Obama's belated decision to launch attacks on the Libyan regime of Moammar Ghaddafi has sparked some debate on the home front over the constitutionality of his action.
Hate to say anything that defends Obama, but I would argue that the president does have a constitutional and legal authority to deploy the armed forces into a conflict despite the lack of a declaration of war. First of all, Congress does have the option to cut off funding for U. S. military actions at any time. Because of that, the legislative branch does have power and leverage over a protracted, but undeclared war.
Secondly, there is the precedent set by the Founding Fathers themselves. I will skip over John Adams' deployment of the navy in an undeclared war against France and Thomas Jefferson's attacks on Tripoli which were also undeclared. Neither one of these men had anything to do with the creation of the Constitution. James Madison, as president, in 1816 deployed the United States Navy against Tripoli and the other Barbary Pirate states. Since he was the man who more than anyone else drafted the Constitution and its first ten amendments, it is reasonable to assume that he did not intend for a president's decision making power over war to be limited to formal declarations.
Of course Barack Obama himself argued that military strikes ordered unilaterally by the president were unconstitutional during the Bush Administration. Liberal and left wing Democrats have tried to remind him of that stance lately. It was incorrect, but it is interesting to watch Obama once again enrage his own base. They can't be happy that Guantanamo Bay is once again in the same mode as under President Bush.
That all being said, I still am of the opinion that we should have recruited a country such as India to play a role here. That way this action could not be perceived as neo-colonialism. With active conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and North Korea rattling its sabre, we cannot afford to get seriously invovled in Libya. Let Europe, if no one else is available, take the lead and the griping that comes with it.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Obama's Letter to Congress On Libya Action
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release March 21, 2011
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 21, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.
Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated
2
in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition
of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.
BARACK OBAMA
For Immediate Release March 21, 2011
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 21, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.
Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated
2
in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition
of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.
BARACK OBAMA
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Obama, Japan, Libya
I'm surprised that Kanye West has not accused Obama of hating the Japanese.
Obama's days since Japan was hit by a devastating tsunami have been filled with activity. These include being filmed while filling out his NCAA brackets for ESPN camera crews. For most of the past few years, I've found myself too busy this time of year to fill mine out. Oh to have the spare time of a president.
Obama also has a strange reaction to natural disasters and death. During the Icelandic volcano and the funeral of the president of Poland, Obama could be found on the links, working on his golf game. He has been filmed recently, again, playing golf. One pundit counted up sixty-one times that the president has played golf since he became president.
When he took office, and these quotes come from the leftist blog "Red, Green, and Blue," Obama promised a new era of responsibility and accused Bush of ineptitude over his response to Katrina. Bush's main mistake lay in choosing to do what he could as president to stem the crisis, i.e. making sure that oil supplies around the world remained stable as the Gulf wells went offline. He did not "appear" to care enough. Obama ignored the Gulf oil spill until his poll numbers started dropping. He also did not learn from the harsh public reaction to his yawn over the tragic death of the Polish president that foreign crises matter too. The president's response to Libya has also raised eyebrows. Obama does not haveto tour the rubble himself, but at the very least he could go without golf for a little while and do some work. Of course he has his next vacation to plan for, so....
Dwight D. Eisenhower also golfed a lot, but his World War II experience assured many Americans that he was on task. Warren Harding loved to golf as well. His inexperience and lazy attitude towards the office of president got him into trouble. I wonder which of the preceding presidents makes us think more of the current administration?
Obama's days since Japan was hit by a devastating tsunami have been filled with activity. These include being filmed while filling out his NCAA brackets for ESPN camera crews. For most of the past few years, I've found myself too busy this time of year to fill mine out. Oh to have the spare time of a president.
Obama also has a strange reaction to natural disasters and death. During the Icelandic volcano and the funeral of the president of Poland, Obama could be found on the links, working on his golf game. He has been filmed recently, again, playing golf. One pundit counted up sixty-one times that the president has played golf since he became president.
When he took office, and these quotes come from the leftist blog "Red, Green, and Blue," Obama promised a new era of responsibility and accused Bush of ineptitude over his response to Katrina. Bush's main mistake lay in choosing to do what he could as president to stem the crisis, i.e. making sure that oil supplies around the world remained stable as the Gulf wells went offline. He did not "appear" to care enough. Obama ignored the Gulf oil spill until his poll numbers started dropping. He also did not learn from the harsh public reaction to his yawn over the tragic death of the Polish president that foreign crises matter too. The president's response to Libya has also raised eyebrows. Obama does not haveto tour the rubble himself, but at the very least he could go without golf for a little while and do some work. Of course he has his next vacation to plan for, so....
Dwight D. Eisenhower also golfed a lot, but his World War II experience assured many Americans that he was on task. Warren Harding loved to golf as well. His inexperience and lazy attitude towards the office of president got him into trouble. I wonder which of the preceding presidents makes us think more of the current administration?
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Time to Change the Conversation About Nuclear Power
As I write, yet another nuclear power station in Japan has started having potentially deadly problems. Over 180,000 have evacuated the northern part of the country, fearing nuclear meltdowns. Nature has reminded us yet again that we cannot just build anything that we want, anywhere that we want.
