Political Intrigue Alive and Well. Number 4! Home!

Some of this was written before my latest knee surgery.  Lot of scar tissue scraped out and now have long recovery period so memos are not my focus and they will be sporadic.

Merriest of Xmases and best of New Years,
---

I was just reading that after less than 4 years,

Obama has been rated the 4th best president ever:

Reagan and 9 others tied for first,

15 presidents tied for second,

and 18 other presidents tied for third.Obama came in fourth.

---

Frank Gaffney concerned about Hagel appointment as well. (See 1 below.)
---
Obama could have contributed to the healing but he chose, for political reasons, to stir instead..  (See 2 below.)
---
Rove praises Boehner for adroitly playing a weak hand and explains how and why.

I am not sure I agree with Rove but then what do I know about political intrigue, except that it exists and is alive and well in D.C (See 3 below)
---
Robert Bork died recently and at the time his nomination was rejected I wrote a memo entitled "Bork and The Liberal Stork."  My title and gist of the op ed was that the liberal stork had laid and egg which could come to haunt them and marked the high point in Supreme Court nominations.

I was somewhat close to Sam Nunn, at the time and disagreed with his vote against Bork.  Sam claimed it would send a bad signal to his black constituents if he voted for Bork because of  Bork's alleged 'radical' views. My view was black Americans needed to grow up not have their irrational fears patronized.

I would argue that my view ultimately prevailed and that Sam was wrong and , in fact, helped to launch future bitterness and payback attempts as a result and that carry on to this day. (See 4 and 4a below.)

Once again the booklet I just wrote rings true.
---
John Wayne an Capitalism.  (See 5 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) GAFFNEY: Hagel a dangerous choice for defense
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. 

Illustration Hagal by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

The conventional wisdom is that President Obama dodged a politically perilous “bullet” when he declined to nominate Susan Rice as the next secretary of state. Had he done so, the president would have provided his critics a high-profile platform for exposing and critiquing his administration’s conduct with respect to Benghazigate and the larger, dangerous practice of “engaging” Islamists, of which it was a particularly dismal example.

Yet Mr. Obama reportedly is intent on creating what may prove to be a similar “teachable moment” by nominating former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to replace Leon E. Panetta as secretary of defense. Mr. Hagel has been an outspoken champion of controversial and even radical policies firmly embraced by Mr. Obama during his first administration. Worse yet, they are likely to be priorities for his second term now that the president has, as he put it in his overheard conversation with Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev last March, “more flexibility.”

In the event Mr. Obama taps the former Nebraska senator, he will be inviting the sort of national debate that has long been needed — but generally missing — about his administration’s positions in several areas vital to U.S. security. As there is no evident daylight between Mr. Hagel’s views and those of this president, the opportunity must be seized to expose both. Consider several topics that cry out for such high-profile, critical examination:

Mr. Hagel would be a Pentagon chief who favors U.S. disarmament. As Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon has reported, Mr. Hagel has said the following: “The Defense Department, I think, in many ways has been bloated. So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.” Do Republican senators want a former colleague to give political cover to Mr. Obama’s insistence that the United States use reductions in defense spending as a source of half the revenue given up pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 — even though the Pentagon receives only 20 percent of federal expenditures? Do they want to be implicated in the inevitable, attendant dismantling of the sort of freedom-protecting presence the American military has had around the globe since the end of World War II, its ability to project power and its vital modernization programs?

While Mr. Hagel has correctly observed that “defense is not a jobs program,” he — like Mr. Obama — seems indifferent to a harsh reality: Such draconian cuts in defense expenditures will have an adverse impact on employment. In fact, an estimated 1 million jobs in the defense sector will be lost shortly as a result of the now-imminent so-called sequestration round of budget reductions. Do Republican senators share this indifference?

Mr. Hagel has been defeatist about Iraq and Afghanistan. He seems much given to what the late Jeane Kirkpatrick called the “blame America first” syndrome with comments like: “Our policies are a source of significant friction not only in the region, but in the wider international community. Our purpose and power are questioned.” A Hagel nomination would be a perfect opportunity to repudiate such sentiments and disassociate Republicans from them.

Of particular concern is Mr. Hagel’s enthusiasm for U.S. disarmament in the nuclear arena. His advocacy of a “world without nuclear weapons” affords a vehicle for challenging the president’s like-minded efforts to bring about the only thing that is remotely achievable if unimaginably irresponsible: a world without U.S. nuclear weapons. As Mr. Obama is determined not to upgrade our arsenal or to test realistically its aging weapons or to maintain the strategic “triad” at present levels — despite growing nuclear threats from North Korea, Iran, China and Russia — every effort must be made to challenge and counteract such recklessness. Again, a Hagel nomination is a good and very visible place to start.

Speaking of Iran, Mr. Hagel has long been an enthusiastic proponent of direct negotiations with the mullahs, professing, “Engagement is not surrender. It’s not appeasement. [Rather it is] an opportunity to better understand [others].” He has long opposed military action and meaningful economic sanctions. He appears, in short, confident that we can live with a nuclear Iran. Do Senate Republicans agree? If not, are they willing to challenge a president who, despite his rhetoric to the contrary, seems to share that confidence — and oppose a Pentagon nominee who clearly would work to foreclose whatever options remain for precluding such a nightmare?

Last but hardly least, there is the problem of Mr. Hagel’s long-standing hostility toward Israel, a fact recognized even by Iran’s state media. He favors engaging its enemies, including terrorist groups like Hamas. While in the Senate, Mr. Hagel declined to condemn Hezbollah. His anti-Israel and pro-Islamist views have earned him accolades from the Muslim Brotherhood front known as the Council on American Islamic Relations.

To be sure, Mr. Hagel’s enmity toward the Jewish state tracks with that of Mr. Obama. The question is: Do Republican senators and, for that matter, Democratic ones who disagree wish to intensify the undermining of Israel in this administration by elevating someone with these credentials to the job of secretary of defense?

It is deeply regrettable that the last campaign, which was a perfect opportunity for a teachable moment with the American electorate about the dangers the Obama presidency poses to U.S. security interests was not used for that purpose. The next best thing may be a nomination fight over Mr. Obama’s choice as secretary of defense of a man who so aggressively embraces the worst of his policy proclivities.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio on WRC-AM (1260).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)The New Racial Derangement Syndrome

• 
 
• Victor Davis Hanson 

There is a different sort of racialist derangement spreading in the country -- and it is getting ugly.

Here is actor Jamie Foxx joking recently about his new movie role: "I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?" Reverse white and black in the relevant ways and even a comedian would hear national outrage. Instead, his hip "Saturday Night Live" audience even gave Foxx applause.

Race-obsessed comedian Chris Rock tweeted on the Fourth of July, "Happy white peoples (sic) independence day ..."

Actor Samuel L. Jackson, in a recent interview, sounded about as unapologetically reactionary as you can get: "I voted for Barack because he was black. ... I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years."

