A Line of Sight

Beauprez at Fox News.com: Pipeline pushover-What Obama’s Keystone XL decision really tells the American public

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:01:00 GMT

Editor's Note: The following was posted by Fox News.com moments ago. Yesterday they also posted another of my energy articles, America is poised to be the world's new energy leader, now let's vow to claim this crown

Short of announcing it outright, President Obama could not have signaled in stronger terms than he did Wednesday how little he cares for the plight of the American public.

With the news that the White House is definitively rejecting approval of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, a project that has the potential to employ 20,000 Americans almost immediately, the president has made clear that he’d rather placate a small group of environmental radicals than offer real relief to unemployed Americans struggling to pay constantly rising gas prices.....

On FoxNews.com: America is poised to be the world's new energy leader

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:30:00 GMT

FoxNews.com is featuring an op-ed by A Line of Sight's Editor-in-Chief, Bob Beauprez, on the exciting opportunities ahead for American's energy producers -- if it weren't for the radical environmental lobby and government regulators standing in the way.

"What countries like China boast in quantity they lack in expertise. And technique is where we are king. It was more than half a century ago that Americans pioneered hydraulic fracturing, a process whereby a high-pressured, water-based mixture is pumped into underground shale to release hydrocarbons.

"With coal- and oil-rich nations like China and Saudi Arabia so keenly interested in American energy-extraction methods, it would seem the tables have finally turned. But while we should continue rushing to capitalize on our own good fortunes, regulatory roadblocks continue to hamstring our production.

"The anti-shale-gas camp’s trump card is the unfounded threat of water contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluid (a liquid that's more than 99 percent water itself). Yet there has not been a single confirmed case of polluted drinking water anywhere, which stands to reason since the fracturing takes place more than 8,000 feet below surface level while groundwater sits only a few hundred feet below the earth's surface."

Read more at FoxNews.com

Obama to Kill Keystone Pipeline

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:24:00 GMT

Fox News is reporting that this afternoon Barack Obama is going to kill the Keystone Pipeline Project. This stands in direct opposition to a president who says he is committed to domestic energy production, energy independence, job creation, and economic recovery. As we've said before, his actions speak louder than his words. In fact, in direct contrast to his words. The Keystone Pipeline would have been a great boost for the American economy. Now, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has warned, if we don't buy it, someone else will. Most likely China.

While average Americans and working families will suffer this hit the most, Obama appeases his radical environmental constituency that he believes is necessary for his reelection. As evidence, the radical Sierra Club has already released a statement praising the President, with their executive director saying, "I think it shores up his base definitely." Obviously the only job Barack Obama is worried about saving is his own.

As a note to the President, there are currently about 20 million Americans either who are looking for work or who have given up and walked away. Obama just closed another door to them.

Tip-of-the-Hat: Rick Reilly and Tim Tebow

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:55:00 GMT

Rick Reilly is not only "one of the funniest humans on the planet," he's one of the most articulate and insightful. Rick grew up not far from me in Boulder, Colorado, where he started his extremely successful career as a sports journalist. Though I never met Rick until we were both considerably older and more traveled, I did get to know his wonderful, proud father. When I did finally met Rick, I could tell that the apple didn't fall far from the tree, as they say. He came from good stock.

Every month in this space we tip-our-hat to someone that inspires. Rick has been writing about the human interest side of sports of decades and we tip-our-hat to his glorious career in which he often told a very human inspirational side of athletics that is usually more important that what happens on the field or the court.

In his just published column for ESPN, even the great Rick Reilly may have raised his own high standards. "I believe in Tim Tebow" captures the essence of a phenomenon that has engulfed a nation and much of the world. The young quarterback for the Denver Broncos decency, humility, kindness, and open faithfulness to his God has ignited people from the playground to the pulpit.

Tebow and his Broncos were overmatched and crushed by the New England Patriots, but there will be more games on other days. Churchill said, "We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give." In just 24 years, Tim Tebow has already built a very great life even by Churchill's standards, and is showing many of the rest of us a better way in the process.

Rick Reilly does a better job that I could, so I'll let him explain some of why Tebow is such a good roll model for youngsters and us older folks, too. Here are a couple of excerpts and a link to Rick's fine column:

"I've come to believe in Tim Tebow for what he does off a football field, which is represent the best parts of us, the parts I want to be and so rarely am."

..."I've given up giving up on him. I'm a 100 percent believer. Not in his arm. Not in his skills. I believe in his heart, his there-will-definitely-be-a-pony-under-the-tree optimism, the way his love pours into people, right up to their eyeballs, until they believe they can master the hopeless comeback, too."

Click here for the entirety of "I believe in Tim Tebow"
By Rick Reilly

Good News of the Month: Gabby Giffords: Believing in Miracles

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:43:00 GMT

One year ago in Tucson a mentally deranged man walked into a citizen forum hosted in a parking lot by Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and opened fire. Moments later, six people were dead and at least a dozen wounded including Giffords who took a shot to her head.

The heinous nature of the crime, the slaughter of innocents including a 9 yr. old girl, and Giffords high profile notoriety immediately captivated the nation. In the first hours and days, Giffords survival was very much in doubt; then followed the questions of the amount of damage done to her brain. As the weeks and months passed, news of small but remarkable progress was made public. Eventually, even a few images of her and reports of progress from friends who had visited her were made known. Then came the dramatic moment on August 1 when Giffords returned to the floor of the House of Representatives to cast a vote.

Earlier this month, a memorial was held in Tucson marking the one year anniversary of the shooting. Not only was Gabby there, but with a little help from her astronaut husband, Mark Kelly, she led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Giffords doctors have called her recovery "miraculous." It's good to see and believe in miracles. Gabby's struggle, courage, and recovery have also taught us how valuable and important every human life can be. Take a moment and click on the link below to see Gabby's Pledge. It'll do your heart good.

Gabby Giffords leads Pledge of Allegiance – Click here

The Telescope: Fracking: The Radical Left's Latest Weapon of Fear

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:35:00 GMT

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter warned Americans of a pending "national catastrophe" in a prime time nationally televised speech. "The Oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out." Resources were being depleted so fast that the world "could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade," Carter said.

Rather obviously, Carter's end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it prediction didn't happen.

Had Carter been right, by now much of the agenda of the radical environmentalists would have been a fait accompli. Weaning America off oil, natural gas, and coal to heat our homes, power our cars, and run our factories would have taken care of itself due to a scarcity of the resources. But, Carter was wrong – dramatically wrong.

Since America and the World didn't run out of fossil fuel resources shortly after Carter made his doomsday prediction, the anti-oil, gas, and coal crowd lead by Al Gore moved on to the threats of global warming claiming we were doomed to drown from rising seas created by global warming. The culprit again was fossil fuels, of course. Much of that prediction has been debunked or at least greatly minimalized, too.

Instead of running out of oil and gas as Carter predicted, the inventory of America's recoverable domestic reserves has increased dramatically. During the past three decades, scientists and energy industry experts continued to improve techniques to harvest known reserves and discover new ones. A Congressional Research Service report to Congress in late 2009 indicated that America's combined supply of recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal exceeds every other nation on earth; even far greater than Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined!

The CRS report was independently confirmed last month by the Institute for Energy Research with the release of the North American Energy Inventory. The IER study says the U.S. has more than 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil reserves; 1.7 trillion barrels when combined with Canada and Mexico. That's enough for 250 years of U.S. consumption according to the IER, and more than the entire world has used in the previous 150 years.

Additionally, the North American continent has 4.2 quadrillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas reserves – enough to last the next 175 years at current rates of consumption according to IER. Once upon a time, back in the days of Jimmy Carter, the environmentalists were encouraging more usage of natural gas as the "clean" alternative to coal and oil. However, that has grown out of fashion with the go-green purists including Barack Obama, who prefer to funnel hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into pie-in-the-sky green energy boondoggles like Solyndra while discouraging and even eliminating oil and gas production at every opportunity.

Since we didn't run out of oil and gas, and the whole global warming thing stalled, the latest fear-strategy adopted by the radical environmentalists is to attack the technology – hydraulic fracturing – that is behind our ability to harvest the massively greater amounts of energy resources.

Hydraulic Fracturing – or "fracking" – has greatly expanded the recoverable reserves of oil and gas. Fracking has been used since the 1940s in over a million wells, and the technology continues to be improved and refined.

As defined by The Geological Society of America, fracking involves pumping liquids down a well into subsurface rock units under pressures that are high enough to fracture the rock, creating a network of interconnected fractures that will serve as pore spaces for the movement of the oil and natural gas to the well bore to be lifted to the surface.

When combined with horizontal drilling, fracking has turned previously unproductive reserves into some of the most abundant fields in the world such as the Marcellus formation in Pennsylvania, the Bakken in North Dakota, and the Niobrara in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas. (See a brief animated demonstration of hydraulic fracturing here.)

In recent years, environmentalists have relentlessly attacked fracking claiming it might cause groundwater contamination, even though in virtually all cases the fracking is done hundreds or thousands of feet below ground water levels. And, since few people have even a slight understanding of the geology or the technology, public perception is easily influenced and the media is often a willing co-conspirator in fanning the hysteria.

To be sure, there is some risk involved with fracking as with any mechanical process. However, when asked directly during a Senate Committee hearing in May, 2011 even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified that she was "not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water." Jackson came to the EPA with a well established reputation as an environmental activist and has pursued that agenda aggressively at the agency. Other EPA officials have previously offered the same testimony to Congress.

Still, the radical left's quest continues with a public relations war raging against fracking technology. Jackson's EPA is moving forward toward new federal regulations, even in the face of heavy pushback from states that historically regulated energy development operations within their borders.

The liquids used in the fracking process are virtually all water and sand mixtures – as much as 99.5% according to published reports. The Geological Society of America explains that the small amount of chemicals are used to thicken the water into a gel that is more effective at opening fractures, reduce friction, prevent corrosion of equipment, control pH, and kill bacteria. "Proppants" – usually aluminum or ceramic beads – are also added to "prop opened" the fractures once the fluids are removed so the oil and gas can escape. Until recently, energy companies have guarded their formulas as proprietary secrets, but public pressure and new regulation are causing them to make public their ingredients.

That ground water can be and has been contaminated is a given, and in many cases, fingers have been pointed at the energy industry and specifically at fracking technology. But, as EPA Administrator Jackson admitted, in spite of scores of investigations, there is no scientific evidence linking any ground water contamination to fracking. But, that doesn't stop some in the Obama Administration from pushing their agenda forward to satisfy a core constituency.

In west-central Wyoming, the small town of Pavillion has complained about water quality and possible contamination for years. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey detected organic chemicals in Pavillion's well water 50 years ago, long before any fracking was done in the area. But, when somebody suggested the water quality problems might be linked to the gas wells the EPA jumped in and started a study three years ago.

On December 8, 2011 the EPA published a "draft report" of findings suggesting that there may be a connection to Pavillion's water problems and fracking. Why the agency chose to publish a report that had not been subjected to independent peer review or even by state officials in Wyoming is a question that answers itself. "The agency is dominated by anticarbon true believers, and the Obama Administration has waged a campaign to raise the price and limit the production of fossil fuels," opined the Wall Street Journal. Environmentalists and many in the media rejoiced – and the movement got the headlines they longed for:

EPA Lowers the Boom on Fracking in Wyoming
EPA Finds Hydrofracking Chemicals Contaminate Drinking Water
Gas-Fracking Chemicals Detected in Wyoming Aquifer, EPA Says
EPA says 'fracking' probably contaminated well water in Wyoming

The Governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead, was quick to respond and he certainly should have both the health of his citizens and the state's industry paramount in his mind. On the day the EPA report was released, Mead called it "scientifically questionable" and said more and better testing was needed before anyone could reach a definitive conclusion. Most concerning to Gov. Mead was that the EPA based their conclusions "on data from two test wells (not operating water wells) drilled in 2010 and tested once that year and once in April, 2011. Those test wells are deeper than drinking wells," the Gov. said, causing him and others to wonder how the EPA could reach their conclusion.

Mead had appointed a working group to study the Pavillion problem that included local residents, state agencies, Indian Tribes, the EPA and the BLM. But, the EPA didn't even make their report available to the rest of the group until shortly before releasing it to public. A highly critical house editorial in the Casper Star-Tribune on Dec. 26 said, "…process and politics have trumped good science…The EPA's process-oriented almost ho-hum approach does a disservice to Wyoming whose residents need answers about their water, and whose economy hinges on the safe and successful practice of fracking."

In a feature editorial, the Wall Street Journal stated the obvious, that everybody wants clean drinking water. "But we also need to be sure that regulators aren't spreading needless fears so they can enhance their own power while pursuing an ideological agenda." The WSJ summarized many of the same questions and concerns that Gov. Mead and others have raised about the EPA report:

The EPA study concedes that "detections in drinking water wells are generally below [i.e., in compliance with] established health and safety standards." The dangerous compound EPA says it found in the drinking wells was 2-butoxyethyl phosphate. The Petroleum Association of Wyoming says that 2-BE isn't an oil and gas chemical but is a common fire retardant used in association with plastics and plastic components used in drinking wells.
The pollution detected by the EPA and alleged to be linked to fracking was found in deep-water "monitoring wells"—not the shallower drinking wells. It's far from certain that pollution in these deeper wells caused the pollution in drinking wells. The deep-water wells that EPA drilled are located near a natural gas reservoir. Encana Corp., which owns more than 100 wells around Pavillion, says it didn't "put the natural gas at the bottom of the EPA's deep monitoring wells. Nature did."
To the extent that drilling chemicals have been detected in monitoring wells, the EPA admits this may result from "legacy pits," which are old wells that were drilled many years before fracking was employed. The EPA also concedes that the inferior design of Pavillion's old wells allows seepage into the water supply. Safer well construction of the kind normally practiced today might have prevented any contaminants from leaking into the water supply.
The fracking in Pavillion takes place in unusually shallow wells of fewer than 1,000 to 1,500 feet deep. Most fracking today occurs 10,000 feet deep or more, far below drinking water wells, which are normally less than 500 feet. Even the EPA report acknowledges that Pavillion's drilling conditions are far different from other areas of the country, such as the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania. This calls into question the relevance of the Wyoming finding to newer and more sophisticated fracking operations in more than 20 states.

Of the EPA's report, the Star-Tribune said, "If it's not sloppy science, it's poor policy." And, the editors go on to make the damning accusation that "the Pavillion study is not about science, (but) about politics."

For an administration committed to perverted energy policies that drive fossil fuel prices higher in hopes that increased energy costs will make green-energy more attractive, all this increased oil and gas production creates a real problem. Just last week the press was reporting that because of increased supplies, natural gas prices fell to their lowest level in over two years. You might think that lower consumer costs would be well received at the White House, but not in an administration committed to implementing policies to get America's energy prices "to the levels in Europe," as Energy Secretary Steven Chu admits.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has banned drilling on millions of acres of federal land. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe says 83 percent of all federal land is already off-limits for energy development, and Salazar is constantly adding more. Where he can't ban it, he makes it ever more difficult to get leases and permits to drill. Legislation passed by Congress in 2005 reaffirmed that Congress wanted the states, not the federal government, to regulate gas drilling, but that doesn't stop this administration. As mentioned above, the EPA wants to muscle the states out of the way, and assert federal control and restrict fracking. The Pavillion report helps them make their case. North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple says the proposed EPA rules restricting fracking "would have huge economic impact on our state's energy development. We believe strongly this should be regulated by the states."

That more is in play with the Pavillion report than just clean water for 160 Wyoming residents is pretty obvious. Steve Forbes says the Obama Administration is repeating all the mistakes of the Carter Administration's failed energy policies, and has already established "the most anti-oil and gas record in U.S. history." While there may eventually be proven some connection between gas wells and water contamination in Pavillion, we have to wonder if the Administration hadn't already reached a conclusion about fracking and the energy industry, and was just looking for a convenient excuse to help them make the case.

Tom Doll is the Supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and as such is the state's top regulator. Doll is also a native of Wyoming, graduate of the University of Wyoming as a petroleum engineer, and has more than three decades of field experience in the industry. According to Doll, the contamination EPA found in the Pavillion monitoring wells could be explained by natural causes or by the EPA because of the way the agency drilled, completed and tested the wells. "We really raised a lot of questions, provided four pages of questions on the monitoring wells: How they were drilled and completed, how they were sampled," Doll told the Casper Star-Tribune. Those questions were submitted to the EPA on Nov. 22, less than two weeks after the state and the Pavillion working group got a look at the draft report, but 16 days before the EPA released it to the public. "We posed all those questions to the EPA and they haven't gotten answers back yet on those concerns," Doll said.

As a candidate for President, Obama pledged that good science would guide policy in his Administration, but his actions belie his words. He says he's for jobs and for economic recovery, yet he dithers on approval of the Keystone Pipeline. Obama claims that, "Last year…oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time time high," but his own energy department reports production in the Gulf is down by 300,000 barrels per day after his misguided moratorium. He spews the radical left's lie that "we only have 2 percent" of the world's energy reserves when numerous government and independent reports prove America has vast resources if only our government would let them be harvested.

My dad often warned me about people who "would say one thing, but do another." That's the kind of President and Administration that is in Washington now. So, if you heard Barack Obama last month at a press conference say that his administration is "all in" for domestic energy production; believe just the opposite. Expect more debilitating, delaying, costly regulation. Expect more federal land and off-shore reserves to be put off-limits. Expect more "sloppy" reports like Pavillion designed to move a political agenda. And, expect billions more of borrowed dollars to be squandered on false green-gods like Solyndra in order to mollify and reward his political cronies. This isn't about science, and it isn't about good government. It's just politics; Obama style.

Official Time: The Big Labor Fallacy

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:38:00 GMT

President Obama's tenure in office has ushered in an era of unprecedented spending through which our national debt has ballooned astronomically. The federal government now owes $15.23 trillion to its creditors, combined with IOUs to government retirement and other programs. That's roughly equal to the latest estimate as to what the U.S. economy produced this past year — $15.17 trillion.

To break these numbers down further, according to the Department of Treasury, the total national debt grew by $1.22 trillion between January 1 and December 31 of 2011. During the past year, the national debt grew by $3.3 billion per day, or about $30 daily for each household in the U.S.

This is why one of my highest priorities as Congressman has been to rein in federal spending. Unfortunately, despite undeniable empirical evidence to the contrary, there are still those who resist commonsense efforts to cut our nation's costs. One such entity is what we commonly refer to as "Big Labor."

"Big Labor" overwhelmingly supports the agenda of the Democratic Party, so it follows that this administration has amassed an extensive list of "gimmes" designed to benefit their political cronies. One such example was the Democrats' efforts to push "card check" legislation, which would have made it easier to for union bosses to force a group of employees to unionize. When that attempt failed, the next tactic employed was to change the rules at the National Mediation Board to once again make union formation easier in the airline and railroad industries.

So beholden to "Big Labor" is President Obama that he's resorted to breaking years of precedent by abusing the recess appointment process to stack the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — a "nonpartisan" board that historically favors unions over employers — with his "Big Labor" partisans. One of his former appointees, Craig Becker, had served as the associate general counsel to the Service Employees International Union and is an attorney for the AFL-CIO. He recently appointed Richard Griffin, general counsel to the International Union of Operating Engineers, to the NLRB's board. These appointments mark the first time in history members of the NLRB have come directly from positions at labor unions. Griffin is also a board member of the AFL-CIO.

Unfortunately, the NLRB has proven to be anything but an objective arbiter of settling labor disputes. Consider the case of Boeing in South Carolina last year, in which the NLRB attempted to force a private company to halt the opening of a non-union plant in response to complaints from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace workers.

On top of these giveaways to "Big Labor," one of the most outrageous wastes of taxpayer dollars comes in the form of "official time"—allowing federal employees to engage in union activity during regular business hours in lieu of the work they were hired to perform for the government. According to the Office of Personnel Management, in 2010 alone, this practice accounted for 3,062,842 federal employee hours to the tune of $137,392,031 taxpayer dollars.

Some of the most egregious violators include the Department of Veterans Affairs at $34 million attributable to union activity on "official time"; the Department of Defense (DoD) at $13 million; the Social Security Administration at $9 million; the Justice Department at $6 million; and the Department of Homeland Security at $5 million.

In recent years, the cost of "official time" logged by federal employees has only mounted. By any standard, this leads to an inefficient and ineffective workforce. And, it goes without saying that during these tough economic times, we must account for every tax dollar and stop subsidizing wasteful practices — such as allowing union activity to occur on "official time" at taxpayer expense.

To help fight this waste and abuse, in 2009 I introduced the Federal Employee Accountability Act. This bill, which I reintroduced in January of 2011 as H.R. 122, would repeal the portion of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 which permits government-wide use of "official time," therefore saving taxpayers $1.3 billion over 10 years. This legislation does not prohibit unions from collective bargaining or participating in arbitration — it simply removes the burden from American taxpayers to finance it.

It is vital that we continue identifying and eliminating waste within federal agencies. Consider the case of the Department of Defense. The Department is already facing cuts of $450 billion over the next 10 years and could face another $600 billion in cuts due to the sequestration process set in motion by the failure of the "Supercommittee."

I believe that such deep cuts at DoD could undermine our nation's security. President Obama's own Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has warned that the U.S. could become a "paper tiger" if the DoD is forced to endure such massive cuts. But, just think, if we eliminated "official time" union activity, therefore saving in excess of $1 billion over 10 years, and made other commonsense reforms, we would be able to cut spending while reprogramming our limited resources to be utilized where they are needed most.

My hope for the New Year is that those who are standing in the way of rational solutions to our spending crisis will give way to reason. Either way, during the coming year, I will continue to work towards enacting more transparent and cost-saving labor legislation, rein in wasteful spending, and protect job creators and taxpayers alike.

Congress Delivers USPS's Demise

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:38:00 GMT

The United States Postal Service is an example of government's failure to deliver efficiency. Although the USPS does not receive federal funds, it's a quasi-governmental agency. The USPS is responsible to raise its own revenue yet it's bound to the mandates of the federal government. The USPS's abysmal financial situation is a direct result of government intrusion into business operations.

The USPS faces challenges that only government could create. Despite having a government imposed competitive advantage over UPS and FedEx, the USPS is in financial peril while the private companies are thriving. The USPS enjoys exemptions from federal taxes and other regulations by which UPS and FedEx must abide. It's illegal for private parcel delivery companies to compete with USPS prices. Yet, even with these competitive advantages the USPS has a $9 billion deficit this year.

The USPS cannot make significant decisions without Congressional approval. Worse, Congress imposes its will on the USPS forcing it into financial disasters like unsustainable labor agreements and the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act (PAEA). Labor costs account for 80 percent of the USPS's expenses whereas UPS and FedEx's labor costs account for 53 percent and 32 percent, respectively. The USPS must get Congressional approval to restructure its labor costs. Healthcare costs for retirees account for 30 percent of the USPS's expenses yet Congress has ignored repeated attempts to adjust the debilitating expenses.

Congress fails to act in the best interest of the USPS's financial health because ideology trumps economic reality for liberal members who are too concerned with big government solutions and their own reelection. That which sounded benevolent in theory is destroying the USPS in application yet left leaning legislators refuse to accept the desperate financial reality of the situation.

Union lobbyists influenced enough members of Congress to support mandates that advantaged union members over other USPS interests. The USPS could have used its monetary resources to expand services and hire more employees but far too much of its expenses were tied up in union member labor costs.

Aside from labor costs, Congress mandated the USPS to fund an account for 75 years of future retiree benefits. The USPS had ten years to fund the account beginning in 2007. This year's payment has more than doubled its deficit to $9 billion.

Although, many left leaning legislators may have thought the notion of supporting union members was sound, the long run consequences are leading to the USPS's demise. The USPS has pleaded with Congress multiple times to restructure labor agreements and remove the mandates of the PAEA but Congress has ignored the USPS's requests.

The USPS's financial insufficiency is emblematic of the broader troubles of government intrusion into business affairs. Leftist political ideology trumps common sense and blinds legislators from the realities of economics. As the USPS presents logical arguments about the necessity to remove Congressional mandates, ideological Congressional members hold on to their failed theories and protect union members while ignoring executives.

Currently, the USPS has two ways it could avoid insolvency. The first is through a government bailout. The second is through privatization. The USPS's best chance to return to financial health is through privatization. If it were detached from the government completely and released from its obligations to labor unions and Congressional mandates, the USPS could find the liberty to become an efficient organization.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Beyond

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:38:00 GMT

Oh, what a relief it was when actual voters- normal human beings- began to cast real ballots! After fourteen months of the punditocracy telling us what voters would do, should do, or might do based more on Inside the Beltway vanity, than real insight into the American mind, the people- starting with Iowa and New Hampshire- began to talk back and in doing so left many a prognosticator's reputation in tatters.

So, what have we learned from the quadrennial process thus far?

First, the Debates have emerged in unprecedented fashion as the central methodology for winnowing candidates. Owing to the national economic crisis and the angst it entails, people are attaching extraordinary importance to the coming election- and rightly so. Accordingly the size of Debate audiences has increased dramatically, thus encouraging sponsors to have more of them.

The Debates have also validated candidates who can think and speak well on their feet. Thus a Newt Gingrich with little money or organization can be competitive simply on the basis of verbal prowess. Conversely a Rick Perry with lots of money and organization can self-destruct simply on the basis of verbal ineptitude.

The Debates pose a great disadvantage for a political party challenging a sitting President. The more candidates on the Debate Stage, the smaller each one appears in comparison to an incumbent ensconced in the historic setting of the White House, and cast in the glamorous role of "Leader of the Free World".

Anything a challenger says can be dismissed as self-aggrandizing and "tawdry politics". The President on the other hand can do and say the most blatantly political things while piously claiming to be "merely doing his job".

In this context Republicans are particularly vulnerable since the Debates provide a "target rich" environment for a hostile "Mainstream Media" to denigrate GOP candidates and their beliefs under the guise of "objective analysis". Just as the media adored the "Maverick" John McCain whenever he criticized the policies of the detested Bush, this year the media trumpeted the moderate virtues of John Huntsman as a way to describe all other GOP candidates as "extremists".

A staple of these exercises is hearing the pundits say how ridiculous it is to grant little states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina such prominent places in this solemn ritual of Democracy. Regularly we hear calls for Regional, or National Primaries despite the obvious defect that either would exclude all but the wealthiest candidates owing to the stupendous amount of money needed for television advertising in such larger jurisdictions.

Oddly enough, the aforementioned three states though small are very different, and in the aggregate they are a reasonable slice of Americana. There is a certain virtue in having candidates spend large amounts of time with small groups of people who can look them in the eye, ask pointed questions, and get some sense of who this person is who wants the most important job in the world.

As the people surveyed the field they frustrated the pollsters by constantly changing their minds. Yet by granting multiple candidates the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame they subjected them to a scrutiny and heat that would eventually melt most of them. Thus did Cain and Bachman disappear, and Gingrich, Santorum and Perry will likely follow soon.

Huntsman said his third place finish in New Hampshire gave him a "Ticket to Ride", but the mischievous nature of his media fuelled candidacy was revealed by exit polls that showed fully 51% of his supporters approving of Obama's performance as President.

The dogged persistence of the quirky Ron Paul is tribute to an enduring streak of Libertarianism in the American electorate and its surprising appeal among young voters suggests it's not going away. Though he cannot say it Paul has telegraphed rather clearly that his real goal is influence not nomination.

What Mitt Romney understands better than any candidate is that the November election will be decided by those free floating independents in the middle of the political spectrum who decide all Presidential elections. His skillful, though unexciting campaign is built around that fact. Exit polls show that Republican Primary voters prize "electability" above all else. Democrats disingenuously say Romney is the Republican candidate they most want, but all polls and the money the DNC is already spending to trash him, reveal that he is the one who most threatens Obama's appeal to those independents who elected him four years ago.

Thus have voters not pundits given this race a clarity it heretofore lacked.

_____________________________________________________________________________________William Moloney's columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, Washington Times, Denver Post, and Human Events.

2012 – An Election or a Direction?

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:37:00 GMT

Every few decades Americans participate in an election that offers a choice not just between candidates but also between fundamentally different directions for the country. In 2012, voters will choose between two fundamentally different worldviews; government as the provider of equal outcomes for all (a more socialist view) or government as the provider of equal opportunities for all (a more free market capitalist view). These are two very different paths and the choice we make will have profound consequences for generations.

For the last 3 years we’ve witnessed the implementation, and results, of a government driving us toward an “equal outcomes” future. Out of control spending, far reaching Federal mandates (e.g., new healthcare law), record federal debt & deficits, and ever increasing rules and regulations force an insidious shift of responsibility & authority from the individual to the government. Going back further, you can see this is simply the acceleration of a trend that’s been followed by both political parties for decades. For example, in 1950, the % of government spending relative to GDP sat at 22%, a far cry from the nearly 40% of GDP we now spend.

What have we gotten for this tremendous allocation of the nation’s wealth and decision authority? Is the country safer, more energy independent, or more competitive in the world market? Is the performance of our education system ranked higher? Is the middle class growing or shrinking? Sadly, the trends in these areas and many others inversely correlate to the increased spending and authority we’ve granted our government. Consider the deeper cost and ask yourself, “Do I as a citizen have more or less freedom and liberty than I had even just 10 years ago?”

The philosophy of more government equaling better government has crept into our state and local levels as well. For example, take my own hometown of Boulder, Colorado where Democrats control all but a tiny handful of government positions. Our city councils and county commission use a growing set of laws, rules, & regulations to dictate how we live. They seek to acquire and run our local utility, write complex rules dictating in detail what kind of house we can build, and they direct that housing for the chronically homeless will be built in a local neighborhood with tax dollars & without genuinely asking the existing neighbors for input and consent. It seems we’ve somehow let ourselves devolve to a community run by local officials for whom no subject is out of bounds and no issue too small for deliberation. The result is a bigger & more powerful local government and less freedom and choice for us.

Could it be that we citizens have been letting our elected leaders take us in exactly the wrong direction? That moving away from individual responsibility and accountability toward an ever more powerful government is the problem, not the solution? Is it time for citizens to take back much of the power originally reserved for them in the US Constitution and limit government to the enumerated powers also so enshrined. Isn’t that the landscape in which the “American Dream” was created in the first place?

