JINGOCONSERVATIVE

A TIME FOR CHOOSING

2009-10-28T21:43:00.002-04:00

An apology is in order. I haven't been able to post recently due to work and family commitments. I have taken a new position at the Zangmeister Center, a cancer treatment facility here in Columbus. I have never been happier with my employment. The people working there truly care about their patients and strive to provide a warm and comforting atmosphere. I have never been employed in anything as important as the Zangmeister Center. It is very rewarding to be involved in something that makes a real difference in the lives of people. After seeing my father struck down by pancreatic cancer in the summer of 2008, I have a real affinity for the people who come there for treatment. The doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and support staff are the finest group of people with which I have ever been associated in a working role. My minor role is as the Shipping/Receiving Coordinator, and I strive every day to make a difference for the facility. Anyone who has had a family member or friend suffer from cancer will understand my motivation and genuine efforts to perform to the best of my ability. It is an honor to be a member of the staff.

Today is the 45th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's "A Time For Choosing" speech given in support of Barry Goldwater during the 1964 Presidential election. This speech has never been more relevant, and I encourage everyone to watch it and consider it in a modern context. The speech can be seen in it's entirety here.

Keep the faith, conservatives. Despite the media pronouncements of the death of Reagan conservatism, for my part it has never been stronger. We need to bring the GOP back to the timeless principles espoused by Reagan. The longer Ronald Reagan is gone from our world, the easier it is to see that REAGAN WAS RIGHT.

A Few Thoughts On Guns

2009-08-19T23:17:00.004-04:00

I’ve been amused by the recent media reaction to citizens openly carrying firearms in states that still respect our constitutional right to do so. The vast majority of media folks are flaming liberals, so it’s really no surprise. Still, it’s odd that anyone in America would recoil from the mere presence of guns. I am probably in the minority when it comes to my view of the Second Amendment because I see it much more broadly than the Supreme Court recently indicated in District of Columbia v. Heller, a decision handed down last summer (full text HERE). In that landmark case, the Court said:

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

That essentially settles the basic argument for now. There are, however, many other ancillary arguments that remain unsettled. The left in America continually seeks to limit gun rights whatever the Supreme Court rules. As with the rest of our Constitution, we need to return to original intent to insure the freedoms inherent in our republic.

I am an unrepentant believer in the open carry of firearms. Any citizen who has not been convicted of a violent felony and is mentally stable should have the right to openly carry a weapon without permission from local law enforcement. The Second Amendment does not mandate prior permission from the government. Varying state laws in some cases severely restrict that right. Other states have laws in place that effectively negate open carry without expressly doing so. My state of Ohio, for example, permits open carry except in vehicles. I suppose that’s fine if one walks everywhere, but otherwise it is a loophole that contravenes the original law itself. We as American citizens have the right of self defense, and we should be able to exercise that right openly and without fear of harassment from police. The only reasonable restriction on open carry is banning them in establishments that serve alcohol or in government buildings, for obvious reasons. Many believe that schools and churches should also be included, but far too often we’ve seen citizens attacked in those places without recourse. Homicidal maniacs pick these places to launch their attacks because they know that no one will be armed. How many fewer people would have died if someone present had been armed and ready to end such an attack? An armed society would see far less crime, especially armed robberies and sexual assaults. Despite liberal beliefs to the contrary, guns do not cause crime and in fact in many cases would prevent it.

I completely and utterly reject the concept of concealed carry permits. Concealed carry is nothing less than concealed registration. It is merely another way for the government to compile lists of gun owners, another idea that clearly violates our Constitution. As mentioned above, Ohio requires a concealed carry permit to have a loaded weapon in a vehicle. This is a sneaky legal maneuver that makes open carry impractical. The Second Amendment does not contain the phrase “with licensing and registration”. Why should any citizen need the permission of the local sheriff to exercise a right guaranteed under the federal constitution? It strikes me as patently absurd and thoroughly unconstitutional. Ohio requires a training course for the concealed carry permit. Pardon me, Mr. Policeman, but as an eight year veteran of the United States Army, I do not need any further training and dare to say that I am far more proficient and far more accurate in the use of firearms than most members of law enforcement. I am reminded of the February 19, 1997, shootout between the two Kehoe brothers and Wilmington, Ohio, police officers. Numerous rounds were fired at a range of less than ten feet and no one was hit. Less glaring examples occur on a regular basis. Obviously there are those who may feel the need for training, but it should not be required for military veterans. Concealed carry permits are registration in disguise and clearly not within the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Prior to the DC v. Heller ruling, the continual march towards restricting individual gun rights had been steadily progressing. Each year we see further efforts to eviscerate Second Amendment rights by imposing more and more restrictions. The groups and individuals that support these measures are simply not comfortable with a basic American right. Many of them do believe that guns cause crimes, which is like saying flies cause garbage or that spoons make you fat. A gun is merely a tool. It is the intent of the user that matters. I have owned firearms for my entire adult life. I have never had to brandish one, much less use it, and I hope I never do. Should the day come, however, when my life or the safety of my family is in jeopardy, I certainly will want a gun for defense. Placing Draconian restrictions on gun ownership only makes the outlaw more powerful. Law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right of self defense, and that certainly cannot be accomplished with a stick. Whatever controls are enacted, the criminals will not adhere to them. Those who follow them are placed at risk.

It was strange to hear the recent reaction from the media to recent occurrences where citizens legally carried firearms to public protests. One would have thought these individuals were firing rounds into the air or perhaps were armed with nuclear missiles. The liberals doing the reporting displayed their unfamiliarity with firearms especially when attempting to describe the weapons themselves. Apparently they have not been around guns and are extremely uncomfortable in their presence. To their way of thinking, an armed citizen simply must be up to no good and is dangerous. They see an implied threat in the exercising of a guaranteed right. The unfortunate part is that their reactions sensationalize the story and substantiate a wholly unnecessary attitude. It’s really quite silly and a bit cowardly to my eyes.

Individual gun ownership has been an essential freedom in America since its inception. Our Founders saw it as important enough to be clearly included in the Bill of Rights. Those who are opposed are craven and would subject the citizenry to attack without defense. In closing, I’ll turn it over to three great Americans:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference . . ." - George Washington

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!" – President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.

PAKISTANI NUKES: BIN LADEN'S NEXT SURPRISE?

2009-08-11T22:20:00.005-04:00

Once again today we have proof positive that the media is intriguingly selective about which stories it features. Today’s lead story was President Obama’s health care “town hall” conducted in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The meeting was a staged and planned event, packed with Obama supporters who already are in favor of the health care bill being considered by Congress. It played more like a campaign event than a discussion, and at one point Mr. Obama even had to seek out more questioners. This sort of stagecraft has become Obama’s trademark. Rarely does he face tough questions from either citizens or the media, and even more rarely without a teleprompter. What the media missed today is truly frightening and is the nightmare scenario for our strategic goals in Pakistan and thus Afghanistan.

A feature published in the Times of India reports that Pakistani nuclear installations have already been attacked three times by Islamic militants. You can see the article HERE. The gist of the report is this:

“The incidents, tracked by Shaun Gregory, a professor at Bradford University in UK, include an attack on the nuclear missile storage facility at Sargodha on November 1, 2007, an attack on Pakistan's nuclear airbase at Kamra by a suicide bomber on December 10, 2007, and perhaps most significantly the August 20, 2008 attack when Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers blew up several entry points to one of the armament complexes at the Wah cantonment, considered one of Pakistan's main nuclear weapons assembly.”

That is indeed an alarming report. It has to be considered the worst possible scenario for the situation on the ground in Pakistan. The President must consider it a grave threat both to our forces on the ground in the region and to the homeland. Of all situations that currently exist, it is the one most likely to result in a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of Al Qaeda. Pakistan has made recent gains against militants on its territory, but this is another animal entirely.

The administration has been extremely negligent in handling the situation in Pakistan. Less than a month ago, July 20th, we were assured by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Pakistan’s nuclear command and control were “well managed”. Now that turns out to be somewhat of an overstatement to put it mildly. Either the administration was unaware of the attacks, a grossly negligent position, or kept them secret, in which case absolutely no action has been taken. Congress left for summer recess without approving further aid for the Pakis despite Obama’s insistence that he would be reaching out to the Muslim world with more economic assistance. It seems his health care plan is more important than loose nuclear weapons. Of course, we won’t need as big a health care program if millions of Americans are dead as the result of a nuclear weapon being detonated here at home. I personally warned of the circumstances involving Paki nukes on December 27, 2007, when I wrote:

“The idea of a modern nuclear arsenal complete with delivery vehicles in the hands of Al Qaeda is too apocalyptic to ignore….. Musharraf is all we have in Pakistan. He may be a military dictator, but the alternative is even less acceptable. And since our primary concern is the nuclear arsenal, we really have no choice but to back him for now.”

Politicians on both sides of the aisle ignored those concerns, helped to depose Musharraf, and that ignorance is now coming home to roost. Unfortunately for us, the roost may be a nuclear missile silo.

The problems with Paki nukes are abundant. Pakistan originally deployed their nuclear weapons facilities in places far from the border with India to avoid them being taken in a sudden armored thrust. The result now is that these facilities are mostly in the heart of areas thick with Taliban. Paki nuclear security is based on a U.S. model:

“a) physical security;
b) personnel reliability programs;
c) technical and procedural safeguards; and
d) deception and secrecy.”

That’s all well and good, but I’m not convinced, and neither should the President be comfortable. All it takes is one security breach to put the world’s most dangerous weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda. While Obama peddles his health care initiative, a measure completely outside the scope of the federal government, his primary role as Commander In Chief goes unattended.

The President should take immediate action to further secure Pakistani nuclear weapons and facilities. Relying on the Pakis to do it is unacceptable. The security of those weapons immediately and directly impacts American national defense. Mr. Obama should take immediate and concrete measures to further bolster the security measures already in place. Deploying additional American military personnel should be considered in consultation with the leadership of Pakistan. If the Pakis resist, Mr. Obama must fulfill his role as CINC and seize them lock, stock, and barrel if necessary. The future security of our troops and civil population demand no less. His administration is quickly becoming the whistle past the graveyard gang. I would hope the Pentagon will make the case for action to him if he does not see it clearly. Once a nuclear weapon is taken by Islamic militants, the horrific multitude of possibilities will make his negligence and inattention a truly fatal mistake.

NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

2009-08-11T01:08:00.005-04:00

I started wondering several weeks ago about our Declaration of Independence. I thought about it for a long while, and wondered what it would look like if it were rewritten today and addressed our own federal government. The feds have become abusive under Presidents and Congresses of both parties. Of course I am absolutely not calling for the violent overthrow of the government, but rather a new constitutional convention to address the abuses of our current government. I now present my updated version:

When in the Course of national events, it becomes necessary for people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers only from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience shows, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of citizens of the United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present American government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the citizens. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have entered into entangling alliances with foreign powers;

They have joined international organizations that are not equitably financed and repeatedly attempt to usurp our national sovereignty;

They have placed an unbearable tax burden on the people, largely without consent;

They have allocated for themselves exorbitant salaries and benefits far and above the means of the populace;

They have entered into trade pacts that have decimated American manufacturing;

They have accumulated debts that cannot be paid for many generations;

They have interfered in commerce and distorted the free markets;

They have ignored our federal Constitution and our state Constitutions;

They have usurped the power of the States to govern their own people;

Governors have called together state legislative bodies at places unusual and uncomfortable for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with their dictates;

They have made illegal the right of the people to call for change of government;

They have refused to secure our borders and prevent illegal migration;

They have continually erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass the people, and eat out their substance;

They have compiled large quantities of information on the populace for unknown purposes;

They have refused to address our energy needs and forced the people to pay exorbitant sums as a result;

They have refused to impose term limits on themselves and have thus attempted to form an elite aristocracy;

They have either completely refused to prosecute or lightly punished those among them accused or convicted of malfeasance;

They have failed to properly compensate or provide care for our soldiers wounded in combat;

They have refused to constrain commercial monopolies, forcing the people to conduct business at unreasonable rates and in unusual ways;

They have limited our right to petition the government for redress of grievances;

They have hidden appropriation of large sums of money from the people;

They have limited the right of the people to keep and bear arms and have compiled lists of private armaments;

They have repeatedly violated the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searched and seizures;

They have abused the concept of eminent domain;

They have violated the people’s freedom of religion by threatening to tax religious leaders who speak of political matters;

They have disparaged the right of the people to retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution;

They have sought to reinforce and support despotic foreign powers;

They have abdicated their responsibility to protect American citizens abroad.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only with repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our government. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by them to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our founding. We have appealed to their justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common history. They have been deaf to the voices of justice. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in war, in peace, friends.

We, therefore, the people of the United States, by authority of the good people of this nation, solemnly publish and declare, that these states are, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the federal government, and that all political connection between them is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have the full power to call for a new Constitutional Convention to correct the abuses and usurpations heretofore enumerated. And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

THE DEATH OF ENGAGEMENT

2009-08-09T18:18:00.006-04:00

I’m done attempting to engage the left. It’s a complete waste of time and effort. No matter which forum you choose, the effort is pointless. There is a great mass of the American people who are not interested in legitimate political debate of any kind. They are so convinced of the wisdom of their thinking that they refuse to allow anything close to adult conversation about it. There are some on the right, but the vast majority are on the left. Take a look any place where people can freely post their political opinions. You will repeatedly see the same thing: liberals who cannot spell or use proper grammar boldly claiming complete intellectual superiority, name-calling, and using profanity to express their juvenile and underdeveloped thoughts. They cannot justify or offer a rational explanation of their opinions for good reason: they are based on emotion rather than logic.

Most of the left wallows in a sense of entitlement. They believe they should be taken care of, preferably by a government bureaucracy. They think the world owes them something. Many of them are very young and have grown up in an America where they are not permitted to fail, where their every effort is bolstered and supported by doting parents or the government. They have no sense of history or of America’s special role in the world. They are only vaguely aware of what freedom means and the sacrifices that have been made to achieve and maintain it. They have been programmed to instantly give a knee-jerk reaction to anything that might upset their comfortable lifestyle or require some sacrifice or effort on their part.

