The Duplicity and Guile of the American Left

“Full of wiles, full of guile, at all times, in all ways. Are the children of men.” Aristophanes 450-385 B.C.

We are seeing so called “political” activity in the United States, which is nothing less than pure hypocrisy and deception carried on by left-leaning politicians now settled firmly in the Democrat Party. The Democrats have lied and deceived (to wit, think about red lines, “you can keep your doctor,” Obamacare will save the nation money, etc., etc.). The best example of this duplicity is the recent damage that has been done to our foreign policy by the political maneuvering incident to the wars in which we have engaged in the Middle East. A brief review of this shameful behavior is in order.

Following the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988, the UN issued no less than 16 resolutions requiring Saddam Hussein to relieve the stresses on his people by providing them with food, medical supplies, and other goods needed for decent living. Saddam consistently ignored those resolutions; and the result was a final warning in the form of UN Resolution 1441UN Resolution 1441, requiring Iraq to respond favorable to the previous resolutions or suffer severe consequences. Still, Iraq did not quit the persecution of Iraqi citizens.

The First Gulf War was waged against Iraq from 8/90-1/91 by the United States and 34 other nations. That war was carried out under United States leadership of 34 participant nations because of Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait. George H. W. Bush was President at the time.

The United States went to war against Iraq again in 2003, this time as a move to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. “Liberal” or “progressive” politicians criticized this second Iraq War of 2003 begun under the administration of George W. Bush. The claimed criticism of that second Iraq War was ostensibly because President Bush had decided to go to war “unilaterally, deceptively, and in haste,” or, in the words of John Kerry, the war was “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.”

The facts of the situation, however, were quite different from the left’s formulation. The policy to remove the regime in Iraq by force did not originate with either Bush president; it was put in place by Bill Clinton when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in November of 1998. That Act was designed to change the dictatorial and tyrannical regime in Iraq subsequent to the end of the Iran-Iraq war. That war had been fought to a standstill between 1980 and 1988. The war had cost over 1 million deaths and had been prosecuted by Iraq partly through the use of nerve gas and mustard gas—weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq had killed over 100,000 Iranians and Kurds with those weapons.

The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 was passed by the House on a vote of 360 to 38; and it passed the Senate unanimously; it was signed by President Clinton. John Kerry, among other Democrats in the Senate, was in full-throated support of the Act. In December, President Clinton ordered the implementation of Operation Desert Fox, which consisted of a huge barrage of 450 cruise missiles and multiple bombs from B1 bombers, aimed at military targets inside of Iraq. That attack destroyed vast amounts of military infrastructure in Iraq.

The second Iraq War was carried out because the missile attack begun in the Clinton years had been unsuccessful in unseating Saddam in Iraq; and the hostile actions against his people and neighboring nations had continued. When Saddam refused to comply with all 16 UN Resolutions, President Bush went to Congress and obtained authorization to use force against Iraq. Both houses of Congress approved this authorization; and that vote included a majority of Democrats in the Senate. President Bush also got an authorization from NATO, and he formed a coalition of 40 nations to carry out the war. The American people were told that the war was necessary in order to assure the world that Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction, which were believed to exist by the UN Security Council. Congress voted to support the war based on the National Intelligence Estimate provided by the intelligence community of the United States in October of 2002.

No new weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; but that country had already demonstrated its ability to use those WMD’s in the form of chemicals against Iran in the previous war.

Although the Democrats had approved the second Iraqi War, they turned against the President within three months of the onset of war. Democrats had charged that the Second Iraq War had been started by President H.W. Bush without consultation and in undue haste. Making the decision to go to war in Iraq was a process that had taken 10 months. Every significant authority was consulted, and agreed that force was necessary. Yet, once U.S. troops actually entered Iraq on March 19, 2003, it took only 3 months for the Democrats to betray them, and to betray the President, by turning their backs on the war they had authorized and supported. Public opinion had turned against President Bush and the government for prosecuting the war; and the only apparent reason for Democrat opposition was purely political.

I think that America absolutely has to quit sending deceivers and liars to Congress and to the presidency. Our nation deserves better than that.   

Progressives in New York Border on Anarchism

The movement of Progressives and other leftists in New York and Washington is very dismaying to me. The Wall Street Journal has spoken out against protests against the police, as noted by a quote below. I seems to me that the American left is asking for anarchy—that is exactly what we will get if we trash our police departments.

In urban America, the police walk a line between civilization and mayhem every day. Yet since the Garner and Brown episodes, the progressive leaders in New York and Washington have talked and behaved as if the police are society’s main problem.

Eric Holder has sent federal agents to second-guess grand juries and “reform” local police as if he assumes these police chiefs and prosecutors are biased. The New York City Council staged a “die-in” as fallen victims of police.

And progressives have failed to denounce protestors who have disrupted civic life, rampaged through stores, and even assaulted police who tried to arrest law-breakers. All of this has contributed to a public climate of suspicion and hate against police in which a man like Ismaaiyl Brinsley can in his deranged mind think it is justified to stalk and execute two cops on the beat.

