joining Rep. Kucinich in trying to save us some money.

More Evidence that Democrats are Wrong on Iraq

2007-07-22T07:49:00.000-05:00

Multiple stories printed in liberal media outlets demonstrate that the Democrat's intentions to force a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq are dangerously misguided.

The first comes from the Washington Post in an article written by Michael Gerson who starts his article with this:

One of the most infuriating problems in Iraq seems to generate precious little fury. In a kind of malicious chemistry experiment, hostile powers are adding accelerants to Iraq's frothing chaos. Iran smuggles the advanced explosive devices that kill and maim American soldiers. Syria allows the transit of suicide bombers who kill Iraqis in markets and mosques, feeding sectarian rage. This is not a complete explanation for the difficulties in Iraq. Poor governance and political paralysis would exist if Iran and Syria meddled or not. But without these outside influences, Tony Blair told me recently, the situation in Iraq would be "very nearly manageable."

Next a report published by the Los Angeles Times written by an Iraqi official, Mowaffak Rubaie (Iraq's national security advisor). Rubaie writes:

We also recognize that we have a long way to go. In a number of "hot spots," we have not yet turned the tide, largely because of foreign interference. The most deadly weapons and explosives, including the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, enter Iraq from Iran. Ninety percent of the suicide bombers are foreigners; half of them are Saudi nationals; and the majority of these bombers enter Iraq through Syria. Nearly 90% of their victims are innocent Iraqi civilians. This cannot continue. We must persuade our neighbors to prevent terrorists and meddlers from using their territories as entry points into Iraq.

Both articles should be read in their entirety.

These support the reasoning I have offered on this blog that the main issue is Iran and Syria not Iraq. These two trouble makers are the leading state sponsors of terror. They are working to defeat the U.S. in Iraq in hopes of installing a government in that country submissive to, and complicit with, their regional and international ambitions.

A U.S. withdrawal plays directly into their hands, strengthening both regimes, but particularly the Iranians. This must not be allowed to happen. The United States must remain, at least resolute, if not on the strategic offensive, to counter and ultimately eliminate this poisonous situation.

But instead of considering national security and the war on terror, liberal elitists like Eleanor Clift writing in Newsweek, reduce the war to domestic electoral dynamics:

The operative emotion is anger. The voters are almost as furious with the Democrats for their inability to end the Iraq War as they are with President Bush for prolonging it. ... Democrats needed to do something dramatic, even histrionic, to dispel the perception they are powerless to stop the war, even if they are.

I hope my fellow citizens will awaken to the strategic imperative and not allow the Democrats to throw victory to our enemies.

Memo to Hillary: There is a Chain-of-Command

2007-07-20T09:49:00.000-05:00

As usual Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D - New York) and her left wing backers have things backward.

The Junior Senator from New York is on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Apparently, in May she requested breifings on Pentagon plans to withdraw from Iraq. Of course, such a plan presupposes that such plans exist. The Senator's request went forward despite testimony before her committee by the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Peter Pace, that no order to develop such plans had been issued.

So we see the following responses from
DailyKos

Clinton's question was more than appropriate.

and TalkLeft

Edelman seems not to know that the Pentagon is not the commanding officer of the Senate. His response is disrespectful, outrageous and he should be immediately fired for his unacceptable behavior.

and the Senator Herself:

Clinton responded Friday in a letter to Edelman's boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asking if he agreed with Edelman's charge. She said Edelman had ducked her questions and "instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning." "Undersecretary Edelman has his priorities backward," Clinton wrote, calling his claim "outrageous and dangerous." She repeated her request for a briefing - classified if necessary - on the issue of end-of-war planning. The senator's spokesman Philippe Reines said: "We sent a serious letter to the Secretary of Defense, and unacceptably got a political response back."

Predictable, but also dead wrong. This is political grandstanding at worst. TalkLeft has it precisely backward. The Undersecretary of Defense does not take orders from the Senate, let alone a Junior Senator on the Armed Services Committee. The Constitutional Role of the Senate is OVERSIGHT. That doesn't mean issuing orders or demanding reports that, in testimony before Congress, do not exist. If the Senator wants to criticize the President for his planning or lack thereof, that is fair game... POTUS is where the buck stops. But the Undersecretary takes orders from SECDEF and POTUS.

As an aspiring candidate for the Presidency, you'd think Mrs. Clinton would have more respect for the Chain-of-Command than this.

No Surprise: Unbalanced reporting by the Washington Post

2007-07-18T18:57:00.000-05:00

A story bylined by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks of the Washington Post pretends to assess what would happen if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq. See the story as printed in the Seattle Times here.

The story is unbalanced and unjust. Here's why.

DeYoung and Ricks start off summarizing the result of some war gaming:

f U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold:

• Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province.

• Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups.

• The Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there.

In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

These authors then go on to suggest that the President's statements on the issue lack merit:

In making the case for a continued U.S. troop presence, President Bush has offered far more dire forecasts, arguing that al-Qaida or Iran — or both — would take over Iraq after a "precipitous withdrawal" of U.S. forces. ... What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaida sanctuary in Iraq. ... Bush, however, sees that as the primary risk of withdrawal.

The principle that should be applied is this: ALL GUESSES ABOUT THE FUTURE ARE WRONG!

That's right -- Wrong. If humans were able to predict the future accurately we'd all be rich. The fact is, no one has figured out how to reasonably predict the future -- NOT EVEN RON PAUL. Estimates from military war games are valuable, but they are often wrong. In this case, what are the chances that U.S. military officers understand the thinking among the Ayatollahs in Tehran to accurately guess the actions that regime might take? (my answer -- slim to none).

The authors do cite a White House official. They should have payed more attention to what that official told them:

However, there are no firm conclusions regarding the consequences of a reduction in U.S. troops. A senior administration official closely involved in Iraq policy cautions that "we've got to be very modest about our predictive capabilities."

The theses of this article should have been that there is no consensus on what would happen in Iraq post-withdrawal. There are many opinions... let me see, what is that old saw about opinions?

More Treachery from Senators Reid, Levin, and Schumer

2007-07-18T10:29:00.000-05:00

After running the Senate through the night, Democratic Leadership immediately began accusing Republicans of obstructionism. Well, obstruction of defeat is no vice.

The "Lose the War on Terror" crowd continues to misinform the public and play politics with the most serious issue of our time. These men and women, who are largely the sons and daughters of America's Greatest Generation, are bringing disgrace on themselves and their country. See the stories here, here, and here.

Here is quote in the Fox News story in which Senator Carl Levin (D - Michigan) repeats the BIG LIE

"Just about everybody agrees there's no military solution to Iraq," Levin said. If Republicans get their way and block this change in mission, "We will be denied the opportunity to vote on an issue that just about every American has strong feelings on."

What Senator Levin didn't tell you is that the vote was on an amendment he sponsored which would schedule our retreat in Iraq. An amendment which is being filibustered by the Republican minority in the Senate. And appropriately so.

What the Democrats also aren't telling you is that they are trying to have it both ways. For example, Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) proposes to impose such a retreat, BUT end the retreat if the Iraqi government passes the legislation that the Junior Senator from Illinois believes to be appropriate.

Here is the full text of the Levin, Reed, at al Amendment:

SA 2087. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith,Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XV, add the following:

SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive Strategy.--The reduction of forces required by this section shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process.

(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.--After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:

(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.

(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.

(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.

(d) Completion of Transition.--The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008.

SA 2088. Mr. REED proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2087 proposed by Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Durbin) to the amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military actvities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, as follows:

At the end of the amendment add the following:

This section shall take effect one day after the date of this bill's enactment.

Thus, the withdrawal is hinged to a diplomatic effort under the UN but allows U.S. forces to continue to operate in Iraq with substantially the same mission they have today -- only at substantially reduced numbers. The most objectional part of this amendment is that it is the Congress directing the Secretary of Defense on the subject of troop disposition and tasking during a properly declared war. Thus, this amendment seeks to tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, nay to cut him out of the chain of command, during the execution of his constitutional mandated role of executing a war that congress authorized. Godspeed the minority who oppose this unconstitutional piece of usurpation.

Time Magazine got it right...

After all, picture this: More and more Republicans peel away from President Bush's strategy in Iraq until the day comes, maybe this September, maybe next year, when Democrats find themselves with a veto-proof majority to force Bush to commit to a timeline for withdrawing the troops in Iraq. Democrats celebrate, the troops are starting to come home, and then ... what exactly? ... So, while Democrats make a show tonight of unfolding cots to nap and debate through the night, it is important to remember that they are doing this more to convince their Republican colleagues to sway Bush, rather than out of any real desire to inherit the war themselves.

Warner-Lugar Revisited

2007-07-14T14:21:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I wrote about the illogical amendment proposed by the respected Senators John Warner (R - Virginia) and Richard Lugar (R - Indiana). That opinion still holds, the amendment is illogical in its conclusions and recommendations.

The good news is that these two Senators actually do get it. I was beginning to think that Republicans on the national stage had taken complete leave of their senses. In reality, the proposed amendment presents a dynamic argument for the U.S.'s vital interests with respect to Iraq. It clearly links the situation there to the Global War on terror, it finds that the Iraqi government is not capable of sustaining itself, that the threat of over-throw by would be tyrants and dictators is real, and that Iran would be significantly emboldened. In fact, should a shia fundamentalist tyrant operating with the support of Iran and Hezbollah achieve control in Iraq, the entire Middle East could be embroiled in warfare. Such a scenario would compel the U.S. to recommit troops to the region. This time in greater numbers and in a far more complex situation.

This understanding is vital in terms of deciding the appropriate role of U.S. forces in that region. As I have written before on this blog... the real decision facing the U.S. is about Iran. Any decision taken that doesn't have Iran in view is mistaken.

The DailyKos has called the amendment goofy. But for the wrong reason. mcjoan writing on Kos says that the amendment's call for a new war authorization is bizarre. In reality, the Senators are trying some political gamesmanship. As Senator Warner stated:

"It is my sincere hope that this amendment provides a basis for a bipartisan consensus,"

Thus, it is clear to this observer that Warner-Lugar is trying to seduce Democrats to support the bill by allowing them to (1) revisit, and perhaps change, their original war vote and (2) vote for a measure that at least calls for planning the withdrawal for later implementation. Democrats should be attracted to this because a plan would give them another hammer to use on the President. The measure would likely be vetoed in any event.

I quite agree with SoccerDad that republican leadership has done a poor job articulating our position, our strategy, and in building-support for victory. I can't help but feel that Senators Warner and Lugar would better serve the country by taking their case, outlined in the proposed amendment as summarized above and in yesterday's post, directly to the people. Isn't that what leadership is about? Maybe they could change a few minds?

As discussed here the two will be on ABC's This Week on Sunday. It should be interesting to see what softballs George throws at them. I hope they stop by FOX for an old fashioned grilling.

Talking Out Both Sides of Their Mouths: The Warner-Lugar Amendment

2007-07-13T19:18:00.001-05:00

Senators John Warner (R - Virginia) and Richard Lugar (R - Indiana) introduced an amendment on Iraq today H.R. 2208. The text of the amendment shows the incompetence that group think can produce. Consider the following quotes from the text, First:

Many leaders of the Iraqi government and sectarian factions have not demonstrated a commitment to the concept of a pluralist government; nor have they demonstrated the ability to control many sub-factions within their sects.

and:

the optimal outcome in Iraq of a unified, pluralist, democratic government that is able to police itself, protect its borders, and achieve economic development is not likely to be achieved in the near future.