My grandfather was a wise man, a lifelong Republican, and a man of very few words. He passed away in 1988. When he found out I had voted in my first presidential election in 1984, he said, “Huh. You ain’t a Democrat, are you?” I was proud to inform him that I had voted for Ronald Reagan. He told me that when it comes to debate, always remain calm, polite, and civil. He knew that the left would rarely do so and would attempt to drag others down into the mud with them, and thus would make the correct points all on their own. I never knew exactly what he meant until after he died, but I wish I had been able to tell him how correct he was. The left in America regularly touts how smart they are, yet can’t understand how debate should properly function in America.

Recent events demonstrate this more than ever. The Democrat response to significant opposition to the health care reform bill is a perfect example. Those who dare question the Obamessiah are called Nazis, plants, paid agents, or mobs. There is no retort on the relevant issues, just name-calling. Union thugs are called in to apply force. This will backfire in the long run. Conservatives are the wrong crowd to attempt to force into anything, especially something that relates to basic American freedoms. The liberals are overreaching as usual and do not understand why people refuse to go along and drink their vile Koolaid. Those who won’t kowtow immediately have a label applied to them in an effort to diminish and dismiss their opinions. Imagine the response from the left had the Bush administration called for citizens to report those who opposed the Iraq War to the White House. It would have been overwhelming, yet the very same individuals see nothing wrong in the Obama administration doing the same in the health care debate. American liberals have become what they so often in the past decried: an oppressive force that squashes debate and stands for the diminishment of basic rights under the Constitution.

I believe we are reaching a tipping point in American history. The forces of intolerance and suppression are largely on the left. Americans will soon have to make a choice between maintaining a government by and for the people and socialist domination. During the Cold War, we heard a lot about the “convergence theory” first proposed by Dutch economist Jan Tinbergen in the 1960s. Tinbergen’s theory hypothesized that capitalist and communist systems would gradually move toward one another until they became indistinguishable. It seemed rather unlikely at the time, but it now looks possible. The socialist or communist nations are allowing more and more capitalist reform, while America attempts to emulate the already statist European nations. Most Americans no longer bother to vote or participate in political functions. Tired of scandals and the heat of the rhetoric, they retire languidly to their televisions and other material possessions, blissfully unaware that they can lose it all in an instant.

I hope the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress continue on their current path and continue to use Chicago-style methods in an attempt to force their agenda on the public. The reaction in 2010 and 2012 will be overwhelming. Next summer will be the crucial time. Americans who still believe in the freedoms we used to enjoy as given should descend on Washington in great numbers in a peaceful demonstration of public disdain. It will be the only way to avoid significant violence in our future. The voices on both sides are becoming louder. That is a bad omen when the argument is between the forces of freedom and the minions of oppression.

The Democrats have made their bed, and I for one expect them to lie in it. I will no longer attempt to convince any of them of anything. They are unreachable. They have been so brainwashed that they are beyond discussion or debate. Only the public can make the changes necessary to insure that our Constitution is not shredded in an effort to impose socialist systems on all of us. The duty of all conservatives has to be to reach out to those in the middle and attempt to explain the threat to essential freedoms posed by the radical left. That threat was dismissed by the center in the last election. Perhaps now it has become more substantive and clear.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer have today posted an op-ed in the USA Today, and it is the most outrageous, steaming piece of political crap I have ever seen. You can read it for yourself here. Pelosi and Hoyer refer to the recent opposition to their attempt to socialize medicine as "un-American". Well, sir and madam, allow me to point out what is REALLY un-American.

It's un-American for a well-heeled group of elitists to take over Congress and refuse to even read the bills they are voting on, all the while looking down their nose at the citizenry. It is un-American for members of Congress to be paid outrageous salaries and take repeated and unnecessary political junkets at taxpayer expense. It is un-American for either of you to dismiss legitimate attempts to engage members of Congress on an issue that will effect every single citizen. It is un-American for Congress to sit upon their high horse and refuse to be placed in the same health care pool they are mandating for everyone else. It is un-American for Congress to impose statist conditions on a nation founded on the idea of personal freedom. It is un-American for Congress to place themselves over and above the American people. It is un-American for Congress to recklessly spend money and accumulate deficits that cannot be paid immediately. It is un-American for Congress to trample roughshod over the rights of the citizens without listening to and hearing their concerns.

I have never been more angry at Congress or the Democrat Party. These are the same people who cried long and hard whenever they felt their patriotism was being questioned, yet they are doing exactly that to their opponents now. What I feel like doing I cannot put in print. What should be done to these charlatans cannot be put in print. The time has come for the American people to take action. My tolerance for them is over and done. They are snobbish boors who have lost all touch with reality and think they can mandate to us poor peasants. Tarring and feathering would be too good for them. There isn't a rail long enough on which to ride them out of town. Representatives Pelosi and Hoyer, you have made the biggest mistake of your political career, and if your constituents can't see you for the complete asses you are, they deserve you.

BIG BROTHER OBAMA

2009-08-05T22:28:00.002-04:00

The White House release a statement yesterday entitled "Facts Are Stubborn Things" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/).

Among other things it said: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Really? Asking citizens to inform the White House about the free speech of other Americans? What kind of fascist crap is that? What exactly are they going to do?

Here, let me take my shot: The Obama health insurance plan will use taxpayer money for elective abortions, require "end of life" counseling, and put an end to private health insurance as we know it.

Now what? Are you going to arrest me for my political speech? Please, Mr. President, make me famous. I'm begging you. Just respond to this posting and I'll give you all my information: name, home address, ssn, and even my (gasp!) blog where you can find even more statements against your proposed health plan as well as your other policies. How dare I speak out against you! It's outrageous, you should have the G-men scoop me up immediately.

SUNDAY SCRAMBLE

2009-08-02T20:05:00.008-04:00

PALIN DIVORCE RUMORS: Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had to shoot down rumors of divorce this weekend. This is simply more proof of the liberal media’s efforts to torpedo her future, and it will fail like all the rest. They have attacked her appearance, her children, and now her marriage. At long last, media, have you no decency? It seems there is no end to their campaign of smear and denigration. Rather than cast aspersions on Palin, it tells us more about the liberals and how much they want to discredit her. They are desperate to belittle her rising star and have no qualms about using whatever means are at their disposal.

NERVY BRITS: Several new public opinion polls came out in Britain this past week suggesting British support for the war in Afghanistan is waning. No surprise, given the parliamentary “foreign affairs select committee” spending their time criticizing nearly every part of the war. The committee even had the audacity to question whether or not the Taliban represent a threat to western security. Now some are suggesting we should talk to the Taliban (see below). That sort of forgetfulness makes one wonder if we really do have any reliable allies anywhere in the world. Afghanistan was supposed to be the war for which everyone was on board for the long haul. Now even the Brits, who I used to consider the least likely to jump ship when the going gets tough, are carping and complaining. It also makes one fear for the long term future of democratic society. Imagine the reaction from the Brits later this month when Afghanistan NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal tells President Obama and the rest of the alliance that a further troop surge will be necessary. NATO troop numbers in Afghanistan are deceptive, with most forces deployed around Kabul or in the north, far away from actual combat. Check out the map here and see for yourself. A leaked memo sent to all British Army units revealed in the media today suggests the Brits are struggling with soldiers that are obese or out of shape. That follows a similar German report several months ago that also bemoaned the amount of beer the Germans are consuming.

NATO will become an essentially useless alliance if it cannot fulfill its primary credo that an attack against one is an attack against all. The alliance has shown in Afghanistan that it may be headed that direction. If we cannot count on allied support in fighting Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, what exactly is the point of continuing to support the alliance? It may be trendy to add new eastern European nations, but why bother if the alliance is hollow? Members have drug their feet in supporting operations in Afghanistan since the onset of the conflict. The statements of support following September 11th now ring somewhat hollow in light of their reluctance to deploy significant numbers of combat troops in areas where they might actually be helpful. It’s time for our NATO allies to stop the complaining and get in the fight or risk going the way of the United Nations.

NEGOTIATE WITH THE TALIBAN ?: Chatter about trying to talk with the Taliban has increased in recent weeks, especially from the Brits. There is a huge difference between flipping some local Taliban and actually engaging Taliban leadership. The Taliban had their chance to govern, and it was a nightmare for the Afghan people and for the rest of the world. They cannot be folded into the Afghan government. Even more outrageous was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s support for such a traitorous idea while at a joint appearance last Wednesday with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Have they both gone mad? Miliband suggested such an approach last Monday in a speech at NATO headquarters, further bringing the alliance’s worth into question.

The only way the Taliban should be “engaged” is with automatic weapons.

HOW LONG, ISRAEL ?: Israel will not wait forever to take action against Iran’s nuclear program. While the Obama administration talks sanctions and continues attempts to negotiate, the Iranians continue their threats against Israel and their march toward deliverable nuclear weapons. President Obama is attempting the same, tired old strategy of negotiating and promising moot sanctions that hasn’t worked for the last six years. It’s difficult to see what he thinks can be gained. He refused to offer any support to the demonstrators in Iran, perhaps in fear of damaging his efforts. The Obama administration has consistently delivered a mixed message on Iran, simultaneously declaring a fully nuclear Iran “unacceptable” while also vowing to protect the rest of the region should Iran achieve a functional nuclear weapon. Which is it, Mr. President?

It is clear Israel will not wait forever, nor should they be expected to do so. Iran has openly and directly threatened their existence. After SECDEF Gates’ recent visit, rumors flew that the U.S. had asked Israel to wait at least eight more weeks. Whether those rumors are true or not, the clock is clearly ticking, and no doubt that ticking is heard loudest in Tel Aviv. Mr. Obama should set a deadline for negotiations to begin in earnest. If the Iranians ignore the deadline, he should begin planning in earnest for a military strike that while obviously dangerous, may be the least risky option of all.

HOSTAGE SITUATIONS: The Obama administration now has two hostage situations to deal with instead of just one. For nearly five months, North Korea has been holding two American female journalists accused of spying. Now Iran is reportedly holding three Americans taken from a poorly marked area of the Iran-Iraq border. Failing to act on either situation reflects very poorly on Mr. Obama and does nothing but encourage these two rogue nations to act out even more. Obama’s campaign promised a new era in U.S. foreign policy that would bring quicker resolution to any crisis. So far that has not been the case.

HILLARY GETS A PASS ON MTP

2009-07-26T14:06:00.005-04:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the exclusive guest on Meet The Press this morning. As expected, moderator and DNC favorite David Gregory conducted a softball interview that failed to ask a difficult or probing question even once. It was more like a casual conversation between two friends than a legitimate political interview. In fact, only the first twenty five minutes were relevant to Mrs. Clinton’s current position, with the rest devoted to her relationship to President Obama in light of the past campaign, health care, and several other items not germane to the chief of Foggy Bottom. Hillary was supremely unqualified to take the post, and her performance since doing so is a direct reflection of her complete inexperience in foreign policy matters. Of course, Gregory’s introduction of her was glowing, saying she had travelled over “100,000 miles” already, had “confronted North Korea”, and was “warning Iran”. The mileage may be correct, but the veracity ends there, unless you consider name-calling and parroting the soft Obama line on rogue nations confrontational.

Gregory started with North Korea. Mrs. Clinton and the North Korean government traded barbs this past week, with Hillary describing them as unruly children and the North Koreans making disparaging comments on her appearance. That hardly qualifies as the loftiest of diplomatic maneuvers. Gregory conveniently omitted the most biting of the North Korean comments, an early sign of the accommodating nature the rest of the interview would take. Hillary immediately referred to U.N. Resolution 1874, yet another weak and toothless measure in the parade of United Nations futility. She referred to the measure as “most stringent sanctions” and called for a return to negotiations. Talking may provide Hillary with a way to occupy her time, but recent history shows the North Koreans are not likely to make any concessions, cease their provocative rhetoric or actions, or use talks as anything other than a way to leverage more food and assistance. Mrs. Clinton seemed satisfied that “even Burma” was on board. Surely the North Koreans are trembling at the thought of the military colossus of Burma backing international sanctions. She conceded that the North Koreans are known proliferaters of nuclear technology, but refused to describe them as a legitimate threat to the United States, a glaring contradiction of terms given their willingness to sell to the highest bidder without regard to the nature of the buyer. Hillary touted U.S. missile defense, failing to mention the cuts already made and further cuts proposed by her boss. If that was supposed to reassure us all, it was a translucent attempt at best. Neither her husband’s administration nor the Bush administration responded effectively to North Korea, and it seems that trend will continue under Obama.

Reflecting the contradictory messages on Iran put forth by the Obama administration thus far, Mrs. Clinton then answered a series of questions about the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. Earlier this week while touring Asia, Hillary referred to an American “defense umbrella” that would allegedly thwart Iranian power should they actually achieve the production of a nuclear weapon. Not more than a minute later, she described the prospect of Iran gaining that technology as “unacceptable”. She unwittingly revealed the true administration policy on Iran by quoting the “hope for the best, plan for the worst” mantra that cannot lead to anything other than U.S. acquiescence to a nuclear-armed Iran. That is an appalling little slogan for America to be using in the face of the world’s largest and most active state sponsor of terror actively seeking WMD technology. Mrs. Clinton’s response to recent Iranian protests was just as pathetic as Obama’s, merely saying that the Iranian people “deserve better than what they’re getting.” Yes, Hillary, they definitely deserve better than mass arrests and the shooting of innocents in the streets of Tehran. The Obama administration has completely fumbled an opportunity to reach out to the Iranian people, support a democratic movement against a fascist and dangerous regime, and perhaps lay the ground for avoiding a costly confrontation with the current establishment of deranged mullahs.

After a few cursory questions on Russia, the discussion moved to the subject of Afghanistan. Gregory immediately referred to the number of American casualties this past month. I am always amazed at the way the media measures success or failure of military operations by the number of dead. The numbers have indeed increased, but that is a reflection of wider and more aggressive operations and a direct result of the unwillingness of our so-called allies to engage in actual combat. Gregory asked if Afghanistan had become Obama’s “war of choice”, demonstrating his short historical memory of Taliban support and safe harbor for Al Qaeda. Mrs. Clinton referred to the “lessons of Iraq” being applied to Afghanistan, a bit odd considering her previous steadfast refusal to view Iraq as anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Both she and Obama constantly decried Bush administration policy in Iraq throughout their campaigns, but notably have continued the same course with little exception. Gregory’s short treatment of the Afghan war replicates the mass media’s disinterest and incapacity to adequately cover or understand a complex military situation.

