It’s the Economy, Stupid.

With all the talk of socialized medicine and corporate bailouts as of late, it may have slipped your attention that the United States of America itself is on the verge of needing a bailout. Even with the Federal deficit at historical highs and continuing to grow, our political leaders are continuing to spend money like there’s no tomorrow. It’s like an addiction; they just can’t seem to stop themselves.

In a November 22, 2009 article, the New York Times reports “With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.” Let me say that again…$700 Billion just to service the debt, not to pay it down, just paying the service on the debt.

The national treasure is not just gone…squandered away by greedy, unscrupulous politicians…it’s been replaced by a mountain of IOUs that we now have to pay back to banks and other countries like China. This is no mere inconvenience, but a matter of utmost national security. If we fail to pay back our debts, we will lose the good faith and credit of the world community that took so many years to build. This will hurt our ability to trade, to assert influence and project power around the world. We will be greatly weakened.

And what is government’s solution to this crisis? Let’s spend more money. This has gotten to a point where it’s even too much for the very left-wing Saturday Night Live writers (remember, Al Franken was an SNL writer). In their recent skit depicting a press conference between President Obama and Chinese president Hu Jintao, President Jintao says, through his interpreter, “You know, as I listen to you, I am noticing that each of your plans to save money involves spending even more money. This does not inspire confidence.”

But, Mr. Obama asks us to have patience over the economy. "Even though it will take time, I can promise you this: we are moving in the right direction; that the steps we are taking are helping," he said in his weekly address. Patience? Patience while they continue to move down paths that got us into this mess in the first place? Well, I guess if out-of-control spending is what got us here, we should keep it up to fix the problem, right? What is the definition of insanity again?

The health care issue may elicit strong emotions on both sides, but the plain fact is that we cannot afford the entitlements we’re providing now, let alone taking on more. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid are already nearly bankrupt. None of the niceties are possible if we have no economy left. Our ship of state has a sizable leak. We must turn it around and head back for safer shores before it’s too late…before we reach the point of no return. This will not be easy. We will have to make cuts…just like any of our families or employers would have to in a similar situation. But the survival of our way of life is at stake. 

Government should be taking firm, decisive steps to shore up the economy.  Make cuts across the board in all departments.  Reduce spending and stimulate the economy the only way that has ever worked...tax cuts.  Instead they think of new was to spend OUR money.  Enough is enough!

One more line from the SNL Skit: "How exactly is extending health-care coverage to 30 million people going to save you money?" Hu asked.

"I don't know," answers Obama.

Of War and Civil Justice-Follow-up

Terence P. Jeffrey of CNS News has a pretty good article laying out some of the history and background of the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad in civilian court.

Excerpt:

In a May 21 speech at the National Archives, Obama himself said: “Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.”

Of War and Civil Justice

It is, in my opinion, a tremendous mistake to move Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, confessed master mind of the 9-11 attacks, into the federal court system for trial. This sets a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If enemy combatants in a war are to be treated as if they deserve the full rights and privileges of citizens of the United States, then we are certainly entering into uncharted territory.

Attorney General Eric Holder said "For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law. Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call."  But this move, in fact, ignores the precedent of the past 200 years. Prisoners of war have never been treated in this way. Certainly there are rules and international agreements that dictate the treatment of these detainees, but the Geneva Convention even distinguishes between Lawful (uniformed soldiers) and Unlawful (those not in uniform) Enemy Combatants…and Unlawful Combatants have very few, if any, rights. They have never, though, been given the right to a trial in federal court. Justice for these prisoners has always been handled through military tribunals.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution speaks to the issue of who is covered under our legal system. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Foreign enemy combatants are definitely not covered under this section.