No one in Hollywood used to be more admired than Morgan Freeman, who once lectured interviewers on the need to transcend race. Not now, in the new age of racial regression. Freeman has accused Obama critics and the Tea Party of being racists. He went on to editorialize on Obama's racial bloodlines: "Barack had a mama, and she was white -- very white, American, Kansas, middle of America ... America's first black president hasn't arisen yet."

Freeman's racial-purity obsessions were echoed on the CNN website, where an ad for the network's recent special report on race included a crude quote from three teen poets: "Black enough to be a n-----. White enough to be a good one."

In the 21st century, are we returning to the racial labyrinth of the19th-century Old Confederacy, where we measure our supposed racial DNA to the nth degree? Apparently yes. ESPN sports commentator Rob Parker blasted Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III last week for admirably stating that he did not wish to be defined by his race rather than by his character: "He's black, he does his thing, but he's not really down with the cause." Parker added: "He's not one of us. He's kind of black, but he's not really like the kind of guy you really want to hang out with." (ESPN suspended Parker for his remarks.)

Unfortunately, the new racialist derangement is not confined to sports and entertainment. The Rev. Joseph Lowery -- who gave the benediction at President Obama's first inauguration -- sounded as venomous as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a speech that Lowery delivered to a black congregation shortly before this year's election: "I don't know what kind of a n----- wouldn't vote with a black man running." Lowery reportedly preceded that rant by stating that when he was younger, he believed that all whites were going to hell, but now he merely believes that most of them are. And in his 2009 inauguration prayer, Lowery ended with his hopes for a future day when "white will embrace what is right."

Wasn't Obama's election supposed to mark a new post-racial era? What happened?

For nearly a half-century, cultural relativism in the universities taught that racist speech was only bigotry if it came from those -- mostly white -- with power. Supposedly oppressed minorities could not themselves be real racists. But even if that bankrupt theory was once considered gospel, it is no longer convincing -- given that offenders such as Foxx, Rock and Lowery (who was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Obama) are among the more affluent and acclaimed Americans.

The Obama administration must shoulder some of the blame. Attorney General Eric Holder, our nation's top prosecutor, has referred to African-Americans as "my people" and called Americans "a nation of cowards" for not focusing on race relations on his terms.

The president himself urged Latinos to "punish our enemies." He weighed in unnecessarily during the Henry Louis Gates and Trayvon Martin affairs in ways that only added to the racial tensions. Vice President Joe Biden warned black voters at a campaign stop that Republicans were "going to put y'all back in chains."

Obama, during the campaign, brilliantly -- and cynically -- targeted particular hyphenated voting groups on the basis of their race and ethnicity -- on the assumption that such voters could be loosely united by opposition to a purported uncaring and shrinking conservative establishment. After the election, the Obama campaign asked its supporters to complete a survey that included a checklist with racial identifications -- with white omitted.

There is a growing danger in this latest round of racial tribalism. Stirring up the pot for short-term political gain in a multiracial society is abjectly insane. If the new racialism grows unchecked, it will eventually lead to cycles of backlash and counter-backlash -- and some day to something like the Balkans or Rwanda.

People are just people. But they can turn into veritable monsters when -- as a great American once warned -- they look to the color of our skin rather than the content of our character.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Boehner Plays a Weak Hand Well

His 'Plan B' is an imperfect but responsible attempt to resolve the looming tax increases.

By KARL ROVE

Since the election, House Speaker John Boehner has emerged as that Washington rarity, the adult in charge. To keep the country from plunging over the fiscal cliff, he has dealt with a president uninterested in compromise while leading a GOP House caucus understandably reluctant to concede much to that president.

Mr. Boehner has denied President Obama the easy target he thought he had in the postelection GOP. The speaker has undercut the White House's strategy of attacking congressional Republicans as do-nothing troglodytes and kept his party unified in a situation with no easy or obvious answers.

Demanding that Mr. Obama extend all the Bush-era tax cuts worked for Republicans in December 2010, when the president had just been dealt a huge setback in midterm elections and was worried about his re-election chances. Now, after winning a second term, Mr. Obama appears content to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 11 days, confident he can blame Republicans and spend the next two years attacking them for the tax hike (while happily spending the new revenue).

Whether that gambit would succeed is uncertain, but surely Republicans would spend much of next year on the defensive, trying to explain why they let taxes increase on everyone just to protect higher-earning Americans (those with incomes over $178,650, where the top two income-tax brackets begin) from paying more.

The Obama White House leaked this week that the president and Mr. Boehner were on the cusp of a deal. In truth, the speaker this week concluded that Mr. Obama is still not serious about finding a reasonable solution to avoid the cliff.

Shortly after the election, Mr. Boehner made the first move by acknowledging that Washington could draw additional revenue if it also cut spending. Since Republicans control only one lever in Washington (the House) while Democrats have the White House and the Senate, he wanted to do all he could to bend the debate in as conservative a direction as possible.

Mr. Boehner followed a week later with a revenue number ($800 billion) and the hope—shared by his colleagues in the GOP House leadership, who meet regularly to discuss options—that Mr. Obama would follow the recommendation of his own Simpson-Bowles commission to cut $3 in spending for every $1 raised in new revenue. There was some reason for optimism: During his re-election campaign, Mr. Obama had pledged "$2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue increases."

The White House responded to Mr. Boehner by simply offering its fiscal 2013 budget—the budget that was unanimously rejected by both houses of Congress last spring—wrapped in new paper and with a holiday ribbon.

The White House has moved since then, but not meaningfully. Mr. Obama won't agree even to $1 in cuts for every $1 of revenue. His latest offer calls for $1.3 trillion in new revenues paired with the vague promise of $930 billion in future budget cuts. Mr. Obama's offer also wipes out the $972 billion in cuts agreed to in the July 2011 debt-ceiling deal and adds at least $80 billion in new stimulus spending.

In response, Mr. Boehner has offered "Plan B." Tax rates on annual income above $1 million would rise to 39.6% from 35%, but lower rates on everyone else would become permanent and the Alternative Minimum Tax would disappear.

Mr. Boehner's thinking is that preventing increases on more than 99% of taxpayers could help Republicans escape from a battle they cannot win. Better for the GOP to show the president rabid for more taxes and spending, and then to pivot toward a debate about spending. Here Republicans will hold the upper hand: Mr. Obama needs the House to approve his debt-ceiling increase (likely by March). He won't get it without spending cuts.

As of this writing, Republican leaders plan a House vote on this imperfect measure Thursday. So far the White House and congressional Democrats have rejected "Plan B," despite Democratic support for exactly this concept in May of this year. Talk about hypocrisy.

It's impossible to know how this Washington drama will end, but Speaker Boehner has played a weak hand adroitly. He's been reasonable, even creative, and so far kept his caucus behind him. He will rightly be judged on what he eventually agrees (or doesn't agree) to. But so far he's shown leadership that has been lacking elsewhere in Washington—especially at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. Rove, a former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)

The Wisdom of Robert Bork

Without the Constitution's original intent as their guide, wrote the great jurist who died Wednesday at 85, justices are left with merely their own 'moral philosophy.'

