http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/okeefe-video-prompts-probe-by-new-hampshire-attorney-general/
The Daily Caller story above, based upon a James O'Keefe investigation, proves how shockingly easy it is to commit voter fraud in the United States.
Identification is simple to obtain. My son needed a birth certificate to play football. Why can't voters be held to a similar standard?
Because too many areas of this country rely on voter fraud to keep certain politicos in place. Whether it is Lincoln County, West Virginia or Cook County, Illinois, this crime against democracy must stop.
Pass voter ID laws now.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
West Virginia Democrats, Stop Lying to Yourselves
State Deputy Revenue Secretary Mark Muchow said on Talkline Friday, “The hope is West Virginia will be more competitive over time and we’ll actually see a growth in associated tax collections.
This little blurb showed up in Hoppy Kercheval's Metro News column the other day in response to the fact that West Virginia is gradually dropping its food tax as well as some tax burdens on corporations.
This idea was not invented by Governor Tomblin and his revenue chiefs. It has been around for quite a long time now. Republicans understand it intuitively and even have a scientific model for it. Most people reading this are quite familiar with the Laffer Curve, the basic model for supply side economics, better know a few decades ago as Reaganomics.
So this is it guys. Stop lying to yourselves. You are not the Democratic Party. You are officially acknowledging that lower taxes on producers can result in higher net revenues. At the same time, your national party and the policies it supports are designed to squeeze every last nickel out of anyone and everyone. You, on the other hand, seem to get the concept of "competitive advantage."
So switch registrations already. You are pro-life and supply side economists, which currently put you to the right of Newt Gingrich. But when you do, please leave behind the traditional ways of politics.
If we can clean up our elections while applying conservative solutions, we can strip Pennsylvania and Maryland clean of businesses and residents who are sick to death of higher and higher taxes.
This little blurb showed up in Hoppy Kercheval's Metro News column the other day in response to the fact that West Virginia is gradually dropping its food tax as well as some tax burdens on corporations.
This idea was not invented by Governor Tomblin and his revenue chiefs. It has been around for quite a long time now. Republicans understand it intuitively and even have a scientific model for it. Most people reading this are quite familiar with the Laffer Curve, the basic model for supply side economics, better know a few decades ago as Reaganomics.
So this is it guys. Stop lying to yourselves. You are not the Democratic Party. You are officially acknowledging that lower taxes on producers can result in higher net revenues. At the same time, your national party and the policies it supports are designed to squeeze every last nickel out of anyone and everyone. You, on the other hand, seem to get the concept of "competitive advantage."
So switch registrations already. You are pro-life and supply side economists, which currently put you to the right of Newt Gingrich. But when you do, please leave behind the traditional ways of politics.
If we can clean up our elections while applying conservative solutions, we can strip Pennsylvania and Maryland clean of businesses and residents who are sick to death of higher and higher taxes.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The Bigger Picture With Bain
So the other Republicans in the field are attacking Romney because he's a capitalist?
His company, Bain, bought up failing companies to make the hard choices necessary to keep them afloat. Sometimes that meant shutting down facilities and trimming large numbers of jobs. Why act like the alternative was not that these companies would die and all the jobs would be lost?
Romney gives his opponents a lot of ammunition for attack. Romneycare and other issues demonstrate that he has not been a down the line fiscal conservative. Republicans are right to scrutinize this part of his record.
However, Bain serves a purpose in the supposedly free market. Companies do not exist to provide jobs, add to the tax base, or anything else. They exist to turn a profit. When they do, they hire more people, pay more taxes, and do many other things as useful by-products. Why are we attacking the successful while pining over the failed?
The Bain story also gives insight into Romney that, objectively speaking, helps him. Presidents need to make tough decisions. Sometimes the alternatives are between bad and less bad, but a choice must be made, an action taken. Romney has experience making the difficult choices that result in short term pain, but long term success. Instead of backing off this important element of his past, the conservative thing to do is to embrace it. Proudly say that you saved x number of companies and jobs through making the tough choices.
His company, Bain, bought up failing companies to make the hard choices necessary to keep them afloat. Sometimes that meant shutting down facilities and trimming large numbers of jobs. Why act like the alternative was not that these companies would die and all the jobs would be lost?
Romney gives his opponents a lot of ammunition for attack. Romneycare and other issues demonstrate that he has not been a down the line fiscal conservative. Republicans are right to scrutinize this part of his record.
However, Bain serves a purpose in the supposedly free market. Companies do not exist to provide jobs, add to the tax base, or anything else. They exist to turn a profit. When they do, they hire more people, pay more taxes, and do many other things as useful by-products. Why are we attacking the successful while pining over the failed?
The Bain story also gives insight into Romney that, objectively speaking, helps him. Presidents need to make tough decisions. Sometimes the alternatives are between bad and less bad, but a choice must be made, an action taken. Romney has experience making the difficult choices that result in short term pain, but long term success. Instead of backing off this important element of his past, the conservative thing to do is to embrace it. Proudly say that you saved x number of companies and jobs through making the tough choices.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Candidates, Stop Wasting My Time
As a politically active person I have spent, and still spend, a lot of time weighing issues. I read about them, think about them, consider them, think about how my beliefs agree with or contradict my values. I read every book that teachers and professors assigned me, then went out and read a lot more.
