.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
You now know I love irreverent humor:
.jpg)
---
Budget extremism. (See 1 below.)
---
Dinesh is at it again: "NEW DINESH D'SOUZA FILM AMERICA
to hit theaters in the Summer of 2014 - Teaser at CPAC
Each year about 10,000 conservatives and libertarians converge on Washington, DC for CPAC. The event featured senators Rand Paul, Marco Rubio & Ted Cruz along with National Prayer Breakfast keynote Dr. Ben Carson. The event also featured 2016 creator Dinesh D'Souza and Producer Gerald Molen announcing their new film AMERICA. Click above to watch the teaser and Dinesh's speech at CPAC.
---
Last night we hosted a dinner party and invited ten friends who also happen to be highly visible and comprise our city's , shakers and doers. Their collective walks of life include culture, law enforcement, education and media.
After desert I asked them to participate in a mini-Socratic seminar - St John's style - and posed two questions.
The first: What were the most important problems facing our city.
The answers were swift and emphatic: education, the lack of a cohesive family structure, crime/gangs,/unsafe to walk at night downtown, lack of upward job mobility and finally, apathy and ignorance among the city's business community and not for profit institutions..
The second question was about the prospects of solutions. Here the responses were: From an historical nature, our nation always had problems that cast bleak shadows but there was hope because, in the specific case of treatment of children with disabilities, we have made great compassionate strides for example, when matters reached a crisis level Americans demanded change.
My own sense is that specific to our city, whose population is comprised of about 50% black citizens ,government and Pc'ism are among the most pernicious culprits in causing , not only our problems.but also those of the nation as a whole. Savannah's problems are simply an urban manifestation of those facing comparable American communities.
.
It was an interesting, eclectic evening. Politics was not discussed.
----
One investor's commentary regarding housing prospects (See 2 below.)
---
Jacoby on The Iraq War! (See 3 below.)
--
Two articles on Obama's Israel trip, sent by a dear friend and fellow memo reader. (See 3 below.)
---
I am leaving to celebrate Passover with family in Miami so there will be no memos for at least a week.
Have a great Passover, Good Friday and Easter holiday.
----
Is Karl Rove a Republican gum shoe? (See 4 below.)
---
Netanyahu succumbs? (See 5 below.)
Just another day and just more rockets. (See 5a below.)
---
Boot gives nation building the boot? (See 6 below.)
---
Scott dreads Obama! (See 7 below.)
----
Is Karl Rove a Republican gum shoe? (See 4 below.)
---
Netanyahu succumbs? (See 5 below.)
Just another day and just more rockets. (See 5a below.)
---
Boot gives nation building the boot? (See 6 below.)
---
Scott dreads Obama! (See 7 below.)
----
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democrats’ breakout budget, not Paul Ryan’s restrained one, is what’s extremist and radical.
Democrat Party cheerleader Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) ridicules Paul Ryan’s House Republican budget as “extremist” and “radical.” Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) used the Huffington Post platform to allege that Ryan’s budget reflects “extremist Tea Party control” of the House Republican majority.
But it is the Senate Democrat budget that is extreme and radical, as I demonstrate below, reflecting extremist socialist party control of the Senate Democrat majority.
Bursting Through the Long Term Postwar Consensus on Spending and TaxesFor 60 years after World War II, from 1948 to 2008, federal spending as a percent of GDP was remarkably stable, hovering around an average of 20%. During that same period, federal taxes were remarkably stable as well, hovering around an average of 18% of GDP. With federal spending and taxes at those levels, America was free enough to prosper during this time as the richest nation in world history, with resulting, unprecedented military dominance as well.
Ryan’s budget merely returns federal spending and taxes back near those long-term postwar averages, with both federal taxes and spending after 10 years at 19.1% of GDP, almost perfectly splitting their long-term historical difference. It is abusive, dishonest rhetoric to call that “extremist” or “radical.” In reality, in returning America to those long-term postwar averages, Ryan’s budget can only be called “traditional.”
In sharp contrast, the Senate Democrat budget proposes to increase the current bloated levels of federal spending by $2.1 trillion a year by 2023, to $5.7 trillion in that one year alone, which would be almost double Bush’s 2008 federal spending of $2.983 trillion at the height of the financial crisis and all the bailouts. The Senate Democrat budget proposes to spend $46.4 trillion over the next 10 years, which would be the biggest government spending in world history, increasing annual federal spending over that time, compared to this year’s federal spending, by a combined total of $10.4 trillion. That is what is extremist and radical. Even the home of Swedish socialism is turning away from Big Government spending, but not America’s Democrat party, which is now the world’s leading left-wing party.