Editor's note: The former federal judge, legal scholar and solicitor general Robert H. Bork, who died Wednesday at age 85, was a frequent contributor to the Journal's opinion pages. An editorial appears nearby, and below are some selections from his work:

"The Unpersuasive Bakke Decision," July 21, 1978

The decisive opinion [in Bakke] was Mr. Justice [Lewis] Powell's, because the remainder of the court split evenly for and against the racial quota used by the Davis medical school for admissions. Justice Powell's middle position—universities may not use raw racial quotas but may consider race, among other factors, in the interest of diversity among the student body—has been praised as a statesmanlike solution to an agonizing problem. It may be. Unfortunately, in constitutional terms, his argument is not ultimately persuasive.

Justice Powell attempted to find a position . . . tempering a colorblind version of the 14th Amendment with the First Amendment. The 14th, he said, is strict about any use of race. "The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to an individual and something else when applied to a person of another color." . . .

The trouble is, it is hard to take seriously the idea that the First Amendment permits university freedom from the strictures of the 14th so long as they pursue an education policy held in good faith. Were that true, a university could believe that education is more effective under conditions of genuine homogeneity and so count against applicants, among other factors, the fact of being black. . . .

Justice Powell's use of the First Amendment fails; it is not a real factor, and we have at bottom a statement that the 14th Amendment allows some, but not too much, reverse discrimination. Yet that vision of the Constitution remains unexplained.

The Bookshelf review, Nov. 21, 1980, of William O. Douglas's "The Court Years, 1939-1975"

[Supreme Court Justice] William O. Douglas's . . . urge, which became the dominant theme of the Warren Court, was the redistribution of society's wealth, prestige and political power. He, as part of a court majority, accomplished: school desegregation; legislative reapportionment on a rigid one-man, one-vote formula; the destruction of laws controlling obscenity, birth control, abortion and residency requirements for voting and welfare benefits; an end even to racially non-discriminatory poll taxes; and limitations on the death penalty. He routinely voted against business litigants whatever the legal context.

Mr. Douglas himself was often in dissent because he wished to do more and go further. Most observers, even those who approve, found it difficult not to conclude that Justice Douglas's politics were also his law.

"Tobacco Suit Is Latest Abuse of the Rule of Law," Sept. 23, 1999

At least when the nation decided to end the "scourge" of alcohol, it had the political courage to ratify the 18th Amendment making Prohibition the law of the land.

Not so in these pusillanimous days. Now, as then, we are in the throes of a reform campaign waged with the vigor and self-righteousness of the bluenoses of old. This time their target is cigarettes, not whiskey. But our politicians no longer have the courage to legislate the end of what they condemn. Instead, they resort to lawsuits in an effort to end smoking by destroying the tobacco companies. The end, apparently, justifies any means, no matter how fraudulent. . . .

The real damage done by this noxious mixture of governmental greed and moralism is not to the tobacco companies' shareholders (they should have seen it coming and got out a long time ago) but to what we still, with increasing irony, call the rule of law.

"Blue Slip Blackmail," May 10, 2001

[President George W.] Bush yesterday announced his first 11 selections for new appellate and trial-court judges, and the all-too-familiar liberal assault, powered by misrepresentations and scare tactics, began. . . .

Because a number of the nominees are members of the Federalist Society that organization has come in for slander, and has been described as a "tightly organized right-wing lawyers' group." As a member, I can testify that the Federalist Society is barely organized at all. Unlike the American Bar Association, it does not vet judges and takes no position on public affairs. Its main activity is organizing debates at which liberals are well-represented. Yet the head of People for the American Way, itself on the outer fringes of the left, describes the society as a "bastion of far-right legal thought."

The truth is that there is no far-right legal thought in the U.S. There are liberal activists and originalists, the latter not even remotely resembling the conservative activists on the court in the first third of the 20th century. But the theory of the left is that if you shout "far right" and "extremists" long enough, some people will believe it.

"Activist Judges Strike Again," Dec. 22, 1999

There was a time when judicial activism was thought to be a disease of the federal courts, and the Warren Court in particular. What we see . . . is that activism is now raging in the state courts. That activism prevails in those courts, even though many of them are manned by elected judges, suggests either that the public is ill-informed about the shift in power from democratic institutions to authoritarian bodies or that there is a general weariness with democracy and the endless struggles it entails.

"The Most Misunderstood Antitrust Case," May 22, 1998

Microsoft's MSFT -0.92% defenders and [Bill] Gates himself frequently voice the complaint that federal judges should not design computers or software. Closely related concerns are that the Sherman Act, which was written in the days of the oil and tobacco trusts, [is] outdated in a digital economy and that regulation of the industry would hamper innovation.

In truth, the government does not propose to design software but only to enjoin monopolizing practices. Competition and monopoly, which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called "conditions . . . as permanent as anything human," have not changed since 1890, though our understanding of them has.

The government's suit would in no way hamper innovation, though that is Mr. Gates's favorite mantra. It would allow innovation from many sources rather than just one. Should the government succeed, consumers will benefit from additional innovation and choice as well as from lower software prices.

"Their Will Be Done," July 5, 2005

Once the justices depart, as most of them have, from the original understanding of the principles of the Constitution, they lack any guidance other than their own attempts at moral philosophy, a task for which they have not even minimal skills. Yet when it rules in the name of the Constitution, whether it rules truly or not, the Court is the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy. The combination of absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution, and philosophical incompetence is lethal.

The Court's philosophy reflects, or rather embodies and advances, the liberationist spirit of our times. In moral matters, each man is a separate sovereignty. In its insistence on radical personal autonomy, the Court assaults what remains of our stock of common moral beliefs. That is all the more insidious because the public and the media take these spurious constitutional rulings as not merely legal conclusions but moral teachings supposedly incarnate in our most sacred civic document.

4a)

Could Another 'Borking' Ever Succeed?

In 1987, there were no websites or bloggers to counter a smear campaign led by Ted Kennedy.

By Gordon Crovitz

The death of leading jurist Robert Bork last week prompts this thought: Would "borking" be possible today, with all the tools available on the Internet for facts to overcome distortions?

Judge Bork's defeated nomination to the Supreme Court 25 years ago was a low point in Senate history, made possible because lies about a nominee could spread before websites, bloggers or Twitter could be used to expose untruths, libels and slanders.

Even those of us who lived through the Bork drama may need a refresher on why the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb "to bork": "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to a public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."

President Reagan nominated Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987, six years after he was confirmed unanimously to a seat on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. The equally conservative Antonin Scalia had been confirmed unanimously for a seat on the Supreme Court in 1986. But Bork's nomination was to fill the seat of Justice Lewis Powell Jr., a moderate—so liberal activists were geared up to stop any nominee, fearing a tilt away from a liberal-dominated court.