I love to read most about the lives of great men and women. Reading about their thoughts and philosophies is eye opening as well. I certainly do not admire Mussolini, but the three biographies I read on him give me an idea of how he came to power and the dangers that poses to anyone else.
Reading Bastiat, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, James Madison, and many others helped to shape my thoughts on what I believe. The works of Marx, Stalin, Hitler, and others convinced me of their enormous evil.
All of this helped to shape my values and beliefs about general issues, such as the economy, and specific issues, such as abortion. I learned that you have to apply your thoughts on an issue to a values test. If you find that you have to support an issue that seemingly contradicts your values, then you at least have to explain that contradiction to yourself, if not others.
I assumed that anyone running for high office, such as senator, governor, or president, would put themselves through the same rigorous preparation. If they had weaknesses in knowledge or experience, they would bring on people to help to bridge those gaps and be ready. Then, once engaged, they would throw their entire efforts into performing as well as possible.
I found myself disappointed in 2008 when I signed on early for Fred Thompson. He still strikes me as a gravely intelligent individual who could have won in 2008 with a strong effort. Thompson gained supporters, raised money, then dissipated.
Rick Perry troubled me in the same way. Here was a guy with unquestioned experience. I liked him early. Perry touted success in Texas, raised gobs of cash, and seemed ready to bring some Texas back to the White House. However, he could not explain his departures from conservative belief. In the debates, he ran into trouble explaining anything.
What angers me is that these candidates convinced people to spend time and give money when they had not even done their most basic homework. Learn about public policy and its philosophical foundations. Look at your record and be prepared to defend it on practical and ideological grounds. Let me know by example that you are working as hard as your best volunteer.. This is how you convince voters that you are ready to be president. Most voters, except those who voted for Obama, do not want a messiah, but a first citizen. They want someone whose efforts, understanding, and abilities match the job.
Hard work, physical and intellectual, forms the foundation of that.
So those of you planning to run for president in the future. Work hard. Study harder. Above all, do not waste our time.
I love to read most about the lives of great men and women. Reading about their thoughts and philosophies is eye opening as well. I certainly do not admire Mussolini, but the three biographies I read on him give me an idea of how he came to power and the dangers that poses to anyone else.
Reading Bastiat, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, James Madison, and many others helped to shape my thoughts on what I believe. The works of Marx, Stalin, Hitler, and others convinced me of their enormous evil.
All of this helped to shape my values and beliefs about general issues, such as the economy, and specific issues, such as abortion. I learned that you have to apply your thoughts on an issue to a values test. If you find that you have to support an issue that seemingly contradicts your values, then you at least have to explain that contradiction to yourself, if not others.
I assumed that anyone running for high office, such as senator, governor, or president, would put themselves through the same rigorous preparation. If they had weaknesses in knowledge or experience, they would bring on people to help to bridge those gaps and be ready. Then, once engaged, they would throw their entire efforts into performing as well as possible.
I found myself disappointed in 2008 when I signed on early for Fred Thompson. He still strikes me as a gravely intelligent individual who could have won in 2008 with a strong effort. Thompson gained supporters, raised money, then dissipated.
Rick Perry troubled me in the same way. Here was a guy with unquestioned experience. I liked him early. Perry touted success in Texas, raised gobs of cash, and seemed ready to bring some Texas back to the White House. However, he could not explain his departures from conservative belief. In the debates, he ran into trouble explaining anything.
What angers me is that these candidates convinced people to spend time and give money when they had not even done their most basic homework. Learn about public policy and its philosophical foundations. Look at your record and be prepared to defend it on practical and ideological grounds. Let me know by example that you are working as hard as your best volunteer.. This is how you convince voters that you are ready to be president. Most voters, except those who voted for Obama, do not want a messiah, but a first citizen. They want someone whose efforts, understanding, and abilities match the job.
Hard work, physical and intellectual, forms the foundation of that.
So those of you planning to run for president in the future. Work hard. Study harder. Above all, do not waste our time.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Self-Immolation: The Republican Party's Favorite Pasttime
No political party seems to revel in its own cutting self-criticism than the Grand Old Party. We bash our past, present, and future with a complete lack of proportion or sense. We bash all of the candidates, save the one we support, if any. We bash fellow Republicans whose candidate or views may differ infinitesimally from ours relative to the Leftists now running things. We chase after the vision of people and places long past, while downplaying the fact that we have a powerful and successful blueprint for the future. We have put on the ludicrous spectacle of chasing after every possible candidate not named Mitt Romney, subjecting them to tests of ideological purity that only a professor in an iron bubble could pass.
"Oh goodness, candidate x once said something nice about Harry Truman. Damned RINO. Curse him/her and all of the supporters!" No matter that he/she wants every non felon armed, every abortionist jailed, and taxes lowered to a flat and reasonable rate. He is not pure!!!!"
Yes that is an exaggeration, but these people do walk among us.
It is time to settle down. In a month, two tops, the picture will look more clear. We will rallly behind the nominee and crush Obama in the fall.