Anything to disagree with? Let's look at an earlier quote in the amendment:

(1) The United States has vital national security interests in Iraq and the Middle East region. (2) These vital interests include the prevention of Iraq or any piece of its territory from being used as a safe haven or training ground for terrorists or as a repository or assembly point for weapons of mass destruction; the prevention of acts of violence and disorder that upset wider regional stability, undermining friendly governments, expanding refugee flows, impairing the international shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, or destroying key oil production or
transportation facilities; the prevention of Iranian domination of or aggression toward nations or areas of the Middle East, which would have potentially serious consequences for weapons proliferation, terrorism, the security of Israel, and the stability of friendly governments; and the protection of U.S. credibility in the region and throughout the world. {emphasis added}

So far so good. We have an interest, not the least of which is preventing Iran from extending its fundamentalist, terror-supporting regime. A real possibility is a coup d'etat by someone like Al-Sadr backed by the Iranians. What does Warner-Lugar require (in addition to some reporting to congress...):

The President, in close coordination with the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and) other senior military leaders shall, as a matter of prudence, consider all options and initiate planning to: (1) transition U.S. combat forces from policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq; (2) redeploy or reallocate those forces in a responsible manner as conditions permit; (3) refocus U.S. military operations on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, conducting counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in Iraq
and its associates, protecting U.S. forces and facilities, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security; and (4) address the findings of the Independent Assessment of the Iraqi Security Forces as provided by PL 110-28 to include decision points for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq that are based upon the readiness of Iraqi Security Forces.

Or in short words, plan to get out!

Doesn't that take the cake. We have an interest in seeing Iraq not spiral into a new terror supporting state, we believe that this is very likely, so let's start planning to leave!

Unbelievable!

Senators Warner and Lugar are two of the most respected members of the Senate with respect to foreign and military affairs. They must do better than this...

Hillary's War Policy: WIMP OUT

2007-07-10T07:26:00.000-05:00

This morning's New York Daily News published a column co-authored by Senator Robert Byrd (D - West Virginia) and Presidential Candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York).
You can read the entire column here

The main point of the article is that tried and true Democratic talking point:

Today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war. It is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home.

This argument is specious and dangerous. The Democrats, if successful, will only hand Iraq over to Iran... read my posts here, here, and here.

The principal question remains, when will the Administration, the Republican Leadership in the Congress, and or the Republican Presidential Candidates have the gumption to call this cowardice what it is: a plan for handing victory in the war on terror to the shia branch of Islam, led by the murderous gang of Ayatollah's in Iran.

Senator's Byrd and Clinton also mis-characterize the situation in Iraq and the success of the surge:

According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war.

For more realistic assessment by someone who is on the ground in Iraq read the interview in todays' New York Post here

But beyond that, the implication of these two Senators argument is that body count is the way to count victory. This is heinous, obnoxious, and cowardly. The idea behind the surge is to take the fight to the enemy, clear them out, and then hold the ground. This means there will be more troops in the country, increasing the number in harm's way. It also means more combat in which brave young soldiers will be asked to sacrifice their lives for liberty.

Senator Byrd and Clinton don't believe in these principles. To them, no fight is worth having. They would rather surrender freedom than fight and die. The problem with pacifism is: if there is nothing you are willing to fight for, then there is nothing that you value.

So the question for Senator Clinton is: How much do you value freedom?

The Weight of the Nation

2007-07-09T13:20:00.000-05:00

At LEFT: President George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign:

BELOW: President Bush in July of 2007 (AP photo published at www.foxnews.com)

The office certainly has an effect on the human.

In Denial: Mike Gravel

2007-07-06T23:19:00.000-05:00

The following quote is from an article written by former Senator Mike Gravel (D - Alaska) and published July 5th. You can read the full article here or here.

Hillary, as an active supporter of the war, you are one of many Americans who are guilty. And now all Americans are left responsible, regardless of whether we supported or opposed he war. When we pull out, our hands will drip with the blood of the tens of thousands of American casualties and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead. The Iraqi government didn't start this, we did.

The former Senator must be in denial. I wonder if anyone remembers waking up on Sept. 12th, 2001 and thinking "everything has changed." It seems that everyone I know did. But what did we mean? Well, one thing that changed is we went on the offensive against the terrorists. Another thing that should have changed is our tolerance for state sponsorship of terror. I remember the President firmly stating that we would not differentiate between the terrorists and those that aide and support them. Saddam was clearly a state supporter of terror. See my post here

Senator Gravel probably forgets that Saddam invaded Kuwait, and it was the United States that led a coalition of multinational forces in ousting Iraqi forces from that country. In the wake of Saddam's crushing defeat, he agreed to several U.N. Security Council regulations. He didn't keep his promises on any of them. The world was convinced, even Democratic leadership during the Clinton administration, that Saddam had WMD programs. In fact, the U.S. found remnants of previous WMD inventories and evidence of Saddam's desire to reconstitute his program at the earliest opportunity. I understand from the quoted article that if Senator Gravel had been President he would have given Saddam that opportunity.

Okay, we didn't find large stockpiles of WMD nor a nuclear weapons program. Three things need to be noted: 1) uncertainty regarding Iraq WMD has been replaced with certainty, meaning we should all sleep better at night (and thank our loyal troops for providing us with that comfort), 2) Even without the WMD, even if Saddam had come clean like he promised, we still would have had a problem with Saddam's sponsorship of terror, 3) Following Senator Gravel's advice now would likely lead to a Iranian backed takeover of Iraq by a shia fundamentalist regime, probably by Muktada Al-Sadr.

The Senator also forgets that we were actively engaged with Iraq nearly constantly for the entire period between the ODS and OIF.

Senator Gravel, I think it is time for you to enroll in 12-step program with respect to Islamic fundamentalist terror. If you can't take the war on terror seriously, Senator, you are not qualified to be President of the United States.

Breast Cancer, Racism, and Democrat Debate

2007-07-06T15:16:00.000-05:00

An interesting item was published by Reuters. The article cites a story in the American Journal of Epidemiology. I quote the appropriate portion, and provide a link to the entire article.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Black women who feel they've been victims of racial discrimination are more likely than their peers to develop breast cancer, a large study suggests. The study, which followed 59,000 African-American women for six years, found that those who reported more incidents of racial discrimination had a higher risk of breast cancer. ... The relationship was stronger among women younger than 50, researchers found. Women who said they'd faced discrimination on the job, in housing and from the police were 48 percent more likely to develop the disease than those who reported no incidents of major discrimination.

See the full article here.

Since the Democrat debate of June 28, 2007, conducted in front a predominantly African-American audience at Howard University, contained a healthy dose of racism against black women (see my post here) I suggest those in attendance immediately schedule an exam.

Happy Independence Day

2007-07-04T09:06:00.000-05:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When will the U.S. push back?

2007-07-02T21:45:00.000-05:00

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the threat posed by Iran and its mercenary army inaptly named Hezbollah (The Army of God). See In Denial: Ron Paul

The following news story broke today: IRAN

It comes as no surprise to those who have followed closely the events in Iraq, the activities of Hezbollah, and treachery of the Hezbollah's masters in Tehran that Iran and Hezbollah have trained people in Iran for deployment against U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The list of Iranian provocations is long and notorious.
See the John Lewis Chronology

When will the United States Government cease its feckless policy toward this belligerent? While hostilities are not warranted, there should be a clear increase in tension between the countries and a clear message delivered to the Ayatollahs.

The United States should insist that Iran immediately and verifiably cease all support for Hezbollah. This should be public and loud. The United States should respond with some form of action. One suggestion would be to close the borders between Iran and Iraq in the West, and Afghanistan in the East.

All Americans should be very upset over this news.

The Color Blind Constitution

2007-07-02T09:13:00.000-05:00

On June 28, 2007 the Supreme Court of the United States published its opinion in the cases of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith vs. Jefferson County Board of Education (05-908).

This case demonstrates the extemely different views between the constructionists and the "living" constitutionalists. Let's begin with a quote from Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens):

The Founders meant the constitution as a practical document that would transmit its basic values to future generations through principles that remained workable over time.

This statement fully reveals the judicial philosophy of the minority. These four argue that context is important in Constituitional law. They argue that the actions of the Seattle and Jefferson County school authorities must be viewed in the context of their historical problems with racial division. This is the same line of thinking they espoused in the campaign finance reform case (FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life: see my post in June).

The minority's view is further captured by this statement:

The plurality... may feel confident that, to end invidious discrimination, one must end all governmental use of race-conscious criteria including those with inclusive objective. ...By way of contrast, I do not claim to know how best to stop harmful discrimination; how best to create a society that includes all Americans; how best to overcome our serious problems of increasing de facto segregation, troubled inner city schooling, and poverty correlated with race.

Justice Breyer's protests are too clever by half. He claims that the objectives are meritorious and widely shared, even by the majority. But this claim is proven false by Justice Thomas' concurring opinion. The School Districts involved here had no intentions or goals with respect to discrimination, inclusion, de facto segregation, or anything else. The truth is that the minority support the liberal political view that racial diversity is inherently beneficial. They would protect public school assignment on the basis of race to ensure that school admininstrators can engineer racial integration.

The majority are impressive on this issue. Justice Thomas' concurring opinion is penetrating in logic and insight. He points out that segregation is an intentional act, and thus, de facto segregation is not segregation at all. It is racial imbalance resulting from a possible multitude of possibilities. He points out the logical inconsistency of Seattle running an African-American Academy with no racial diversity and then using a racial assignment system for the rest of the district. His opinion is a must read.

Let's consider two more quotes from the case:

"As far as the Constitution is concerned, it is irrelevant whether a government's racial classifications are drawn by those who wish to oppress a race or by those who have a sincere desire to help those thought to be disadvantaged." Justice Thomas quoting himself

... the way "to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis," Brown II 349 U.S., at 300-301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.

What is ironic in this decision is the particular heinousness of the racial systems used in Seattle and Louisville. In Seattle student are assigned based on the binary system of white or non-white. In Louisville it is also a binay system; black or non-black. The perverseness of these systems is completely exposed by The Chief Justice's opinion as well as by Justice Thomas' and Justice Kennedy's concurring opinions. It is unfathomable how the minority could support such systems.

Finally, Justice Kennedy, again the swing vote, tries to find a center. He correctly condemns the dissenters for their desire to create a system of racial allocation that has no logical conclusion. He is devestating on this issue. He disagrees with the majority to the extent that decision making on the basis of race may sometimes be necessary, but only after the decision-makers have exhausted all other possibilities. I believe that the difference between Kennedy and the Court's Plurality is one of phrasing only. Both accept the notion that the state must show a compelling interest and an exhaustion of other possibilities prior to instituting such severe and undesirable measures. The Constitution of the United States clearly prohibits such decision-making by the government. In this Court's view exceptions should be rare, justified, and only taken as a last resort.

After 230+ years, perhaps the Constitution is finally color blind.

Democrats' Debate at Howard University

2007-07-01T22:34:00.000-05:00

On June 28th, the Democrat Candidates for President engaged in a debate at Howard University. Unnoticed by most observers was the soft racism directed at African-American females during the debate. Consider the evidence:

DeWayne Wickham’s question: Thank you, Tavis. This question is about the link between education and poverty. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2006 the unemployment rate of black high school graduates -- black high school graduates -- was 33 percent higher than the unemployment rate for white high school dropouts. To what do you attribute this inequity, which keeps many black families locked in the grip of poverty?

Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) led off with this unbelievable answer:

We should remind everybody that the day before a black child, a minority child, steps into the classroom, half the achievement gap already exists. ... And that gap widens... because we do not start school earlier. We do not give single mothers in disadvantaged homes the opportunities that they need in order to know what to do to prepare their children. A mother who talks to her child on a regular basis from infancy to being a toddler, that child when it’s two years old will have a vocabulary 300 words more than a child not talked to.

So it’s simple. You’ve got to start off and focus on the nurturing and education of children when they’re very young, particularly children from disadvantaged families. You’ve got to invest in starting kids in preschool at age four.

Thus, Senator Biden is effectively arguing that the reason black high school graduates do not get employed at the same rate as white dropouts is because their mothers, presumably black females, do not spend enough time talking to their children. The Senator's solution, peculiar to Democrat thought, is to have the state take over the student at a younger age (hence the Nanny State). What did the other candidates have to say?