This is not an argument for a government so limited that it becomes irrelevant. We need well-written laws & regulations, strictly enforced, with consequences that truly deter those who would break the rules. We need a fair tax code that even the Secretary of the Treasury can understand. We need to maintain a strong defense against our enemies and safety nets to help those in need return to self-sufficiency. In short, we need an efficient government effectively exercising the specific powers granted to it and no more.

One choice in 2012 will be to continue down the road of bigger government. We can see in Europe where this leads. It’s a path where government increasingly imposes its will to generate equality of outcomes, a “least common denominator” standard of living if you will, and there is little incentive for individuals to innovate and excel. The other choice is to reduce government at all levels and put the focus on ensuring equality of opportunity where citizens are free to pursue their dreams and reap the benefits, or suffer the consequences, of their actions.

Which course is more energizing and aligned with our founding principles? George Washington, in his farewell address, warned our nation “usurpation is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” His warning has never been more relevant. Few elections have ever been more important.

Scott Schaefer serves as Vice Chairman of the Boulder County Republicans and is currently an investor in, and operating consultant to, small to mid-sized businesses. He is a former officer of BellSouth and Level 3 Corporations and was CEO of QuantumShift Corporation.

The Shape of Things to Come: "South of the Border Down Mexico Way"

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:45:00 GMT

At the Intersection of Fast & Furious: Crime, Big Money, Drugs, Radical Islam, International Socialism and Infiltration

The absurdity of the current policies of the White House, State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice, clearly indicate aiding and abetting sabotage against our country by enemies, both foreign and domestic, in order to destabilize and incur harm on our country, each state, and all our citizens as well as reduce our overall ability to respond to critical events as an entirely alien system of government is implemented.

With the recent news reported by the Washington Examiner of the Obama Administration's sealing of the court records of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry's murder case we can only conclude that this blatant act is a cover which by doing so, sounds an alarm that more conspirators are involved and larger agendas for sabotage and subterfuge of the American way of life are in play. It is quite clear that the international sharia socialists (ISS) in the WH, State, DOJ, and DHS engaged in the cover up as the history of their acts of omission in their process of sabotage combined with this recent act of commission violates the oath every law enforcement and public official take.

What is amazing is how this recent news lines up with Hillary Clinton's small arms agenda at the U.N., the rise of Iranian insurgency via the drug cartels in Latin America, and the embracing of the Muslim Brotherhood as a key component of both American Foreign and Domestic Policy.

On the day he was murdered, Agent Terry, walked into a much larger conspiracy to undermine the safety and security of the United States of America and the freedom loving people of the world. In his death, Brian sent a clear message to us where to look, and he was sold out by his own management and the cover up became "political." That is criminal.

How did we get here and where are we going on the road to nowhere? The answer is the same: the way Mexico has arrived, only they are in the last stages of the plan for control and internal and outside forces are actively involved.

History points to the same game plan: The Zimmermann Note was a telegram intercepted by British Intelligence from the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmerman, to the German Ambassador to Mexico on January 19, 1917. At that time, the world was already engaged for two years in WWI and was divided into multinational allegiances. The goal of the German strategy was to neutralize the USA either by subjugating commercial shipping to massive submarine warfare or have Germany bankroll a Mexican insurgency into the USA.

The Zimmermann Note reads:

"On the first of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America."

"If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace. We shall give general financial support, and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The details are left to you for settlement."

"You are instructed to inform the President of Mexico of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States and suggest that the President of Mexico, on his own initiative, should communicate with Japan suggesting adherence at once to this plan; at the same time, offer to mediate between Germany and Japan."

"Please call to the attention of the President of Mexico that the employment of ruthless submarine warfare now promises to compel England to make peace in a few months."

"Zimmermann"

As in "Mahmoud Zimmermann" – Judging from the recent Iranian Naval warfare maneuvers in the Straits of Hormuz with the goal of disrupting worldwide economies, one can clearly hear the voice of Dr. Gordon Prange stating history is relevant and history repeats itself. We can conclude that it is the same blueprint being used for a 3rd time, and who knows where the road goes?

Current events now draw a direct parallel to a well-funded strategy of infiltration to destroy the social, political, and cultural fabric of nation states worldwide in order to implement a new economic blueprint and management system of control.

In addressing a recent meeting of The World Affairs Council of San Antonio, Mexican Newspaper magnate and CEO of the Mexico's largest newspaper, Grupo Reforma, Alejandro Junco del la Vega stated that "systematic breakdowns in Mexico's society and institutions underlie the violence that mars daily life in that nation and the same breakdowns prevent democracy in Mexico from fulfilling its promise of freedom and hope for Mexicans, building a mentality of despair that fuels the drug trade and organized crime" as reported by David Hendricks – San Antonio Express-News.

In his testimony before Congress on October 4, 2011, Updating US Policy to Counter Threats of Insurgency and Narco-Terrorism, DEA Intelligence Chief Rodney Benson stated that "Of the Mexican Drug Trafficking organizations, the Sinaloa cartel has the broadest reach into Europe, Australian and Asia. With over 43,000 deaths, Mexico is in the fifth year of war against the drug cartels, with the Sinaloa cartel, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, striving to consolidate his cartel's power over the Zeta, Tijuana, and Gulf Coast Cartels. It is very apparent that the Sinaloa Cartel intends to become part of the international supply chain for product and services and that requires financing operations.

So what did Agent Terry walk into on the day that he was murdered? Maybe we should look into what Zimmerman "noted": the financial funding.

Maybe Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, can shed some light as to where all these drug running "entrepreneurs" bank. Could it be Holder's favorite, Wachovia, and others?

On March 16, 2010, Wachovia Bank entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the Justice Department and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency including $160 million in assessed penalties. In the agreement Wachovia admitted to years of violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, used to track and deter money laundering by the drug cartels, which requires that financial institutions file reports and notify the Treasury Department of all financial transactions over $10,000 (31 CFR 103.22).

In the plea agreement, Wachovia admitted to willfully failing to maintain an anti-money laundering program from 2003-2008. During this time period Wachovia failed to monitor more than $420 billion in financial transactions with the Mexican currency exchange houses. It should be noted that in the court documents, Wachovia was aware as early as 1996 (there's that magic year again) of its risk exposure and allowed the wire transfer of funds to worldwide recipients.

Also, the criminal investigation uncovered that Wachovia, Bank of America, American Express International, and HSBC financed logistical operations for cartel narco-trafficking. Furthermore, notification must be given by filing a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) (31 CFR 103.24) if the value of any account in a foreign country in which each person or bank subject to the jurisdiction of the US exceeds $10,000.

As part of the Obama Administration's "plea deal" and special treatment for the banks that suffered under TARP, the charges against several banks were consolidated under Wachovia which later merged into Wells Fargo. What happened to the criminally negligent executives? Why were none of the individuals that approved the laundering of hundreds of millions of dollars prosecuted? With all their expertise, fiduciary obligations, and experience, were they just unaware?

Agent Terry was the one who was actually unaware as he walked into one of many international business transactions involving the Main Street Mega-Banks of the U.S. that have been converted, "changed", since 1996 and are now part of the new Banking and Financial corporatism that fully supports the global supply chain for the largest conglomerate to supply "controlling substances" (WMD) in the new global system.

In any good "partnership" with common agendas, side agreements can be easily implemented and bolted on to existing revenue streams to increase the ROI and provide for better risk management in order to control costs. As reported by Fox News, a third gun belonging to a confidential informant inside a cartel was recovered at the murder scene. What was it doing there? The court records have been sealed as well as the judge's order. This blatant obstruction of justice in regard to a criminal murder investigation points directly to aiding and abetting "criminal elements" in a foreign country for a much larger agenda.

This agenda includes interfering in the internal domestic affairs of a foreign country for the purpose of assisting in the movement to consolidate the power of the emerging Sinaloa International Conglomerate with its banking and financial partners, as well as to assist in Hillary Clinton's U.N. Mothership Agenda21 and the implementation of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty by manipulating the numbers like any good "trader" would do.

It should be noted that the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel's wife, moves about freely across the borders and recently gave birth to twins in Los Angeles and have attained US citizenship through the provisions of the 14th Amendment. It seems to be the same modus operandi as the Red Chinese "baby flights" to California.

Agent Terry probably was also unaware that forfeiting our American identity for a one-world-government U.N. identity was the real objective of this Administration. Maybe this explains why Hillary Clinton is silent about the Fast & Furious scandal and Agent Terry's assassination?

It is quite apparent that narco-terrorism has become an "unofficial" international business that is being used successfully as a tool to infiltrate the institutions that del la Vega warned about. Agent Terry and the history of German Intelligence Operations point to something much larger…a new economic blueprint and a new system of management and control brought to you by your very own government and other related third parties.

-----
Paul E. Vallely (MG, US Army Ret) is a Contributing Editor to A Line of Sight, CEO of NEMO Arms Inc. (New Evolution Military Ordnance), and Chairman of Stand Up America.

Tom Marin has spent his life as a student of history and foreign policy; working to implement its lessons and avoid the mistakes. He has successful careers in the private sector, specializing in telecommunications, and also distinguished service at the Pentagon. He is also a member of Stand Up America.

Death Panels? The Reality of Healthcare Rationing

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:36:00 GMT

In a conversation that has received much attention since it occurred in November, conservative talk-radio host Mark Levin spoke with a neurosurgeon who reported some disturbing information regarding ObamaCare, and the sorts of insidious and surreptitious control that it gives the federal government over healthcare. During the call in question, the physician reported that he had come from a recent meeting of neurosurgeons in which they reviewed new HHS guidelines for advanced neurosurgical care. According to their reading of the documents, patients over the age of 70 who are on federally subsidized insurance (Medicare, Medicaid or other "public option" alternatives) should only receive "comfort care" in the case of a stroke, hemorrhage or brain aneurysm that would otherwise benefit from surgical intervention. Mark Levin vetted the caller and confirmed his identity and profession, as well as his attendance at the referenced neurosurgical meeting. The doctor went on to describe the so-called "ethics committees" that have been put in place by the administration to determine where monies will be appropriated and what medical and surgical procedures will and will not be reimbursed. The conclusion of the ethics committee is that neurosurgical intervention is "generally not indicated" for patients over 70. And so it begins.

Click here for the full Mark Levin conversation with the neurosurgeon

Although Sarah Palin may have coined a somewhat inflammatory phrase in suggesting that the healthcare reform bill included "death panels", in a sense, she was correct; we are clearly seeing the impact of the legislation as committees of primarily non-medical administrators make decisions that profoundly impact the way in which doctors and hospitals can render care to their patients. And sometimes those decisions – as in the case of a 70 year old with a brain hemorrhage -- can be tantamount to a death sentence.

The new mammogram guidelines are another case in point: In this example, the "United States Preventive Services Task Force", whose members were appointed by the Obama administration, after reviewing years of data on breast cancer, came out with new guidelines for mammography that contradict those of the American Cancer Society. Instead of starting regular mammograms at age 40, the task force said that women who were not considered high risk could wait until age 50. And instead of once a year, the task force determined that getting screened every 2 years was adequate. Interestingly, the ACS reviewed the same data and held their ground, choosing to stay with their previous recommendations. The issue here is that the guidelines were changed by the Task Force, not on the basis of any new scientific or medical studies, but purely on the basis of an actuarial analysis that determined that it was not cost effective to diagnose and treat women with breast cancer before age 50 and after age 74 – a decision that you might disagree with should it be your wife, mother or daughter with the disease. The new guidelines for mammography were published in November of 2009, pre-dating the actual passage of the reform bill the following March, but were clearly a harbinger of things to come, including the significant rationing of healthcare.

Once the government's guidelines for a particular medical condition have been set, the next step is for reimbursement to be denied for those tests and procedures that are no longer recommended. The FDA's recent rescinding of approval of Avastin for breast cancer, initially approved for the disease in 2008, was likewise an economic decision, and again reflects the obvious move toward rationing which has been built into the ObamaCare plan. The FDA, formerly tasked with assessing drugs purely based on their clinical safety and efficacy, was asked in this case to opine on the economic value of the drug, and determined that it was simply too costly to justify the "minimal extension of life" that it generated. Both private and public insurance companies have scaled back on their coverage of Avastin as a result of the FDA's decision, rendering many patients unable to pursue the treatment. These are just a few examples of the provisions within the bill that granted authority to bureaucrats to promulgate rules and programs governing our healthcare. Surgeons and other practitioners whose specialties require significant costly interventions will be the most impacted early on. If certain screening exams and treatments are deemed to have unacceptable cost-benefit ratios, they will be cut. In all of these cases, the message from the government is clear: We are putting cost savings before human lives and outcomes. Many, many more "new treatment guidelines", rescinding of drug approvals, and changes in reimbursement for procedures will be coming down the pike, should the bill not be repealed.

Lowering healthcare costs will require identifying and eliminating wasteful spending and fraud in the system, improving the overall health of Americans, and allowing the free-market to create competition and natural cost pressures. But providing for the early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, and pursuing neurosurgical intervention for patients over 70 isn't a waste. While the healthcare reform bill might not include the classic and repugnant concept of a discreet panel that casts a "live" or "die" decision, individual by individual, what it does is perhaps more insidious: sweeping, depersonalized determinations that entire categories of people will be denied certain treatments based on economic and age criteria. Although people have eschewed the phrase "death panel" as inflammatory, it is, if fact, a fundamentally correct descriptor; forcing physicians to follow guidelines set by panels of administrators, considering economic criteria over human lives, and weighing actuarial analyses over years of medical education, training and experience will have exactly that effect.

Obama Aims at Wrong Target with Dangerous Defense Cuts

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:37:00 GMT

On January 5th, President Obama announced his new military strategy that is based on a $487 billion reduction in military spending. Although we will not know the details of those reductions until after February 6, when the President releases his budget, we do know that the Army and Marine Corps may suffer a 10-15% loss of personnel. The fact that the President's military strategy includes such drastic personnel and budget cuts increases the risks to our national security. The President should be concerned about the strategic implications of the defense spending levels he is implementing, and join with those in Congress seeking to prevent a further spending hemorrhage as a result of sequestration. The sequestration cuts represent financial ruin for the Department of Defense and would gut our defense capabilities; especially at risk are senior NCOs and junior commissioned officers with combat experience. House Republicans are focused on this critical issue and determined to avoid such cuts from going into effect. But where is the Commander-in-Chief? He fails to lead because not only is he not asking his party to address the issue, he himself is failing to even address it.

The President's course repeats the mistakes of the past, despite his assurances that he would not. After every modern war we have slashed the military budgets and lived to rue the decision. We are in a dangerous world with threats increasing, not decreasing. The President should push for maintaining at least the current defense funding levels until our current conflicts draw to a close. This would help the military to properly provide for our service members returning home and care for military families. It would assist in the repair and replacement of equipment and the resetting of our forces that have been abused over 10 years of combating terrorism abroad. We would be in a better position to fulfill our world-wide military requirements. The United States does not have the luxury of choosing our enemies and deciding whether or not they will attack us. We must fund our military properly in order to remain prepared and vigilant.

Our nation's unemployment rate has remained over nine percent for most of the past thirty-five months. Millions of Americans are seeking full-time employment. Thousands of people in our communities, both civilians and uniformed service members, rely upon defense spending for their livelihoods. Although some identify the large defense contractors that make the planes and tanks as those who will be impacted by these budget cuts, it is the truck driver that brings supplies to a base and the waitress that works in a restaurant off-post that will be hurt the most. The President has stated, "We need to renew our economic strength at home." Unfortunately, the President's plan will only serve to negatively impact millions of American homes.

The President's strategy amounts to cutting off the head to cure a headache. According to the World Bank, the United States' defense spending represents 4.8 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This percentage pales in comparison to defense spending in 1962 when 9.3 percent of our GDP was spent on Defense. Our nation's entitlement programs are the largest contributing factor to our growing nation debt, not our defense spending which is less than 18 percent of the current budget. In 1976, entitlement spending equaled defense spending and since then, defense spending has declined to our current levels while entitlement spending has climbed to represent 10 percent of our GDP. Maintaining our military and national security is our Constitutional duty

We live in a very turbulent time, a time where one rogue state, North Korea, has already acquired nuclear weapons. Iran, a nation that is on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon, has vowed to destroy our most constant ally in the Middle East, Israel. Governments around the world are facing financial crises, while others are in the midst of revolution. With instability across North Africa, unrest within nuclear Pakistan, enemies of America organizing in South America, well-funded terrorist organizations recruiting mass-murderers, and even pirates threatening shipping off Africa's coast, now is not the time to cut defense spending. Now is the time to make sure our military is the most well funded and prepared in history. The President is choosing a path of weakness that only emboldens our enemies and invites war. At such a volatile point in history, we must follow Ronald Reagan's philosophy of "peace through strength," and continue to protect and preserve our great nation.

National Debt Crosses the Line: U.S. in dubious company

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:06:00 GMT

The U.S. federal debt has surpassed the total production of the entire country. According to a feature article in USA Today, total debt of $15.3 trillion now exceeds GDP.

Anyone who has been paying just a little bit of attention has known for some time that at the rapid rate the debt was increasing it was destined to exceed the GDP. But, as the report documents, only six other nations in the developed world – all in perilous condition - have debt levels that exceed their total economic output: Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan and Portugal.

Within a decade, the Obama administration projects the debt will increase another 70 percent to $26 trillion. Even if the economy could grow at an average annual rate of 3 percent over the decade, GDP would be just barely $20 trillion, leaving a debt-to-GDP ratio of 128 percent.

A'jad's Latin Tango

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:10:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

Even as his government back home was sentencing to death an American citizen it outrageously claims is a spy, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad embarked on a five-day visit to four of Latin America's most anti-American regimes: Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Cuba.

Naturally, Ahmadinejad's visit started with his pal, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (whose consul general in Miami is reportedly being booted for scheming with Iranian operatives on possible cyberattacks against us).

The "diabolical duo" then will head to Nicaragua, where they'll attend the inauguration of re-elected President Daniel Ortega, a fan of the Iranian Revolution since his Sandinista days during the Cold War.

Ahmadinejad's stops in Ecuador and Cuba will serve only to prove that their leaders, Rafael Correa and Raul Castro, have little real interest in improving relations with the United States, but still expect the Obama administration to look the other way as they sidle up to our enemy.

Why Latin America - and why now? Well, Ahmadinejad's power back home is in question. Posing as a global player by jetting half way around the world to the Americas may help silence not only his critics within the regime but also ease tensions from the Iranian people, who sense Tehran's increasing isolation and still resent the stolen 2009 presidential election.

To the same end, Iran is looking for friends that might help it fight potential diplomatic condemnation and evade economic sanctions imposed because of its nuke program.

Those sanctions are finally starting to have real teeth.

Last week, the United States announced plans to penalize Iran's Central Bank, making it harder for Tehran to sell oil - its main source of hard currency. (Europe may ban Iranian crude, but is worried about a ban's economic impact.)

It has long been a concern that Iran is using Latin America, especially Venezuela, to circumvent international restrictions on its banking, as well as to gain banned materials and technologies for its missile and nuclear programs.

The diplomatic visits to Latin America - plus a few billion dollars in trade and investment and an increasing number of embassies (six new ones in the region since 2005) - provide Iran with the "cover" for all manner of dark dealings.

It gets worse.

A 2010 Pentagon report to Congress on the Iranian military noted that the Qods Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard "maintains operational capabilities around the world . . . Recent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela."

Any skepticism about that assessment was dashed with the news last fall that Qods forces and a henchman tried to hire a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US and to bomb Israeli and Saudi embassies in Washington and Buenos Aires.

Indeed, it's long been believed that, in the event of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran's operatives - or its proxies - would likely attack the homeland and/or US interests in Latin America.

Although the plots were pretty ham-handed by most standards, it shows that operations like this are on the drawing board. "What's next?" is a very reasonable question - and a threat we should take seriously.

Iran wants the United States out of the Middle East, especially the Persian Gulf - and also wants to remind us that it, too, can be a player in our neighborhood.

As pernicious as Persian power is in the Middle East, it's especially troubling around here. Ahmadinejad's visit is a stark reminder that this is no time for shilly-shallying on counteracting Iran's iniquity in this hemisphere.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a Contributing Editor to A Line of Sight. This article also appeared October 25, 2011 in the New York Post. peterbrookes@heritage.org

Tensions Continue to Escalate in Straits of Hormuz

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:39:00 GMT

The ultra-high stakes game of chicken continues in the Straits of Hormuz – as well as in Tehran and Washington. Iran continues to escalate rhetoric and the saber rattling. The British have deployed their most advanced naval destroyer to the Gulf. Additionally, the Iranian press and the AP are reporting that uranium enrichment has begun at the new underground Fordo facility near Qom.

After issuing a bombastic threat last week to the U.S. Fifth Fleet “not to come back” to the Persian Gulf, the Iranian regime announced plans to conduct a second round of military exercises in February for the closure of the critical waterway through which about 17 million barrels of oil flows every day.

The head of Iran’s Navy, Ali Fadavi, made the announcement of the planned February operations in the Straits of Hormuz and added, “Today the Islamic Republic of Iran has full domination over the region and controls all movements within it.”

The British are obviously taking Iran’s bluster seriously. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond warned Iran that a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz would be “illegal and unsuccessful.” The Royal Navy is sending their “mightiest ship,” the HMS Daring, a technologically highly advanced destroyer to the gulf to back up Secretary Hammond’s statement.

On Sunday the Kayhan daily, an Iranian paper said to be “close to Iran’s ruling clerics” and managed by a representative of Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reported uranium enrichment had begun at the Fordo plant near Qom. The Associated Press is citing diplomatic sources confirming the report. Fordo is reported “more efficient” and advanced than Natanz where enrichment began in 2006, as well as heavily fortified to withstand potential “enemy attacks.”

Uranium enrichment by Iran defies numerous United Nations resolutions. Thus far, Obama and the U.N. have proven completely impotent at stalling the Mullahs quest for nuclear capabilities.

The escalation of tension in the Gulf is clearly a reaction to the recently signed legislation by Barack Obama that requires the President to impose strict sanctions on Iran’s central bank hoping the economic pain will convince the regime to abandon their nuclear program. Obama claims the sanction provisions of the legislation are “non-binding” and there has been speculation that he may invoke waiver options in the bill to delay implementation.

While the mullahs in Iran may be far more arrogant than smart, even they probably don’t want to pick a military fight with both the U.S. and the British. But, what they do want is to cause Obama to dither long enough to buy them a few more months to further develop their nuclear weapon technology which would dramatically increase Tehran’s leverage on the west and alter the power structure in the Middle East and beyond.

Time is a friend of Iran, but not for her foes like Israel and the U.S. As the AP reports, the news of the Fordo facility coming into production is “particularly worrying because the site is being used to make material that can be upgraded more quickly for use in a nuclear weapon than the nation's main enriched stockpile” from Natanz.

During a CBS Face the Nation interview on Sunday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said he wasn't sure if Iran really wants a nuclear weapon. Oh, really? For three years the Administration has been doing a lot of hand wringing and talking about stopping Iran's nuclear program, but in reality Obama has seemed resigned to Iran eventually getting a nuke, and then worrying about a "containment strategy" to deal with it after the fact.

The regime in Tehran undoubtedly sees a weak, indecisive U.S. Administration. They just witnessed the U.S. pull out of Iraq, and Iran was quick to fill the void. The Mullahs must also be smiling at the announced massive cuts to the Pentagon budget and Obama's plan to reduce strategic capabilities. In a radical theocracy in which martyrdom is encouraged and celebrated, what American rationale views as “unthinkable” just might make perfect sense in Tehran. While the U.S. and British could eventually overwhelm the Iranian military, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed during the same Face the Nation interview that Iran has "invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Straits of Hormuz."

Another Iranian newspaper quoted the deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Ali Ashraf Nouri as saying, “The supreme authorities…have insisted that if enemies block the export of our oil, we won’t allow a drop of the oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. This is the strategy of the Islamic Republic in countering such threats.” Is he bluffing, or are the Mullahs just crazy enough to do it? However, irrational war in the Persian Gulf seems, it may fit right in with the madness of the Mullahs. With much of the globe already suffering economically, the last thing that is needed is even a temporary disruption of the waterway through which one-sixth of all the world’s oil passes, or worse an all-out war. That’s the game of chicken that’s being played out, and it is anyone guess who will blink first and how this eventually gets resolved.

Obama's Jobs Record: This is his idea of "healing"?

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:09:00 GMT

The Obama Administration would have us believe that the newest jobs data (i.e. 200,000 jobs created in December, and 8.5% unemployment) is proof that the President’s economic policies are working. His top economic adviser dutifully said the newest report proves that “it is critical that we continue the (President’s) economic policies that are helping us dig our way out of the deep hole.” Who would expect Obama’s staff economist to say anything different?

But, a little more analysis of the data proves that rather than “healing” the economy, as Obama likes to say, his policies have worsened the recession and prolonged the recovery.

As a recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial explained, over the past 30 months the size of the labor force has actually shrunk by 843,000 people – 170,000 in just the past two months. That just doesn’t happen in America. At a similar point in the Reagan recovery of the 1980s the labor force had expanded by more than 4 million workers according to IBD.

The labor force participation rate (LPR) – the percentage of people employed or looking for work of the total age eligible population – is currently just 64%. As the following chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates, that is worse by far than when Obama took office in January 2009, and it is still trending downward. In fact, the current LPR is at the lowest level in nearly 30 years. It’s disingenuous to talk of recovery when continually more people are still leaving the work force, and it is nearly impossible to increase economic output until more – not less – people are productive workers.

Labor Force Participation Rate, 2009-2011

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Simply put, millions of Americans are still so disillusioned, disappointed, and disgusted that they aren’t even trying to get a job. When adjusted for the abnormally low participation rate, “unemployment would be more like 11.5%,” according to the IBD editors.

In addition to the unemployed, millions of Americans can’t find the full-time employment they need. According to the Labor Department, more than 8 million Americans have only part-time employment – twice the normal level of the work force and showing no significant sign of returning to normal levels.

Obama certainly knows the truth behind the numbers. Whatever spin the Obama campaign tries to apply; the reality is there are still 6.2 million jobs destroyed by this recession that haven’t come back. As we previously explained on these pages, this is by far the deepest and already the most prolonged recovery of the eleven recessions since World War II. At the current rate of job creation, it will be May, 2016 before the economy recovers from the jobs deficit.

With an election just ten months away, the 6 million plus jobs deficit apparently means very little to Barack Obama. He’s obsessively concerned about saving only one job – his. So, as IBD explains, “the only way Obama can make these mediocre results look good is by setting the country's expectations so low than even a tiny step forward seems like a giant leap. He mustn't get away with it.”

On the night that he secured the Democrat nomination in 2008, Barack Obama arrogantly proclaimed it as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” If true, that would put Obama in very exclusive company. “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help,” observed famed economist Irwin Stelzer.

The 2012 campaign version of Barack Obama has backed off the miraculous predictions. Now, it is all about lowering the bar – trying to convince voters to settle for less. That’s a pretty tough sell in America, and we think he’ll have about as much luck with that line as he did in getting the oceans to pay attention to him.

Iran threatens U.S. Navy, Obama Wavers

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:21:00 GMT

The head of the Iranian military has warned the U.S. Fifth Fleet to stay out of the Persian Gulf. The latest bluster comes on the heels of ten days of Iranian “exercises” to close the Straits of Hormuz, a mid-range missile launch, and reports that Iran has produced its first nuclear fuel rod, a critical step toward nuclear weapon capability.

As the USS John C. Stennis left the Persian Gulf on normal maneuvers, Gen. Ataollah Salehi, the commander of the Iranian armed forces, issued the threat. “We warn this ship, which is considered a threat to us, not to come back, and we do not repeat our words twice,” Salehi said.

The U.S. Defense Department immediately rejected the warning. “The deployment of the U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region will continue as it has for decades,” according to Pentagon spokesman George Little. “These are regularly scheduled movements in accordance with our longstanding commitments to the security and stability of the region and in support of ongoing operations,” Little said.

Iran’s new round of military bluster coincides exactly with new Congressional legislation signed into law on New Year’s Eve by the President that directs the President to implement crippling sanctions on Iran’s central bank. Despite claims by the Administration of seeking effective sanctions against Iran for quite some time, upon signing the bill Obama said he had “serious reservations about certain provisions” of the legislation including the sanctions. Further, the White House says in considers the Congressional mandate for sanctions “non-binding.” Obama managed to get wiggle room into the final bill that allows him a six month “waiver” for implementation of those sanctions. Charles Krauthammer and many others, expect Obama to use the waiver, effectively caving in to Iran’s threats.

While the U.S. State Department and many national security analysts seem to be convinced that the Iranians are mostly talk with little chance of military action, some in the international community are not so sure. The International Business Times published two articles in the last week speculating that however non-sensible, the Iranians may nudge the region into war.

Beneath the ominous headline of “War Imminent in Straits of Hormuz?” John C.K. Daly explained that Iran has 23 submarines, 100+ coastal and combat patrol craft, 5 mine warfare and anti-mine craft, 13 amphibious landing vessels and 26 logistics and support ships. American might certainly dwarfs that capacity, but as Daly explains, the Iranians don’t measure their might in numbers of ships, guns, sailors or soldiers. “Iran has emphasized that it has developed indigenous ‘asymmetrical warfare’ naval doctrines, and it is anything but clear what form Iran’s naval response to sanctions or attack could take,” Daly says. “The only certainty is that it is unlikely to resemble anything taught at the U.S. Naval Academy,” he adds.

Iran is very much aware that having their hands on the throat of the narrow water passage through which 40 percent of all the traded oil in the world passes on a daily basis offers them enormous global leverage. From time to time they have applied pressure; usually to the benefit of the mullahs. They were also quick to fill the vacant space in Iraq created by the evacuation of the American troops.

Tensions in the Middle East continue to escalate, and Iran is at the center of nearly all the trouble. As the mullahs move ever closer to nuclear weapon capability, the U.S. and the west continue to be unwilling or unable to stop them. And, every effort only seems to increase the tension. That much is known.

The unknown is when does the ever increasing tension reach the breaking point? When do the hostile threats turn into hostile actions? Or, is there still a way to put this nuclear genie back in the bottle? Maybe. But, the chance of cooling the hostile environment would sure be greater if the Leader of the Free World had the strength of conviction of a Reagan or a Thatcher, instead of the willingness to waiver of Barack Obama.