In the meantime, try to not come up with anything that will make the eventual nominee's job that much more difficult.
"Oh goodness, candidate x once said something nice about Harry Truman. Damned RINO. Curse him/her and all of the supporters!" No matter that he/she wants every non felon armed, every abortionist jailed, and taxes lowered to a flat and reasonable rate. He is not pure!!!!"
Yes that is an exaggeration, but these people do walk among us.
It is time to settle down. In a month, two tops, the picture will look more clear. We will rallly behind the nominee and crush Obama in the fall.
In the meantime, try to not come up with anything that will make the eventual nominee's job that much more difficult.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
An Exclamation Point on a Decade of Epic Failure: the ACC Raid
Last night, West Virginia University scored 70 points and routed the hapless 10-3 Clemson Tigers in the Orange Bowl. As usual, ESPN pundits predicted a blowout for the 3 point favorite Tigers. As usual, national voting heavily picked against WVU. As usual, on college football's biggest stage, West Virginia brought its best game of the year and won.
This was not just a football game. A decade ago, the Atlantic Coast Conference launched a bid to overtake the Southeastern Conference to become college football's premiere league. As we all know, they plundered the Big East, carrying off Virginia Tech, Miami, and Boston College. Added to Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Clemson, this should have grown into a formidable conference.
It didn't.
Virginia Tech stayed at the same level, winning about 9 games per season and dominating in conference. Meanwhile, they posted inexplicable losses against teams like James Madison in conference championship years. Clemson had rarely risen above second tier status, usually starting fast and wilting after the changing of the leaves. Georgia Tech disappeared, only to re-emerge as a vintage 1950s option team. Florida State followed Bobby Bowden into genteel decline. Miami found itself in scandal, again. And Boston College, well, most people forgot they even existed.
The ACC's new behemoth lineup produced no undefeated seasons, embarassingly low turnouts for its vaunted championship game, and a 2-13 record in BCS games.
West Virginia alone racked up three BCS bowl victories in the same span.
The Big East over the past decade performed respectably well in all bowl games, doing respectably well in the BCS. No one will mistake it for the SEC, but its performance shows resilience in the face of near destruction.
Last year the ACC once again came calling. With the near certainty of West Virginia departing somewhere, Syracuse and Pitt took the last bus out of the conference. The ACC did not deign to offer West Virginia the chance to turn them down.
That led up to the Orange Bowl. West Virginia, at one point a spurned team in a ridiculed conference, exposed completely the failure of the ACC. They wanted to knock the SEC off its pedestal, but have only seen that conference evolve into a league that makes the championship game its own little party. Clearly the ACC raid has ended in perfect failure.
This was not just a football game. A decade ago, the Atlantic Coast Conference launched a bid to overtake the Southeastern Conference to become college football's premiere league. As we all know, they plundered the Big East, carrying off Virginia Tech, Miami, and Boston College. Added to Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Clemson, this should have grown into a formidable conference.
It didn't.
Virginia Tech stayed at the same level, winning about 9 games per season and dominating in conference. Meanwhile, they posted inexplicable losses against teams like James Madison in conference championship years. Clemson had rarely risen above second tier status, usually starting fast and wilting after the changing of the leaves. Georgia Tech disappeared, only to re-emerge as a vintage 1950s option team. Florida State followed Bobby Bowden into genteel decline. Miami found itself in scandal, again. And Boston College, well, most people forgot they even existed.
The ACC's new behemoth lineup produced no undefeated seasons, embarassingly low turnouts for its vaunted championship game, and a 2-13 record in BCS games.
West Virginia alone racked up three BCS bowl victories in the same span.
The Big East over the past decade performed respectably well in all bowl games, doing respectably well in the BCS. No one will mistake it for the SEC, but its performance shows resilience in the face of near destruction.
Last year the ACC once again came calling. With the near certainty of West Virginia departing somewhere, Syracuse and Pitt took the last bus out of the conference. The ACC did not deign to offer West Virginia the chance to turn them down.
That led up to the Orange Bowl. West Virginia, at one point a spurned team in a ridiculed conference, exposed completely the failure of the ACC. They wanted to knock the SEC off its pedestal, but have only seen that conference evolve into a league that makes the championship game its own little party. Clearly the ACC raid has ended in perfect failure.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Benjamin Harrison and Obama
Obama, who recently stated, in a manner of speaking, that he saw himself as the fourth best president (behind Lyndon Johnson and in front of George Washington, for whatever reason) looks more and more like a former Republican chief executive.
He would like you to think of Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. However, according to yesterday's New York Times, he resembles more a forgotten GOP one termer, Benjamin Harrison.
Harrison served from 1889 to 1893. Most people saw him as a powerful and persuasive public speaker. It must be noted that his ability to deliver an address counted for much in the days when speaking was a form of mass entertainment and teleprompters were not even a dream.
This president, who served between the two terms of Grover Cleveland, quickly gained a reputation for social ineptitude among fellow politicians. People also found him aloof and arrogant. Stephen Elkins, his Secretary of War, exclaimed that God's overcoat would not even make a vest for Harrison. Elkins received the office as a reward for strong service on Republican campaigns, including Harrison's.