Rebuttal to Senate Intelligence Committee Report

Yesterday I posted a blog, which outlined the characteristics of the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report having to do with enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA prior to their discontinuation in 2009. The blog sought to say why the Democrat members of the Committee opposed the techniques and the reasons the Republicans on the Committee opposed the report. Now, however, I want to express my own opinion of the released report.

I believe that the report was obviously political in its essence. In spite of all the ethical, high-minded, patriotic rhetoric coming from the Committee Chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, I don’t believe a word of it. The document was obviously meant to draw one last gasp of criticism against the administration of President George W. Bush before the Republican-dominated Senate and Congress is seated. The publishing of that report would never be allowed by a Republican Senate.

Any government report that is endorsed by only one party with the total objection of the other party is highly suspect of being a partisan, political, statement and not a well-rounded and well thought-out piece of truth finding.

Critics of the report ably point out that the report was submitted to the public without giving a good consideration to the CIA’s statement; and the majority members of the Committee (the Democrats) did not even attend most of the 60 hours of meetings with the CIA designed to explain their side of the questions being considered. The report was published  without first submitting it to the Intelligence Community for fact checking.

The real damage done by the report, however, is the damage it has done to the function of the CIA and other intelligence agencies that seek to keep our nation safe from terrorist attack. No reasonable intelligence agent is going to take any risks to his own safety from damage meted out by government liberals or any other members of the “blame America first” bunch for doing his job of finding terrorist offenders and bringing them to justice. That report has put an end to covert action necessary to run an effective intelligence agency.

The report’s findings of errors could have been used effectively by the government to correct errors without publishing it to the general public and overseas observers and, thus, stirring up a firestorm of criticism against American intelligence agencies. This report should have been used in another way. But…politics comes first!   

On top of all that, production of the report absorbed no less than $40 million of tax-payer money!!

If any of my readers have not read yesterday’s blog, I would suggest that you go to http://manringen.blogspot.com and go the blog dated 12 December 2014.

Is It Torture or Justice?

“…peacefulness in the face of a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence would be a sin. Defense of one's self or others could be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate authority.” Saint Augustine
 

The news is full of articles today about America’s C.I.A. interrogation tactics. We learn there is a great difference of opinion about the effectiveness of the C.I.A.’s methods of getting information out of “detainees” at various facilities around the world. How can we know who is right?

Several things can be certain: These “detainees” are not regular prisoners of war. They have targeted thousands of our own civilians and killed them—3000 at one time on 9/11. They have killed their own people by the hundreds and probably more. These “detainees” are not uniformed military soldiers; and in the history of warfare, non-uniformed combatants like these would have been summarily executed as spies and saboteurs. At least one of the detainees worked on the attack of the USS Cole.

How have we treated them? After costing the lives of our own soldiers who captured them, they were “read their Miranda rights?” (Miranda rights are rights for the American people. The captured killers, not being American citizens, do not have any legal rights under U.S. law.) Next, their “legal cases” were transferred out of military courts into the civilian courts—supposedly because military courts are more likely to be too harsh on them. Lately, the government has been transferring the prisoners out of Guantanamo into various places—the last cohort of prisoners were sent to Uruguay—does that make any sense?

Senator Diane Feinstein, in her report believes that interrogation techniques were “cruel, inhuman, and degrading.” Far be it from us to do anything “degrading” to people who randomly murder 3000 innocent Americans!

The Democrats (only) on the Senate Intelligence Committee  issued the recent report on how the torture procedures of the C.I.A. has been so unfair and vicious to these “detainees.” The committee report has specified that

1)      Enhanced interrogation techniques were not an effective means of gaining useful information. The most efficacious method of getting information out of detainees was to confront them with information already known by the intelligence community.

    

  2)  Conditions of confinement were more harsh than represented by the C.I.A.

3)      C.I.A. provided inaccurate information to D.O.J. about the techniques being used.

4)      C.I.A. actively avoided Congressional and executive oversight of its use of interrogation techniques.

5)      C.I.A.’s activities impeded the other intelligence agencies from doing their jobs effectively. Their work even impeded the oversight of the agency’s own Office of Inspector General.

6)      CIA detained people who were not legally authorized for detention.

7)      C.I.A. gave inaccurate information about its interrogation techniques to the media.

8)      CIA ignored criticisms of its activities by internal operatives.

9)      CIA did not evaluate the effectiveness of its interrogation procedures.

10)      Other countries that hosted the detention centers put pressure on the U.S. to quit coercive interrogation techniques.

Ex-Vice President Cheney and other members of the Bush administration, along with a large majority of the American people believed, after the 9/11 debacle that America should protect itself as a top priority; and coercive techniques for getting information out of perpetrators of terror from al Qaeda should be used if necessary. No holds were barred by the American population as a whole, during that stressful time. It has also been true that no organized terror strike against America has taken place since 9/11 thanks to the diligence of the Central Intelligence Agency.

A minority view of Republican committee report by Senators Chambliss, Burr, Risch, Coats, Rubio, and Coburn has asserted:

Minority members were largely excluded from contributing to the final report because they were not given enough opportunity to review the report. Majority members did not consistently attend the meetings set up by the CIA to explain their interrogation techniques. And…CIA’s response of 6/27/13 was largely ignored. The committee, itself, decided not to interview relevant witnesses. The committee report has cost the taxpayers $40 million to complete; and it has no recommendations for further action.