Hezbollah doesn’t need Iran’s money when they have U.S. funds

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:17:00 GMT

By Kerry Patton

***Kerry Patton, a combat service disabled veteran, is a senior analyst for WIKISTRAT. He has worked in South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, focusing on intelligence and security and interviewing current and former terrorists, including members of the Taliban. He is the author of Sociocultural Intelligence: The New Discipline of Intelligence Studies and the children's book American Patriotism. You can follow him on Facebook. This article also posted at JerusalemReports.com.

On December 13^th, the New York Times revealed everything U.S. politicians needed to know about Hezbollah. They operate throughout South and Central America alongside numerous narco-terrorists such as Colombia’s FARC and Mexico’s Los Zetas. The Party of God makes a lucrative amount of drug money which gets pushed into the Middle East funding their reign of terror. Hezbollah uses numerous banking firms to launder their money and a great percent of Hezbollah’s money comes from the United States.

If anyone ever wondered why Mohmar Qaddafi used FARC Mercenaries during the Libyan revolution, look no more because this is the reason—an alliance with Latin American and Middle Eastern terrorist exists.

The U.S. Department of Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), has done an exceptional job investigating numerous Hezbollah money laundering schemes. On December 15^th, the United States Attorney’s Office Southern District of New York released an alarming report demonstrating over $300 million wired funds coming into the United States from Hezbollah. Fear not that Hezbollah operates inside Latin America, fear that they operate inside the United States.

Inside the United States, Hezbollah has made a lucrative amount of money in illegal cigarette smuggling operations. A smuggler can make about $2 million on a single truckload of cigarettes. Such operations have been known since early 2004 where cases have unfolded in virtually every state on the eastern corridor from Maine all the way down to Florida.

The United States is one of the leading diamond purchasers worldwide. Fortunately, tighter control over the world’s diamond industry has evolved. Still, today, Hezbollah operates alongside African nation states along with clientele aligned with the world’s leading diamond distributors De Beers.

Iran has supported Hezbollah since its inception with millions of dollars annually. Needless to say, it appears as though Hezbollah my no longer need Iran. They have demonstrated international financial fundraising capabilities. America loves “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” as much as we love our drugs, diamonds, and cigarettes. Hezbollah has their feet in all three financial games and is using their own enemy, the United States, to continue their financial gains.

We now know of three lucrative adventures Hezbollah undertakes to fund themselves. How many more will soon be unfolded? Who knows. What we do know is that they are exceptional in what they do and have proven that with or without a nation state supporter like Iran, Hezbollah will remain as the world’s most capable terrorist organization.

Survey: Docs No Fan of ObamaCare

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:45:00 GMT

If ObamaCare is such a good deal, you can’t tell by asking a doctor. That’s the conclusion of a national survey of 501 doctors conducted by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.

Only 27 percent of physicians believe ObamaCare will reduce healthcare costs, and half of the doctors believe access to healthcare will decrease due to hospital closures resulting from the new law.

Barack Obama and the proponents of the legislation claimed cost reduction and improved access as cornerstone promises of the massive takeover of the health care industry.

Equally as damning of an indictment is that 73 percent of doctors are “not excited about the future of medicine,” according to the survey. And, 69 percent believe the profession will no longer be the choice for the “best and brightest” of America’s young people.

“Most physicians believe payment reforms…will reduce their incomes and increase their administrative costs for needed infrastructure and quality measurement,” the survey concluded. Paul Keckley, Ph.D, the executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, noted that “effective reform (of health care) has to consider the physician’s view as a starting point.” However, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid weren't going to be bothered by asking doctors how to fix what doctors do every day.

The doctors also expect demand for their services will increase because of the millions of newly insured by the legislation without a proportionate increase in the number of physicians entering the profession. As a result, they expect frustrated doctors to leave their practices for administrative health care jobs or change professions completely, further compounding the problem.

Other findings of the study include:

Nearly three-quarters of respondents think that emergency rooms could get overwhelmed if primary care physician appointments are full as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare.
More than 80 percent believe it is likely that wait times for primary care appointments will increase because of a lack of providers. More than half indicate that other medical professionals (physician assistants, nurse practitioners) will deliver primary care both independently and as an adjunct to physician services.
Many doctors consider a practice in a large integrated health system or concierge medicine practice a viable alternative to private practice.
Surgical specialists (57 percent) are much more likely to support the law's repeal compared to primary-care providers (38 percent) and non-surgical specialists (34 percent). They are also more likely to say the legislation is a step in the wrong direction and believe their net income will decrease as a result of reform.
There is a disparity among generations, as 59 percent of physicians 50 to 59 years old feel PPACA is a step in the wrong direction while only 36 percent of those ages 25 to 39 share this sentiment. Physicians aged 25 to 39 are also more likely than older doctors (ages 40 to 59) to think the transition to evidence-based medicine will improve care.

Link to the full survey here.

Solyndra was all about Politics, not Policy

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:14:00 GMT

The Solyndra scandal continues to fester and haunt the Obama Administration, as even some of the most ardent supporters of the Administration have become harsh critics. The following statement is particularly profound considering that among the multitude of reliably liberal outlets in the mainstream media, few are more dependable champions of the liberal Democrats and their agenda than the Washington Post.

“Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama’s green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal e-mails.”

Politics, in fact, trumped the stated objectives of job creation and the supposedly “greater good” of green energy at every turn.

The Washington Post review of the Solyndra scandal concluded that the Obama Administration was continually concerned about political “optics” and re-election consequences rather than good government policy. (Full article link here) From pressuring the DOE for approval of the $500 million loan for Solyndra to coincide with a big photo op for Joe Biden to a carefully orchestrated two hour elbow-to-elbow dinner between Barack Obama and George Kaiser, the billionaire principal Solyndra investor, the White House staff was driven by the ‘’president’s prospects for a second term,” according to the WaPo. “Rarely, if ever, was there discussion of the impact that Solyndra’s collapse would have on laid-off workers or on the development of clean-energy technology,” according to the lengthy feature article.

In particular, the plight of the 1100 Solyndra workers seemed to be a non-issue. “It’s not about the people; it’s politics,” the WaPo quotes ex-Solyndra employee Linda Sterio as saying. Sterio says she learned of her plight and the company’s collapse by listening to a newscast. Only recently did she also find out that the Obama Administration had known of the perilous financial condition of the company long before its public demise. “We all feel betrayed,” she said.

The loan to Solyndra was part of Obama’s Economic Stimulus spending extravaganza. Yet, Obama apparently accepts no responsibility for the debacle, or for the 1100 displaced workers. In a recent interview with Steve Kroft for the CBS News program 60 Minutes, Kroft pressed Obama to respond to criticism that the Stimulus hadn’t worked as the President had promised. Appearing insulted by the question and the inference, Obama shot back, “We did all the right things.”

Setting aside for a moment the arrogance of that assertion, it really can only make sense in one perverted context; that the “right thing” for the Administration to do was focus entirely and at any cost to the taxpayer on the re-election of Barack Obama.

Behind Iraq’s Chaos: Cause to Fear Worse as US Exits

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:21:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

December 23, 2011--Just days after the American colors were “cased” in Iraq, a wave of al Qaeda-style bombings struck Baghdad, killing dozens. The attacks also cast doubt on President Obama’s claim that, with our GIs coming home after nine years, Iraq is now “sovereign, stable and self-reliant.”

Analysts have strong concerns about what comes next for Iraq itself and for the region, as well as for our Afghanistan efforts and the broader War on Terror — and for US leadership in the Middle East.

Of course, it’s great to have our brave young men and women home, especially for the holidays. We owe this latest “greatest generation” a deep debt of gratitude for its service to our country far from kith and kin.

That said, it would have been wiser to keep a sufficiently robust, combat-capable force in Iraq — but Washington failed to close any such deal with Baghdad. Now the total US pullout has left Iraq teetering on the brink of instability and keeping bad company.

Iraq still suffers from regular sectarian violence, insurgent attacks and terrorism, including yesterday’s Baghdad bombings. Its badly divided government is unable to provide even basic services to the populace consistently.

The latest crisis: Government terrorism charges levied against Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi and reported moves to oust some politicians, such as Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. Many of their fellow Sunnis see this as nothing more than part of an ongoing power-grab by Shia elements in the government, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Even before these incidents added fuel to what is becoming a powder keg, Sunnis and Kurds saw the writing on the wall and have been pushing for regional self-governance.

These political troubles have generated fears that the increasingly disaffected “Awakening” Sunnis, who helped turn the tide against al Qaeda during the US “surge,” will return to the terror group or join other insurgent outfits.

Then there’s Iraq’s foreign relations, especially growing Iranian influence in the country via sympathetic Iraqi Shia “elites” and militias (e.g., the Mahdi Army) that serve their mullah masters in Tehran.

For Iran, sway in Iraq is another stepping-stone to gaining and exercising dominance over the heart of the Middle East. Tehran’s allies already include the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Also vexing is Baghdad’s unwillingness to hammer neighboring Damascus over the regime’s brutal crackdown, whose death toll (by UN estimates) may top 5,000. Late last month, Iraq voted against the Arab League’s punitive sanctions on Syria, steps aimed at stemming the seemingly endless violence.

In a way, the vote makes sense: Iraq trades a lot with Syria, and Baghdad’s Shia leaders aren’t interested in the rise of a Sunni (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood) regime in Damascus. But it’s still a bit surprising, because Syria has been a problem for years, including allowing of the passage of insurgents into Iraq.

Meanwhile, the rapid drop in US influence in Iraq (despite a huge, ongoing diplomatic effort) will almost certainly ripple its way to Afghanistan, where Team O seems to be looking for the exit as well.

It’s very likely the White House will cut Afghanistan troop levels this summer (in advance of the US presidential election), moving to a strategy centered on drone attacks, special-ops raids and training of the Afghan army and police.

One can only imagine that the “terrorist trio” of the Taliban, the Haqqani Network and al Qaeda is counting the days, encouraged further by how rapidly the US troop presence plunged in Iraq.

Whether intended or not, the near-total departure of our GIs from Iraq will leave America perceptibly weaker in the Middle East, creating a huge power vacuum that will be filled by players with interests and ideals very different from our own.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. He can be reached at peterbrookes@heritage.org. This article was also published in his regular column in the New York Post.

Tip-of-the-Hat: Catherine Anthony Adair

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:05:00 GMT

Rather than a mere Tip-of-the-Hat this month, we probably should be awarding a Medal of Honor to Catherine Anthony Adair. Since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision the debate over abortion has raged on in America. Well beyond 50 million abortions have been performed, and while there has been some decline in the annual totals over the last decade, about 1.2 million reported abortions still occur every year in the U.S.

There are many reasons for the slight decline in the number of abortions. The widespread usage of the sonogram that gives an expectant mother a face-to-face look at her baby as early as nine weeks into the pregnancy may be the greatest advance for the pro-life movement. But, considerable credit has to be given to courageous women like Catherine Anthony Adair, too. Adair once worked for Planned Parenthood. But, after seeing the truth behind the smokescreen, she now speaks out to expose the "abortion first" business model of the agency.

Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider by far, performing nearly 30 percent of all abortions in the U.S. and the agency's "market share" is increasing. From 2000-2009, Planned Parenthood's the total number of abortions performed by the agency increased 69 percent. Since Planned Parenthood receives more than $350 million in government funding each year, great pro-life advocates like Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) continue to object to taxpayer dollars going to an organization that performs abortions. Planned Parenthood has danced around the issue for decades claiming federal dollars are somehow segregated from the abortion services they perform.

Although critics have long attacked the agency for being an "abortion factory," Planned Parenthood has survived with an aggressive public relations campaign and fuzzy reporting that pretends abortion is a tiny fraction of the entire operation. The Mission Statement section of the website carefully makes no mention of abortion, and the procedure receives minimal coverage even under the "services" provided section. Rather, Planned Parenthood maintains that they provide reproductive health care services "based on respect for each individual's right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning." But, Adair courageously exposed a much different agenda at work within the tax exempt agency.

Adair went to work for the Boston Planned Parenthood clinic in 1997 believing the company line, but quickly learned the cold reality. In a November 22, 2011 op-ed for the Washington Examiner, Adair says "Planned Parenthood lies about itself." Rather than providing pre-natal care to expectant mothers, counseling and basic health care services, Adair says, she "spent her days urging women to terminate their pregnancies." Her supervisors "constantly reminded me of our abortion-centered business-model: abortions first, everything else came second."

An often cited defense of Planned Parenthood is that abortions make up "only 3 percent of services provided" in their clinics. But, the agency is playing loose with the statistics. Many individual women will get a number of different "services" that would include vaccinations, wellness exams, breast and cervical cancer screenings, contraception, and STD testing and treatment.

Adair says a more realistic assessment is that "abortion patients constitute 12 percent of all Planned Parenthood clients, or 332,000 of 3 million unduplicated clients." Most astounding, according to Adair, abortion "makes up 98 percent of Planned Parenthood's services to pregnant women." It tests the imagination to believe that 98 of every 100 women that have a positive pregnancy exam make a fully "informed, independent decision" to end the pregnancy by abortion.

Adair says she was coached by supervisors to refer to the unborn baby as a "clump of cells" or "the contents of the uterus." Irrespective of contentions otherwise, Planned Parenthood's mission is to "pressure as many women into having an abortion as it can," according to Adair. "Those in charge know that can't be accomplished if they refer to the child as a 'baby'."

Exploding Planned Parenthood's façade, Adair offers a chilling assessment; "There is no counseling, no care, no waiting and no discussion. Once a pregnancy is confirmed, it is off to termination."

Planned Parenthood claims to be all about what is good and beneficial for women, and indeed, they get tremendous support from various "feminist" organizations. Adair takes exception, blasting Planned Parenthood for taking "advantage of women who are too young or misinformed to know better" than to trust the agency to be fully honest with them. "Planned Parenthood is not 'pro-women' as it claims to be," she says. "It is pro-abortion. It does not stand for women. It stands for ending our pregnancies. Women are treated as commodities, not as human beings."

The abortions-first agenda at Planned Parenthood results in other tragedies, too. "Sexual abuse of minor girls and exploitation of the poor and minorities is concealed or ignored, all in the name of more abortions," says Adair.

Adair is not the only voice speaking out. Abby Johnson was a Planned Parenthood volunteer who eventually became the director of a clinic in southeastern Texas. Johnson described herself as "extremely pro-choice" when she first joined Planned Parenthood, but eventually she became disillusioned when her supervisors pressured her to increase revenues with more abortions. "Every meeting that we had was, 'We don't have enough money – we've got to keep these abortions coming," she said. "It's a very lucrative business and that's why they want to increase the numbers."

Johnson joined Planned Parenthood with the same idealistic goals as Adair; to provide counseling and basic health care services including education about reproductive health for women. But, Johnson found that there was a different agenda in play. "For them there's not a lot of money in education," she said. "There's not as much in family planning as there is in abortion."

After witnessing a baby "crumple" on the ultrasound monitor for the first time during the abortion procedure, Johnson had an epiphany. "I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart…a spiritual conversion," she said. Johnson quit her job and joined a pro-life prayer group that had been praying outside her clinic.

We have a lot of problems with the abortion industry in America, including that providers like Planned Parenthood have been far less than honest. We tip our hat to Catherine Anthony Adair, Abby Johnson and all those courageous women who have witnessed the truth and are willing to tell the world.

Holder tosses the Race Card

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:30:00 GMT

Eric Holder doesn’t have a good answer for his involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal, but he has come up with an explanation for why he is the target of so much criticism. It’s because he’s black, which he says is also why Barack Obama gets criticized, too.

Holder says he’s a convenient two-fer for Obama critics. People identify him with the President because “you know, the fact that we’re both African American.” He also says those people who take exception with him or with Obama are part of the “more extreme segment” of America.

So, this administration doesn’t make mistakes, and can’t possibly be wrong. And, if you happen to disagree with them, you are either an extremist, a racist, or more likely, both.

This comes from the Attorney General of the first post-racial President – outrageous! Here’s an excerpt from the interview published in the New York Times, with the full article linked here:

“Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the ‘more extreme segment’ — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. ‘This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,’ he said, ‘both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.’”

Good News for the Month: Out of the Mouths of Babes!

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:56:00 GMT

Each month in this space we so our best to find a suitable story or event that inspires hope and lifts the spirit. A cousin of my wife living on the east coast provided this month's offering that is particularly appropriate for the Christmas season. For our non-Christian friends, please don't take offense at the message, but rather use it as a reminder that we all need to at least occasionally pause and reflect on what really matters most in life and the blessings we have all been given.

As often happens, the beauty and honesty of this message is rooted in a child, which you will see in the music video and the story of the song's origin that follows. But, the wisdom of the phrase "out of the mouths of babes" dates back at least 2600 years. Psalm 8:3 reads, "Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have drawn a defense against your foes, to silence enemy and avenger."

There is a New Testament reference, as well. In Matthew's Gospel chapter 21:15-16 some of the Chief Priests and Scribes of the Temple expressed their indignation to Jesus that some children had spontaneously rejoiced, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" as he passed by them. In reply to the religious scholars, Jesus said, "Yes; and have you never read the text, 'Out of the mouths of infants and nurslings you have brought forth praise'?"

The following video speaks for itself. The Good News for this Month is that our children still have the real "Good News" in their hearts, and they remind us of it whenever we pause long enough to listen. Enjoy, and Merry Christmas!

About the Song
By Becky Kelley

While at the mall a couple of years ago, my then four year old nephew, Spencer, saw kids lined up to see Santa Claus. Having been taught as a toddler that Christmas is the holiday that Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, he asked his mom, "where's the line to see Jesus"?

My sister mentioned this to my dad, who immediately a inspired and jotted words down to a song in just a few minutes. After putting music to the words, and doing a quick recording at home, he received a great response from friends. He sent the song off to Nashville without much response, except for a Christian song writer who suggested adding a bridge at the end of the first chorus. My dad then asked if I wanted to record the song to see what we could do with it. I listened to the song, made a few changes to the words to make it flow better, and we headed to Shock City Studios.

It was at the studio where Chris, owner and producer, rewrote the 2nd verse and part of the chorus... with goose bumps and emotions high, we were all hopeful and felt like we had something special. The demo was recorded in just under 2 hours and sent off again to Nashville... still no response.

Then 2 weeks before Christmas last year, my cousins Greg and Robbie decided to do a video to see what we could accomplish on YouTube. The first day we had 3000 hits and it soared from there. We received e-mails, phone calls, Facebook messages from people all over asking for the music, CD's, iTunes, anything... we had nothing. After a couple of meetings with Chris following the amazing response, we got serious. We headed back into the studio this past spring... this time with guitars, drums, bass, pianos, choirs.... the real deal.... and here we are today.

Getting iTunes set up, a website put together, and loving that thousands upon thousands of Christians have come together... remembering the true meaning of Christmas. Out of the mouths of babes come profound truths that many adults cannot understand. Hopefully Spencer's observation will cause people all over to reflect on the love of Jesus, and that one day we will all stand in line to see Him. We are most thankful to our Heavenly Father to have this chance to share our music with you. Merry Christmas everyone.

More at http://wheresthelinetoseejesus.com/

An Uncertain "Gift": Hopes & Fears on North Korea

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:58:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

The news of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il's death is akin to a beautifully wrapped holiday present: It's full of promise, but might turn out to be a huge disappointment.

Like the gift, it might hold the best we could hope for: Freedom for the North Korean people from the political, economic and social bondage they've been held in since the country's founding in 1949.

Kim's anointed successor, his inexperienced 28-year-old son Kim Jong Un, could open the nearly hermetically sealed country to the outside world, perhaps starting cautiously with its large neighbor and best friend, China.

Pyongyang could liberalize its repressive Stalinist political system, which has now served three generations of Kims, even eliminating their infamous gulags, where "enemies" of the state are sent to die.

North Korea could also toss aside its disastrous, collectivist economic system, which yielded a largely self-imposed famine, stretching back to the mid-1990s, with millions left to starve.

It could also stop spending a third of its limited national budget on nukes, missiles and a million-man army - and make peace with South Korea and the United States.

Sadly, the gift box probably doesn't hold any of that. The new boss will likely be the same as the old boss, changing little of how things are done in this "socialist paradise" - and will likely continue causing trouble both on and off the Korean peninsula.

That means North Korea will continue its confrontational policies toward South Korea, Japan and the United States. Just last year, the North sunk a South Korean warship and shelled an off-shore island in unprovoked acts of hostility.

Pyongyang will work to hone its ballistic-missile and nuclear-weapon programs, too. It's already believed to be able to reach the western United States - and may be developing hard-to-detect mobile ICBMs.

When it comes to "trade," the North will likely carry on its nuclear and missile mischief with Iran, benefiting both parties, and persist in hawking its nuclear and missile wares to places like Syria and Burma.

But it could be worse.

The transition from Papa Kim to Junior may be a done deal, but that's not certain by any stretch of the imagination. And other all-too-possible scenarios have some ugly consequences.

For instance, Kim Jong Un could feel that he has to show his mettle as the new leader (both internally and externally), undertaking provocations against the United States or South Korea that could spin out of control.

Worse, a power struggle for control of the country could erupt between factions of the Korean People's Army. Not only might you see armed conflict, but a struggle for control of North Korea's nukes.

Any such brawl could lead to massive refugee flows, leading to a huge humanitarian crisis - and potential intervention from the outside.

It's never been exactly clear how China would react to a collapse or an internal conflict next door in North Korea. Let's hope the world doesn't find out in the middle of a crisis.

Most likely, the gift box doesn't hold anything big, whether good (democracy) or bad (civil war). But then again, what's beneath that holiday wrapping often is a surprise, despite our best guesses. So it's best to keep our expectations modest, while getting set to deal with whatever gets unwrapped.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. He can be reached at peterbrookes@heritage.org. This article was also published in his regular column in the New York Post.

Athens to Rome by Sea: Rumination Upon Ruins Ancient and Modern

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:15:00 GMT

(Rome) If one would conjure in imagination what Gibbon called the "Glory that was Greece and the Grandeur that was Rome" a worthwhile approach is to set sail upon Homer's "wine dark sea" and in select ports of call contemplate with awe the visible Ruins of those mighty civilizations that are the foundation of our own.

In the many centuries since Greece and Rome held sway over the known world visitors like Gibbon have come to view marble remains while parsing ancient texts and searching for clues to the fate of their own world.

In ironic fashion Athens and Rome are once again centers of intense worldwide interest, though not as progenitors of Western Civilization but rather possible contributors to its financial collapse.

Indeed, how times have changed. Places that produced leaders like Pericles, and Marcus Aurelius, now offer only Papandreous and Berlusconis. Peoples who once sent Captains like Alexander and Caesar to bestride the far corners of the earth now reach exhaustion mastering a sand pile called Libya.

At mid-point in our journey my ruminations on all this were enriched by the insights of an old English friend who I first met at Oxford in 1970. Paul, "a former naval person" retired from MI-5 (I think) and his ever elegant French wife Nicole now grow prize-winning roses at their lovely seaside cottage in Cornwall. We became close when our respective governments sent us to a summer "cultural exchange" in Communist Romania, then under the heel of the beastly tyrant Nicolae Ceasusescu. With wonderful English understatement Paul suggested that his only instruction from his sponsor was "Just be alert, old boy".

The itinerary of this cultural exchange- wandering across Transylvanian countryside, Black Sea coast, Bucharest etc.- allowed ample time for idle conversation between like-minded individuals willing to civilly but enthusiastically criticize each other's countries and leaders (e.g. Nixon & Heath) and generally pontificate upon all the great political questions of the day.

To be sure, Paul and I had our biases. He believed that his country would always be a major force in world affairs. I believed that my country would never be afflicted by that strange "civilizational fatigue" that seemed to be leaking into the bloodstream of much of Western Europe. During our recent struggling ascent up the slopes of Europe's last active volcano-Mt. Etna in Sicily- we reached the rueful conclusion that we both had been wrong.

For those who love History roaming through Greece and Italy is a delight since they have so much of it crowded in very compact spaces. The entire flowering of Greek civilization took place in an area just a third the size of Colorado. In a single city- Florence- is the greatest concentration of Western Art in the world, and the finest museum-The Uffizi. Three giants of Western Art, Science, and Philosophy-Michelangelo, Galileo, and Machiavelli-are at rest in the same darkened Church. Nearby one can gaze upon Michelangelo's David, arguably the most nearly perfect expression of Western Art anywhere in the world.

What Gibbon did for the Ancient World in his Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire (5 vols. 1776-1788) the German philosopher Oswald Spengler sought to do for the Modern World in his darkly prophetic Decline of the West ( 2 vols. 1918-1922) which argued that all cultures are subject to the same historically predetermined cycle of growth and decay.

Spengler wrote in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophically self-destructive First World War, the initial act of a European Civil War (1914-1945) which prematurely ended that continent's global ascendance and inflicted a devastating spiritual wound upon the Western psyche that is unhealed to this day.

What one sees in Florence particularly and the Renaissance generally is an extraordinary amalgam of Greek, Roman, and Christian civilization the salient characteristics of which are the boundless dynamism, energy, and self-confidence that simultaneously produced the world's greatest art, the birth of modern science, and unleashed the Age of Discovery.

The present generation must answer whether those characteristics remain in sufficient abundance to meet the stern challenges of this time of Doubt and Divisiveness. To find that answer, however, they will need the guidance of History, and the resource of Faith to first fully understand the question.

---------
William Moloney's columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, Human Events and Denver Post. He is a Fellow of the Centennial Institute in Colorado.

Destroy the Drone?

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:03:00 GMT

Last week in a CNN interview, former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized President Obama's recent decision to forego an attempt to destroy the hi-tech American RQ-170 Sentinel drone that crash-landed in Iran recently.

In response to the President saying, "We've asked for it [the drone] back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Cheney told CNN: "The right response to that would have been to go in immediately after it had gone down and destroy it."

The Veep has a point.

While those of us outside the government don't have access to the information presented to the President when he made the decision to let the Iranians recover the Sentinel, there's reason to think that we should've tried to destroy it.

First, the stealthy RQ-170 is our -- and the world's -- most advanced drone, playing a key role in collecting tactical and strategic intelligence and supporting our war fighters through its reported ability to evade air defenses and radar.

In fact, it's been reported that a similar drone was flying over Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan when our forces raided it in May. No question: It's an impact player.

In Tehran's hands, not only will Iran attempt to exploit the Sentinel for its unique design, engineering, sensors and communications capabilities, it's very likely that the Chinese and Russians will get a peek at it as well--at a minimum.

This is a piece of equipment you wouldn't want to fall into an enemy's or a potential adversary's hands.

Second, assuming a military attack to destroy the drone wouldn't have put a lot of innocent lives in danger, it seems that the drone could have been destroyed using a number of military means, since it apparently wasn't able to self-destruct.

While sending in U.S. commandos to destroy, or recover, the drone is probably too risky, considering the possibility of capture, as Cheney suggested, it could've been struck while on the ground in Iran using some sort of American air assets.

It seems that--from riskiest to least risky--a fighter strike; an armed Predator drone attack or a cruise missiles assault, launched from a U.S. ship or submarine, could've done a number on the RQ-170.

But for some reason the President decided against it. He couldn't really have believed the Iranians would give it back. It's more likely that he felt that destroying the drone on Iranian soil would've provoked Tehran more than the incident has already.

There's little doubt that a smoking hole of the RQ-170 drone (courtesy of the U.S. military) would serve to upset Iran further, but then again it's hard to imagine Iran's behavior or U.S.-Iran relations getting worse than they currently are.

Indeed, weak American policy towards Iran has likely gotten us to where we are today with Iran's unbridled nuclear and ballistic missile programs; its recent plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States; its meddling in Iraq; or, its ties to al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terror groups, among other problems.

Let's face it: Iran isn't a friend of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true. It's not as if being cordial with Tehran is getting us any traction in modifying Iran's status as a bad actor on the world stage.

Sometimes in life you regret the things you don't do more than the things you do. Not destroying the drone and sending Iran a strong signal about American resolve on this and a number of matters may be one of those things we'll live to regret.

----------
Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.

No Friend of Israel's

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:00:00 GMT

The Obama Administration has tirelessly -- one might even say tiresomely -- proclaimed its rock solid commitment to Israel. The message has been delivered by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and most flamboyantly, by the president himself. At a recent fundraiser attended by Jewish donors, President Obama boasted, "I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration." Both clauses of that sentence are risible.

In fact, the Obama administration's approach to Israel has been decidedly cool when it has not been openly irate. It began in the early weeks of the new administration. Traveling to the region, the president visited American allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He skipped Israel.

Rather than consult with Israel about the delicate state of relations with the Palestinians, President Obama jumped directly into the process with a peremptory demand: Israel should cease all settlement activity. Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, had made no such demand regarding renewing negotiations. But once the president of the United States had essentially declared the opening position of the Palestinian Authority, he could hardly demand less. Accordingly, while Netanyahu had agreed to a settlement freeze and no preconditions for resuming negotiations, talks stalled as Abbas refused to participate.

That the administration blamed Israel, and not the Palestinians or itself for the impasse became clear when Vice President Biden was visiting the Jewish state in 2010. During the Vice President's trip, a municipal authority in Jerusalem announced a building permit for a block of apartments in Jerusalem. The usually phlegmatic President Obama went ballistic. Though Netanyahu apologized to Biden, and Biden accepted the apology on the spot, President Obama insisted that Secretary of State Clinton call Netanyahu and chew him out for 40 minutes. Details of the dressing down were immediately released to the press.

Not satisfied with this, a few days later presidential advisor David Axelrod appeared on a Sunday chat show to reiterate that the White House regarded building apartments for Jews in the capital of the Jewish state as "an affront." Later, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House, President Obama delivered the final slaps – declining to pose for pictures or take press questions with the prime minister; delivering a list of steps Israel would have to take to restore trust; and then pointedly walking out on the prime minister with the parting words "Let me know if there is anything new."

Contrast that treatment with the administration's passivity in the face of Palestinian conduct. In March of 2010, Palestinian terrorists entered the home of Udi and Ruth Fogel in the town of Itamar on the West Bank. The terrorists first slit the throats of Udi and his 3-month old daughter Hadas. Ruth was in the bathroom but was attacked and killed as she emerged. Two more sons, Yoav, 11, and Elad, 4, were also killed by knives to the heart. Their throats were slit as well. There were three more Fogel children. Two other boys, ages 8 and 2, asleep on the sofa, were apparently missed by the murderers. Twelve-year-old Tamar, who had been spending Shabbat with friends, returned home to discover 2-year-old Yishai standing over the bodies of his parents and begging them to wake up.