The opposition calling Obama haughty and aloof comes with the territory. But on December 28, the New York Times agreed. The fact that Obama comes on the heels of one of the most well-liked Democratic presidents in history does not help him in the least.
He would like you to think of Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. However, according to yesterday's New York Times, he resembles more a forgotten GOP one termer, Benjamin Harrison.
Harrison served from 1889 to 1893. Most people saw him as a powerful and persuasive public speaker. It must be noted that his ability to deliver an address counted for much in the days when speaking was a form of mass entertainment and teleprompters were not even a dream.
This president, who served between the two terms of Grover Cleveland, quickly gained a reputation for social ineptitude among fellow politicians. People also found him aloof and arrogant. Stephen Elkins, his Secretary of War, exclaimed that God's overcoat would not even make a vest for Harrison. Elkins received the office as a reward for strong service on Republican campaigns, including Harrison's.
The opposition calling Obama haughty and aloof comes with the territory. But on December 28, the New York Times agreed. The fact that Obama comes on the heels of one of the most well-liked Democratic presidents in history does not help him in the least.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
War on Human Events
A war has opened up on the pages of the conservative publication Human Events.
If conservatism has a paper of record, this might be one of the prime candidates for the honor since it is the eldest. Human Events features some of the most prolific and well-known conservative pundits around, including Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter. Gingrich continues to write for the paper/website while campaigning. About a month ago, Coulter launched attacks on Gingrich more powerful and cutting than any campaign.
Gingrich has not responded to Coulter . . . yet. When he does, it will serve as truly high political drama because her pieces cutting into his conservative image coincided with a drop in his polling numbers.
The internet serves as a great equalizer. Gingrich and Coulter's columns are each as accessible as the other. No subtle messages in placement on a page can be made. On paper, each looks about as intelligent as the other (meaning that they are both a lot more brilliant than I am!) They take different tones, but both get their points across.
It is a new age of campaigning and writing. A lawyer turned journalist has set her sights on sinking Gingrich's campaign. We shall soon see if she succeeds.
If conservatism has a paper of record, this might be one of the prime candidates for the honor since it is the eldest. Human Events features some of the most prolific and well-known conservative pundits around, including Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter. Gingrich continues to write for the paper/website while campaigning. About a month ago, Coulter launched attacks on Gingrich more powerful and cutting than any campaign.
Gingrich has not responded to Coulter . . . yet. When he does, it will serve as truly high political drama because her pieces cutting into his conservative image coincided with a drop in his polling numbers.
The internet serves as a great equalizer. Gingrich and Coulter's columns are each as accessible as the other. No subtle messages in placement on a page can be made. On paper, each looks about as intelligent as the other (meaning that they are both a lot more brilliant than I am!) They take different tones, but both get their points across.
It is a new age of campaigning and writing. A lawyer turned journalist has set her sights on sinking Gingrich's campaign. We shall soon see if she succeeds.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The Liberal Problem With the Kardashians
A recent poll indicated that liberals tend to watch reality and talent shows more often, while conservatives prefer occupation oriented shows. No, I don't mean aimless protesters. I mean shows such as Gold Rush, Flipping Out, or Storage Wars where people actually create wealth through risk and hard work.
Keeping Up With the Kardashians and that shows many spawn are exactly as described by the media. Yes, I've seen parts of it here and there. It is a show about relatively attractive people doing nothing in particular. These relatively attractive people get attention because one of them made a sex tape that was seen by millions and has dated a large number of professional athletes.
But, as we have seen, self-described liberals help to keep the show on the air. Does this mean that they approve?
Of course not. A group called Courage Campaign in California has decided, despite the fact that the Kardashians pay all of their taxes completely and in a timely manner (thus preventing any of them from being eligible to serve in the Obama Cabinet) that the Kardashians pay too little in tax money. They have launched a fight to make celebrities pay more.
Whenever states such as Maryland or New York launch such folly, they make their neighbors do backflips in appreciation. Such states have high opinions of themselves, believing that people would want to pay more for the privilege and fun of living there. They may gain in the short term, but lose in the long. Rich residents move away and few would choose to locate there.
This campaign also reflects a very liberal cultural snobbery. Conservatives who do not prefer to watch a show such as the Kardashians put on will still grudgingly respect the fact that they are creating wealth by responding to a market. Some may wish the market had better taste, but it does not and never has. The fact that they create wealth and employ people legitimately makes them valuable in the market.
But liberals think that they have too much money. They want to punish them for their success. That is a dangerous philosophy, no matter who you are referring to.
Keeping Up With the Kardashians and that shows many spawn are exactly as described by the media. Yes, I've seen parts of it here and there. It is a show about relatively attractive people doing nothing in particular. These relatively attractive people get attention because one of them made a sex tape that was seen by millions and has dated a large number of professional athletes.
But, as we have seen, self-described liberals help to keep the show on the air. Does this mean that they approve?
Of course not. A group called Courage Campaign in California has decided, despite the fact that the Kardashians pay all of their taxes completely and in a timely manner (thus preventing any of them from being eligible to serve in the Obama Cabinet) that the Kardashians pay too little in tax money. They have launched a fight to make celebrities pay more.