We have to start early, universal preschool. Governor Richardson (D - New Mexico)

I actually agree with what Senator Biden said about early childhood, but I think we should start much earlier than 4 years of age, which is what the focus has been. Former Senator Edwards (D - North Carolina)

A number of the things that we’ve got to do have already been mentioned. Early childhood education. And John’s exactly right, it starts from birth. Senator Obama (D - Illinois)

We have heard absolutely the right prescription. Senator Clinton (D - New York)

This line of reasoning is unconscionable. More disturbing for the setting in which these opinions were offered and the reception that they received. The big question is when will African-American women put these pols in their place?

The revealed principle is that Democrats think the state can do a better job of parenting than parents can. How liberating. Immediately after birth we can just drop the infant off at the local pre-pre-pre-K where highly trained government specialists will immediately start ensuring our children will get all the talk, but none of the parental love, they need.

George Orwell where are you?

Barack Obama: The Rise of the Religious Left

2007-06-28T08:19:00.000-05:00

Last week, June 23rd, Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) gave a speech in Hartford Connecticut. The text of this speech is amazing. The Senator begins by describing his perception of the heartbeat of America:

...folks are hungry for change - they're hungry for something new. They're ready to turn the page on the old politics and the old policies... But I also get the sense that there's a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any single cause or issue. It seems to me that each day, thousands of Americans are going about their lives - dropping the kids off at school, driving to work, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets, trying to kick a cigarette habit - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They're deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long road toward nothingness.

He continues by outlining his Faith and friendship:

It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma. ... And slowly, I came to realize that something was missing as well - that without an anchor for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone. ... I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith.

He then connects to this his policy plans of which I only copy the meat:

Our conscience can't rest so long as 37 million Americans are poor and forgotten by their leaders in Washington and by the media elites. ... That's why I've been fighting to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and the minimum wage. ...

Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology - it's a moral commitment.

And until we stop the genocide that's being carried out in Darfur as I speak, our conscience cannot rest.

And we should close Guantanamo Bay and stop tolerating the torture of our enemies.

But we also know our conscience cannot rest so long as the war goes on in Iraq. ...Because the Iraq war is not just a security problem, it's a moral problem.

Today there are 12 million undocumented immigrants in America, most of them working in our communities, attending our churches, and contributing to our country. ... We cannot ignore that we have a right and a duty to protect our borders. ... Our conscience cannot rest until we not only secure our borders, but give the 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country a chance to earn their citizenship by paying a fine and waiting in line behind all those who came here legally.

Thus, it is now a profound sense of Christian morality, not neo-Marxism, that drives left-wing, wealth re-distribution schemes. Incorporating or increasing the welfare (oops... workfare) distributions within the income tax code, providing Universal (read nationalized) health insurance, and intervening in Darfur are moral duties driven by He who blessed us. Now we see that socialism is a moral duty arising out of deep sense of Christian Faith.

The Junior Senator from Illinois then ties the package with a bow.

I'm hearing from evangelicals who may not agree with progressives on every issue but agree that poverty has no place in a world of plenty; that hate has no place in the hearts of believers; and that we all have to be good stewards of God's creations. From Willow Creek to the 'emerging church,' from the Southern Baptist Convention to the National Association of Evangelicals, folks are realizing that the four walls of the church are too small for a big God. God is still speaking.

I'm hearing from progressives who understand that if we want to communicate our hopes and values to Americans, we can't abandon the field of religious discourse. That's why organizations are rising up across the country to reclaim the language of faith to bring about change. God is still speaking.

Well, I told you it was an amazing speech. It seems utterly misguided however. It seems that the Senator, like most liberals, doesn't appreciate the common sense of principles that underlay conservatism. The sense that our rights come from the Creator, and that the federal government functions best when it is limited in scope. This is exactly the vision laid out by the founders. The sense that every individual needs to be responsible for themselves not dependent on the largess of a kind, Christian, and Neo-Marxist government.

Senator, I understand that you want the world to acknowledge that many Democrats are Christians. This is a truth, and a good one. But Christianity is inherently incompatible with Marxism. This is why every communist leader in history has abolished Faith within their realm.

Good Luck in the Primaries Senator.

Free Speech: FEC, McCain, et al. v. WRTL

2007-06-27T10:26:00.001-05:00

Well, I have completely read the Supreme Court decision in the case of the Federal Election Commission vs. Wisconsin Right-to-Life; Senator John McCain, et al. vs. Wisconsion Right-to-Life.

This case, to my reading, deals with the influence of corporate and union money in politics. A century's worth of legislation and case law has attempted to eliminate corporate and union contributions to, and expenditures on behalf of, political candidates for Federal office. The main purpose is to eliminate even the appearance of corruption and quid pro quo votes.

Cleverly and as expected, the money has found routes around regulations. McCain-Feingold attempted to create new barriers by controlling ads that advocate a candidate's defeat or election while pretending to be issue ads. These are called express advocacy ads. At issue is how to decide whether an ad is, or is not, an express advocacy ads.

The dissenters apply a standard that would prohibit ads that are essentially innocuous based on 1) the actual appearance of a candidate's name in the ad (urging viewers to contact Senator Feingold -- not mentioning voting at all) and 2) the "context" including other ads sponsored by organization placing the ad earlier in the election season.

The Court's Decision, authored by The Chief Justice, holds that if an ad can be interpreted as a legitimate issue ad, then it should be allowed. Thus, the court tries to error on the side of free speech.

Justice Scalia's concurring opinion is the real meat of the decision. The Justice, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, argues that neither the principle decision's logic nor the dissenter's logic hold. This opinion would reverse a previous decision and declare unconstitutional the applicable chapter of McCain-Feingold.

In the end, the case is undermined by the failure to link the behaviors to actual or potential corruption. It is never clear where the threat is. The dissenters would broadly constrain the content of issue ads. Most reasonable people would think it perfectly acceptable for an issue ad to encourage people to register their opinions with their elected representatives. It seems ludicrous to insist that the ad, if run within the 30 days prior to the election, cannot provide the name and contact information for those representatives. It also seems ludicrous to insist that an organization give up its right to issue advocacy because it engaged in permissable electioneering prior to the 30 day period. This is especially true given that absolute lack of evidence for potential corruption.

I forecast that in the near future the court will have to revisit this issue. If the court constructionists' are reinforced, I predict Justice Scalia's views will carry the day. If the court moves back to the left, the Dissenter's will reassert the flawed McConnell logic.

The decision thus illustrates the importance of the 2008 election cycle.

Freedom of speech

2007-06-25T15:48:00.000-05:00

Supreme Court Decision in FEC v WRTL (McCain, et al. v WRTL):

"Throughout the 2004 senatorial campaign, WRTL made no secret of its views about who should win the election and explicitly tied its position to the filibuster issue. ... 'Re-elect George W. Bush' and 'Send Feingold Packing'... It was under these circumstances that WRTL ran the three television and radio ads in question. ...corporations earmarked more than $50,000 specifically to pay for the ads... Each {ad} criticized an unnamed 'group of senators' for 'using the filibuster delay tactic to block federal judicial nominess from a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote,' and described the Senator's actions as 'politics at work, causing gridlock and backing up some of our courts to a state of emergency.' ....In sum, any Wisconsin voter who paid attention would have known that Democratic Senator Feingold supported Filibusters against Republican presidential judicial nominees, that the propriety of the filibusters was a major issue in the senatorial campaign, and that WTRL along with the Senator's Republican challengers opposed his reelection because of his position on filibuster."

Justice Souter, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, arguing in dissent in FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life (John McCain et al. v. WRTL) that Americans should be kept in the dark prior to elections.

I have not yet read the complete decision. I will download, read it, and have more to say later.

Ron Paul's Unrealistic Foreign Policy

2007-06-24T22:18:00.000-05:00

Congressman Ron Paul (R - TX) continues is his effort to be the most unrealistic candidate ever to run for President of the United States. The following is a direct quote from his website's issue page:

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

Let's interject some reality here. First, according to a data set on U.S. Military international force postings from 1950-2005 at heritage.org, we actually we have military in 149 countries. However, most of these are stationed at places like U.S. embassies. In reality, there are only 30 countries in which we have over 100 (including Canada, Greenland, and Iceland), and only 14 in which there are over 1,000 (including the U.K., Germany, and Italy). According to a report for the U.S. Congress at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS20649.pdf, there are currently 1.38 million U.S. troops on duty, almost 1.1 stationed in the U.S. and its territories.

Certainly seems like we are so busy extending our empire that we can't defend the homeland.

Invoking the voice of great founders like Washington and Jefferson is disingenuous-- theirs was a different day and context. However, when push came to shove both men led this nation in war. For Jefferson see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

What Presidents like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison understood is that there are some prices that are too high to pay. How about the deaths of innocent civilians in countries around the world?

Congressman Paul, get real.

In Denial: Ron Paul

2007-06-06T21:50:00.000-05:00

The following quote is from the Republican candidate debate in New Hampshire which took place Tuesday June 5th, 2007. Speaking is Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas).

REP. PAUL: I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just- war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security!

I am afraid of the congressman is in denial. The facts are that Iran has committed, either directly or indirectly through their Hezbollah terrorist organization, at least seven acts of war since 1979. These include:

1. Attacking the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
2. Illegally detaining U.S. diplomatic personnel for 444 days.
3. Bombing the U.S. embassy in Lebanon (Hezbollah)
4. Bombing the British embassy in Lebanon (Hezbollah; per the NATO treaty)
5. Bombing the French embassy in Lebanon (Hezbollah; per the NATO treaty)
6. Bombing the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon (Hezbollah).
7. Bombing the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia (Hezbollah).
8. Facilitating the design of IEDs targeted at US and Coalition Forces in Iraq.
9. Facilitating the manufacture of IEDs targeted at US and Coalition Forces in Iraq.
10. Facilitating the importation of IEDs targeted at US and Coalition Forces in Iraq.
11. Illegally detaining British sailors illegally captured in Iraqi waters.

Of course, this is irrelevant to Congressman Paul. He believes it is all America's fault. He is missing the main point: no behavior of ours can justify such barbaric acts.

A short P.S. for Congressman Paul: The United States is not an empire, we do not maintain an empire, we do not desire an empire. Please come to your senses Mr. Congressman.

War on Terror: Romney v. Obama Part I

2007-05-23T14:36:00.000-05:00

Former Governor Mitt Romney (R - Massachusetts) on fighting the war on terror.

First, we have to sharply increase our investment in national defense. I want to see at least 100,000 more troops in our military. I want to see us finally make the long overdue investment in equipment and armament, weapon systems, and strategic defense. That's going to require that we spend at least 4 percent of our GDP on defense.

"Let me show you, by the way, a little history here. Let's see if I can make this work. This shows the history as a percentage of GDP of the U.S. military. And you'll see that over time, we've made some pretty significant investments in protecting our country. In the Korean War, 11.7% of the nation's economic activity was associated with the protection of this land. During the Reagan years, it reached approximately 6% of our GDP. Today, it's down to 3.8% and I believe that we have to increase at least by 40-50 billion dollars a year our spending on military strength.

Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) on fighting the war on terror:

This administration's first Secretary of Defense proudly acknowledged that he had inherited the greatest fighting force in the nation's history. Six years later, he handed over a force that has been stretched to the breaking point, understaffed, and struggling to repair its equipment.

Two-thirds of the Army is now rated "not ready" for combat. 88% of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas, and many units cannot respond to a domestic emergency.

Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That's why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

A little reality. According to the US Army website, there are currently about 600,000 soldiers on active duty. This breaks down to 487,000 regular army, 72K National Guard, and 41K Army Reserves. For the Marines, the number is between 180K and 187K on active duty.
Despite their different sounding rhetoric, these two presidential candidates arrive at the same solution. One might be tempted to inquire of these two candidates what these extra troops would do?

References: See http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php and or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

McCain v. Romney: Mudslinging?