The first commercial break came at the twenty five minute mark, and that ended the foreign policy discussion. The rest of the hour was filled with a potpourri of questions that had absolutely nothing to do with her current position. Hillary let loose with her trademark cackle at the first break, a chilling hoot that always reminds me of the witch in the Bugs Bunny cartoons. Mrs. Clinton was asked about her recovery from a fractured elbow, apparently a major handicap in schmoozing international leaders.

Gregory then asked about her relationship with President Obama, and that’s where the nonsense could only lead to intense and repeated eye-rolling. She said the administration was “six months in and look what we’ve done.” She then lauded the appointment of various “special envoys”, a procedure that only further indicates Obama’s doubts in her abilities. Hillary also claimed she had “great respect” for Obama’s world view, a direct contradiction of her biting campaign criticisms of him. The obligatory questions about the current health care debate were queried as if she is some sort of expert, when in fact her attempt at health care reform was a misadventure of epic proportion. She also claimed the President had done an “excellent job” on the Professor Gates arrest, something Obama is still trying to spin away from as fast as possible.
Gregory finished by asking about the possibility and difficulties of a woman becoming POTUS. Hillary was remarkably gracious when addressing the subject of Sarah Palin, the largest surprise of the entire show. Mrs. Clinton claimed becoming President was “not on my radar”, perhaps her most dubious claim. Gregory even scraped up the ambitions Hillary penned as a sixth grade student, the height of sycophancy he saved as the crowning jewel of an hour full of fawning flattery.

It is indeed unfortunate that the media, in this case Mr. Gregory, would treat a sitting Secretary of State with the softest of kid gloves. Certainly no Republican would be given such a blatant free pass. Mrs. Clinton’s resume for the position was extremely thin, consisting largely of extending her pinkie while sipping tea with the wives of foreign leaders. It is readily apparent that she was brought aboard only to compromise her potential candidacy in 2012. That is a potentially calamitous move in a dangerous world. Mr. Obama may yet come to regret her appointment, or perhaps he is working around her for that very reason. Meanwhile the nation suffers for her poor performance and lackey status within the Obama administration at a time when real leadership is needed to avoid potential disasters at every turn.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: I had the extreme misfortune of catching part of Chris Matthews' show as I was making coffee before the start of MTP. We all know what a big Obama fan he is, but his parting statement really stuck in my craw. In reference to the recent arrest of Obama pal Gates, Matthews actually claimed that Obama had not run as a black candidate, in the same way John Kennedy had not run as a Catholic candidate. Wrong, Chris. Obama played every advantage he could out of his ethnicity, and continues to do so. He garnered millions of votes simply because of his race, in what was the most outrageous example of racial politics I've ever seen. Many voted for him simply because of his race and without regard to his proposed policies or philosophy. If you're going to make factually incorrect statements in support of your Obamessiah, Mr. Matthews, you may want to stick to uttering them on MSNBC, where virtually no one but those who share your sentiments will hear them. Matthews lost credibility as anything but an Obama bootlicker long ago, and with statements like the one this morning, it appears his objectivity has no hope of returning.

WHY THE LEFT HATES SARAH PALIN & HER GREEN TOES

2009-07-12T09:18:00.009-04:00

One can always judge the strength and viability of a conservative presidential candidate from the amount and intensity of hatred and vitriol directed toward them from the left. If the left fears a particular individual, meaning a sense that they are gaining popularity, have strong convictions, or might actually be able to stand toe to toe with the liberals, they will begin the odium, name-calling and derision. Since they aren't able to effectively counter the tested and proven rectitude of conservative principles, it's all they have. The media, always willing to chip in to help the Democrats in any way possible, publicizes the loathing and chimes in right along with them. It's like a choir: the leader sets the note, passes out the lyrics, and the singers start right along with them. Every Republican leader in my lifetime has had to face this sort of idiocy. It is tired, transparent, and predictable. The recent resignation of Alaska Governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin gave the leftist media types a perfect opportunity to begin such an effort in advance of the 2010 midterms and 2012 Presidential election. In keeping with their time honored traditions, they immediately began to spew lies, half-truths, and bitter invective. It is a measure of their shallow intellectual abilities: if they can't win the debate on ideas and principles, they resort to personalizing the issues, pointing fingers, and generally denigrating the individual. The abhorrence of Sarah Palin from the liberal left has begun in earnest, and the reasons for it are clear.

Governor Palin is everything the left once claimed to support. Here is a strong woman serving in a largely male dominated field, a woman who has made her own decisions and has carved out a career for herself while at the same time raising a family. She has had to withstand a tidal wave of insults and snide comments few men ever face. Late night comedians have referred to her look as a "slutty flight attendant", members of her family have been made the butt of crude and insulting attempts at humor, and the morality of her decison to raise a Downs Syndrome child has been questioned, along with her intelligence and experience. The focus on her clothing, appearance, and style is indeed remarkable. Not a day goes by without a negative column or asinine comment from the liberal talking heads. Their focus on her is obsessive and without apparent end. They keep saying how dumb and irrelevant she is, yet their parade of bile continues, actually torpedoing their efforts by giving her more airtime and keeping her in the national conversation. Palin is what the liberals fear most: a strong, conservative woman, and that's why they spend so much time attacking her. Were she a socialist-leaning liberal, they would be lauding her accomplishments, but since she is, to them, on the wrong side of the aisle, her remarkable achievements are scoffed at and belittled. It's the same old double standard from the left. They cannot tolerate a woman who has raised herself into the national spotlight while espousing conservative principles. They would be a singing an entirely different tune if she were supporting gay rights, infanticide, and socialized medicine.

The Democrats and other assorted liberals who strike out against her would prefer the GOP remain a disorganized entity with no recognized national leader. Governor Palin's emergence since being named John McCain's running mate highly disturbs them: it gives the conservative movement a stalwart leader and guide for coming elections. Far better to the liberals would be a chaotic party without guidance, foundering and doubting while the Dems consolidate their power base of minorities, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, greens, pro-abortionists, big government socialists, and the hippy set. The Democrats have always been a coalition party of interest groups instead of a party united by common values and principles, and there is no questioning their effectiveness at cobbling those groups together into a united voting bloc. The largest threat to that alliance is a party on the other side united by ideas, especially if the leader of such a philosphical union appears to be someone who would ordinarily be a member of one of their interest groups. That is why they so vehemently assail black or female Republicans. Surely, they think, no black or woman with a brain would join the GOP, as usual demonstrating their pompous intellectual snobbery. It galls them to no end and is a manifestation of their elitism. Sarah Palin offers the Republican Party a chance to once again unite around core conservative principles, something the left simply cannot allow.

Governor Palin came from humble origins and raised herself up through individual effort. The left has always despised any person who came from common stock to national prominence. It exemplifies the very conservative principles they so fervently oppose. They cannot admit anyone could possibly survive without the support of a massive and extensive government. Liberals prefer a biography replete with federal government handouts and affirmative action. Only Democrats can be permitted to elevate themselves, and even then only with a guiding hand from a nanny government. Governor Palin knows how to handle a firearm (gasp!), hunts, fishes, and rides snowmobiles (snowmachines, she would correct me). She demonstrates unusual comfort with every day folks because she is one. A prime example was provided by today's Washington Post:

"When a photographer prepared to take pictures of the interview, Mrs. Palin, wearing open-toed shoes, said laughingly, 'Don't get my toes in the picture - they are green on the bottom.'

Indeed they were. She said the marks were grass stains from mowing her lawn the previous day"

Horrors: a woman who cuts the grass! The Democrats know they can't allow any conservative with an ability to connect with average people to gain national prominence: it's a lesson they learned by repeatedly having their behinds thrashed by Ronald Reagan. No matter how dumb they said he was, his ability to relate to voters overcame their insults and hatred. Governor Palin has the same ability, and the left fears that more than anything.

Sarah Palin is detested by liberals because they know she can win. It's no more complicated than that. They know she is the strongest candidate to oppose them in the upcoming midterm elections and is the strongest candidate to oppose the Obamessiah. I will admit to a certain amount of vulgar sexism when judging Presidential candidates, but for me Palin has destroyed that by championing the tenets of Ronald Reagan the GOP unwisely ignored in 2008. Those principles transcend time and gender. Governor Palin is the best leader the GOP has at this moment in time. If you need proof, look at the amount of time and energy the left spends attacking her. Anytime you see the liberal set nearly foaming at the mouth with hatred of a conservative, it's a good bet that individual is a leader they fear they cannot defeat.

FRIDAY BEEFS: MJ AND GANGSTER GOVERNMENT

2009-07-10T12:54:00.004-04:00

1. MICHAEL JACKSON: This whole media frenzy makes me ill. Our military men and women are at war across the globe and warrant only a few minutes of coverage each day on most networks. Several of them have been rewarded for their gallantry in combat within the last week. A number of veterans who were similarly recognized during their careers have passed away within that same time, with absolutely no coverage. Several notable celebrities other than MJ passed away with little regard from the usually sycophantic media. Ed McMahon, a combat marine, passed with very few noticing. Farrah Fawcett, in my humble opinion one of the most beautiful women in all of human history, died after a heartbreaking battle with cancer. Her death was buried by MJ coverage. The entire spectacle illustrates the complete superficiality of the media and their lack of wisdom in deciding who and what to cover. Instead of providing real news coverage, they choose instead to worship at the altar of celebrity, and in this case, one who was generally recognized as a pedophile and cretin. Sure, he was acquitted of the molestation charges, just as O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder. This only demonstrates the biggest fault of our justice system: one gets the justice one can afford. MJ admitted that he spent his time sleeping with little boys. Do you know any other men in their forties who have made a similar admission and are not incarcerated? His famous “Neverland” ranch was simply a lure for young children. The simple fact is that the media has completely overlooked MJ’s creepy side and held him up as some sort of supernatural being without sin. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of making him responsible for his own actions, especially his drug addictions, he is being portrayed as a victim of his upbringing and wealth. Boo-hoo, poor Michael had a rough childhood and made a boatload of cash, and somehow that excuses the sexual assault of young boys. It’s sickening. His music, while entertaining to some, was not profound, deep, or philosophical. It was bubble gum pop and nothing more. His dancing and constant crotch-grabbing served only to further sexualize youth, something he no doubt knew and enjoyed. As for me, they can’t get him in the ground fast enough. Farewell and good riddance.

2. GOVERNMENTAL BLACKMAIL: Here in Columbus, Ohio, we are the capital of government by force. Governor Strickland is battling with Republicans over the state budget. Teddy is trying to force the state legislature to incorporate electronic gambling machines at horse tracks into the budget to help deal with a $3.2 billion deficit. This might not be so offensive were the Governor not ignoring the fact that gambling in several different forms has been repeatedly rejected at the ballot box by the citizens of this state. That makes this current attempt very close to communism. Strickland is choosing to ignore the will of the people and force something on them that has been roundly defeated more than once. He is using the budget deficit as a wedge to force the citizenry to accept casinos and casino-style gambling. Shame on you, Teddy: does the will of the people have no meaning to you at all? The Ohio Constitution was amended by voters in 1972 to allow a state-run lottery, but prohibits “schemes of chance” including slot machines. Strickland is trying to skirt the law by having the state lottery run the machines. Nice try, Teddy, but what you are doing is sheer despotism. All he needs to do is take the issue to the voters, but he knows it will be rejected like all the other efforts before it. Gambling proponents always cry about Ohio losing revenue to surrounding states that allow all sorts of gambling. What they fail to mention is that we are also missing out on the organized crime, prostitution, and drug trade that invariably accompanies the business of gambling. Ohio voters have decided time after time that they are unwilling to allow organized gambling other than the state lottery, which was originally proposed as a means of financing schools but has turned into a cash cow for free-spending liberals. Strickland has already expanded the lottery by executive fiat to include keno and now he thinks he can use the budget process to force the issue further.

Then there’s the city of Columbus. A special election on August 4 will allow voters to decide if the city’s income tax should be raised by 25 percent, from 2 percent to 2.5 percent. The current city budget is $630.5million, and the proposed hike would generate an estimated $90 - $100 million dollars. As usual, Mayor Michael Coleman, a committed liberal big spender, is threatening major cuts to police and fire services should the initiative fail. He expects us to believe that the city has already cut everything available and that those services are the only things left. That is pure poppycock. No salary cuts for city officials have been proposed, no wasteful programs have been examined, and he continues to push for federal money to partially fund a ridiculous and unnecessary light rail system that would serve only a few. Coleman seems to be able to find all the cash he needs for his numerous asinine pet projects, but if he doesn’t get more cash, policeman and fireman will take the brunt of the threatened cuts. The mayor is resorting to the typical blackmail tactics used by Democrats for years: we need more money, but if we don’t get it, essential services will be the first to go. Columbus Public Schools continually rank among the worst and pay their administrators exorbitant salaries, but those are held sacrosanct. Most people who work in the city itself do not live there. They have, over the past three decades or so, moved to the surrounding suburbs for better homes and schools. The proposed tax would hit them the hardest, and their use of city services is minimal. If you think that’s bad, take a look at what one suburban school district is trying.

Southwestern City Schools (SWCS) encompasses the Columbus suburb of Grove City and parts of western Franklin County. The district is far superior to Columbus Public, thanks to a large property tax base of decent homes, something Columbus lacks. The last SWCS levy failed last March. The new proposed levy would add $254 in property tax each year per $100,000 of home value and would generate an estimated $21 million in revenue. Here we have another school district with a bloated administration paid equally bloated salaries. The district is attempting to blackmail voters by threatening to cut, of all things, every sports program and the band. Never mind that many students get athletic or musical scholarships to further their education. Never mind that many of the schools are lit up like Christmas trees even during the summer. Never mind that the district has repeatedly demonstrated financial ineptness at managing funds in the past, including several administrator retreats held at resort hotels complete with sizable alcohol tabs. The district is trying to hit parents where it hurts most to force passage of the levy. It is nothing less than intimidation and extortion. Hopefully the voters have enough courage to reject the levy and force the district to make more sensible cuts.

I told you we were the capital of government blackmail. Local governments are using gangster tactics to force the citizenry to approve tax hikes in a time of economic crisis instead of cutting waste and abuse. What was that Thomas Jefferson said about the tree of liberty?

UPDATE: COMMUNIST TEDDY STRICKLAND HAS FORCED THE COWARDLY OHIO LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW SLOT MACHINES AT OHIO'S SEVEN RACETRACKS. ONCE AGAIN HE RULES THE STATE THROUGH TERROR LIKE KIM JONG-IL. WHY DO DEMOCRATS ALWAYS RULE THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT ON ISSUES THAT THEY KNOW THE VOTERS OPPOSE? CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WEAK AND USELESS OHIO LEGISLATURE: YOU SHOULD SUSPEND YOUR ACTIVITIES AND RESIGN IN SHAME.