Whenever states such as Maryland or New York launch such folly, they make their neighbors do backflips in appreciation. Such states have high opinions of themselves, believing that people would want to pay more for the privilege and fun of living there. They may gain in the short term, but lose in the long. Rich residents move away and few would choose to locate there.
This campaign also reflects a very liberal cultural snobbery. Conservatives who do not prefer to watch a show such as the Kardashians put on will still grudgingly respect the fact that they are creating wealth by responding to a market. Some may wish the market had better taste, but it does not and never has. The fact that they create wealth and employ people legitimately makes them valuable in the market.
But liberals think that they have too much money. They want to punish them for their success. That is a dangerous philosophy, no matter who you are referring to.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
In Obama's World, A Compact Costs More Than a Bentley
A Bentley, one of the finest luxury cars in the world, starts at $200,000
A Chevrolet Cruz, one of the newest offerings from Gummint Motors, a compact filled with glitches and issues, costs, including all the subsidies, $250,000
A Chevrolet Cruz, one of the newest offerings from Gummint Motors, a compact filled with glitches and issues, costs, including all the subsidies, $250,000
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Bad Sports
Remember the movie Hoosiers? It was based upon the magical season of a small Indiana high school who played their way into winning a state basketball title. Through parts of the season, the coach only had six usable players. At one point, he refused to put a player back on the floor and finished the game with four.
The Poca Dots, known throughout the country for creative naming, just ended their girls' basketball season before it began. They started the season with nine girls. After injuries and defections, they ended up with six. Since the WVSSAC mandates that teams have ten players, the Putnam County Board of Education ended their season.
Why? The six remaining players wanted to compete. The coaches still wanted to coach. They could have made magic on the banks of the Kanawha. Instead, a bunch of old folks decided, for no particular reason, that a basketball team could not consist of six determined young women.
Shame on you, government. Why did you ruin their season?
The Poca Dots, known throughout the country for creative naming, just ended their girls' basketball season before it began. They started the season with nine girls. After injuries and defections, they ended up with six. Since the WVSSAC mandates that teams have ten players, the Putnam County Board of Education ended their season.
Why? The six remaining players wanted to compete. The coaches still wanted to coach. They could have made magic on the banks of the Kanawha. Instead, a bunch of old folks decided, for no particular reason, that a basketball team could not consist of six determined young women.
Shame on you, government. Why did you ruin their season?
Monday, December 19, 2011
Risk Theory
Once upon a time, a nation with great land power and an ever-expanding industrial base sought to broaden its horizons. Having a massive army with which to confront, or to protect itself against regional adversaries was not good enough, even though it had historically defeated powerful nations.
Unsatisfied with dominance in its region on land, it decided to put its efforts into developing its sea power as well.
This did not go unnoticed. A wealthy island nation nearby looked with concern as the land power started to construct ships that equaled others in its class in more historically established navies.
The land power targeted the most powerful navy of its time. Its leaders came up with the "risk theory." They figured that they could never build a navy as large, or larger than their assumed enemy. However, they could become large enough that a sea battle would be too costly for the rival. They would then have to appease the demands of the land power.
I am talking about Germany's push for world power a hundred years ago, but could just as easily be talking about China today. In the 1870s and 80s, Germans did not love the British, but trusted that fair policy and a massive fleet were enough to protect their interests. By 1900, Germany wanted to be the arbiter of sea power along with Britain. Germany made its interests know, they wanted colonies and other trappings of world power.
What does China want? Regional supremacy. Their plans also seem to resemble the growing will to power expressed by Japan in the 1930s. Oil, and other resources are part of their long term plans.
China famously plays the long game and it must feel that the time is ripe to move. Japan suffers from economic problems. The United States has a clear leadership gap. Europe seems determined to dive off a cliff to save the ill-fated Euro. And China has no fear of Russia.
They face containment on land. Vietnam, India, South Korea, and Russia block traditional avenues of influence expansion. All, including the Philippines and Japan, fear, or have good reason to fear, an awakening of Chinese ambitions.
Trouble is brewing. We must not await China's plans to become mature before figuring out if they are dangerous, and sending a stern message.
Unsatisfied with dominance in its region on land, it decided to put its efforts into developing its sea power as well.
This did not go unnoticed. A wealthy island nation nearby looked with concern as the land power started to construct ships that equaled others in its class in more historically established navies.
The land power targeted the most powerful navy of its time. Its leaders came up with the "risk theory." They figured that they could never build a navy as large, or larger than their assumed enemy. However, they could become large enough that a sea battle would be too costly for the rival. They would then have to appease the demands of the land power.
I am talking about Germany's push for world power a hundred years ago, but could just as easily be talking about China today. In the 1870s and 80s, Germans did not love the British, but trusted that fair policy and a massive fleet were enough to protect their interests. By 1900, Germany wanted to be the arbiter of sea power along with Britain. Germany made its interests know, they wanted colonies and other trappings of world power.
What does China want? Regional supremacy. Their plans also seem to resemble the growing will to power expressed by Japan in the 1930s. Oil, and other resources are part of their long term plans.