At the insistence of President Obama and Congressional Democrats, federal taxes have been raised twice already this year. That includes $1.1 trillion for the new Obamacare taxes that went into effect on January 1, and $600 billion for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses (which socialist Democrat demagogues call “the rich”). CBO now projects that federal revenue will double from $2.45 trillion in 2012 to nearly $5 trillion ($4.96 trillion) by 2023. But that is still not enough for the Senate Democrats, who propose in their budget still another $1.6 trillion in tax increases. That is what is extremist and radical.
What the Senate Democrat budget proposes is effectively a Big Government breakout from the long-term postwar averages from 1948 to 2008 for both federal spending and taxes, permanently increasing both beyond those long-term averages. Indeed, because the Senate Democrat budget so zealously rejects any entitlement reform that would make any meaningful long-term difference, under that budget spending and taxes would soar well past their long-term postwar averages after the current 10 year budget window. That is what is extremist and radical.
Ryan’s plan balances the budget after 10 years with no further tax increases while continuing to increase spending every year by 3.4%. Apparently, balancing the budget is extremist and radical to today’s Democrats, but we will see in 2014 that it is not so to the American people. After 10 years and another $1.5 trillion in tax increases, the Senate Democrats’ own budget confesses that the federal deficit would still be $566 billion in 2023. That would be the highest federal deficit in American history, higher even than the former record Bush deficit of $458 billion in 2008, except for the four straight years so far of Obama deficits over $1 trillion.
Ryan’s Tax Reform: Another Republican Middle Class Tax CutAs I first reported in this column months ago, Ryan’s budget includes very positive tax reform, proposing to replace the current 7 tax rates in the individual income tax with just two, 10% for families making below $100,000, and 25% for families making over $100,000. The New York Times, which is a Democrat Party controlled publication, misleads its readers by saying, “[N]aturally Mr. Ryan doesn’t explain how this could happen without raising taxes on middle- and lower-income people.”
That is a typical brain dead comment from the Times, which reads these days like a college, Marxist, student newspaper. So let me correct the Times. Ryan is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. It is not his job to explain how tax rates can be cut without raising taxes on middle and lower income people. Those details are never in the budget documents. That is the job of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), in whose Committee that tax reform bill will now be written.
Now let me scoop the New York Times. When Chairman Camp writes the tax reform legislation, it will involve another tax cut for the middle class. The current rate of 15%, which applies to couples making between $17,850 and $72,500, will be reduced to 10%. The current 25% rate, which applies to couples making between $72,500 and $146,400, will be reduced to 10% for those making less than $100,000.
While Budget Committee Chairman Ryan has specified that the tax reform overall will be revenue neutral, which is to be achieved by reducing tax loopholes, deductions, and credits, even the Senate Democrat budget recognizes that those tax preferences primarily benefit the higher income taxpayers. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, who is a former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, explained last year in the Wall Street Journal (a much more honest and informative paper than the New York Times) that there are more than enough such tax preferences that can be reduced or closed to finance tax reform as Ryan has proposed, without raising taxes on middle class or lower income taxpayers.
Here is the scoop. When Camp passes his tax reform bill through his Ways and Means Committee, it will involve another, major, tax cut for the middle class. Indeed, with the middle 20% of income earners now paying just 2.7% of total federal income taxes, the Camp-Ryan tax reform bill may well eliminate federal income taxes on the middle class entirely. There you go. You read it here first. If you read this column every week, instead of the New York Times, you will be ahead of the curve, and much better informed about what is happening in Washington, D.C., and what is coming.
When that happens, the New York Times will apologize to the American people for dishonestly misleading them when it should have known better (as I did, with no investigative resources at all), or there will be protests outside the Times in New York City demanding such an apology until it is forthcoming.
Of course, the last major tax cut for the middle class was adopted in 2001, under a Republican majority Congress, and Republican President George W. Bush. Most Democrats voted against that bill, though in permanently extending those middle class tax cuts in January this year, President Obama and Congressional Democrats tried to style themselves as great middle class tax cutters.
Ryan’s proposed tax reform also includes revenue-neutral corporate tax reform, proposing to reduce the top federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%, in return for closing corporate tax loopholes. America currently suffers the highest corporate tax rates in the world at near 40%, counting state corporate tax rates on average, except for the socialist one party state of Cameroon. Even the Communist Chinese feature a 25% corporate rate. The average in the predominantly socialist Europe Union is below 25%. Formerly Communist Russia now enjoys lower corporate rates as well.