Enlarge Image

CNP/Polaris

Robert Bork at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, September 1987.

Activists were especially opposed to Bork, who had become perhaps the country's best-known scholar during a distinguished career at Yale Law School. He revolutionized antitrust law to make it pro-consumer, not anti-competition. He explained why judges should be bound by the original intent of the founders, delegitimizing judges who ruled based on their personal views. "The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else," he wrote. This threatened liberal lobbying groups used to having liberal judges rule their way.

Within 45 minutes of the announcement of Bork's nomination, Ted Kennedy went to the Senate floor to make a speech that became so infamous it would feature in many of his own obituaries:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

Judge Bork was right when he said, "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate." But a cabal of 40 liberal lobbying groups led by Ralph Neas (now a top pharmaceutical lobbyist in Washington) used then-existing media brilliantly to caricature the nominee. Actor Gregory Peck narrated a television ad that aired in 22 states, in an era when TV dominated mass communications. In somber tones, the "To Kill a Mockingbird" actor warned that Bork had "defended poll taxes and literacy tests which kept many Americans from voting." This was also a complete fabrication.

But there was no Internet to correct the record—no legal blogs such as today's SCOTUSblog, AbovetheLaw, Volokh Conspiracy and Overlawyered. There was no Twitter topic on, say, #therealjudgebork. A digital counterweight could at least have slowed down Bork's defamers.

It is unlikely that a Ted Kennedy would dare give such an outrageous speech in the first place today. Politicians must now expect that online outlets will instantly correct misstatements and intentional distortions with web links and other disclosures of the facts.

Back in the 1980s, only analog-era tools could set the record straight, mostly by citing the details of what Bork actually wrote in articles and court decisions. During the confirmation process I wrote an article in these pages focused just on Bork's rulings in civil-rights cases, concluding that the distortions of his record were "nothing more—or less—than a grotesque lie." But the judge's actual record was swamped by television ads and lobbyists' direct-marketing hyperbole.

By now, almost everyone admits the outrage of the borking. Ethan Bronner, who covered the hearings for the Boston Globe, later wrote in a book that "Kennedy's was an altogether startling statement. He had shamelessly twisted Bork's world view." Jeffrey Rosen, an aide to then-Sen. Joe Biden when he headed the Judiciary Committee that trashed Bork, wrote in the liberal New Republic last week: "Bork's record was distorted beyond recognition. . . . The borking of Bork was the beginning of the polarization of the confirmation process that has turned our courts into partisan war zones."

Perpetrators of the borking will have to answer to their own consciences. The rest of us can take some comfort in knowing that thanks to the Internet, it is less likely anyone will have to endure the outrages that vilified Robert Bork.

---
5)

Can Cowboy Capitalism Save America?

By Carl Delfeld, Investment U Senior Analyst

The independent streak in America runs deep. Independent voters now outnumber registered Republicans and Democrats. Independent investors are changing the landscape of financial services. Charter schools are leading innovation. Entrepreneurs form the backbone of our economy. I think it all comes from the cowboy - a powerful symbol I appreciate much more after living in Colorado for more than a decade. As America faces its tough economic challenges in a presidential year, perhaps we should look at just why the cowboy is the symbol of America at home and around the world. Cowboys represent both geographic and inner mobility, and the willingness to take risks. To persevere, and overcome hardship and challenges is the story of the cowboy - and of America. The American cowboy is everything good that our country is and should be. Simple and Straightforward First and foremost, the cowboy is self-reliant, but generous in helping others in distress. He likes to keep things simple and straightforward. Resilient and persistent, the cowboy accepts and welcomes that great accomplishment and wealth only come with commensurate risk. He has a keen sense of honor and stewardship, and appreciates that activity and flexibility are the keys to success in gaining a livelihood. In judging a rope hand, issues of gender and race are ridiculous and "betting the ranch" is done with their own money. While there's nothing wrong with borrowing money to finance a herd, cowboys know that it's hard to ride tall in the saddle when you owe everybody in town. I believe the above characteristics aren't just vital to success on the range, but in our personal lives and in our nation's economic and political matters. But cowboy capitalism, like its sibling cowboy diplomacy, has taken a beating lately, and not just in the salons of Europe. Unfortunately, the cowboy image many carry in their heads is upside down: the cowboy as reckless, carefree and irresponsible. It seems to me that our country is unfortunately riding away from true cowboy values and many Americans feel this in their bones. But don't despair... It was French historian Alexis De Tocqueville who recognized that "the greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults." In my book Red, White and Bold: The New American Century, I suggest eight key relationships that need to be rebalanced if this is to be another American century. Risk is Not a Four-Letter Word Let's briefly look at the first two relationships, with cowboy capitalism in mind. Risk vs. Reward - The basis of capitalism is weighing potential rewards against risks, making a decision, and then putting capital to work. Taking risks shouldn't be confused with gambling, but rather careful calculation of the probabilities of success against the sobering possibility of "back to the drawing board." It's vital to keep in mind that risk isn't just a four-letter word. On the contrary, without taking risks, nothing of lasting value can be accomplished. All of America's scientific and commercial achievements were due to individuals taking risks, sometimes despite what appeared to be daunting odds. And economic growth comes only when capital is allowed to flow to its most productive uses - and that means to people and companies taking on these risks. A culture of risk taking and innovation is at the heart of American capitalism and the process of creating wealth. America's vigor is also closely tied to a culture of second chances. At the rodeo of life, the only unforgiveable sin is failing to try in the first place. Responsibility and Honor - But while the cowboy and the trail boss understand that a nice bonus awaits them if they get the cattle to market on time, they never think, like some bankers, executives and traders, that the cattle they look after actually belong to them. Cowboys have a sense of keen sense of stewardship, responsibility and honor that all people should follow. Cowboys also understand that while on a cattle drive a lot can go wrong - and usually does. Looking to Washington to get them out of a fix is hopeless and insulting. They're an independent lot, and depending on the Mideast for energy or the Chinese for debt financing is like a cold cup of black coffee on a bleak winter morning. Cutting spending, offshore drilling, nuclear power and clean coal are all better than going on bended knee. Finally, any cowboy would grimace at the complexity of government red tape, many of our financial products and an impossibly complex tax code that confronts every budding entrepreneur, as well as the 27 million small businesses in America that generate most of our economic growth and employment. As a rule, cowboys aren't keen on paperwork. In 1936, The Federal Register of new regulations contained 2,600 pages. By 1950, it had grown to 20,000 pages, and by 2008, it had grown to 80,000 pages. Try getting that into your saddlebag. Good Investing, Carl Delfeld

Rejection, Re-Set, Iskander,DeathSpiral, Spending!

Probably last memo for a while so want to wish you and yours the Merriest of Christmases and The Happiest and Healthiest of New Years. Hope it will be one of peace as well.
---
Obama rejected Boehner's latest offer stating it did not tax the rich (successful) enough and also probably betting Boehner will continue making offers rather than stand his ground and let the chips fall where they may.