China famously plays the long game and it must feel that the time is ripe to move. Japan suffers from economic problems. The United States has a clear leadership gap. Europe seems determined to dive off a cliff to save the ill-fated Euro. And China has no fear of Russia.
They face containment on land. Vietnam, India, South Korea, and Russia block traditional avenues of influence expansion. All, including the Philippines and Japan, fear, or have good reason to fear, an awakening of Chinese ambitions.
Trouble is brewing. We must not await China's plans to become mature before figuring out if they are dangerous, and sending a stern message.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Obama Declares Kind of Good Outcome In Iraq
But not victory. Whatever you do, do NOT call it victory.
Also. praise the Iraqi people and the result, but never mention the foresight of the man who caused all the wrong in the history of the world, President George W. Bush.
This had to be a tough moment for Obama. He opposed the war. He never credits Bush for any good. Yet politically, he will try and make this success his own without alienating the antiwar crowd that increasingly tires of him.
Obama has left the Middle East a more dangerous place. By refusing to work with Iraq to even keep some forces in place to watch and cow Iran, the Obama Administration preferred to pull all forces out. This leaves a vacuum of power that Iran will try to fill one way or another.
Regardless of anything that Obama or Ron Paul says, Iran's mullahocracy has revolutionary ambitions for the region. As it inches closer to a doomsday bomb, American influence has gone into full retreat. We left no forces in Iran's most hated rival. We have failed to support Israel, our most reliable ally. What is it, exactly, that we plan to do besides blowing up a few facilities, supposedly in secret?
They also have had one of our most advanced pieces of military equipment in their custody for several days now. When that happened 200 years ago, men volunteered to risk their lives to blow it up. We are too impotent to do anything today?
We left Iran the initiative. Where they take it is apparently up to them.
Also. praise the Iraqi people and the result, but never mention the foresight of the man who caused all the wrong in the history of the world, President George W. Bush.
This had to be a tough moment for Obama. He opposed the war. He never credits Bush for any good. Yet politically, he will try and make this success his own without alienating the antiwar crowd that increasingly tires of him.
Obama has left the Middle East a more dangerous place. By refusing to work with Iraq to even keep some forces in place to watch and cow Iran, the Obama Administration preferred to pull all forces out. This leaves a vacuum of power that Iran will try to fill one way or another.
Regardless of anything that Obama or Ron Paul says, Iran's mullahocracy has revolutionary ambitions for the region. As it inches closer to a doomsday bomb, American influence has gone into full retreat. We left no forces in Iran's most hated rival. We have failed to support Israel, our most reliable ally. What is it, exactly, that we plan to do besides blowing up a few facilities, supposedly in secret?
They also have had one of our most advanced pieces of military equipment in their custody for several days now. When that happened 200 years ago, men volunteered to risk their lives to blow it up. We are too impotent to do anything today?
We left Iran the initiative. Where they take it is apparently up to them.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Ann Coulter Could Decide the GOP Nomination
In the conservative world there are aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers . . . and then there are battleships.
Aircraft carriers project power hundreds of miles away in small or big chunks, whichever you prefer. Submarines stealthily ride beneath the waves, attacking from beneath, from where you least expect it.
Destroyers sit on top of the water, but mainly escort the bigger guys and have little pop by themselves.
Then there are battleships.
Maybe the navy decommissioned them, but they are alive and well in the conservative world. They are large, loud, and destructive. They also impress with the range and strength of their firepower. You can't miss the arrival of one, or its intent. Battleships change the game.
Ann Coulter is a conservative battleship. She has trained her guns on Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich has ranged himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, latest of about ten. Coulter is one of his biggest threats.
The conservative base reads Ann Coulter. She may have less influence in the mainstream world, but she packs a major punch within strongly conservative ranks. When she supports Romney and broadsides Newt, she cannot be dismissed as squishy, or a RINO, or whatever the buzzword is these days. Newt's support is precisely what she is gunning down. Here are her last two commentaries for Human Events.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48161
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48005
And, yes, Coulter knows exactly what she is implying with the phrase "tiny stick." She is a battleship of the conservative movement and the shells have been fired. Don't expect them to cease any time soon.
Aircraft carriers project power hundreds of miles away in small or big chunks, whichever you prefer. Submarines stealthily ride beneath the waves, attacking from beneath, from where you least expect it.
Destroyers sit on top of the water, but mainly escort the bigger guys and have little pop by themselves.
Then there are battleships.
Maybe the navy decommissioned them, but they are alive and well in the conservative world. They are large, loud, and destructive. They also impress with the range and strength of their firepower. You can't miss the arrival of one, or its intent. Battleships change the game.
Ann Coulter is a conservative battleship. She has trained her guns on Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich has ranged himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, latest of about ten. Coulter is one of his biggest threats.
The conservative base reads Ann Coulter. She may have less influence in the mainstream world, but she packs a major punch within strongly conservative ranks. When she supports Romney and broadsides Newt, she cannot be dismissed as squishy, or a RINO, or whatever the buzzword is these days. Newt's support is precisely what she is gunning down. Here are her last two commentaries for Human Events.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48161
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48005
And, yes, Coulter knows exactly what she is implying with the phrase "tiny stick." She is a battleship of the conservative movement and the shells have been fired. Don't expect them to cease any time soon.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
David Cameron Makes a Stand
Prime Minister David Cameron took a stand for the United Kingdom this week. He decided that Britain would not march happily with the rest of Europe into the Fourth Reich.