California currently has two nuclear power stations in dangerous areas. One is just south of Los Angeles, the other about halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Both are on the coastline. We have just seen that nuclear power stations on the coastline and in earthquake zones might be a bad idea. You would have thought that someone would have considered this when these stations were built.
Over the long term, we need to evaluate where these plants are located. Do they operate in potentially dangerous areas (like the California coast?) If so, we must consider removing them in the long term. No one prepares for earthquakes and tsunamis like Japan and they have come very close to serious disaster.
A full nuclear meltdown would have disastrous effects for hundreds of miles. We must be prepared for the worst.
California currently has two nuclear power stations in dangerous areas. One is just south of Los Angeles, the other about halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Both are on the coastline. We have just seen that nuclear power stations on the coastline and in earthquake zones might be a bad idea. You would have thought that someone would have considered this when these stations were built.
Over the long term, we need to evaluate where these plants are located. Do they operate in potentially dangerous areas (like the California coast?) If so, we must consider removing them in the long term. No one prepares for earthquakes and tsunamis like Japan and they have come very close to serious disaster.
A full nuclear meltdown would have disastrous effects for hundreds of miles. We must be prepared for the worst.
Monday, March 14, 2011
American Professor Kidnapped in Mexico
Dr. Veronica Perez Rodriguez, an anthropology professor at Northern Arizona University has been added to the growing list of Americans victimized by violent crime in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
Ciudad Juarez has seen the death of thirty-nine Americans in the past year. Dr. Rodriguez was kidnapped by armed gunmen while visiting her mother. Americans are under threat around the globe as criminal cartels act with increasing boldness.
It's time that we start changing our approach to non governmental threats. Pirates in the Indian Ocean are captured and put on trial. We can spend a lot of money to put them on trial and keep them in prison when we could expend much less to simply blast them into perdition. We do it to ideologically driven terrorists, why not pirates?
The Mexican border area has gotten a lot more dangerous over the last few years. Drug cartels control Ciudad Juarez and large sections of the borderland near the border. That violence is targeting Americans on both sides of the border. With Mexico's system approaching collapse, our border control must reflect the changing scenario. Rule of law in Mexico has degenerated into rule of violence and corruption.
Mexico's problems are also ours. Dr. Rodriguez was a daughter and an academic, not a drug runner. The fact that she was targeted and taken is an outrage. It is past time to send in the Central Intelligence Agency and the Special Forces to break down and break up these criminal organizations. Americans on either side of the border should not have to live or travel in the atmosphere of fear spawned by these drug cartels anymore.
Ciudad Juarez has seen the death of thirty-nine Americans in the past year. Dr. Rodriguez was kidnapped by armed gunmen while visiting her mother. Americans are under threat around the globe as criminal cartels act with increasing boldness.
It's time that we start changing our approach to non governmental threats. Pirates in the Indian Ocean are captured and put on trial. We can spend a lot of money to put them on trial and keep them in prison when we could expend much less to simply blast them into perdition. We do it to ideologically driven terrorists, why not pirates?
The Mexican border area has gotten a lot more dangerous over the last few years. Drug cartels control Ciudad Juarez and large sections of the borderland near the border. That violence is targeting Americans on both sides of the border. With Mexico's system approaching collapse, our border control must reflect the changing scenario. Rule of law in Mexico has degenerated into rule of violence and corruption.
Mexico's problems are also ours. Dr. Rodriguez was a daughter and an academic, not a drug runner. The fact that she was targeted and taken is an outrage. It is past time to send in the Central Intelligence Agency and the Special Forces to break down and break up these criminal organizations. Americans on either side of the border should not have to live or travel in the atmosphere of fear spawned by these drug cartels anymore.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Don't Restrict Access to Cold Medicine
It's the common knee jerk reaction. Society sees something it doesn't like, they scream "there oughtta be a law." Sure enough, some strange bill gets proposed the next legislative session. You hope that the legislators have enough common sense to kill the bill and go on.
Doesn't look like it will happen this time.
A bill passed the House and is now racing through the State Senate to restrict access to certain cold medicines. Why? Because many contain an ingredient that is essential to the manufacture of methamphetamines.
You have to be joking. A few people misuse cold medicine, so all of us now have to get a prescription for a very simple and basic remedy that also happens to be fairly inexpensive. Ridiculous!
In fact, it's easy to tell who the meth makers are. They are the ones buying ten boxes of the stuff. The rest of us need just one at a time, usually. Why not encourage managers to discreetly pass a tip to the police every time someone buys out the stock of cold medicine? Some won't but a lot of them will. Or law enforcement could just randomly review store tapes. They probably recognize the local meth manufacturer already.
Both legitimate and illegal users of these medicines will simply cross state lines to get what they need. What does the Legislature expect? That a drug manufacturer will say "darn, I was going to get into selling meth, but cold medicine is now a prescription. Guess I'd better get an education and a job now." Of course not! This measure will make life inconvenient for the law abiding and do next to nothing to stop the criminals. The Charleston Daily Mail 's Don Surber asked if it would have been prudent to ban refined sugar in the heyday of the moonshiners during Prohibition.