 Had Boehner played poker with Reagan I suspect the former president would have cleaned his clock.

 Last thing I heard is Boehner was also willing to play the debt ceiling card prematurely  as a furthe inducement regarding  cliff negotiations.
---
Our possession of gas and ability to extricate can be a boon to our economy. Obama has opposed it for a variety of reasons but eventually it will happen despite his opposition and EPA roadblocks. (See 1 below)
---
Death spiral begun? (See 2 and 2a below.)
---
Daniel Pipes bullish on prospects for Israel's survival. Pretty much repeats what he said here several months ago. (See 3 below.)
 ---
We all know the problem is spending not revenue.  Obama, is not stupid, an incompetent manager maybe but not stupid and he  knows spending is the problem as well. Obama simply wants to keep doing it. (See 4 below.)
---
When it comes to mental health in Georgia, I happen to have some background knowledge because Dr. William (Bill) Rottersman, who was th pre-iminent Menninger trained psychiatrist in Georgia, was appointed by Gov. Carter to head  Georgia's Mental Health Program. Bill and his wife Lena (both have passed away) were very dear and close friends.

After two months on the job, Bill resigned and told me he never met a more incompetent manager than Carter.

Subsequently, Carter began to release mental patients and close facilities because he concluded new drugs had solved most mental health problems.  What Carter failed to comprehend is that when many patients on these new drugs began to feel better they quit taking them or took them irregularly or did not take them at all.

When Carter became president his Secretary of Health was a pot smoking free wheeling spirit and the mental health issue, in this nation, has never been properly addressed.  Some attention will be paid to it now along with lip service but,  as I have said before, in an atmosphere brought about by  tragedy, such as in Connecticut, I dare say whatever is done will either fall short of the true need and/or will fade away.

America's attention span lasts until the next crisis and as log as the media and news keep it before them. Like a drunk we simply stagger from one crisis to the next leaving in the wake a series of bad legislation or more tragedy.  On occasion, we might get it right but then, all too often, bureaucrats screw it up in implementation by going overboard etc. The EPA is one of the biggest offenders,

Did not the current Mayor of Chicago advance his political career with the message: "Never let a crisis go to waste. "  Crises sell newspapers and provide entertainment on TV.(See 5 below.)
---
Has Russia decided to re-set Syria?  Now that Hillary has a concussion are the Russians taking advantage?  Are they willing to challenge Obama's comment about having more flexibility once re-elected ?  By flexibility did Obama really mean greater willingness to look the other way as he usually does leading from the rear? (See 6 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
 1)Eni’s Recchi: Shale Gas Boom to Transform US Economy
By Michael Kling

 The U.S. shale gas boom is changing the American economy as well as the industry dynamics in Europe and Asia, said Giuseppe Recchi, chairman of Eni, an Italian oil and gas company. "This shale gas, fracking economy … is changing the dynamics of the gas business in Europe and Asia," Recchi told CNBC.

 Cheaper natural gas will bring back energy-intensive manufacturing to the United States, Recchi said, noting that the boom is similar to the commerce revolution prompted by the Internet. Editor's Note: Prophetic Economist Warns: “It’s Curtains for America.”

See Evidence. "A lot of global brands are bringing back this capacity to the U.S., which creates jobs." Eni, the biggest oil company in Africa, made a major gas find in Mozambique. The reserve has enough gas to meet the consumption of Italy for 25 years, he told CNBC. Manufacturers say they will invest over $90 billion in U.S. businesses that can use cheaper natural gas, according to the Financial Times. Petrochemicals, fuel, fertilizer and steel industries stand to benefit. "This revolution is creating great opportunities to increase manufacturing capability, and has tremendous potential for economic impact and job creation,”

Greg Garland, chief executive of Phillips 66, told the Financial Times. Domestic prices might rise if the industry exports the gas as liquefied natural gas, some caution.

However, a U.S. Energy Department report predicts that even unrestricted liquefied natural gas exports would only modestly impact prices at home, according to the Financial Times. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2)Eleven states with more people on welfare than they have employed ? The voters are in “La La” land………………..even a 3rd grader can see the fallacy of this………….and, of course, the number of states will continue to grow until the bubble bursts…………….it would appear we are doomed and past the point of no return?

 Death Spiral These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed! And Surprise-Surprise!!! 7 of these States voted for Obama.

This Just Proves that The Majority of Americans have No Intentions of Making a Better Independent Life for Themselves and their Families and are content Living on The Tax Payers Dime for Eternity!




2a)Conservatives Rationalize as America Circles the Drain
By Selwyn Duke
It's often hard to accept the truth, especially when that truth is scary -- when reality seems to offer you no solutions, only poison from which to pick.

It's as with a man I once knew who insisted that it couldn't be proven that smoking is bad for you.  He knew better in his heart, but his available choices -- giving up cigarettes or accepting the danger of their use -- were both emotionally unpalatable to him.  Enter the rationalization.

We're seeing the same thing with Republicans in the wake of Barack Obama's re-election.  Radio host Sean Hannity, citing changing American demographics, stated a while back that his position on immigration has "evolved": we now must offer illegals some kind of pathway to citizenship (aka amnesty).  Other conservatives are warning that we must dispense with social issues, or the Republican Party will be dispensed with.

Of course, this isn't always rationalization.  Some conservatives, and Hannity is likely among them, may truly believe that we can avoid electoral hell if we have just one more dance with the Devil.  Conservatives have always responded to seemingly inevitable political changes by, slowly but surely, compromising their way to tyranny.  But rationalization is a huge factor, and what is the scary truth here that conservatives dare not contemplate?

They are losing the culture.

Little by little.

Every day.

And as the culture goes, so go political fortunes.

Let's spell it out:

1. To paraphrase Lincoln, the teaching in the schools today will be the politics of tomorrow.  The left has long controlled academia.
2. The media, our conduit of information, is largely controlled by the left.
3. As Plato wrote, "[w]hen modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state always change with them."  Just imagine what he would have said about far more influential television and the internet, two media through which popular culture -- which the left controls -- is imbibed.

Now, like a computer, people can process only the data they are given.  Thus, even when people function logically like a computer (which can be rare), they're operating within a leftist matrix of ideas forged by the Triumvirate of Evil (TE): academia, the media, and popular culture.  These data-entry specialists ensure that it is garbage in as leftist ideology, garbage out as votes.

This brings us to the so-called culture war.  The left is the establishment; it controls the above branches of the pen-not-sword military.  Conservatives have been reduced to guerrilla warfare, with groups such as the ACLJ, Family Research Council, and Christian Coalition drawing occasional blood, and citizen uprisings such as the defense of Chik-fil-A.  And while these actions are sometimes successful, they're always short-lived and are merely defenses that serve only to slow the loss of traditionalist territory.

The reality is that there is no culture war.  What is occurring now is a pacification effort.    