Germany is willing to bankroll plans to save the Euro if member nations cede sovereign control over fiscal policy. In most people's experience, those that pay the piper call the tune. It is not a slam on Deutschland to say that their contributions would give them reason to act as though they were uber alles. It's not that they are evil or power mad, but it would be a reasonable and predictable position to take. Britain vetoed the plan as presented and will not take part in any tightening of the European Union.
Britain traditionally ranges itself against any power looking to dominate Europe. Germany, peacefully, and maybe even altruistically, is setting itself up to do just that.
The best policy would be to allow the Euro to disappear as the failed experiment that it is.
Germany is willing to bankroll plans to save the Euro if member nations cede sovereign control over fiscal policy. In most people's experience, those that pay the piper call the tune. It is not a slam on Deutschland to say that their contributions would give them reason to act as though they were uber alles. It's not that they are evil or power mad, but it would be a reasonable and predictable position to take. Britain vetoed the plan as presented and will not take part in any tightening of the European Union.
Britain traditionally ranges itself against any power looking to dominate Europe. Germany, peacefully, and maybe even altruistically, is setting itself up to do just that.
The best policy would be to allow the Euro to disappear as the failed experiment that it is.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
A Lowes Down Dirty Shame
Count me as one of those who does not think that the "All American Muslim" program on TLC is as grave a threat to Western Civilization as some have made it out to be. Sure it does not present the fact that Islamists have a political agenda over and above the faith of Muslims. But I'd rather not see the Westboro cult get mentioned in a show about mainline Protestants, either.
In all honestly, Lawrence of Arabia makes a stronger case for Islam than All American Muslim ever could.
Some companies, such as Lowes, pulled their ads from the show. In America, that is your right. You do not have to pay for a commodity. They made a business decision, maybe a good one, maybe not, but they made it.
Now Lowes is actually facing a lawsuit by a California state senator demanding that the company reinstate the ads and apologize to the Muslim community.
Honestly, this foolishness does not help the cause of Muslims who want to improve their image. Freedom to speak and spend when you want are rights. There is no right to not be offended by crass statements, mockery, due to the faith that you happen to carry. Certainly no right exists to force advertisers to support a television program.
Very interesting in comparison to the crusade of many in the media and elsewhere against Tim Tebow.
In all honestly, Lawrence of Arabia makes a stronger case for Islam than All American Muslim ever could.
Some companies, such as Lowes, pulled their ads from the show. In America, that is your right. You do not have to pay for a commodity. They made a business decision, maybe a good one, maybe not, but they made it.
Now Lowes is actually facing a lawsuit by a California state senator demanding that the company reinstate the ads and apologize to the Muslim community.
Honestly, this foolishness does not help the cause of Muslims who want to improve their image. Freedom to speak and spend when you want are rights. There is no right to not be offended by crass statements, mockery, due to the faith that you happen to carry. Certainly no right exists to force advertisers to support a television program.
Very interesting in comparison to the crusade of many in the media and elsewhere against Tim Tebow.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Frustration With the Field
Election season is almost upon us. The Republican Party offered up a large and varied field for consideration, which has been whittled down one by one.
I have to admit. Although I see considerable talent and experience in the original field, the country also saw an appalling lack of preparation. Many in the Republican field ran as if they had never witnessed a presidential election before.
We knew that debating in the fall might have something of an impact on the election. Why on earth did Rick Perry stumble into these competitions so woefully unprepared? He might have made a fairly good president, because the man is not as stupid as his detractors want to say. However, Perry needed a team to help him learn to parry rhetorically. He also needed to come up with a better way to defend his departures from conservatism in some way other than calling most of us "heartless."
I really liked Herman Cain. The man had a magnetism that filled a room. People instinctively liked him and he gave the impression that he liked you too, and had a good sense of humor to boot. Some say that sexual harassment allegations sank him. Only partly true. His decline in the polls also coincided with a sudden inability to answer any question that departed from his basic understanding of economics. Our world remains a dangerous place. It requires an American president with an already formed vision of how he wants to deal with its problems. Cain rarely gave an impression that he considered these problems very often.
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney come to the table with a solid understanding of foreign and domestic issues already in place. We have come to understand that the pitfalls of both are polar opposite. We don't want "world-historical Newt." We don't want the ultimate technocrat Romney. We need a president with energy, boldness, and focus.
We also do not want another Dear Leader. The Republican nominee must emphasize teamwork in his campaign and Cabinet. He cannot portray himself as the answer to all questions and the source of all solutions. But he must prove to us that he can assemble the team that can redirect our nation down the proper path, restoring prosperity and respect around the world.
I have to admit. Although I see considerable talent and experience in the original field, the country also saw an appalling lack of preparation. Many in the Republican field ran as if they had never witnessed a presidential election before.