In Rafah, Palestinians celebrated the news of the massacre by dancing, singing, and handing around sweets.

The Obama Administration issued a pro-forma condemnation. "There is no possible justification for the killing of parents and children in their home" it read. Secretary Clinton called the murders "inhuman" and reportedly coaxed a more robust denunciation of the atrocity from Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas than he had at first offered.

But there has been little else – no ongoing campaign to shame or humiliate the Palestinians; no list of actions they must undertake to show their good faith – not even a particularly strong expression of revulsion.

The administration has let it be known, again and again, that it regards Israel as the obstacle to peace. This, at a time when Israel's neighbors have given the world abundant reasons for worry. The Palestinian Authority has formally allied with the terrorist organization Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas announced just last week that "there are now no differences between us." Does that include Hamas's implacable determination to destroy the Jewish state and to exterminate Jews all over the world "no matter how long that should take"?

Meanwhile, in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 40 percent of the vote in parliamentary elections, while another 25 percent went to Salafi forces. The Salafis regard the Muslim Brotherhood as squishes. Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, leader of the Salafis, is scornful of the Muslim Brotherhood for talking about citizenship and freedom outside the strictures of Islamic law. El-Shahat is not so broad-minded. "I want to say: citizenship restricted by Islamic sharia, freedom restricted by Islamic Sharia, equality restricted by Islamic Sharia." So two-thirds the Egyptian electorate supports candidates who will find Hamas utterly congenial.

The regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria is engaged in a bloody repression of his restive people that has claimed the lives of more than 5000 brave protesters.

But the Obama Administration is dismayed by Israel.

Every previous US administration has tacitly accepted that Israel has nuclear weapons and has chosen not to make an issue of it. And for good reasons. Every fair-minded analyst understands that Israel is a tiny nation surrounded by enemies dedicated to her destruction. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is understood to be a purely defensive measure. But the Obama Administration, in the person of Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State and America's chief nuclear arms negotiator, has called on Israel (along with Pakistan, India, and North Korea) to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It is hard to interpret this as anything less than a hostile act by the United States.

When Turkey and a consortium of Islamist and leftist groups (including Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn) organized the so-called "Freedom Flotilla" to run the legal blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, President Obama failed to condemn the Turks. Yet when Israel was forced to confront the ships at sea, the U.S. declared that the blockade (also imposed, incidentally, by Egypt) was "unsustainable and unacceptable". Rather than defend Israel at the United Nations when the inevitable resolution condemning Israel was presented to the Security Council, the U.S. voted with Israel's enemies. It was a move that Elliott Abrams called "joining the jackals."

The president telegraphed his intention to distance the United States from Israel in his first address to the United Nations. "The United States does Israel no favors," he said, "when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians." The clear implication is that Israel is not, in fact, respecting the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.

In his second address to the UN, the president went further -- demanding that Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders (with land swaps). After enduring bitter criticism from Republicans and even some Democrats in Congress, the administration attempted to justify its recommendation of what Abba Eban called "Auschwitz borders" by suggesting that "everyone knows" that a future Palestinian state will be on the West Bank and Gaza. But once again, rather than insist that the Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state, or that the Palestinians purge the terrorists from their midst, the president placed all of the onus on Israel. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, repairing to the language of those with nothing on the line, encouraged Israel to "take risks for peace." In his less serene moments, he has barked that Israel should "get back to the damn table" -- an extraordinary example of anti-Israel bias by the Obama administration since it is the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who have refused to talk.

Incredibly, even Iran's march toward a nuclear bomb -- arguably the greatest foreign policy challenge of this decade -- has been blamed on Israel by the Obama administration. Former National Security Advisor James Jones offered that "We understand Israel's preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat. We agree with that. . . . By the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution."

This was no stray remark. A few weeks later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made the same point: "For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-à-vis Iran it can't stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinian and the peace efforts . . . they go hand-in-hand." In other words, any effort to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is perceived by this administration not as a national security priority for the United States, but as a favor to Israel.

Even assuming that the U.S. were going to "reward" Israel with, say, tough sanctions on Iran in exchange for "progress" on a Palestinian state, what world are living in when you imagine that a two-state solution would have any bearing whatsoever on Iran's nuclear ambitions? Does President Obama believe that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons in order to achieve a Palestinian state?

President Obama brought to relations with Israel the leftist views he'd imbibed from academia, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Prof. Rashid Khalidi, and from the left wing of the Democratic Party (Jimmy Carter supported the Palestinian's bid for statehood at the UN). Yes, he's sold the Israelis bunker buster bombs, and engaged in military to military cooperation. But the most important support America provides to Israel is public. The most damaging attacks on Israel in the 21st century (so far) have not been military but moral and psychological. Israel's enemies have sought to delegitimize and defame the Jewish state -- with some success. So-called "Israel Apartheid" protests have proliferated on university campuses. UN conferences at Durban have trafficked in anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic slanders. It is becoming acceptable in Europe to say that Israel's birth was a mistake. Even a liberal columnist for the Washington Post, Richard Cohen, has expressed this view.

The nations of the world, never a sentimental lot, have the capacity to descend to a lynch mob where Israel is concerned. Only the military, political, diplomatic, and moral support of the United States prevents that. President Obama, whatever behind-the-scenes aid he has provided to the Jewish state, has failed in the far more important public support for one of America's closest allies.

----------
Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist whose work appears Tuesdays and Fridays in National Review Online and many other publications. She can be reached through Creators Syndicate, in Los Angeles, or at charenmail@cox.net.

Stopping The Obama Administration's Attack on Freedom of Religion

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:38:00 GMT

The First Amendment – nothing means more to freedom and liberty in America. It serves as the bedrock of our democratic values. It provides for the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. Yet, today this foundation of our country is under attack.

The conscience clause is derived from the first amendment protection of our freedom of religion. Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the conscience clause has essentially provided that the government will not compel individuals or entities who receive public funds to provide contraceptives, sterilization procedures, or to perform abortions if those actions are contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs.

In May of 2009, President Obama committed to protecting the conscience clause when he stated in a speech at the University of Notre Dame that we should "honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion." We all know what happened next. The President and his allies introduced the 2,409 page behemoth known as ObamaCare, with then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously stating that "we have to pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it."

Unlike Pelosi, many of us on Capitol Hill read the bill and knew what was in it. ObamaCare amounted to no more than a government takeover of our healthcare system. With that government takeover was an attack on the conscience clause. Filled with big government mandates, ObamaCare even requires religious-affiliated colleges and universities, social service organizations, and hospitals to provide all Food and Drug Administration approved contraception methods and sterilization procedures. That includes contraceptives that cause abortions such as Plan B and Ella.

Publicly, the Obama Administration and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius state that there is a religious exemption in the law. However, that religious exemption only covers a religious employer that primarily employs and serves those who share its faith. Since Christians believe in helping all those in need, most Christian religious organizations need not apply. Accordingly, Belmont Abbey College (my alma mater), Wheaton College, the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities, the Institution of Religious Freedom Alliance and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty have stood up in opposition.

The Obama Administration and Secretary Sebelius seem incredulous that anyone would stand in their way. Ms. Sebelius recently addressed a NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraiser and proclaimed "we are in a war" as she touted the ObamaCare regulation that would force those who will not submit to pay a very hefty fine. Planned Parenthood Health System Vice President of Public Policy Melissa Reed seemed to echo the sentiments of Secretary Sebelius when she stated that allowing religious organizations "to opt out would set a dangerous precedent because it would undermine" ObamaCare. As if the waivers for the President's favorite special interest groups like big unions haven't already done so.

In response to the left's attack on religious freedom, House Republicans have passed the Protect Life Act and the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act to strengthen existing conscience clause protections. However, just like the stack of jobs bills the House has passed, both pieces of legislation lie untouched in the Democrat led Senate.

In order to truly protect the Freedom of Religion, Americans will have to choose a new President on November 6th, 2012.

The Unsung Story: George W. Bush's Overwhelming Success in the Battle to Fight HIV and Aids

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:42:00 GMT

Despite continued focus and attention on America's healthcare crisis – and the Obama administration's crafting of a reform bill that will drive the final nail into the coffin – there is a true "feel good" story about healthcare that's been largely ignored. In their fury to blame George W. Bush for everything from the failing economy to global warming, the media have ignored the overwhelming and sustained success of his efforts to address HIV and AIDs in Africa. AIDs activists, NGOs and media elites are quick to heap praise on Obama for expanding AIDs-fighting programs, but the real credit belongs to his predecessor.

The "secret" to Bush's formula for success was a departure from previous multi-billion dollar aid initiatives. Bush envisioned a new kind of aid program – one that focused on creating partnerships with businesses and private industry rather than delivering trucks full of cash to corrupt local governments and inefficient aid organizations. He proved that large scale treatment and aggressive prevention programs can be implemented by leveraging relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that produce retroviral drugs, and the private sector, including churches, to deliver care.

Both the 2002 Global Fund to Fight AIDs, Malaria and Tuberculosis and his 2003 President's Emergency Plan for AIDs Relief (PEPFAR) delivered remarkable and measurable impact on a hugely suffering population. Indisputably, the programs helped to save 30 million lives from the scourge of AIDS, and proved to be one of the most successful foreign aid initiatives ever. Recent economic development and free market reforms have been possible in Africa largely as a result of its people being yanked back from the brink of near certain death.

In addition to markedly decreasing the incidence of new HIV infection and deaths from AIDs, Bush's efforts engendered significant good will and gratitude from the peoples of Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and Uganda – an important and rarely reported side-effect by those propagating the myth of the U.S's dismal reputation around the globe.

Today, PEPFAR and the Global Fund continue to provide retroviral drug therapy to suppress HIV infection and programs to prevent maternal transmission of HIV to children.

But that's not all: Bush's healthcare legacy extends beyond these initial programs to the work that his twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, are now pursuing. The Bush daughters helped to formulate the concept for Global Health Corps, an NGO with a mission to improve access to healthcare in impoverished communities in the Unites States and around the world. Both are now actively involved in its operations. Similar to their father's approach with PEPFAR, the Global Health Corps leverages people with operating experience and connections to supply chains rather than simply providing cash and supplies – the only truly sustainable way to manage global health crises. Given our country's current financial constraints, we can anticipate growing challenges to our commitment to many humanitarian efforts; this model for foreign aid provides our best hope for continued success.

Whether this story has been simply over-looked or actively suppressed by the main stream media is unclear. Without question, the media and the current administration remain obsessed with unfairly blaming Bush for a host of economic and other ills, and he rarely receives the recognition he deserves for his accomplishments. Many have predicted that history will ultimately paint his presidency quite attractively. In the near term, however, the irrefutable, if oft ignored, legacy of George W. Bush may well be the story of his optimism, creativity, commitment and success in addressing suffering and a true healthcare crisis on another continent, and his vision for a sustainable approach to humanitarian aid.

The Telescope: Obama Fails at Math

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:00:00 GMT

"The math is the math. You can't lower (tax) rates and raise revenues."

- Barack Obama, December 11, 2011

When I heard the President make the above statement to Steve Kroft during an interview on the CBS News program 60 Minutes…well, I thought of Ronald Reagan. No, not because Obama seemed Reaganesque, as he would want us to believe, but because Ronald Reagan believed just the opposite, and proved that he was right.

And, I thought of Presidents Harding, Kennedy, and George W. Bush, too. All Presidents that had lowered tax rates that stimulated more economic activity – and increased the total revenue sent to the U.S. Treasury.

But, Obama seemed so sure of himself, as he is pretty good at doing, that I just had to go check the record. After all, he's the one who said, "The math is the math." So, I figured the numbers would hold the truth.

Warren G. Harding took office in March 1921 inheriting a huge debt from World War I and an economy in shambles. Harding had campaigned on a promise to slash spending, and once elected he put Charles Dawes, an experienced businessman and banker, in charge of the budget. In 1921, they reduced federal spending from $6.3 billion to $5 billion. In 1922, they slashed it to $3.3 billion – a reduction of 47.6% in just two years – and had the budget back in balance.

Harding believed the way to increase revenue was to stimulate economic activity and that meant going after the tax code. Harding and his Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon understood that the top tax rate of 77 percent was encouraging wealthy Americans to seek tax shelters and investments that allowed them to avoid sending the government nearly 4 of every 5 dollars they made. Mellon said the following:

"The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people."

Harding and Mellon cut all individual income tax rates. The top rate gradually dropped from 77 to 25 percent by 1929. The lowest income earner's rate was cut from 4 to just 1/2 percent. It worked.

The economy roared and the Treasury was the beneficiary of the surge in incomes and corporate profits. Harding's policies even created a budget surplus which he used to pay down the wartime debt. Furthermore, even though the top marginal rates were dramatically reduced, wealth did "carry its share of the tax burden" as Mellon predicted. The tax burden paid by what qualified as "the wealthy" at the time ($50,000 and up) increased from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent by 1928. Harding never lived to see many of the benefits of his bold leadership. He died of a heart attack in August of 1923, but his policies were ably continued by his successor, Calvin Coolidge.

During the Great Depression, opponents demonized Harding and Coolidge claiming their low taxes somehow caused the recession. Herbert Hoover and then Franklin Roosevelt reversed the policies of Harding and Coolidge raising tax rates asserting that the government needed the money, that higher rates were only fair, and that somehow there would be no negative economic consequences. Sound familiar?

Amity Schlaes's great book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression documents in detail how the Keynesian policies of Hoover and FDR prolonged both the misery and recovery of that era, and established a legacy of big government that is at the root of our nation's fiscal problem today.

John F. Kennedy inherited an economic recession in 1961 and an economy still recovering from World War II and the after effects. But, he also faced the growing national security threat from the Soviet Union, The Cold War. Sounding very much like Andrew Mellon, President Kennedy said the following:

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

Just as happened four decades earlier, after Kennedy pushed through tax rate reductions, economic activity increased and with it, the wealthy paid a larger portion of all income taxes. Total revenue increased 16.9 percent between 1963 and 1966 (inflation adjusted dollars), and the portion of income taxes paid by those making over $50,000 increased by 57 percent while those earning less than $50,000 increased by just 11%. Once again, lower rates led to more total revenue receipts and a more progressive tax code (higher income earners paying a proportionately larger share).

Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan came to the Oval Office following the Carter era of double digit inflation and interest rates with high unemployment resulting in a deep and stubborn recession. Reagan became the champion of what would be known as Supply Side Economics, or Reaganomics. With a capable assist from economist Art Laffer and Congressman Jack Kemp, Reagan successfully made the case again that lower rates stimulated economic activity and would lead to increased total revenue. The now legendary across the board tax rate cuts worked again. Nominal tax revenue increased between 1981 and 1989 a phenomenal 65.4 percent, with most of the growth after 1985 when the full effect of the tax cuts was in motion. Even in inflation adjusted dollars, revenues grew by nearly 21 percent for the period. "Not bad. Not bad, at all," as the Gipper might have said.

As George W. Bush took office a recession was just beginning. Bush passed a round of tax cuts in 2001 scheduled for gradual implementation. Then, with the effects of the recession still taking hold, the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 dealt the economy an enormous blow. It was obvious that the economy needed a big push faster than the slow implementation schedule passed in 2001 was providing. In 2003, Congress passed legislation to accelerate the implementation of the 2001 tax rate reductions and added more, particularly for businesses. Although Barack Obama tries to tell a different version of history, the lower across the board tax rates led to more total revenue in the U.S. Treasury for the fourth time in a century.

Total revenue increased from $1.782.3 billion in 2003 to $2,524.0 billion in 2008. That's a 41.6 percent increase in just five years; 20.3 percent in inflation adjusted dollars. In addition, during that same period 8.7 million more jobs were created according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As Obama said, "the math is the math." And, these numbers don't lie.

Numbers available from the Internal Revenue Service also prove that the current tax rates – the Bush tax rates – have yet again led to a more progressive tax system. The top income earners are paying a larger share of all taxes after the Bush Tax Cuts than they were before. For all the President's demagoguery against those at the top of the income ladder, as the following chart demonstrates, whatever the definition of "wealthy" is, the top few are carrying most of the load, and more low income earners are paying less or in many cases none at all. Here is a breakdown as provided by the IRS for the percentage of all income taxes paid for 2009 and 2001 ranked according to income category:

Percentage of Total Income Tax Paid by Income (AGI) Category

	2009	2001
Top 1%	36.70%	33.89%
Top 5%	58.70%	53.25%
Top 10%	70.50%	64.89%
Top 25%	87.30%	82.90%
Top 50%	97.70%	96.03%
Bottom 50%	2.30%	3.97%

While total revenue to the federal government increased following significant tax reductions during each of the four mentioned Administrations, it is also noteworthy that the percentage of the GDP extracted by the government in tax receipts went down – another healthy indicator.

In the big Kennedy growth years, government receipts declined from 17.8% of total GDP in 1963 to 17.3% in 1966. Federal revenue equaled 19.6% of GDP as Reagan took office in 1981, but just 18.4% as he left in 1989. In 2000 as Bush was getting elected and just before the recession began, the government take of the GDP was 20.6%. By the time he left office in 2008 it was 17.5%. I couldn't find comparable numbers for the Harding years, but these make the point. Lower rates dramatically increased economic activity creating more total revenue for government while leaving a larger percentage of the GDP in the private sector for further economic growth.

During the current recession because of the massive unemployment and decline in economic activity, federal revenue has declined to just 14.9% of GDP in 2009 and 2010. Unfortunately, spending by the government was 25.0% of GDP in 2009 and 23.8% in 2010 adding $2.7 trillion to the federal debt. The challenge facing government is to significantly restrain spending and adopt policies that encourage economic expansion that will restore revenue to normal levels. Historical data clearly indicates that lower tax rates – not tax increases – is the right means to that end.

Democrats like to posit that the Bush Tax Cuts somehow destroyed both jobs and the economy and caused the current economic rut we find ourselves in. Harding, Kennedy, and Reagan critics made the very same false arguments. In every case, after their policies led to more economic activity and more federal revenue, the politicians ramped up spending and eventually raised taxes. We also know what that did to the economy.

Democrats also like to point to the Clinton economic policies – he raised taxes in 1993 – as evidence that tax increases somehow work. But, the numbers tell a different story; it didn't work all that well, after all. Clinton was the beneficiary of some very good fortune including the end of the Cold War, the dot.com boom, exceptionally low energy prices and low inflation. Giddy with the afterglow of the Reagan economy and his good luck, Clinton and a Democrat Congress raised taxes in 1993. Curtis Dubay, a senior analyst for economic policy at the Heritage Foundation explains that from 1993 until 1997 the economy "grew at a pedestrian 3.3 percent per year." That is solid performance, but not exceptional according to Dubay, and he further notes that "real wages declined, despite the perception that the 1990's were an era of unmitigated abundance."

As the above chart demonstrates, it wasn't until after a 1997 tax cut, passed by the Republican-led Congress, a tax cut "President Clinton resisted but eventually signed," Dubay notes, that things took off in a big way. In particular the 1997 reduction of the capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent "opened the floodgates necessary for entrepreneurs to develop, harness, and bring to market the wonders of the new information technologies," according to Dubay's analysis.

In their frequent "it's all George Bush's fault" rants about our economic woes, Obama and the Democrats conveniently forget to mention other names like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Fannie and Freddie, or the Community Reinvestment Act. And, when Obama demonizes all those "fat cat bankers" he fails to hold up his good friend John Corzine as "Exhibit-A."

Obama would have us believe that if the wealthy only paid their "fair share" our problems would be over. But, contrary to his revisionist version of history, there is no evidence to back up his theory. There is no math to support "his math." Obama is making an all too familiar argument for America to commit more of the same mistakes of the past, not for adopting the wise lessons from history.

The President is careful to never define what his upper ceiling of tax rate "fairness" is. But, what history confirms is that Art Laffer was absolutely right when he demonstrated with his now famous graph that there is a relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. Specifically, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenues also increase. However, there is a point (*T on the following chart) at which taxes become such a disincentive that people don't work as hard or eventually at all, and tax revenue declines. President Kennedy and Andrew Mellon made identical arguments.

Obama intimates that if only a handful of wealthy folks kicked in their "fair share" that all would be well in Washington. In Osawatomie, Kansas he even singled out the top "one hundredth of 1 percent" and the "breathtaking greed of a few" to make his case for higher taxes. But, he avoids the severity of the fiscal mess America is in which has been dramatically compounded by his policies.

Andrew Biggs is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and also the former Principal Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. So, he's familiar with numbers – big numbers – and, particularly aware of the challenges that await America if we fail to reform existing entitlement programs. Biggs knows that jacking up the tax rate on the wealthy is no real solution. According to his calculations, "to balance the budget over the next 25 years would require an immediate and permanent 30 percent increase in all federal taxes." All taxes, on everybody, by 30 percent, permanently – Harding, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, and anyone with a little common-sense knows that would crush the economy, but it underscores that our problem is not that the wealthy or any other segment of the economy is taxed too little. Government spends way too much. The "fat cat" that Barack Obama should be demonizing is the one in Washington, DC.

When Steve Kroft suggested that Obama's $800 billion Economic Stimulus "didn't work," Obama got animated and interrupted saying the only thing wrong was that he hadn't spent enough. "We should have done an even bigger Recovery Act," he said. Based upon what? Certainly not the lessons of America's political and economic history!

If Obama were serious and really studied "the math," he would be siding with conservatives arguing that spending needs to be reduced to the 18-20% of GDP that sustained America throughout all but the war years of the last century.

He could champion scrapping the existing tax code and adopting a flat income tax or a consumption based plan like the Fair Tax. That would be a more logical "fairness" argument for him to make, but he won't.

He could stop his administration's deluge of new rules and regulations that are further burdening business and slowing recovery, but he won't do that either.

In Osawatomie, Obama declared that the America of the last 225 years was no more. The age of "you're on your own economics" has ended, he said. The "rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government" – which he did allow was "in America's DNA" – well, apparently the President removed that gene from our gene pool. Henceforth, according to Obama, individuals and families will have to rely on the government to solve our problems and satisfy our wants. The nanny-state is open for business, and the business is "spreading the wealth" because income inequality is "the defining issue of our time." In this new age of enlightenment – or, entitlement - no longer are all men simply created equal, we're now committed to equal outcomes – regardless of input.

If you happen to be old-fashioned enough to still think that with low tax rates and limited regulation "our economy will grow stronger"... well, Obama says you're wrong. "It doesn't work. It never has worked," he said without offering his evidence. That's the "new math" in the Age of Obama. And, two plus two probably equals five, if Obama says so, too. Apparently the crowd was full of people who also shared his mistaken notion of history, and math, because they responded with roaring applause.

And, in this Age of Obama, the government – and most particularly the President – is no longer burdened by the restraint of deriving its "just powers from the consent of the governed" through an affirmative vote of the people's elected representatives in Congress. As Obama told Kroft, "I want to work with Congress…but what I'm not going to do is wait for Congress. So, wherever we have an opportunity…to get some things done…we're just going to go ahead and do them."

Obama is keeping one of his campaign promises – to transform America. We're witnessing it at frightening speed and massive consequence. Kroft pointed out to the President that 75% of people believe he has America heading in the wrong direction. But, Obama was unbowed, even indignant. "We did all the right things," he said, and "we've got a lot more work to do." Once again, Obama refuses to accept the truth in the numbers. Three out of four Americans are sending a message he refuses to accept.

Mr. President you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not enough of them to win -- and certainly not to deserve -- re-election.

Transition in North Korea, “Dear Leader” is dead

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:29:00 GMT

The highly unpredictable, secretive, and nuclear armed leader of North Korea, one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, has died. News of the “dear leader” Kim Jong Il’s death immediately set off speculation and concern of “now what?” around the world.

The likely successor, the twenty-something third son Kim Jong Un, is almost completely untested, inexperienced and unknown; a most troubling thought in a closed society with nuclear capabilities. The concern that Un may feel compelled to flex his nuclear muscles and make his leadership mark immediately understandably has South Korea and other neighboring countries on alert. A missile launch today in North Korea added to the tensions, but reportedly is unrelated to Il’s death. The U.S. also has more than 25,000 troops stationed on near the border.

Some foreign policy experts worry that the North Korean military may reject the youthful Un, and spark an internal power struggle. Such further possible instability increases even more the concern about the control, sale, and distribution of North Korea's nuclear technology and the possibility of militarymobilization in an already unpredictable society on the Korean Peninsula and adds to an already tense planet.

For more on the ramifications of the death of Kim Jong Il, we refer you to this STRATFOR brief. Additional information is also in this Wall Street Journal feature article, and another from the New York Times.

More on Iranian Cyberplot, Plus Plans to Close Straits of Hormuz

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:34:00 GMT

Two days ago we reported on bombshell revelation of a cyber-attack plot against the U.S. formulated in Mexico with Iran government officials at the center. The plot was exposed last week in a documentary on Univision, the largest Spanish language network in the U.S.

Today the Washington Times has additional information involving not only the Iranian Ambassador to Mexico, but also the Cuban Embassy, and the Venezuela consul in Miami. The cyberplot was labeled "disturbing" by the State Department, and drew quick response on Capitol Hill, as well.

Senator Robert Menendez, (D-NJ), Chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere has already announced plans for hearings to focus on Iran's activities in Latin America. "If Iran is using regional actors to facilitate and direct activities against the United States, this would represent a substantial increase in the level of the Iranian threat and would necessitate an immediate response," Menendez said.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a letter to Sec. of State Clinton demanding the expulsion of Venezuela consul, Livia Antonieta Acosta Noguera, if the allegations are confirmed.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez denied all the allegations and claimed the cyberplot was a fabrication by the U.S. "They are using a lie as an excuse to attack us," Chavez said. "We must be on our guard."

Read the entire Washington Times feature here.

Meanwhile, Fox News is reporting that Iran announced military exercises to close the Straits of Hormuz. "Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz," said Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee. "If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure." One-sixth of the world's daily consumption of oil moves through the water passage on Iran’s western coast that narrows to just 34 miles.

This is the same Iranian regime that President Obama didn't want to upset by destroying the RQ-170 drone before they got their hands on one of the most sophisticated pieces of aviation reconnaissance technology in the world. The mullahs in Tehran must have missed the “soft diplomacy” invitation from the Oval Office.

Hawaii Five-0 Crew Disgraceful to WWII Pearl Harbor Survivors

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:38:00 GMT

Wednesday, December 7, marked the 70^th anniversary of the “Day that will live in infamy” – the attack on Pearl Harbor that pulled America into World War II. Thanks to The Greatest Generations Foundation, TGGF, headquartered in Denver 23 Pearl Harbor survivors were able to make a return trip to attend the anniversary ceremonies and to pay respect to their fallen comrades.

Accompanying the group was Steffan Tubbs, a TGGF board member and co-host of Colorado Morning News on KOA 850-AM in Denver, and Alicia Harms, a TGGF staff member.

On Friday morning, December 9, the group visited The National Cemetery of the Pacific where veterans of all faiths, many of them World War II vets, are laid to rest. They held a solemn ceremony and the veterans, age 88 to 96, were given time to visit the grave sites to pay respect to friends who are buried there.

Unfortunately, a film crew was also nearby for the CBS production, Hawaii Five-O. I won’t steal the thunder of Mr. Tubbs or Ms. Harms, but everyone should be aware of the shameful disrespect of the Hollywood crowd toward our great aged veterans. (See link below) For the record, I too am a member of the TGGF board and traveled to Normandy last June with a group of D-Day veterans. Tubbs and Harms were on that trip, as well, and I can assure you they are consummate professionals with great patience and understanding. So, when they tell you that our veterans were not shown proper respect, believe every word of it.

Read Steffan Tubbs and Alicia Harms account of the Hawaii Five-O encounter here.

Iranian Cyber-Attack Plot against U.S. exposed in Mexico

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:58:00 GMT

Our three part series “Iran at our Doorstep” published in the Aug-Sept-Oct issues of A Line of Sight documented the three decade progression of Iranian influence and the regime's terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, in Latin America. The series focused on the Iranians continued quest for nuclear weapons, the alliance with Venezuela to establish a missile base within easy striking distance of the U.S., the vulnerability and relative ease of an EMP attack on the U.S., and the criminal alliance between radical Islam and the drug cartels in an increasingly violent, anti-American war. Our series could have also included the threat of a cyber-attack, as well.

A bombshell documentary aired last Thursday by Univision, the largest Spanish language television network in the U.S., exposed efforts for an attack “worse that the World Trade Center” by using a “digital bomb.” The report “uncovered covert recordings of the alleged Iranian plan to cripple the computer systems of the White House, the FBI, the CIA and several nuclear power plants.”

Extended Univision trailer here in Spanish

Implicated in the cyber plot is Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri, a former Iranian Ambassador to Mexico, who is caught on video accepting a plan from undercover Mexican university students. The Univision documentary aired in Spanish was summarized in a report by Israel Ortega and James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation. As the following excerpt explains, the Mexican students received enthusiastic support for the plot from Venezuelan and Cuban officials as well.

“The documentary showed a former Iran senior official accepting a plan to launch from Mexico a cyber war on the United States, one that would cripple U.S. computer systems, including the White House, the FBI, the CIA and several nuclear plants. The official, former Iranian Ambassador to Mexico Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri, was shown accepting the offer from undercover Mexican university students.”

“The documentary also showed the undercover Mexican students presenting plans for the cyber attack to Venezuelan officials in Mexico. The Venezuelan official was very receptive to the plot, saying that she was close to Venezuela’s hard-leftist President Hugo Chavez and that she would love to share the information with him as soon as possible. The same happened with Cuban officials in Mexico, who were equally interested in a plot against the United States.”

“The students in the documentary appeared to have conducted a sting operation similar to the reports carried out by the American journalist James O'Keefe in the U.S.”Link to entire Heritage report here.

The Univision documentary says “Latin America has become the new frontline in the Secret War” against America and the West. The report also notes, as did the A Line of Sight series, the increasingly strong alliance between Hugo Chavez and the Iranian regime, the Iranian military training camps working out of mosques in Venezuela, and the intricately organized money laundering and drug cartel operations used to funds and support radical Islam’s terrorism agenda aimed at the U.S.