But today’s Democrat party is rigidly in the same camp as the Socialist Party of Cameroon, competing for the highest corporate tax rates in the entire world. The Senate Democrat budget proposes no tax reform to reduce rates, calling instead for still higher taxes on American businesses and employers, which are already uncompetitive in today’s global economy with the current imposed tax rates. That budget also does not propose any new tax cut for the middle class.
The Camp-Ryan Republican tax reform bill will greatly aid in restoring long overdue, traditional American growth and prosperity, through lower tax rates providing incentives for increased productive activity. That increased economic growth will substantially reduce the deficit as well. CBO reports that every increase in economic growth of 0.1% reduces the deficit by $314 billion over the next 10 years. Increasing the weak, real, economic growth of around 2% over the last 2 years to a more traditional rate of 4% during economic recovery from a recent recession would consequently further reduce deficits by over $3 trillion over the next 10 years.
A further boost to booming economic growth would result from fundamental reform of monetary policy and the Fed, now championed by Joint Economic Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX). Their proposed reforms would tie down Fed monetary policy to the value of long-term stable commodities such as gold. That would promote economic growth by assuring investors that the return on their investments will not be depreciated by inflation or a declining dollar. That along with regulatory relief would complete the package for booming economic growth as enjoyed under President Reagan.
Republicans and conservatives should use the Senate Democrat budget as the defining statement of Democrat party policy, to rout the Democrats in 2014, the same way they were routed in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| "We're only one year into this recovery…" Doug Yearley said on Bloomberg TV yesterday morning. "Remember, we had seven of the worst years in housing that this country has ever seen. This recovery, we believe, should be a lot longer than just one or two years." Yearley is the CEO of Toll Brothers, a nationwide homebuilder. When asked if he thought the strength in housing could continue, he didn't mince words… "We feel really good this spring," he said. "Our orders are up 49%." He explained that there's simply "no inventory." And "no inventory" is one of the key ingredients in seeing higher home prices ahead. You always have to take a CEO's comments with a grain of salt. It's his job to be optimistic. But I fully agree with his assessment. As you probably know, I have been extremely optimistic on U.S. housing for years now – expecting big gains. Our True Wealth Systems numbers back me up… In short, U.S. housing is the greatest value it's ever been in our lifetimes – and probably the greatest value it will ever be. I objectively define value as "affordability." Affordability is a function of 1) house prices, 2) mortgage rates, and 3) income. The first two crashed to an epic degree, making U.S. housing more affordable than ever.  Even better, house prices are finally going up. We have our uptrend. So housing is incredibly affordable, and your risk is now reduced because the uptrend has returned. This is it. This is as good as it gets. Housing is about to soar. And this moment is your lowest -risk moment to buy. So don't wait a moment longer… Want to know what to do with your money? It's simple… Go buy a house. Good investing, Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3)On Balance, Was the Iraq War Worth It? Ten years ago this week, the United States led an invasion of Iraq with the explicit purpose of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The preceding months had been filled with vehement protests against the impending war, expressed in editorials, inadvertisements, and in rallies so vast that some of them made it into the Guinness Book of World Records. With so many people against the invasion, who supported it?
Well, if you were like the great majority of Americans – you did. In February and March 2003,
Newsweek's polls showed 70 percent of the public in favor of military action against Iraq;Gallup and Pew Research Center surveys showed the same thing. Congress had authorized the invasion a few months earlier with strong bipartisan majorities; among the many Democratsvoting for the war were Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden.
Though the Iraq War later became a favorite Democratic club for bashing George W. Bush,
Republicans and Democrats alike had long understood that Saddam was a deadly menace who had to be forcibly eradicated. In 1998 President Bill Clinton signed theIraq Liberation Act, making Saddam's removal from power a matter of US policy. "If the history of the last six years has taught us anything," Kerry had said two years earlier, "it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power."
But bipartisan harmony was an early casualty of the war. Once it became clear that Saddam didn't
have the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that were a major justification for the invasion, unity gave way to recrimination. It didn't matter that virtually everyone – Republicans and Democrats, CIA analysts and the UN Security Council, even Saddam's own military officers – had been sure the WMD would be found. Nor did it matter that Saddam had previously used WMD to exterminate thousands of men, women, and children. The temptation to spin an intelligence failure as a deliberate "lie" was politically irresistible.