Following is a list of links that bear on the subject of enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA:

1)      Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture http://1.usa.gov/1D3JftU 

2)      Republican minority response to majority Democrat Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture http://1.usa.gov/1qrrxuu

3)      CIA response to Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture  http://nyti.ms/1zpD9zY

4)      Justifiable war theory http://bit.ly/1zYbO6a

5)      Justifiable homicide http://bit.ly/1vYkk6a

6)      Miranda rights http://bit.ly/1zgCT5l

Just because something bears the aspect of the inevitable one should not, therefore, go along willingly with it. Philip K. Dick

Ed and Nancy Manring

Who Is Dominant in the World, U.S.A. or China?

In the United States’ recent “pivot to Asia,” we see our government reemphasizing the fact that our country needs to reassess our relationship to the Far East. A problem of political and military dominance in the area obviously exists.

We, Americans have steadfastly considered ourselves the saviors of the world, as concerning how a country should model itself. Henry Kissinger has recently emphasized in his book, “World Order,” that American exceptionalism seeks to show the world how a legitimate political arrangement should be manifest in all nations. He points out that a legitimate government must provide its people with influence in their government, a modicum of civil rights, and a free and open market for goods and services. It must also provide safety to its people by maintaining an effective military establishment. We see the United States as a “missionary” power filled with the righteous conviction that it must usher the earth to liberty and democracy.

The Chinese see themselves as an anti-missionary power convinced by their own bitter experiences of foreign domination that nonintervention in the affairs of other states is a necessary form of respect. The traditional Chinese view of world affairs is that China has the only proven model of national policy; the Chinese see their country as one that will eventually lead the whole world by setting an example of peace and non-intervention into the internal affairs of other nations. They have a vision of their nation’s eventual dominance, which will come about through their quiet and peaceful attitude built up by their concept of their own moral rectitude.

However, a look at the history of China reveals that the nation has hardly been a model of peace and nonintervention in the affairs of neighboring nations. The history of the Song dynasty (960-1279) and the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) shows that Confucian China was far from being a pacifist state. On the contrary, Song and Ming leaders preferred to settle disputes by force when they felt the country was strong, and in general, China was expansionist whenever it enjoyed a preponderance of power. As a regional hegemon, the early Ming China launched eight large-scale attacks on the Mongols, annexed Vietnam as a Chinese province, and established naval dominance in the region.

In the early fifteenth century, the Chinese dispatched seven spectacular voyages led by Zheng He to Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, and East Africa. That Chinese fleet consisted of 27,000 soldiers on 250 ships-which allowed the Chinese to "shock and awe" foreigners into submission. The Chinese fleet engaged in widespread "power projection" activities, expanding the Confucian tribute system and disciplining unruly states. As a result, many foreigners came to the Ming court to pay tribute. Moreover, the supposedly peaceful Zheng He used military force at least three times; he even captured the king of modern-day Sri Lanka and delivered him to China for disobeying Ming authority.

No matter how the Chinese want to think of themselves as passive observers of the world scene, not intervening in the affairs of other nations, it is simply not so.

The American dream of victory for the American model rests in a belief that our enlightened self-interest in the name of the collective good on a shrinking planet will carry the day in foreign policy. What will matter above all is the capacity of the United States and China to avoid fatal misunderstanding. In a state of mutual incomprehension, clashing interests will escalate.

 http://nyti.ms/1vPW9Fb (This is the article by Roger Cohen in NYT 10-20-14. China Versus America)

The Myth of Chinese Exceptionalism by Stephen M. Walt 3-6-14 in foreign Affairs. http://atfp.co/1vQioLl

Is This What America Needs?

William Galston has opined in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal on 2 December 2014 that the following questions must be answered if America is to become the prosperous country it once was.

“If the information revolution is transforming the labor market, how can we bring computer-science courses into every American public school?

“If soaring costs are reducing college attendance and imposing large debt burdens on students, can we use technology to deliver high-quality postsecondary education more affordably?

“If new businesses are a key source of innovation and jobs, what should we do to turn around the alarming decline in startups?

“If basic research is both a public good and an essential foundation for long-term growth, where can we find the public resources for the sustainable investments in research that the private market will not make?

“If the public sector can no longer muster the funds required to meet our infrastructure needs, how can we create incentives for private capital to fill the gap?

“If we want a tax code that favors growth, job creation, and opportunity for average Americans, what are the key ingredients of tax reform?

“If a rising tide no longer lifts all boats, how can we ensure that average Americans share the fruits of 21st-century economic growth?”

Mr. Galston sees all improvements as economic goals. I doubt that the real causes of our national malaise are economic, or political, or social, or cultural, or educational. Our problems, at the roots, are moral and spiritual. Until we regain our spiritual equilibrium, we will never again be a world leader. We need to recognize the Creator of our world and His ways; we need our Savior to become the Lord of our lives. Our country is rife with dishonesty, greed, and unfaithfulness to spouses and family. The American family is missing fathers to guide and admonish the children and to give them examples of faithfulness and hard work. What ever happened to the old-fashioned principles of working hard on the job, earning enough money to support the family, buying the things needed and avoiding overspending? What ever happened to the principles of electing moral leaders to guide our country? What ever happened to the old-fashioned altruism and patriotism that made our country strong in the first place?