The seriousness and severity of a cyber-attack such as Univision exposed “cannot be ignored” according to Ortega and Phillips. Although the documentary didn't make the connection, Iran’s allies against America in addition to Venezuela include China and Russia; two nations with considerable technological and military capabilities. Obama’s much vaunted soft-diplomacy and lead-from-behind strategy has obviously failed. As a result, our enemies are more emboldened and the world is a more dangerous place than it was three years ago.

We hold out little hope that the current Administration will alter course. Unfortunately, other than the occasional glancing reference, the issue of increasing terrorist elements in our Hemisphere and on our border has received only minimal attention in the GOP Presidential primary. But, it should. An often quoted proverb of radical Islam is, “You may have the watches but we have the time.” If America continues to ignore the very real growing threat, or try to wish it away, time will one day run out.

Mr. President, You Forgot the Stick

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 22:02:00 GMT

“Walk softly and carry a big stick.”

---Theodore Roosevelt

U.S. officials have confirmed that Iran has recovered an American top secret RQ-170 drone. The drone reportedly went down near Kashmar in northeastern Iran about 120 miles from the Afghanistan border after U.S. remote pilots “lost control” of the unmanned state-of-the-art vehicle.

Contrary to early Iranian claims that they had shot down the drone, televised images show the vehicle to be essentially intact, which means the Iranians – and their Russian and Chinese “friends” – now have one of our most technologically advanced reconnaissance aircraft. A U.S. military official said this is a “huge loss and makes the top-secret helicopter tail lost during the Usama bin Laden raid in Pakistan ‘look like a pittance,’” according to Fox News.

In a televised ceremony displaying the captured drone, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards aerospace program, said the drone was ambushed using “technical interference in order not to damage the aircraft,” according to a Wall Street Journal report. A banner underneath the drone carried the taunting phrase, “America can’t do a damn thing;” a favorite quote of Islamic revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

Jennifer Griffin of Fox News exposes evidence that Barack Obama wimped-out when faced with a decision to either protect American intelligence and national security or upset the Iranians.

“With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war, the official told Fox News.”

“Among the options the U.S. considered were sending in a special-ops team to retrieve the drone; sending in a team to blow up the aircraft; and launching an airstrike to destroy it.”

Somebody tell the President that the Iranians already are at war with the U.S. regardless of this incident. This is a regime sworn to destroy America, “the infidel Satanic regime.” Iran is led by murderous nuke-obsessed mullahs and a Holocaust denying mad man who delivers Hitleresque rants inciting crowds with “death to America” and “death to Israel.” As Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs.com accurately says, “Iran sees everything as an act of war.” Blowing up a downed drone would have changed nothing.

This week in Osawatomie, Kansas the President likened himself to Teddy Roosevelt. Whatever similarities there might be, we doubt Teddy “Walk-softly-but-carry-a-big-stick” Roosevelt would have been overly concerned about displeasing the mullahs in Tehran. Nor for that matter would have FDR, the other President Roosevelt that Obama so likes to emulate – or, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, or even Bill Clinton. The question of protecting America’s national security or ruffling the feathers of a self-declared adversary is no question at all – except for Barack Obama.

Holder: Lying is "a state of mind" - Threatened with Impeachment

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:15:00 GMT

In case you missed it, Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) had the following exchange with Eric Holder yesterday during the Judiciary Committees grilling of the Attorney General over the Fast & Furious gun running scandal.

Numerous Justice Department officials have been implicated in lying about the Fast & Furious scandal, including the Attorney General himself. And, yet, the AG explains to Sensenbrenner that nobody lied because "lying" is dependent on one's "state of mind."

Had only generations of kids thought to try that defense with their mothers! "Honest, mom, I didn't lie, because I wasn't in a lying state of mind."

Sensenbrenner references the highly unusual withdrawal by the Justice Department of a Feb. 4 letter to Sen. Charles Grassley because of "inaccuracies" about the F&F operation. For background we refer you to our December 3 posting about the DOJ cover-up and go here for additional detailed articles.

Clearly frustrated with Holder's obfiscation, Sensenbrenner bluntly warned Holder that Congress wanted answers. “The thing is, if we don’t get to the bottom of this — and that requires your assistance on that — there is only alternative that Congress has and it is called impeachment, where our subpoena powers are plenary and there can‘t be any type of legal immunity or privilege that can be asserted on that.”

Considering the source, that is far from a casual threat, as Sensenbrenner has served as House Manager of more impeachment trials than any Member in history. On four occasions in his 33 years in Congress, he has served as the House Manager of Impeachment trials including three federal judges and President Clinton. Sensenbrenner is also a former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Volt Fire Hazard Cover-Up

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:01:00 GMT

Is the Obama Administration so obsessed with green energy and battery operated cars that they would compromise consumer safety? Maybe so.

In recent weeks, news of several battery fires in crash tested Chevy Volts has raised safety concerns about the technology. The government has announced a “safety probe” into the problem. The Volt is manufactured by General Motors – the same GM over which Barack Obama seized control, bailed out, and installed his own management.

The Obama Administration has poured $5 billion into electric car technology, but as the Washington Post reports today, taxpayers “will not see a return on their money soon, if ever,” as plug-in car technology struggles to catch on in the market place. Instead of creating “thousands of jobs” as promised by Obama, the nascent electric car industry is laying off workers and closing plants. Consumers aren’t exactly rushing to dealers to embrace the new technology, either. According to the Washington Post, 2011 sales are anemic; just two-tenths of one percent of the market despite heavy subsidies and media hype.

On the heels of the Solyndra debacle and still unfolding scandal surrounding the DOE green energy loan program, Obama & Co. didn’t need another public relations green-energy crisis to manage in an election year – but they may have created one.

AutoGuide.com is reporting that General Motors and NHSTA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, knew of the battery fire problem with the Volt at least five months before disclosing the problem to the public or even alerting their dealers. Here’s an excerpt:

"Apparently, way back in June, General Motors heard about a Volt fire that happened three weeks after said vehicle was crash tested, yet it wasn’t until November that the company, or NHTSA disclosed there was a potential problem, urging both dealers and customers to drain the battery pack immediately following an accident."

"As a result the public relations nightmare surrounding Chevy’s halo vehicle appears to be deepening, though a good deal of the blame in this case also rests with NHTSA."

"Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA believes part of the reason for the delay was the 'fragility of Volt sales.' Yet she also believes that 'NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert, not to tell them [customers] for six months makes no sense to me.'" Read more here

When allegations of design problems with Toyotas surfaced in early 2010, in dramatic testimony before Congress, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood rang the alarm bell advising anyone who had a Toyota to “stop driving it.” Consumers panicked and Toyota stock prices plunged. Congress summoned the Toyota CEO before them for a public humiliation and flogging. Toyota recalled 11 million vehicles and was slapped with record fines.

Finally, a year later, a joint NHSTA-NASA analysis ”found no electronic flaws in Toyota vehicles capable of producing the large throttle openings required to create dangerous unintended acceleration incidents.” But the reputational damage and impact of market loss was already done. LaHood and the government hardly shrugged.

However, the government doesn’t own Toyota stock. It owns a boat load of General Motors. Could it be a case of different rules for different people? Is the Obama obsession with all-things-green so overwhelming as to cover-up the Volt battery fire hazard rather than risk a public relations nightmare for the car he bet would save Detroit – and help his re-election chances?

As with Solyndra and Fast & Furious, the failure of timely disclosure of the possible fire safety hazard with the Volt leaves the Obama Administration with only two explanation options: either an intentional cover-up of the truth, or gross incompetence. Neither are qualifications for four more years.

For the Arena at Politico.com

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:41:00 GMT

The question: POLITICO reports that House Republicans are hoping they’ve struck gold by including the Keystone XL oil pipeline in the president’s payroll tax cut. http://politi.co/tsgZeu Yesterday the White House and Speaker John Boehner's office spent time fighting over Boehner’s decision to wrap the pipeline into the year-end bill. Obama has not directly said he would veto the bill, but the situation mirrors the high political costs both sides could pay if they misread the public’s mood.

Is Obama right to demand that the two issues be separated – Keystone Pipeline and the payroll tax? And would Keystone boost jobs or potentially hurt the environment?

My Answer: Approving the Keystone pipeline should be one of the biggest no-brainers for Obama. We need the Canadian oil, we need the jobs, but since he needs the radical environmentalists vote, he plays re-election politics.

Could there be an accident with the pipeline? Sure. But, we've got about 50,000 miles of pipelines already. When was the last time you heard about a big environmental problem with one? And, this one will be built more safely, with more advanced engineering and technology than any of them.

Gas at the pump is 80% higher than it was 35 months ago when Obama took office, and we're still trying to replace 6.3 million of the jobs lost in this recession - the deepest recession and slowest to recovery by far in the last 70 years. The Keystone XL pipeline wouldn't be the silver bullet, but it sure would be a step in the right direction for a change.

Link to The Arena here.

Job Loss and Recovery in Eleven Recessions since World War II

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 23:38:00 GMT

We noted on these pages two days ago that while the drop of the unemployment rate to 8.6 percent is certainly good news, that singular ratio doesn't begin to tell the whole story. A startling 315,000 people gave up looking for a job in November, the labor participation rate dropped to a near historic low of just 64 percent, and population growth significantly exceeded new job creation.

Past experience is a great teacher, and in this case it helps to put the current economic situation in relative historical perspective. The chart below demonstrates both the depth of the current recession and the extremely slow recovery as a percentage of jobs lost and then recreated. Obviously, this is the worst recession in the past 70 years, it is already far and away the slowest to recover in terms of job creation.

Barack Obama has been at the helm for 35 months, and yet employment is still 4.5 percent below pre-recession peak employment in January, 2008. That represents 6.3 million missing jobs. And even worse for those looking for work, at the current paltry rate of job creation, it will be May 2016 before we reach break even from the jobs deficit.

The month Obama took office, he confidently proclaimed that his $800 billion economic stimulus would keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8.0 percent. The very next month unemployment hit 8.2 percent and hasn't come close to Obama's self-imposed upper limit since. According to his plan, by now the unemployment rate was supposed to be 6.0 percent and rapidly declining.

Rather than relaxing government pressure on the ailing economy, Obama and the Democrats pushed through unprecedented volumes of new job killing regulations and new legislation including ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. Yet, for all of the evidence to the contrary, the White House would have us believe Obama's policies are, in the words of his chief economist, "healing" the economy. Rather than change course, on Friday Obama said what we need is a lot more of the same - more government spending and higher taxes. Obama said the latest Labor Department report is evidence that it is time to "step on the gas" and pass his Son-of-Stimulus package - his latest no-jobs jobs bill.

His sycophant left is even more celebratory of the new numbers suggesting in a Daily Kos headline that "OBAMA'S Recovery Leads the World." That is both ridiculous and a sad commentary on the state of the rest of the planet's economy - and the lack of objectivity of the myopic, worshiping left.

Obama and the Democrats dug the job destruction hole of this recession deeper that it otherwise would have been, and their failed policies and obsession with growing government control over private lives and enterprise has exacerbated any hope of recovery. Hope and change didn't work out as well as promised in 2008, but we get another shot at it in eleven more months. For the sake of all those Americans looking for work, and for our fragile Republic, we had better not blow it again this time.

Fast & Furious Cover-up Further Exposed

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 19:38:00 GMT

The Fast & Furious scandal pot may be reaching the boiling point. Attorney General Eric Holder has maintained he knew nothing about the “gun walking” operation on the southern border that put thousands of high powered weapons into the hands of the Mexican gun cartel and led to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and increased the mayhem on both sides of the border. He would have us believe that the operation was simply a misguided adventure involving a couple of rouge officers behaving badly way out west. Holder contends that even after Agent Terry’s murder in December, 2010, the subsequent extensive press coverage, and formal inquiries for information to DOJ by Members of Congress that Fast & Furious simply didn’t register high enough on priority meter to merit any attention from the Attorney General himself, and that F&F was a minor subplot at the Department of Justice. (See previous articles here)

However, 1364 pages of documents just released to Congressional investigators tell a very different story. It’s a story of “robust internal deliberations” at the highest levels of the Justice Department to craft denials and falsify the facts of the gun running operation leading up to a formal response sent to Senator Charles Grassley on February 4, 2011. Based on the release of these new documents, the Justice Department has withdrawn the February 2011, and is now going through a tortured effort to cover their considerably messy tracks.

In a letter sent to Congress on Friday, December 2, 2012 Deputy Attorney General James Cole said, “Facts have come to light during the course of this investigation that indicate the February 4 letter contains inaccuracies.” That would be DOJ-speak for “we lied.”

“Department personnel…relied on information provided by supervisors from the components in the best position to know the relevant facts: ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona…Information provided by those supervisors was inaccurate. We understand that, in transcribed interviews with congressional investigators, the supervisors have said that they did not know at the time the letter was drafted that information they provided was inaccurate.”

According to a lengthy expose in Politico.com, “A selection of documents the Justice Department released to reporters on Friday demonstrates that U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke, ATF Acting Director Ken Melson and ATF Deputy Director William Hoover vigorously urged the department to issue a forceful and broad denial of the allegations.”

Burke, who was also a former chief-of-staff to Janet Napolitano, resigned in August. Melson was “reassigned.” But, the head-rolling from this scandal is likely far from done. Politico explains that the huge volume of newly released documents “shed little light on precisely where in the federal bureaucracy the erroneous denials originated and whether the misstatements were deliberate or the product of some confusion.” Resolving those questions remains a major focus of the ongoing investigation.

One of Holder’s key deputies, Lanny Breuer, must be particularly nervous over the newly released documents. Breuer, who heads the Criminal Division at DOJ, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 1 that “I cannot say for sure whether I saw a draft of the letter that was sent to you.” The “letter” referred to was the February 4, 2011 letter that DOJ now admits was “inaccurate.” In written testimony sent to Senator Grassley, Breuer also said he had “no recollection” of seeing the letter before it was sent.

However, as the Friday dump of documents indicates, Breuer forwarded versions of the letter from his official email to his personal gmail account on three occasions: once before it was sent and twice after.

Further, Breuer’s aid Jason Weinstein was deeply involved in the drafting and redrafting of the Feb. 4 letter. On Feb. 2 expressing frustration and how difficult it was to satisfy all concerned, Weinstein sent an email to both Breuer and Burke, “The Magna Carta was easier to get done than this was.” In another email addressed to both Breuer and Weinstein as the final draft was near completion Burke wrote, “Great job by you.” Breuer replied, “Thanks, Jason, as usual great work.”

James Cole, the Deputy AG who drew the short straw and sent the letter to Congress Friday retracting the Feb. 4, 2011 Letter-of-Lies is going to have some explaining to do, as well. The documents show that his chief deputy, Lisa Monaco, expressed serious reservations about the “categorically false” claims in the Feb. 4 letter that F&F guns were used to kill Agent Terry.
“Obviously we want to be 300% sure we can make such ‘categorical’ statement” she warned, but apparently to no avail.

To some degree, these new documents are just further confirmation of what was already known. That the Fast and Furious operation, and most particularly the cover-up following Agent Terry’s assassination, involved some of the most highly placed officials at the Department of Justice. While there has been no disclosure as of yet that the new 1364 pages implicate Eric Holder himself, we reaffirm our earlier conclusion that on May 3, 2011 the Attorney General perjured himself when he testified to Congress that he had only just learned of F&F “over the last few weeks.”

Briefing memos from Holder’s closest aides including Lanny Breuer indicate Holder knew – or had an obligation to have known - of F&F as early as July, 2010, five months before Brian Terry was gunned down. Holder’s top aides have now been implicated in a cover-up plot to deny Congress, the American people, and Agent Terry’s family from knowing the truth of an ill-conceived, shameful operation that extended to the highest levels of government. And, yet, to date all Barack Obama has said of the scandal is, “I have complete confidence in Attorney General Holder.” And, for the record, the “I was not aware” defense invoked by Holder and Breuer is also the defense of choice by the President, too. Time will tell.

George Will: Carl’s Jr. is Choking on Regulation

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 19:37:00 GMT

A couple of weeks back on these pages we wrote of our outrage over the following jaw-dropping statement made by Harry Reid, the Leader of the Democrats, on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

"… my Republican friends have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the regulations they hate so much do the broad economic harms they claim. That's because there aren't any."

Reid is using his power as the Majority Leader of the Senate to deny nearly two dozen regulation relief bills already passed by the House to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote at a time when 26 million Americans are unemployed, under employed, or have given up even trying to find a job.

George Will, the nationally syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, put an exclamation point on the issue of excessive government regulation with a column about the plight of CKE Restaurants, the parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s. Founded in 1941 by a 24 year old truck driver named Carl Karcher with $326 and a hot dog cart, CKE now operates 3200 restaurants employing 70,000 people. Karcher’s story is yet another example of the American Dream becoming reality.

Karcher passed away in 2008, but his legacy lives on with CEO Andy Puzder now at the helm. Puzder says that the company is surviving these difficult times, but “it would thrive, but for government’s comprehensive campaign again job creation,” as George Will wrote.

This is a real life tragic story of how state and federal government regulation is killing jobs and the economy they all say they are pledged to “stimulate.” As you read Will’s entire column (link here) think, too, about how many other Carl Karcher’s American Dreams will never become a reality because the convoluted morass of government thou-shalt-not regulations that send a loud-and-clear message to today’s entrepreneurs to “don’t even think about it.”

Unemployment drops to 8.6 percent, but 315,000 leave workforce and population growth exceeds job creation

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:40:00 GMT

Finally some good news out of the Labor Department; the unemployment rate has dropped to 8.6 percent. There are 13.3 million people unemployed; down by 594,000 from the previous month.

However, 315,000 people gave up looking for a job and left the work force, and that reduced the Labor Participation Rate to just 64 percent. Less people working doesn’t bode well for economic growth in the months ahead.

Only 120,000 net jobs were added in November, but the population grew by 172,000. So, job creation didn’t come close to even breaking even. A staggering 8.7 million jobs were lost in the first 25 months of this recession, and thus far only 2.5 million have come back.

No doubt Barack Obama will crow about the decline in the unemployment rate and offer it as evidence that his economic policies are working. But, a closer analysis of all the data paints a far less rosy picture and explains why most economists are predicting high unemployment and negligible economic growth to continue through at least 2012.

Has HHS Violated the Hatch Act (Prohibiting Use of Federal Resources for Federal Campaigns)?

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:23:00 GMT

By our friends at the American Healthcare Education Coalition (AHEC)

In November 2011, President Obama traveled to several states and engaged in an obvious campaign "stump speech" using the phrase "we can't wait." His charge is that Congress was not moving his agenda (the truth is that the Democrats have controlled the Senate since January 2007, his party still holds the majority in the Senate and his party is unwilling to vote FOR the president's agenda). Despite these very obvious facts (coupled with the fact the American people wanted divided government and elected a huge Republican majority in the House in 2010 to serve as a check against the President's agenda), the President is running on the idea that Congress won't act.

So the President's campaign agenda of "we can't wait" will be a purely political message in 2012. Here enters HHS. On November 14, HHS issued a press release entitled: "We Can’t Wait: Health Care Innovation Challenge will improve care, save money, focus on health care jobs." This is a purely political press release and federal law (the Hatch Act) prohibits staff in the executive branch from engaging in political activities that are partisan in nature in the course of their duties or on federal property. The clear intent of the Hatch Act has been violated by officials at HHS.

Politico.com asked....

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:57:00 GMT

“President Barack Obama heads to Scranton, Pa., Wednesday to promote a $265 billion expansion of the payroll tax break set to expire at the end of the year. To pay for it he’s pushing a new 3.25 percent surtax on millionaires. Congressional Republicans say they want it extended as well, but not unless it’s paid for. Democrats say a lapse would mean middle-income taxpayers would lose about $1,200 annually in take home pay. Which side has the winning argument here?”

And here’s my answer as published in The Arena:

As with virtually everything Obama and the Democrats do, this is about the next election, not about solving the problems America faces. In fact, this is another of their ideas that actually will make our woeful state of affairs worse.

As The Tax Relief Coalition points out four out of five people that would be burdened with this surtax would be small business owners. That means the tax would directly result in fewer jobs, less productivity and profit, less economic recovery, and less net revenue coming in to the U.S. Treasury.

This is populism at its worst, and more of Obama's obsession to "redistribute the wealth" that has been tried before, except they used to call it "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Kagan: Mesmerized by "rock star" qualities of Barack Obama

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:37:00 GMT

In 2005, Elena Kagan was the Dean of the Harvard Law School and Barack Obama was a freshman US Senator. Obama visited Harvard to speak to a Law School luncheon. Below is a link to the introduction given by Kagan in which she volunteers that she is already quite "political." So much so that she attended every session of the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston where she was "mesmerized" when Obama simply "opened his mouth (and)said a few words." Kagan attributes Obama's supernatural qualities to the "rock star qualities he has: the eloquence, the magnetism, the great looks, the brilliance..."

Video link here

Fast forward a few years and Barack Obama is President, and Elena Kagan's adulation paid off. She became Obama's Solicitor General, the President's counsel, on her way to the pinnacle for any lawyer, a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In a few months, the SCOTUS will decide the fate of Obama's legacy legislation, ObamaCare, and in so doing will determine whether government has the power to mandate products that an American citizen must buy and thus control every piece of our daily lives. As it relates so enormously to individual liberty and freedom and the restraint on government's power over the citizen, many believe this to be the most significant case to come before the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade.

The law provides that a judge is to recuse themselves from a case if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," or if they have "served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy."

Republican Senators McConnell, Grassley, Kyl, and Lee in a November 18, 2011 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder pointed out that Kagan's involvement with ObamaCare "may satisfy both requirements for recusal."

Republican House and Senate Judiciary Committee Members have repeatedly requested for months that the Justice Department provide information related to Kagan's involvement with the case so that public confidence in the judiciary can be maintained, but Attorney General Eric Holder has stubbornly refused. The DOJ even went so far as to characterize the requests as "unseemly."

Yesterday when questioned about Kagan's recusal, Jay Carney, Press Secretary for the President, offered the ridiculous response of "it's a mystery to me" why anyone would even raise the issue.

In previously published articles, we have documented the considerable evidence that as Solicitor General Kagan was by her own insistence "heavily involved" in crafting the legal defense strategy for ObamaCare. Any feigned objectivity regarding her impartiality about ObamaCare is shattered by an email she sent to Larry Tribe, a Justice Department official entitled "fingers and toes crossed today!" with the celebratory text saying, "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."

A coalition of 85 citizen groups have urged Congress to hold hearings on the Kagan recusal and properly frame the issue: "...a reasonable person would certainly have sufficient basis to question the impartiality of Justice Kagan if she were permitted to prepare the defense of a case as an advocate and then switch roles and judge the defense of the same case as a justice."

There should never have been any doubt why Obama nominated Kagan to the SCOTUS. He wanted and got an activist judge that would advocate for his agenda immediately and long after his term in office would end. Preserving the Constitution and the Rule of Law is immaterial to Obama and Kagan; this is about "transforming America" and it should cause every patriotic citizen to shudder at what is unfolding before our eyes.

Washington Examiner: Kagan should recuse herself from Obamacare deliberations

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:39:00 GMT

Over the last several weeks we have written repeatedly about the need for Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case scheduled to be heard early in 2012 by the Supreme Court. (Articles here) We have been encouraged by the growing public pressure for Justice Kagan to do the right thing and stand down. Joining the chorus is the Washington Examiner. Following is an excerpt from today's feature editorial and a link to the full text.

"Legal hair-splitting by Washington lawyers is a daily occurrence in the nation's capitol, but not even the most accomplished barrister can twist federal law into something it's clearly not. Exhibit A here is the law specifying when a federal judge should recuse himself or herself from hearing a case. On the issue of when recusal is appropriate, that law is about as clear as the English language can make it…..it would be refreshing to see Kagan respect the law by recusing herself when the measure comes before the nation's highest court."

Read more

Oil and Gas Boom: Obama keeps trying to kill it, but it just won’t stay dead

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:14:00 GMT

Moratoriums, permitting bans, cancelling leases, Wild Land designations, EPA regulations on steroids, and tens of billions in DOE loans and subsidies for the alternative green energy industry…..the Obama Administration has done everything in their considerable power to strangle America’s oil and gas industry to death, but it just refuses to die. In fact, it seems to be stronger than ever.

With 26 million people unemployed, under-employed, or having completely given up even trying to find a job, the oil and gas industry is bucking the trend during this prolonged economic recession by adding jobs and producing more badly needed energy right here at home. A Thanksgiving weekend editorial in the Wall Street Journal reports that business is booming in energy rich America in the shrinking number of places not shut off by an Administration Steve Forbes blasted for “the most anti-oil and gas record in U.S. history.” Following is a summary of the WSJ editorial:

Oil and gas production now employs some 440,000 workers, an 80% increase, or 200,000 more jobs, since 2003. Oil and gas jobs account for more than one in five of all net new private jobs in that period.
States that embrace oil and gas production are reaping the rewards. North Dakota has the nation's lowest jobless rate, at 3.5%, and the state now has some 200 rigs pumping 440,000 barrels of oil a day, four times the amount in 2006. The state reports more than 16,000 current job openings, and places like Williston have become meccas for workers seeking jobs that often pay more than $100,000 a year.
Production in Pennsylvania's Marcellus shale formation created 18,000 new jobs in the first half of 2011. Some 214,000 jobs are now tied to a natural gas industry that barely existed in the Keystone State a decade ago.
Energy firms are also rushing to develop the Utica shale in eastern Ohio, and they are expanding operations in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, among other places.
Oil and Gas could do even more for our struggling economy if the Obama Administration would just stop waging war against it. The Wood Mackenzie consulting firm estimated that better federal energy policy would create an additional 1.4 million jobs by 2030.

For all the blather about saving-and-creating jobs, you might think the Administration would embrace what’s going on in oil and gas and try to glom on to the good news in one of the few industries doing well right now. But, no; in fact the war on oil and gas goes on.

In the new five-year plan recently released by Ken Salazar at the Interior Department, most of the Outer Continental Shelf remains off limits. The President has delayed even a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline for at least another year; a project that would create 20,000 direct jobs and deliver 900,000 bpd of Canadian tar sands oil to the gulf coast refineries.

The energy goal of the Obama Administration to “boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” is well on the way with gas at the pump currently 80 percent more costly than when Obama took office. And, while we pay more at the pump, federal revenue from offshore bonus bids – a front end payment from lease sales – has plummeted to just $36 million from the $9.5 billion in FY 2008 according to the WSJ.

So, while the Administration’s policy is costing consumer’s more for energy and they have squandered billions on questionable, even scandalous, green energy loans like Solyndra, billions in revenue is also lost due to an unwillingness to even make leases available at auction.

As the WSJ editors explain, “The ironies here are richer than the shale deposits in North Dakota's Bakken formation. While Washington has tried to force-feed renewable energy with tens of billions in special subsidies, oil and gas production has boomed thanks to private investment. And while renewable technology breakthroughs never seem to arrive, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have revolutionized oil and gas extraction—with no Energy Department loan guarantees needed.”

Healthy, growing economies require adequate supplies of affordable energy and for the foreseeable future about 85 percent of America’s needs are going to come from fossil fuel sources. The oil and gas industry played a vital role in the growth of the great American economy during the last century, and it can lead the way for our economic recovery and a strong future again if only our government would give it a fight chance.

Staying Alive as a Nation – American Pursuit of Greatness

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:28:00 GMT

By Paul E. Vallely, (Maj. Gen. US Army Ret.), Contributing Editor to A Line of Sight

“Ride through the valley in thunder and rain. The battle is raging, redeem this domain. The castle of Eden lies silent above. Darkness surrounded us, away we must go. I look through the eyes of the world. I see there are strangers among us. Awaiting a sign from above. To conquer the power and the glory. Enter the battle, our will to enchain. Bringing us forward, defeating the pain. Into the meeting with swords made of steel. We’re standing together the secret reveals. Come across to the Promised Land. Close your eyes, I will take your hand. Through the river of steel we’ll go. When the dragon lies bleeding.”

From: “The Dragon Lies Bleeding” – Hammerfall

The enemies and certain identifiable demagogues of the United States have taken to view our country as a Dragon that must be bled of its power and stature. As the mythology of the dragon goes, you could not slay the dragon with one spear but that it would take many spears into the body of the dragon to slay it and “bleed it to death”. As you look at the world today, our enemies, both foreign and domestic, are sending those spears into the body of the United States. I do not have the opportunity in this writing to discuss the various spears/threats in detail other than to list some of them here:

Dysfunctional government and Cultural decline
Financial Crisis/Collapse
Weak, misguided leadership in Congress, the White House, and in our Courts
US Borders, particularly, the Southern Border
Islamists/Enablers of Islamists
The Progressive Socialist Media
Russia and China as enablers against America
Globalism and multi-culturists, New World Order zealots
United Nations and their subversives
Rogue nations like Iran and North Korea

These are the “spears” that must be dealt with by new leadership through common sense, wisdom, knowledge and initiating a revised forward US National Strategy to survive and restore the Republic. The US has always drawn operational plans from strategic doctrine. Currently, the NATION faces unprecedented threats and vulnerabilities. Should we continue America’s near-total reliance upon the logic of deterrence and appeasement, we will be doomed to be bled to death. Continued belief in classical threat-system dynamics could be problematic, even if American planners were to focus on just state sponsors and radical Iranian jihad proxies (like Hezbollah and Hamas). These states, like their surrogates, value particular religious or ideological preferences more highly than their own lives and freedoms.

At the start of the nuclear age, there was the threat of “massive retaliation” and mutual assured destruction (MAD). This gave way to “flexible response” and “nuclear utilization theory” (NUT). Interpenetrating these strategic doctrines, first conceived with reference to the USSR, were fierce debates over enemy targeting options. President Obama and team appear to be clueless to today’s threats and definable threat options. These very sensitive examinations will be divisive, but the pertinent issues concern America’s physical survival.

It is not a simple world, strategic doctrine is always a complex matter, and any improved US plans will have to be creative as well as comprehensive. If, for any reason, Iran is permitted to be the hegemonic (masters of the Middle East Chessboard) and nuclear power of the Middle East, our doctrine will have to identify viable global options. In turn, these options will require enemy perceptions of persuasive American power and of an American willingness to actually use this power.