We knew that debating in the fall might have something of an impact on the election. Why on earth did Rick Perry stumble into these competitions so woefully unprepared? He might have made a fairly good president, because the man is not as stupid as his detractors want to say. However, Perry needed a team to help him learn to parry rhetorically. He also needed to come up with a better way to defend his departures from conservatism in some way other than calling most of us "heartless."
I really liked Herman Cain. The man had a magnetism that filled a room. People instinctively liked him and he gave the impression that he liked you too, and had a good sense of humor to boot. Some say that sexual harassment allegations sank him. Only partly true. His decline in the polls also coincided with a sudden inability to answer any question that departed from his basic understanding of economics. Our world remains a dangerous place. It requires an American president with an already formed vision of how he wants to deal with its problems. Cain rarely gave an impression that he considered these problems very often.
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney come to the table with a solid understanding of foreign and domestic issues already in place. We have come to understand that the pitfalls of both are polar opposite. We don't want "world-historical Newt." We don't want the ultimate technocrat Romney. We need a president with energy, boldness, and focus.
We also do not want another Dear Leader. The Republican nominee must emphasize teamwork in his campaign and Cabinet. He cannot portray himself as the answer to all questions and the source of all solutions. But he must prove to us that he can assemble the team that can redirect our nation down the proper path, restoring prosperity and respect around the world.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Youth In Misery
Press Release: “Youth Misery Index” Exposes Worsening Economic Hardship for Young Americans
Permanent link
HERNDON, VA – Young America’s Foundation has released the Youth Misery Index (YMI), which has reached a record high (90.6) and has grown more than 25 percent in four years—17 percent since the Obama administration took office.
To calculate the index, Young America’s Foundation adds together youth unemployment, average graduating student debt (in thousands), and national debt per capita (in thousands). At no point in recent history has life been harder for America’s young people.
The Youth Misery Index represents a three-pronged attack on young Americans’ financial security—educational debt from their past, unemployment in the present, and a future plagued by the burden of massive government debt.
Youth unemployment is at 17.4 percent—one of the highest levels since World War II. Average graduating student debt has reached a record-breaking $26,300. National debt per capita is $46,900—the highest ever. Add it up, and the Youth Misery Index comes out to 90.6 (17.4 + 26.3 + 46.9 = 90.6). What does this number mean? Like Jimmy Carter’s Misery Index, the YMI uncovers some real threats to our nation’s prosperity.
As explained at YouthMiseryIndex.com, all three indicators of the Youth Misery Index have gone up, at least in part, thanks to government intervention and out-of-control spending. Few things are more earth-shattering to a young person than being stuck with no job and tens of thousands in college debt. As the Youth Misery Index rises, look for the Obama administration’s youth support to continue to plummet (as reported by the New York Times).
Young America’s Foundation’s Ron Meyer, who developed the Youth Misery Index with support from Nathan Harden, a Novak Fellow with the Phillips Foundation, said, “As a recent college graduate myself, I’ve seen the harsh realities of the Youth Misery Index. Young people can and must be the catalyst to shock the establishment by advocating for the halt of big government. If we do nothing, we can kiss the American Dream goodbye."
For more information on the index or to request an interview, please call Ron Meyer at (800) USA-1776.
###
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The Fourth Reich
Europe has been given ten days to come up with a plan to save itself.
Any plan that will save the tattered Eurozone will require massive infusions of capital from one of the few fiscally responsible nations left in the Western world, Germany.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has named the price of German action. She wants member nations to cede sovereignty over financial affairs to a central commission. On the surface, this could be the only possible way to save the unified currency.
However, it would possibly bring horrific consequences. Germany will not hand out money and then step back. as the United States would. The price of Germany's help would be German control, at least indirectly. This is not meant to muster Nazi overtones. Merkel is more like Otto von Bismarck. She wants to protect Germany by stabilizing Europe with a German vision, not overturn civilization.
But each incarnation of a German Reich usually ends with violence. Each one, from the Holy Roman Empire to Hitler, drew upon a sense of a German mission to secure civilization through exercising order in Europe. European nations do not want German domination in any form and will fight if pushed.
The plans on the table call, whether they know it or not, for a Fourth Reich. Every Reich, no matter how well-intentioned, ends in war. European bureaucrats need to remember that.
Any plan that will save the tattered Eurozone will require massive infusions of capital from one of the few fiscally responsible nations left in the Western world, Germany.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has named the price of German action. She wants member nations to cede sovereignty over financial affairs to a central commission. On the surface, this could be the only possible way to save the unified currency.
However, it would possibly bring horrific consequences. Germany will not hand out money and then step back. as the United States would. The price of Germany's help would be German control, at least indirectly. This is not meant to muster Nazi overtones. Merkel is more like Otto von Bismarck. She wants to protect Germany by stabilizing Europe with a German vision, not overturn civilization.
But each incarnation of a German Reich usually ends with violence. Each one, from the Holy Roman Empire to Hitler, drew upon a sense of a German mission to secure civilization through exercising order in Europe. European nations do not want German domination in any form and will fight if pushed.
The plans on the table call, whether they know it or not, for a Fourth Reich. Every Reich, no matter how well-intentioned, ends in war. European bureaucrats need to remember that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)