Some conservatives sense this, but the reality is often too frightening to contemplate.  You can vote liberals out of office, but how do you control entities whose agents of change are unelected?  Boycotts won't do it because, unlike elections, they require more than a run-up campaign and one voting day of focus and effort; it's often impossible to get enough people on board, and in the aggregate, most don't have the discipline to persevere in a boycott, anyway.  And what of traditionalists reversing the Gramscian march through the institutions by themselves entering them?  Good luck.  Time is short, and, besides, TE leftists are like The Matrix's sentient programs: they guard all the gates and hold all the keys.      

In addition to this, add another element to my eighth-paragraph list:  

4. You can supplement your domestically produced leftist voters by importing some ready-made ones.  Most all of our new immigrants are de facto socialists.

This won't be changed, either, because there no longer are the votes to alter our dhimmi-gration model.

So the hear-see-speak-no-evil reality for conservatives is this: politics will always reflect the culture, which is steadily drifting "left."

And there is no way to democratically reclaim the culture.

So many conservatives shunt this root-rot into their minds' recesses and instead focus on growing pretty leaves on the dying tree: they immerse themselves in the political.  Oh, perhaps if we fertilize the Hispanic electorate with the manure of amnesty, it will bloom as a Republican rose.  Just one more concession!

Fantasy.

Or maybe we just need to stop the blinding sunshine of social issues and try a flood of fiscal conservatism.

Dream.

First, Republicans have already tried focusing on fiscal matters and de-emphasizing social ones.  Note that except when answering direct questions, they didn't talk about social issues much in the 2012 campaign; it was the Democrats, with their WOW (war on women) propaganda, who talked about what the GOP supposedly believed.  Ah, this worked only because the media offered air support, you say?  See the above list.  The media won't suddenly find virtue but will only intensify the pacification effort.

As for the growing Hispanic voting bloc, as I wrote a while back (admittedly, I didn't provide enough nuance), they don't mind social conservatism.  And since saying, as I did previously, that they are more socially conservative than are whites is imprecise, I'll rephrase it: Hispanics are less opposed to social conservatism than are whites.

What many Hispanics really want is cradle-to-grave handouts, the kind of big government they voted for -- but never could quite get -- in their native lands.  Whether this comes packaged with social conservatism or social liberalism is secondary.

To spell it out more precisely, a higher percentage of whites are passionately opposed to social conservatism, but a higher percentage of whites are also passionately for it.  As for Hispanics, the best description of them as a whole isn't socially conservative or liberal, but socially indifferent.  They may register the obligatory nod when their priest talks about abortion, but they'd do the same in a setting in which social liberalism was the default.  It's simply not something on which their votes hinge.  And because of this indifference, their youth will and do conform to the liberal spirit of the age.

Conclusion: Hispanics are not a natural conservative constituency.

Let's tackle another myth. We often hear that this is a "conservative" country, with a plurality of the electorate describing themselves as conservative; as Pew reported, "40% of Americans ... describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal."  But two important factors are missed here.  First, the majority of any nation could be called "conservative," as the only consistent definition of that term involves a desire to maintain the status quo, and the status quo is determined by the majority.  Second, today's status quo was shaped by yesterday's left and thus is in that sense "liberal."  This dovetails with the second factor:

Most "moderates" are actually liberals, usually of the lukewarm variety.

How can this be?  First, wishy-washy people lacking in principle will hew mostly to what's fashionable, and, again, progressivism is that.  Second, liberals are solipsistic and self-centered and thus see themselves as defining the center (and any deviation from their beliefs as radicalism); hence, even when they are left of our "leftist" middle, in their minds they may be moderates.  Third, liberals want to fancy themselves open-minded, so they often like believing they're voices of reason -- moderate and not, perish the thought, extreme.  Lastly, both the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been demonized to a degree, and it takes conviction to brand yourself as one who has unfashionably strayed from the pack.  And since liberals are far more likely than conservatives to be relativists -- to believe that "man is the measure of all things" and thus that true principle (which is transcendent) is an illusion -- they tend to care more about social standing than standing on "social constructs" (principles).  Ergo, they're more likely than conservatives to adopt a label that sounds good rather than one that rings true.

So that is America in 2012.  And where do we go from here?  For starters, we need to stop fooling ourselves.  Many Johnny-come-lately-to-reality types started talking about Republicans' demographic and cultural winter only after the Nov. 6 election, as if some kind of unforeseeable revolution had taken place.  But while it may have represented a tipping point, a long Gramscian evolution had pushed America to that point.  A process is in motion, a disease besets us, and if you understand its pathology, you know that no amount of Hispandering or appeals to virtue (e.g., personal responsibility) with an electorate largely lacking in the quality will bear fruit.  The remaining healthy acorns need to recognize this, stop trying to fertilize a tree destined for the sawmill, and instead prepare to seed new ground.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
3)Israel at Peace
By Daniel Pipes

 Those concerned with the security and welfare of the Jewish state keep asking questions like “Is Israel Doomed?” and Will Israel Survive? (also in French, Israël peut-il survivre?).

 One even titled a book The Late Great State of Israel. This gloom results from the unique barrage of threats facing the Jewish state. These include weapons of mass destruction, conventional armies, and terrorism; economic boycott, demographic challenge, and political delegitimization.

No country at present – and perhaps in all history – faces such an array of dangers, from mass violence (Iranian nuclear bombs) to intellectual sabotage (professorial of English). As an aside, threatening the very existence of a country is a distinctive feature of modern Middle East politics rarely found elsewhere in the world: other examples include Kuwait (which actually disappeared into the Iraqi maw for half a year in 1990-91), Bahrain (under intermittent threat from Iranian imperialists), Jordan (seen as an illegitimate British imperial creation), Lebanon (eyed covetously by Syrians), and Cyprus (invaded by Turkish forces in 1974 and newly under threat again).

 Back to Israel: I am optimistic it will survive. Several reasons lead me to this conclusion.

 First, Israel is strong. The country is characterized by military prowess, high technology capabilities, a strong economy, a booming energy sector, robust population growth, and cultural creativity. Over time, it grows increasingly more powerful than its enemies.

 Second, Israelis show a historically unprecedented willingness to compromise. The Israelis' having returned a captured Sinai Peninsula three times to Egypt (in 1949, 1957, and 1982) has no parallel in the history of war and diplomacy. Nearly all the territories Israeli troops conquered in 1967, with the exception of historic Jerusalem, has been open for discussion since just a week after their seizure. In the history of warfare and negotiations, no victor has shown such a willingness as Israel to make “painful concessions” to reach a deal; which other leader has proclaimed, as Ehud Olmert did before and during his prime ministry, that “We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies” and “Peace is achieved through concessions”?

 Third, no state of hostilities goes on forever.