An example of one major threat and spear: Moscow markets cruise missiles launched from a freight container – Russia’s Club-K Freight Container cruise missile (See below). This relatively cheap, extra-smart, easy-to-use Club-K Container Missile System, which Moscow has put on the open market (Iran is the first acquirer), allows cruise missiles or Shehabs to be concealed in freight containers which can then be launched from a sea platform container ship. I have warned of this “spear” threat for over a year now; with no response from the powers-to-be. It is virtually undetectable by radar until activated. No wonder, Iran and Venezuela were keenly interested when the Club-K was put on the market at the Defense Services Asia exhibition in Malaysia for $15 million.

Western military experts are calling it a “real maritime fear for anyone with a waterfront.” The container-cum-missiles, carried by a ship, fishing vessel or truck can approach a targeted coast, highway, or international railway and strike behind the target’s missile defenses without alerting radar monitors or even surveillance drones and satellites. The capability is able to wipe out an aircraft carrier up to 400 kilometers away. The system’s manufacturer, Novator, is directing its marketing tactics at anyone under threat of military action from the United States. One expert accused the Russians of proliferating ballistic missiles on an unheard-of scale.

At the Malaysian exhibition, the marketing film showed the Club-K being activated from an ordinary truck. The truck pulls up, whereupon the container roof lifts up to reveal cruise missiles ready to fire. The operator then pushes a button and the missiles, which have a range of 350 km, are launched without further preparation.

Military sources warn that the sale of Club-K cruise missile systems to Iran and their transfer to Hezbollah would give them an edge substantial enough to be a game-changer into the Middle East balance of power and strength. They are capable of surreptitiously approaching any coastline in any region and send missiles flying against American, Western, or Israeli strategic targets before they know they are even under attack.

The missile specialist, Novator, which maintains a manufacturing plant in Yekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains, produces an array of missiles against air, sea, and land targets, including cruise missiles launched from submarines, as well as the advanced S-300 missile interceptor, which Russia contracted to sell Iran.

How should we deter a nuclear Iran, both from launching direct missile attacks, and from dispersing nuclear assets among terrorist proxies? And for Deterrence against Nuclear Terrorism (DANT), how should one power compensate for the absence of “fingerprints,” and for the limits of satellites and radars? This is significant because Ahmadinejad says that soon there will be a world without the United States and Israel. Coupled with his regular pronouncements to wipe Israel off the face of the earth; this sends nuclear alarm signals that cannot be ignored.

Threats to American cities could come from cars, trucks, and ships. Ballistic missile defense would be of no use against such ground-based attacks. Could we truly convince Tehran and its surrogates that any proxy act of nuclear terrorism would elicit a massive nuclear retaliation against Iran itself? The planned use of EMPs against specific US target cities like New York with a low level nuclear detonation will serve to freeze our grid systems and cause urban chaos. Meaningful action and policies must emerge from a carefully re-conceptualized US strategic doctrine and “Warrior” leadership.

Enemy state proxies were once limited in the damage that they could inflict and the logic of economic, cultural, and military warfare was traditionally based on reasonable expectations of victory. Today, some Nations, their proxies and the terror and radical Jihadi groups/cells could bring greater disasters to the American homeland. These are the “spears” that will bring us greater pain than was deliverable by our national enemies in World War II.

The Chessboard is set and the pieces are being moved deftly! It is time to change leadership in the USA to restore America and our Constitution!

***Paul E. Vallely (MG, US Army Ret) is a Contributing Editor to A Line of Sight, CEO of NEMO Arms Inc. (New Evolution Military Ordnance), and Chairman of Stand Up America.

Yes, we do have a great deal for which to be thankful.

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:10:00 GMT

Give thanks for the blessings of Liberty!

CBO: Stimulus will be a “net drag on the economy"

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:27:00 GMT

Confirming what most thinking Americans already knew, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Obama’s $800 billion Obama sustained at best only 20% of the jobs the President promised and because of the burden of all the accumulated debt it will actually become a “drag on the economy.” Read full article here

Was it really a Super Failure?

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:00:00 GMT

More than the curious “lead from behind” strategy often preferred by Barack Obama, an apt description of his efforts to steer the Super Committee to an acceptable conclusion would best be described as “in absentia.” Both Republicans and Democrats noted with disappointment the President’s absence in a challenge that was always thought to be difficult at best – even doomed, in the opinion of many experienced Congressional observers.

The morning after the announced failure by the committee members to reach a solution, Jay Carney was asked by a reporter if the President had bothered to talk with even one of the twelve Democrats and Republicans on the committee in the closing weeks of their effort. The only answer Carney offered was that Obama had “put forward a plan in mid-September” and by inference, that qualified as a sufficient leadership effort on his part.

The Obama plan that Carney referenced was his half-trillion dollars of immediate government spending coupled with $1.5 trillion of permanent tax increases. Even though the President addressed a joint session of Congress imploring them to “pass this bill” as well as the better part of a month flying coast-to-coast trying to generate support, to date only one small portion of Obama’s plan – a substantial tax credit incentive for employers to hire military veterans – has passed Congress. Even Congressional Democrats have been timid about supporting other provision of the plan, particularly the enormous tax increases.

The ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats was simply too great to just split the difference. Republicans believed it anathema to consider raising taxes, particularly in these most stressful economic times, and according to reports from committee members, the Democrats were “unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes.”

Most everyone in the media is talking about the “failure” of the committee, and certainly Barack Obama has already started the blame-game against Republicans, and many on the GOP side have responded in kind. We’re not so sure, though, that the lack of a deal from the committee was all that bad. “A deal” is little assurance of a “good deal” – and, in this case, any compromise with the Democrats would have meant forsaking bedrock GOP principles. In addition, the $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction target given the committee represented but a fraction of the total magnitude of the fiscal mess that remains unresolved.

Fortunately, Republicans did not give in to demands for big tax increases. Real resolution to the challenges facing the economy and America’s fiscal crisis are not going to be resolved while the Democrats still have control of the Senate and Barack Obama is in the White House. Any hope for the consensus around the enormous decisions that must be made – and the will to support them – lies with the voters in an election still a year away.

While we share the concern expressed even by Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, that further cuts to the military budget triggered by the inaction of the Super Committee could be “devastating” to our national security capabilities, members of Congress from both parties have vowed to correct that problem as have the leading GOP candidates to be our next President. Obama on the other hand has vowed to veto any legislation to lift the sequester – the automatic cuts.

While many are busy lamenting the “failure” of the committee and projecting dire consequences, some good analysis by reliable sources put the issue into a much more objective perspective. Phil Gramm, the former Senator and Presidential candidate and aficionado of the federal budget, calculated that even if the sequester is implemented, “total spending in 2013 would still be a whopping $3,582 billion—32% more than projected by the Congressional Budget Office in January 2007.” That’s a very significant date for two reasons: first, that’s a staggering difference from a CBO estimate just five years ago, and secondly because it is also the date that Nancy Pelosi took control of the nation’s checkbook as Speaker of the House. The spending binge and budget baseline increases implemented by the Congressional Democrats and Obama completely blew apart any semblance of fiscal discipline.

Likewise, Veronique de Rugy at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center graphed the with-and-without the sequester budget ramifications. As the following chart demonstrates, the difference is less than what Washington considers a rounding error these days. Spending between 2013 and 2021 will increase $1.6 trillion with the sequester, or $1.7 trillion without, which is hardly the draconian end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenario that has been painted by some.

The real work to get the federal fiscal house in order lies ahead, and whether it gets done will depend on the direction the voters steer the country with the elections in November, 2012. If voters really want to put government on a serious diet and implement sound economic policy again, they’ll keep a significant conservative majority in place in the House, elect a Republican Majority in the Senate, and change the occupant in the White House. If not, then America will continue the quest to out-Europe the Europeans, and we already have plenty of indications of how that story will end.

Solyndra Workers awarded $14.3 million in Government Aid Package

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:58:00 GMT

Like a wound that won’t stop bleeding, the cost to taxpayers for the collapse of Solyndra continues to grow. The Labor Department announced yesterday that the 1100 workers who lost jobs as a result of the failure of the California solar energy company would be eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance amounting to $14.3 million. TAA is a federal aid package that includes job retraining and income assistance valued at $13,000 for each laid off worker. The collapse of Solyndra left taxpayers on the hook for a $535 million government guaranteed loan and blew open an still unfolding scandal involving top DOE and White House officials. Read more here

Pelosi: Catholics have “this conscience thing”

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:20:00 GMT

Nancy Pelosi frequently likes to remind us that she is a “devout Catholic,” yet she continually finds herself at odds with Catholic doctrine particularly as it relates to innocent human life. The Church has long defended the right for health care providers to refuse to perform abortions or provide contraception devices and procedures as a right of conscience under First Amendment protections. As part of the Democrats’ seizure of the health care industry with ObamaCare, Pelosi led the charge to attack the “Conscience Clause” protections originating in 1973 immediately following the Roe v. Wade decision, updated repeatedly over the years by Congress, and further clarified and strengthened in 2008 during the Bush Administration.

As the Obama Administration ramps up for the implementation of ObamaCare, the issue has boiled up several times. Most recently, the Catholic Church and the Obama Administration have spared over a mandate proposed by HHS that would require all private health plans to cover sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that cause abortion, under the broad definition of “preventive services.”

Since the ObamaCare legislation also requires every citizen to buy health insurance, the government mandate would force Catholics to buy health care plans that violate Catholic doctrine. Catholic insurance agents would face the additional dilemma of selling a product that violates the moral teachings of the Church, or change professions.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops objected to the newly proposed mandate as a violation of Conscience Clause protections and the First Amendment. "Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase 'services' to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty," the bishops said.

As explained in an official CRS Report to Congress, the Conscience Clause provides that “public officials may not require individuals or entities who receive certain public funds to perform abortion or sterilization procedures or to make facilities or personnel available for the performance of such procedures if such performance ‘would be contrary to [the individual or entity’s] religious beliefs or moral convictions.’”

Because of ambiguities in the language of the ObamaCare legislation, House Republicans brought forward H.R. 358, The Protect Life Act, in October 2011 to preserve Conscience Clause protections for health care providers and to restate the ban on federal taxpayer funding for abortion. The legislation was consistent “with the original Stupak Amendment” according to Joe Pitts (R-PA), a sponsor of the bill, as well as the co-author of the original Stupak Amendment offered in the House during the ObamaCare and supposedly affirmed by Executive Order signed by Barack Obama to pacify pro-life Democrats prior to the passage of ObamaCare.

The pro-abortion crowd renamed the bill the “Let Women Die Act.” Pelosi characterized the legislation as “savage” and said, “When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health-care providers do not have to intervene, if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.” Pelosi made the outrageous claim even though H.R. 358 contained exceptions as found in the landmark Hyde Amendment for “abortions performed due to the child’s conception in rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.”

The Protect Life Act passed the House on Oct. 13, 2011 by a 251-172 margin, with just 15 Democrats voting with the Republicans. There are about 90 Democrats in the House that list “Catholic” as their faith, so Pelosi wasn’t the only Catholic Democrat that voted contrary to Church teaching. Thus far, Harry Reid has blocked the Act from a vote in the Senate.

The Washington Post recently questioned Pelosi about the bishops’ concern over the proposed ObamaCare insurance mandate to cover contraception and abortion, and offered her a chance to back away from her over-the-top criticism of the Protect Life Act. Instead she dug in her heels and blasted Catholic teaching yet again.

According to the Washington Post, the former Speaker and current Minority Leader of the House Democrats said the Protect Life Act amounted to letting hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion.” Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,” she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it…but they (Catholics) have this conscience thing” that she insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic health care providers strongly disagree.

During the campaign of 2008, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama was asked by Pastor Rick Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights?” Obama stoked an already smoldering controversy by evaded answering Warren’s question with his dismissive reply, “Answering that question with specificity is above my pay-grade.” The dodge to Pastor Warren’s question became a campaign issue. And, Pelosi was drawn into it when subsequently on Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw asked Nancy Pelosi “if he (Obama) were to come to you and say, ‘Help me out here, Madam Speaker. When does life begin? What would you tell him?”

Pelosi replied, “As an ardent practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And, what I know is that over the centuries the doctors of the Church have not been able to make the definition.”

Immediately Catholic Bishops across America blasted Pelosi’s falsehood. Charles J. Chaput, then the Archbishop of Denver and recently installed as the Archbishop of Philadelphia, published a condemnation of Pelosi’s comments the day following her Meet the Press interview. “Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it,” wrote Chaput and Denver Auxiliary Bishop James Conley. “Catholics who make excuses for it – whether they’re famous or not – fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith,” the bishops’ joint statement adds.

Bishops Chaput and Conley blow apart Pelosi’s contention that her “study” of the teachings of Catholic theologians had revealed to her that Church doctrine is unsettled on the question of the beginning of life. The Bishops’ explain that “ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil.” In the absence of modern medical knowledge, the Bishops acknowledge that Church leaders grappled with the question of “animation” of the fetus, or when it became “ensouled.” But, never has the Church questioned when life began or “the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide.”

That many Catholics, including many in elected office, take exception with and choose to live outside the teachings of the Church is obvious, but that is a far cry from latitude to redefine and falsely profess Catholic doctrine. The Speaker of the House or even Minority Leader wields considerable power, but even these lofty positions don’t include theological credentials.

DHS and DOJ ignore the Rule of Law

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:56:00 GMT

By Bob Beauprez and Christopher Jaarda

The New York Times is reporting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will begin conducting a review of all deportation cases in the immigration courts with the goal of “halting” the deportation “of many illegal immigrants with no criminal record.“ In other words, this is a back door amnesty by a President desperate to score political points with a constituency critical to his reelection.

“Many immigration offenses, including being present in the United States without legal status, are civil violations; they are not crimes,” wrote the NY Times citing communications from John Morton, Director of Immigration and Enforcement Services (ICE) at the Department of Homeland Security. That is simply not true. At a minimum, someone in the U.S. illegally has committed a criminal misdemeanor; in a great many cases, felony statutes of federal law have been violated.

Regrettably, the announcement by DHS is the latest in a long list of government inaction when it comes to enforcing America’s immigration and criminal laws. This form of selective enforcement also ignores the harm illegal immigration poses on citizens and legal immigrants alike.

First, it should be pointed out that under federal law, by virtue of being unlawfully present in the U.S., an illegal alien is committing (at a minimum) a misdemeanor crime. DHS is choosing to ignore the fact that all illegal aliens are actively committing a crime under federal law.

Second, consider that each year, the Social Security Administration (SSA) compiles a “no match” list for paycheck withholdings remitted to the government by employers in cases where the employee’s name and social security number reported by the employer do not match. Now admittedly, some of these “no match” discrepancies are a result of typographical errors but the majority of those are the result of withholdings from wages of illegal aliens.

Any individual who uses a social security number that was not issued to them is committing a felony. In cases involving the use of a number that has never been issued by SSA, the felony is identity fraud. In cases where the number has been issued to someone else, the felony is one of identity theft. Both instances are 5-year felonies under federal law.

An illegal alien who enters the U.S. illegally is not work authorized and, therefore, is ineligible to receive a social security number. The same is true for aliens who have entered the U.S. on a non-work visa and overstayed that visa. It is a felony under federal law for either classification of illegal aliens to provide their employers with a social security number in order to obtain work.

This form of identity theft or identity fraud is not a victimless crime. Citizens and legal immigrants are hurt every day by this crime. If you talk to one of the victims of these crimes and hear directly how their lives have been turned upside down, you would never, ever view illegal immigration the same again.

It should be troubling that the federal government knows exactly where most of these, as of yet un-convicted, felons are working but that SSA is doing nothing to share this information with law enforcement.

Third, it should also be troubling that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is not demanding this information from SSA as part of an effort to prosecute identity thieves.

When DHS says they are halting the deportation of non-criminal illegal aliens, this inaction by the federal government comes after:

(1) SSA has turned its back on victims of identity theft in order to protect the perpetrators of the crime;

(2) DOJ has failed to bring charges against illegal aliens who commit identity theft even though American citizens and legal immigrants are daily harmed by these crimes; and

(3) DHS has ignored the fact that the illegal alien’s presence in the U.S. currently constitutes the commission of a crime under federal law.

It is no wonder the American people are so frustrated by illegal immigration. Their government is daily ignoring the law and the harm illegal immigration is posing on the country.

***Bob Beauprez is Editor-in-Chief of A Line of Sight. Christopher M. Jaarda is the Editor-in-Chief of Prescription for Disaster, a blog operated by the American Healthcare Education Coalition (AHEC) dedicated to educating grassroots conservatives about the negative consequences of ObamaCare. Mr. Jaarda is a conservative who has formerly worked as a counsel for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, as the Director of Government Relations for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and a former staffer with American Majority. He is also a Contributing Editor of A Line of Sight.

GOP Senators join call for Kagan Recusal

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:03:00 GMT

Four Republican Senators have joined the growing chorus of elected officials and leadership of citizen groups calling for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case now scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Whip Jon Kyl, Ranking Republican Member of the Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley, and Utah Senator Mike Lee called out the "questionable manner" that DOJ and Holder are handling requests for information regarding Kagan involvement with the passage and preparations for legal defense of the legislation when she served as Obama's Solicitor General. The Senators point out that,

"Federal law requires recusal from a case if a judicial officer of the United States “has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3). In addition, a federal judge must disqualify herself from participating in a matter if her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Id. at § 455(a). It appears that former Solicitor General Kagan’s participation in the Obama Administration’s defense of the PPACA may satisfy both requirements for recusal." Full text of letter here

The Senators offered as evidence for concern already known details such as her own admission during her SCOTUS confirmation hearing that she had participated in "at least one" meeting regarding the anticipated litigation defense of ObamaCare. Further, email conversations expose the fact that at her insistence her office was to be "heavily involved" in planning the Administration's legal strategy.

Her "impartiality" is seriously suspect, the Senators explain, by a March 2009 email Kagan sent to DOJ Legal Adviser Larry Tribe regarding the impending passage of the legislation. Entitled, "fingers and toes crossed today!" Kagan gleefully wrote, "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."

Holder and the DOJ "has rejected all Congressional oversight requests for information about her role in the Obama Administration's defense of this law (ObamaCare)," the Senators wrote, and in so-doing have invited far more questions about what the Administration is hiding. "Because of the highly questionable manner in which your Department is handling this important issue," the Senators said in their letter, "we write to underscore the importance to the rule of law of an informed resolution of this question."

As previously described on these pages, a letter was sent earlier this week from the leadership of 85 citizen organizations asking the obvious question "the impartiality of Justice Kagan if she were permitted to prepare the defense of a case as an advocate and then switch roles and judge the defense of the same case as a justice." (Emphasis included)

Holder and DOJ have ignored some Congressional requests for information, and rejected others. More recently, they have insulted Congressional leadership for even inquiring. The latest reply from DOJ to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith included an editorial comment that the Department considered Smith's request "unseemly." So much for open government, for transparency, for congressional oversight, for checks and balances; all promises of this Administration. This is the face of tyranny.

Update: 85 Leaders now call for Congressional Hearing on Kagan Recusal

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:45:00 GMT

The call for Congress to hold hearings on the need for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case now on the docket of the Supreme Court has exploded. The number of organizations signing on to a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith has more than tripled in just 48 hours since our original blog post calling for her to stand aside. Following is a link to the final draft of the letter signed by the leaders of 85 citizens organizations and related other articles and documents.

Leader's Letter to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith

Judicial Action Group's Press Release

Judicial Crisis Network brief: Elena Kagan, The Justice Who Knew Too Much

Judicial Watch November 10, 2011 background article

Gotta love Rednecks

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:04:00 GMT

Townhall.com published our recent blog post regarding the explosion of new regulations under the Obama Administration and Harry Reid's ludicrous claim that "there aren't any" regulations that hurt the economy. In the on-line comments to our post, Redneck48 provided a particularly poignant real-life example of how counterproductive regulations are to American jobs and the work place.

"It costs nearly a quarter of a million dollars to install a 40' approved paint booth in the US now days and an ongoing cost every month to report the amount of usage and filter changes. An equally envirmentally [sic] friendly paint booth can be built in Mexico for a fraction of that cost. So what is the result? More and more assembly processes and painting are being done in Mexico then the finished goods brought back into the US for sale. This is just one example of how we force jobs out of the country then listen to Democrats complain about "greedy corporations" putting profits ahead of American interests."

In the Arena: "lazy?"

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:37:00 GMT

While in Hawaii, President Obama characterized the American people as "a little bit lazy." Politico.com asked me, "Will the president's comment come back to haunt him in campaign 2012?" Here's my answer and a link to The Arena for all the on-line comments.

"Yes, it will haunt him and it should. It will go down as one of many

inappropriate, derisive comments aimed at the people and nation he was

elected to lead, not mock, much like Jimmy Carter's 'malaise, crisis

of confidence' speech."

IBD: Elena Kagan Must Be Recused In ObamaCare Case

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:53:00 GMT

We noted with some satisfaction that the editors at Investor's Business Daily share our opinion that Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from participating in the now pending Supreme Court case regarding ObamaCare. (See yesterday's post) We have to tip-our-hat to IBD, though, for pointing out something we failed to mention – the strong possibility that Kagan lied during her Senate confirmation hearing. Following is an excerpt from their editorial of today with a link to the entire feature that we commend to your reading.

"Nearly lost in this is the possibility that Kagan lied during her confirmation. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had not been asked about the legal issues of ObamaCare nor had she offered any views on them. The emails, however, seem to tell a different story." Read more

Harry Reid: "There aren't any" regulations that hurt economy

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:48:00 GMT

You have to wonder which hole in the sand Harry Reid has his head buried in. Yesterday, in comments on the floor of the Senate, the Democrat Leader said the following:

"While it's proper to guard against and remove onerous regulations, and we need to do that, my Republican friends have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the regulations they hate so much do the broad economic harms they claim. That's because there aren't any."

Reid's denial is in large part his poor explanation for denying the Senate even one vote on any of the "Forgotten Fifteen" regulation relief bills that have been passed by the GOP House. Reid's ludicrous statement is also consistent with Cass Sunstein, the Regulation Czar for the Obama Administration. When asked about all the new rules and regulations being promulgated by the Administration Sunstein said, "There has been no increase in rule making in this Administration."

As reported on these pages previously, however, the total employment at the conglomeration of federal agencies responsible for enforcing compliance with the myriad of laws now exceeds 281,000 people. That's an increase of 13 percent already during the Obama Administration at a time when 27 million Americans find themselves unemployed, under-employed, or have completely given up even trying to find work. The budgets at these same agencies have increased 16 percent during the same period to over $54 billion.

With the expanded staffs, the agencies have ramped up new regulations at a frightening pace, too. The Federal Register, already about 80,000 pages, where all the regulation is posted increased 18 percent in 2010 alone, and 4,200 new rules or revisions are in the pipeline. According to an Investor's Business Daily report that staggering total doesn't include the impending clean air rules from the EPA, new derivative rules, the FCC's net neutrality rules, the recently announced CAFE fuel mandates, or the eventual plethora of new regulation mandated by ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank legislation.

Even prior to the Obama Administration's onslaught of new rules and regulations, the Small Business Administration estimated that federal regulation imposed a $1.75 trillion annual cost burden on the economy. Further, according to the Heritage Foundation the 75 new major rules put in place in just the first 26 months of the Obama Administration added $40 billion more in expense to American businesses.

We really don't think Reid is naïve enough to believe that ever increasing amounts of regulation have no adverse consequences to the economy. That leaves only willful denial or an outright willingness to lie as the only other possible explanations for his contention. We'll let you pick which it might be.

Leaders Question how Kagan can be both "Advocate" and "Justice"

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:21:00 GMT

Leaders of two dozen citizen organizations are urging the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on the need for Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case now scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court. In a letter to Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (full text here), and copied to House Republican Leadership, the group concludes that "a reasonable person would certainly have sufficient basis to question the impartiality of Justice Kagan if she were permitted to prepare the defense of a case as an advocate and then switch roles and judge the defense of the same case as a justice." (Emphasis included)

The effort is spearheaded by Phillip Jauregui, President of Judicial Action Group, a Washington based organization dedicated to "judicial renewal" by returning "the judiciary to its proper role of deciding cases and not legislating from the bench."

The letter from the distinguished group of leaders outlines five essential grievances and questions that they feel should be explored regarding the need for Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case, as follows:

During her Supreme Court Confirmation hearing, Kagan admitted she was present for "at least one" meeting in which the PPACA (ObamaCare) litigation was discussed.
Solicitor General Kagan made the unusual, but not unprecedented, decision for The Solicitor General’s office to coordinate with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) while preparing the earliest defenses of PPACA rather than following standard practice of waiting until the act reached the appellate courts.
Kagan personally appointed the over-sight of the PPACA defense to her top deputy – a political appointee – who zealously stated his desire to “crush” those challenging the constitutionality of PPACA.
Kagan both received and responded to emails about the PPACA litigation.
The Department of Justice now refuses to produce in whole in response to the aforementioned FOIA requests, claiming that such documents are “privileged” under an exemption traditionally reserved for those participating in their role as attorneys in a case.

The final grievance above is in reference to the DOJ's continued refusal to provide documents as originally requested by Chairman Smith last July such that the Judiciary Committee might "properly understand any involvement by Justice Kagan in matters relating to health care legislation or litigation while she was Solicitor General." More than just a stiff-arm refusal, the DOJ called the Judiciary Committee's reasonable request "unseemly."

Elena Kagan's fingerprints and DNA are all over the White House's efforts to muscle through passage of ObamaCare and anticipate the legal defense of the legislation. The Leader's Group raises the obvious question of how can the same person be both advocate and impartial jurist on the same issue. Imagine for a moment if the shoe was on the other foot – if we were talking about a conservative judge and a conservative issue? Say Henry Hyde, the great pro-life champion and author of the Hyde Amendment, was a member of the SCOTUS and a pro-life question was before the Court? The liberal media and the left would be incensed, animated, and outraged at even a slight consideration that Hyde might not recuse himself. Yet, all we hear about the obvious need for Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case is silence, and charges that to even raise the question is "unseemly."

The Telescope: Fannie and Freddie – Building on to the House of Cards

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:05:00 GMT

The collapse of the sub-prime mortgage loan market precipitated the current economic recession. Yet three years and $170 billion in taxpayer funded bailouts later, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) that owned or guaranteed the vast majority of those loans, remain virtually unchanged except that the giant is even bigger and more costly to maintain.

Recently published reports of $12.8 million of annual compensation bonuses paid on top of already substantial salaries to ten executives at the two GSEs for achieving "modest goals" captured a few headlines and once again highlighted some of the paradoxes and problems of combining a supposedly privately owned and operated enterprise with conflicting public policy and politically motivated social objectives.

While the public and most politicians are repulsed by bailouts and disparate executive compensation, little outrage is directed at the two biggest offenders, Fannie and Freddie. As pointed out by Investor's Business Daily, of the $700 billion in TARP bailouts to private financial institutions, more than 97 cents of every bailout dollar either has already or is expected to be repaid. Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie have sucked up $170 billion to stay afloat, and a recent CBO report to Congress projects the GSEs will need $51 billion more to survive over the next ten years. Only in government could failed management of this magnitude be deemed worthy of a bonus.

President Obama, who blasted bonuses to other bankers as "shameful" and the "height of irresponsibility", has been curiously silent. This is the same President who has had no problem intervening directly regarding compensation and management of other financial institutions that got federal bailout assistance. There will be "no more bonuses for companies that taxpayers are helping out" he said back in 2009, "as that would be a violation of 'our fundamental values'."

Indeed, the Dodd-Frank financial reform behemoth signed by Obama grants expanded authority to the government to seize and control the management of banks, but the legislation is notably mute regarding Fannie and Freddie.

Obama's silent indifference also stands in stark contrast to the campaigning Obama of 2008 who stated, "I've always said that any action with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needs to put taxpayers first, and can't under any circumstances bail out shareholders or senior management of that company."

When pressed for a comment on the recently announced bonuses, all that the President's spokesman Jay Carney would say was, "These entities are independent and therefore they are independent decisions. The White House is not involved, and nor should it be."

To pretend that Fannie and Freddie are "independent" might be a convenient dodge for Obama, but the troubled GSEs are anything but on their own. On September 6, 2008 the Bush Administration took both GSEs into federal conservatorship in a plan promoted by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, then President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Accordingly from that point forward, the newly created Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) controlled the GSEs rather than just provide regulatory oversight. In exchange for bailing out the mortgage giants the government got a majority ownership interest with a preferred stock equity position. In late 2010, the lame duck Democrat Congress removed the credit ceiling restraint previously imposed on the GSEs and opened the checkbook of the U.S. Treasury to unlimited credit advances to continually bailout Fannie and Freddie.

While it might be politically convenient for Obama to pretend that Fannie and Freddie are untouchable independents, the agencies have been and continue to be vehicles of choice used by liberal Democrats to further an affordable housing objective and curry favor with the electorate. After all, who can object to a goal of more people owning their own home – until we all have to pay the consequences of too many of those loans defaulting?

Key Members of Congress were concerned about the GSEs more than ten years ago. A highly critical report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight (OFHEO), then the regulator of Fannie and Freddie, precipitated hearings and calls from Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration for more oversight.

Democrats, particularly members of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the problem was with the regulator and not the GSEs. During a House Financial Services Subcommittee hearing in 2004 Gregory Meeks (D-NY) erupted with, "I'm p***ed off at OFHEO, because if it weren't for you we wouldn't be here in the first place." Lacy Clay (D-MO) said the hearing amounted to "the political lynching of Franklin Raines." Raines was then the CEO of Fannie Mae, and referring to the home mortgages held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, he told Congress that "these assets are so riskless" that reserve requirements for potential loss was a non-issue.

"We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular, at Fannie Mae," Maxine Waters (D-CA) said during the hearing, "Everything in the 1992 Act (The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act) has worked just fine." Waters agreed with her Black Caucus colleagues that OFHEO – not Fannie or Freddie – was the problem for blowing the whistle on the GSEs, and that Congress should be focused on regulating the regulator. "What we need to do is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as to not impede on the affordable housing mission."

With the legislation passed in 1992, Waters and her colleagues mandated the GSEs to "assist primary lenders to make housing credit available in areas with concentrations of low-income and minority families." By 2000, HUD required 50% of the loans funded by Fannie and Freddie to go to low-income borrowers.