You cannot stop crime by restricting liberty.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Who Are the Koch Brothers?
The Koch brothers and their organization, the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, have made headlines in the past few weeks. The New Yorker identifies them as fighting a war against Obama while Democratic bloggers have insinuated that they are the powers behind the Tea Party and many Republican officeholders. They imply a less than savory connection between business, money, and politics.
The Koch brothers are successful businessmen on a large scale, investing in consumer products, energy, food, and other fields. With their money, they have established a non party foundation to, as they put it, advance the science of liberty.
There is nothing wrong with big business and nothing wrong with big money, so long as we have a competitive capitalist system. Big Business actually benefits and gets richer as a result of big government and its intervention into the economic system because taxes and regulations stifle competition. The Koch Foundation preaches not just economic conservatism, but a near-libertarianism that usually does not favor the dominant producers in the market. They also favor natural rights based law, which has been used in the past to elevate individual property owmers' rights over the ambitions of big business. In other words, the Koch brothers believe in a level economic field where no one gets government support or intervention. It's clear that the Koch brothers, in an Ayn Rand world, would rather be the Rearden Steel than the Twentieth Century Motors (whose fictional business model has been loosely copied by General Motors and General Electric.)
Democratic bloggers have proved that the Koch brothers have a connection with Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. So what? Wisconsin wants to cut the size of its government to benefit the taxpayers. Unions are standing in their way. Why wouldn't the Koch's support this initiative? And oh, by the way, attention paid to Wisconsin has covered the fact that several states are copying this measure themselves.
The Koch Foundation itself is about education. It wants to teach the basics of a free market economy in a republican style government (not the Republican Party, but our balanced system of republican government.) They support free market and natural rights ideals and create a large group of people who can put those beliefs into practice. Support of these ideals will offset the overwhelming bias towards statism and leftism seen on many college campuses.
Left wing establishmentarians have put their crosshairs on the Koch Foundation and are trying to sully its name. It's pretty hard for people who want higher taxes and less freedom to tarnish the image of a group of people who fight for nothing less than rights and liberty.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Earl Ray Tomblin Might Call a Special Session
Earl Ray Tomblin is making a popular proposal that has run aground against the tax and spend mentality of the State Legislature.
He is proposing a modest 1% slicing off of the food tax. Manchin had overseen cuts from 6% to its current level of 3%. Tomblin wants to take one more step towards its elimination altogether.
However the Legislature has refused to act on even this modest idea. Republicans have constantly backed full elimination of the tax immediately because it hits the working poor hardest. Three cents off of the dollar is not much for most folks making $40,000 or more a year, but a lot of people are taking their spare change to Coinstar at the end of their pay period. Three cents off of every dollar spent on food is meaningful to them.
Tomblin is not as ambitious as Republicans in that he only wants to shave one penny per dollar off. However, it is a start towards the GOP goals. If Tomblin does not get his tax reductions, he has indicated that he will use a special session to pressure the Legislature further.
This, of course, is why we need a Republican Legislature committed to tax cuts and jobs development.
Monday, March 7, 2011
John Boehner, Let Him Lie In the Rotunda
Republicans and Democrats both support it, so why isn't Speaker of the House John Boehner on board with allowing America's last World War I veteran to lie in the U. S. Capitol Rotunda?
I can understand his point in one way. You don't want to open the floodgates for every serviceman to have his or her day of respect at the Rotunda. However, this is different.
This would not be a memorial for one man, or a reward for outliving all his peers. This is a memorialization of that entire generation. These men were plucked out of their farms and hollows and sent to a place that they could not even have imagined, another continent at war. They brought back an entirely new perspective to their country while fighting for it. World War I veterans deserve their final day in the sun. We don't talk enough about them, or what they did for the U. S. and the world at large.
Make it a tradition that the last surviving veteran of each of our major wars and military actions lies in the Rotunda. This will continue the memory of what they did in a respectful fashion.
I can understand his point in one way. You don't want to open the floodgates for every serviceman to have his or her day of respect at the Rotunda. However, this is different.
This would not be a memorial for one man, or a reward for outliving all his peers. This is a memorialization of that entire generation. These men were plucked out of their farms and hollows and sent to a place that they could not even have imagined, another continent at war. They brought back an entirely new perspective to their country while fighting for it. World War I veterans deserve their final day in the sun. We don't talk enough about them, or what they did for the U. S. and the world at large.
Make it a tradition that the last surviving veteran of each of our major wars and military actions lies in the Rotunda. This will continue the memory of what they did in a respectful fashion.
Call to Action! Keep the Legislature From Making It Easier to Take More of Your Money!
The West Virginia Legislature is considering a bill to make it a simple majority vote to raise taxes or float bonds. Right now, they need a supermajority. Eliminating this vital taxpayer protection will most certainly mean that we will be paying more taxes very soon. Why else would they seek to change the law?If you think you are taxed enough already, contact your delegates and senators as soon as possible regardless of party. Let them know where you stand. Call your Republicans as well. They need to be able to reference to their Democratic brethren how angry the people are at this attempt to raise our taxes even higher than they are now.