These latter things are what our nation needs—all the economic items listed above are necessary, of course; but…they will all take care of themselves if we can only gain the moral and spiritual footing necessary for a Christian society to flourish.

How Can You Effectively Express Your Opinion to the Government?

          The advent of the Internet has made it infinitely easier to express your opinion to government officials. I am not sure how seriously they take the opinion of citizens; but, at least, there is a venue in which we can all tell our representatives just what we think about the work they are doing. Following are some suggestions of how to do it:

          Go the USA.gov. This web site is a central spot from which you can easily contact every government official you have ever heard of. You can contact everyone from the President to the local dog catcher by just choosing the appropriate link.

          Let me give you some useful tips, however, about contacting legislators.

1)   Keep your communication very short; legislators do not have time to read an extensive letter. As a matter of fact, they very probably don’t read anything in your letter; they have staff members who do all the reading. I believe the staffers likely read only the subject line of your e-mails. So…put the essential information in the subject line. For instance a subject line should read something like this—“Vote NO on HR 499, Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibiton Act of 2013.”

2)   Always refer to bills before Congress and Senate by their number. If you cannot find the number of the bill to which you are referring, it is probably best not to write; because the legislator cannot know exactly what you are talking about. Frequently, web sites advocating for or against a certain bill will not give you the number of the bill—if you can’t find it, don’t write.

3)   Of course, sometimes it is prudent to write to a legislator about something other than a bill. In that case, it is perfectly okay to simply state your subject in the subject line and carry on the conversation in the body of your letter.

4)   You can find the number of the bill in question on CONGRESS.gov. You can also read a helpful summary of the bill there, too. Not infrequently, especially in state legislation, you can fine the fiscal impact of the bill. In the fiscal impact you can often find a very useful summary of the bill that is easier to understand than in the formal summary.

5)   Be sure to write to legislators with whom you do not agree—not just the ones who agree with you. After all, it is the opponents of your opinion that you would like to influence.

6)   Mention in your letter how the bill and your suggestion apply to you, personally.

7)   It is often more effective to call a legislator by phone than to write an e-mail. If you do that, call the official’s hometown office rather than the Washington switch board.

8)   If you are writing to a federal official, be sure to write to the President, too. Write to him, even if you are absolutely sure he does not agree with you.

9)   Be sure to remain respectful of your legislator when writing. Don’t make insulting comments.

You can even write to the Supreme Court from USA.gov. Just follow the prompts. To write to the Supreme Court, go to the bottom of their home page and click on Contact. Then, scroll down to Webmaster—a form will appear where you can write your opinion about any matter you wish.  

 

We Need to Look at All Sides of Welfare Programs

          Nancy and I worship in an inner-city church in Cleveland, Ohio. The church is in one of the worst slum districts of the city. It is attended by drunks, drug addicts, homeless people, and vagrants. Last week a man in that church was interviewed about his financial income. He is receiving food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and, perhaps, other forms of government welfare. He was asked where the money for these programs is coming from. He immediately said, “From the government.” He actually believes that the government is the source of his income.

          What the man does not realize is that the government does not produce one dollar of the money it redistributes to the poor. Every bit of that money comes from others who work to produce it and who pay the taxes to allow the government to distribute it to the poor.

          In order to understand the effects of government welfare programs, one must realize that there are always two parts to welfare redistribution programs—there is the visible part and the invisible part. The visible part is far more obvious than the invisible. In this man’s case, the visible part is the man who now has food to eat, a roof over his head, and medical care when he needs it. These are things that everyone can obviously see are quite beneficial. Who would not like to see all these ends accomplished?

          The invisible parts are not nearly so obvious. These invisible parts include the fact that when money is taxed away from the population at large, the taxpayers no longer have money for business improvements, for infrastructure, and for investment in projects that produce jobs. They cannot put that money back into the economy to work efficiently so as to multiply itself by real stimulation of the economy. That money that is no longer in the hands of entrepreneurs who can use it to create the jobs and the sense of self-accomplishment that the poor man badly needs if he would work for it, himself. Real production of real goods and services that can only be obtained by investment in the private economy is delayed or prevented from doing so by the visibly desirable effects of immediately available beneficial results on the poor. Government welfare programs effectively transfers money out of the hands of those who know how to increase wealth and puts it into the hands of those who do not know how to increase wealth. In the long run, this decreases the effectiveness of money that might be used to create jobs. Both the rich and the poor suffer from that effect.

          No thinking, compassionate, person would object to a reasonable government redistribution policy if it were not so extremely large and completely out of hand as it is today. At this time, the total amount of federal and state welfare spending is $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in this nation. That does not include the cost of enhanced welfare payments that does not require the government to tax and spend on the welfare programs, themselves. That is, this amount does not include the amount of money transferred to the poor by direct contributions required of business, e.g., minimum wages, maximum hours and mandatory benefits for employees, and rent control for tenants. (Imprimis October 2014)

The most insidious effect of these government give-away programs is that they leave the poor just as poor in the end as they were at the beginning. They leach away self-respect by making the poor man ever more dependent on more and more government give-away programs.