2007-05-22T18:12:00.000-05:00

A lot observers are interpreting Senator John McCain's (R - Arizona) remarks about Governor Mitt Romney's (R - Massachusetts) position on immigration as bad for McCain.
Here's what McCain said:

In the case of Governor Romney, you know, maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes, because it's changed in less than a year from his position before. And maybe his solution will be to get out his small-varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn. I don't know," McCain said.

One of the cardinal sins of presidential politics is to let your opponents define you. It is obvious that Senator McCain has launched a full-bored effort to paint the Governor as a flip-flopper. While it may be admirable for the Governor to refuse to get into a mudslinging contest with the Senator, there is great danger that this definition of Gov. Romney could stick. Given the Governor's recent uptick in the polls, it may be that the other candidates will assist the Senator in painting Romney with the flip-flopping label. Watch the campaign over the next few weeks to see if Governor Romney can parry the thrust, and or fight back with his own negative positioning of his opponents.

I was right on Immigration

2007-05-21T14:44:00.001-05:00

In my post of May 18th, I suggested the root of Republican opposition to the McCain/Kennedy/Bush Immigration bill was due to fear of election demographics.

That was confirmed today when Rush Limbaugh said:

This could also be called the import more Democrats bill. (or words close to this, I do not have a transcript)

Compassionate Conservatism: Brownback and Huckabee?

2007-05-18T20:53:00.001-05:00

I continue to be frustrated by the lack of specific proposed actions from Presidential Candidates Brownback and Huckabee. Senator Sam Brownback (R - Kansas) and Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R - Arkansas) are both "religious" conservatives with questionable positions on economics. (Note: in an earlier post I noted that both candidates supported a flat tax; it appears the Governor Huckabee is now a proponent of the Fair Tax). I have read articles in the press where both candidates are referred to as compassionate conservatives.

On their websites, the evidence of exactly what they are is slim. Governor Huckabee talks about supporting No Child Left Behind, and sounds like he wants to augment that albatross with his so-called "Weapons of Mass Instruction" - to wit: art and music. Now I value art and music instruction... but do we need federal intervention in this area. We certainly didn't need NCLB! It also seems as if the kindly governor would outlaw divorce.

Senator Brownback is equally nebulous. He seems to be for privatization of social security. He favors a flat-tax and wants to reduce the UN in size. Very little substantive material on any of the issues.

So the question is unresolved. We do not need to follow the current compassionate conservative with a clone. Big government is not the answer. If you believe it is the answer, then vote for an authentic big government candidate-- Hilary Clinton for example.

Immigration Reform Demagoguery

2007-05-18T20:23:00.001-05:00

According to Wikipedia

Demagoguery refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes. ...but that skilled demagogues often need to use only special emphasis by which an uncritical listener will be led to draw the desired conclusion himself, seeding a belief that is self-reinforced rather than one based on fact or truth. ...Demagogues may make use of logical fallacies, though persuasion may require no use of logic. While it may not rely heavily upon outright lies, the use of half-truths, omissions, and distortions are what define demagogy — it is, in essence, giving bad-faith arguments for the purpose of political gain.

I am becoming increasingly irritated at those who condemn suggested immigration reform, for example the Bush-Kennedy agreement announced yesterday, as "amnesty". Especially irritating is Neal Boortz, but I digress. Amnesty is an act of pardon plus the obliteration of all legal memory. A pardon forgives the crime and eliminates the penalty associated with the crime. Therefore, if one is granted amnesty there is no crime, no penalty, and no record.

The proposed immigration reform creates special records to identify the offenders, in terms of the Z visa, worker documentation, etc. Requires those who have entered the U.S. without permission to pay a fine of $5K. THEREFORE IT IS NOT AMNESTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The true beef of these demagogues is three fold 1) they want to deny illegal aliens profit from their crime, 2) they believe that proposed deal creates an incentive for further illegal immigration, and 3) they are afraid that most of the illegal aliens are liberals who will swing Democrat if they earn the right to vote.

These may be legitimate issues. But it is important to remember that illegal immigration remains a misdemeanor. It should not be treated like a felony unless its legal status is duly changed by act of congress. Even then, those already here could not be held to the felony statute because it was not a felony at the time of commission.

Let's say that you observe a person cross the street to enter a business. The business has a help wanted sign up, the street crosser applies for the job and is hired. Now suppose that upon exiting the newly found place of employment, the crosser is detained by a police office and cited for jaywalking, a $25 fine. The offender has committed a misdemeanor and the profit is his new job. Should the judge order him fired? I think not. Thus, the profit complaint is a red-herring.

Does the deal create an incentive for further illegal immigration? Only if 1) the pipeline for legal immigration stays small and 2) border enforcement stay lax. But the deal provides for a bigger legal pipeline and stronger enforcement, including the fence (which the aliens are currently tunneling under... ).

That only leaves #3, fear that the illegal alien population is Democrat. I have no data to support a conclusion in either direction.

Here is another quote from Wikipedia on Amnesty:

Often wrongly or purposely used by politicians and/or journalists to denote cases of pardon where offenses are not stricken from the record and individuals proclaimed innocent. Instead, those individuals receive some lesser reprimand or sentence in response to an admission of guilt. Otherwise defined as an act of leniency [1] but not Amnesty per se.

Let's stop demagoguing this issue, if you disagree with the proposed penalty system that is fine... but it is not AMNESTY.

A slight disgreement with Ed Koch

2007-05-17T18:56:00.000-05:00

I have developed a large measure of respect for Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch. While I disagree with much of his domestic policy ideas. Mayor Koch has been honest, forthright, and resolute in writing about the war on terror. His willingness to buck the hegemony of the Democratic Party's left wing is admirable. His patriotism is unquestioned.

Recently, a column was published, written by Mayor Koch and called brilliant by Neal Boortz on his nationally syndicated talk show, which began with the following line:

Sadly, the war in Iraq appears to be lost.

He continued:

the Congress, not the President, is effectively in charge, have achieved their goal: implementing withdrawal.

and later:

Our army easily won the war, but then lost the occupation.

I disagree with the Mayor's characterization of the war. In no way is it lost. The only way we can lose this war is by turning Iraq over to extremists (al-Sadr, Iran, etc.) that will once again connect Iraq with terror. That has not happened yet, and if the country will turn against retreat it may not happen at all. I agree fully with Mayor Koch's criticism of the administration, particularly their incapacity to engage the left in debate over the true course of the war.

It is regrettably time to leave. It makes no sense to lose any more American soldiers or spill any more American blood.

I disagree with the Mayor's conclusion. It is certainly is not time to turn Iraq over to extremists. We need to be sure that the Iraq government can withstanding unconstitutional coup d'etats. Basing US Forces in Iraq also makes a great deal of sense in terms of continuing pressure on Iran.

Because the Democrats are forcing an end to the struggle in Iraq, we must now prepare to fight terrorism in our homeland for the next thirty or more years. This is a war of civilizations. The Islamic terrorists worldwide want to destroy the U.S. and every other Western nation, along with moderate Muslim nations, e.g., Egypt, Jordan, etc. Our very survival as a nation is involved. Will we have the courage and will to do all that will be necessary to prevail?

The mayor is clearly correct here. The Democrats are suffering from short-sightedness produced by their desire to win the Whitehouse. It may not be a war of civilizations, but it is a war of the view of civilization. We must hold dear to those principles we hold dear: freedom, liberty, free speech, separation of church and state, etc.

There is no safety for the weak and foolish. When you seek to end a war without substantially achieving your essential goals by simply ceasing to fight, it is often a form of surrender. And that's the way the Democrat-imposed outcome in Iraq will be understood around the world, especially by our enemies.

Boortz was mistaken, the essay is not brilliant. It starts horribly, but ends brilliantly. Thanks Mayor Koch for attempting to bring your party back to patriotism.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles
/2007/05/democrats_force_surrender_in_i.html

A Question for Congressman Paul

2007-05-16T22:24:00.000-05:00

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) said during the May 15th debate in South Carolina that the terrorists attacked on Sept 11th because of our actions in the middle east since roughly 1953. I have a few questions for the Congressman.

Congressman, you stated:

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers would not have immediately entered a state of war after Sept. 11th? Do you believe Taft would have?

Do you really believe that negotiating, talking, and trading with other countries is something other than entangling alliances?

Congressman, you stated

Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

Congressman, why then were the terrorists primarily of Saudi origin with none of them being Iraqis?

Congressman, you stated:

When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

If they got their country "back" from us evil-doers why has Iran's terrorist agent, Hezbollah, attacked us several times since? Why has Iran facilitated both Sunni and Shia violence in Iraq? Why are the IEDs that are killing our troops of Hezbollah design? Why has the Iranian parliament shouted "Death to America" every morning for nearly 30 years? The Iranians are Persian and Shia, they have no interest in the Isreal-Palestinian (Palestinian being Arab and Sunni) problem except as an interloper. So why is former Iranian President Rafsanjani under indictment by the Supreme Court of Argetina for ordering Hezbollah to conduct terror attacks against Jewish civilian targets in that country in 1992 and 1994?

Congressman Paul, in your mind what actions did we do that would ever, ever justify flying jet aircraft into skyscrapers?

Congressman Paul, why haven't these offended people followed the path of Ghandi?

The facts do not fit your conclusion Congressman.

Huckabee endorses Hilary's Plan

2007-05-14T21:27:00.000-05:00

CSPAN showed a video of a New Hampshire campaign stop by Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas). In the video, Senator Huckabee is shown explaining his plan for government transparency to a potential voter. Senator Huckabee's description sounds very much like point number nine from Senator Hilary Clinton's (D - New York) Ten Point Plan. I couldn't find a description of this on the Huckabee site. But you can visit Senator Clinton's website.

GOVERNMENT REFORM: Remarks on Government Reform
(April 13th Speech)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/

I guess this is the new era of bi-partisanship.

Senator Obama's Conservatism?

2007-05-13T09:46:00.000-05:00

This morning on ABC's This Week Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinosis) described himself as "not an ideologue" and that when he was tempted by the more leftist ideology that he found himself pulling back. He described himself as a little conservative in that regard.

Not only is this poor politics in the primary season, it is a miss-characterization of Senator Obama's record.

According to Earl Hutchinson at http://www.imdiversity.com:

Obama got a perfect 100 rating from the NAACP, National Organization for Women, National Education Association, the Children’s Defense Fund, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the Illinois Environmental Council (during his stint in the Illinois legislature) and got a huge plus rating from the ACLU. These are America’s top liberal advocacy groups, and they are some of his most ardent cheerleaders.

The National Journal among others has rated Illinois' junior Senator as one the top ten most liberal Senators. He is rated the most liberal of any Democratic Candidate; with the possible exception of Former Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina). That's right, he is even rated more liberal than Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D - Ohio), who this writer considers to be the most authentic (and contemptible) socialist on the American scene. Previous posts on this blog analyzing Senator Obama's positions reveal him to be a big government liberal who draws new federal programs out of his holster whenever he hears the word 'problem'.

For Senator Obama to claim that he is moderate, or that he had rejected leftist ideology, is simply a farce. Every time he speaks he makes it clearer that he is not a suitable choice for the Presidency of the United States.

More of the Stop the Insanity Insanity

2007-05-12T15:45:00.000-05:00

Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) addressed the International Association of Firefighters recently. The following quote was excerpted from his remarks.

Ladies and gentlemen, in order for us to regain the flexibility to be able to do the things we have to do to affect you and your union brothers and sisters in unions all across the country, and working men and women as well, in order to gain the credibility to deal with the problems we have at home, we have to do one important thing first: We've got to end this war.
This war is costing us $100 billion a year. It's sucking all the oxygen out of the air. It's taking every bit of our political, emotional and the bulk of our financial resources in order to deal with it.

Let's interject a little reality here. The U.S. government is currently spending about 2.7 trillion dollars per year. Why don't you pause for a second, take a deep breath, and let the enormity of that number wash over you. US$2,700,000,000,000.00. According to Senator Biden, the US$100 billion it is taking to fund the war is "sucking all the oxygen out of the room" and constitutes the "bulk of our financial resources." In percentage terms, that $100 billion is less than FOUR ONE-HUNDREDTHS PERCENT.