Call them or e mail them today!!!!!
Friday, March 4, 2011
Bobby Huggins For Big East Coach of the Year
Losing talent, overcoming adversity, building chemistry and winning. That is the measure of great coaching performances. West Virginia University's Bobby Huggins has done all of these and has set his team up for another 20 win season, another year with a winning record in conference play, and an NCAA berth. First of all, Huggins had to reconfigure his team to adjust to the losses of three starters. Smith, Ebanks, and Butler all contributed defense, points, and leadership in clutch situations last year. Most teams reload with capable freshmen. Huggins had the worst luck with his recruiting class. Some did not qualify, some never made it to practice. One is left on the team, but is out for the season due to injury.
Then he dealt with player infractions and a player defection as Dan Jennings quit in the middle of a game. However, Huggins teams don't quit. They circle the wagons and rebound (in more ways than one.)
West Virginia was not picked to finish well in conference this year and that was before the entire freshman class plus a key reserve was lost. Huggins has had his team forge for themselves a very good year despite all obstacles. He has earned Big East Coach of the Year.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
House Republicans Look to End $13 Million Annual Support For U. N. Climate Group
Among the $60 billion in budget cuts proposed by House Republicans is $13 million of your taxpayer dollars that continue to fund the scandalized Intergovernmental Climate Group.
U. N. officials take issue with the $13 million figure, stating that only $4 million goes to the IGCG, while the rest goes to U. N. scientific monitoring groups.
It does not matter where the money ends up. Americans should not be spending millions on bad science. Furthermore, United States government agencies already monitor weather and the climate and have for decades. Why pay the U. N. to do the job (more poorly) as well?
American support for the United Nations stands at 31%. Even Democratic voters can only muster a 45% approval rating of the job that the U. N. does according to a 2010 Gallup Poll. It might be time for the United States to start demanding a larger say in the inner workings of the international bureaucracy, since we do pay for a great deal of its operations. As far as I am concerned, we ought to exit the U. N. and seize the headquarters through eminent domain. It does nothing for us or anyone else and is a snakepit of corruption. Libya was placed on the Human Rights Commission a few years back by these people. Libya!
Defunding fake climate research is a start. It is also a shot across the U. N.'s bow. They need to reckon with the fact that the GOP are the new budgetary sheriffs in town. And their loving defender, Obama, may be out the door in a couple of years.
U. N. officials take issue with the $13 million figure, stating that only $4 million goes to the IGCG, while the rest goes to U. N. scientific monitoring groups.
It does not matter where the money ends up. Americans should not be spending millions on bad science. Furthermore, United States government agencies already monitor weather and the climate and have for decades. Why pay the U. N. to do the job (more poorly) as well?
American support for the United Nations stands at 31%. Even Democratic voters can only muster a 45% approval rating of the job that the U. N. does according to a 2010 Gallup Poll. It might be time for the United States to start demanding a larger say in the inner workings of the international bureaucracy, since we do pay for a great deal of its operations. As far as I am concerned, we ought to exit the U. N. and seize the headquarters through eminent domain. It does nothing for us or anyone else and is a snakepit of corruption. Libya was placed on the Human Rights Commission a few years back by these people. Libya!
Defunding fake climate research is a start. It is also a shot across the U. N.'s bow. They need to reckon with the fact that the GOP are the new budgetary sheriffs in town. And their loving defender, Obama, may be out the door in a couple of years.
Monday, February 28, 2011
First Annual Orwell Award for Scariest Big Government Legislation Proposal This Session
I have decided to create an Orwell Award for scariest Big Government proposal to hit the West Virginia State Legislature this session.
The award goes to Monongalia County Delegate Barbara Fleischauer for her anti-bullying bill. This bill, which passed the House Judiciary Committee, would subject children to school punishment if they have been found to have been bullied anywhere at anytime. This could be at the park over the summer, or anywhere else for that matter, even Myrtle Beach or Timbuktu. It could involve any communication in any form whatsoever. Republican Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County was quoted in West Virginia Metro News as opposing the bill in the strongest possible terms.
Delegate Fleischauer insists that the bill is necessary because in recent years that parents don't seem willing to stop bullies.
I hate to break it to the House Judiciary Committee, but bullying was widespread in decades and centuries prior to Nancy Grace and Jane Valez Mitchell. Also, there have always been parents who refuse to believe that their little angel could be capable of bullying. You teach children strategies to deal with its reality, because it can never really be eradicated. Those strategies include, unfortunately, standing up and fighting for yourself.
Look at what Fleischauer's bill will do. A bully could use the power of the state against his or her target by threatening to turn someone in for bullying themselves. If it is off of school property and out of teacher and administrator earshot, how can proof of real guilt be established. Also in social networking, a statement taken out of context can be misinterpreted. This becomes Orwellian because an arm of the government has to operate as a Thought Police enforcing its will anywhere and everywhere with complete arbitrariness.