What are the implications of this action? These prisoners were taken captive during military actions, not through civil investigation. The role of the military in the time of war is to kill people and break things. Taking captives is only done as part of that process. We cannot turn soldiers, in the heat of battle, into police officers, requiring them to meet rules of evidence and to properly mirandize their captives. If prisoners of war are now to be considered under the jurisdiction of the court, will the military have to obtain a warrants before they move on the enemy? Will the failure to meet the requirements of civil justice mentioned above mean that cases can be thrown out and enemies set free? There is no precedent in law for this…no blueprint.

There must be lines between military and civil justice. This lack of separation has been blamed for not capturing Osama bin Laden when we had a chance before 9-11. As Lisa Myers of NBC Nightly News reported on March 17, 2004 when speaking of missed opportunities, “A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.” The War on Terror cannot be treated as a law enforcement problem. If it is, we will move too slowly to prevent future attacks. Captured terrorists will simply clam up when interrogated because they know they now have “rights.”

This action must be challenged strongly. The President of the United States or his administration does not have the constitutional authority to change the law and overthrow precedent by fiat…which is what they have done here.

If They Can Do It For You…They Can Do It To You.

At the dawning of the Age of the Nanny State, where the citizens of the United States of America increasingly look to the federal government to solve all of their problems and redress all of their grievances,  we need to stop and ask,  at what cost.  What are you personally willing to give up to have the government provide the things you want?  Are you willing to let the government set the limit on the amount of money you can earn?  Is it okay if they tell you what you can say or write?  Do you think the government should have the right to tell you what you can eat or what you have to spend your money on?


“Why there oughtta be a law!” -  Too many people today are willing to turn to government force to compel others to do things they think is right.  It all seems good if “those people” are being forced to do something or give up something…”Those people”, after all,  deserve it.  What we must all remember, though, is that reigns of power always change.  It may seem okay to limit the compensation of those rich corporate types…but who decides what is rich?  And what if a new President or Congress decides that they really know what’s best for all job categories?  What if they tell you that you make too much for the job you have…after-all, similar workers in India don’t make near as much as you do.  Does this seem unlikely?  Why?  Once you give government the power  to do it to one group, what is to stop them from doing it to you?

I remember when I was a kid, back when the ACLU may still have had some credibility, there were discussions about how the ACLU could defend the Ku Klux Klan or American Nazis or some other such offensive group.  The answer was, in effect, that all people’s rights to free speech, regardless of how much you may disagree with them, have to be defended.  If government can abridge their rights they can also abridge yours.  This was a noble cause.  Now, however, the ACLU seems to be more involved in helping to abridge the rights of others than defending them…but that’s a whole other post.

The Founders were very wary of too much government power.  This is why they framed the Constitution with all of its checks and balances.  As Patrick Henry said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”  Constitutional restraint seems to be a fading principle with our lawmakers today.  When Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi was recently asked where the constitutional authorization to order Americans to purchase health insurance came from, her answer was simply “Are you serious? Are you serious?”  How dare anyone question the queen’s authority?

So, when you are tempted to cede more power to government, stop and think.  Though you may trust the President or Congress today, what happens after the next election…will you trust the next group.  And remember that if the government can do something for you, they can also do it to you.

Rebels With Out a Cause

It amuses me that the same left wing types who fancied themselves as rebels in the '60s and '70s, who railed against "the establishment" are now the supporters of big-government programs and policies.  These are the type of people who cheered the Cuban revolutionaries, protested the military-industrial complex and said don't trust anyone over thirty. They now are willing to trust the government establishment to unprecedented levels with control of their lives.  They blindly believe the big-government propaganda, despite any evidence to the contrary.  They are no longer rebels, if they ever were, but establishment drones.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are rebels in the mold of the Founders.  They hold government suspect and choose to keep governmental power limited.  They protest when government exceeds its limits or intrudes into private affairs.  Conservatives do not expect government to take care of them, they choose to make their own way.  They value rugged individualism.  The true Conservative does not kowtow to elected officials of any party, they know that these office holders are meant to be our servants, not our masters.