Come on Senator. You can do better than this.

Joe Biden: In His Own Words

2007-05-12T15:37:00.000-05:00

Nothing I could write can spell it out more clearly...

Well, you know, I am one of the most important men in America... and it is nice of you to -- how the heck do you guys and women go through this, man, having all of us -- all 800 candidates showing up?

And I might add, folks, by the way, all foreign policy is – I love, now that I'm a so-called expert on foreign policy, I can introduce that way.

I've never gone anywhere in my life without the firefighters. I've never gone anywhere. From the time I went to Holy Rosary grade school, looking across the street to the Claymont Volunteer Fire Company in my town, to just a couple years ago, every single solitary place in my life, you guys have been. And I won't go into it, but both politically and personally you have been the centerpiece of everything I've done.

So the easy thing for you is, unlike the other candidates, you can endorse somebody else, that's not going to change my view of what I do, firefighters.
You could be against me -- it won't change my view. Nothing changes my view, because, as I said, you are -- you have just every place in my life. It's that important.

There's a saying that says -- excuse the point of personal privilege, and that's all personal.

enough said!

Edwards Tells Graduates to Wimp Out.

2007-05-12T15:18:00.000-05:00

Former Senator John Edwards (D - North Carolina) took the occasion of graduation at New England College in Henniker, New Hampshire to begin their lives after colleges in an act of cowardice. In his prepared remarks, the former Senator uses the phrases "support our troops" and "end this war" no less than 18 times. Following the standard approach preferred by modern politicians {that is, if you say something often enough people will start believing it regardless of its merit}, Senator Edwards provides no convincing argument for why: 1) the war should end prematurely, 2) our soldiers should be brought home before the mission, the same one that over 3,000 of their brothers and sisters in arms gave their life for, is accomplished, 3) how an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would positively or negatively effect the war on terror.

I hope that those young New Hampshire students, who were 15 when they watched in horror the terrible events of September 11, explain to the Senator that winning the war on terror requires more thought and veracity than he advocates.

Winning this war can only happen if we end state sponsorship of terror. Senator Edwards prescription would empower Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror in the world today. I hope the class of 2007 has enough sense to reject this candidates' ill-thought out strategy.

Understanding Iranbollah's Reign of Terror

2007-05-11T11:13:00.000-05:00

I find it amazing that some people actually believe that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. See the following ...

http://tadamon.resist.ca/index.php/post/599

It is true that many of Hezbollah's activities are actually acts of war. These do not improve their standing with present writer. Rather these activities help support my conclusion that Iran has been at a state of war witht the US since 1979. Much of this has been conducted through their buddies in the Iranbollah.

Here are some links so that the interested person might explore the topic of Iran, Hezbollah, and international terrorism.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=230

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001454.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

The following will help solidify the relationship between Iran and the Hez, if such is necessary.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_gasiorowski.htm

Jim Gilmore's Space-Out

2007-05-09T19:55:00.000-05:00

Well, today I was looking at candidate websites and ran across this note on the James Gilmore site. Former Governor Gilmore (R-Virginia) shares Senator Obama's concern for energy independence. He also, apparently, shares Senator Obama's capacity for non-market based solutions. Here is his plank:

Jim Gilmore will launch a national energy independence project called American Energy Freedom, a NASA like effort to motivate and stimulate American ingenuity and technology using research and development tax incentives to help free our nation from its dependence on foreign oil within 25 years. In the meantime, Jim Gilmore will push for steady and dramatic increases in domestic energy production and an increase in the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Jim Gilmore also will support expanding our use of alternative fuels like ethanol, making dramatic improvements in battery technology for plug-in hybrid vehicles and the long-range development of hydrogen power for vehicles

NASA? That's what we need. R and D incentives, we need that too. Is there any evidence that there is a lack of R and D in the energy sectors?

Like much of what we are currently getting from these alleged candidates, this is just platitudes. One gets the distinct impression Governor Gilmore hasn't got the foggiest idea of what to do about energy policy. But he supports expanding our use of alternative fuels. And what is the rationale for increasing the SPR?

Come on Governor, you can do better than this.

Mike Gravel's Dumb Plan - Revisited

2007-05-09T19:39:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking more about Former Senator Mike Gravel's (D-Alaska) plan to eliminate the electoral college.

A more philosophical approach to issue recognizes that our country is a representative democracy. Both words are important. A large part of our system involves protecting the rights of the political minority. Thus, it takes a super-majority to end a filibuster. Every state gets two Senators, but congressional representatives are allocated by population. And the electoral college provides another method of ensuring political minorities receive both representation and democracy.

Eliminating the electoral college is a step away from this time honored principle.

Senator Obama: Market Manager

2007-05-08T21:24:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) gave a speech on fuel efficiency to the Detroit Economic Club. It was a speech full of tough talk and can do platitudes, but it was also was a prescription for government intervention in what should be free markets.

The Senator's problem statement is part true and part fantasy. For example he says that:

we fuel our energy needs by sending $800 million a day to countries that include some of the most despotic, volatile regimes in the world. We know that oil money funds everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the Sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq. It corrupts budding democracies, and gives dictators from Venezuela to Iran the power to freely defy and threaten the international community. It even presents a target for Osama bin Laden, who has told al Qaeda to, "focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause [the Americans] to die off on their own."

and

We know that our oil dependency is jeopardizing our planet as well - that the fossil fuels we burn are setting off a chain of dangerous weather patterns that could condemn future generations to global catastrophe. We see the effects of global climate change in our communities and around the world in record drought, famine, and forest fires. Hurricanes and typhoons are growing in intensity, and rapidly melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland could raise global sea levels high enough to swallow up large portions of every coastal city and town.

and finally

We are held hostage to the spot oil market - forced to watch our fortunes rise and fall with the changing price of every barrel. Gas prices have risen to record levels, and could hit $4 a gallon in some cities this summer. Here in Detroit, three giants of American industry are hemorrhaging jobs and profits as foreign competitors answer the rising global demand for fuel-efficient cars.

The junior senator from Illinois concludes that:

America simply cannot continue on this path. The need to drastically change our energy policy is no longer a debatable proposition. It is not a question of whether, but how; not a question of if, but when. For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time.

WOW, strong words. The age of oil must end in our time? I guess he's going for that vision thing. Let's interject some reality. First estimated world proven reserves are currently in the range of 1082 bbl and 1650 bbl (bbl = billions of barrels). Since at least the 70s oil shocks "experts" have been predicting we would run out of oil. This prompted the Carter Administration to give us 55 mph speed limits and the CAFE standards. Problem is, if you look at any graph of world proved oil reserves it has been increasing, basically monotically, since the 1940s. Consumption is running at about 84 million barrels a day, meaning that current supply would last somewhere between 35 and 54 years. A couple of things to consider: 1) all known oil fields have out produced their "proved reserves", 2) there are new sources of oil in the ground but not yet explored or brought into production, 3) there is enough oil in oil sand and oil shale to last to a very long time window. Some oil experts believe that global production is capped at 85 million barrels per day. This figure can only be increased if new wells are opened. Because daily demand is close to daily supply, prices are high. Add in the uncertainty and speculation caused by war in the region and the price is even higher, and subject to wide swings.
To be fair the Senator, he didn't claim we were running out, only that we're funding terrorism and despots while ruining the environment. Ohhh, and the price is high.

Senator Obama's Prescription includes:

- "we'll need a stringent cap on all carbon emissions"
- "creation of a global market that would make the development of low-carbon technologies profitable"
- "We'll also need to find a way to use coal - America's most abundant fossil fuel - without adding harmful greenhouse gases to the environment."
- "I have already endorsed a cap-and-trade system"
- "invest substantial revenue generated by auctioning off emissions credits into the development of carbon sequestration, advanced biofuels, and energy efficiency."
- "We'll also need new ideas on energy efficiency and the ability to harness renewable sources of energy"
- "gradually raising our fuel economy standards by four percent - approximately one mile per gallon - each year. ... using existing technology and without changing a vehicle's weight or performance. And so the only way that automakers can avoid meeting this goal is if the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration can prove that the increase is not safe, not cost-effective, or not technologically possible."
- "my proposal would provide generous tax incentives to help automakers upgrade their existing plants in order to accommodate the demands of producing more fuel-efficient vehicles."
- "We'll help to partially defray those health care costs, but only if the manufacturers are willing to invest the savings right back into the production of more fuel-efficient cars and trucks."
- "we should make it easier for the American people to buy more fuel-efficient cars by providing more tax credits to more consumers for the purchase of hybrid and ultra-efficient vehicles."
- "we should also realize that the more choices we have as consumers, the more responsibility we have to buy these cars"
- "It's time we produced, sold, and used biofuels all across America - it's time we made them as commonly available as gasoline is now."
- "provide tax credits to those who want to sell a mix of ethanol and gasoline known as E85 at their fueling stations."
- "since it only costs $100 per vehicle to install a flexible-fuel tank that can run on biofuels, I've also proposed that we help pay for this transition."
- "When I'm President, I will make sure that every vehicle purchased by the federal government {has a flexible-fuel tank)"
- "I've introduced a proposal known as a National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard,The idea behind the standard is simple. Beginning in 2010, we will require petroleum makers to reduce the carbon content of their fuel mix one percent per year by selling more clean, alternative fuels in its place."

Well this program is certainly breathtaking in its scope. It probably won't save a gallon of gas. Here's why. If you make things cheaper (through subsidies) people will use more of it, not less. Making driving cars cheaper through hybrid subsidies, E85 subsidies, flexible fuel tank subsidies, etc will lead to more driving not less. More driving means more petroleum use, not less, since none of these ideas replace it. Instituting reform to CAFE will just provide manufacturers a new game to master and play; they are already gaming the current system.

Short lesson on econ for the Senator: If you want people to use less of an item, RAISE PRICES. Ohhhh... that will not get you elected. Interested students of history should study the 1980 presidential election, particularly the positions and proposed policies of Independent Candidate John Anderson.

Mike Gravel's Dumb Plan

2007-05-06T19:19:00.000-05:00

Former Senator Mike Gravel (D - Alaska) is running for President. One of the major issues for this infamous leaker is direct election of the President by the population.

Let us be absolutely clear. This may be the dumbest idea ever.

It certainly sounds good. After all the U.S. is a democracy, and what could be more democratic than direct election of the President?

To understand this issue, one must understand the Electoral College and the reasons why the founders invented it. The electoral college's genius is that it accounts not only for population but also for geography (or perhaps more properly, geographical units). Each state is alloted a number of electors equal to the sum of its state senators and congressional representatives. Therefore, even the smallest and least populated states get at least 3 electoral college votes (for example, Rhode Island and Wyoming). The more populated states still have more votes. If one reads the Federalist Papers, the founders make it absolutely clear that the intention is to avoid mob rule.

What would a U.S. Presidential Election look like if Sen. Gravel's plan is enacted?

Answer: A very large power transfer from the country to the cities. Think of it this way. Sixty-one percent of the US population live within the top 100 MSAs, which occur in just 17 states. Only about 33% of the U.S. population voted in the 2004 election (official participation percentages based on eligible voters are higher). Under such a system, those living in the population centers have a huge incentive to vote and those in rural areas a huge incentive not to vote (what would be the use?).
Under this system you can forget about the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary. The incentive will be to campaign in the major cities in the major states. Near total control would be conferred on New York, California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Maryland-D.C. Throw in Democratic strongholds in Washington, Oregon, and the other New England states and we would not see another Republican President for... well maybe never.
Here is an interesting applied example. In the 2000 election in the state of California, Al Gore won by something around 1.3 million votes. The former Vice-President won only 21 counties, California has 58 counties. His total margin of victory was accounted for by Los Angeles county and the counties in the Bay Area. To see a map of how little of California Gore actually won, see the following:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS
/state.php?f=0&year=2000&fips=6

Senator Gravel's argument is specious. A more logical argument is that California would be better off instituting its own version of the electoral college to ensure adequate representation of the other 75% of the state.