TRIBUTE TO MY FATHER

2009-06-21T13:07:00.000-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS A TRIBUTE I WROTE TO MY DAD FOR HIS FUNERAL LAST AUGUST. HE HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH PANCREATIC CANCER IN EARLY MAY, AND CHEMOTHERAPY COULD NOT STOP THE RAPID PROGRESSION. THIS IS MY FIRST FATHER'S DAY WITHOUT HIM, AND HE IS SORELY MISSED.
____________________________________________________
THE BEST MAN I HAVE EVER KNOWN

We have each known men who set the example for us all, men of fine character whose actions are beyond question. These good men display a higher moral standard through their deeds and in the manner they live their lives. They reflect the most basic of American values in all they do: honesty, hard work, commitment to family, and a willingness to sacrifice for others. Unfortunately, many times these men are far removed from those who look up to them. Athletes, film stars, or other celebrities partially fill the role for those without someone closer to emulate. I was blessed with a father who was always the only hero I ever needed, and I wanted to share a few thoughts and stories about Dad that demonstrate that.

I cannot imagine anyone more honest than Dad. He let you know the facts of any situation right up front, unvarnished and without any sugary coating. I always knew right away if he disapproved of my actions or thought I was misbehaving. He rarely raised his voice in anger, but no one had any doubts about where he stood. Dad never pulled a punch, even if it was about his own health. I vividly remember his bluntness in telling me his reaction to the onset of the macular degeneration that would eventually steal most of his sight. He said, “Rob, I sat down and cried about it, but then after that, what can you do? I have to go on.” He never was one to bemoan his situation, blame others, or whine about his problems.

My father’s devotion to his family was total. Any man willing to adopt a son and daughter and love them as his own is indeed extraordinary. He worked long hours at an extremely physical job just to provide for us. Dad always made sure I had whatever I needed to be like the other kids. I learned as an adult that he had been teased as a child at school in rural Virginia for his hand me down clothing and lack of shoes, and he didn’t want that for his own children. I think that’s why he would put on his shoes immediately in the morning and keep them on all day even if he didn’t plan to leave the house. Dad sacrificed countless times to buy me that new expensive pair of tennis shoes or winter jacket I simply had to have to be cool like the other kids. All the while he was going without the tools that might have made his work easier and eating bologna or spam sandwiches for lunch at work for weeks on end. I will always remember the roughness of his hands, and my amazement at how the calluses on his palm matched the grip of a hammer. When we were little he would often bring us candy when he returned from a long day of work. I can remember Mom being upset with him for sneaking us Mallowcups before dinner. Dad never owned fine cars or fancy clothes for himself, and I don’t think he ever desired them. He was happy just to make sure we had whatever we needed or wanted, no matter how silly or frivolous.

He spent the last years of his life caring for Louise as Alzheimer’s slowly took her away from him. He first tended to her every need at home while he was mostly blind, and then never missed a daily visit to feed and care for her once her condition worsened. His grandchildren were very special to Dad, and I’ll never forget the look of joy on his face the first time I handed Andy over to him to hold. Andy learned early on that “Papa” was the man to see if he needed something for school or money for a new toy or video game.

Dad raised me with a sense of obligation to country. His oldest brother Oscar was killed in the Battle of the Bulge, and his own duty to our nation had been honorably fulfilled in the combat of the Korean War. His advice to me prior to leaving for basic training was the best I ever received. He simply said, “Keep your mouth closed, listen to your sergeants, and always follow orders.” His reaction to first seeing me in Army uniform was simple and priceless. He put his arm around my shoulder and with a tear in his eye said, “You’re a soldier now. You’re a man.” He was letting me know I had fulfilled his expectation of national service. Dad didn’t care much for politicians, but he loved America and firmly believed in young men serving in our military.

Even the way Dad used the phone told you something about him. No matter how big or distant the national chain he might be calling, Dad would always start with, “This is Gene Mullins out in Grove City,” as if they should recognize him instantly. It was simply his way of letting them know that he was a man of honor, proud of who and what he was, and that he was ready to deal with others in a straight forward manner.

Dad’s counsel is what I’ll miss most. He had a wealth of knowledge on all subjects relevant to everyday living. So many times in my life I went to Dad and got just the right answer to a problem that had seemed unsolvable to me. His most famous advice was about keeping the oil changed in cars. Dad would launch into a five minute speech about the importance of oil changes every time he got the chance. Sometimes I would mention the subject around others just to get him going. Invariably the phrase “oil is the lifeblood of an engine” would be used repeatedly. Dad knew a little maintenance now could save a big problem later. He will be sorely missed whenever I need to rely on some real world experience.

Dad and I shared a love of professional football from early in my childhood. Sundays were for watching the NFL together. We teased each other relentlessly during the season. Dad was a die-hard Bengals fan, and like everything else he did, he stayed loyal to them until the end. I became a Steelers fan, probably disappointing him a little. Even though that rivalry gave us many jokes to crack on each other over the years, it was never mean spirited or nasty. We both enjoyed following the league like a soap opera for men, and football was always a main subject for our discussions. It was our way of connecting to the past and to each other. Dad passed on his vast knowledge and deep appreciation of the game to me, and I will carry it with me forever.

Simply put, Dad was the best man I have ever known. He is the standard by which I measure myself and others. Phrases like “salt of the earth” were invented to describe men like him. He was always ready to help others, even if they were strangers. He never shirked his responsibilities or made excuses. His family was his highest priority, and he never let us down, not even once.

I have lost my father, my best friend, and the only hero that ever really mattered to me. There can surely be no doubt we have all lost a good man.

We will all go on with our lives like he would want us to do, but it won’t be easy without him. Goodbye, Dad.
__________________________________________________________
FATHER'S DAY WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN, DAD, AND I MISS YOU EVERY DAY.

MIND YOUR MANNERS

2009-06-21T00:26:00.000-04:00

Civilization requires we be civil to each other. A rapid decline of civility in America does not bode well for our future. I began thinking about this as a result of an incident at a local convenience store today. As I approached the entry door, I was preceded by two young men and an elderly woman using a cane. The two young men picked up their pace to get to the door before the lady. I assumed they would hold the door for her, but they did not. They allowed it to close without even a look back. I then took several quick steps to reach the door before the lady did so that I could hold the door for her. The look of surprise on her face was priceless and made my effort more than worth it. She said, “Thank you”, and I responded with a “Yes, Ma’am.” I was raised by a mother from Alabama who insisted on good manners at all times, especially toward women and senior citizens. She has been gone for many years, but her lessons were not lost on me. I still fear the brutal backhand that would land aside my head whenever I forgot my manners. The ugly truth is that ordinary, common etiquette has almost completely disappeared from our culture. I’m not talking about which fork to use for which course at dinner, but rather something more rudimentary. I’m referring to rules of civil society that indicate a respect for one another. We should all aspire as individuals and as parents to restore these norms to our society.

Allow me to explain. The basics are fairly simple: saying “please”, “thank you”, and referring to elders as “sir” or “ma’am” whenever appropriate, pulling out chairs for ladies or helping them with their coats or packages, and holding doors for women and the aged are all part of a bigger code of conduct. That code seeks to protect and respect the most vulnerable members of our society, and it is sadly lacking from our daily discourse. These are not tremendous acts of sacrifice nor do they require a monumental exertion. They are simply a set of behavioral standards that place a template on our actions that shows deference to other human beings. It may sound absurd to some, but they go a very long way towards easing the stresses of daily life. Any time one sees a lady or a senior in need of assistance, we should respond without hesitation, almost reflexively. Clearly I am referring to men and specifically young men in particular. Not too long ago I witnessed an older gentleman at a home improvement store struggling to load several large pieces of plywood. I was loading my truck at the time, and I watched several strapping young men walk by without helping. I stopped what I was doing to help, as I assume anyone with a modicum of concern would. The man actually tried to tip me, but I politely refused. I considered it my basic duty and the least I could do. I had never seen this man before, and I may never again, but I know that he will not soon forget. I cannot understand why these sorts of acts are rare now.

Young men have a responsibility to the other parts of our population whether they choose to accept it or not. It reflects very poorly on their upbringing should they not do so. Several times in the past I have grabbed the shoulder of my son and held him back when he attempted to go through an entrance ahead of others for which he should have waited. I have tried to pass along the manners taught to me by my mother because they indicate a basic regard for others. It’s bad enough that many fathers are completely absent, but it seems the ones who are present are failing to teach their young men proper conduct. Children are a reflection of their parents, and that reflection should include civility. We fail as parents and as a culture when we neglect that. It leads to greater and more concerning acts of callousness and disrespect.

Another incident this weekend confirmed my fears. I witnessed a funeral procession traveling along a major Columbus road. When I was a young man, it was customary for opposing traffic or nearby pedestrians to briefly stop while the procession passed. It is not legally required, but it is respect for the deceased and their family. We may not have known the individual, but we can acknowledge their passing simply by taking a few seconds to pause in reflection. Our lives go on afterward, unlike the deceased. When our culture has lost regard for even the dead, it is not a good omen. Of course, respect for life has been declining in America for many years, so maybe this is part of that, but that certainly in no way excuses it.

Politeness smoothes the daily interactions we have with one another. Next time you call a government agency or private company for assistance, start by thanking the individual by name for taking your call. You might be surprised how much more cooperative and helpful the individual will be. It’s amazing. Those of us who are parents should be even more attentive to the way we conduct ourselves. Our children watch and imitate every move we make and every transaction we have with others. Boorish manners and the insensitive treatment of others do not make things easier or faster. They simply indicate a disregard for others and a focus on one’s self.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS

2009-06-14T16:27:00.002-04:00

We all know these are difficult economic times. We assume an eventual rebound with all the usual features: gains in employment, increased construction and manufacturing, and a rising tide for everyone. This economic downturn has been decades in the making, and it will not be solved overnight or even anytime soon. President Obama has made increased employment claims that are dubious and perhaps completely fraudulent. His administration’s efforts to halt the slide have been at best completely ineffective and at worst have deepened and given the crisis a longer life. We are in a huge abyss, and it’s important to look at the factors that have created it.

Manufacturing in this country has reached an all time low. Sometimes it seems we don’t make anything in the U.S. anymore except for big, fat butts. Our cars, steel, electronics, and increasingly food, are obtained from foreign sources. One would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of American products at your local retailer. Foreign manufacturers can produce these products cheaply because they do not have to worry about environmental restrictions, quality control, or even paying their workers a decent wage. I am 43 years old, and in my lifetime alone American manufacturing has been devastated, boxed up, and shipped overseas. The paint manufacturing company I left after eleven years now has less than twenty percent of the workers it did when I resigned. Rockwell is gone from the airport, and the GM facility on the west side of town closed years ago. Consumers, eager to get their hands on cheap goods, don’t concern themselves with country of origin or even quality. For them it’s all about price. This attitude, as well as many other misguided government policies, have brought desolation to the American middle class and helped to wreck our economic engine. The days when a young man or woman could graduate from high school, get a job working in a factory, comfortably raise a family, and retire after thirty years are gone. Even if by some miracle one did manage to do that, benefits or pensions would likely be cut or completely taken away after retirement. Our automobile industry would likely collapse without government intervention. There is serious doubt about whether or not the U.S. has the steel manufacturing capacity we would need in a major war of extended length. Those two industries alone were for many years the source of decent wages and other benefits for middle class Americans. Those opportunities are now gone.
The American construction industry is also at an all time low. The recession itself is partly to blame, but there are indeed other factors. Everything involved in it has become an industry itself. Government regulations detail and dominate every aspect no matter how small. Legal and illegal immigrants have largely forced natural born Americans out of the business by under bidding labor. This industry was also the source of good income and benefits for the middle class, and it too is nearly gone as an opportunity.

Trades have come under the control of either government or private business. Don’t think so? A list of occupations regulated by the Ohio Revised Code is demonstrative:

TITLE [47] XLVII OCCUPATIONS -- PROFESSIONS
CHAPTER 4701: ACCOUNTANCY BOARD LAW
CHAPTER 4703: ARCHITECTS
CHAPTER 4705: ATTORNEYS
CHAPTER 4707: AUCTIONEERS
CHAPTER 4709: BARBERS
CHAPTER 4710: DEBT POOLING COMPANIES
CHAPTER 4711: COMMISSION MERCHANTS
CHAPTER 4712: OHIO CREDIT SERVICES ORGANIZATION ACT
CHAPTER 4713: COSMETOLOGISTS
CHAPTER 4715: DENTISTS; DENTAL HYGIENISTS
CHAPTER 4717: EMBALMERS, FUNERAL DIRECTORS, CREMATORIES
CHAPTER 4719: TELEPHONE SOLICITORS
CHAPTER 4721: INNKEEPERS
CHAPTER 4723: NURSES
CHAPTER 4725: OPTOMETRISTS; DISPENSING OPTICIANS
CHAPTER 4727: PAWNBROKERS
CHAPTER 4728: PRECIOUS METALS DEALERS
CHAPTER 4729: PHARMACISTS; DANGEROUS DRUGS
CHAPTER 4730: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS
CHAPTER 4731: PHYSICIANS; LIMITED PRACTITIONERS
CHAPTER 4732: PSYCHOLOGISTS
CHAPTER 4733: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS
CHAPTER 4734: CHIROPRACTORS
CHAPTER 4735: REAL ESTATE BROKERS
CHAPTER 4736: SANITARIANS
CHAPTER 4737: SECONDHAND DEALERS; JUNK YARDS
CHAPTER 4738: MOTOR VEHICLE SALVAGE
CHAPTER 4740: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
CHAPTER 4741: VETERINARIANS
CHAPTER 4742: EMERGENCY SERVICE TELECOMMUNICATORS
CHAPTER 4747: HEARING AID DEALERS
CHAPTER 4749: PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS; SECURITY SERVICES
CHAPTER 4751: NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS
CHAPTER 4752: HOME MEDICAL SERVICES
CHAPTER 4753: SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS AND AUDIOLOGISTS
CHAPTER 4755: OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS; PHYSICAL THERAPISTS; ATHLETIC TRAINERS
CHAPTER 4757: COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS
CHAPTER 4758: CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY PROFESSIONALS
CHAPTER 4759: DIETETICS
CHAPTER 4760: ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS
CHAPTER 4761: RESPIRATORY CARE
CHAPTER 4762: ACUPUNCTURISTS
CHAPTER 4763: REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
CHAPTER 4771: ATHLETE AGENTS
CHAPTER 4773: RADIATION TECHNICIANS
CHAPTER 4774: RADIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS
CHAPTER 4775: MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION REPAIR OPERATORS
CHAPTER 4779: ORTHOTISTS, PROSTHETISTS, PEDORTHISTS

Some of these are understandable, but most are not. The bulk require licensing one cannot obtain without experience, but experience cannot be obtained without the license or some sort of apprenticeship. The most outrageous example is the field of private investigation, and it demonstrates my point exactly (complete text here). The state first broadly defines the occupation to cover as many as possible, then sets restrictions that cannot be met by the average person. The next step is to configure the composition of the licensing board completely from industry insiders. Some of the requirements are understandable (no felonies, pass an exam, have insurance), but one in particular closes off the industry to almost everyone: two years experience in either investigation work, practicing law, or law enforcement or work for a public investigative agency are required. That makes the industry a clique run by a select few. Licensing and other requirements for some other occupations are similarly designed. It is the result of a government out of control to the point where it damages the people it serves. The Ohio Revised Code and the draconian restrictions contained therein effectively make the state anti-business. The intent may have been to regulate certain fields for safety or for the protection of consumers, but like every other good idea, it goes too far in the hands of the government. If only the ORC were used as a guide, it would seem clear that the state is trying to discourage business formation and the employment it could bring. Until and unless a sweeping reform of the code takes place, there is little hope for economic gains in Ohio. The state government simply will not allow individual citizens to conduct business without hampering the effort.