The Left accuses Conservatives of being robots who blindly follow the direction of their right-wing leaders, while they themselves continue to spew talking points directly from the Democratic party and the main-stream, establishment media.  They say they want "change," but they are not even sure what change is really being offered by their government masters.  They display the blind devotion to their party, regardless of how many are caught in crimes or other indiscretions, usually reserved to religious cults...and they think themselves rebels.  Pretty funny, really.

Emotions and Politics

“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17:9

I am constantly amazed at how people are so easily manipulated through their emotions, and constantly disgusted at how politicians will exploit this fact to gain power.

Emotions are an important part of our lives. Emotions allow us to relate to one another, to have friendship, to have empathy for those in need. Emotions can also bring people to fits of rage or send them cowering in fear. Emotion is an important ingredient in art and music.

Emotions, however, are also transitory and unpredictable. They cannot be relied on as a basis of decision making or governance. Emotions are like sand, ever shifting and unreliable as a foundation. Certainly they can be considered when planning or making decisions, but they must be kept in proper perspective.

I still marvel at how quickly some peoples' emotions changed from rage at seeing thousands of their fellow countrymen senselessly killed in the 9-11 attacks to guilt, believing that we somehow brought it on ourselves…and some to mistrust thinking that it was orchestrated by our own government. I also marvel at how quickly many politicians, after hurrying to portray themselves as pro-war hawks, realigned themselves to anti-war doves once their supporters shifted their stand. This was a shining example of the lack of solid principles of many in government.

For decades we have been exhorted to rely more on our emotions. Don’t over analyze things, we are told, follow your heart. This has had the effect of dumbing-down our society. It has been seen in education where we are told it is more important how a child feels about themselves than what they learn…self-esteem is more important than knowledge. This was taken to the ridiculous extreme by some educators who said it was not important that a child properly solve a math problem, but it was how they felt about math that was important. This is ludicrous. A math solution is either right or it is wrong…black and white…and it is important for students to learn math, regardless of how they feel about it.

Politicians know how easily public emotions can be manipulated. “Never waste a good crisis,” as Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel have said. And this government is not squandering any opportunity. We are constantly assaulted with huge appeals to our emotions through so-called crises. They play to our sympathy with images of a baby polar bear on an ice drift and stories of some elderly lady who could not afford her prescription drugs. They elicit fear with horrifying tales of coming natural disasters, crop failures and the end of life as we know it. They make us feel guilty for being so successful when there are those in the world who have so little. And all the while, they tell us that they are our only hope. If only we give them more control, more taxes, more of our lives, they can make it all better. Don’t think or analyze too much they say, now is a time for action or baby polar bears will die…the planet will die…old ladies will die. Trust us, your sacrifice will be worth it.

This is not the way our republic was built. The founding fathers were men of deep passion who were given to fiery oratory and heated disagreements. They were also men of great learning and deep thought. They brought about a form of government that had been theorized in parts by many different scholars for centuries but never before implemented. They drew from history and classical writings. They studied past successes and failures of government. They saw the tyranny of power centralized in the hands of too few and that of power given to the whims of the masses. They crafted the Constitution with great deliberation to give our government a balance between totalitarianism and anarchy that was ingenious and has stood the test of years. The founders, when presenting the new document to the states, appealed to logic and the soundness of the principles therein contained. These principles have provided the United States of America with greater levels of freedom and prosperity for the largest portion of its population than in any other country at any other time.

In these times of 24-hour news cycles and the 30 second sound byte, of constant imagery flooding into our homes, we need to be more careful than ever as to what we believe. We must look at all proposed “solutions” offered by government with a critical and wary eye. Of course bad things happen to good people, but are anecdotal tales of woe worth sacrificing the principles of our great republic? Are the pending crises real, or fabricated to evoke the proper response? And, if real, do the proposed solutions really solve anything, or just gather power to the politicians?