          Fortunately for the man with whom I spoke, another member of our church has taken him under his arm, so to speak, and provided him with money to pay for attendance at a local trade school in which he is learning skills necessary to become a diesel mechanic.  That is REAL charity. That kind of charity will probably make the man independent and finally allow him to become a self-supporting, independent, and happier man. Unfortunately, there are reasons why many of the church members do not or cannot realize the benefits of getting off government welfare programs any time soon. But…the government’s current policies do not seem likely to encourage many of today’s poor to raise themselves up out of the gutters of despondency and dependency to really make them self-respecting members of society. We need a smaller safety-net program for the truly disadvantaged and disenfranchised citizen.

 

Capitalism: The Best Anti-Poverty Program

The World Bank reported on Oct. 9 that the share of the world population living in extreme poverty had fallen to 15% in 2011 from 36% in 1990. Earlier this year, the International Labor Office reported that the number of workers in the world earning less than $1.25 a day has fallen to 375 million 2013 from 811 million in 1991.

Such stunning news seems to have escaped public notice, but it means something extraordinary: The past 25 years have witnessed the greatest reduction in global poverty in the history of the world.

To what should this be attributed? Official organizations noting the trend have tended to waffle, but let’s be blunt: The credit goes to the spread of capitalism. Over the past few decades, developing countries have embraced economic-policy reforms that have cleared the way for private enterprise.

China and India are leading examples. In 1978 China began allowing private agricultural plots, permitted private businesses, and ended the state monopoly on foreign trade. The result has been phenomenal economic growth, higher wages for workers—and a big decline in poverty. For the most part all the government had to do was get out of the way. State-owned enterprises are still a large part of China’s economy, but the much more dynamic and productive private sector has been the driving force for change.

In 1991 India started dismantling the “license raj”—the need for government approval to start a business, expand capacity or even purchase foreign goods like computers and spare parts. Such policies strangled the Indian economy for decades and kept millions in poverty. When the government stopped suffocating business, the Indian economy began to flourish, with faster growth, higher wages and reduced poverty.

Those who would castigate capitalism in favor of socialism should think carefully: We have a grand example before our very eyes of the effects of socialism. That example is the former U.S.S.R. That country was not able to produce the consumer goods needed by their people. Oh, they were great at building dams and moon rockets; but they were miserable at producing the things that people needed to live. And…they were very bad at providing jobs and motivating their people to go to work to earn a living. America should take the Russian economy as a warning to the U.S. Socialism is a dead end!

(This blog post was redacted from the Wall Street Journal November 2, 1914, the editorial page.)

Why I’ve Lost Trust in the U.S. Government

For the past six years, I have tried hard to give President Obama and the Administration every benefit of the doubt when I saw bad things happen. I realized that government is a complicated and difficult thing to administer; and often conflicting things tug at politicians, causing them to make decisions that will never please everyone—especially, me.

But, as time has gone on, I am giving up on trying to maintain a positive attitude toward our government. There are many reasons:

1)     It is insane to keep the Keystone pipeline sidelined when we need that facility to spark our business with oil exports and domestic oil use. The pipeline would create lots of jobs. There would be essentially no damaging environmental effect to the pipeline according to repeated examinations and evaluation of that question.

2)     The IRS scandal is real. Lois Lerner is red-handed guilty of consorting with Democrat activists against conservatives. If she were not guilty, why would she have claimed her rights under the Fifth Amendment? Yet, the government has effectively covered up her footsteps and the footsteps of other government bureaucrats in the IRS.

3)     The damage done at Benghazi was considerable; and the government is loath to admit their lack of effort to prevent such a debacle. Governmental nay-saying has obfuscated the whole situation. Somebody did not provide adequate Marine guards at the Benghazi consulate. The president is the Commander in Chief and it is his fault.

4)   Operation Fast and Furious was a stupid and bungling idea that should be examined and prosecuted.

5)   It is a travesty that conservative watch-dogs of the government have been unable to examine the above three problems because the administration has openly violated the Freedom Of Information Act in refusing to release information that is supposed to be open to the public.

6)     A U.S. Marine, Andrew Tahmooressi, is still in a Mexican jail because of a trumped-up charge by the Mexican government that he was trying to run guns into Mexico. President Obama has evidently made no effective effort to get him released. The President surely made a big effort get Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter from the U.S. Army in Afghanistan released from Taliban confinement, even though Bergdahl voluntarily left his post to conspire with the Taliban. It seems to me that Obama did this for the primary reason that he wanted to empty out the Guantanamo detention center. He traded five of the most dangerous al-Qaeda fighters in detention for Bergdahl. But he won’t lift a finger to free Tahmooressi.

7)     U.S. immigration policy is in bad shape and needs immediate attention of the President; yet, he stalls on this because he wants to be careful of his political legacy.

8)     ObamaCare was a very poor piece of legislation pushed through on a completely partisan basis. It won’t work; and it would have been much better to consider  its weak points by consulting with Republicans before turning it into law.