When the relatively quick toppling of Saddam was followed by a long and bloody insurgency,
opposition to the war intensified. For many it became an intractable article of faith that victory was not an option. The war to remove Saddam was not merely "Bush's folly," but – as Senate majority leader Harry Reid called it in 2007 -- "the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country."
But then came Bush's "surge," and the course of the war shifted dramatically for the better.
By the time Bush left office, the insurgency was crippled, violence was down 90 percent, and
Iraqis were being governed by politicians they had voted for. It was far from perfect, but "something that looks an awful lot like democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq," reported Newsweek in early 2010. On its cover the magazine proclaimed: "Victory at Last."
And so it might have been, if America's new commander-in-chief hadn't been so insistent on pulling
the plug.
In October 2011, President Obama – overriding his military commanders, who had recommended
keeping 18,000 troops on the ground – announced that all remaining US servicemen would be out of Iraq by the end of the year. Politically, it was a popular decision; most Americans were understandably weary of Iraq. But abandoning Iraqis and their frail, fledgling democracy was reckless.
"It freed Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to be more of a Shiite sectarian than he could have been with
the US looking over his shoulder," military historian Max Boot observed this week. And with Maliki moving against his Sunni opponents, some of them "are making common cause once again with Al-Qaeda in Iraq, [which] has recovered from its near-death experience" during the surge. It is cold comfort that so many urgently warned of just such an outcome in 2011.
So was the Iraq war worth it? On that, Americans are a long way from a consensus. It is never
clear in the immediate aftermath of any war what history's judgment will be. Two decades ago, the 1991 Gulf War was regarded as a triumph. In retrospect, the decision to leave Saddam in power – and to let him murderously crush an uprising we had encouraged – looks like a tragic blunder.
But this much we do know: The invasion of Iraq 10 years ago ended the reign of a genocidal tyrant,
and ensured that his monstrous sons could never succeed him. It struck a shaft of fear into other dictators, leading Libya's Moammar Qaddafi, for example, to relinquish his WMD. It let Iraqis find out how much better their lives could be under democratic self-government. Like all wars, even wars of liberation, it took an awful toll. The status quo ante was worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- 4) Karl Rove and Republican DeclineBy Steve McCannNot since 1984 and the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan have the Republicans had a more winnable election than the 2012 presidential election. Yet the Republican Establishment managed to lose to the worst and most vulnerable President in modern history, with historically poor approval ratings, unemployment averaging over 8.7% during his entire first term, a stagnant economy and someone who ran the smallest and most absurd of all possible re-election campaigns.
Lost...Again, C. Edmund Wright, a frequent contributor to the American Thinker website and
senior consultant to the Winning Our Future Super PAC in 2012, clearly and cogently lays out
not only the factors that resulted in the ignominious defeat of Mitt Romney, but the historical
reasons behind the rise and fall of the Republican Establishment and it's consultant class.
Mr. Wright accurately points out that the loss in 2012 had been in the works since 1992. Why?
Primarily because this is when the establishment, made up of career politicians, deep pocket
"country-club" Republicans, a newly emerging political consultant coterie, and an incestuous
lobbyist cabal, abandoned Ronal Reagan and what he stood for. More telling was the
unprecedented success in 1992 and 1994 of a third party candidate, Ross Perot, whose
campaign was based on overturning the status quo in both parties, but particularly the Republican
Party. Yet this lesson was lost on the Establishment hierarchy as they grew more entrenched in
their make believe world.
It is not a coincidence that since the presidential election in 1988 (which was in reality a vote for a
Reagan third term) in which George H.W. Bush won 426 electoral votes, the Republicans have
lost 4 out of 6 presidential elections and have not been able to get beyond 286 electoral votes
(2004).
Per Mr. Wright:
The mindset of the Republican Establishment is that elections are won in the mushy middle of the
electorate and thus the message of any Republican candidate should be geared to this group --
which therefore requires an equally mushy campaign devoid of any so-called "hard-edged" policy
or election tactics. That the other side can do or say anything with impunity is never challenged
as that might alienate the moderate or independent voters.
Mr. Wright thoroughly explores not only this ill-conceived mindset but the impact of the media
and the messaging since 1992. He goes into great detail in the post-mortem of the disastrous
Mitt Romney campaign strategy and failure of the independent Super PACS to blunt the devious,
dishonest and calculating campaign of the Obama cabal.