The examples of this type of emotional manipulation are endless, but the point is that in time of crisis, of pending sweeping change, we must appeal to sound reason and solid, proven principle rather than the vagaries of emotion. We must be ever vigilant to safeguard our freedoms and way of life from those who would capitalize on misfortune. Americans are a big-hearted people. We give more to the world and our own in need than any other country. We should not lose that gift…but we should also not lose the gifts of liberty. Care for the sick, the oppressed, those with no voice, but base it on the solid foundation of sound reason.

Feel deeply, but think deeply also, for “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” – John Adams.

Fox News and the Freedom of the Press

Whether you like Fox News, and agree with their commentators, or not...you have to be worried about the Obama White House's attempts to shut Fox out because they run stories opposing the President. Even the other news outlets in the White House pool think they have gone too far.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Using the power of the Executive Branch to exclude press that questions the President or his policies and to "suggest" that other news organizations also shun them is an assult on the First Ammendment.

Global Warming? - Follow-up

In the headlines on the Drudge Report this morning:

Heavy snow expected in PA...
“Cold high pressure will nose in from the north today and tonight. A low pressure system will move from the lower Mississippi valley to the Carolina coast by Thursday...then off the east coast. This storm will pull lots of Atlantic moisture into pa on deep easterly flow. This could lead to a possibly damaging early- season snow late Thursday into Friday night. A upper level low will linger overhead for the rest of the weekend...but a warming trend is seen next week.”

Chicago record breaking cold continues...
“Chicago has spent the last 17 days with below-average temperatures, and a high of a mere 47 degrees made Tuesday the coldest Oct. 13 in 82 years, CBS 2's Mary Kay Kleist says.”

Montana records fall...
“A strong arctic air mass pushed across the continental divide settling very cold and dry arctic air into the valley locations across western Montana and north central Idaho. The initial push of the arctic air was brought through a surface cold front that brought snow to part of west central Montana Friday morning. For the following weekend days...cold temperatures were the headline feature...keeping afternoon highs and overnight lows well below seasonal normals. Several records were broken...some by a difference of almost 15 degrees in the coldest locations.”

FORECASTS BLOWN: '09 Atlantic hurricane season quietest in decade...
”Thanks to El Nino, the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season has been the quietest in more than a decade, offering a reprieve for residents in the danger zone and a chance for insurance firms to refill depleted coffers.”

Don’t you hate Global Warming?

None of this was in the predictions of the Global Warming alarmists. They have gotten it wrong for at least the last 11 years.  They will probably come up with some reason why this is still dire Climate Change that has to be stopped through higher taxes and government control..

Do we want to significantly change our economy and lifestyle based on such faulty predictions.

Say NO to Cap and Trade!

Global Warming?

Well, according to an article by the BBC, global temperatures have not increased since 1998…11 years ago. Was the globe warming before that? Absolutely. And that is the nature of global cycles. While the current warming trend seems to have ended in 1998, the climate models, so touted by the climate change alarmists, did not predict it…they predicted continued rising temperatures.

I am old enough to remember the first Earth Day in 1970. Back then, when activists were flying their Ecology Flags, the big fear was that the world was about to enter the next ice age. The world was cooling and the ice caps were going to advance and our ability to grow enough food was going to be greatly impacted. These scare tactics were also eaten up by many well meaning but myopic folks who cannot see more than a few months…or years at most…into the past. Why were the alarmists convinced that there would be a new ice age? Simple, the earth was in the midst of a cooling cycle that went from 1945 to 1977 corresponding to a cold Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) of the oceanic cycles.

When the whole Global Warming issue first began to hit the news, I immediately dismissed it as alarmist quackery. The reason is that within a year or two before that time, I had read an interesting article in a scientific magazine (Discover, I think) about a group of scientists who were studying samples of air that was trapped in the polar ice. What they found was that the level of carbon-dioxide in the air varied as the depth changed. The depth of the ice directly correlated with the age of the air sample. As they gathered the data from the air samples across thousands of years of history, they found that the Earth moved through long, climatic change cycles. And these cycles were in place long before the industrial age. I also remembered the previous warnings of a coming ice age.