Children often have spats with each other that come and go like summer squalls. Anything said or done during these arguments could be construed as a bullying statement or action Boys especially will be good friends, get into fights and beat on each other, then be friends the next day. Do we really want the power of the state brought into these situations to perpetuate a conflict that would otherwise quickly pass?
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and social legislation.
Combine this with the bill to call for state investigations every time a kid misses more than five days of school and you really have a frightening overall invasion of parental authority and prerogative. People need to pay attention to the very tyrannical legislation making its way through the State Legislature this session.
The award goes to Monongalia County Delegate Barbara Fleischauer for her anti-bullying bill. This bill, which passed the House Judiciary Committee, would subject children to school punishment if they have been found to have been bullied anywhere at anytime. This could be at the park over the summer, or anywhere else for that matter, even Myrtle Beach or Timbuktu. It could involve any communication in any form whatsoever. Republican Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County was quoted in West Virginia Metro News as opposing the bill in the strongest possible terms.
Delegate Fleischauer insists that the bill is necessary because in recent years that parents don't seem willing to stop bullies.
I hate to break it to the House Judiciary Committee, but bullying was widespread in decades and centuries prior to Nancy Grace and Jane Valez Mitchell. Also, there have always been parents who refuse to believe that their little angel could be capable of bullying. You teach children strategies to deal with its reality, because it can never really be eradicated. Those strategies include, unfortunately, standing up and fighting for yourself.
Look at what Fleischauer's bill will do. A bully could use the power of the state against his or her target by threatening to turn someone in for bullying themselves. If it is off of school property and out of teacher and administrator earshot, how can proof of real guilt be established. Also in social networking, a statement taken out of context can be misinterpreted. This becomes Orwellian because an arm of the government has to operate as a Thought Police enforcing its will anywhere and everywhere with complete arbitrariness.
Children often have spats with each other that come and go like summer squalls. Anything said or done during these arguments could be construed as a bullying statement or action Boys especially will be good friends, get into fights and beat on each other, then be friends the next day. Do we really want the power of the state brought into these situations to perpetuate a conflict that would otherwise quickly pass?
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and social legislation.
Combine this with the bill to call for state investigations every time a kid misses more than five days of school and you really have a frightening overall invasion of parental authority and prerogative. People need to pay attention to the very tyrannical legislation making its way through the State Legislature this session.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Check out War On Rural Maryland blog
http://www.waronruralmaryland.com/
This blog, created by Maryland legislators, describes Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's radical policies that win the approval of elite leftists, but harm folks that own farms and live in the country.
This blog, created by Maryland legislators, describes Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's radical policies that win the approval of elite leftists, but harm folks that own farms and live in the country.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Calls For American Intervention in Libya
In the past few days, Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi/Qaddaffi/Quadaffi/GaDaffy (OK that's my own spellling) has sent his air forces to attack rebels who now hold multiple cities and sections of the countryside. Some have called on the United States to intervene, either alone or under the aegis of NATO.
As gratifying as it would be, this would be a bad call. America attacked Libya during the Reagan Administration because that nation backed terror assaults on American troops in Europe. International law, such as it is, tends to back the sovereign power of the internationally recognized state in most cases. Without some sort of UN resolution or threat outside his borders, such intevention would set a dangerous precedent.
That being said, the unrest in Libya does cause strategic problems in terms of the oil supply. That country produces 2% of the world's oil. Assuming the idea that intervention does become a real issue, we must do this intelligently.
First, any U. S. move would discredit the anti-Ghaddaffi forces. Only an IDF attack would look worse. That also eliminates most European states with colonial backgrounds, such as Britain, France and Italy. Turkey once ruled Libya directly as a province in their empire, so they are out as well.
That leaves us with Poland, and, well, Poland. American and European financial support behind NATO airstrikes conducted by Poland, the Czech Republic, and a short list of others might do the trick without raising the accusations of imperialism. That being said, the removal of the regime seems a foregone conclusion at this point as Ghaddaffffffie's military is slowly defecting to the rebels. Foreign intervention might halt that process.
Best to give moral support, but not intervene directly.
As gratifying as it would be, this would be a bad call. America attacked Libya during the Reagan Administration because that nation backed terror assaults on American troops in Europe. International law, such as it is, tends to back the sovereign power of the internationally recognized state in most cases. Without some sort of UN resolution or threat outside his borders, such intevention would set a dangerous precedent.
That being said, the unrest in Libya does cause strategic problems in terms of the oil supply. That country produces 2% of the world's oil. Assuming the idea that intervention does become a real issue, we must do this intelligently.
First, any U. S. move would discredit the anti-Ghaddaffi forces. Only an IDF attack would look worse. That also eliminates most European states with colonial backgrounds, such as Britain, France and Italy. Turkey once ruled Libya directly as a province in their empire, so they are out as well.
That leaves us with Poland, and, well, Poland. American and European financial support behind NATO airstrikes conducted by Poland, the Czech Republic, and a short list of others might do the trick without raising the accusations of imperialism. That being said, the removal of the regime seems a foregone conclusion at this point as Ghaddaffffffie's military is slowly defecting to the rebels. Foreign intervention might halt that process.
Best to give moral support, but not intervene directly.
