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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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)