Wages for working people have fallen through the floor as a result of immigrant labor. Why pay an American twenty dollars an hour when you can pay an immigrant eight or ten? Given the price of housing, food, and other essentials, it is basically impossible for non-professional folks to survive in the current climate. The price tag on a new car is roughly equivalent to what our parents paid for a house. That sort of inflation over the last several decades has forced many to work more than one job, and many others into poverty. I see ads online everyday seeking someone to do a job that is physically demanding while offering paltry wages. Those ads are clearly directed at immigrants and the businesses or individuals placing them know it. Pay for CEOs is always on the rise, and it comes directly out of the wallets of those who serve the company in the most difficult and labor intensive positions. It is not the federal government but the business owners and shareholders that should demand limits on executive compensation. Exorbitant sums being paid to one individual at the top is both a bad business model and demoralizing to the rest of the workforce. Meanwhile, the working individual is having their wages reduced and benefits eliminated. It’s a recipe for disaster, and what we see now is only the beginning.

As if that all weren’t a bad enough scenario, add the high and fluctuating cost of energy, particularly gasoline. Those who work in the transportation field feel it, but so does the small business person. Here in Columbus we are now paying around $2.75 a gallon for regular gas. Just a few short months ago it averaged $1.50 a gallon. The price jump has nearly doubled the costs of transport for everything. It’s a factor in virtually every quarter of the economy, and the effects of an upward price change ripple throughout and hit everyone. The highly speculative oil market makes billionaires of a few and paupers of the rest.

All of these factors and many others combine to reduce the number of people in the middle class. Eventually we’ll all be either poor, rich, or work for the government. There isn’t going to be room for anything else. President Obama’s economic recovery measures will result only in higher deficits and increased inflation and will leave the next generation of Americans an even greater burden. Politicians and the media are oblivious to what is happening. If they don’t notice and take significant action soon, it may be too late.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY REVIEW

2009-06-14T10:01:00.002-04:00

For those of us seeking intelligent political debate, there is only one show to watch on Sunday mornings. Fox News Sunday always has the most relevant guests, features the most important subjects of the day, and host Chris Wallace is a gritty interviewer who gives no quarter to the politicians across the table. Let's face it, Meet The Press has gone right off the cliff since Tim Russert unexpectedly passed away, leaving the program with a major hole that has yet to be filled. David Gregory is the wrong man in the wrong job, having been a shill for the Democrats for many years before his current assignment. Before MTP, Gregory served at the White House, where he spent his time finding ways to ask questions for the liberal left at press conferences. The other similar programs available to Sunday morning viewers are, to say the least, less than satisfactory. I would rather do time in a Ugandan prison than watch the Chris Matthews or George Stephanopoulis programs in their entirity.

The first discussion featured Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Grassley discussing the pending debate on healthcare. This could dramatically impact funding available for national defense since one-sixth of our economy is related to the medical field. President Obama and his allies in the Senate (Dodd and Kennedy) have formulated a disturbing plan that could drive the economy even further into the ground. Guesstimated costs for the program amount to over a TRILLION dollars over the next ten years. Obama has proposed $300B in cuts that cannot be calculated by the Congressional Budget Office and are apparently completely unverifiable. Both Senators spoke of the need to control costs through preventative health measures, and as usual, they singled out smoking as the number one problem, totally ignoring the tidal wave of obesity sweeping the land. Both Senators also agreed that any mandates for health insurance should be placed on the individual and not on companies. Senator Grassley suggested health insurance could be checked just like car insurance, and we all know how well that system works. Further, the American people should reject the concept of the federal government once again expanding size and scope, especially in an area where we lead the world. Senator Grassley tried to knock down worried about the costs of such a plan, pointing out that the costs for the Medicare prescription program are short of the estimates. That may be true, Senator, but remember we are discussing a federal program that will come complete with all the bells and whistles Congress can possibly hang on it. The management of the system will no doubt be as effective as everything else the federal government does so well. It will be prohibitively expensive, likely resulting in higher taxes, and will constantly expand once in place. Clinton's attempt to do something similar collapsed under heavy scrutiny, and we can only hope Obama's attempt faces the same fate. Indeed, something must be done about healthcare, but a federal government takeover is not the answer and will only make things far, far worse. Host Chris Wallace pointed out at the end of the segment that Senator Dodd's wife serves on the board of four healthcare companies. Dodd dismissed those concerns, saying she had a career before they married and that the companies in question are research firms. The phrase you could not find, Senator, was "conflict of interest". Are we supposed to believe any reform passed by Congress would have no impact at all on the companies for which she works? She should resign, and there's no telling how many other Senators and Representatives are in a similar situation. Open the prisons, make room for Congress!

The next guest was President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Thomas Donahue talking about his new program to promote free markets. Interesting, considering the Chamber supported the outrageous amount of money spent by the administration for attempted economic stimulus. Now, all of a sudden, they've found religion. Mr. Donahue warned of the effect of additional mandates and regulations forced on the business community and said "everyone came to church" on the stimulus plans. Not true, Mr. Donahue. Some of us warned from the very beginning that excessive government spending would make things worse. Anyone out there think that all that money has made anything better? Not one person or group can point to specific and reliable economic or employment date that suggests that. One has to question the thinking of Mr. Donahue when he said the "big" companies need to get back to creating jobs. Small companies create most of the jobs in America, sir, and as President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, you should know that.

The best part of FNS is always the panel of journalists and their debate of the subjects of the day. Today the panel was optimally configured and balanced left/right with Brit Hume, Bill Krystol, Mara Liasson, and Juan Williams. The most amusing part of the discussion is watching Juan Williams from NPR squirm and grimace while the conservatives are speaking. It brings me joy to know that Juan is so bothered by the expression of anything short of communism. Iran and the reelection of Ahmadinejad the madman was the main subject. Brit Hume correctly called the Iranian election "defective if not fraudulent". Bill Krystol pointed to mass demonstrations and labor strikes in Iran
scheduled for Tuesday and hoped the President will reach out in some way and support those demonstrating. Even Chris Wallace chimed in on this one, calling the Iranian government a "totalitarian regime" and mentioning their shutdown of cellphones and websites during and after voting took place. Mara and Juan, the big libs on the panel, both admitted that this is a setback for the Obama engagement policy. Juan even said that it would "embolden" U.S. hardliners. We're already bold, Juan. We didn't need any more evidence that Iran is a fascist government that supports terrorism around the globe and is seeking nuclear weapons. We're convinced. The fact is that Iran is a dangerous force controlled by mullahs hoping to bring on the apocalypse. Both Iran and North Korea continue their provocative behavior while Obama plays nice and wants to talk.

MTP featured Vice President Joe Biden, always an amusing individual. Seeing him attempt to speak makes one hope for the safety of President Obama. Biden is a clown, presumably added to the ticket for his foreign policy "experience". In the Democrat party, traveling abroad to have tea with foreign potentates constitutes "experience". As if that weren't atrocious enough, the ensuing pity party for the GOP with Joe Scarborough was even worse. Scarborough has made a living trashing the party over on MSNBC, consorting with the Dems and nodding in agreement with them. Good thing their ratings are abysmally low.

I probably shouldn't even mention this, but it was so offensive I must. Chris Matthews had an all liberal female panel, and they spent most of their time deriding men and gushing over how great women are. I would love to have five minutes on the air with that group.

Fox News Sunday once again demonstrated that it is the premier Sunday morning political talk show. Chris Wallace is the perfect host and rarely gives his guests any place to hide. FNS has become the preeminent show for political interviews and debate, and from the looks of the competition, doesn't face any serious competition for the foreseeable future.

SHUT UP, DICK.

2009-05-17T11:17:00.003-04:00

Few if any have more respect for former Vice President Dick Cheney than I do. I have always considered him one of the smartest folks in our government, and rarely have I disagreed with him on policy in any area. Dick’s been making the media rounds lately defending Bush administration policies, especially the “enhanced” interrogation techniques now so frequently in the news, and criticizing Obama’s national security policies. Mr. Cheney spent the vast majority of his life in public service, and he deserves our respect and appreciation for that. He also deserves to be heard from on occasion as an elder of the party, but it ends there. The party needs to look forward, not backward, and the more Dick sounds off, the less oxygen left in the room for whatever GOP leaders may emerge. No matter the issue, Cheney’s frequent appearances are counterproductive. It’s time to shut up and go fishing, Dick.

The party is in transition at this point and it’s time for the old guard to vacate the premises and allow the younger crowd to move in and take charge. Mr. Cheney had his time. He spent much of the last forty years in Washington in some of the highest positions in our government. He wielded power previously unknown to any Vice President, an office he held for eight years. The election has come and gone, the new administration has taken office, and it’s time for the party to regroup, find new leaders, and move forward. Mr. Cheney may well feel he needs to speak out on issues from time to time, and that’s normal. Having him as the lead spokesman for the GOP is another matter. Cheney appearing so often could make him the face of the party in the public mind, and that’s not a good thing. He can’t run and likely couldn't win. The party needs new leaders to step forward, whoever they may be. Several Republican governors come to mind, absent a real GOP leader in Congress. Cheney has been made into a big, scary bogeyman by the left and can’t effectively communicate the message of the party in a way that will facilitate a growth in membership or support new faces.

One should never interrupt an enemy who is in the process of committing suicide. Not that Mr. Obama is any sort of real enemy, but in a political sense. The President has the votes in Congress and probably has enough public support to pass whatever he has a mind to enact. It will be his budgets and his administration’s policies that will be guiding the nation. The accountability will be his alone. There will be a point at which the former President can no longer be effectually blamed for current woes. Those of us who know that the principles espoused by Reagan are guides for the party and for America’s future also know that Mr. Obama’s policies will fail. It’s like watching Jimmy Carter part two. Unfortunately those policies include national security, putting all of us at risk, a bitter reminder that elections do have consequences. Obama’s massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government and runaway spending will eventually result in increased inflation and unemployment. We’ve seen this show before. Mr. Obama came into office with a long leash from the public and the media, a leash those very same people will yank when the inevitable failures come. When that rubicon is crossed, the new leaders of the GOP must be present and familiar to the electorate. In the meantime, they have to be given the space to emerge and play the role of loyal opposition. Mr. Cheney’s criticisms are too early and too loud. He’s tamping down movement toward the future. The last election has to be considered at least a desire to move in a new direction, if not a complete repudiation of the last administration. Give the President the room he needs to make mistakes. Then the party can point them out and illustrate the differences. Cheney is interrupting what should be the normal flow of the political process.

Cheney’s also not the one who should be engaged with Colin Powell or anyone else over the future direction of the party. For that matter, Powell shouldn’t really be considered a Republican, given his endorsement of Obama last fall. It’s not clear to me why General Powell is considered such a sage. The future should be formed by those who will participate in it, not by those who have served their time already. Neither gentleman will be a major player three or four years hence. They’ve had their time in the sun, that time has passed, and they should ease gracefully into retirement.

The issue is not whether Cheney is right on policy or party issues. His time has passed. He is in effect haunting us like a ghost. He must be exorcised. The party needs a spokesman who can run and win. Cheney is not that person, and his presence retards the materialization of someone who can do the work. His service to our nation and the party has been more than admirable, but it cannot continue. Mr. Cheney should retire himself to Wyoming and take the grandkids fishing for a good, long while.

ENOUGH ABOUT TORTURE

2009-05-14T12:39:00.002-04:00

The debate over torture is getting tiresome. It is a deliberation we should not be having at all. It makes me wince every time it’s mentioned, and naturally the media uses it as a cudgel to pound the Bush administration while ignoring those in the Democrat leadership who knew from the beginning. This subject is so dark and heavy it weighs on our foreign policy and reputation abroad. It’s time to end the debate, reaffirm what should have been the case, and commit in the future to never again delve into this sort of depravity.

The standards that should be applied are plain. Those captured by the United States, whether soldiers, enemy combatants, or terrorists, should all be afforded the full protections offered by the Geneva Conventions. The real standard is much simpler: prisoners of war should be treated as we would want our soldiers treated should they be captured. The standard cannot be to use the same immoral techniques as the enemy in order to defeat them. That is the difference between us. As Bin Laden and others have repeatedly pointed out, the Islamofascists worship death. The terrorists have no qualms about using whatever brutal methods they can dream up for their victims. They do not have any concern about norms of civilized behavior or adhere to international accords. That’s the whole point. We as a democratic republic cannot condone, participate in, or allow those in our custody to be mistreated. It violates the very principles for which we are struggling. That is not to say we should adopt a Jimmy Carter-style foreign policy that focuses on human rights to the exclusion of all else, but it is to say that the abuse, mistreatment, or torture of prisoners of war is makes us little better than those we fight.