More Americans Murdered By Somali Pirates
At some point we have to ask ourselves "should we really allow this to keep happening?"
Somali pirates seized a yacht with four American passengers aboard last week. For whatever reason, they decided to kill rather than hold for ransom. Certainly it is foolish to wander into the western Indian Ocean these days, but they did not deserve to die.
Piracy is an old adversary of the United States Navy. In the early 1800s the United States battled and defeated the Barbary Pirates when the rest of the international community had little stomach for the fight. American vessels closely blockaded the port cities and strangled the states supporting the pirate /terrorists. The threat finally ended in 1816.
The Somalis have little more than the Barbary Pirates had then, outside of mechanization. No air power, no satellites, not much at all. They are winning because the civilized world will not deal with them on their terms. Pirates have been caught, released, and caught again. We have to ask why.
Why are we not conducting search and destroy missions? Death will take the starch out of their collars. These are not radical fundamentalists, but guys wanting to steal. Make it clear that piracy means death and they will be less eager to do it.
Why are merchant ships not armed? Mounted .50 calibre machine guns would do the trick. There is nothing more discouraging to a criminal than a lack of easy, vulnerable targets. It's why states with lax gun ownership laws tend to have less crime.
The fact that we still are dealing with this issue is ridiculous. Sink the mother ships. Strand the motorboats. Kill a bunch of them and this will stop. I guarantee it.
Somali pirates seized a yacht with four American passengers aboard last week. For whatever reason, they decided to kill rather than hold for ransom. Certainly it is foolish to wander into the western Indian Ocean these days, but they did not deserve to die.
Piracy is an old adversary of the United States Navy. In the early 1800s the United States battled and defeated the Barbary Pirates when the rest of the international community had little stomach for the fight. American vessels closely blockaded the port cities and strangled the states supporting the pirate /terrorists. The threat finally ended in 1816.
The Somalis have little more than the Barbary Pirates had then, outside of mechanization. No air power, no satellites, not much at all. They are winning because the civilized world will not deal with them on their terms. Pirates have been caught, released, and caught again. We have to ask why.
Why are we not conducting search and destroy missions? Death will take the starch out of their collars. These are not radical fundamentalists, but guys wanting to steal. Make it clear that piracy means death and they will be less eager to do it.
Why are merchant ships not armed? Mounted .50 calibre machine guns would do the trick. There is nothing more discouraging to a criminal than a lack of easy, vulnerable targets. It's why states with lax gun ownership laws tend to have less crime.
The fact that we still are dealing with this issue is ridiculous. Sink the mother ships. Strand the motorboats. Kill a bunch of them and this will stop. I guarantee it.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Borrowing From the Public Employees Retirement System For Road Construction Is Not a Good Idea
Acting Governor Earl Ray Tomblim quite understandably wants to get some accomplishments under his belt before he runs for the office on a permanent basis. To build his appeal in the Kanawha and Ohio Valleys, he tried to help hammer together a proposal to finish the final fifteen miles of U. S. 35 as a four lane road. This would connect Charleston to Point Pleasant with an expressway that would also extend nearly all the way to Columbus.
The plan calls for the state to borrow $110 million from the Public Employees Retirement System and pay it back over time with toll money.
This is a really bad idea. How long will it take to pay back the money? With baby boomers retiring, will this put the system into a financial bind? Would this not simply invite more borrowing from trust funds?
This sets a bad precedent and could leave public retirees more cash strapped. Combine this with the proposal to increase retirees' health premiums and you have a recipe to make a lot of older West Virginians a lot more fearful for their financial futures.
It will be nice for West Virginia to have a modern highway bringing traffic to the state capital. It would be nice for Tomblin's chances at election. But it is a bad idea and sets a bad precedent. Finishing this highway is not an emergency. Find some other way to finance it.
The plan calls for the state to borrow $110 million from the Public Employees Retirement System and pay it back over time with toll money.
This is a really bad idea. How long will it take to pay back the money? With baby boomers retiring, will this put the system into a financial bind? Would this not simply invite more borrowing from trust funds?
This sets a bad precedent and could leave public retirees more cash strapped. Combine this with the proposal to increase retirees' health premiums and you have a recipe to make a lot of older West Virginians a lot more fearful for their financial futures.
It will be nice for West Virginia to have a modern highway bringing traffic to the state capital. It would be nice for Tomblin's chances at election. But it is a bad idea and sets a bad precedent. Finishing this highway is not an emergency. Find some other way to finance it.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
A Time of Unease Brought to You By the Looters
We are entering a time of true unease both here and abroad.
Riots have broken out in Libya, Bahrain, Iran and elsewhere. Over 200 have died in Libya. Egypt is now under military rule, but we saw one of CBS's best known foreign correspondents raped in the streets of its capital.
Fifty-three died in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico since Thursday. Mexican Army efforts to pacify that city's violence have failed. How much of this stemmed from drug cartel influence in the army itself?
Madison, Wisconsin is seeing some of the same unrest that rocked Athens last year. Wisonsin is broke and needs to adjust state employee premiums. The would be Bolsheviks have joined short sighted state employees to try and deal the Republican governor a political defeat. However, he seems to be leaning towards giving them the same treatment meted to air traffic controllers by President Reagan thirty years ago.