Circumstances change, new enemies appear, old angers dissipate, willpower grinds down. Even the longest lasting conflicts eventually get solved. The English and French states, for example, fought each other for over seven centuries before they finally reached an “Entente cordiale” in 1904, allying in the face of an emerging German foe and since then remaining steadfast (if irascible) allies. The Arab-Israeli conflict, one century old, also will not continue unendingly. One has to wonder for how long the Palestinians and their supporters can sustain their goal of eliminating Israel. As the generation of 1948 refugees dies off, will its children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and further progeny continue to dream of a future in Jaffa or Haifa, rather than where they actually live? How long can they mortgage their lives to an ever-more remote irredentism?

 Fourth, Palestinians will realize that blind devotion to extremist and rigid ideologies leads to a dead-end. This process has already begun. For example, interviews with extremist Palestinian leaders of an earlier era – Nayef Hawatmeh, Ahmed Jibril, Leila Khaled, and Mohammed Oudeh – shows how the passage of time has changed their perspectives and led to the acknowledgment of basic mistakes. Hawatmeh, leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, notes that “After 60 years, we are struggling for what we could have had in 1947.

 We have missed many historic opportunities.” Oudeh, planner of the Olympic games attack in 1972 that killed 11 Israeli athletes, says that “maybe, just maybe, we should have shown some flexibility. Back in our days, it was 'the whole of Palestine or nothing.' But we should have accepted a Palestinian state next to Israel.” Hawatmeh and the others forwarded a nationalist agenda which time has passed by and that now has little appeal.

The same, no doubt, will happen to today's favored ideology; however strong they are today, the Islamist forces of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah shall also lose their vitality one day, and their old men will express a similar remorse about opportunities missed. So, yes, the conflict will come to an end. Further, I expect that that there will be peace between the Jewish state and its neighbors.

Here are some specific predictions: What kind of peace?

As Martin Sherman notes, the word “peace” contains within it two distinct meanings – one concerning relations between two democratic polities, the other between one or more non-democratic polities.

The first refers to what Sherman calls “a condition of mutual harmony between states, maintained by the inherent preference of all parties to preserve a nonviolent status quo. … Not only are differences settled in a nonviolent fashion, but the use of force is virtually inconceivable.” The United States and Canada exemplify this relationship.

 The second meaning refers to “an absence of war maintained by deterrence. In this case, only the threat of exorbitant costs dissuades one or both sides from violence. … there is no harmonious interaction between peoples of the various states. Movement across frontiers tends to be highly restricted, heavily regulated, and often totally forbidden.” The United States and the Soviet Union exemplified this relationship.

 Israel is a full democracy but not so any of its neighbors, nor are those neighbors on their way to becoming democratic, despite the upheavals of the past year. Therefore, peace between the two sides is likely long to remain of a deterrent nature, being the armed peace of deterrence with limited human contact.

Less than ideal, it will have to do until deep changes take place in the Arabic-speaking countries and a democratic peace can finally go into effect. How? Before an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was actually signed in 1979, it was assumed that this would lead to a general ending of the conflict because Egypt is the strongest enemy of Israel. That assessment turned out to be wrong because the signature of a military autocrat (Anwar el-Sadat) persuaded few others.

For several years in the 1980s, I focused on the Syrian government, arguing that “The conflict will go on until Syria follows Israel's other three neighbors and resigns itself to Israel's existence; once this happens, the struggle will come to a rapid end.” That also turned out to be wrong, for Damascus commands little loyalty among Islamists, professors of English, or members of the United Nations. Instead, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza are key.

When they tire of conflict, it will end. When? The conflict will go on for about another generation and may be resolved in about the 2030s. This estimate is based on the assessment that the conflict was ripe for peace twenty years ago, in the aftermath of the Kuwait war and the Soviet collapse but was derailed by a combination of Israeli naiveté and Palestinian deceit. Only now, after a long and painful detour, have Israelis begun to figure out the mistakes of diplomacy they made in the Oslo Accords and succeeding efforts.

Starting about now, it could take about twenty years for the correct path to lead to a breakthrough. Who will win? The Oslo process of 1993-2000 showed that compromise is not, in fact, a solution. As in most conflicts, the end of hostilities requires someone to lose and someone to win. The war terminates either when Arabs accept the sovereign Jewish state or when Israelis give up the Zionist project.

It ultimately comes down to a raw question of which side will first crush the other's will. The alternatives are stark and dual; efforts at mitigation actually only postpone a resolution. I hope Israel will win, for a Palestinian victory brings the doubly undesirable result of the destruction of a modern liberal country and its likely replacement by a Hamas-dominated Islamist state. An Israeli victory, in contrast, destroys extremism and actually liberates the Palestinians from their present plight.

Only when Palestinians give up on their anti-Zionist dream of destruction will they be able to invest their efforts to creating an attractive polity, economy, society, and culture. Only when Palestinians give up destroying can they build.

 Each of us must do his part to make sure the conflict ends with a positive outcome.

 Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2012 All rights reserved by Daniel Pipes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)

It's the Spending, Stupid!

• 
 
• John Stossel 

Listening to progressive media pundits, I'd think the most evil man in the universe is Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. His crime? He heads a movement that asks political candidates to pledge not to raise taxes.

I think Grover accomplished a lot. But I wish he'd convinced politicians to pledge not to increase spending.

President Obama says raising taxes to cut the deficit is a "balanced" approach.

Balanced ...

But what's "balanced" about raising taxes after vast increases in spending? Trillions for war, Medicare, "stimulus" and solar panels. Tax receipts rose -- after tax-rate cuts -- from $1.9 billion in 2003 to $2.3 billion in 2008, the year the recession started. That increase couldn't keep up with the spending. The deficit doubled -- actually, more than doubled -- as politicians increased spending to nearly $4 trillion! Our debt, at more than $16 trillion, now exceeds our gross domestic product.

Ludicrous, irresponsible spending is why we're in trouble. As columnist Ron Hart points out, Bill Clinton's balanced budget spent $1.7 trillion. "Adjusted for inflation," he writes, "our federal government would (have) a $200 billion surplus. But instead of increasing government spending in line with normal inflation, under Bush and Obama we are spending $3.8 trillion today. Democrats, who believe we have a 'revenue' problem instead of a 'spending' problem, must also think they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem."

The media obsess about tax rates, but spending is more important. As Milton Friedman taught us, spending is a far more accurate gauge of the government burden. If government spends a dollar, that dollar is taxed away from someone. If it's borrowed, it's removed from productive use, setting the stage for higher taxes later. If the government prints more dollars to fund spending, our purchasing power falls. Transferring purchasing power from the people to the government via inflation is a form of taxation.

If Republicans and Democrats reach a deal, the tax increases will be real -- but spending "cuts" probably illusions. If they actually happen, they will only be reductions in already planned increases. The Wall Street Journal notes that when the two parties talk about cutting spending by $4 trillion over a decade, "those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill's 'baseline' has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections ... . Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline."

Given our growing debt, can't they even slow the growth of government to the rate of inflation? Or inflation plus 1 percent? Or even inflation plus 2 percent? That might balance the budget within a decade.