Supporters of “harsh techniques” always make an argument that suggests there is no other way to get information or that pressure might have to be applied expediently to avert an imminent attack. Neither of these is logical or acceptable. Tortured prisoners are simply going to divulge whatever is necessary to make their tormentors stop. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the media rounds lately in an effort to defend the use of torture on guys like KSM. As much respect as I have for Dick, I don’t agree with him on this one. I appreciate his spirited defense of the former administration, but discussing whether or not timely and reliable information was obtained as a result of torture completely misses the point and makes the situation worse. Some intelligence may have been obtained, but at what price? It’s the same with the recent release of the memoranda and potential release of photos involved. Repeatedly bringing the subject back up for public discussion in any manner does nothing to improve the situation. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but in this case the sunlight is also toxic to us. More than enough damage has been done. Our intelligence work should be advanced enough to avoid situations where information about a pending attack has to be gained at any price. The very same Democrats in Congress that spent the 1990s gutting our national intelligence services like a fish are the very same ones first to criticize and rebuke whenever there’s a problem. Some of those very same folks were briefed on what was happening and turned a blind eye. That is a dereliction of duty of the highest order. They knew and did nothing.

Threats of criminal prosecution against lawyers at DOJ who formulated and approved the policies in question are absurd and counterproductive. Calls for a “truth commission” are equally as ridiculous. The facts are that members of both Congress and the Bush administration were aware of and at least tacitly condoned the techniques that were being used. Any sort of criminal charges would merely be a speeding ticket: many others similarly situated would escape prosecution. More potentially damaging, however, are the hearings now underway in Congress. Why they are being conducted in open committee session is beyond me. Any information related to this subject should be held in the strictest of confidence. Keeping the subject in the public discourse damages our reputation further and allows our enemies to point the finger right back at us for hypocrisy.

There is a catch. While those held by us should be afforded maximum protection, they also must be held until the conflict is resolved. No releases, no trials, and no tribunals. Prisoners of war are traditionally held until either the end of the war or until a prisoner swap can be negotiated. Since there is no one to negotiate with, the solution is to hold them until it’s over. More than one prisoner has been released only to return to combat against American forces. The proposed closing of GITMO should be abandoned. We must have a secure facility in which to house these people, and better it be far from American shores than somewhere inside the continental United States. The idea of indefinite detention is a powerful tool.

Our image abroad does matter, as much as we would like to tell the rest of the planet to get lost. We’re the good guys. We don’t build an empire, we are not conquerors, and we respect basic human dignity. Anything less knocks us off our moral high ground and is used by the enemy to recruit. If we’re going to disparage others for cruelty, surely we cannot afford to engage in it ourselves. I understand that water boarding does not quite equate to an internet beheading, but it is torture. Pointing out human rights violations in China or Cuba or elsewhere rings quite hollow if we are a nation known for torturing prisoners. Torture cannot be broken down into degrees of severity. Either a nation respects the rights of those captured or it does not. That doesn’t mean soft treatment. It means following the basic rights we have already committed to both in principle and by international agreement.

So enough about torture. It goes against all we are as a nation. It gives the enemy a recruiting tool we cannot easily counter. Whether or not it is effective is irrelevant. Allowing it because our enemies are crueler throws us into the same filthy pit. We must make every effort to insure prisoners of war are treated humanely. And they are POWs. Calling them “enemy combatants” somehow allows treatment that would not ordinarily be permitted.

They are prisoners of war and they should be treated accordingly. That includes holding them until the war is over. All of them.

OBAMA'S 100 DAY GRADE: F

2009-04-29T14:01:00.004-04:00

The one hundred day mark of the Obama administration has arrived. This has always been a traditional time to evaluate a new President, and Mr. Obama certainly should not be denied that gauge. It has indeed been difficult to watch our new CINC fumble and stumble on the world stage, and I take absolutely no joy in it. Obama’s failures and missteps endanger us all. It is deadly serious business, lives hang in the balance, and this is what happens when the people elect a man with no international policy or military experience to be the leader of the strongest and finest armed forces the world has ever known. The stakes are colossal for us all, especially for our military men and women deployed around the world in the fight against Islamic terrorism.

Mr. Obama receives an “F” for failures in the defense budget process and international politics.

1. DEFENSE BUDGET: Mr. Obama’s proposed budget for FY2010 is clearly a fiscal exercise designed to siphon money away from the Pentagon and towards other spending at the expense of our national security and defense industry (See Gates’ budget statement here.) SECDEF Gates has been attempting to sell a set of cuts that indicate his thinking on future wars. Gates has proposed capping F-22 Raptor acquisition at 187, despite USAF contentions last fall that at least 80 more are needed to maintain air superiority against the Chinese and Russians. That move alone could cost the jobs of 95,000 employees at Lockheed and other contractors. Add another 5,000 defense jobs lost if production of the C-17 cargo aircraft is halted as well. Other potential cut victims could include the next generation of USN destroyers, a new USAF manned bomber program, and the Army’s Future Combat System (details here).

Most disturbing are the suggested cuts to missile defense. The plan caps deployment of further interceptors to Alaska and cuts deployment to Poland and the Czech Republic. At a time when America should be showing strength and taking steps to defend against the little dictator in North Korea and the apocalyptic cult in Tehran, Obama and Gates are choosing to drastically cut the only program of defense against one of them firing off a missile. In the absence of an effective missile defense, the United States and our allies are left completely naked to a nuclear missile attack and are left with overwhelming response as the only option. Though the attacker would certainly suffer a hellish counterattack, tens or hundreds of millions of Americans or Europeans would still die a horrible death. Our mighty response will be meaningless for them. The current program of missile defense is vital to our national security and should be treated as a top priority. Iran and North Korea are not the only nations developing missile and nuclear technology, and the future likely holds more proliferation. The program has shown repeated success in tests and deserves a budget increase, not a gutting like the one offered by Obama and Gates.

Overall the budget is focused on a counter-insurgency fight to the exclusion of a potentially large-scale land war. Why does Mr. Gates think China won’t take action against Taiwan or that Russia won’t invade one of our NATO allies? The defense budget must remain widely focused to cover all potential threats, not just on the combat in which we are currently engaged.

SECDEF Gates has proven to be an advocate of a plan that is misguided and threatens to jeopardize national security for decades to come. Mr. Gates is trying to divide opposition to the cuts by promising increases in other areas to offset the pain that will no doubt be inflicted on America’s defense workers at a time of continuing economic crisis. Mr. Gates should resign instead of continuing to push a program that turns the Pentagon into a source of revenue for new social spending for the Obama administration.

2. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: Obama has traveled a fair bit, and he always seems to greet foreign crowds with an apology on his lips. Apparently America has been very bad, and Obama feels the need to apologize for us taking legitimate action to defend ourselves against terrorists or deposing brutal despots. The new policy seems to be a butt-kissing approach: shaking hands with the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, bowing deeply to the Saudi King, attempting to engage the Islamic fascists in Iran. These “new” approaches do not enhance our security. Quite the opposite: it makes America look weak and conciliatory when we should be strong and stubborn.

As if the general apologies weren’t insulting enough, Mr. Obama told an audience in Strasbourg, France, that fixing the economy is his “number one job”. Actually it’s not his job at all, and anyone familiar with our Constitution would know that. The President’s duties are fairly limited. They’re all laid out in Article II, section II, and nowhere is the economy listed. It’s remarkable that any President, or for that matter any American, would show that sort of base ignorance of our founding document.

The administration completely failed to organize any sort of meaningful response to the latest North Korean missile launch. The NK program of simultaneously developing missile and nuclear capability proceeds without much objection. The message being sent is that the world is completely powerless to do anything about it. North Korea has no intention of halting any aspect of their program, and attempted negotiations are nothing more than a smoke screen to delay and confuse. A preemptive strike before the launch might be a bridge too far, but there is certainly nothing stopping us from intercepting the launch once it leaves NK territory. Bold steps need to be taken on the NK issue, and it seems none are forthcoming.

The other surviving member of the Axis of Evil, Iran, also continues to develop missile and nuclear technology without opposition. Despite the repeated assertions by various members of the administration that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, again no concrete action is being taken. Instead Obama writes to Tsar Medvedev and makes a cowardly offer to sell out European missile defense for help on Iran. It’s time for Obama and the rest of the appeasement crowd to recognize neither Russia nor any other nation is going to help with Iran. The threats to America and Israel from Tehran are a daily occurrence, hardly even notice by the media anymore. It’s past time for military action against Iran. The last administration missed a golden opportunity for a surprise attack after the election. If action is not taken soon, we will be facing nuclear weapons in the hands of a messianic Islamic cult that supports terror on a global level. Obama is even trying to kill a lawsuit against Iran by former hostages, likely because it names Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as one of the participants. The consequences of inaction could eventually be catastrophic.

Since we’re consorting with tyrants and despots now, why not Cuba? Sure, it’s an old line Communist regime that keeps tens of thousands of political prisoners and has completely failed the Cuban people for fifty years, but that Raul seems nice. Offering to talk isn’t enough. Let’s allow more money to be sent home by Cubans living here, thus fattening the coffers of the Cuban government which takes a twenty percent transaction fee. The embargo should not be lifted and no talks should take place until the Cuban government reforms, period. The Cuban government has so far declined.

Pakistan is sliding toward disaster. Once Musharraf was removed, things began unraveling. The Paki government chose to cut deals with the Taliban instead of killing them. Now the Taliban hold sway over large areas of the countryside, the Paki intelligence services have in some cases cooperated, and the security of Paki nuclear weapons is ever more questionable. We may never be able secure Afghanistan if we can’t stop the support from Pakistan.

Speaking of Afghanistan, Mr. Obama has chosen to increase the number of U.S. forces on the ground. One can only hope he is listening to General Petraeus. The Soviets and the British before them discovered the hard way that massive numbers of troops are not the answer in Afghanistan. Most of our supposed allies in Old Europe have either declined to send additional forces or send only non-combat troops that are prohibited from deployment to the south of the country, coincidentally where most of the fighting takes place. At least those apologies worked. We have to hope Petraeus can have the same success as he did in Iraq, but the situations are vastly different.

Iraq continues to improve, perhaps justifying the troop withdrawals ordered by Mr. Obama. Time will tell. The only thing for sure is that it’s not sure. Obama is risking all the gains made in Iraq through the blood of our military to fulfill a campaign promise and satisfy his liberal supporters. Victory should be the only acceptable result, and pulling out too many troops too fast could cause a collapse. Caution and patience should be exercised when making an evaluation of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Of course, when success isn’t your primary objective, anything that makes the pacifist left happy will do.

3. TORTURE: I may be one of the few conservatives who has consistently spoken out against the use of torture. Torture is the method of the enemy. Building a free world is inconsistent with its use. For any who doubt that water boarding is torture, check for a video on YouTube. Any reasonable person who watches that knows it is. The Bush administration had absolutely no business delving into this dark arena, it is beneath us, and makes us no better than the enemy. That being said, the release of memorandum or photos related to the interrogations cannot and will not be a positive for America. Looking back and perhaps incriminating people or conducting some witch hunt will only result in further damage. This is part of the past that needs to remain in the past. Obama has clearly tried to play both sides of the fence on this one, attempting to soothe his liberal base crying out for a commission while playing to the vast majority of the American people who in poll after poll do not support further investigation. Sweeping it under the rug may not be the final answer, but feeding more data into the hopper will undoubtedly damage our security.

The dangers of inexperience are manifest. Mr. Obama is the emptiest suit ever to inhabit the office of President, and we are now and will continue to pay a heavy price for it. His lack of understanding of his role as CINC and appeasement based foreign policy is shameful. He is weakening America’s national defenses on a daily basis in order to spend more on domestic programs. We won’t need those domestic programs if we’re killed by terrorists. Security must come first. The real horror is that Obama will still be in office for years to come, and will likely have the backing of a liberal Democrat Congress as well. Defense and foreign policy decisions have impacts that reach far into the future. Our armed forces will be the ones who suffer most.

ISRAEL VS. HAMAS

2009-01-14T22:08:00.002-05:00

ISRAEL: Israeli Defence Forces have a tough job. They are fighting committed Muslim fanatics who hide amongst the civilian population. Whenever Israel responds to something like, oh say, DAILY ROCKET ATTACKS, the terrorists go to ground and hide in either civilian homes or places that would not normally be targets: schools, hospitals, or mosques. Then when the IDF visits and KILLS them, they can cry about collateral civilian casualties that are the inevitable result of the terrorists hiding there in the first place. It's part of the vicious cycle of Israeli -Palestinian violence. The Hamas terrorists operate completely outside the laws of land warfare, then seek world sympathy for whatever inflated number of deaths they are claiming. They never mention that the vast majority of civilian deaths were people being used by Hamas as human shields.
Then the pacifists at the United Nations start wailing, and Israel starts granting short cease fires for humanitarian resupply. The Hamas terrorists use the pause to resupply as well, prolonging the fighting. We've seen it all before. It seems to have no end. That's why the Israelis should get a bit tougher.
Cancel the humanitarian aid breaks. Give Hamas no quarter and no rest. Anything delivered to Gaza will be seized by Hamas in any event. The terrorists hide amongst the innocent, so supreme discretion is needed, but that should not impede location and destruction of Hamas targets. Israel should clean out Teheran's Hamas surrogates before wrapping up operations. No nation should be expected to be indifferent to constant terrorist attack, and there should be a wider recognition of Israel's right to self defense. Let the crybabies at the U.N. do what they do best: cry. Until the rocket threat is eliminated, Israel should apply maximum pressure and eliminate as many Hamas targets as possible.
Hamas alone bears responsibility for the collateral damage. They are using civilians as sandbags, so some innocents are bound to get caught in the fire. Hamas knows that the world media will pick up on film of the injured civilians. Their complaints fall on deaf ears for my part. Don't hide in civilian homes. Don't use civilians as shields. Stop hiding in or firing from protected buildings. While you're at it, try a uniform. The Hamas terrorists would never do that. Then it would be a straight up fight with IDF, a fight they have to know they would lose badly and quickly. I don't hear law of land warfare complaints from those who launch unguided rockets into civilian populations, or blow up civilian buses with suicide bombers, or hide amongst civilians.
From my perspective, Israel is way too restrained. Can you imagine the American response to rocket fire from Canada or Mexico? Would that be restrained? I hope Israel gets both hands around Hamas' neck and twists. Why should they stop before finishing the job?
Any conclusion to the conflict that does not eliminate Hamas power in Gaza is unacceptable. It would only continue the cycle. Israel should break Hamas once and for all as a power in Gaza. The whole mess makes a mockery of any so called "two state" settlement. Setting up Hamas as heads of a state is a bad idea. This has to be the most intractable conflict on the globe. I support the IDF.