It is the looters that have caused this. These looters take different forms. One form is the "president-for-life" that steals from his country's economy and foreign aid. Qaddafi, Mubarek, and others are now being held to account. Iran's day of reckoning is coming soon. The other is the culture of entitlement among welfare statists. They feel like they deserve something that the private sector cannot guarantee to its own. Why should government workers have more security or privilege than anyone else? (By the way, I AM a state employee who now pays more in premiums than last year.) Mexico's drug cartels have looted the money, decency, and spirit from that proud nation.
Looters' belief that they are above the laws of economics and decency are behind a lot of our problems. It is time to deny them all.
Riots have broken out in Libya, Bahrain, Iran and elsewhere. Over 200 have died in Libya. Egypt is now under military rule, but we saw one of CBS's best known foreign correspondents raped in the streets of its capital.
Fifty-three died in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico since Thursday. Mexican Army efforts to pacify that city's violence have failed. How much of this stemmed from drug cartel influence in the army itself?
Madison, Wisconsin is seeing some of the same unrest that rocked Athens last year. Wisonsin is broke and needs to adjust state employee premiums. The would be Bolsheviks have joined short sighted state employees to try and deal the Republican governor a political defeat. However, he seems to be leaning towards giving them the same treatment meted to air traffic controllers by President Reagan thirty years ago.
It is the looters that have caused this. These looters take different forms. One form is the "president-for-life" that steals from his country's economy and foreign aid. Qaddafi, Mubarek, and others are now being held to account. Iran's day of reckoning is coming soon. The other is the culture of entitlement among welfare statists. They feel like they deserve something that the private sector cannot guarantee to its own. Why should government workers have more security or privilege than anyone else? (By the way, I AM a state employee who now pays more in premiums than last year.) Mexico's drug cartels have looted the money, decency, and spirit from that proud nation.
Looters' belief that they are above the laws of economics and decency are behind a lot of our problems. It is time to deny them all.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Wisconsin Badgered
Governor Scott Walker finds himself under siege these days. Thousands of people from outside the state have decided to make a stand against proposed hikes in insurance premiums for state workers.
Democrats have no chance of stopping the bill legally, so they left the state to hide out, preventing Wisconsin's elected Legislature from having a quorum to do business. It is a low and cowardly tactic.
Governor Manchin shepherded these through in our state last year and we didn't have the radicals, Communists, and would be Bolsheviks raising Cain. As a matter of fact, Governor Manchin was praised for his pragmartic thinking. Must be Governor Walker's Republican registration and Tea Party support that bring the Communists out.
Obama has weighed in, on the side of the unions of course. Walker has struck back by hinting that 12,000 state employees could be without a job if the Democrats do not return to Madison to help pass the state budget and other critical legislation. Meanwhile, hordes of bizarre looking protesters have come in from all over.
Where do these people think that money comes from? Why does a GOP governor get hounded while Democrats get a free pass for doing the same things? State governments are going bankrupt, but some government employees think they deserve a pass. They think they can avoid economic realities. Speaking as a state worker, I am not happy that I have to pay more in premiums for my own health insurance. However, I get it. It's the way of the world that prices rise. It's also a fact that the beginnings of Obamacare have caused a lot of the problems that have resulted in higher premiums.
Meanwhile in West Virginia, austerity measures have drawn praise instead of condemnation. Governor Manchin and the Legislature shepherded through hefty premium hikes last year. Retirees will see their premiums go up under a plan crafted by State Senator Brooks McCabe, a Charleston Democrat. No protests in Charleston greet these measures, just the recognition of a grim reality forced on us by the advent of Obamacare and his other works. We in West Virginia know that our health care is better than a lot of people, even with a premium hike. Wisconsin's governor faces the protests that he does because he is a Republican. And he is right.
Those people in Wisconsin better look out. When President Reagan fired the unionized air traffic controllers, his popularity went up.
Democrats have no chance of stopping the bill legally, so they left the state to hide out, preventing Wisconsin's elected Legislature from having a quorum to do business. It is a low and cowardly tactic.
Governor Manchin shepherded these through in our state last year and we didn't have the radicals, Communists, and would be Bolsheviks raising Cain. As a matter of fact, Governor Manchin was praised for his pragmartic thinking. Must be Governor Walker's Republican registration and Tea Party support that bring the Communists out.
Obama has weighed in, on the side of the unions of course. Walker has struck back by hinting that 12,000 state employees could be without a job if the Democrats do not return to Madison to help pass the state budget and other critical legislation. Meanwhile, hordes of bizarre looking protesters have come in from all over.
Where do these people think that money comes from? Why does a GOP governor get hounded while Democrats get a free pass for doing the same things? State governments are going bankrupt, but some government employees think they deserve a pass. They think they can avoid economic realities. Speaking as a state worker, I am not happy that I have to pay more in premiums for my own health insurance. However, I get it. It's the way of the world that prices rise. It's also a fact that the beginnings of Obamacare have caused a lot of the problems that have resulted in higher premiums.