9)     “Foreign policy” is a joke under the Obama administration. The world needs U.S. leadership; and “leading from behind” is not the way to address the dangers abroad.

10)  Tax and spend, the Democrat way of life, has been a dismal failure in getting America out of the recession. The government’s way of dealing with the problem is an obvious refutation of Keynesian economic theory. Yet, liberals cling to its theories as though they depending on them for their very life.   

11)  All the time, while the President is needed in Washington tending to the business of government, he is out traveling around to one campaign and fund-raising event after another. This president needs to stay at home and tend the store.

 

 

 

Obama’s “Foreign Policy”—A Myth

President Obama does not know how to use the American military machinery. He does not realize that a strong American military goes a long way toward preventing war. A weak military causes America’s opponents to strike out in violence around the world.

President Obama’s policies have shrunk our country’s military to its pre-Pearl Harbor size and backed away from American leadership abroad. This is a historic retreat from our role in protecting world order since World War II. America should not cling to policies that undermine international strength.

Now, we have a weak and cringing president who is fearful of any action without the approval of the “international community.”

Restoring American military and moral strength in the world should be a relentless theme of our foreign policy. Apology and “leading from behind” will not accomplish anything but encourage chaos in the world.

 

Something Else to Blame G.W. Bush for!

George W. Bush deserves a tip of the hat. Here's what the "prophet" Bush said in 2007 about the dangers of a premature withdrawal from Iraq:

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we're ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allowed the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

One of those people Bush referred to who was pushing for a quick withdrawal from Iraq was then-Senator Barack Obama.

Obama won the White House in 2008 promising to be the anti-Bush, vowing to get out of Iraq. Obama got what he wanted. And now the very things George Bush warned about -- mass killings on a horrific scale, a terrorist safe haven in Iraq and American troops returning to fight a more dangerous enemy -- are reality.

By the way, we're still waiting for Obama's strategy to take on ISIS, but fortunately we don't have to wait any longer for the Forest Service's strategy for making safe, low-calorie S'mores.

 

Review of the book, “Bomb”

Nancy and I have recently read the book, “Bomb,” by Steve Sheinkin. This book is an account of the invention and manufacture of the 1^st atomic bombs. It is a fascinating story; and it is not meant to be a tome on the dangers of the weapons race. However, one cannot read this book without realizing a strong feeling of apprehension about the possibility of world-wide disaster in the form of a nuclear war. Russia has already exploded a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb, which is absolutely unthinkable as a weapon of MASS destruction—the magnitude of this weapon is beyond description. Robert Oppenheimer was right that the job before mankind is to figure out how to keep civilizations from destroying themselves.

This book brings home the verse in 2 Peter 3:8, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.”

 

Let’s Smoke Out the Truth About Marijuana!

Colorado and Washington State both legalized recreational marijuana in 2013. Now, data is available from Colorado about how that is working out for that state. Let’s see!

The market demand for marijuana in Colorado is 130 metric tons per year. Colorado has licensed 739 sites for growing pot; and this is spread across more than 1,200 acres of land. The marijuana industry now leases more than one million square feet of space in the Denver area, for both indoor growing and warehousing.

There has been a sharp increase in pot-related calls to poison control centers; seizures have quadrupled; and two deaths so far are attributed to marijuana overdoses.

Police departments across the country report that 27% of seriously injured drivers nationwide test positive for pot. Long-term studies in the United States and New Zealand show regular marijuana smokers—like cigarette smokers—demonstrate much more symptomatology of chronic bronchitis and emphysema than non-smokers. That should be no surprise to any thinking person.

Marijuana is sold in Colorado in the form of cigarettes, candy, suckers, cookies, and pot sodas.

An interesting account of marijuana use was published by a New York Times columnist, Maureen Down when she visited Colorado to research pot use for a future column in May 2014. Here’s how she described her encounter with a pot cookie. She bought a pot cookie, which had no dosing instructions and nibbled on it. Noticing nothing, she nibbled more. And then she writes:

“I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service waiter knocked and I didn’t answer, he’d call the police and have arrested for being unable to handle my candy.”

Levy Thaba, a 19 year-old college student on spring break, became delirious and agitated after eating a pot-laced cookie in March. He began shaking, screaming and throwing things before jumping off a four-story balcony to his death.

Marijuana use has been linked to depression, anxiety, and mental illness—especially schizophrenia and psychosis, according to systematic reviews of studies published in Lancet, Archives of General Psychiatry and the British Medical Journal.

There should be no surprise that there is big money being made on the marijuana sales business. State legislators estimated the first full-year sales estimate at $600 million, and industry watchers expect it to reach $1 billion annually in Colorado. The money being spent in Colorado to advertise and market marijuana is coming from two major investors. George Soros and Peter Lewis, both multimillionaires, are spending 67% of the money used to spread the use of the weed. Soros has spent $80 million and Lewis has spent $40 million on this industry. You can be sure they are not investing charitably in this business—they are making money!

Pot dispensaries, like liquor stores are located primarily in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Advertising is done through billboards, taxis, bus stops, sign twirlers, and newspapers. The push is on to get more and more people hooked on the drug.