ATTACK IRAN NOW: MORE EVIDENCE

2008-12-03T20:40:00.002-05:00

BACK ME UP ON THIS: Events relating to Iran's nuclear program continue to spiral out of control. The last entry of this blog called for Iran to be struck now instead of waiting for the Obama administration to assume power. Since then, nearly every significant news headline screams for action against the world's largest state sponsor of terror before it's too late.

Iran is currently conducting a six-day naval exercise in the Persian Gulf stretching all the way to Oman. Apparently intended to reinforce Iran's threats to shut down the Gulf to oil traffic in the event of an attack, the exercises cover some 130,000 square kilometers of ocean. Iran appears able to deploy at least a somewhat credible naval force despite the United Nations sanctions limiting their ability to acquire new equipment and spare parts for their military. How surprising that the U.N. is totally ineffective. Iran's naval forces should be a high priority on the target list for an attack, and this week's exercises are more proof of that.

The United States military in Iraq has captured over 30 Iranian suspects in Iraq in the last four weeks. Just today, two members of Ketai'b Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist network, were detained in Baghdad while a third was killed when he unwisely chose to fire on American forces. No more evidence of Iranian interference in Iraq is needed. The proof already amassed in sufficient to warrant military action. Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of United States military personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. To date they have suffered very few consequences as a result.

Israel continues to draw up plans for an attack on Iran with or without American assistance. A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran would not be in our best interests. It would place Israel in an untenable position. At least the IDF recognizes the threat posed by Iran and their unchecked nuclear program. The United States should coordinate with Israel and prevent the IDF from having to take action on their own. The United States has already deployed a sophisticated X-band radar system and the troops necessary to operate it to Israel. The system would give an earlier warning of an Iranian missile launch. What could be done to intercept a potentially nuclear-tipped projectile at that point is unclear. What is clear is that the threat exists. Shouldn't we be willing take action to prevent the possibility of such an attack instead of waiting for an actual launch? By that time it would likely limit Israel's response to defensive measures, and a single nuclear strike on Israel would be catastrophic given their size.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, aggressive rhetoric, and continued flexing of military power all point to one possible response for the United States: strike as soon as viable with as much violence as possible to at least significantly delay their hostile intentions. President Bush could take one more measure to enhance our security before leaving office, and that would be to launch a comprehensive air and naval attack on Iran and their nuclear facilities. The longer he waits, the worse the situation becomes. Should he leave office without taking action, he would be abandoning our defense to a President and group of advisers naive enough to think diplomacy is the answer. Talking with Iran will only allow them more time and space to develop the weapons and missile technology necessary for them to launch the attack they have already loudly and clearly announce is their aim. Let's hope Bush has the foresight and intestinal fortitude to take care of one last item before he departs. Giving Obama the keys to the Oval Office is no less than giving Iran the keys to the nuclear Pandora's box.

BAILOUT NONSENSE: Our government is approaching full-blown socialism, and very few seem willing to oppose it. Private industry relying on the federal government for financial support is the very definition of socialism. Businesses should succeed or fail of their own accord, not be propped up by taxpayer money. American consumers are the ones in need of assistance, not corporations who have poorly managed their affairs for decades. Newt Gingrich has proposed a several month long taxpayer holiday that makes far more sense than shoveling money into poor business models. Unions have done their share in pushing the auto companies into near bankruptcy. Everyone is for fair labor practices, good benefits, and higher wages, but those too have limits. Businesses can only pay what they can afford. The autoworker unions have forced U.S. car companies into paying labor costs that are simply unsustainable. That coupled with lack of innovation and shoddy products have created the problems that now exist. Asking the government to now step in with potentially trillions of taxpayer dollars in relief in unacceptable. Businesses should be allowed to fail or succeed of their own accord. Government's only role should be to create an environment in which business is permitted to succeed without excessive interference or regulation. That's it. Requiring taxpayers to compensate for bloated CEO salaries and fifty years of incompetence is beyond the pale. Let these banks and corporations fail if we must. The result will be companies wiser and more in tune with consumers. Forget the bigwigs, it's the working men and women of this country who need relief. Adding the burden of government bailouts is precisely what they don't need. Congress should turn their back on bailouts and instead concentrate on how to help average men and women. Now that would be real change.

GERMANS FAILING: Recent German parliamentary reports indicate that Bundeswehr troops in Afghanistan are drinking too much, not exercising enough, and are too fat. Little surprise then that they are allegedly failing miserably in their mission to train Afghan police. This is the kind of support we can routinely expect from Old Europe. Allowing them alcohol while deployed in a Muslim country speaks to their lack of commitment to the effort. At last count, German troops in Afghanistan consumed 896,000 pints of beer in the first six months of 2008. Pathetic indeed for a military deployed to counter the Taliban.

TEN REASONS TO STRIKE IRAN NOW

2008-11-21T01:54:00.003-05:00

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." George S. Patton

There is a looming threat on the horizon. All those with knowledge of the situation are aware of its existence. It has been approaching for some time without significant action being taken to stop it. The consequences for not acting could be disastrous or even apocalyptic. Most of the world stands idly by, also cognizant of the threat, but seemingly paralyzed. It is as if a gigantic destructive asteroid is approaching our planet while everyone stares at the sky in disbelief. Some are screaming at the top of their lungs while most remain stunned.

Iran's nuclear program has been the subject of much debate for years. Media reports this week indicate they now have enough material to build at least one bomb, needing only to refine it. Experts predictions place the time frame at anywhere from one to seven years until refining is possible and complete. The point of no return for the rest of the world, and especially the United States and Israel, is nigh. Now is the time to strike Iran with all our collective might before events overtake us and such a mission is not possible. Here are ten reasons why:

1. The United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have made little to no progress in slowing or even successfully monitoring the Iranian nuclear program. In its latest report, the IAEA and Director General Mohammed ElBaradei admit that after six years, they are not one bit closer to determining the purpose of Iranian nuclear intentions. The Iranians allegedly have nearly four thousand centrifuges running to produce the necessary material, with another two thousand plus ready to come on line. Iran continues to defy Security Council demands to halt enrichment, claiming the program has a purely peaceful purpose. Other intelligence sources indicate Iran is testing high explosives and missile re-entry vehicles. The entire fiasco is shrouded in mystery, has been all along, and the U.N. is powerless to do anything about it. Three rounds of U.S. sanctions restricting the export of military technology to Tehran have been roundly ignored. Those who claim that further enrichment would tip off inspectors are whistling past the graveyard. No amount of U.N. resolutions or sanctions can stop them at this point. There can be no remaining doubt about the intentions of their development. It is military in nature and aiming for a weapon capable of striking with little to no warning.

2. Iran's leaders have made repeated threats, especially against Israel. The rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to be menacing and even borderline insane. Wiping Israel off the map and striking Iran's enemies are a normal part of his statements. It seems the majority of the world continues to turn a deaf ear to his rantings. He continually rejects Israel's right to exist and is a known Holocaust denier. Apologists question his hold on power and assert he is not actually in charge, both suggestions dubious at best. Ahmadinejad should be taken seriously. Future victims of an Iranian nuclear attack may wonder why he was so long ignored. His re-election, once in question, now seems assured.

3. Iran's support of terrorist movements around the world is documented and well known. Their support of Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and interference in Lebanon is not a matter of debate. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, had prior knowledge of the kidnapping and murder of USMC Colonel William Higgins in Lebanon in 1988, and directly supported the group responsible for the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed nineteen American servicemen. Should they succeed in developing a weapon, they could easily pass it on to one of their terrorist allies and place their guilt for an attack in question.

4. Iran continues to interfere in Iraq. They have provided advanced armor-penetrating IEDs to Iraqi insurgents, directly resulting in the deaths of American forces. Iranian agents have occasionally been detained in Iraq while they provided weapons and training to terrorists battling Iraqi and U.S. forces. Their recent vocal opposition to the Iraqi security pact with the United States that would extend the presence of American forces shows their level of interest.

5. An attack now would be somewhat unexpected. The sense of relief they may feel over the election of Barack Obama should be exploited now before it dissipates.

6. Israel is ready and capable of helping. The F16-I now in the Israeli arsenal has made a long distance attack more feasible. Considering the level and frequency of threats against the Jewish state, their cooperation and assistance is assured.

7. Obama is coming. His promise to engage in direct talks with Iran will only result in further delay that would allow the Iranian nuclear program to proceed apace. Further diplomatic discussion with Iran is pure tomfoolery. Their repeated and continued defiance of the United Nations and the international community as a whole is not likely to be reversed with a few high level chats. Involvement in photo ops with Obama would only legitimize their delusions of grandeur and give them more time for enrichment and missile development.

8. The Bush administration, now fully in lame duck mode, would pay little or no political price domestically or internationally for an attack now. The election is over. The Republican candidate already lost. There are only a few months left to act before Obama takes office. Should the President-elect decide to talk with the Iranians as promised, his position would only be strengthened by a successful attack he could somewhat distance himself from later.

9. An attack, while possibly not completely devastating to Iranian nuclear plans, would provide an additional measure of time for further international action if any is possible. Their facilities may well indeed be widely dispersed and deeply buried, but many of them are readily apparent and above ground. Claiming that an attack might not be one-hundred percent successful does not justify doing nothing at all. Broadening the target list to include Iranian oil refineries would further handicap their efforts.

10. American naval forces are now deployed in the Persian Gulf in sufficient numbers to both launch an attack and counter any Iranian attempts to block the flow of oil. The fact those forces are already in place also provides an additional edge of secrecy. The threat to the U.S. Navy from Iranian naval forces would be minimal, especially if the targets for an attack included ports and harbors used by them.

Options for countering Iranian nuclear development narrow as time progresses. The United Nations and other international organizations are feckless as usual. The time to effectively strike is now, but the window is rapidly closing. When it eventually slams shut, the world will have no choice but to rely on the good intentions of men like Ahmadinejad. The United States and Israel cannot take the chance that Iran will either build a usable nuclear weapons platform or pass a weapon off to their terrorist allies. The risks of acting are indeed great, but the risks of not acting are potentially devastating to millions of people for many years to come. Strike while the iron is hot, and surely it's flaming right now.

WEEKEND REVIEW

2008-11-17T20:10:00.002-05:00

OBAMA WORKING AGAINST U.S./IRAQ SECURITY PACT?: The President-elect was interviewed on 60 Minutes Sunday, and seemed to position himself in opposition to the security agreement working its way through the Iraqi parliament. U.S. officials have endorsed the language and seem headed toward an agreement that will result in American forces completely withdrawing from Iraq by 2011. Obama, however, is apparently intending to ignore the agreement and pull out much sooner and much faster, endangering the painful progress that has been made by Iraqi and U.S. forces. The following is text from the interview:

CBS) Kroft: Can you give us some sense of when you might start redeployments out of Iraq?

Mr. Obama: Well, I've said during the campaign, and I've stuck to this commitment, that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops. Particularly in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan, which has continued to worsen. We've got to shore up those efforts.

As soon as he takes office? What will happen, a rush for the exits? This is dangerous and irresponsible talk at a time when a tediously negotiated arrangement with American forces is being debated by a foreign government. It's possible they may interpret Mr. Obamas words as a rejection of the agreement, void any possibility of its passage, and doom any future security arrangements. The proposed treaty allows Iraqi courts to try Americans for certain crimes, probably a bad idea anyway. The point is that Obamas comments come at a time when he should remain silent on the issue. Just today JCS Chairman Mullen stated that he was comfortable with the 2011 withdrawal date, but that conditions on the ground should dictate the pace and scale of redeployment. What a novel idea. Mr. Obama continues to show his inexperience in military matters, preferring instead to bow to the pacifist elements among his supporters without regard to the consequences. We have admittedly paid a heavy price in blood and treasure for our efforts in Iraq, and simply fulfilling a campaign promise would be a sorry reason to demolish that progress. Hopefully his "national security apparatus" will inform Mr. Obama that now is not the time to leave Iraqi security forces on their own without American support. Those same advisers should also assure that Obama is aware of the history of large foreign military ventures in Afghanistan and allow General Petraeus to guide our efforts there. Obamas statements are dangerous and extremely uninformed.

BILLARY AT STATE?: Obama met with Hillary Clinton and is considering her for Secretary of State. Beside the fact that she is uniquely unqualified, Slick Willie is complicating matters. His Clinton Global Foundation has collected billions of dollars from dubious foreign sources, and there has been some foot-dragging about releasing information concerning them, both now and during the primaries. The very idea of Bill lurking around Foggy Bottom is creepy enough, but Hillary as Secretary is even scarier. A history of having tea with the wives of various foreign leaders seems her main qualification. What really is happening is Obama putting his main rival within his party in a position he can control. Hillary may end up holding the post, but it is Obama will set the policy she will oversee. These are the type of decisions those of us who voted against Obama were dread to see realized. One doesn't have to wonder how much influence Bill might have. Hillary has ridden his coattails to every position she has ever held, and this one would be no different. Even without Slick Willies problems, we only have to look at the closing days of the Clinton administration to see the type of shenanigans we can expect. The other individual reportedly being considered is Senator John Kerry, so there will be pain for conservatives no matter which one is chosen. Lesser of two evils, anyone?

POOR JOE: Senate Dems are poised to strip Joe Lieberman of his Armed Services chairmanship for daring to support John McCain for President. The Connecticut independent has been caucusing with the Dems, but has been vocal in his support for the Iraq war and other Bush administration foreign policies. Senator Lieberman has pulled no punches in criticizing Democrats for their soft war stances, and it appears he will now pay a price. He may end up remaining chair of the Homeland Security committee, much to the chagrin of the hateful left that wish to punish him. The Dems are showing once again that the left cannibalize their own when even slightly challenged by intellectually honest opposition within their party. Lieberman is an old line liberal when it comes to everything else, but his stance on the war has been admirable and impressive given the wrath he surely knew was coming.