Meanwhile in West Virginia, austerity measures have drawn praise instead of condemnation. Governor Manchin and the Legislature shepherded through hefty premium hikes last year. Retirees will see their premiums go up under a plan crafted by State Senator Brooks McCabe, a Charleston Democrat. No protests in Charleston greet these measures, just the recognition of a grim reality forced on us by the advent of Obamacare and his other works. We in West Virginia know that our health care is better than a lot of people, even with a premium hike. Wisconsin's governor faces the protests that he does because he is a Republican. And he is right.
Those people in Wisconsin better look out. When President Reagan fired the unionized air traffic controllers, his popularity went up.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll: What Does This Mean?
For the second year in a row, Ron Paul has taken CPAC's presidential straw poll. Is this a statement on the state of the conservative movement? Does this mean anything for Representative Paul?
Probably not. CPAC is a gigantic gathering of conservatives and libertarians that takes place every year. It attracts the most dedicated, but has in recent years been struggling to find its identity. Its economic conservatives and libertarians want it to go one direction and social conservatives prefer it would go another.
Poll results went as follows:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul: 30 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: 23 percent
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson: 6 percent
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: 5 percent
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty: 4 percent
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann: 4 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels: 4 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: 3 percent
Former talk show host Herman Cain: 2 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum: 2 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune: 2 percent
U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman: 1 percent
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour: 1 percent
Others: 5 percent
This list of names is definitely not exhaustive of those who can, or might contend for the presidency in 2012. Governors Jindal, Perry, and Perdue of Louisiana, Texas, and Georgia could still emerge. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is also stronger than his 1% might indicate.
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both heads of different organizations that send their supporters to CPAC, so they naturally will vote for their patrons and heroes. However, Romney is persona non gratis to much of the conservative movement for his support of government health care. Ron Paul's ideas on economics and domestic policy have gained favor. Most conservatives would not argue that the Federal Reserve needs greater oversight. Support for the gold standard has also picked up recently. However, his rigid stance on foreign intervention keeps him on the outside for a conservative movement that cherishes the liberator of Grenada. His son, recently elected in Kentucky, has emerged as a much more moderate voice on this subject. Eventually Rand Paul could make a much better libertarian Republican presidential hopeful after some seasoning.
In the next election, a Southern governor will probably step up and break from the pack. Perdue might be held back by the fact that Georgia's economy is currently much less than peachy. Jindal, however, has stood up to Obama. Rick Perry is perceived as soft on immigration, but has battled the EPA and the Department of Education. The economy of his Texas has outperformed most states. Economics and states' rights should be at the forefront in 2012, helping active and successful governors to potentially launch strong challenges for the nomination. Sarah Palin remains in any discussion, but the governors who stayed at the helm will always have an advantage over her.
In essence, CPAC's poll represents the different factions that are diehard enough to travel to Washington and spend money to have a great time and socialize with other up and coming conservatives. However, it is not accurate to see them as a true bellcow for the movement.
Probably not. CPAC is a gigantic gathering of conservatives and libertarians that takes place every year. It attracts the most dedicated, but has in recent years been struggling to find its identity. Its economic conservatives and libertarians want it to go one direction and social conservatives prefer it would go another.
Poll results went as follows:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul: 30 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: 23 percent
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson: 6 percent
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: 5 percent
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty: 4 percent
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann: 4 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels: 4 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: 3 percent
Former talk show host Herman Cain: 2 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum: 2 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune: 2 percent
U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman: 1 percent
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour: 1 percent
Others: 5 percent
This list of names is definitely not exhaustive of those who can, or might contend for the presidency in 2012. Governors Jindal, Perry, and Perdue of Louisiana, Texas, and Georgia could still emerge. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is also stronger than his 1% might indicate.
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both heads of different organizations that send their supporters to CPAC, so they naturally will vote for their patrons and heroes. However, Romney is persona non gratis to much of the conservative movement for his support of government health care. Ron Paul's ideas on economics and domestic policy have gained favor. Most conservatives would not argue that the Federal Reserve needs greater oversight. Support for the gold standard has also picked up recently. However, his rigid stance on foreign intervention keeps him on the outside for a conservative movement that cherishes the liberator of Grenada. His son, recently elected in Kentucky, has emerged as a much more moderate voice on this subject. Eventually Rand Paul could make a much better libertarian Republican presidential hopeful after some seasoning.
In the next election, a Southern governor will probably step up and break from the pack. Perdue might be held back by the fact that Georgia's economy is currently much less than peachy. Jindal, however, has stood up to Obama. Rick Perry is perceived as soft on immigration, but has battled the EPA and the Department of Education. The economy of his Texas has outperformed most states. Economics and states' rights should be at the forefront in 2012, helping active and successful governors to potentially launch strong challenges for the nomination. Sarah Palin remains in any discussion, but the governors who stayed at the helm will always have an advantage over her.
In essence, CPAC's poll represents the different factions that are diehard enough to travel to Washington and spend money to have a great time and socialize with other up and coming conservatives. However, it is not accurate to see them as a true bellcow for the movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)