Later, Waters pressured the GSEs to develop no-down-payment mortgages. "When you look at the philosophy behind down payments, it doesn't make any sense anymore," she said. "There are people who will never have a down payment." By 2007 26% of all mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae were low or zero down payment. When significant numbers of these high-risk loans to minorities ended in foreclosure, Waters and her Black Caucus friends said it was because of "racism" and "reverse redlining." The woman who led the fight to make loans available to virtually anyone who asked now blamed "predatory lenders" for pushing low-income borrowers into subprime mortgages they couldn't afford.

The obsession with ever more lax underwriting standards and ever greater affordable housing and home ownership objectives eventually led to the creation of the NINA (No Income/No Asset) mortgage at Freddie Mac. The NINA was created to accommodate "consumers who cannot, for whatever reason, provide personal financial information," as explained in an internal 2004 memo directed to Richard Syron, the CEO of Freddie Mac. "Under this mortgage offering, borrowers do not disclose income or assets to the lender – the borrower's ability to repay the loan is not analyzed or considered."

The Chief Risk Officer for Freddie Mac, David Andrukonis, warned Syron in 2004 of the risk of NINA loans, and recommended pulling the plug. Syron ignored the warning. "He said we couldn't afford to say no to anyone," Adrukonis told the New York Times. Freddie continued buying NINA loans until November, 2007.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who has his fingerprints all over decades of the evolution of the GSEs and the financial dilemma that has resulted, is more candid about how liberal Democrats perceive Fannie and Freddie than Obama now wants to admit. In a 2010 CNBC interview, Frank, then the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee with direct oversight responsibility for the agencies, said that Fannie and Freddie are essentially a "public policy instrument of the government." Frank made it clear that he viewed the losses and billions in bailouts for the GSEs as just a cost of doing the business of government and affecting desired outcomes much like any other social program or entitlement. Dropping all pretense that the GSEs were private or independent agencies Frank said, "Remember now that Fannie and Freddie have been converted…part of the losses of Fannie and Freddie are that since the housing collapse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…have become a kind of public utility."

Unlike Obama, Barney Frank is at least right up front with his politics, and doesn't even pretend that Fannie and Freddie are – or ever should have been – anything other than a tentacle of the ever expanding federal government octopus. "They're not what they used to be – that inappropriately hybrid, private stock company, public policy instrument," Frank said during that same CNBC interview.

There is much to consider in that statement and a good deal to learn. For decades, politicians have been using the tax code, regulation, and intimidation to force private institutions to implement public policy. Frank and his liberal colleagues like Obama obviously would prefer to drop the masquerade that a bright line still exists between public and private, and in the last three years they have relentlessly moved in the direction of more government control over the remains of the private sector, and in some cases and outright takeover of private sector functions.

Less than a decade ago, Fannie and Freddie either made or guaranteed about 40% of the mortgage loans in the nation. Today, the two GSEs control 95% of the market. As recently as 2006, the private sector provided $2 for home mortgages or other consumer credit for every $1 provided by the government. Today, that 2:1 advantage has disappeared and the government now provides or guarantees more consumer credit (about $6.5 trillion) than the entire private market sources combined. As previously mentioned, Dodd-Frank gives the government unprecedented regulatory control over the remaining private sector banks.

The government is in the car business having bailed out and taken ownership positions in both General Motors and Chrysler. If ObamaCare is implemented as currently planned, the government will have unprecedented control over the health care industry; 16% of the entire economy. With choking regulation from the EPA and Interior Department, the Administration has limited production of proven traditional energy resources while squandering billions on risky green energy adventures like Solyndra.

In all of these cases and more, the government is taking increasing control over a once private industry to accomplish a public policy objective; something even Barney Frank acknowledged as an "inappropriate hybrid." Unless the course is reversed – something with which Congress has a disastrous track record of accomplishment – the outcome will be the same as for Fannie and Freddie. As Frank might say, all of these intrusions by the government into the private sector would result in the creation of still more "public policy instruments" of the federal government.

Good News (maybe): Congress looks to block defense cuts if Super Committee fails

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:48:00 GMT

As time runs out for the Super Committee of twelve House and Senate Members to strike a deal to reduce the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion, there is growing concern that failure by the committee would trigger a sequestration (automatic cut) of $600 billion or more at the Defense Department. This would be on top of $850 billion in cuts over a decade already announced by the Obama Administration, including cancelling 50 weapons programs, as national security expert Peter Brookes explained recently on these pages.

The Super Committee idea and the threat of automatic cuts through a sequester was a component of the compromise reached last summer to increase the federal debt ceiling.

The good news – maybe – is that, "Several members of Congress, especially Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, are readying legislation that would undo the automatic across-the-board cuts" according to a New York Times report.

Mike Conaway (R-TX), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said "most of us will move heaven and earth to find an alternative that prevents a sequester from happening." That assessment is shared by many Democrats, too. John Garamendi (D-CA) was adamant. "The sequester will never take place," he said. "It's not going to happen."

Senator Carl Levin, the Democrat Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says that the announced Pentagon cuts will be "very difficult to meet already," and so he, too, opposes further defense cuts through the sequester trigger.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Congress in early November of the severe consequences to troop strength and defense capabilities if further cuts are mandated. Obama's Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, agreed saying that additional cuts "would do serious damage to our ability to be able to make the kind of changes in our defense structure that are responsible and that do protect this country for the future."

Brookes, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, believes further cuts "will harm our ability to deter, dissuade or deal with adversarial activities and shape world events in our favor, presaging a possible plummet in US power across the globe."

Congress does need to reduce the deficit, and the $1.5 trillion charge to the Super Committee is understated. But, further cuts in defense would be short sighted. As a percent of GDP, spending on entitlements currently consumes twice as much as defense, so defense isn't even the biggest nor most obvious target. Further, the Obama budget plan would continue a well established decline in the percentage of the budget devoted to defense while spending on social programs continues to explode.

The real question before Congress is one of priorities and the essential role of government. Syndicated columnist Robert Samuelson summarized our sentiments in one of his recent features. "A central question of our budget debates is how much we allow growing social spending to crowd out the military and, in effect, force the United States into a dangerous, slow-motion disarmament," he wrote. "Defense spending is unlike other spending, because protecting the nation is government's first job. It's in the Constitution, as highways, school lunches, and Social Security are not."

When the debt ceiling compromise was agreed to, we doubted the likelihood for success of the Super Committee and expressed our concern that Congress had backed the military into a corner. While it doesn't solve the very real problem of reducing the deficit, we do find some satisfaction in the Good News that many on Capitol Hill are waking up to the need to find budget solutions that do not further compromise our national security.

Tip-of-the-Hat: The Republican Study Committee's Jobs through Growth Act

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:45:00 GMT

President Obama has been skirting around the nation pleading "Pass my bill;" a reference to his half-trillion son-of-stimulus spending whim that has gotten no traction on Capitol Hill and been greeted with yawns or worse in the media. Even his handpicked economic expert, Mark Zandi, had to revise his original enthusiasm for the newest Keynesian plan after learning of Obama's $1.5 trillion in new taxes to "pay for" all the additional spending. Zandi's sheepish revised analysis said that within a year, Obama's new "jobs bill" would actually become a "drag on the economy."

While the Administration has been doing about everything possible to destroy jobs, grow government, and increase the debt, the GOP House has been busy passing legislation that actually makes some sense. Fifteen separate bills were passed over the last several months that focused on reducing job destructive regulatory burdens and encouraging badly needed domestic energy production. The various bills even enjoyed some Democrat support in the House, but over in the Senate the package is known as the "Forgotten Fifteen" as Harry Reid refuses to schedule a vote on even one of the pieces of legislation.

Recently, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of self-identified conservatives and the largest caucus in the House, introduced The Jobs through Growth Act; a single bill that bundles many of the reg-relief ideas and other common-sense initiatives of RSC members into one piece of legislation. According to RSC Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, "We take all the good things that the House has passed this year – which went nowhere in the Senate – and put it in a concise fashion." The whole plan is laid out in just a two page summary.

One of the best budget experts in the House, Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) led the effort for the RSC and described the proposal as "basically an exact opposite, if you will, of the so-called jobs package that the president has laid out, with is really no jobs package at all."

Highlights of the RSC jobs proposal include:

Simplification of the tax code to just two individual income tax rates: 15 percent for individuals making up to $50,000 or couples up to $100,000 and then 25 percent for taxable income above those amounts. All deductions and credits would be replaced with a $12,500 standard deduction per filer and per dependent.
Elimination of the death tax.
Elimination of the AMT.
Capital gains tax capped at 15%, but indexed for inflation.
Reduce corporate tax rate to 25%, establish a worldwide territorial business tax system, and open a one-year repatriation window for foreign profits with a 5.25% tax rate.
Freeze implementation of all new regulations until unemployment falls to 7.7%.
Raise the threshold for Small Business exemption from many regulations from 50 to 200 employees.
Require Congressional approval for any new regulation with an economic impact of $100 million or more.
Encourage domestic energy production and reduce the cost to consumers by lessening regulatory burdens, mandates, and prohibitions that artificially increase the price of gasoline, including those imposed in OCS of the Gulf of Mexico.
Open ANWR, the Eastern Gulf, and other regions of the OCS for energy production.
Repeal the Interior Department's "Wild Lands Policy" that restricted energy development on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land.
Repeal EPA's green house gas regulation, and limit EPA from implementing new "climate change" regulation.
Extend by one-year OCS leases that were needlessly delayed by the Administration
Fast-track the Keystone Energy Pipeline; the proposal to transport Canadian energy resources to the United States.

Barack Obama has accused the Republicans in Congress of not being "willing to move" real job-creating legislation. But in reality, it is Obama who hasn't been able to generate enough enthusiasm for his ideas, even among Democrats. And his sycophant in the Senate, Harry Reid continues to block the GOP's good ideas from even getting a vote.

The experienced observer understands that this is what "divided government" looks like. It isn't pretty, nor is it productive, other than to at least stop more destructive economic policy from being passed and signed in to law by the Democrats. Nonetheless, we Tip-our-Hat to the GOP and particularly the Republican Study Committee for sending a very clear message to the voters of what could happen in short order if there was a conservative majority in both the House and Senate, as well as a new occupant in the White House. That opportunity is now just twelve months away.

SCOTUS to take up ObamaCare

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:57:00 GMT

ABC News: "The Supreme Court announced Monday morning that it will hear a challenge to the Obama administration’s signature legislative achievement: the health care reform law."

"In a paper statement the Court said it would focus on a case brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals." ….

"Under normal circumstances the court will schedule oral arguments for the case this spring, and decide the issue by early summer, just months before the next presidential election." …. read more

Big Dem Donors' Company to Cut Jobs Due to ObamaCare

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:28:00 GMT

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said ObamaCare would "create 4 millions of jobs – 400,000 almost immediately." Don't hold your breath.

Now that businesses have had time to "find out what's in it" as the former Speaker of the House invited, instead of job creation, jobs are actually being destroyed by the provisions of ObamaCare, just as concerned critics predicted. A study by the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, predicted 1.6 million jobs would be destroyed by 2014 when ObamaCare would be fully implemented, mostly within small businesses. Even the CBO predicted 650,000 jobs would be destroyed by the legislation. It's happening.

Stryker Corporation is a manufacturer of artificial hips and knees for replacement surgery headquartered in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Due to a new 2.3% tax on medical devices that will be imposed because of ObamaCare, Stryker has announced a 5% reduction in the company's 20,000 employee global workforce in order to reduce annual pretax operating costs by more than $100 million prior to 2013 when the new tax is scheduled to kick in.

Ironically, Pat and Jon Stryker, the billionaire grandchildren of the company's founder and orthopedic surgeon Homer Stryker, have invested millions of their inherited fortunes electing Barack Obama and Democrats who passed the legislation that is destroying jobs and increasing costs at the company that made them rich.

Pat and Jon are ranked among the richest people in America by Forbes, and like to identify their occupation as "philanthropist." We doubt the Stryker employees who get fired will appreciate the result of Pat and Jon's political "philanthropy."

Persistent Poverty in America Part III: How to Alleviate It

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:30:00 GMT

Entitlement programs have done more to sustain poverty than alleviate it. We are losing the war on poverty because the well-intentioned entitlement programs meant to fight poverty actually perpetuate it.

Ending poverty in America would take a paradigm shift that embraces capitalism, reforms entitlement programs, and forces poor communities and liberal politicians to take responsibility for their destructive actions and policies, respectively.

In today's economy, upward socioeconomic mobility requires individual motivation. Many of the multigenerational poor are so ensnared in and discouraged by the entitlement trap that they fail to promote the values that could inspire their children to rise above poverty.

Multigenerational poor families have been duped into believing that capitalism is evil and some form of socialism is their only source of monetary security. This culture of poverty has removed hope from the family and community dynamics.

Electing liberal politicians who promote varying forms of socialist entitlement public policy continues the cycle of government reliance thereby removing pride from its recipients. The material possessions that entitlement beneficiaries own were not earned. There's no pride in acquiring something that wasn't earned so they often fail to appreciate their possessions and, by extension, their community. How can they when they are constantly told that they are the victims of an inept and discriminatory system? A system that owes them something.

A step on the path to end poverty would be to promote capitalism and encourage the poor to believe in free markets. The best cure for poverty is a job. The surest way to create jobs and subsequent wealth is through capitalism. Historically, economic growth increases as the government's grip on the market weakens. As the economy grows, unemployment decreases. Yet, entitlement programs create disincentives to enter the expanding labor pool as recipients fear they will lose the safety net of the nanny state. They are trapped in their perceived safety net. Combined with disincentives is the notion that capitalist greed disproportionately shuts out blacks and Latinos intentionally.

The free market system, however, respects the merits of the individual and provides opportunities regardless of race or gender. A business will hire an individual based on his ability to contribute to the success of the business. Capitalism creates wealth by providing services to others which means that businesses and individuals create wealth by serving others.

Socialism, on the other hand, creates greed as individuals demand unearned services and goods from the collective wealthier other. Until the poor realize that the liberal ideology they generally promote is greedy, there is no hope that they will see the merits of capitalism and individual accountability.

As the merits of individual responsibility spread through poor communities, they will begin to correct the things that they have done to destroy their general family structure. In today's culture families often need two income earners for financial security. So the decay of the two-parent family unit among the poor is a major contributing factor to multigenerational poverty. Fathers who feel that they aren't accountable for their actions abandon their parental obligations leaving young, single women with the responsibility to raise children. This creates economic and family values deficiencies that shatter hope.

Although government cannot provide hope, there is a role for it to help the poor. The government should create a stable and open economic environment that promotes job creation. The welfare reforms of 1996 should be expanded to further encourage entitlement recipients to work and receive an education or some form of business training. Poor parents must attend school or some other training to improve their business skill sets and expand their knowledge. At the local level, schools and municipal governments can work with nonprofit organizations to provide services that allow working mothers to attend school or trainings. And, most importantly, Conservatives must be willing to promote the merits of capitalism and individual responsibility in traditionally poor, liberal communities.

Investigating Solyndra and what that means for solar

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:49:00 GMT

Earlier this year, we learned that the solar energy company Solyndra was struggling to stay afloat even after receiving a $535 million taxpayer backed loan from the Department of Energy (DOE).

The revelation was enough to launch a congressional investigation into what went wrong, and why DOE was unable to see it coming. In late August, Solyndra declared bankruptcy, and the FBI subsequently raided its headquarters. Among the most pressing questions for our investigation, is whether the administration is just guilty of making a poor investment or whether it deliberately dolled out this money to fit an ideological agenda?

There were plenty of warning signs about Solyndra. The President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) questioned whether the solar panels Solyndra manufactured could compete in the world market. Congress even uncovered emails showing that some OMB staffers expressed doubts about whether the loan was a good investment.

Yet, none of this deterred DOE from giving Solyndra money or from restructuring the loan in February of this year. It was during the restructuring of the loan that the DOE subordinated the taxpayer's interest in the deal to some of Solyndra's private investors – something many people believe to be a clear violation of the law.

Despite White House denials that any lobbying on behalf of Solyndra occurred, recently released documents now point to direct lobbying in the White House by top Obama fundraisers seeking additional government loans for the failing company.

The House Subcommittee investigating this loan guarantee program, of which I am a member, has been pressing the DOE and the White House for further details as to why the loan was restructured, and why the taxpayers interest was subordinated. The White House response has been cavalier at best. Earlier this year, President Obama told ABC News that the Solyndra loan guarantee was a "good bet". Yet the government's own analysts questioned this belief more than a year ago. It is also my opinion that we can't afford to be gambling with taxpayer dollars.

Documents provided to the committee show that political pressure likely played a role in the approval of the Solyndra loan guarantee. If this program is to continue, the public deserves answers about how these decisions were made, who was in charge and what outside factors might be influencing the White House.

Frustratingly, the White House has slow walked our committee's investigation at every step. They have resisted repeated requests for cooperation, refused to put a timeline on when they could possibly release pertinent documents, and have been unwilling to disclose even the nature or the number of relevant documents in their possession. In order to protect the taxpayers and ensure congressional access to documents related to the Solyndra loan guarantee, the Committee conducting the investigation has served subpoenas to White House Chief of Staff William Daley and Vice President Joe Biden's Chief of Staff Bruce Reed.

Now is not the time for evasive ploys and political games. Transparency and accountability need to be brought back into this process. That means the White House needs to cooperate and does not get to determine what the House Committee needs to conduct its investigation.

Critics of the investigation have called it a witch-hunt and accused the Committee of trying to attack the solar industry. To them I say this: it is precisely because solar has promise that we cannot let Solyndra or mistakes made in administering the DOE loan guarantee program to soil the entire solar industry's reputation. Plenty of companies have taken federal loans and not gone bankrupt or broken the law. Solyndra was a deal gone wrong. It is important that we learn why, so the same mistakes are not made in the future.

The GOP Debates and the Liberal Media

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:02:00 GMT

We have known the national news media's liberal political slant for a long time. What the Republican GOP debates have shown is just how far left of center the mainstream media really is.

More than the usual "as a conservative, do you beat your wife daily" type questions, it has become clear now that the new litmus test for Presidential candidates is a belief in the theory of evolution and the current mantra of global warming.

In one recent GOP debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was pestered with the question about whether he supports evolution and global warming as facts. Perry's view about evolution had been caught on tape while campaigning with a young boy whose mother was pushing her son to ask "why he doesn't believe in science?"

That moment caught on tape galvanized the liberal media and the Chris Matthew types who pounced on the theme should a President be elected who doesn't support evolution and global warming.

My point is not to debate the strengths and weaknesses of each theory but to suggest that most Americans are skeptical of both and Gov. Perry's views are very mainstream.

Not, just Gov. Perry but most of the republican candidates have similar views as the Texas Governor. Mitt Romney mentioned his faith as central to his character at another recent GOP debate.

So, what are we learning about the candidates at these manufactured debates? Not as much as I think many of us hoped to do.

We are viewing staged news conferences rather than a debate format that allows a full discussion of the important topics. The chosen media person is asking the questions that they care most about rather than allowing the candidate to explain, in detail, plans to lead the free world.

We see this daily in news coverage but it is bothersome that we allow it as part of the republican debate process. How many of the recent debates have a question aimed at pitting one candidate versus another?

We also see a change of political position from 30 years ago highlighted as if it were a waffle. Haven't you changed some of your views over the last three decades? I have.

What I propose is a real debate with the top three of four candidates (based on polling data) and then a selection of topics from the economy to foreign policy. Allow each candidate to put forth their ideas so we can adequately determine who best has the answers for the current day.

By sticking to the current format, we are allowing the national news media to choose our candidate by choosing the questions they would like to ask.

As for the candidate's themselves, I would rather they stick to President Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandment. "Thou shalt not speak evil of another republican."

November Elections: Some Straws in the Wind

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:56:00 GMT

(Denver) After suffering the only defeat of his long political career in a Cambridge, Massachusetts election the young "Tip" O'Neil was flabbergasted to learn that his own barber had voted for his opponent. When pressed for an explanation, the barber replied simply: "He asked for my vote, Tip. You didn't."

Never forgetting this experience of the very personal nature of politics, O'Neil in later years as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives would give voice to a timeless maxim: "All Politics Is Local."

As Democrats and Republicans alike spin the results of greatly differing elections and claim broad trends favoring their party in 2012, thoughtful observers would do better to heed the wisdom of O'Neil's famous maxim. It is impossible to find in this national election mosaic a coherent narrative predictive of 2012. Each election is best understood in the context of the local conditions in which it was fought.

No jurisdiction offered a better example of striking cross currents in voter sentiment than Ohio which simultaneously rejected the central element of Obamacare- the individual mandate- and overturned the sweeping restrictions on collective bargaining engineered by Republican Governor John Kasich. Remarkably both results were by roughly 2 to 1 margins, meaning that fully a third of Buckeye state voters chose to give both political parties a smack in the chops.

Yet another example of contradiction was Mississippi which gave Republicans control of the governor's office, and both legislative chambers for the first time since Reconstruction, but also strongly rejected a "Pro-Life" amendment to the state constitution. Oddly the impetus for this amendment came from Colorado folks who had lost a similar effort in their own state. That Mississippi, a bastion of Pro-Life sentiment, would handily defeat this amendment, was best explained by Pro-Life Republican Governor Haley Barbour who described it as badly written and likely to have unforeseen negative consequences.

An issue where a seeming contradiction might actually be good citizen judgment is voter registration. While Maine overturned a Republican sponsored ban on Election Day registration, Mississippi became the latest state to require photo-IDs for registration. Voters may well have made the shrewd judgment that how late you register is less important than being sure you're eligible to register.

Beyond its ill-starred meddling in Mississippi, Colorado gained attention by being the only place in the nation to have a statewide tax increase on the ballot. On a recent visit to Sedona an ex-college room-mate/ ex-Arizona legislator asked me "Whose bright idea was that?" His puzzlement proved apt when a few days later Colorado voters walloped this initiative (Proposition 103) by a stunning 65 to 35 margin and for good measure turned down virtually every local tax raising measure as well. With brilliant insight sheepish Democratic sponsors of Prop 103 opined that the weak economy "probably influenced voters".

Unquestionably the best example of electoral contradiction and confusion was provided by the Newark Star-Ledger. Based on the loss of just one Republican legislative seat, the paper's banner front page headline read: "N.J. Dems Finally Give Christie a Black Eye", while inside their lead editorial opined the opposite: "This result is meaningless. Christie has lost nothing since his budget slashing success rests on his undisturbed alliance with powerful Democratic leaders who understand the insanity of the state's fiscal condition".

Yet in Virginia a gain of just one seat did mean a lot since it gave Republicans who already own one chamber and the Governor's office control of the Senate and more importantly final control of the redistricting process.

What this kaleidoscope of "local politics" means for 2012 no one can say for certain. The national economic crisis has given our politics a volatility that defies prediction.

What we do know is that a large majority (73%) of Americans believe the country is on the "wrong track", and they are deeply unhappy that politicians in Washington have done nothing meaningful to provide remedies. In this environment for either party to believe their spinmeisters is a recipe for political suicide come next November.

William Moloney's columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Human Events. He is a Fellow of the Centennial Institute in Colorado.

Middle East/Afghanistan Update

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:01:00 GMT

Iraq: America is repositioning its forces out of Iraq by the end of the year after a nine-year involvement. President Barack Obama has said that "the last American soldiers will cross the border out of Iraq" on 31 December. The chess master of the Middle East, Iran, is making its moves day by day to fill any vacuum left by the United States, militarily and politically. Most Iraqis will exhale with a great sigh of relief.

The United States will not be gone from Iraq altogether as some 16,000 U.S. personnel will remain in the form of diplomats, Defense Department experts, military and police trainers, and a large number of security contractors, of whom some 5,000 will be armed to protect the U.S. mission. All US and non US Contractors will be continual targets for the radical Islamists supported by Iran and its main proxy, Hezbollah. History's verdict on America's Iraqi war is likely to be severe. The United States has not suffered a military defeat at the tactical level but the Victory for America in the strategic sense will not reflect a Victory (like Vietnam). The damage to the United's leadership, credibility, reputation, moral stature and political influence has been seriously damaged.

The Iraq war will be seen as a landmark in the downward slide of the United States from its once pre-eminent place in the community of nations. After the Soviet collapse in 1991, the United States was the world's unchallenged super-power. Today, twenty years later, we seem to have lost our way because of a lack of Vision and the flawed, forward strategies of our political leadership. Even our closest friends look at us askance and wonder what has become of us.

The cost in human lives and treasure has been immense. As discussed in previous Chessboard articles, the Middle East is nothing but a giant "sponge" that will soak all the human and financial resources that you put into it. Some 4,500 US soldiers have died in Iraq and tens of thousands more were wounded. The cost to the American taxpayer has been estimated at $700 billion and upwards. Future projections forecast the ultimate cost could well be $3 trillion with billions unaccounted for by other reports.

Once a strong and united country, Iraq is now a weak and querulous federation. The Kurds have broken loose and enjoy something close to independence under their own regional government, while Sunni Arabs, outraged at the discrimination they suffer at the hands of the Shi'i Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, are threatening secession in a northern province around Irbil.

An unintended consequence of America's war was to put the Shi'is in power in Baghdad, that only opened the door to Iranian influence; and in the wider Gulf area, the regional balance of power to Iran's advantage. Saudi Arabia, the Arab world's leading Sunni power, is understandably perturbed. Saudi-Iranian rivalry is now intense while relations between Saudi Arabia and Shia-led Iraq are close to breaking point.

To ease the tensions, Qatar's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Shaykh Hamad bin Jassem -- a leading mediator of regional conflicts -- has proposed that Saudi Arabia and Iran hold talks over American allegations of an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Few experts believe the American accusations have much substance, but they have served to destabilize an already volatile region. Overall, therefore, the geopolitical costs of the Iraqi war have been very great indeed.

Can America change course and proceed with a well thought out forward strategy? Nothing is less likely.

Israel: Through a number of leaks and well-publicized war exercises, the Israeli government has dramatically increased its threats against Iran in the past weeks. Since the Israeli military likes to act by surprise, it seems this current escalation is a bluff designed to help pass tougher diplomatic measures against the Islamic Republic at the United Nations Security Council, specifically following the anticipated publication of an important report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) next week.

However, given the exceptionally high and rising regional tensions (not all of which involve Israel directly), a larger war in the Middle East is a growing distinct possibility. The Israeli rhetoric can be interpreted in two additional ways (all three are not mutually exclusive): as an attempt to deter a possible first or second strike by Iran and its allies, and as a campaign to prepare public opinion, both at home and abroad, for hostilities. According to a widely circulated if anonymous assessment (presumed to have come directly from high-ranking Israeli officials), the window of opportunity for striking the Iranian nuclear sites this year will close in a matter of weeks, with the coming of the winter.

Intelligence tells us at SUA that Iran already has several nuclear weapons that can we launched with the Shehab 3 as the vehicle of choice. A launch against Israel and an EMP launch using container ships against the United States. In the worst-case scenario, if the Iranian leaders choose to dash headlong toward using a bomb, they can do it without a real test of their nuclear weapons capability. Screw a well- designed nuc on the end of a Shehab and pray that Allah will ensure detonation.

It was not very difficult to twist the assessment into a powerful sound bite ("the window of opportunity for a strike against Iran is closing") and to put it to use to justify and amplify an impressive Israeli show of force. In the space of a week or so, Israel conducted a simulation of a long-distance air strike together with Italy, tested what was allegedly an upgrade of its Jericho 3 intercontinental ballistic missile, and conducted a home front drill centered on the scenario of a chemical weapons attack delivered by a missile. All three drills were conducted in an extraordinarily open way; the usually tight-lipped Israeli military censor allowed the Israeli press to publish pictures of the exercise in Italy and speculations about the Israeli missile program. Moreover, these reports were accompanied by a flurry of other reports and leaks, all conveying, explicitly or implicitly, the same message; that an Israeli strike on Iran is imminent.

"Benjamin Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to support attack on Iran," was the title of a November 2 article on the Israeli prime minister's intentions in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz. "With Syria on the way down, Iran needs nukes more than ever," another Ha'aretz headline from the same day reads. "US fears unilateral Israeli strike on Iran," a website associated with another Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, claimed just days earlier. Even The Guardian chimed in, reporting that the United Kingdom was "stepping up" its preparations to assist the United States in a "potential military action against Iran".

Last month, the US think-thank Stratfor suggested that the US was finally siding with Saudi Arabia in a more aggressive stance against Iran. On the one hand, much of this is clearly posturing, and Israel seems to be playing the bad cop in the American pressure campaign against Iran at the UN Security Council.

If Russia and China could be persuaded that the Israeli government is serious in its threats, they would theoretically become more amenable to tougher sanctions against Iran (something they have so far opposed). The IAEA report is due to be released next week, and it is rumored to be harshly critical of the Iranian nuclear program. It could back up by the American allegations that Iran conspired to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington - serve as a basis for another round of sanctions.

In the past, Israel has conducted highly dangerous and controversial operations. Planning a potential strike on Iran would fall in this category - in the greatest of secrecy; it is unlikely that it would make so much noise now while preparing to attack imminently. Nevertheless, as a whole there is a real danger of a regional war, the time frame for which is not clear, and the Israeli moves could well be meant to address that threat.

In the analysis of Israeli journalist Anshel Pfeffer, It is important to note that the drills and tests of recent days, and those expected to take place in the coming days, were all planned months ago.... However, one cannot ignore the proximity of these events, together with the continuing operational work on the Iron Dome systems in Gaza and in northern Israel, the acceleration of the Magic Wand and Arrow 3 defense systems - and naturally the. All these elements - with differing degrees of planning - provide the background music in a concert of a military apparatus preparing for a possible large-scale operation.

Even if the decision to attack Iran has not yet been made, and despite opposition by senior security officials, the IDF's (Israel Defense Forces) task - and that of the rest of the security and intelligence bodies - is to provide the decision-making level with the maximum number of operational options and the offensive and defensive options. An attack on the Iranian nuclear program might not come from Israel - and neither is it certain that Iran and its allies will desist from initiating hostilities themselves. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, recently threatened to "burn the whole region" in case of a foreign intervention in his country. Days ago, he professed to accept an Arab League plan for defusing the violence, but then reportedly contradicted himself once again by murdering dozens of people in cold blood.