McCAIN AND OBAMA CHAT: Senator McCain and President-elect Obama met for a chat today in Chicago. McCain pledged to help Obama anywhere he could, and Obama expressed his respect and admiration for McCain. It's unclear if McCain might be in line for any cabinet post. What is impressive is the fact that these two can meet in an amicable manner so soon after a contentious election. That points to the strength of our system and the acceptance all have for the outcome. In very few other nations could this happen, and we all should be proud as Americans that our elections are resolved in such an open manner and that the contenders proceed to meet and at least express limited support for one another.

PALIN ON TOUR: Former Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been making the media rounds. It has been interesting to see the level to which the left will stoop to discredit and insult her. It reminds me of the way they treated the Gipper. Just an amiable dunce, they say, borderline illiterate, they say. It is a measure of how threatened by her they really are. She is a conservative reformer and media star no matter what they throw at her. As the GOP grapples with where to go and what to do now, they could do a lot worse than Sarah. She should spend the next several years traveling and making speeches to firm up her support. This would enable her to make a serious run in 2012. Watch the left squirm and offend her as she goes. It's simply a measure of how much they fear her. It's interesting to point out that she is the fulfillment of all the feminist left has tried to achieve for years: wife, mother, career woman, leader. The fact that she holds traditionally conservative views, however, makes her a target of the first order. She represents a return to the values of Reagan that the GOP has ignored at its own peril, evidenced by the last election. Go Sarah!

OBAMA TO KILL MISSILE DEFENSE?

2008-11-12T20:01:00.003-05:00

President-elect Obama has more than one major military decision to make, not the least of which is what to do about missile defense. He'll have to decide whether or not to continue the Bush administration's plans to deploy ten missile interceptors in Poland and a set of radar stations in the Czech Republic, set to be operational by 2014. Obama was not specific about his plans for the program during the campaign, obviously designed to leave him some flexibility. As with most military issues, Obama seems less than fully informed. Any reasonable person who has followed the issue should be aware of the success of recent tests, the threat posed by Iran, and the apparent viability of a system first proposed by Ronald Reagan.

Today, LTG Henry Obering III, head of the Missile Defense Agency, wondered about Obama's intentions for the program and its pending deployment. It is remarkable that more than a week after his election, neither Obama nor any of his minions have reached out to the general. Of course, Obama has yet to consult SECDEF Gates and has only had a brief conversation with JCS Chairman Mullen, so why would one suspect he has delved any further into other vital defense issues. Obering expressed confidence in the European leg of the system to function properly and provide a viable defense against missile launches from rogue nations, namely Iran. Just yesterday Iran test fired a new generation of missile and continues its inexorable march toward acquiring nuclear capability. Their latest missile provides them another option should they decide to strike Israel or Europe.

Given the increasingly disturbing rhetoric coming from Tehran and their pace of weapons development, European capitals would be wise to consider full deployment in the shortest possible time frame. The proposed European deployment does not defend the continental U.S. and would only provide protection against a limited number of strikes. Opposition from European peaceniks is puzzling considering it is a system that is purely defensive. Do they prefer to be left naked to Iranian aggression? As usual, Old Europe seeks to oppose any American efforts to shore up collective defense, more proof that NATO is moving headlong toward becoming completely useless. They won't provide additional troops for combat in Afghanistan, preferring instead to keep their precious and relatively small troop contingents in REMF roles and allow U.S. forces to bear the brunt of fighting and thus casualties. They're fine with supplying a few additional troops, so long as they don't have to participate in actual combat. Old Europe as a bloc tries to act as a counterbalance to American power even while enjoying the nuclear and defense umbrella we continue to provide. So much for gratitude and commitment to collective defense.

The Kremlin also seems somewhat uninformed about missile defense. The system nearing deployment is not designed to counter a nuclear arsenal as large as Russia's or provide an offensive capability. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last week he plans to deploy nuclear missiles closer to Poland to counter a possible deployment to interceptors. This is nothing more than paranoia, not an unusual reaction from Russia. Anything that comes within a thousand miles of their border is seen as an imminent threat. Russian nuclear forces could easily overwhelm the proposed system. Perhaps they're still terrified by Reagan's vision. They should be more concerned about Iran and the destabilizing nature of their threats. Russia has provided technology and equipment to further Iranian missile development, so maybe they think they are immune from potential attack. Moscow has also threatened to deploy jamming equipment to counter any defensive systems, but we don't hear Berlin or Paris howling about that.

President-elect Obama's inexperience may lead him to kill the program as part of a gutting of the Pentagon budget to provide funds for ridiculous social spending. That would be a dangerous path to follow. Iran's missile program has placed Europe squarely in the cross hairs. Leaving them without any defense, even if they don't see the wisdom of it, is simply foolish. The Iranians should know that there is a good possibility that a missile strike against Israel or Europe would likely result in an intercept and an overwhelming response may be enough to deter them from doing so. That is the real purpose of the system.

Obama has some time to make the decision, but he doesn't have forever. Stepping up to the plate on this issue would be a strong move. Whether or not he has the guts is another issue. The whole idea of missile defense, having been conceived by the Gipper, elicits a knee-jerk reaction from the Democrats, as do most high tech defense programs. Their desire to divert the funds to domestic spending could leave Europe and Israel short in the event of an Iranian attack. Obama needs to show he has the ability to take actions necessary for national security opposed by the pacifist left. Future Presidents may be hamstrung by the decision Obama makes on this issue. He should aggressively pursue development and deployment not for others, but for American national security. None of us knows what the future may hold, and it would as always be prudent to prepare for a worst case scenario. Missile defense has come a long way, the test firings are increasingly successful, and deployment is simply the next stage. Delaying or cancelling deployment would indicate Obama's plans for other Pentagon programs necessary for our defense and the protection of others. Let's hope he makes the right call. We'll be watching to see how he moves on this one.

TAP DANCING ON A LANDMINE

2008-11-11T21:12:00.003-05:00

President-elect Obama is already showing his naivete concerning military matters. So far he has only spoken briefly to JCS Chairman Mullen and not at all to SECDEF Gates. One would think these two gentlemen would already have been extensively consulted by the man about to take the reins of the world's finest military currently fighting two wars. His campaign promises do not bode well for our armed forces or their efforts. His intent to exponentially increase spending on domestic programs spells certain doom for Pentagon efforts to maintain and improve our forces. It is hard to fathom that this was truly the intent of the American people.

The subject of the enemy combatants held at GITMO has already arisen. Obama seems headed toward allowing these miscreants civilian trials, an outrage considering they have been detained as suspected Al Qaeda members or were taken prisoner on the battlefield while actually engaging U.S. forces in combat. Allowing them all the rights and privileges of American citizens is beyond the pale. The only logical policy is to hold them until the war is over or begin military tribunals that would lead most if not all of them to the gallows. Does anyone think our Al Qaeda enemies would be kinder than we have been? I wouldn't dare suggest we start cutting off heads on the Internet as they have often done, but fair is fair. Why should they be treated any differently than prisoners taken in past wars? Obama should resist the urge to placate the rest of the world and handle them with velvet gloves. They should be treated with an iron fist instead, if nothing else to dissuade others from joining their cause of killing Americans. Enemies of the United States should know that if they attack American forces in the field, they will be swiftly tried and executed if they are fortunate enough to be taken prisoner. The Geneva Conventions, which should be followed during their captivity, certainly do not require anything close to what Obama is suggesting. Enemy combatants not in the uniform of a recognized nation are accorded absolutely nothing. Obama's plan could set a dangerous precedent for our military. The idea of Al Qaeda members taken prisoner immediately demanding lawyers for their defense and being given the exact same rights as American citizens is unthinkable.

Media reports Tuesday indicate the Taliban are urging Obama to discontinue our efforts in Afghanistan show what course should not be taken. The President-elect has repeatedly indicated a willingness to send more forces to Afghanistan lest he appear a total defeatist. Unfortunately he has also indicated a desire to quickly withdraw American forces from Iraq at a time when victory appears imminent. A hasty retreat from Iraq could result in a total collapse of all the efforts there so far. That would be a waste of all the blood and treasure invested over the last five years. Iraqi forces are largely in control of the country now, but our forces are still needed to support and train them. Obama should defer to General Petraeus on both these conflicts, and most assuredly the general would not recommend such a plan. He should also pay close attention to the lessons of history concerning Afghanistan. Both the Russians and the British before them attempted to control the country with massive amounts of troops, and both failed miserably. Some additional forces may be needed, but certainly not the numbers we have seen in Iraq. Instead, Obama should recognize his total inexperience and allow Petraeus to continue the policy of negotiating with the reconcilables while battling the less agreeable insurgents. Obama has certainly not made the prospects of victory any more likely by suggesting we take more aggressive action across the border in Pakistan. We need the Pakis as allies, not enemies as the result of increased action. Some strikes withing Pakistan may be necessary, but it is a far wiser policy to continue pressuring the nuclear-armed Pakis themselves to take the required actions. Obama was rather careless during the campaign in his comments about Pakistan, a fact not lost on the them or others in the region. He should tread carefully when suggesting we bomb an ally, an idea that reveals his lack of understanding of military matters.

The Pentagon budget is just as tricky. Obama will have to balance the maintenance of current forces against programs for future weapons systems, just as every President before him has done. Defense projects take many years to complete and thus must be wisely planned. Both the new F-35 fighter jet and the sorely needed new generation of ground combat vehicles for the Army have been identified as possible budget casualties. Every time Obama proposes some new government cheese program, he is putting the future defense of our nation at risk. Seeking to trim budget overruns and speed up procurement delays would be the wiser policy. Today Obama promised to care for America's veterans, but that seems doubtful considering the amount of new domestic spending he proposed during the campaign. Hopefully Mr. Obama will have wise counsel on these issues, because he certainly doesn't have the personal experience to handle them alone. It's unlikely his Cabinet will be stocked with Pentagon hawks, making the outlook for desperately needed military equipment programs cloudy at best.

Our nation is taking a potentially dangerous risk by placing Obama in the Oval Office. Rumors of a twenty-five percent Pentagon budget cut floated last week indicate the depths to which he may be willing to go to fund his domestic spending. One can hope that was only a rumor. At a time when we are engaged with the enemy on multiple fronts and faced with increasing threats at home, Obama risks devastating our armed forces for decades to come. He is without a doubt the emptiest suit ever elected to the highest office in the land. Those who supported him will bear direct responsibility for the consequences of his defense policy. The tragic part is that our men and women in uniform and in harm's way will pay the price more immediately.

FRESH START

2008-11-10T11:48:00.002-05:00

I will admit I have been completely demoralized by the election results. I considered deleting this entire blog and ignoring politics.

I can't do it.

There are too many important issues, especially concerning our armed forces. I will begin posting again tonight. Rest assured there will be no quarter given to the Hussein Obama administration. Thanks for reading.

JINGO REPORT 10/20/08

2008-10-20T11:43:00.000-04:00

COLON POWELL UPDATE: Now we get a little insight into General Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barak Obama yesterday. “He will have a role as one of my advisers,” Obama said on Monday. So that’s it. Powell’s poor judgment of presidential candidates is a naked attempt to gain further high office. He chose to endorse Obama over McCain, a man whose judgment on military matters has been shown to be wise. At a time of war for America, Powell’s endorsement was at first puzzling. Obama’s comment from this morning reveals the truth and reflects very poorly on the general. Were the general truly a genuine supporter of Obama, why did he wait until the last hour to endorse? Surely he had an opinion before this time. Worse was Powell’s condemnation of Sarah Palin as unqualified to serve. Compared to who, General, a one-term Senator from Illinois with about as much experience as my teenager? General Powell has now lost whatever scraps of credibility he had left.

SARAH PALIN UPDATE: Governor Palin did well on SNL this past weekend, much to the dismay of her critics. The media, locked in a passionate kiss with Obama, cannot stand the sight of Palin. She turns their philosophy upside down. Dems are always claiming to be in favor of the mothers and working mothers of America, until they find out she’s a conservative that is. Then the full weight of the press comes down in an attempt to smear and discredit. It’s fine to be a working mom as long as you’re a pro-abortion liberal. Conservative women break their model and thus cannot be tolerated. It’s been a real joy to see Governor Palin take on the media and hecklers. They have no answer for her.

AFGHANISTAN BANANA STAND: The press is up to their usual hi jinks concerning Afghan war casualty figures. Deaths caused by Taliban attacks or suicide bombings are trumpeted from the highest mountain, but numbers of Taliban killed by allied forces are posted on the back page. The reality is that the Taliban have been taking a pounding for some time now, and the only actions left for them are pathetic suicide attacks focused largely on civilians. Every time an American soldier is killed, the story leads and casualty figures for the entire war are restated. As of Friday, American deaths totaled 542. Certainly every loss is tragic and every soldier irreplaceable, but considering we pushed out the Taliban and established a new government in a nation on the other side of the globe, the total is remarkably low. The liberal press just can’t stand to see any good work from the military and will do their best to obfuscate the real battlefield situation should we be winning. Heard much news from Iraq lately? You won’t, because it’s generally good news of progress, and that doesn’t serve to help elect Obama.

FORT DIX TRIAL: The trial of five foreign-born Muslim men accused of plotting to sneak onto the Fort Dix, New Jersey, Army post and kill soldiers begins today in Camden. All face possible life in prison. The question is why they are not facing the death penalty. It seems to me plotting to attack a U.S. military installation in time of war would qualify for the ultimate penalty. Liberals and other apologists for terrorists are saying this type of preemptive prosecution troubles them. Perhaps we should have waited until an actual attack took place and soldiers were killed. The most troubling aspect of this is the fact that these foreign terrorists are being accorded full legal rights just like any other American citizen. The five should be in GITMO until the war is over.

KIM JONG IL ILL?: North Korea is poised for a “major announcement” concerning the health of its leader, 66 year old Kim Jong Il. The little dictator hasn’t been seen since mid-August amid rumors of a stroke or a military coup. We can only hope the “dear leader” is dead or incapacitated. We eagerly await further news from the isolated and starving communist nation.

FALLING OIL PRICES HURT CHAVEZ: Earlier this year crude oil prices topped $145 a barrel. That price had dropped to $71.85 by Friday. Oil profits had allowed Venezuela’s leader to play the big man in South America, spreading money around to nearby nations and financing massive social spending in his own country. Estimates suggest oil would have to stay at or above $95 a barrel for Chavez to balance his budget. Chavez’s promised oil refinery for Nicaragua now sits rusting among the weeds. Hopefully oil prices will continue their downward trend, easing the pain on American consumers and putting the screws to petty tyrants like Chavez.