So, what causes these climate change cycles to occur? I believe that it is a combination of many dynamic processes that are constantly in motion. These processes include ocean cycles, solar cycles and other things like volcanic activity. A single volcanic eruption spews more so-called “greenhouse gasses” than the whole industrial world can produce in a year. Of course I’m no scientist, but more and more real climate scientists are speaking out against the notion of “Man Made Global Warming.” Is there climate change…of course there is. It is an ever changing system that brought us the mini ice age of the eighteenth century and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. It goes on with, or without our influence. It predates both Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used for air-conditioning and SUVs.

So, you may ask, if I am right and all of this climate change is just a part of a natural cycle of the Earth, why are so many people pushing the Global Warming agenda? Well, it seems to me that it is more politics than science. The “Left” has always used crisis to increase their power. In his book “Liberal Fascism,” Jonah Goldberg says that environmentalisms “most tangible fascistic ingredient is that it is an invaluable ‘crisis mechanism.’ Al Gore constantly insists that global warming is the defining crisis of our time.” He also states that “In practical terms this means we must surrender to the global nanny state and create the sort of ‘economic dictatorship’ progressives yearn for.” Goldberg also chronicles that though environmentalism predated Nazism “it was used to expand its base of support.” Not to say that if you care about the environment, you’re a Nazi…but it has been used before for political purposes.

What better way to get otherwise well meaning and intelligent people to willingly surrender their personal freedoms than a good old threat of global destruction? But, do you want to lose freedoms to an unfounded and contrived crisis? I don’t.

Waiting "On the Beach?"

It’s been a very long time since I read the book “On the Beach” by Nevil Shute. This book was written back in the late 1950’s and the plot, as I remember, was set mostly around a U.S. nuclear submarine crew in a time just after a nuclear holocaust had killed most of the world’s population. Only some in the southern hemisphere were still alive…but the radioactivity was working its way south, and it was only a matter of time.

The key point I remember about this book was that nuclear Armageddon was not started by the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. or even China. It was some small, relatively insignificant country in the Middle East, a mouse of a country that, because they had obtained nuclear weapons, roared.

I have thought of this book many times over the years. During the Iranian hostage crisis, I thought of this book.  When “The Wall” came down in Soviet controlled East Germany, I thought of this book. During the first Gulf War, after 9-11, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I thought of this book. Again this week, with the news of a “secret” UN report that concludes that Iran has acquired "sufficient information to be able to design and produce" an atom bomb, I’m thinking of this book.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, many people wanted to believe that the world was a safer place. In some ways they were right…but in other ways, the world became a much scarier place. I said then, and believe now, that while we needed to win the “Cold War,’ we could not let down our guard because now there are many more rogue nations and factions out there who want to see our destruction.

The focus of danger in the world today is radical Islam which seeks to convert or destroy the rest of the world.  President Obama seems to want to talk them out of their beliefs. He seems to think that if we can all just talk out our differences, we can come to a mutually beneficial outcome. The problem is, the only outcome they are willing to accept is the destruction of Israel and all others they consider infidels. They believe that they are faith bound to kill the infidel even at the cost of their own life…and now, some of them are very close to having nukes.

How do you respond to such a threat? Do you wait until we experience a nuclear 9-11? Or, do you take them at their word that they want to kill us and stop them before they can act. I believe the latter is the only moral stance. I believe that we can stop the Iranian regime now through conventional military measures before ten’s of thousands of innocent people are murdered by these mad men. To burry our heads and believe that they will not try to kill us if they can is suicide.

At the end of the book, all the characters could do was sit on the beach and wait for the radiation to come. It was too late, the damage was done. There was no safety to be found. How will the world respond to Iran’s threat? Will we proactively move against the threat to stop the Iranians from completing a bomb, or we wait until there’s nothing left to do but count the dead? Will we act now, or wait on the beach later.