Meanwhile, after the death of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi, the attention of all those who feel Responsibility to Protect is clearly fixed on Syria. The comparisons run on multiple levels - according to a recent report, the IAEA is investigating a new suspicious site in Syria, which closely resembles a Libyan uranium plant that Gaddafi abandoned several years ago. Such an allegation could theoretically help justify an intervention against Assad.

For Israel, moreover, a confrontation with Iran or Syria need not take the form of a direct exchange with either of these countries. It is very likely, for example, that last weekend's escalation in Gaza between the Israeli army and the Islamic Jihad militant organization happened on orders from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Israeli muscle flexing can thus be interpreted also as a loud warning to Iran that it can easily cross the line when stoking conflict on Israel's borders.

Paul E. Vallely (MG, US Army Ret) is a Contributing Editor to A Line of Sight, CEO of NEMO Arms Inc. (New Evolution Military Ordnance), and Chairman of Stand Up America.

The Most Transparent Administration in History?

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:08:00 GMT

On the campaign trail, Candidate Barack Obama promised to bring a new level of transparency to Washington, and to preside over the "most transparent administration in U.S. history."

Since assuming office, however, President Obama and his administration have demonstrated a complete disregard for that particular campaign promise. In fact, rather than establish higher standards of transparency and accountability, the Obama Administration has willfully ignored many of the existing rules and regulations designed by previous Congresses and Presidents to ensure an open and transparent government.

President Obama and his Cabinet appear all too willing to sacrifice government accountability if it will protect his administration and political allies from public scrutiny.

In instance after instance, the Obama administration has circumvented existing transparency safeguards to cover up political missteps and questionable actions.

Over the past year, Republican Members of Congress have attempted to shed some light on the administration's actions, and have questioned several of the clandestine measures the administration has taken. With few exceptions, the Obama administration has declined to respond to any of Congress' requests for more information about many of the key actions the administration has taken in past months.

ObamaCare, one of the biggest political liabilities for Democrats, is one area where the Obama administration has stubbornly refused to yield to government accountability measures. By design, this law diminishes accountability and empowers unelected officials to make broad, sweeping decisions in health care matters. The net impact of allowing bureaucrats to make significant policy decisions is reduced transparency, as bureaucrats are never forced to answer to voters through elections.

The Obama administration has steadfastly refused to be held accountable for the private scheme HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has devised to award ObamaCare waivers and exemptions. Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act grants vast authorities and new powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, those powers are not without limits. However, Secretary Sebelius has – with blatant disregard for the Constitution – given herself an even wider array of decision-making powers.

On the occasions when Congress has challenged the curious practice of awarding ObamaCare waivers and exemptions, the White House and Health and Human Services have declined to explain the specifics of the waiver process. How, exactly, does a company get a waiver? What are the criteria? Who determines if the company satisfies the criteria? These are all questions the Department of Health and Human Services would prefer not to have to answer.

In another instance of secrecy related to ObamaCare, the Obama Justice Department is refusing to produce the emails that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan sent from her government computer when she was solicitor general. The issue at hand is her involvement in helping the Justice Department defend ObamaCare's individual mandate in court. Her involvement, which those emails would certainly confirm, would be justifiable grounds to ask Justice Kagan to recuse herself from hearing any arguments before the Supreme Court about ObamaCare.

The lack of transparency is not limited to ObamaCare, of course. The Solyndra scandal – a recent cause of embarrassment for the President – is another area where the administration prefers to obscure the facts and bury the truth. The White House continues to conceal information about the process of awarding a taxpayer-funded loan to Solyndra, the company that has since declared bankruptcy. In response to the White House's refusal to release documents related to Solyndra, Congressional leaders are now considering subpoenaing those records.

This policy of minimal transparency in the executive branch manifests itself elsewhere, too. Last month, the Department of Justice proposed altering the Freedom of Information practices to conceal records and mislead the public, saying certain records do not exist. After much public outcry, the Justice Department withdrew its proposed regulation.

Another scandal at the Justice Department, the ongoing drama surrounding Fast and Furious, is yet another example of the administration's tendency to distort the truth. Throughout the unfolding of this news story, Attorney General Eric Holder's approach has consistently been to conceal his department's knowledge and involvement, and it is now clear that Holder lied repeatedly under oath about Fast and Furious.

The lack of transparency spans across the executive branch and is not isolated in one agency. It should be clear that the system-wide lack of transparency and refusal to account for official activities comes from the Chief Executive, Obama.

Having abandoned any plans to bring greater transparency to Washington, President Obama's team is now willing to forfeit existing accountability standards and laws in the pursuit of political objectives.

In 2008, Candidate Obama established an easy campaign message: bringing more accountability and openness to Washington. In 2012, he will have the difficult task of accounting to voters and explaining why his administration strayed so far from those campaign pledges.

Shonda Werry is a former Capitol Hill staffer and a contributing editor for A Line of Sight.

IAEA says foreign expertise has brought Iran to threshold of nuclear capability

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:41:00 GMT

Editor's Note: The IAEA is scheduled to release a much anticipated report on Iran's nuclear program later this week. Following is an excerpt from today's Washington Post with an advanced look at the findings.

By Joby Warrick, Nov. 7, 2011, The Washington Post

"Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings."

"Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said. Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, they added."

"The officials, citing secret intelligence provided over several years to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the records reinforce concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related research after 2003 — when, U.S. intelligence agencies believe, Iranian leaders halted such experiments in response to international and domestic pressures." Read More

Brookes: Madness Marches On - Foreign Furies aren't over for US

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:27:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

With Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Khadafy swept into the dustbin of history and the full US withdrawal from Iraq in the works, there's a prevailing sense that, for us, all's reasonably right with the world.

Pity, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

The Middle East, for instance, is aflame with challenges to long-standing American interests -- and leadership.

Start with Egypt. Eight months after President Hosni Mubarak's ouster, the key Arab country has "progressed" politically to the point that the military is still in charge -- basically: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

The democratic transition is stalled, military tribunals abound, protesters are harassed, detained or killed, the media are being muzzled, the Muslim Brotherhood is poised for electoral victory, and Cairo is re-opening diplomatic ties with Tehran after 30-plus years.

In Libya, while no one will miss Khadafy, the uprising has created hundreds of militias, some bent on revenge. Questions persist about Islamist influence.

Concerns are rife about the security of left-over chemical weapons -- not to mention the up to 20,000 man-portable, surface-to-air missiles that vanished from the regime's arms depots, with some spotted as far away as Egypt. The chances of their falling into the wrong hands are pretty darn good.

Plus, nary a thing has been done about the brutal crackdown by Syrian security services on regime opponents after months of protests -- with, perhaps, the exception of some feckless economic sanctions and lots of finger-wagging.

So far, some 3,000 to 4,000 protesters have died at the hands of President Bashar Assad's henchmen. New talk of negotiations with the opposition is plainly just an effort to buy time while the regime works to snuff out the fires of revolt. (It's probably time to talk turkey with Turkey about some tough economic sanctions on its Syrian neighbor.)

The Palestinians entered UNESCO last week, and are likely to approach other specialized UN bodies for membership. They haven't stopped knocking on the General Assembly door for a seat in the UN main body, either.

The Middle East peace process? Going nowhere anytime soon.

Of course, after bungling negotiations for a follow-on force, we're getting the heck out of Iraq by year's end. Only a small military advisory group will remain behind at the US embassy.

Of course, while everyone will be glad to get our brave young men and women home for the holidays, security analysts are fretting that our departure will open the way for Iraq to fall into Iran's orbit -- or for more sectarian and ethnic violence.

Speaking of Iran, has there been any real progress on putting the wrap on its nuclear (weapons) program? Don't think so. An International Atomic Energy Agency study due out this week reportedly will unveil some damning details on Tehran's nuke work. (Israel's recent military and civil-defense exercises no doubt mean Iran is advancing on the nuclear front.)

While Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's al-Awlaki is gone, Yemen is still deeply troubled. The capital, Sanaa, is a war zone, and AQAP and its tribal pals are running rampant in the south, where they're planning and training for more terrorism.

And that's just the Middle East.

Elsewhere, there's the mess in Mexico, the problems in Pakistan, North Korean nukes, the vagaries of Venezuela, al Qaeda's Somali sidekick, al Shabab, China's cyberspying on, well, everyone -- and international economic emergencies, among others.

The point is that while what's happening at home is critically important, we had better pay attention to what happens abroad at the same time -- that is, unless you don't mind frequent unpleasant surprises.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a Contributing Editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published November 7, 2011 in the New York Post.

Pelosi: Unemployment would be 15% if not for us.

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:20:00 GMT

Nancy Pelosi stepped in front of the cameras to defend Barack Obama and the Democrats' record on job creation and the economy recently. The former Speaker of the House said the President had been "a job creator from day one." As if that statement alone didn't sufficiently prove her detachment from reality, she added that "if President Obama and House Congressional Democrats had not acted, we would be at 15 percent unemployment." (video here)

Nancy should have left the numbers to somebody who actually understands them, because a little analysis of the real tragic situation in the workforce reveals that the total number of unemployed in America is much closer to 15 percent than the former Speaker apparently realizes, and there is plenty more bad news, too.

It is true that according to the Labor Department's October 2011 report, 13.9 million Americans are unemployed by definition. However, that definition and calculation does not include the 6.57 million who have given up even trying to find a job, and are not considered as part of the total labor force. When both groups are included, a more accurate unemployment rate of about 13 percent results.

As the following chart demonstrates, the size of the working age population has increased almost 6.5 million since Obama took office. However, the total labor force has remained essentially unchanged.

In addition, for all the talk of jobs saved-or-created by Obama and the Democrats, the numbers tell a different story; nearly 2 million fewer people even have a job than when the President took office, and again, the available workforce is larger by 6.5 million.

A critical ratio in the above numbers is what the Labor Department calls the Participation Rate; the number of people employed or looking for work out of the total age-eligible population. Throughout the last decade, the Labor Department's statistics indicate that ratio held near or above 66%. The Participation Rate was 65.8% when Obama took office with the effects of the recession already being felt. The stark reality of this ratio means that about 4 million Americans who would normally be bringing home a pay check and adding to the total productivity of the nation are on the sidelines.

A decline during a recession is expected, but the real fault with Obama and the Democrats lies in the inability to restore economic confidence such that jobs are once again available and Americans re-enter the work force. Not since the recession of the early 1980s when America was recovering from the Carter Administration's inept policies has the Participation Rate been so low.

Perhaps the most ignored statistical tragedy of Obama's failed economic policies is found in the Labor Department's tracking of people working "part time for economic reasons." Included in this category are people who want full-time jobs, but either have been cut back on hours or can't find full-time employment. These are the millions of Americans bringing home a piece of a paycheck instead of all that they'd like to provide for their family.

Again, it is totally normal that this number would increase at the start of a recession. However, as the following BLS chart shows, during the last decade slightly more than 4 million Americans were typically in this part-time employed category. That number more than doubled as the recession hit in 2008, but it has remained stuck at around 9 million for three years with recent months actually indicating an increasing trend yet again.

Number part time employed for economic reasons

Obama and Pelosi were the ones who promised upon passage of their ill-conceived $800 billion economic Stimulus in January 2009 that unemployment would stay below 8 percent. However, the unemployment rate blew past that self-imposed threshold the very next month and has never been close to that level since. Now, we are told to forget those earlier promises and projections and find satisfaction in their claim that if not for them, it might have been even worse.

Clearly, the economic policies that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi promised would pull America out of recession haven't worked, and all they have to offer is more government, more spending, and an insulting salvo that "it could have been worse" if not for them.

We're reminded of 1980 when another Democrat administration proved completely inept in dealing with a struggling economy and had lost all credibility with the voters. The Republican candidate for President explained that, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And, a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." Ronald Reagan won that election and put in place policies that led to three decades of tremendous job creation and economic growth. Most importantly Reagan sparked a renewed sense of optimism and confidence in American Exceptionalism. The best cure for our struggling economy is not more-of-the-same from Obama; it is Election Day 2012.

Obama's Problem with Numbers

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:41:00 GMT

Barack Obama has a problem with numbers. Sometimes he just gets them wrong, and sometimes the numbers aren't very nice to him.

Take for example the claim Obama made in Denver last week that he has fulfilled "about 60 percent" of his campaign promises. It turns out that is overstated by twice.

The watchdog group PolitiFact.com says that a more accurate number is 30 percent, and even when given credit for partial completion of some of his 506 campaign promises, the number only rises to 39 percent. But, then given the nature of most everything Obama said he would do as President, we're happy if he accomplishes less rather than more of his agenda.

Then there is the numbers problem Obama has with his signature legislative issue, ObamaCare – increasingly people just don't like it.

The Kaiser Foundation has long been tracking public opinion for the ObamaCare and has found that support continues to deteriorate. The latest results show just 34 percent of Americans support the legislation while 51 percent are opposed – an all-time low. Even among Democrats, barely half favor ObamaCare and by a margin of 2:1 Democrats believe the massive takeover of healthcare will not improve their personal situation.

In addition, 3 out of 4 Americans believe Obama has the country on the wrong track. A growing majority of voters disapprove of the job he's doing, and Gallup says he loses his bid for re-election 46:38 to an unnamed GOP opponent.

Numbers like these might not be good news for Obama, but they give the rest of us hope for a change in November 2012.

Democrat Strategist on Herman Cain: "…a black man who knows his place."

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:05:00 GMT

Karen Finney is not just any Democrat; she was the spokeswoman for the Democrat National Committee, served in the Clinton White House, was the press secretary for Hillary Clinton's New York Senate race, and is a veteran of four Presidential Campaigns.

Tasked with analyzing Herman Cain's surge in the GOP's Presidential campaign for MSNBC last week, Finney offered up the most outrageous, insulting, demeaning single sentence we have ever heard – particularly by someone who supposedly speaks for an entire national political party.

"I think he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel that they're not racist because they can like this guy, I think they like him because he’s a black man who knows his place."

Watch the video clip here.

Finney said this about a man who overcame very humble beginnings and every other road block life threw in front of him. He became a highly successful business executive, led a trade association, was the Chairman of the Board of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, a popular Radio personality, and now a leading contender to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

In her attempt to disparage both Herman Cain and the Republican Party, Finney actually told us volumes about herself and the Democrat Party for which she was the designated singular voice.

Another Day, Another Promise of Something for Nothing

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:42:00 GMT

At another campaign style event in Denver today President Obama announced a "student loan relief" plan that could affect more than 6 million borrowers. This will be the third day in a row that Obama has announced a populist scheme by executive order completely bypassing the "consent of the governed" and the Constitutional authority reserved for Congress. Earlier this week he rolled out enticements targeted at underwater homeowners and out of work veterans.

His Denver announcement also plays the rest of us for a bunch of fools.

According to published reports, the student loan plan would allow for interest rate reductions, reduced payment amounts, and even complete forgiveness of principle under some circumstances. All of this benevolence created with a single stroke of the pen from Barack Obama "will carry no additional costs to taxpayers" according to the White House.

Does anybody out there actually still believe him?

STRATFOR: Libya and Iraq

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:52:00 GMT

Editor's Note: In yesterday's blog post we expressed our concern that the President's announced withdrawal of all troops from Iraq amounts to a victory for Iran. Following is an excerpt from today's published analysis on the subject by foreign policy and intelligence expert George Friedman of STRATFOR Global Intelligence. Use the provided link to read the entire summary that includes Friedman's assessment for Libya and Syria, as well

"....the decision to withdraw from Iraq and the inability to persuade the Iraqi government to let U.S. forces remain has the potential to change the balance of power in the region. Rather than closing the book on Iraq, it simply opens a new chapter in what was always the subtext of Iraq, namely Iranian power. The civil war in Iraq that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein had many dimensions, but its most strategically important one was the duel between the United States and Iran. The Obama administration hopes it can maintain U.S. influence in Iraq without the presence of U.S. troops. Given that U.S. influence with the presence of troops was always constrained, this is a comforting, though doubtful, theory for Washington to consume."

Read more here.

Peter Brookes: Gutting the Military - Looming Cuts Mean U.S. Retreat

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:38:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

In about a month, if a congressional "super committee" can't come up with a plan to slim down the federal budget by $1.5 trillion in 10 years, the Pentagon will be facing the budget cleaver-- again.

That's right, if the super committee can't agree on a drastic budget diet, the 2011 Budget Control Act (the law passed this summer, raising the debt ceiling) will trigger a spending "sequestration" (automatic reduction) of $1.2 trillion, with half -- or more -- coming from defense coffers.

Team Obama has already slashed the Pentagon by some $850 billion over 10 years, including canceling some 50 major weapons programs, so this is nothing less than double trouble for our troops -- and our national security.

With the big cuts already under way, even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, previously a green eye-shade "budgeteer" himself, cautioned Congress about deeper Pentagon reductions in a recent Capitol Hill appearance.

Of course, taking another bite of the Pentagon apple looks pretty darn easy compared to the political risk of touching the third-rail of American politics: reforming the Big Three entitlement programs -- Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

But experts are also warning of dire consequences internationally and higher risks to our troops if further Defense Department draw-downs are taken. After all, it's an uncertain and dangerous world we live in.

For instance, analysts say that axing the defense budget will shrink the Marine Corps to its smallest force in some 50 years; the Army will dwindle to pre-9/11 numbers, and the Air Force will have two-thirds fewer fighters and bombers than in 1990.

The Navy will lose one to two aircraft-carrier battle groups, reducing our flattop numbers to as little as nine. The brass may have to shrink the fleet to some 220-240 ships -- smaller than at any time since just before the First World War.

Plus, we may lose one leg of the nuclear triad of fleet ballistic-missile submarines, long-range bombers and land-based missiles silos -- discarding nuke duty for our boomers (missile subs) or bombers.

There's also likely to be delays in fielding national and theater missile defense to protect the homeland, our deployed troops, allies and friends abroad from the growing ballistic-missile threat.

Equally important in this tough economy, Panetta told lawmakers that large defense reductions could cost 1.5 million jobs, adding 1 percentage point to the already staggering 9 percent unemployment rate.

Bottom line?

More hacking away at the Pentagon budget could leave our military (already tired and tattered after 10 years of war) a mere shadow of what it once was -- in just a decade's time.

This will harm our ability to deter, dissuade or deal with adversarial activities and shape world events in our favor, presaging a possible plummet in US power across the globe.

China, which has increased its defense budget by 10 percent or more each year for the last two decades, must be giddy at the prospect of the sun setting on American influence in the Pacific.

The perception of our military might in free-fall will also please Iran, which is gleeful about our Iraq withdrawal, recently promised to send warships to patrol the Atlantic coast and feels safe plotting assassinations on US soil.

You can only imagine what Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria and al Qaeda (from Pakistan to Yemen to Somalia) -- not to mention our friends and allies -- must be thinking.

The Hollywood fantasy "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" was great fun, but "Honey, I Shrunk the Military" won't prove very amusing at all.

Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a Contributing Editor to A Line of Sight. This article also appeared October 25, 2011 in the New York Post. peterbrookes@heritage.org <mailto:peterbrookes@heritage.org>

Unmentionable

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:47:00 GMT

The failure of Barack Obama to negotiate an acceptable agreement to leave enough troops in Iraq to secure the peace and prevent an Iranian takeover is a diplomatic and strategic failure of major proportion. Now led by the Department of Justice, the Administration is compounding the diplomatic disaster by pretending radical Islam is no longer a threat worth mentioning.

Yes, mistakes have been made in Iraq over the last 8 ½ years. But, after the enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure, it is indefensible to cede victory to Iran, and that we fear, is exactly what the President has done. The sectarian, anti-democratic elements within and outside of Iraq committed to perpetuating terror, violence and instability have succeeded in forcing a premature withdrawal of American forces by an all too willing American Commander-in-Chief.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's fragile, immature, undependable government was cobbled together by a deal brokered by Tehran and Iranian proxy Moqtada al-Sadr, who has buckets of American blood on his hands. The radical Shiite Cleric who fomented the bloodiest days of the war was chased into exile in Iran for four years, returning last January after his "party" won a number of seats in the new Parliament.

Maliki, who once moved to crush Sadr's Mahdi Army, struggled for months to piece together a coalition government and cling to his leadership position for another term. But, demonstrating that political power trumps principal, Maliki cut a deal with the devil. "It was Sadr's recent decision to support Maliki for a second term (as Prime Minister), in a deal brokered by Iran, that ended eight months of political deadlock and allowed Maliki, also a Shiite, to cobble together his new government," as the Washington Post reported last January. Having secured Maliki's re-election, Sadr emerged as the defacto power broker. The marching orders in Baghdad started coming from Tehran, not Washington, and the end was in sight.

Turkey's once steady alliance with the U.S. and the West is gone. Egypt is rapidly sliding in the direction of the radical Islamists. In Tunisia's recent elections Islamists appear to have won a significant number of positions. What eventually comes of post-Gaddafi Libya is anyone's guess. And, seizing on the opportunities created by a weak, impotent American Administration, the Iranians are establishing not just a regional power base, but a global one as we have documented on these pages over the last three months. If Iraq becomes a puppet of Tehran and once again a safe-haven for terror rather than a flicker of hope and freedom in the region, the consequences will be catastrophic.

The decision to pull all troops out of Iraq came, of course, from the civilian Commander-in-Chief. True to their oath, the active duty military takes orders, salutes, and keeps their mouth shut. But, retired Four-Star Army General Jack Keane, who served as an adviser to Gen. David Petraeus when he was top commander in Iraq, isn't required to hold his tongue.

"I think it's an absolute disaster," said Gen. Keane. "We won the war in Iraq, and we're now losing the peace."

Having proven completely inept at dealing with the threat of radical Islam, the Obama Administration has decided to just not talk about it anymore. Only hours before the President announced the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, the Justice Department declared that the Administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam according to The Daily Caller.

The White House is obviously sympathetic to objections raised by CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and other Muslim Brotherhood "front groups." The move to scrub all reference to Islam by the Administration was strongly supported by the U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Dwight Holton, who said he had spoken directly with Attorney General Eric Holder. "I want to be perfectly clear about this; training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for," Holton said.

Holton is the prosecutor who announced the 2010 arrest of the so-called Christmas Tree Bomber, Mohamed Osman Mohamud. Holton's arresting documents and public announcement made no mention of Mohamud's well established involvement with violent Islamic Jihad that had been the focus of the FBI well before his arrest.

Obama's decision to withdraw all the troops from Iraq fulfills a campaign promise to a constituency that elected him, but it doesn't make America or the world more safe. Nor does declaring radical Islam to be an unmentionable make it any less of a threat. But then, being involved in an "overseas contingency operation" didn't make it any less of a war on terror, either.

For all the mistakes and the enormous cost of the Iraq war, it was from the beginning a classic case of America being willing to fight against evil with the hope of allowing good to one day prevail. Tragically, we have a President and an Administration that is either unwilling or unable to even distinguish between good and evil, much less muster the courage to stand up for righteousness.

Spending "Austerity" – Washington style

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:28:00 GMT

With a new GOP majority in the House and the addition of 87 Republican – and largely Tea Party supported – freshmen, a lot of Americans believed the federal spending race horse would be tamed and put back in the barn.

In fact, last spring the GOP took a lot of credit for passing $38 billion in "cuts."

But, newly released numbers by the Congressional Budget Office indicate that instead of giving the government a close shave, for all the talk about spending cuts, Congress barely plucked a single whisker from Uncle Sam's beard.

Spending in FY 2011 actually increased 5%, hitting yet another all time record high of a staggering $3.6 trillion. Last week, the Treasury announced the second highest budget deficit in history for FY 2011, $1.299 trillion, exceeded only by the 2009 deficit of $1.412 trillion. The $1.293 trillion of red ink in 2010 follows in a close third place for all time. As a percentage of GDP, the last three deficits have been 10.0%, 8.9%, and 8.4% - each of them larger than any single year since 1945, the last year of World War II.

Democrats and some Keynesian economists fanned the myth that austerity had erupted in Washington and serious spending cuts had actually happened, and many blamed the "lack of spending" for slowing economic recovery and job creation. In July USA Today said, "Already in 2011, softer government spending has sapped growth."

Last summer, Joe Biden's once chief economic adviser Jared Bernstein said that "government spending cutbacks have been a drag on growth in recent quarters and have led to sharp losses in state and local employment."

The head cheerleader of the Keynesians and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote just last month that "the turn toward austerity (is) a major factor in our growth slowdown."

It takes someone in total denial to argue that Washington has imposed an era of "austerity" when in fact annual spending has increased 5% while the economy is close to completely stalled. Many believe we have already slipped back into negative growth territory. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized, "Government austerity is a myth."

To their credit, The GOP did come back later in 2011 with plans to cut $2.4 trillion over ten years as part of the debt ceiling debate. But, Obama and the Senate Democrats fiercely rejected these "draconian" cuts.

As the WSJ reminds us, as recently as 2007 the next to last year of the Bush Administration and the first year of the Democrat majority in Congress, the deficit was $161 billion or 1.2% of GDP. Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blasted the Bush "years of historic deficits" and vowed when she became Speaker that there would be "no new deficit spending." She lied.

And, Obama's answer? He's bouncing around the country alternating between a bus and Air Force One campaigning for his no-jobs jobs bill that would increase spending another half trillion dollars and raise taxes by $1.5 trillion. He says this is only "fair."

We think it is nuts.

Tip of the Hat: So, God made a Farmer

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:36:00 GMT

It is that time of year when the last of the harvest is being completed by America's farmers. Soon, farm families and the rest of the nation will pause to once again give thanks.

Not so very long ago, a majority of the population was engaged in providing the food to sustain their immediate families and the rest of the nation. The first Americans were largely a nation of farmers. Today, less than 1 percent of the population lists farming as their occupation according to government statistics. Yet, this small group of hard working people provides an unprecedented abundance for the other 99 percent – and much of the rest of the world, as well.

With so few farmers, the vast majority of people have little if any personal contact with farm life, and as a result the once intimate appreciation of the work ethic, the life style, and the products becomes less top-of-mind; less familiar.

Recently a good friend forwarded the following tribute from some years ago by the great Paul Harvey. I'll confess that as one who spent most of my life working on our family dairy farm and now am blessed to be back on the land raising buffalo with my wife and son, Mr. Harvey managed to bring a tear to my eye.

So, as the last of the sugar beets and corn are being harvested and the calves are being weaned – and, we all look forward to another Happy Thanksgiving – we thought it is a perfect time to also offer a Tip-of-the-Hat and remember why "God made a Farmer" as Paul Harvey explained.

Click here for Paul Harvey's video tribute:
"So, God Made a Farmer"

Good News: ObamaCare is CLASS-less

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:32:00 GMT

The Obama Administration pulled the plug on one of the key provisions of their health care takeover legislation. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program, a new entitlement for long-term care that was long a dream of Ted Kennedy, was officially nixed by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last week. "Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," she wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders.

Thankfully, the legislation required that before implementation of CLASS, the Administration was required to certify that the program would be financially solvent for 75 years. After 19 months of trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat, Sebelius had to admit what critics had been saying all along – it was unsustainable.

The shell game accounting that was employed in March 2010 by the White House and Democrats in Congress to pretend that ObamaCare would actually reduce the federal deficit was embarrassingly transparent. So, an admission that even the "best analytical efforts" by the administration – (read: cooking the books) - couldn't feign fiscal sustainability, speaks to the house of cards upon which ObamaCare is built.

One of the accounting gimmicks used to originally sell ObamaCare directly related to CLASS. The tax to support the program began immediately, but benefit payments were delayed for years. That convenient trickery was projected to generate a pool of $70 billion the Democrats offered as evidence of deficit reduction. Of course, once benefits of the program started to be paid out, the $70 billion rapidly vanished and the program was, and would forever remain, in the red. That is the reality that Sebelius finally had to recognize.

CLASS is the second provision of ObamaCare to bite the dust. Last April, with broad bi-partisan support Congress repealed the onerous business expense reporting requirement of the legislation. That these two parts of the legislation are gone is Good News. But, there remains a couple thousand pages still left to go.

Obama's Jobs Destruction Bill

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:28:00 GMT

A study conducted by a former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that a price control provision of Barack Obama's jobs bill would actually destroy 238,000 jobs.

Obama's bill contains a provision requiring drug manufacturers to pay rebates to the government on prescription drugs for Medicaid/Medicare dual-eligible participants and other low income seniors. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President of American Action Forum and a former Director of the CBO, says that these price controls "would put people out of work, increase costs for seniors and privately-insured patients, and slow research and development for new drugs." The net effect would be a loss of 238,000 jobs in pharmaceutical and related employment industries according to the newly released report co-authored by Holtz-Eakin.

Obama consistently claims that his bill would create 1.9 million jobs. That's a number generated by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's, and a cheerleader for the Administration. Zandi generated the estimate before even knowing that the White House planned to "pay for" the legislation with a $1.5 trillion permanent tax increase. After getting the rest-of-the-story, Zandi amended his analysis. In a letter to Congress, Zandi stood by his rosy jobs prediction, but noted that the tax increases would create a "drag on the economy" within a year of implementation, and by 2015 the economy would be in "the same place" as now.

The same place, Mr. Zandi? Not exactly – don't forget half a trillion more spending of money we don't have and $1.5 trillion more in permanent taxes.

Bloomberg doubted Zandi and the President's projections, too. They surveyed 34 other economists. Not one was as optimistic as Zandi. In fact the average job creation estimate by the group was a paltry 288,000. Five said the legislation would produce zero new jobs. Since Obama's wants to spend $447 billion to get there, if the average estimate were to come true that works out to $1.6 million per job.

No one should need further evidence that Obama and the Administration don't have a clue about how to create jobs and get the economy moving. Virtually everything they have tried and every idea they float is a jobs killer instead of creator. The consequences of this latest idea to implement price controls on prescription drugs would be immediate and significant. The rebates "could either constitute a direct, dollar-for-dollar reduction in revenue to the pharmaceutical industry, and could make some medicines too costly to produce," says Holtz-Eakin. "As a result, these drugs would be withdrawn from the market and the revenue reduction would be even larger than the rebates paid to the government. This loss in revenue to the pharmaceutical industry could both reduce employment and create higher prices for consumers," the former CBO director concluded. The untold part of the story would be in loss of quality of life and health care if drugs are not available, and because of stifled research, new advancements are not made.

For the time being, the good news is that Obama's jobs bill doesn't look to be going anywhere but in the trash bin on Capitol Hill.