But the spenders won't even give me that. They want more. Always more.

Jonathan Bydlak, founder of the Coalition to Reduce Spending, has a good idea. "It's important to do for spending what Norquist has done for taxes: create a means for voters to hold elected officials accountable when they break campaign promises of fiscal responsibility."

Bydlak has no time for any politician who pledges not to raise taxes without pledging to cut spending. He praises Doug Collins, representative-elect from Georgia, and Ted Cruz, senator-elect from Texas, for signing the Reject the Debt pledge and thereby promising voters they would:

"ONE, not vote for any budget that is not balanced nor for any appropriations bill that increases total spending;

"and TWO, consider all spending open for reduction, and not vote to authorize or fund new programs without offsetting cuts in other programs."

Well, sure. Good luck to him.

But people are reluctant to give up their favorite programs. Or any programs.

Let's not fool ourselves about how dependent politicians have made people on government.

To succeed, the crusade to cut spending needs an ideological understanding of how unsustainable our current course is, not just a narrow appeal to short-term self-interest. People will have to see the wisdom of giving up government benefits now -- in exchange for something more abstract: a future free society in which our children won't be burdened by debt and taxes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)Rampage Shootings: It’s the Moral Decay of Society, not Guns

(Before It's News)

It should come as no surprise that the rate of mass shootings at schools and in other public places is increasing not only in the US but other parts of the world.. The surge has nothing to do with guns, which have been widely available in the U.S. for years. Gun control laws have been increasing. Instead, there is a direct correlation between the increase in violence and the gradual degradation of morals, ethics and parenting. We are cultivating mental illness in our society.

Parents are allowing television and video games to increasingly babysit their children, even though both have become full of gratuitous violence. A New York Times study of rampage killers found that six of them were into violent video games. Research shows that violent video games and television desensitize people and promote aggressive behavior, despite claims to the contrary. A research scientist at the University of Michigan found that television was responsible for 10% of youth violence. Parents today are neglecting their children, and when things don’t go well, rushing to get divorced instead of trying to work things out first. Children suffer emotionally when their parents fight or split up. Parents are ignoring their children so much they don’t even see the warning signs that something might be wrong. The New York Times study found that 63 of 100 rampage killers had made threats of violence before the event.

Parents are no longer taking their children to church, where they would learn stability and morals. Fewer than 20% of Americans now regularly attend church. Every year there are 3000 fewer churches across the U.S, even though the population is growing. God and morality have been taken out of the public schools and replaced with political correctness and non-judgmentalism. “Public virtues” are no longer taught in today’s schools. People who do not attend church are more likely than churchgoers to have stress and to be less optimistic about the future. When parents split up and there is no father to take the children regularly to church, the children are much less likely to become regular churchgoers than if their mother regularly takes them.

The New York Times study found that at least half the killers in 100 rampage attacks showed signs of serious mental health problems. 48 killers were formally diagnosed with mental illness, often schizophrenia. The mentally ill used to be kept in hospitals, where they were not a danger to others. Beginning in the 1950s in California, the ACLU successfully filed lawsuits to take the mentally ill out of hospitals, known as “deinstitutionalization.” By the 1980s, most state-run mental health hospitals had closed.

Now, most of the mentally ill are out on the streets or in prison. The laws have been changed to state that the mentally ill cannot be hospitalized until they’ve already attacked someone. As a result, more mentally ill people are incarcerated than in hospitals, with the seriously mentally ill three times more likely to end up behind bars than hospitalized. More than half of all people in prison report that they have mental health problems, and more than 40 percent of the seriously mentally ill have been in jail or prison. A study at the University of South Florida found that the highest users of criminal justice and mental health services were 97 people who had been arrested 2,200 times. It is ludicrous that those 97 people are not contained for their safety and others in mental health hospitals.

The 22-year old Oregon shopping mall gunman who killed two people earlier this week is sadly typical of the rampage murderers the decay of society has spawned. He had this written on his Facebook page, “I’m the conductor of my choo choo train. I may be young but I have lived one crazy life so far.” One of his friends said he raised himself; his mother died at childbirth, he never met his father, and he left his aunt’s home at age 14.

The left will use the high level of emotion stirred up by this past week’s two rampage killings to push through new gun control laws. Liberal New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called upon President Obama to enact tougher gun control laws immediately after Friday’s mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut. Yet demanding more gun control laws will not solve anything. Gun control advocates have already increased the number of laws around the country requiring background checks, waiting periods for purchases, and tracking of firearms. Many of the rampage killers obtained guns illegally. If they can’t obtain guns, deranged individuals will find other ways to commit mass murders – by setting fires, making bombs or running people over with vehicles. One day after the shootings in Connecticut, a man in Beijing stabbed 22 primary school students with a knife.

Paul E. Vallely MG, US Army (ret)

Chairman – Stand Up America

Standupamericausa1@gmail.com

www.standupamericaus.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6)Assad’s deadly agenda: First, chemicals, next, Iskander 9K720

On Dec. 5, the first American, Dutch and German Patriot missiles landed in Turkey. 

Within hours, three Russian warships had put into Syria’s Tartus port – the Novocherkassk andSaratov landing craft and the MB-304 supply vessel. Aboard were 300 marines. And not only fighting men. They also delivered a fearsome weapon for Assad’s army and a game changer in the Syrian conflict: 24 Iskander 9K720 (NATO codenamed SS-26 Stone) cruise missile systems, designed for theater level conflicts.
While NATO unpacked the Patriots in Turkey, a dozen mobile batteries, each carrying a pair of Iskander missiles, were fixed into position opposite Turkey, and another dozen, opposite Jordan and Israel.

At all their stations, the Russian missiles pointed at US military targets.

So while the West was gripped with alarm over Assad’s poison sarin gas shells and bombs and gearing up for missile attacks on Turkey, the Russians were injecting into the Syrian war field the most sophisticated weapon of death thus far.

The West and Israel have no answer for the Iskander’s hypersonic speed of more than 1.3 miles per second with a 280 mile-range and a 1,500-pound warhead which destroys targets with pinpoint accuracy. It is also nuclear-capable.

Russian President Vladimir Putin promised two US presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, not to let the Iskander reach the hands of Syria or Iran.

Moscow has no illusions that once in Syria, the lethal cruise missile will pretty soon reach Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Saturday, Dec. 15, Iran’s chief of staff Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi warned that the Patriot missiles in Turkey portended world war. He was referring to the missile-versus-missile face-off in Syria .

By giving Assad the Iskanders, Moscow has plumped itself squarely in the Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah camp, whereas President Obama is carefully holding back from an unreserved commitment to the Syrian insurgency. 

Some Western circles see Russia’s military intervention in the Syrian conflict as presaging Bashar Assad’s early downfall.  The reality, , is that before he falls, the Syria ruler is getting ready for desperate measures – first by unleashing chemical warfare and, after that, using the deadly Iskanders for a last throw against his enemies

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------