Good thing that Senator Gravel has less than a 1% chance of winning the Democrat nomination.

War on Terror Part III

2007-05-05T20:05:00.000-05:00

After reading Part I and Part II, you might conclude that I am a war-monger set on invading Iran and Syria. It might come to that, but I also have studied strategy. The great master Sun-Tzu taught that the ultimate victory is the one that comes without firing a shot. This would be my recommended goal. However, the mismanagement of our relationship with the Islamic Republic, dating back to the 1979 revolution has been so severe, that hostilities may ultimately be required.

To the current situation. If one accepts that the primary goal of the war on terror is to break the link between the terrorists and their state sponsors. Then one must step back in amazement at the grand strategic position we have gained. Regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq has at least temporarily removed those governments from the list of state sponsors of terror. Coincidentally, it has positioned U.S., Coalition, and NATO troops in positions that should be, theoretically, putting pressure on Iran. Combined with unquestioned U.S. supremacy of the high seas. Iran should be in a vise.

To some extent Iran is feeling the pressure. After witnessing the effectiveness of U.S. forces in Iraq, the Ayatollahs must have concluded that they stood no chance in direct military engagements with the West. They also seems to have concluded that 1) nuclear weapons provide a credible deterrent to invasion and 2) that due to the political situation in the US and the EU that they have a window of opportunity to accomplish the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The current political discourse in the U.S. is furthering the Iranian's apparent goals. Currently, there is a large movement to extract our troops from Iraq. Although, some of these are disingenuous schemes that contemplate restricting our troops to bases in Iraq, others call for removal to Kuwait, still others call for removal to Okinawa. But what would happen to the Iraq we leave behind? Well this gets into forecasting the future. So I need to state another principle that I accept as binding: All estimates of the future are wrong. Recognizing this the question becomes how wrong are they? In this post I cannot provide an answer.

However, it is certainly possible to suggest that Iran will be a more powerful force in the region. It is conceivable that southern Iraq would become a client state of Iran. This would provide Iran with near direct resupply routes to their terrorist group in Lebanon. It might also increase tensions between Iran and other Arab-Sunni states in the region: Saudi Arabia and Jordan to name two. To empower the leading state sponsor of terror makes little sense in the context of a global war on terror. Political candidates that offer to extract our troops from Iraq in the name of hunting bin Laden are promoting a losing strategy in the war on terror.

The only reasonable course of action is to realize that the war on terror has advanced to the point that it is no longer about Iraq. I understand that people continue to die there, that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia continues to launch attacks there, and that the Iraqi infrastructure is as of yet unable to adequately institute the rule of law there. But, the larger picture must be served if ultimate victory is to be achieved.

The following actions deserve consideration:

1) The U.S. should begin an immediate campaign to remind the U.S. electorate and our allies around the world of the brutal and unforgivable behavior of the Iranian regime. Their tactics and methods bring disgrace to one of the most civilized cultures in the Middle East.
2) The United States should publicly demand that Iran cease and desist from all activities that support terrorist groups, especially Hezbollah. These demands should be often repeated, and made at all formal international meetings and organizations.
3) Iran is listed as an observer government in the WTO and has begun the process of accession to that body. This should be canceled and Iran prohibited from WTO grounds until it fully and completely renounces terror.
4) The same should occur at the UN. Even if it never happens (which it will not) the continual pressure by the US and her allies to prohibit this outlaw regime from participating in international affairs as a member in good standing would add to the pressure on the Iranian regime.
5) The United States should undertake covert missions to undermine Hezbollah.
6) The United States should undertake to overtly interfere in Hezbollah-Iranian supply lines. Air freight and shipping traffic should be boarded and inspected at every opportunity.
7) If within a given period of time Iran has not terminated its support for Hezbollah, then a system of ever increasing pressure should be applied including but not limited to: naval blockades of all shipping lanes, destruction of Iranian Air defense systems, destruction of the Iranian Navy, establishment of no fly zones over Iranian territory, destruction of all overland transportation infrastructure, etc.

During this effort to force Iranian compliance, the United States must not forget about Syria. The termination of Syrian involvement with terror would further isolate Iran. Thus, the United States must also begin a campaign to force Syria to end its support for terror along the same game plan as that stated above.

As part of this campaign to pressure state sponsors to end their relationships with terror organizations, the US must be prepared to 1) conduct humanitarian operations on a large scale to get food and medicine to the people, 2) respond with force to any Iranian or Syrian misdeeds (that is, episodes like assassinating Lebanese politicians or kidnapping coalition forces must be punished with clear unmistakable signals of displeasure.

Impeaching the Vice-President

2007-04-26T13:45:00.000-05:00

This article in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank is too funny pass by. The URL at for the entire article is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/....
article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402341_2.html

But, I provide an excerpt here:

"I do not stand alone," Dennis Kucinich said as he stood, alone, in front of a cluster of microphones yesterday evening.

The Ohio congressman, a Democratic presidential candidate, was holding a news conference outside the Capitol to announce that he had just filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. But subsequent questioning quickly revealed that Kucinich had not yet persuaded any of his 434 colleagues to be a cosponsor, that he had not even discussed the matter with House Democratic leaders, and that he had not raised the subject with the Judiciary Committee.

A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. "But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere," she pointed out.

"Have you talked to her today?" Kucinich shot back.

"Yes, I did," she replied.

Kucinich had not expected that answer. "Then I would say I have not talked to her," he acknowledged.

It was not an auspicious beginning for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney.

War on Terror: Part II

2007-04-25T21:02:00.000-05:00

In Part I, I began a discussion of the war on terror. This is a continuation of that discussion.

So, the war on terror has resulted in the elimination, at least temporarily of two major state sponsors of terror. We will never be able to declare victory in this war unless there are no state sponsors of terror.

State sponsorship of terror is the most illegitimate element of state craft. The basic modus operandi is the for state to engage in training, funding, and arming terror organizations and or terrorists. They use the protection of sovereign borders to project power and or chaos at their perceived enemies. They pass intelligence and give "recommendations" for operations and or targets. They fail to prosecute or extradite terrorists living within their borders. In the worst cases, they organize domestic shows of support and celebration for the terrorists' heinous acts.

In an earlier post on this Blog, I provided a series of URLs that outline Saddam Hussein's shameful support of terrorists and terrorist activities. We all know that bin Laden and his band were sheltered by the Taliban. What of Syria and Iran.

Syria is clearly linked to most, if not all, of the major Palestinian terrorist groups. Syria argues that these are freedom fighters. But when in world history have freedom fighters strapped explosives to their bodies and detonated on city buses, in discotheques, or in pizza parlors, carrying innocent women and children. The "leaders" of Hamas for example have long lived in Syria, in wealth and comfort denied their followers, under the protection of the Syrian government. The same government that has assassinated politicians in Lebanon, allowed terrorists to gather in their territory preparing for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, and supported Hezbollah.

Iran has conducted itself even more deplorably. Iran created Hezbollah, trains Hezbollah, arms them, feeds them, clothes them, etc. Hezbollah is poorly named, it is not an Army of God, it is the Iranian Army in Lebanon. Iran and Hezbollah have acted to disrupt the region and create chaos. Hezbollah has killed more Americans than any other terror organization except al Qaeda. Substract the 9-11 attacks and Hezbollah is leading terrorist killer of Americans.

It is most troublesome to recognize the points of contact between Hezbollah and al Qaeda. A little research on the web will show the interested surfer that Hezbollah had a hand in the Khobar tower bombing, that a suspected al Qaeda terror cell in Portland, Oregon had a Hezbollah member. That many of the IEDs killing our soldiers in Iraq are unmistakingly of Hezbollah design.

One terrible misunderstanding on the part of many people here in the States, is that the war on terror is really a war on al Qaeda. The Democrats' often use rhetoric to support this misunderstanding. They have concluded that it helps them politically. But the war on terror will never be over unless organizations like Hezbollah are rendered impotent. That begins and ends with their state sponsors.

In the run up to the 2004 general election, the Democrats and their nominee pressed relentlessly on a single view-- that Iraq was a diversion and or a distraction from the war on terror. In fact, my view of the 2004 DNC national convention was that it was a four day argument that Iraq was not part of the war on terror.

The Republican reply was impotent. In fact, there was really only one speech at the 2004 GOP national convention that attempted to rebut the Democrat critique (the GOP convention was held after the DNCs). That speech was given by Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
The Bush campaign never found a credible voice to connect the two. Even after winning the election, President Bush was unable, despite several attempts, to convincingly tie Iraq to the war on terror.

This state of affairs continues to the present day. Congresswoman Nan Pelosi (D - California) has stated that she believes we need to pull troops out of Iraq for redeployment to Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden. The President and most Republicans have remained unyielding in the face of the withering Democratic attack, but have still not found a voice to explain to the public why Iraq is part of the war on terror. Why Iraq matters, and why our troops there matter.

This situation has become nearly untenable. If it continues for the next 18 months as it has the last 3 years, the Republicans will have no chance in the 2008 election and the Democrats will take power. Neither side has shown an adequate understanding of the situation. Neither side has shown as adequate grasp of strategy.

In Part III, I will give some recommendations for a way forward.

War on Terror: Part I

2007-04-24T21:47:00.000-05:00

The war on terror is very badly named. It reminds one of the war on drugs. And fittingly, the major issue of contention between the democrat and republican elected officials is whether it is or isn't. The D's are trying their best to make it completely into a different version of the war on drugs, the R's are trying their best to keep it a hot war. What should the principled citizen think?

Well, the first principle that jumps to mind is this: Wars are fought between nation-states.

And this is really the crux of the issue. Any reading of recent history shows that the United States, her citizens, and interests have been the repeated targets of terror attacks and acts of war for most of the past thirty years. A good starting point is the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the illegal detention of United States citizens who were seized in the United States Embassy. This is technically an act of war, although most people probably connect the hostage episode with terror. Other acts of war perpetrated against the United States include the bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. During the period after the Iranian hostage crisis, the United States and other countries suffered a series of terror attacks including, but not limited to, the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland, the Achille Lauro Hijacking, the Khobar Towers bombing, the first World Trade Center Bombing, the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of embassies of other countries in Lebanon and Argentina, and of course the September 11th, 2001 attacks.

Through most of these attacks the United States basically turned the other cheek. Our responses are as few as they were feeble. President Reagan delivered one the most severe responses in bombing Libya after the Lockerbie incident. President Clinton launched cruise missiles at targets in Africa and Afghanistan. There seems to be some that believe we may have hit one chemical weapons facility in the Sudan, but there is evidence, and many people believe, that this was a dairy plant. Our attacks on Afghanistan are less controversial due to their minimal impact.

The question must be asked: did 9-11 really change the world?

Based on their advocated positions, the politicians have differing opinions. The democrats' argument seems, at least to this observer, to be the closest to a pre-9-11 mindset. Their intended course of action is strictly tactical with little bearing to over all strategy with respect to terror. The republicans have put forward psuedo-strategies like "we need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here." That is actually a decent principle for armed conflict, but it is not a strategy.

It occurs to this writer that the major goal of foreign policy in the post-9-11 world is to eliminate state sponsorship of terror. Our foreign policy, war policy, and tactical moves should give service to this goal. I see little evidence of this.

It is true that Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iraq under Hussein were both state sponsors of terror. Both were long-term residents on the list maintained by the U.S. State Department and figured prominently in the annual report. This reporting function is no longer with State, and the Homeland Security/Counter-terrorism office has taken a vastly different approach. Other long-time listees included Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Cuba. To some extent the elimination of Afghanistan and Iraq are collateral benefits of the Bush 43rd approach. The United States never explicitly demanded that either the Taliban or Hussein get out of the terror business. Instead, we demanded Afghanistan turn-over bin Laden and his gang and that Iraq credibly prove that it did not possess a meaningful WMD capability. Since both regimes failed to comply, hostilities ensued. In the more recent past, the administration has not pressed either Iran or Syria with respect to the sponsorship element.

go to War on Terror: Part II.

Modern Day Tribute

2007-04-24T12:47:00.000-05:00

I begin with two quotes:

“It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none."
James Madison

The fifth way America will lead again is to invest in our common humanity - to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow.We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom - that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair.

I agree. But this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box. The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice.

Delivering on these universal aspirations requires basic sustenance like food and clean water; medicine and shelter. It also requires a society that is supported by the pillars of a sustainable democracy - a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force. It requires building the capacity of the world's weakest states and providing them what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth. And it requires states that have the capacity to fight terrorism, halt the proliferation of deadly weapons, and build the health care infrastructure needed to prevent and treat such deadly diseases as HIV/AIDS and malaria.

As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.

For the last twenty years, U.S. foreign aid funding has done little more than keep pace with inflation. Doubling our foreign assistance spending by 2012 will help meet the challenge laid out by Tony Blair at the 2005 G-8 conference at Gleneagles, and it will help push the rest of the developed world to invest in security and opportunity. As we have seen recently with large increases in funding for our AIDS programs, we have the capacity to make sure this funding makes a real difference.

Part of this new funding will also establish a two billion dollar Global Education Fund that calls on the world to join together in eliminating the global education deficit, similar to what the 9/11 commission proposed. Because we cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy.

I know that many Americans are skeptical about the value of foreign aid today. But as the U.S. military made clear in Camp Lemonier, a relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly - both in lives and treasure - down the road. In this way, $50 billion a year in foreign aid - which is less than one-half of one percent of our GDP - doesn't sound as costly when you consider that last year, the Pentagon spent nearly double that amount in Iraq alone.

One can't help but wonder what Madison would think of Senator Obama's solution to the problem of terrorism. For those of a more modern bent, I offer the following wisdom:

"Money can't buy me love"

Lennon, John and Paul McCartney (1964), “Can’t Buy Me Love,” A Hard Day’s Night. London, UK: Parlophone Records.

Senator Obama's Double Vision

2007-04-24T07:19:00.000-05:00

I recently read Senator Barack Obama's (D - Illinois) prepared remarks for his speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The Senator tries to communicate a sense of his vision for the U.S. and the World. To my reading, it is double-vision.

The senator starts off his speech with this:

Good morning. We all know that these are not the best of times for America's reputation in the world. We know what the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect. We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision.

Many around the world are disappointed with our actions. And many in our own country have come to doubt either our wisdom or our capacity to shape events beyond our borders. Some have even suggested that America's time has passed.

But he then commences to argue with himself (about five sentnces later) when he states:

And along the crowded streets of Kenya, I met throngs of children who asked if they'd ever get the chance to visit that magical place called America.

So which is it Senator? Is a America a reviled evil empire or a magical place that children dream about? The Senator's entire argument about America's standing in the world vaporizes by his own testimony of what he has seen and heard in Kenya.

The Senator's double vision continues with these quotes:

At a camp along the border of Chad and Darfur, refugees begged for America to step in and help stop the genocide that has taken their mothers and fathers, sons and daughters.

I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi'a factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement - a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.

Well there it is again, that dreaded falsehood "there is no military solution in Iraq (see my post Sunday, April 15, 2007: The Military Solution in Iraq). But more to the point here, the Senator advocates intervening in a civil war in Darfur while extricating ourselves from Iraq. Come on Senator Obama, you know there is no military solution in Darfur.

More double vision from the Senator:

Of course, how we use our armed forces matters just as much as how they are prepared.

No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.

Astounding. If we gain the "clear support and participation" of others we can attack whoever we want for whatever reason. But, you only go alone if it is self-defense. So Senator, do we need to have a coalition to go into Darfur? Is defense of others not reason to act immediately and unilaterally?

The Senator clearly has double-vision. The reason is that his policies and perspective are uninformed by well thought out principles. One principle the Senator should internalize: That which is legitimate when done by a group, cannot be illegitimate when done alone (my apologies the member of parliament in the U.K. whom I paraphrase). That is to say, an action is legitimate based on its merits, not based on the number of people participating in it.

Senator Reid: Emperor?

2007-04-23T12:55:00.000-05:00

In what seems like a moment from Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - Nevada) today gave a speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Early in his speech he referred to the report of the Iraq Study Group and stated:

In that historic report, you and former Secretary of State Jim Baker - along with eight other Republicans and Democrats - said this:

"Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support."

In a mark of brazen self-admiration, Senator Reid then goes on to suggest that the President is now superfluous to U.S. foreign policy and the conduct of the war. When he stated that:

Only the President is the odd man out

But, then the majority leader, unwittingly perhaps, let on to the truth of the issue. He stated:

But he owes it to us to listen as we represent the American people.
Our timetable is fair and reasonable. We have put our plan on the table. If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative.

Thus, the picture is clear. It is he who has no intention of working with the President. The Senator has invoked the ISG report and the good name of Former Secretary of State James Baker as cover for his unconstitutional goal of a war and foreign policy takeover by the Senate. He demands the President do what he (Senator Reid) says he should do. He places responsibility for the executive to come to him (Senator Reid) with an alternative. He further states:

But he owes it to us to listen as we represent the American people.

But, in reality, it is the President who is elected by a national poll. Senator Reid only represents Nevada.

The truth of this matter is that a narrow majority in Congress is trying to inflict its will on another branch of government. This other the branch, the executive branch, is given specific duties by the constitution.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Senator Reid apparently disagrees with this section of the constitution. He would create a system where the Senator Majority Leader is defacto President of the United States. Would he appoint himself Emperor?

Governor Gilmore's Big Government Plan

2007-04-22T21:54:00.000-05:00

The following quote on Energy Independence was lifted from former Governor James Gilmore (R - Virginia) campaign website which advertises the Governor this way: "Jim Gilmore is the leader Republicans can trust to stand for low taxes, secure borders, a strong national defense and the preservation of traditional family values."

Achieving Energy Independence
The United States today imports 60 percent of its oil, a situation that places our economy and our national security at risk. Jim Gilmore believes we can do better! As President, Jim Gilmore will launch a national energy independence project called American Energy Freedom, a NASA like effort to motivate and stimulate American ingenuity and technology using research and development tax incentives to help free our nation from its dependence on foreign oil within 25 years. In the meantime, Jim Gilmore will push for steady and dramatic increases in domestic energy production and an increase in the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Jim Gilmore also will support expanding our use of alternative fuels like ethanol, making dramatic improvements in battery technology for plug-in hybrid vehicles and the long-range development of hydrogen power for vehicles.

It appears that Governor Gilmore is a conservative in the President G. W. Bush (43rd) mode. Cut taxes and enlarge government. Here we have a plan to build a federal agency modeled after NASA, which spends billions (nearly 17 in the FY 08 budget) but has trouble making one launch per billion. Gov. Gilmore's American Energy Freedom Agency (AEFA?) would duplicate NASA's model with the goal of putting itself out of business in 25 years. Sounds Attractive. But when was the last time you saw a Federal Agency go out of existence? Once created they hard to kill.

If Governor Gilmore really wants energy independence he should think about a market based solution. If he can't come up with one on his own, he could log on to the Cato Institute or some other think tank.

I have had enough of big government conservatism the past eight years.

Tommy Thompson's Health Care Plan

2007-04-22T21:41:00.000-05:00

The following is Former Governor Tommy Thompson's (R - Wisconsin) Health Care Plan which I found on his website under the heading "HEALTHCARE: Common Sense Solutions"

Governor Thompson believes we must build a system that is affordable and accessible for everyone. And we can do this without a government-run health care program that includes the worst aspects of socialized medicine while robbing our great nation of its ingenuity in developing new cures and treatments for deadly illnesses....
1. We must build a system centered on preventive medicine, rather than curative. ...
2. We must use information technology to cut costs, reduce medical errors and create a more efficient health care system. ...
3. Third, we must use the private sector and public sector to provide health insurance for all. ...Governor Thompson proposes requiring states to organize purchasing pools among the uninsured. Such an arrangement would provide health insurance for families, while allowing the purchasing pools to negotiate better prices for care.
4. We must, once and for all, make sure health care and longterm care is affordable. ...

I would like to applaud Gov. Thompson's preamble which properly rejects government run universal health care/insurance systems and socialism. But, the devil is in the details and Gov. Thompson's plan falls short on #4.

Health care is the only area of a consumer's life in which the consumer is completely uninformed about the prices. While, I probably wouldn't stop on my way into the emergency room to check the price.... price information for most preventive and routine care should be known. So Governor... would you pledge to get us a little transparency on medical service pricing? How about requiring hospitals, clinics, HMOs, Lab's etc. to post pricing information on the internet?

Mitt Romney's Do-Next-to-Nothing Policy

2007-04-21T17:08:00.000-05:00

Two days ago I took the Flat Tax Twins to tax for being non-specific about their flat tax proposals.

HOWEVER, compared to Former Governor Mitt Romney (R - Massachusetts) they are tax fighters extraordinaire. Here is what I read on Gov. Romney's campaign website.

Excerpted from a campaign press release dated Sunday, Apr 15, 2007

Governor Romney's Initiative To Protect American Taxpayers:

To Protect American Taxpayers, Governor Mitt Romney Calls On Congress To Re-Impose A Three-Fifths (60%) Supermajority Requirement To Raise Taxes. ....

Governor Romney's Lower Taxes Agenda:

... - Governor Romney Will Make The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent. ... - Governor Romney Proposes Lower Tax Rates For All Americans. ... - Governor Romney Will Fight To Abolish The Death Tax. ... - Governor Romney Proposes A Savings Incentive Plan. ... - Governor Romney Believes Our Corporate Tax Rate Must Be Competitive With The Rest Of The World. ... - Governor Romney Has A Record Of Fighting For Lower Taxes.

So the corner stone of the Governor's plan is to have a 3/5ths majority to pass increases to the income tax. But, this isn't really very much is it? Assuming Gov. Romney is elected, he may veto any proposed income tax increase. This requires a 2/3 majority to override. So, the governor either intends to use the 3/5th rule as cover to not veto or just wants somethings that sounds good but would have little practical application. (The 3/5th rule made sense for the Republican Majority in the 90's, which was always a slim majority, given that then President Clinton would likely sign any income tax increase coming out of the congress).

Other than what do have: Keeping the Bush tax cuts in place, including the Death Tax? This is like doing next to nothing since these are already in effect. Sure, it would be nice to make them permanent. But this is hardly bold action on taxes.

Rate cuts for individuals and Corporations? Always a nice idea. But in the end it just implies that Governor Romney appreciates the tax code the way it is. That is, a graduated tax scheme with high marginal rates seems to work for the former Governor. And, like his competitors, he has no specifics. How would he cut rates? Would he close loopholes? How does the Governor feel about the AMT since he ran one of the highest income tax states in the nation?

If the Governor doesn't push hard with a real vision on our federal tax scheme, he will have no real chance at his party's nomination.

John Edwards' Intolerance

2007-04-21T06:43:00.000-05:00

Here is some excerpted language from John Edwards' ( former Senator D - North Carolina) prepared comments April 18, 2007:

Excerpts Of Remarks As Prepared For Delivery At The National Action Network Convention "Keepers of the Dream Dinner."

Tonight, I want to talk about intolerance and inequality and the insidious way they feed on each other, hurting not only the people and groups they target, but all of us and the future of our country. ... There can be no question of how much intolerance this country can tolerate; we have already tolerated its effects for far too long.
And let's be crystal clear: Intolerance affects everything, starting with our economy and ending with our ability to lead at a time of massive global change and new threats to our security.
I don't just talk about these issues here—racial intolerance, the two Americas that still exists—I talk about them everywhere I go, because it's silence that allows them to survive and even thrive. {emphasis added}

It is nice when you can give a speech on intolerance while being intolerant.

Look, I generally find it easy to counter-argue racist views. However, we get nowhere by condemning them or by creating an environment where they are intimidated from expressing their views.

The heart of the first amendment is tolerance. Tolerance for allowing others to speak their piece, no matter how much we disagree with it. We can debate the merits of their position, but we should never circumscribe their privilege.

One cannot help but suspect that Senator Edwards doesn't have an intellectual reply to racist language (He was referring, of course, to Don Imus' remarks). His response is to simply to condemn intolerance by being intolerant.

So, Senator Edwards, how about a little tolerance?

The Flat Taxers

2007-04-19T21:46:00.000-05:00

Well, today I have been checking out the websites of Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R - Arkansas) and Senator Sam Brownback (R - Kansas).

Gov. Huckabee's site has the URL www.explorehuckabee.com (which sounds more like a proctology exam than a campaign for President) and proclaims that "I will promote pro-growth tax policies, perhaps even the idea of true flat tax."

A little less doubt for Sen. Brownback who states "I support a flat tax concept that simplifies tax preparation, applies a low tax rate to all Americans, and respects the special financial burden carried by American families raising children." The last phrase implying something less than flatness.

Tax policy is admirable, but like all the candidate websites I have visited so far (with the notable exception of Sen. H.R. Clinton} these are short on details and specifics. A flat tax proposal is something that really needs specificity. The much reviled Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is a flat tax. It is reviled not for its flatness but for the fact it doesn't allow individuals in states with high personal income taxes to deduct their paid-to-state taxes. Once a taxpayer is kicked over to the AMT it is essentially a 26% flat tax on taxable income (deduct $62,550 married; $42,500 single) up to $175,000; 28% over $175,000 with only mortgage interest on a primary residence allowed as a deduction. Do these flat-tax twins support the AMT? Or do they have another flat tax proposal?

The first principle of government tax policy is: If you want less of something, tax it; if you more of something, subsidize it (my apologies to whoever said this first).

All flat tax proposal share the common characteristics of 1) having at least two tax tiers (the AMT has three) and 2) punishing efforts that create wealth (a property of all income taxes). What are the tax policy goals of the flat-tax twins?

Senator Reid's Double Speak

2007-04-19T21:19:00.000-05:00

Mr. President, the White House has been telling America that Democrats are doing the wrong thing by calling for a change in course in Iraq. They say holding the Iraqi government accountable is wrong. They say finding a political solution in Iraq is wrong and they say redeploying our troops out of a civil war is wrong. They have said that even debating a strategy for changing course is dangerous and many Senate Republicans have backed that up by blocking several of our attempts to debate this issue on the Senate floor.

The American people want us to debate the war. They want us to change course. Listen to what the president's own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates said recently: "The debate in Congress . . . has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably have had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - Nevada) claiming the Administration is and is not attempting to hold the Iraqi government accountable.

But How, Rudy? How?

2007-04-19T07:27:00.000-05:00

I found this item on the Rudy Giuliani campaign website:

Rudy Giuliani believes winning the war on terror is the great responsibility of our generation. America cannot afford to go back to the days of playing defense, with inconsistent responses to terrorist attacks, because weakness only encourages aggression. Americans want peace. We’re at war not because we want to be, but because the terrorists declared war on us - well before the attacks of September 11th. Rudy understands that freedom is going to win this war of ideas. America will win the war on terror.

Finding it pretty hard to disagree with... and that is the problem. The big issue is how to win, which you can't tell from Mayor Giuliani's website. Now maybe the candidate has creative and fresh ideas on to pursue victory, but I haven't heard it yet.

I do want to recognize the former Mayor of New York for getting one thing right. It is important to recognize that the American people are a peaceful people. We desire neither war nor empire. War was declared on us. And yes it was well before the 9-11 attacks. But we need to finish this war which requires three things: 1) a definition, 2) a set of objectives and 3) a strategy for obtaining those objectives.

I hope the current crop of candidates will take this challenge.

Senator Obama's Sunk Cost Problem

2007-04-18T04:13:00.000-05:00

"As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning - in part because I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today. Now our soldiers find themselves in the crossfire of someone else's civil war. More than 3,100 have given the last full measure of devotion to their country. This war has fueled terrorism and helped galvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe.
That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability."

Barrack Obama in a Speech delivered March 2, 2007 to the AIPAC Policy Forum

One of the fundamental principles of decision making is that sunk costs should not be considered. That is, decisions about the future should depend on the current situation and anticipated events. Senator Barrack Obama (D - Illinois) illogically uses sunk costs to justify his position on the situation in Iraq. Whether one agrees with the Senator's position or not, the stated rationale is based on the past. Is this type of reasoning we desire for our President? Shouldn't the Illinois' Junior Senator and current candidate for the Democrat's nomination for President focus his decision making on the strategic goals he would like this country to achieve?

Senator Clinton's Ten Point Plan

2007-04-17T21:51:00.000-05:00

The following is excerpted from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D - New York) campaign speech given April 13, 2006 at the Institute of Politics at St. Anselm in New Hampshire. It is posted on the campaign (oops... exploratory committee} web site. The campaign speech is on government reform. According to the speech, the goal is a government that is competent, not corrupt, and devoted to the public interest.

But it if you read it carefully, you'll find little about competence or corruption. Instead, you'll find at least four new government programs, including a service academy to produce bureaucrats (is there a shortage of bureaucrats? -- Oh! just well trained ones, I see!)and a propaganda agency to tell "us what to believe". In addition we will eliminate government contracting disapproved of by Senator Clinton, and open contracts for infotech experts to revolutionize government by creating government information systems (any takers that the first grads of Clinton Public Service Academy will be GIS majors? 50$ ?). Does this imply that all of those liberal northeastern universities (like Yale and Wellesley?) are not producing qualified candidates for careers in public service?

This isn't about better government, it is about more government. Senator Clinton's idea is that if we only watch government (esp. through whistleblowers) and big corporations (through a government agency to track tax subsidies granted by congress!) more closely everything will be better. New York's Junior Senator suggests the way to do this is by creating more government and staffing them (and her cabinet) with the finest graduates the Clinton Public Service Academy has to offer.

The implied principle is: Better Government = MORE Government.

I smell a campaign (oops, exploratory committee} in free fall.

EXCERPT:

"We can re-establish the competence of government, the confidence of citizens in government, and the capacity of our government to set goals and achieve them. Today I want lay out a ten point agenda to do just that – an agenda for government reform. .....

First, we need to close the revolving door between government and lobbyists. ...and I'll start by permanently banning any of my cabinet officials from lobbying my Administration once they've left office....

Second, we're going to strengthen whistleblower protections so we can root out corruption and cronyism, wherever it may lie. ...

Third, when I'm President, I will once again appoint the most qualified, dedicated, public-minded people to serve in government. ...

And in order to attract the best people to government, I have joined on a bi-partisan basis with some of my colleagues in both the Senate and the House to propose a U.S. Public Service Academy – an undergraduate school modeled after our military service academies that will cultivate a new generation of leaders dedicated to public service. The Academy would provide a four-year, subsidized college education in exchange for a five-year commitment to public service after graduation. ...

Fourth, we're going to stop outsourcing our government and put an end to the abuse of no-bid contracts. ...I propose that we eliminate 500,000 government contracting positions, saving our government between $10 and $18 billion a year. And that we insist on competitive bidding for the remaining contracts, so we get the most value for every taxpayer dollar. ...

Fifth, we're going to stop substituting ideology for science and evidence, and we're going to start giving the American people again the facts on the issues that matter to them and their families. Way back in the 1990s, the White House had an Office of Technology Assessment that was charged with just one task: telling us the truth about science. Sorting out the competing claims and to the best of the scientists' abilities, telling us what to believe. For decades, they cut through the myths and the spin on everything from Star Wars to AIDS prevention to solar technology. It's time we put this office back in business, because our citizens should have the information they need about the issues that affect them. {emphasis added}

Sixth, we're going to open up our government's balance sheets so you can see exactly where your tax dollars are going – and the results they're getting. As tax day approaches, you probably find yourself wondering just where all your hard-earned money is going. Well, I propose that we require government agencies to publish their budgets and their government contracts online for all to see. ...We also need to go back to doing what was done during the Clinton Administration with the Reinventing Government initiative, known as REGO, which Bill started and asked Vice President Gore to head-up. ...And so, why don't we get back to doing that again if we're serious about having a government that works, we should be constantly asking ourselves the hard questions about why we're paying for something, and whether we should continue to do so. I also want to establish a new Corporate Subsidy Information Service. This watchdog agency will track every tax subsidy that Congress gives to big corporations. ...

Seventh, we're going to make sure our government pays its bills and lives within its means again – just like our families. That's what we did during my husband's Administration, when we balanced the budget and turned record deficits into surpluses. It took discipline and determination, a lot of hard work, but again, the results speak for themselves. Twenty-two million new jobs. The longest peacetime economic expansion in history. And the savings rate was reflected in our attaining leverage once again in the world. We've moved from the largest debtor nation to a creditor nation. Well, we're back in to the larger debtor nation again. That undermines our capacity to exercise leadership on important issues like trade and other strategic concerns. So, we need to return to the fundamental principle of pay-as-you-go.

Eighth, I want to make government more user friendly across the board – and that starts with bringing more government services online. ...it's time that our government went fully online as well. ...

In order to do that, however, we're going to have to move to the ninth point of my reform agenda. We have to have government take the lead in modernizing its record keeping systems and take the lead in areas that really can change the market and behaviors to the benefit of us all.

... We need to bring in private sector partners. We need to cut through red tape, and we need to begin to do what it takes to get our government to have information as readily available as we have in the rest of our lives. ...

Tenth and finally, we have to reform our election system. ... I've introduced legislation called the Count Every Vote Act, which is a comprehensive voting reform bill. It will make our voting systems more accountable and accessible. It will expand the right to vote of most of our citizens. It will create more opportunities for people to register to vote, and it will give greater assurances through paper-verified ballots that those votes will be counted. We need more oversight in our electoral system to discourage manipulation and deception. ..."

The Military Solution in Iraq

2007-04-15T17:08:00.000-05:00

Well, there it was again. The infamous phrase uttered daily by Democrats... this time by Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) on Fox News Sunday. Senator Levin argues that "There is no military solution in Iraq."

This is of course completely illogical. For there to be no military solution in Iraq, there must be no military solution for both sides. There is clearly a military solution in Iraq, and we if only pulled out all of our troops we'd get to see it. I doubt anyone would like it, except for bin Laden, Zawahiri, Al-Sadr, Ahmedi-nejad, etc.

The reality is that the political solution so desperately sought after by all Americans, requires the preemption of the military solution so desperately sought by those opposed to a political solution.

So let's call the Senator Levin and the other Democrats to account: There is a military solution in Iraq.

Saddam and Terror

2007-04-13T22:44:00.000-05:00

It still amazes that all liberals, most libertarians, many "centrists," and even some conservatives continue to question the connect between Saddam and Terror. I recently was in a heated debate with a friend, someone I view as politically informed but not ideological, regarding this issue. He remains unconvinced. So I begin this blog with some guidance for those who would like to better acquaint themselves with the subject. I know, it is history. Maybe to some it is ancient history. But history is fundamental, ask some of those of morons who can't answer the questions on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader".

For a short read, with nice pictures try http://www.husseinandterror.com/
or without the pictures: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

Saddam and Abu Nidal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr114.xml
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16863
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002160
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit020823_1_n.shtml

Saddam and Abu Abbas:
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403101426.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/16/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Abbas

Saddam, Zawahiri, and Al-Zarqawi:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18178
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html

Saddam's Incentive's for Palestinian Suicides:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/15/sprj.irq.saddam.palestinians/index.html

Saddam and Suicide Bombers:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030412-centcom05.htm

More to come later.....