But no analysis of this nature would be complete without a roadmap to not only purge the
Republican Party of this self-centered and myopic Establishment but how to win upcoming
elections and recapture the heights scaled by Ronald Reagan in the 1980's. Mr. Wright accurately points out that there is no time for a third party as the damage inflicted by Barack Obama and his fellow travelers will soon metastasize into an
inoperable cancer that will ultimately destroy the country. The steps laid out by Mr. Wright are
spot on and should be considered and acted upon by all Republicans running for office in 2014
and 2016.
This is a must read for all to understand what happened in 2012 and why but more importantly
how to avoid a repeat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5)Obama and Netanyahu agree: No Israeli strike on Iran without US assent |
In his first conversation of three hours with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Day One, March 20, of US President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel, the two leaders finally put to rest their long dispute over a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear sites.
In their news conference that night, both reiterated the principle that Israel has the right to independently defend itself against a perceived palpable threat from Iran - even if Washington does not share that perception.
In their news conference that night, both reiterated the principle that Israel has the right to independently defend itself against a perceived palpable threat from Iran - even if Washington does not share that perception.
The practical application of this principle was rather different: Obama and Netanyahu spoke highly and repeatedly of the close military and intelligence cooperation their governments had developed and which they would hate above all to jeopardize.
Obama: “There’s not much daylight between us on where Iran is at. Israel is differently situated than us. I would not expect Israel to defer to anyone in its decisions on this.” Netanyahu: “We do have a common intelligence assessment on this. Although the US and Israel have different vulnerabilities and capabilities… there is no argument… I am absolutely convinced that Obama is committed to preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb.”
He added: “Iran has not yet reached the red line I defined in my UN speech, but it is getting closer all the time.”
The impression they both conveyed was that Israel’s right to strike Iran would be respected but not pursued without prior consultation with Washington.
In return for this concession, the US president pledged to deepen US military assistance – hardware, funding and technology - for maintaining its qualitative military edge so as to be able to defend itself in the future as well as the present: He disclosed he had set up a team to work on extending the US military assistance program to Israel for a further 10-year period beyond the date of its expiry in 2017.
Following the reports of a chemical attack in Syria and a Syrian air strike inside Lebanon this week, neither Obama nor Netanyahu showed any inclination toward possible military intervention for containing the expansion of the civil conflict raging there, although the US president did use some strong words.
Having ordered a thorough inquiry into the reported chemical attack, he said: “If true, it would be a game changer and there will be consequences,” adding: “When you let that genie out of the bottle - a weapon that can cause mass devastation and death - you have to act on the information. I would be deeply skeptical of any claim that the Syrian opposition used chemical weapons.”
By the time the experts determine the nature of the chemical attack and who was responsible, the dust will have settled, say military sources.
Facing the two leaders from the press seats were also top US and Israeli officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon. Kerry will be handling the Palestinian side of the Obama visit after the president’s side trip to Ramallah Thursday to meet Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Referring to peace talks with the Palestinians, the president stressed that “Israel’s security is non-negotiable” and must be assured in any peace settlement that established a sovereign Palestinian state. Netanyahu reiterated his commitment to a two-state solution based on mutual recognition and called on the Palestinians to set aside their preconditions and sit down to discuss ending their conflict once and for all.
The Obama visit has evidently not generated any major moves on the Palestinian issue but will result in small Israeli-Palestinian steps for strengthening stable Palestinian Authority rule over the West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas’s leadership. The PA’s institutions and security institutions will be strengthened and US funds directed to pulling the Palestinian economy out of its hole. Abbas is expected to reciprocate by suspending anti-Israeli actions at the UN and international institutions.
5a)
Obama meets with Palestinian officials hours after Gaza militants launch rockets into Israel
RAMALLAH – President Obama was welcomed with fanfare and military flourishes at the Palestinian Authority headquarters in this West Bank city in front of a big sign proclaiming Palestinian statehood -- just hours after the Israeli military detected four rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza.
He arrived here by helicopter amid tight security, a day after receiving an elaborate welcoming in Israel, where he was serenaded by children, signed guest books, exchanged warm words, and toured a missile battery with the close US ally.
Palestinian Authority and American snipers lined the roof of the tall complex of government buildings next to a large portrait of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
A military brass band played the US National Anthem and the Palestinian anthem, along with a song by Lebanese singer Fairuz, who has sung about the Palestinian struggle.