Marijuana is an entry drug into harder drug use; and I do not believe that thinking people in America should every vote to legalize the drug. It is just not worth the cost in human suffering and disablement for constructive participation in society and especially in the workforce. Would you like to meet a marijuana-intoxicated driver on the highways?

(This blog post was excerpted from Citizen Magazine, published by Focus On The Family for September 2014.)

 

Progressivism, What Is It? What Has It Done?

Progressivism is a broad political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition. It emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, and a need for measures to address these problems.

Progressivism has been the sweetheart dream of American Presidents, mostly Democrats, for more than 100 years, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and culminating with the most progressive of all presidents, Barack Obama. Progressive presidents have cherished the idea that more and more government control over the culture, economy, and society is just the prescription our country needs to develop to the apex of its good accomplishments.

Progressivism entered the vocabulary of Barack Obama through the teachings of Saul Alinsky, in Obama’s younger years in Chicago, when he and wife Michelle worked in Alinsky’s organizations promoting what was called “community organization. “ Present day conservatives call this kind of governmental thinking and policy-making, socialism. Let’s see what Progressivism has done to America, these days.

President Obama and Congressional Democrats have implemented the most massive expansion of federal regulatory authority since the Great Depression, manifested mainly by the Dodd-Frank bill, which regulates financial institutions and the Affordable Care Act, which regulates 1/6 of the economy through the health care system. Every Senate Democrat voted for each of those bills. No Republicans in either house voted for the ACA.

As is well known, the Obama recovery from the 2008 recession is the weakest in postwar WW II history. If the Obama recovery had been as strong as the average of the previous 10 postwar recoveries, 13.9 million more Americans would be working today and the average real per capita income of every man, woman and child in America would be $6,308 higher.

Since the Senate Democratic Class of 2008 took control, the average real income of the poorest one-fifth of American families has declined every year, falling to $15,534 in 2012 from $16,962 in 2008 (the 2013 data will be released Sept. 16). The average real income of the lowest quintile of Americans is now below the level it was in 1968, the year when the War on Poverty began its spending surge under Lyndon Johnson.

The next-highest income quintile, often referred to as the working class, has also experienced a continuous decline in real income since January 2009. The average income of these Americans has fallen 6.5% and is now $1,182 lower than it was when President Reagan left office.

The third quintile—America's middle class—has seen its average income decline to $62,464 from $65,672. More than half of this decline has occurred since the recovery officially began in the second quarter of 2009.

In Alaska, household income in 2012 was 7.2% lower than it was at the end of 2008, falling back to its 1988 level. In Arkansas, household income has dropped 8.2%. Colorado households have 13.5% less income than they did before the Democratic Congress and President Obama transformed America. The same is true in Louisiana, where household income has fallen 7.9%. And in North Carolina, household income has declined 10.2%—falling to the lowest level in the 28 years the Census Bureau has provided state-by-state income data.

Census data also show the progressive program has failed women and minorities. Married women, unmarried women and women living alone all saw their incomes fall. Under the Obama administration, the median income of women has fallen more during the recovery than it did during the recession, an unprecedented economic failure in postwar America.

The real median income of African-American households has fallen by 9.5%, more than any other major census classification. Hispanic income has fallen, especially for middle-income Hispanic families, whose income has declined every year since 2008.

The Democratic Party's great political victory in 2008 led to the realization of a progressive agenda in the making for a century. That agenda has resulted in economic failure for working Americans. It failed as it has always failed: Progressive policies buy votes but destroy prosperity. The entire Obama program is now endangered because their program has hurt the very people it was supposed to benefit.

(Much of this blog post was redacted from the Wall Street Journal of 8/17/14, an op-ed by Phil Gramm and Michael Solon.)

Which Nation Belongs in the Land of Israel?

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property….” Virginia Bill of Rights 1776

During World War I, the Arab states had fought alongside of the Western Allies against the Central Powers, i.e., Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and especially against the Ottoman Empire. In return for their help, the Allies had promised the Arabs independence. Instead, at the Paris peace conference after the war, the Allies carved up the Arab lands formerly controlled by the Ottomans and gave it over to the administration of the French and British. Present day Iraq, Trans-Jordan, and Palestine/Israel were given to the British. The areas of present day Syria and Lebanon were given to the French. This outraged the Arabs.

When the British took over Palestine, their Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour issued the famous Balfour Declaration which specified that Palestine should be set up to house Jews and thereby win political support of European Jews. The Declaration stated, “Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing not-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Those “non-Jewish communities” were Arabs. The Declaration aggravated conflict between Arabs and Jewish nationalists. 

Since Roman times, Jews had dreamed of returning to Palestine; and, indeed, a small Jewish population had stayed in the area for all those hundreds of years, even after World War I. As anti-Semitism spread in Germany and Eastern Europe after that war, increasing numbers of Jews immigrated into the land of Palestine, bringing with them money and technical expertise. They bought farmland and established businesses and industries. All of this activity offended the much poorer Arab residents, because the Arabs were pushed out of their homes and jobs.

In 1948, Britain and the United States agreed that the land of Israel should be established as a Jewish state; Israel was designated an independent nation. This action stimulated mass migration of Jews from Arab states, Europe, and the United States. It also escalated the conflict between the Israeli Jews and their Arab neighbors. Since then, Israel has been continuously mobilized for war; and it has actually been involved in defending itself against aggressive Arab neighbors in seven shooting wars.

Despite all the adversity facing the nation of Israel, the country has prospered. The Israeli culture has produced a vibrant literature, pace-setting arts and six of the world's leading universities. A huge program of reforestation has been accomplished and is still developing. The philosophy and religion of Zionism in Israel has reinstituted the ancient language of Hebrew. The family values that Zionism has fostered have produced the fastest natural population growth rate in the modernized world and history's largest Jewish community. The average secular couple in Israel has at least three children, each a reaffirmation of confidence in Zionism's future. The population is annually rated among the happiest, healthiest and most educated in the world. Life expectancy in Israel, reflecting its superb universal health-care system, significantly exceeds America's and that of most European countries. Unemployment is low, the economy robust. A global leader in innovation, Israel is home to research and development centers of some 300 high-tech companies, including Apple, Intel and Motorola. The beaches are teeming, the rock music is awesome, and the food is of excellent quality.

Jews and Christians recognize a centuries’ long principle of Jewish hegemony over the land of Israel. It is attested to in the 12^th Chapter of Genesis and in subsequent chapters. Abraham, the father of the Jews was promised this land by God, himself. The nation is named after one of the Patriarchs (Jacob). Jews strongly identify with this 4,000-year-long bond between themselves and their historic homeland. They have sustained this belief throughout 20 centuries of exile.

We return to our previous question, i.e., to whom does this land belong? For my part, I think Israel belongs to the Jews. It has belonged to the Jews through many centuries of exile. They have returned and converted the land into a prospering democratic republic, honoring the rule of law, property rights, and the dignity of individuals. All this accomplishment in contrast to the outright poverty and squalor of the Palestinian culture across the Jordan River.

(Some of this blog post was gleaned from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Michael B. Oren, a former ambassador to the United States, written 1 August 2014.)

85 People Own Half of the World’s Wealth!

"Princes or lords may flourish, or may fade;
A breath can make them, as a breath has made;
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroy'd, can never be supplied."
             Oliver Goldsmith 1728-1774 The Deserted Village

There has been great concern among lots of Americans that the government’s present course of redistribution of wealth, intended to reduce inequality in the country, will harm our nation’s financial status and growth direction. The fear is that taking money away from the rich will impair their ability to invest money and will impede real job creation. To a considerable extent, this fear has some truth to it.

On the one hand, it is common knowledge that inequality in world wealth is at an all-time high. There is also a fear that inequality is bad for our society.

Nicholas Kristof writing in the New York Times on 7/23/14 (An Idiot’s Guide to Inequality) http://nyti.ms/1rMPSuh (control+click) reports that the top 1% of people in the income distribution of our country now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. As a result of this maldistribution of wealth, it was found that in 2010, 93% of the increased wealth created in the United States went to the top 1% of our population who live in the upper economic levels of society.

 Oxfam estimates that 85 world citizens own as much as the bottom half of the world’s population! (Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organizations working in approximately 94 countries worldwide to find solutions to poverty.)

There is a tentative agreement in the literature written by economists about growth that inequality can undermine progress in health and education, causing investment-reducing political and economic instability, and undercut the social consensus required to adjust in the face of major shocks, and thus that it tends to reduce the pace and durability of growth. Markedly unequal distribution of wealth also causes the wealthy class to seek rents instead of actually contributing to real growth (“Rent-seeking” is the practice of using wealth to create more wealth, without actually contributing to the stock of goods and services in the country.) This practice diminishes economic growth in the country.
 
It has long been known that lower levels of economic inequality are correlated with faster and more durable growth. So…governmental gurus who run the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve always seek ways to redistribute wealth through fiscal and monetary means.

Modern-day politicians with a “progressive” viewpoint think that redistributing wealth by increasing taxes and government spending on roads, dams, and other infrastructure will help the underclass by giving them more money and, thus, stimulate growth. The problem with this idea is that the jobs created by government spending on such things do not last; and, in the end, they do not help with national economic growth. Only jobs created in the private sector will give long-term economic growth.

Writers at the International Monetary Fund point out that inequality may impede growth at least in part because it calls forth efforts to redistribute through the fiscal system, efforts that themselves may undermine growth. In such a situation, even if inequality is bad for growth, taxes and transfers may be precisely the wrong remedy. http://bit.ly/1dzoFjl (control+click)

So much for the bad news. What is the answer to the inequality/slow-growth problem? The answer to this is very hard to say; and economists have wrestled with this question for a long time. It is the considered opinion of several that the answer does not lie in more governmental redistribution through the monetary and fiscal system. The answer probably lies in efforts to equalize opportunity rather than income.

Rather than dumping money into more roads and dams, I believe that the United States would do better to put more money into equalizing educational opportunities for our people. It is a fact that in America, the sharper edge of public funding for education still goes to the rich rather than to the poor. If our people would have less inequality in financial affairs, they must have less inequality in opportunity to advance themselves. http://nyti.ms/1nDoyvC  (control+click) That means they must be able to compete better as a result of better education.