Top marginal income tax rates may go up. But the president's second-term spending wish list will be history.

  • By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Columnist's name

To read the current fiscal-cliff coverage, President Obama holds the upper hand and is poised for the "victory" of winning an increase in the top two tax rates.
So successful has the White House been in defining this fight, few have stopped to consider how paltry that victory is likely to be. For a short-term win on this ideological issue, President Obama may well cede most everything else.

Let us assume that Mr. Obama is correct in his bet that the GOP will prove more responsible than he is and won't cliff-dive. The president's recent baiting of Republicans—his unreasonable offers, his public campaign to belittle them, his refusal to negotiate—has not put them in a generous mood. If 
Republicans have to fold on the top tax rates, it's a decent bet they will do only that—and nothing more.
Mr. Obama has invited them to do just that. He's called on Republicans to quickly pass an extension of middle-class tax rates, to get that out of the way. "I've got a pen, I'm ready to sign it," he quipped. He can hardly complain if the GOP House sends him a bill that extends current tax rates for 98% of Americans—and that's it. The president will have his "victory." And?

Republicans will make clear they sent that bill under duress—that they wanted to extend tax rates for everyone—and that Mr. Obama is responsible for the consequences. The president claims that raising taxes on job creators won't hurt the economy. Fine, but if he's wrong, he alone owns it. There will be no GOP fingerprints on this.

Speaking of ownership, Mr. Obama will also take possession of the sequester. The Republicans, after all, offered to fix this as part of a deal, but he wouldn't budge on taxes. The GOP would have to swallow hard on the defense cuts, though Mr. Obama will be under huge pressure to take actions to mitigate the damage to the military. That will be harder to do on the domestic discretionary side of the sequester, which will next year cut $50 billion from programs Mr. Obama and his partisans cherish.

The president will also finally have to show his math. He has argued his entire presidency that America's debt hole could be filled by soaking the rich. He'll now get his way, in a bill that likely provides $800 billion in revenue over 10 years, or $80 billion a year. To repeat: $80 billion a year. That is 7% of the $1.1 trillion deficit Mr. Obama ran in fiscal year 2012 alone. His tax hikes in hand, he can now explain why the hole keeps getting bigger.

Especially as no further tax revenue will be forthcoming. The president's grand plan was to pocket the top tax rates andcommit the GOP to later tax "reform" worth an additional $800 billion in closed tax deductions. His leverage has been holding hostage the middle-class rates. That hostage will now be dead. The GOP will have no reason to give him more.

Nor will Mr. Obama get any of the spending wish list he sent to House Speaker John Boehner last week, since a deal was his only real shot at slipping in some of that money. No $50 billion in stimulus. No extension of unemployment insurance or payroll tax holiday. No money for his mortgage program.
Finally, he'll have lost his chance to solve his debt-ceiling problem. The press's judgment is that last year's debt-ceiling fight was politically bad for both sides. The Republican recollection, by contrast, is that they forced Democrats to give them $2 trillion in cuts—and that was with the threat of a tax increase hanging over their heads. Mr. Obama won't have even that leverage next time around.

Come February, Mr. Boehner will remind the president of his formula of $1 in spending cuts for $1 in a debt-ceiling hike. He will likely present Mr. Obama with the choice of doing serious entitlement reform that will get the debt-ceiling monkey off his back for a notable period of his presidency, or of monthly debt-ceiling fights. The latter has the potential to derail a second term.

No question, the Republicans would suffer a bitter defeat if top marginal income-tax rates rise. Then again, if those rates are going up anyway—either because we go off the cliff or because Mr. Obama maneuvers them into a panicked, last-minute deal—the rational GOP response is to instead choose a deliberate course that mitigates its own political damage, and lands some blows. This is the corner our intransigent president has backed Republicans into.

So, that Obama "victory": On Jan. 1, the president gets to give a news conference gloating over his tax win. He then faces four years and 20 days of a presidency marked by his ownership of a faltering economy, a spiraling debt problem, automatic sequester cuts, no prospect of further spending or tax revenue, and a debt-ceiling time bomb. If that's this president's idea of "victory," maybe it's what he deserves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Entitlement State Is Morally Bankrupt

After Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, pundits everywhere smugly assured the world that Perry is crazy because, after all, the government can neverreally go bankrupt: it can always print money to pay its debts. Of course, that’s hardly a comfort to those who know what hyperinflation can do to an economy.

In any case, Perry can be commended for daring to violate the first law of politics: whatever you do, do not question entitlements. Despite the fact that the big three entitlement programs–Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare–have the U.S. government facing upwards of $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, they largely remain a third rail: touch not lest ye be voted out of office.
Why are they sacrosanct? Because, whatever else you can say about the entitlement state, no one disputes that it’s a moral imperative. Inefficient? Maybe. Expensive? You bet. But morally questionable? Absolutely not.

The problem with the entitlement state is not simply that it is bankrupting this country–the problem is that it is morally bankrupt.

The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth. It’s that you have a duty to spend some irreplaceable part of your life laboring, not for the sake of your own life and happiness, but for the sake of others. If you are productive and self-supporting, then according to the entitlement state, you are in hock to those who aren’t. In Marx’s memorable phrase: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

As we’ve argued in past columns, no system that treats you as other people’s servant can be called moral. What made America the noblest nation in history was that it was the first country founded on the idea that each of us has a right to live and work for our own sake, that it’s our own job to try to make the most of our life, and that the government’s sole purpose is to protect our freedom to do so.

Some have raised objections to this line of argument, however. Here are three of the most popular objections.

1. “The entitlement state is no different from insurance.”
When Social Security first passed, under FDR, most Americans regarded being “on the dole” as shameful. One way the program garnered widespread support was by positioning itself, not as welfare, but as insurance. Medicare would later take the same tack. You pay in when you’re young and healthy, and when money is paid out to you, you’re not going on the dole–you’re simply getting back what’s yours.

This was always a fraud. Your taxes aren’t invested in order to generate your future benefits–they are used to supply benefits to current enrollees. If a private insurance company operated that way, racking up $100 trillion in debts it couldn’t pay, it would be bankrupt and its executives would be sent to prison.

But the most vital difference is this: the entitlement state is involuntary. For the rational person, insurance is something he chooses to buy when he judges that a given policy represents a net gain. Even in a voluntary, competitive system where profit-seeking companies tailor policies to your individual needs, insurance isn’t for everyone. A young entrepreneur might rationally decide to forego homeowners insurance in order to make his fledgling business a success. But the entitlement state forces us into costly, one-size-fits-all programs regardless of whether we think it’s in our personal interest.

2. “The entitlement state benefits everyone.”

Far from offering genuine benefits, whenever the government takes people’s money and decides how that money is “best” spent, it makes life harder for rational people. A rational person needs the freedom to plan his own life, make his own choices, and support his own existence. Consider the impact of Social Security.

In a world without Social Security, the rational person would think about his own long range plans and interests. He might rationally decide that he loves working and never wants to retire, or that he’d rather invest his current income in growing his business today and start saving once he has established himself. When he does invest, he will think carefully about where to park his savings, consulting experts, judiciously diversifying. As a result he will know where his investments stand and why, and will not be at the mercy of a political process that might raise the retirement age, curtail promised “benefits,” etc. For him, Social Security is all downside. All its alleged benefits he could attain much better on his own.

So why is he deprived of this freedom to live and plan his own life? Because some people may choose not to plan.

Social Security, and the entitlement state more broadly, institutes a basic injustice:the rational and productive are sacrificed in the name of the irrational. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

3. “But what about those who can’t take care of themselves?”
Sure, some people say, most of us would thrive without the entitlement state–but what about those who can’t? What happens to them? Don’t they starve in the streets?

In any industrialized nation, it is only a fraction of a sliver of a minority who are unable to support themselves, and even in the days before America’s entitlement state, they didn’t starve in the streets. Most turned to friends and family. Many others turned to voluntary social insurance programs run by private mutual aid societies, like the Security Benefit Association. And some turned to private charities.

If Americans a century ago could flourish without an entitlement state, how much easier would it be today, when even most “poor” people own cars and color TVs?

The entitlement state was never needed to ensure that the unable got fed. It is and always has been geared, not to the unable, but to the unwilling: to that entitlement mentality that expects payment “according to his needs.” And by rewarding that mentality, we foster that mentality.

The entitlement state is geared to the unwilling at the expense of the willing and able. What could be greater evidence that it is morally bankrupt?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)


WHEN DID WWIII START?
It Started on November 4th 1979
When WW III Started - 1979

This is not very long, but very informative. You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is
bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979...


US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola , Florida . Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It s an accurate account of why we are
in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been 'Get Out of Bed!' In fact, the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran . This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. Embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America 's inability to deal with terrorism.

America 's military had been decimated and down-sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly-trained, poorly-equipped and poorly- organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the
start..

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe . In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main; 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia .

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of
war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran , Saudi Arabia . It destroys the Khobar Towers , a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over
500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back
to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000 , when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are.  America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.


In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can seeexactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to 'Get out of Bed' and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life
continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said '... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.' This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)

It's Time To Turn the Tables on this Presidential Bully



Something is very wrong in the world when the most dogmatic and inflexible president in recent memory can make unreasonable demands of his GOP budget opponents and yet be confident they'll be blamed for the impasse.
It is past time Barack Obama be held accountable for his intentionally irresponsible fiscal policies that are guaranteed to take us into national bankruptcy. It is outrageous enough that he is steering us into insolvency, but it is unbearable that he's fraudulently blaming the Republican Party for it to boot.
This is not a close call, and reasonable people, if they understood the facts, would not support Obama. The problem is that so many people who trust him, inexplicably, look no further than his disingenuous statements and the liberal media's slanted reporting, and the Republican Party leadership simply cannot seem to get its message across. It would help if they evidenced more faith in the wisdom of their own approach.
This isn't complicated. Our financial problems are overwhelmingly a result of excess spending, not of insufficient tax revenues. Increasing rates or decreasing deductions won't make a speck of difference, and Obama knows it.
Our $16 trillion national debt and our $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities are going to destroy this nation in relatively short order if we don't take drastic remedial action.
Yet Obama's plan is to increase taxes on the highest 2 percent of income earners while refusing to make significant reductions in discretionary spending or to restructure entitlements. His life's ambition is to fundamentally transform the nation, which depends on keeping the federal spigot spewing and punishing the "wealthy."
You could say it is crazy talk to suggest Obama doesn't want to bring our fiscal house in order, but I say, based on the evidence, it's much crazier to pretend he has any intention of balancing the budget.
To keep his shell game going, he has to divert the people's attention from the real culprit, spending, and toward blaming and demonizing the rich, and the red herrings of "balanced approach," "loopholes" and "revenues."
Obama is the one who won't agree to a "balanced" approach; he's ignoring spending and entitlements. When he calls tax increases "revenues," he is implying that increasing rates and eliminating deductions for a small fraction of income earners is going to appreciably raise revenues and help solve our problem. It won't. When he refers to legitimate tax deductions as "loopholes," he is further defrauding the public into believing that these high-income earners are somehow cheating by availing themselves of deductions the law reasonably allows.
Speaker John Boehner must quit adopting that same misleading terminology and conceding, in effect, that the "wealthy" are undertaxed. He is not doing himself or the nation any good by playing into Obama's hands and allowing him to control the language and the narrative.
Boehner needs to turn the tables on Obama and go into attack mode himself. There is no other way to deal with this destructive bully. Boehner must sprint to the national microphone and tell the American people that Obama is being unreasonable, reckless and uncompromising.
Obama is the one who won't address the only problem that matters: spending. He won't budge from his intolerable demands that Republicans raise rates on the "wealthy" in exchange for his vague promise of implementing spending "cuts" in the future, his insistence on spending more money on new programs today, his steadfast refusal to put entitlement reform on the table, and his demand that he be given unilateral authority to raise the budget ceiling at his whim.
Boehner must point out that Republicans have gone out of their way to compromise -- way too far out of their way -- by agreeing to eliminate deductions for the highest income earners to the tune of $800 billion, a figure Obama himself demanded not long ago. He should say he agreed to that not because he believes they're paying too little (they are indeed already paying more than their fair share) or that it will increase revenues, but in a good faith effort to secure an agreement from Obama to greatly reduce spending and restructure entitlement programs.
The GOP majority did not get re-elected to roll over to Obama's disastrous policies. They have a moral, legal and constitutional duty to resist Obama's path of destruction with every fiber of their beings. At some point, their desire not to look mean must yield to their duty to inform the American people of the gravity of our situation and how reckless Obama is being.
Face it: Unless Republicans accede to all of Obama's unreasonable demands and thus to the accelerated destruction of the country, there will be an impasse, because Obama will not yield, and Republicans will be blamed for it.
The only conceivable way Republicans can avoid this fate is if they quit playing his sinister game of negotiation chicken, call him out in plain terms on what he's doing, and show he has never been and is not now serious about averting a national financial meltdown.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Netanyahu at his best

Even those who aren't particularly sympathetic to Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, could get a good measure of satisfaction from this interview with
British Television during the retaliation against Hamas' shelling ofIsrael.

The interviewer asked him: "How come so many more Palestinians have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?" (A nasty question if there ever was one!)
Netanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"

Interviewer: (Falling into the trap) Why not?

Netanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany 's aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London , the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden , burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima ... Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen , some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children. Perhaps you have another question?"

Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave another interview and was asked about Israel 's occupation of Arab lands. His response was, "It's our land". The reporter (CNN or the like) was stunned - read below "It's our land.." It's important information since we don't get fair and accurate reporting from the media and facts tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events.

"Crash Course on the Arab-Israeli Conflict."

Here are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation. These were compiled by a Christian university professor:

BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY... (It takes just 1.5 minutes to read!)

It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and non-Jew -- it doesn't matter.


1. Nationhood and Jerusalem : Israel became a nation in 1312 BC, two thousand (2000) years before the rise of Islam.

2... Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BC, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand (1000) years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem , they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders
did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem . Mohammed never came to Jerusalem .

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem . Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem ..

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge theland of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left (many in fear of retaliation by their own brethren, the Arabs), without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The ones who stayed were afforded the same peace, civility, and citizenship rights as everyone else.


10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel , a country no larger than the state of New Jersey ...

13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State ofIsrael. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the
Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed againstIsrael.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel .

18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem
synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives .

20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)

Cheney Takes Flamethrower To Obama

Fire it up
97


Former Vice President Dick Cheney was honored last night at the Hudson Institute’s 2012 Herman Khan Award Dinner at the Pierre Hotel in New York City.  Cheney was introduced by Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who spoke in detail about Cheney’s life and accomplishments, joking about how Cheney twice flunked out of Yale, and joking about Cheney’s hunting incident.  In his remarks Cheney was harshly critical of President Obama and the administration’s policy in the Mideast.  He said he’s very, very concerned about what he sees developing day by day.  He detailed the history of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, and what has been done to fight terror and said the Middle East is a very, very dangerous part of the world. 
He said that when he hears our president announce that we got Bin Laden and we can “pivot” to Asia he is on the one hand “appalled” and on the other hand fears for future developments.  Cheney said that that entire part of the world appears to be moving in a direction fundamentally hostile to U.S. interests, and that the U.S. is increasingly unable to influence events in that part of the world, seemingly because we’re “headed for the exit.”  He was critical of reductions in Afghanistan, and mentioned President Obama’s trip to Cairo where he “apologized” for the U.S. reaction after 9/11.  Cheney referenced the serious economic problems in the U.S but said he is concerned about the Middle East. 
He said our allies no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us.  He was highly critical of President Obama on Syria and basically said he has grave doubts the president will take any actions besides hope.  He continued to say the national security threat is as serious as the economic one, and said that enormous damage is being done to the U.S. military with cuts.  Toward the end of his remarks he said we can be absolutely certain that there are people out there planning to attack us, only with deadlier weapons than 19 hijackers and boxcutters.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:
Cheney:   It’s a very very dangerous part of the world.. and when I hear that our President uh got Bin Laden, problem solved. Uh that Al Queda is toast, that they are significantly diminished and that we can pivot now because the United States no longer has to be concerned about developments in that part of the world and focus our efforts on Asia, I am on the one-hand appalled.
Secondly, I fear for future developments if in fact they are going to continue to pursue the policy that this administration has pursued and live in accordance with affliction. We have got more territory now in that part of the world when you start to add up all the areas that have come or are coming under the influence of the Muslim brotherhood and the radical Islamists. There is a lot more land and territory there for safe harbors and sanctuaries for terrorists than we ever faced back in the time of 9/11. That entire part of the world appears to be or a good part of it certainly to be moving in the direction that is fundamentally hostile to the long term US interest and yet we are, seem to be unable to influence events in that part of the world partly because we are headed for the exits and everybody knows we are headed for the exits.
We pulled out of Iraq, we didn’t even bother to negotiate the (inaudible) agreement that was traditional in those kind of relationships. We are well on our way out of Afghanistan and um we uh have had a president whose been to Cairo, one of the first things he did to apologize for the US reaction to 9/11 allege that we quote “overreacted and fallen away from our basic traditional values” who was going to deal with the Iranian nuclear treat which I have not mentioned until now, everything I talked about before didn’t mention the Iranian problem. But, he was going to deal with the Iranian problem by basically resetting the relationship, sit down and talk to them, they’ll understand and no longer be a threat to the United States which was also seriously misguided. Part of my frustration with the recent election, and I didn’t come to make a political speech tonight, uh we’ve got very very serious economic problems, I could talk about that for hours and without question, that is a focal point that needs to be and it is absolutely crucial we deal with that appropriately. As we look forward and I’ve considered all that has happened, in the international arena, in the Middle East in particular. Places like the Arabian peninsula and Yemen and Egypt and Libya and now ongoing with the respect to Syria and the prospect that we will see a continued spread of um basic fundamental radical Islamists ideology that fundamentally hates the United States and much of what we stand for.
There has been a source of significant grief certainly for this city and for all Americans on 9/11. Faced with a very real prospect that an area of the world that has spawned terrorists by the thousands some who’ve come to the United States and killed Americans, um is back in business and the United Stated which once used to dominate that part of the world not long ago who had valued allies and basis throughout the area that had been looked to for leadership for example at the times when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and we were able to muster some 36 or 37 nations to gather with us to liberate Kuwait and send Saddam back into Iraq when we got the rest of the world to pay 50 out of the 55 billion dollar cost of the exercise. That day is gone and uh as our friends and we still have some in the part of the world, not only in Israel, which obviously is at the top of the list, but also Saudies, UAE, and many of the other gulf states.
I think certainly in my conversations with many of those people, they no longer believe us, they no longer trust us, they no longer believe they can count of the United States of America to do what we did 20 years ago when we came in and uh set back um Saddam Hussein’s operations and what we’ve done since in Iraq and Afghanistan and in terms of trying to promote democracy, getting rid of regimens that clearly were not supported by their population and um now see us as I said bailing out and heading for the exits. Our allies no longer trust us, or have confidence in us and our adversaries no longer fear us.  When the President can make bold statements and bold talk as he did in the past couple of days about developments in Syria, but I don’t think they care. Unless something fundamentally different happens, I have grave doubts that he is prepared to do anything (inaudible) with Syria, except hope that he can get away with as he has up until now saying well I got Bin Laden, problem solved. It’s far from solved if anything the national security threat we face is as serious as is the economic one.
When you add to that the enormous damage that is and is about to be done to the United States military with a trillion dollar cut when you add up what’s already on the budget as well as take out another 500 billion we are doing long term damage to our military capabilities. One of the first things I did after Desert Storm was call Ronald Reagan in Los Angeles… This was right after we finished the operation. I called him and I said “Mr. President, I want to thank-you for all those $600 toilet seats you bought back in the eighties.” (laughter) He didn’t see the humor in it immediately, but the point was what we had to use in the nineties, was what he purchased and the troops that had been trained and recruited and the officers that had been educated and the equipment that had been built back in the early nineties.
So what we are doing today, by way of damaging the US military is going to be a fact of life that future presidents are going to have to deal with. Barack Obama isn’t just dealing with his budget problems; he in fact is restricting the future capabilities of the next president two or three times down the road in terms of our capacity to be able to deal with fundamental threats to the United States and they are out there and we can be absolutely certain that there are people out there tonight planning to do what happened on 9/11 only with deadlier weapons than 19 hijackers armed with airline tickets and box cutters. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------