Obama was greeted Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. The two walked toward an outdoor podium, while Secret Service Agents walked alongside the president’s moving limo using its open doors to block sightlines.
The two walked a red carpet and stood before a bank of cameras to watch the band and a military procession of troops with AK-47s, but didn’t make remarks outside.
Just across from them was a tall banner with huge pictures of Arafat and Abbas superimposed over a photo of East Jerusalem – which Palestinians want to make their capital. In Arabic, the sign said “UN state of Palestine,” with the UN logo below it, a reference to the Palestinian Authority’s controversial move to get UN observer status.
Obama and Abbas give a press conference today. Obama also visits a Palestinian youth center, and delivers a speech to students in Israel.
The pageantry and diplomacy came on a day when two missiles landed in the southern Israeli town of Sderot, Israeli media reported. Two other rockets fell short and landed in Gaza, an area controlled by Hamas, this morning. There were no casualties.
Yesterday, appearing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama reaffirmed his belief in a “strong and secure Jewish state” alongside a “sovereign and independent Palestinian state.”
Earlier, Obama viewed the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have become an important symbol of historic Jewish ties to the land.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two essential lessons one can draw from the Iraq War: either that we should never get mired in counterinsurgency or “nation-building” operations in the future or that, if we do get involved, we should do a better job of achieving our objectives. The prevailing wisdom in Washington adheres to the former position, but I believe the latter lesson offers more useful guidance for the future.
No less an eminence than Bob Gates, on his way out the door as secretary of defense, proclaimed, “In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.” Although he subsequently walked back that statement, it is fair to say that Gates’ view is now the conventional wisdom.
But is it—to borrow the favored term of Gates and others—“realistic” to argue that we will never get involved in another major ground war? No one could have imagined on September 10, 2001, that we would shortly be fighting in Afghanistan, nor can anyone imagine what the future will bring. Suffice it to say, when one looks at the wide arc of instability stretching from West Africa to Central Asia, it is hard to rule out in advance that U.S. ground troops will ever be dispatched into harm’s way.
And even if we don’t fight another major ground war anytime in the near future—something that we should of course avoid if at all possible—the likelihood is that U.S. forces will be involved in helping foreign governments in such nations as Mali, Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen to fight terrorist groups that threaten not only their interests but ours. That will require maintaining a significant capacity for nation building and counterinsurgency, even if the bulk of the work on the ground will be done by indigenous forces, not Americans.
I know that “nation-building” is anathema in Washington, but there is simply no way to prevent terrorist groups from setting up training camps and hatching plots unless the local government can assert control over its territory. To achieve even that modest goal will require building up substantial governance capacity in chaotic nations.
All of this suggests to me that we need to maintain the hard-won counterinsurgency skills gained by the armed forces over the past decade—and we need to enhance our capacity for state building. That difficult task has fallen willy-nilly on the military because the civilian agencies of government have been MIA. It is high time to create, as I have been arguing since 2003, a dedicated state-building agency, perhaps by retooling the U.S. Agency for International Development to focus on this task.
Such proposals are opposed by many in Washington because politicians figure that if we develop capacity for state building we will have to do more of it. But if history teaches anything it is that we will be forced into state building in a wide variety of scenarios no matter what. Just since the end of the Cold War, we have undertaken this task in nations such as Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq and, more indirectly, from the Philippines to Colombia.
The question is not whether we will do nation building and counterinsurgency or not. The question is if we will do it well or badly. So far we have done it badly and paid a heavy price—witness the early setbacks in Iraq. This is a national-security weakness we need to fix because the demand for these skill sets is not going away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) The Architect of Destruction
"Obama comes from a community organizer background where it's us against them. But that's not who we are. And that's not the position the leader of our Nation should take." - Dr. Benjamin Carson
Obama appears to be tormented man is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family and mentors. It seems to have never left him.
It is not the color of his skin that is a problem - for anyone in America.
Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.
Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings? Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of "America the Beautiful?" Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday - or someone plays "taps" on a trumpet? Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by? It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values. He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us free. He didn't have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America, penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.
Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part of America and its greatness. He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the gravesites of fallen and beloved American heroes.
Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us.
He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S. Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many. Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego. He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who oppose his policies and actions. A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty attitude.
Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissention, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America, rather than uniting us (even though he was presented to us as the "Great Uniter"). He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security. He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions. And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.
Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a dictatorial form of power.
- Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.
- Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.
- Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people - on a daily basis!
Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America, and the epitome of a Demagogue.
© Maureen Scott
© Maureen Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment