Check out my organization's website

Hi. Sorry for not posting anything for a while. I have been busy writing articles for my new website: http://www.restoreamericaslegacy.com.

It is a new political organization aimed at representing Young Americans as well as promoting the five core principles that have made this country the strongest and most prosperous country in the world. It is five core principles that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid flat out reject and are trying very hard to move the country away from.

I will start posting again in the next couple days.

Thanks

The Time Square Bombing: Failure and Treason

The United States has moved pretty far away from prosecuting the crime of treason. There are probably a number of reasons and that part is not important. The crime is still on the books and can be used. Faisal Shahzad (the bomber) is technically a U.S. citizen, which makes it difficult to treat him as an enemy combatant during the initial interrogations. He was read his Miranda Rights at one point after being questioned for several hours under some bizarre public safety exception. The exceptions allows witnesses to be interrogated with Miranda warning in certain cases.

Miranda is part of an American citizen's Constitutional Rights. Shahzad is an American, therefore he must be given these rights. The public safety exception seems murky but if that works, I see no problem with the Government using that to get at Shahzad before giving him the right to remain silent and right to counsel.

That is why I am suggesting something not that different from Lieberman: if you are charged with treason, I think your citizenship is effectively forfeited for the purposes of custody, interrogation, and evidentiary rules. Certainly some standard would have to be met before the treason charge would lead to forfeiture of citizenship or Constitutional Rights, that is complicated as well. I believe Shahzad's actions, which are treason, should be effective grounds to revoke his citizenship and eliminate the Constitutional problems here.

In the Constitution: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Most politicians and experts have not mentioned treason.

Many, including Sen. McCain, argue that reading Shahzad his Miranda Rights was a mistake and he should have been treated as an enemy combatant from the start. That is highly problematic. I have trouble with the U.S. Government having the authority of designating U.S. citizens as enemy combatants in any situation. Of course if Shahzad was stupid enough to admit it from the start, at that point he should've have been reclassified an enemy combatant and a traitor.

There is an argument that he wasn't a "real" citizen (naturalized through marrying American citizen) and therefore his Constitutional Rights can be more easily thrown out, but I reject that. Once you are an American, you are an American. There is no hierarchy of how "American" you are. The fact that he married to expedite the naturalization process is troublesome but more directly calls into question our policies of naturalization. It does not argue for treating naturalized citizens different from U.S.-born citizens. That would takes us down a ultra-nationalistic road that flies directly into the face of our immigrant foundation as a country.

So Shahzad is an American. How can he be an enemy combatant? Well, in World War 2 if an American citizen went to Germany and swore allegiance to them, and even fought with the German Army, how would we treat him? Well, first it would be easy for us to label him an enemy combatant because he wears their uniform. That is not so easy here. Terrorists don't wear uniforms and Shahzad certainly did not. If Shahzad had the nerve and the stupidity to claim he was fighting in service of the Pakistani Taliban, its over. He has indicated his allegiance to an American enemy. He is an enemy combatant.

Lets say he didn't. Lets say his lawyer got there in time to shut him up. How do we prove an American citizen is an enemy combatant without a uniform or an admission? Until we find a foreign-terror connection, he is just an attempted-murderer and a "domestic" terrorist. Can domestic terror suspects be treated as enemy combatants? I don't know the answer and am uncomfortable with the implications of this. If any law enforcement agency had evidence proving his links to the Taliban prior to his arrest, he should've been classified as an enemy combatant from the start, with a charge of treason to boot.

Unfortunately a lot of this comes down to timing. What did we know and when did we know it? The details that answer these two questions have not fully come out yet. Therefore, I think Sen. McCain, Sen. Lieberman, and others criticizing the process by which Shahzad was interrogated are jumping the gun (unless they know something we don't). On the other side, those rushing to applaud the federal, state, and local law enforcement handling of the situation should also show pause until we see exactly how things developed.

To be clear, this was not a success. Shahzad was able to drive an SUV full of explosives into Time Square and walk away. Had he adequate knowledge of explosives, he would have killed hundreds. We failed to stop him prior to the attack. He was able to execute just as the underwear bomber did on that flight. We should not see success in capturing these guys after the fact. We should be very worried that we failed in both instances to prevent the attack. The fact that no one died is not a testament to our counterterrorism efforts, but only our good fortune that many of these guys are fucking idiots.

Suggestions for getting us out of the Recession

Here are some suggestions that might help us out of the jobless recovery/recession we are struggling to pull out of.

1. Repeal Obamacare, kill Cap-and-Trade.
2. Make Bush Individual Income Tax Cuts permanent.
3. Repeal Capital Gains and Dividend Taxes
4. Cut Corporate Tax rate from 35% (second highest in developed world), to somewhere around 20-25%.
5. Six month suspension of payroll tax.
6. BALANCED THE #$@&#$%!!! BUDGET. Cut discretionary spending by $300 billion (~20%), then freeze it there. Reform entitlement programs to make sure their costs grow by 1% per year or less, instead of 5-15% like they are now.
7. Simplify the Tax Code.
8. Sell Canada.

Also, States with high corporate tax rates (5% and above) should consider cutting them dramatically.

There is no guarantee this will bring us to the promise land, but I think it could really do a lot of good really fast.

Unemployment and Jobs Report

The media has done a lot of work to try and convince the American people we are pulling out of this recession. Everytime there is a government report with some positive news or the stock market moves up for a week or two, they are quick to say on TV "Are we finally coming out of this recession???". But then there is this jobs report from April. It estimates that 260,000 jobs were added to the economy, but unemployment went up to 9.9%. How is this possible?

The unemployment number is a joke. It counts only people drawing unemployment from State and Federal unemployment insurance. If you are not drawing insurance, like say if you just graduated college and haven't paid into it, you are not counted. If you have given up looking for a job after your unemployment ran out, you are not counted. If you are working part time and are dying for a full time job, you are not counted. That 9.9% is a pretty high number in historical terms, but what is sad is that its a low-ball estimate of the true misery in the US economy.

Adding in the millions who have left the labor force because they can't find a job and have given up, those who have taken major cuts to hours, and others, the real unemployment rate in the United States is 17.1% and is the highest it has been in over 30 years.

What about the confusing jobs and unemployment reports? Jobs were created, but a lot of people have decided to re-enter the labor force after leaving it for the last couple months, or longer. So of 260,000 jobs created, it may be that about 500,000 people are now looking for jobs that weren't before (don't know for sure, just guessing). The total number of "discouraged" workers numbers in the millions. So added it all up and we would need to add at least 500,000 jobs per month for several years to get back to 6% unemployment. Not likely.

Americans don't need a jobs or unemployment report to tell us that things are very rough. We don't need the media to tell us how the economy is doing, or to convince us that we are either still in recession or we aren't. We know the truth. Whatever they say is according to government-produced numbers. They aren't lying, but consider the source and consider that any capable statistician and skew the numbers to show a more favorable result.

Projections are not good. Stock Market is still stuck at 10,000-11,000 which is basically where it was in 2008, so in the last two years we have done nothing but climb out of the pit to where we were in terms of value. Nothing to be happy about. Most economists and experts predict that we will not see unemployment decline below 9% well into 2011, which means the REAL unemployment will stay at 15-17% for at least another year.

Can we please accept that fact that the Stimulus Package failed, even better that Washington's entire economic policy since 2008 has failed to turn us around, meanwhile they have spent trillions of taxpayer dollars trying to do just that. Normally I would argue that Washington is not responsible for the ebb and flow of the economic cycle, but in this case they stuck their necks out with the Stimulus, TARP, bailouts, and all sorts of other expensive and aggressive programs to turn this economy around. All of it at our expense by the way.

The American people need to stop tossing cash into the money pit. Two years later the house is still falling apart.

Busting Myths of Liberal Media

And now for some random thoughts. Here are some liberal myths that need busting.

Right-wing protests and activist groups are more violent, racist, and intolerant
False. Tea Partiers and allied groups have had demonstrations, protests, and gatherings in every city across the country for over a year and the number of violent incidents is almost zero. In fact, there have been a couple instances of Tea Partiers being attacked by Union thugs as in St. Louis, as well as Black Panther and other groups actively trying to obstruct, disrupt or outright attack such movements.

The Oklahoma City bombing is often invoked as the consequences of letting right wing passions run high. In the last twenty years that is the only incident, and in that case McVeigh and Nichols acted alone without any support or validation from other groups. In fact, conservatives and the supposed "right-wingers" were among the most strident groups demanding justice. In every case of armed militia groups going off the deep end, conservatives never sympathize. The only sympathy they receive is when the government goes in heavy-handed and kills a good number of them as in Ruby Ridge and Waco (religious group in this case). Even, then most conservatives I know have very little sympathy for these types of groups.

Left-wing groups meanwhile have a more checkered past (Weather Underground for one). No bombings recently but - pro-illegal immigration groups attacked pro-rule of law demonstrations in Arizona not two weeks ago. In fact they are pushing hard for draconian efforts to punish Arizona for its passing of the law. In other states they are actively trying to obstruct business with Arizona, bordering on criminal. Radical environmentalists, socialists, and even some anarchists violently protested the WTO meetings in Seattle. Anti-war groups constantly disrupt public proceedings, block roads, protest military events, and even protest at military funerals.

Overall political violence in this country is very low, but a lot of it comes from the left wing, not the right.

Liberals still believe that conservatism is still dominated with groups that are intolerant, racist, and even violent towards those that oppose them. What they fail to see is that white supremacists have become so small and fringe, that they are not a part of the "right wing" anymore. They are radicals to conservatives. Liberals on the other hand are not always tolerant. Opposition to the liberal worldview is met with suspicions of racism, intolerance, and greed. Their blood begins to boil and they lash out at those that disagree with them. It is ironic, but in many cases liberals are the most intolerant of those with different beliefs and ideas.

It is difficult to enter this country legally, or its so complicated and takes so long that people have no choice but to cross the border illegally.
In 2009 alone roughly 700,000 immigrants became U.S. citizens including 110,000 from Mexico. At that rate, you could populate Chicago with nothing but newly naturalized citizens in four years. One has to ask, what number of immigrants and level of citizenship is appropriate or desirable? Should be we welcoming over 1 million per year? 2 million? Are our doors too narrow?

And why is it that we are so tolerant of illegal immigrants from Mexico only? Why is it that Mexico gets the opportunity to cross illegally in such a quick and easy manner? Those from China and other parts of Asia must spend the journey in cargo containers a lot of the time (when they are illegal) or worse. There are probably millions of Africans dying to come to this country as well. Why is it that Mexico gets the edge only because they are on our southern border?

How many people do you think would immigrate here and become citizens if given the opportunity? Two million a year? Three million a year?

The Time Square bomber was a lone wolf attacker, a novice, who decided to attack because he lost his home to foreclosure and was having difficulty in the economic recession
This is such bull shit I have a hard time responding. The bomber was born in Pakistan, had made several trips back home and probably had jihadist leanings well-before he lost his house. He married an American to become a citizen despite the fact he should've been on a watchlist for his visits to Pakistan and other evidence of a possible threat. In my mind, he is not an American, he is still Pakistani. I do not suggest any change in immigration law, but at the very least we should take a closer look at those who marry themselves into citizenship.

Many have lost their homes, jobs, or worse in this recession. To date, only one tried to bomb something. That person was of Pakistani descent, had made several visits there and clearly had some sort of tie to the Taliban. Even if he got no logistical support from the Taliban, he clearly wasn't just some nut living alone and going insane with anger and a desire to do violence.

I have no sympathy for this man, and if the liberal media wants to stop their downard spiral of TV ratings and circulation, they should try to keep their expressed sympathy for this human piece of shit to a minimum.

Conservatives and Republicans are greedy and selfish. That is why they are opposed to social programs, equal protection, and social justice.
Statistically Republicans give more to charity in both absolute terms and relative terms (per capita). And it is not because Republicans are rich. Statistically Republicans and Democrats average roughly the same in terms of salary and personal wealth. That is changing, as a portion of the Middle Class is starting to leave the Democratic Party and become independents thus moving the Democratic number downward.

To the conservative, wealth is created, it is not a static number or overall amount. If that were true then we are all greedy for desiring to protect the piece of wealth we currently control. We are also greedy for wanting to expand our piece whenever possible, as we all do. Any attempt to increase the size of our piece of the pie must in effect be taking from someone else. This theory is false.

Wealth in general is not a static thing. Our economy was $6 trillion in 1993, it is now $14 trillion. Wealth is created, it expands. Conservatives want the opportunity to create as much as possible, not "take" it from another source. Those who want to take it from others are not capitalists, socialists or any other label - they are the ones that are truly selfish, greedy, and dangerous. But those are not ideologues, they are the opposite, they have no principles at all and therefore could be anywhere on the cultural spectrum or more likely they have no strong feelings either way. They just want what isn't theres.

Obama's Ideal Model of Good Government is crumbling: the EU

The policies of President Obama and the Democratic Party are those of the left-wing parties of the Europe. Obama's Healthcare Plan was to be the Universal Healthcare coverage system of Great Britain. His ideas for new taxes are similar to those of France, Italy, and elsewhere. Tax the income, profits, and inheritance of the rich, impose a value-added tax, and tax carbon emissions. His fiscal policy of spending our way out of economic recession, massive debts, and expanded mandatory spending programs is almost identical to every European country, like Greece for example.

President Obama seems to think we should be more like Europe. The problem is this center-right country is comprised mostly of selfish, intolerant, knuckle-dragging rednecks that cling to their guns and religion. But after 2008, he and his liberal-socialist allies had a chance to change all that and transform this country into another European Union.

We can now see where that leads.

Greece is on the verge of defaulting on its bonds and declaring the equivalent of national bankruptcy. Portugal and Spain have had their credit ratings reduced this week. Nearly every European country has massive national debts, high unemployment, low economic growth, and powerful public labor unions that have all but paralyzed government attempts to solve the fiscal problems.

Sound familiar? It should, I could've easily been talking about California or Illinois.

The European Union is in decline economically and politically. Its influence in the world has been in steady decline for years, its economy has been stagnant, and its fiscal problems are finally about to erupt. Many experts speculate we may be witnessing the end of the Euro currency and a collapse of the European Union as a whole.

Well, its a global recession right? Not really. China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia are seeing positive growth. They have recovered. China projects growth this year at 8-9%. So as the United States and European Union continue to drown in debt and see growth of less than 1%, other countries are growing. We can safely conclude that the US and EU are seeing their massive lead in the world economy and world politics shrink rapidly.

So who should we look to? China? Brazil? Well maybe. These countries don't have a great deal in common though. They do have lower taxes on corporations, no massive entitlement programs, low debt, and business-friendly labor laws.

Meanwhile we are doing the opposite. More taxes on corporations, new entitlement programs, more debt, and stricter labor laws.

One can see the contrast within the United States as well. Should we be adopting the same policies as our own states of California and Illinois? That is what Obama and the Democrats seem to be doing. Who should we be following?

The answer: Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Low tax burdens, business-friendly conditions, small deficits, no big entitlement programs, and they are seeing unemployment rates much lower than the national rate of 9.7%. They are actually growing while the rest of the country is stagnant.

The answer is right in front of us.

President Obama is following a failed model. The European Union is on the verge of collapse, the euro is about to vanish, and the continent will soon shatter into disarray and might shift back to its historic roots of nationalistic rivalries and arms races.

The United States needs to adopt a new model. And fast.

Illegal Immigration: Discuss without Fear

Immigration is a subject that caused the most heated discussions during my time in law school. It was surprising to me. I thought it would be abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, torture, or maybe gun control but no it was illegal immigration.

Liberals are unable to argue rationally on the issue. They get angry and almost immediately start throwing out personal insults, allegations of racism, and all sorts of other things. Voices get elevated, heart rates jump, and beads of sweat begin to form, and many times it is on white faces. For one to resort to personal attacks so quickly in a debate should be a sure sign of weakness. And in this case it most definitely is.

We want to stop criminals, undocumented workers, and potential terrorists crossing into the United States BUT we want documented workers, skilled laborers, and a steady flow of new citizens into the country. So how do we do both?

The conservative/legalist argument is that it is pointless to reform immigration law before we restore security at the border first. They want to close up the border with a fence and strict enforcement of immigration laws, with a clear documented record of who is coming in and who is leaving. Within the United States, they want illegal immigrants deported. Problem is there are probably anywhere from 12-15 million of them here already, many that have been here for years.

Another more mixed conservative proposal is to secure the border THEN decide what to do with those already here. In this case, they don't want mass deportations, rounding up of individuals. They are willing to listen to pathway to citizenship but will NOT grant amnesty. the legalists will not grant amnesty or offer any path to citizenship that does not require them to jump through all sorts of hoops and in many cases go home.

Moderates want to secure the border, create a path to citizenship, and really thats it. So they want a secure border and essentially amnesty. In this debate there are probably very few moderates.

The liberal will not secure the border until we have a clear path to citizenship, amnesty for those already here, and equal protection of those that came here illegally with those that come here legally.

Which of the four positions stops the criminal element from entering the United States? all of them except the liberal proposal.

Which of the four positions provides a means of discerning the criminal from the non-criminal immigrants (productive from nonproductive immigrants)? The two conservative proposals.

Which of the four positions provides a path to citizenship to immigrants that are already here? All four.

Wait a minute? You mean those crazy right-wing racists want a path to citizenship? Yes they do. It would not be easy and millions would likely have to leave under their plan. It requires paying a fine, paying back-taxes, becoming registered, learning English, and proving that they have no criminal record here or in Mexico. If they just got here, they would probably not have this option, they would probably have to leave. In addition, they would want the federal government to strictly control the flow of immigrants from this point forward to ensure we are receiving only productive new members of America.

Here is what offends a lot of people. hardliners would want those illegal immigrants who do not do all the above to be deported. That number could be quite large.

I believe the hardliner position is actually rational, except for the active effort to deport illegal immigrants. We should not focus law enforcement efforts in rooting out illegals but rooting out the reasons they come here, unscrupulous employers that have no problem hiring illegals and paying them sub-minimum wage. I also believe people should be given a fair chance to stay here, earn a living, and become a citizen. No Amnesty, but lets not make it impossible for a hard-working immigrant to get it done.

What is happening in Arizona? Self-defense. Arizona is not making a statement on what to do with illegals. What they are saying is that the lack of immigration enforcement or a reformed policy has led to an explosion of crime on the border. It is a situation they can no longer tolerate and are hence authorizing state police to do what the federal government will not do.

Arizona should not be doing this, but they were forced into a corner. What should happen is the federal government stop being cowards and actually agree on illegal immigration reform. At that point, the Arizona Law should be repealed.

I believe illegal immigration is stalled because of a giant electoral "boogey" man that does not exist. Somehow politicians fear a massive backlash from Hispanic voters if they support a strict or tough immigration policy. I do not believe that to be true. First, illegal immigrants do not vote and neither do their families. those that did come here illegally and were either granted amnesty in the 80s or have become citizens some other way since then will certainly not like the new law but I don't they have such large numbers, nor vote reliably.

What about those that came here legally? There is no compelling evidence that legal Hispanic immigrants and citizens strongly oppose tough immigration policy. The demonstrations are large and sometimes violent as it was in Arizona the other day, but one must ask: how many demonstrating are illegal immigrants? In other words, what portion of those protests were from non-citizens?

It is nothing more than a boogey man that moderates and conservatives must ignore. The majority of this country does not want amnesty, and they want the border secured. Go with that and you will not face this shadowy backlash from the electorate.

This situation needs to be solved. We are in such dire economic condition, we cannot help neighboring countries deal with their poor and unemployed until we can deal with our own.

Leader of a Movement? Or a movement of leaders?

The title here is awkward for a reason. You notice the first question is capitalized while the second is not. In the United States, there is a common social desire to designate leader, someone that represents your beliefs and has the intelligence, skill, and power to make things happen. This is not a political split, both left and right have this among them. But there is also a second common social desire. On both left and right, there is a desire to be part of a movement, part of something big that has no "leader" or "authority". The question is: are you a person who seeks out a leader first and then join his movement? Or are you a person who seeks out the movement or perhaps starts the movement?

The Democratic Party has had a love affair with icons or the leader type. In the modern era it started with John F. Kennedy. He came about in an age of television, which gave greater emphasis to aesthetics. Combining this with gifted oration, you had an icon. JFK had substance. Democratic leaders after that did not.

Today it is clear Barack Obama replaced Hillary as the Democratic icon. The Party rallied around a cult of personality for one and then the other. Obama lacked substance, but that didn't matter, he was the chosen one. Hillary had some substance, but her image was not as compelling and so the Party switched horses so to speak. He won the Presidency on his cult of personality and the aesthetics, not substance. They should be regretting it. Few can argue otherwise today.

It is not just Presidents either. In Congress, the Democratic Party is top down. Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid rule each chamber from the top down. The centrist leaderless movements or factions within each are cast aside for challenging the Obama-Pelosi-Reid leadership. Whether it is Blue Dogs or Bart Stupak. The bottom of the party that was not behind the top's agenda was forced to march forward with it.

Republicans are guilty as well. Republicans worship Ronald Reagan. An iconic image with substance, the red JFK if you will. In 2008, twenty years after he left office, Republicans quickly wanted to find the next Reagan. Problem was none were available. McCain was the top choice because he was an independent "maverick" type. People thought he was a better icon then Romney, Huckabee, or Guiliani. they were right. He selected another potentially great icon as his running mate, Sarah Palin. In the end, Obama proved the better one however.

What has happened afterward has been sad. After McCain's defeat, mainstream republicans are constantly "searching for a new leader of the party". They have been closely following Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, Steele, Bachmann, and Gingrich. But none of them will be the leader of the party. Palin, to her credit, does not appear she wants to be the new leader of the party. She decided to forego the typical track of serving out her term and then running for federal office in 2010. Instead she has joined the media side on Fox News and has become a vocal voice for grassroots groups and is participating in speaking engagements for other organizations. Cynics can argue she is trying to become a populist leader and will run for President in 2012, and maybe that is true, but it is a very unconventional path. Some top republicans are thus wrongly pessimistic or nervous because they have yet to find a new leader.

The Tea Party is the opposite. Members are not looking for a leader. They don't have a chairman, a president, CEO, delegates, central committee, or anything of the sort. In fact, try and find the national tea party website, it does not exist. They are not interested in finding a leader or coalescing in any centralized structure. Those that are part of the Tea Party Movement want to be part of a headless movement, not the bottom-rung of a pyramid organization. The Tea Party has no hierarchy to speak of.

There are drawbacks. Without a leader, there is no coherent grand strategy. The Tea Party does not have specific electoral or political goals. There is the "Contract From America" and various groups making endorsements but it is not unified in any single strategy. This can result in tactical mistakes, such as running multiple candidates and splitting the vote, allowing the opponent to win. Another possibility is one regional group at odds with another. This has yet to happen however. Despite this drawback, the movement can still succeed.

Tea Partiers see politics differently. They see politicians as levers that they pull, not the other way around. They have their favorites, they choose candidates and vote for them, but now a days they are prepared to vote them out just as quickly should they fail. They dislike both parties, they are not partisans at all. In particular this will happen with the Republican Party. Incumbent Republicans are being challenged from within their party in Arizona, Utah, and Florida. The Republican Party itself is no longer supplying the leadership and the direction. It is the voters and supporters. That makes things unpredictable and incoherent in the long term, but not the short term. In the short term, this can dramatically strengthen the Republican Party and give it better direction. By 2012, the Tea Party and all other associated movements will have to select their choice as the next President. Clearly they don't want Obama back. It is then they will be forced to designate an actual leader.

The changes in the country over the last two years has shifted a major part of the country away from this "cult of personality" or search for a leader of a movement. It is instead trying to become a movement of leaders. It is difficult and chances of success are typically low. But I think in 2010, they might pull it off dramatically changing the composition of the House and the Senate. We could see a different Washington in 2011-2012 but if the movement is to succeed they must continue into 2012 in order to change another third of the Senate and the President.

More on the Tea Party: Not Radicals

This is from my Princeton Fox Blog, so it is more directed at Northeasterners. Here is what I have observed as contrasts between places like Illinois, North Carolina with New Jersey:

I am frankly surprised at the misconceptions and total lack of knowledge that New Jerseyans have of the Tea Party. It is clear the media, journalists, and others have successfully written them off as radicals, racists, and revolutionaries. And you have bought it.

The Tea Party Platform
The Tea Party is a loose confederation of conservatives, libertarians, concerned citizens, unaffiliated voters, conservative democrats, and independents. These groups may have their own top issues or most important agenda items but there are three main common themes:

1. Limited Government (in both power and dollars)
2. Individual Freedom (protections for religion, speech, right to bare arms, states' rights)
3. Free markets (strong rejection of socialism)

Gallup surveys showed the Tea Party's demographics are fairly mainstream. In other words, they are not All-White, All-rich, All-Christian, All-Republican, or All anything.

So really what makes them tick? The massive growth in government spending, the national debt, the increase in government power in areas of the banking sector, finance, healthcare, student loans, and automobiles. This political event alone is what awakened them. And I say awakened for a reason.

Gallup has also consistently shown this is a center-right country, 40% identify themselves as conservatives and other polls show that 50% or more have fiscally conservative views. Only about 26-29% of people identify themselves as liberal. And yet the Democrats won 255 of 435 seats in the House, and 60 of the 100 seats of the Senate. Obama won with 53% of the vote. How is this possible? Why is it that the Republicans don't dominate American politics???

The Awakening of the Right Wing
Like I said, this conservative side has only recently awakened. There is a segment of conservatives that don't vote because they regard both parties as essentially the same (and have a good case for it). However, the political battles and divergence of policies between the two parties in the last year and a half has changed that sentiment and "awakened" this segment. In other words, Obama's left-wing agenda awakened them. Had he practiced some moderation in his policy proposals, this movement might've remained asleep.

Another segment of the Tea Partiers simply don't vote because they don't feel their vote really makes a difference. Most of this type are not politically active at all. They have these beliefs but would rather keep to themselves and keep their beliefs to themselves. They have been convinced by televisions, movies, and other media that their beliefs are radical fringe right-wing ideas and that they would be ridiculed if they got more vocal of them.

Another segment is the far-right wing. They are a very small group, probably about 5-8% of the total population. They are militias, Christian Fundamentalists, most of them probably racist, and are in many respects anarchists. They may align themselves with the Tea Party, but a vast majority of the other groups in the Tea Party regard these people as crazy, just like the rest of the country.

The final segment, the largest, are disenchanted Republicans and fiscal conservatives that felt their party failed them and did not vote in 2008. This group is the most politically active in general, vote often, but this changed due to Republican failures in 2005-2007. They stopped identifying themselves as Republicans and expressed utter frustration with their party and the country as a whole. this segment was likely to awaken regardless of how leftist Obama's agenda was. It is the combination of this group with the others that give the Tea Party tremendous potential. They are reaching into populations of non-voters and even unregistered voters. Not to mention the fact that Independents are steadily realizing that the Tea Party reflects their ideas in regards to the deficit and government spending.

So, are they racist? Maybe 1 in 20 has white supremacist beliefs, AT THE MOST.
Are they anarchists? No, not even close.
Do they advocate overthrow of the government? No
Are they Christian Evangelicals or Fundamentalists? Many of them are, but none of the issues they are demonstrating for are related to religious or social issues. Sometimes yes, but like I said government power and spending are at the top of the list.

And it is important to note, the Tea Party is steadily growing. Gallup and other surveys show that more Americans consider themselves part of the movement in comparison to three months ago.

So what is their objective?
The slogan most often heard at Tea Parties is "Remember in November". A political protest and demonstration that wants to increase energy AND VOTE. What a bunch of psychos right? They are supporting candidates, donating money, hell they are voting in record numbers! MY GOD, they are going to tear this country down!!! They are critical of a Black President! Surely they are racists!!! By that logic, a Black President is infallible.

A Cautionary Note for Northeasterners
Most Americans do not live within 100 miles of New York or Washington. Most Americans do not get their news from the Big 3, or CNN, or MSNBC. Most Americans are not afraid of guns. Most Americans are not afraid of God or Christians. Whatever sophistication or education level you have achieved, remember you are in the minority and if you fail to take movements like the Tea Party seriously, you will remain in the minority in a sort of hyper-urbanized bubble of the East Coast from DC up to Boston. You are a minority and I think its time you do a MUCH better job understanding the rest of the country and their beliefs because in my experience in New Jersey there is a poor level of understanding.

Self-identified Republicans and moderate conservatives in the Northeast seem to be somewhat elitist and arrogant similar to liberal democrats. That must change. Not only Republicans but Northeasterners in general because last I checked the Census projects Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be losing electoral votes to Texas, Utah, and Georgia.

Its time to make a better effort to understand the rest of the country. Because there are more of them than you, and in November, more of them will win election to the House and Senate while Democrats will likely still dominate the Northeast.

Democratic Party: A Party of Fear and Paranoia

I discussed the major drawback of the polarity strategy (labeling an opponent as the evil enemy or the opposite) is that one can easily become paranoid or portrayed as paranoid. I felt that the Republican Party was allowing itself to fight the polar attacks of Democrats with their own polar attacks, which gives you short-term gains but leaves you reliant on whatever popular sentiment exists at that time. It is not a long term strategy. This has been true but something else is developing and it is not the result of the political tactics or words of the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party is becoming fearful and paranoid on its own.

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid began this with their references to political assassinations, pro-slavery efforts in the 1850s, anti-civil rights movements, and hate crimes from the 1960s and 1970s. Then more Democrats jumped on board making references to the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and violent right-wing militias. This has been a common criticism of Democrats aimed at the anti-establishment Tea Party Movement that is focused on defeating the incumbent majority Party. Now you have more references to racism and political violence. Even former President Bill Clinton fears the anti-government sentiment will lead to violence such as the Oklahoma City bombing or the confrontations with fringe militias at Ruby Ridge and the religious group at Waco.

Just one problem. None of the Tea Party Protests or significant rallies have indicated their desire to overthrow the Government. In fact, they are invoking the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the words of previous political leaders as their rally point. It is antithetical to refer to existing political documents when overthrowing the existing political system.

Are they violent? No. There has been no bombings, no shots fired (except at Eric Cantor's campaign HQ), no burning down of government buildings, or calls for the death of President Barack Obama. Certainly if you look long and hard enough you will find crazies that support such actions but they are not leaders of the Tea Party Movement, and most Tea Partiers would opposed such illegal acts.

Thats the unique thing about the Tea Party. It is a popular movement that worships the rule of law. They want a return to a respect for the Law and a return to the conservative foundation of the country. They don't want to destroy anything literally or figuratively. They promote voter registration, voter participation, dissemination of information, and coordination of efforts across the country.

In the end that is what former President Clinton and others are afraid of. They are afraid of this alleged "anti-government" movement because it is really about the movement kicking them out of power. They are afraid of a popular movement that intends to vote them out. They should be afraid.

The Government ought to be afraid of its people.

More crazy talk comes from the sinking MSNBC and Time Magazine. Journalists (well in name only) Kleine and Heilemann seem to think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are guilty of sedition. Their utter lack of legal knowledge is incredible. Sedition is a relic from a different age that has no relevance today. In other parts of the world it is a crime designed to protect unpopular tyrants. Are Beck and Palin guilty? NO! They invoke actions of voting, protesting, demonstrations, and other actions! All perfectly legal. All things that liberals love to promote as well and did so not five years ago against President Bush and the Iraq War.

The left also does not feel any remorse or responsibility for publishing falsehoods like Dan Rather's National Guard Records, infiltrating Tea Party protests like in Chicago, or outright accusing their political opponents of federal crimes that for the most part do not exist.

The Democratic Party has become paranoid, throwing out accusations and attacks that have no base in reality. They are so afraid of losing power they will say anything to discredit or slow down the popular tide that has turned so strongly against them in the past year. I think many Americans are beginning to see the pitiful, juvenile, and incompetent Government they voted in power not long ago. They will not make the same mistake this time around.

It seems very possible that the Republicans will retake the House and move to within 2 seats of retaking the Senate. This would completely stop the Obama Agenda dead in its tracks and lead to the end of the Pelosi-Reid era. Pelosi will likely be replaced as the Democratic House leader, and Reid is all but certain to lose his re-election bid in November.

Of course, unforeseen events in the next six months could change this. But as of now. I think the Democratic Party is deathly afraid of what is about to happen to them and are saying everything and anything they can think of to stop it.

Chicago Tax Day Tea Party

It was an interesting week. Tea Party protests went on in every city and some in the media decided the story was that some of them were not as big as last year. Nevermind the fact that there were probably more protests than last year. I got to attend the Chicago Protest in Daley Plaza the epicenter of the Democratic Party Machine.

It was a group that likely exceeded one thousand, filling most, if not all of the plaza. All this in probably one of the five most liberal democratic cities in the country. There were tons of posters, flags, colonial hats, and of course a couple party crashers. An anti-war protest tried to butt in with a banner indicating war is the biggest wasteful spending. In another oddity, a professionally printed and distributed sign said war makes up 57% of the budget, something that is VERY off. Defense spending is roughly $600 billion (less than 20% of the budget). Just goes to show that liberal protestors feel that any and all strategms, including blatant lies, are morally justified as long as the ends are just. It includes infiltrating non-liberal protests with inflammatory and idiotic signs and chants. The ends justify the means. Truly sad.

Others said No to war, and there were a couple signs that were anti-semitic, blaming Israel for all the problems of the world. Tea Party organizers and fellow protestors confronted these people asking them why they were there and arguing that the protest had nothing to do with either issue. Instead of physical confrontation, which is a common result of battles with left wing protestors and "anti-war" activists, a couple of people made signs indicating "plant" or "liberal" or "NOT part of the Tea Party". They stood next to these infiltrators with their own signs so that any idiot CNN or MSNBC camera would catch both the silly sign and the sign indicating the Tea Party Movement has nothing to do with it.

Earlier, a man was walking around with a giant swastika on a poster. The sight disgusted many, Chicago Police asked him to leave, at least I believe that is what happened. I had to leave to meet friends at the train station and bring them back to the Plaza. Either way, that guy was not there when we returned.

The speakers included a former gubanatorial candidate, five candidates for Congress, a couple activists, a doctor, a health insurance salesman, and the two individuals that were accosted by a CNN reporter over a year ago at a similar protest. That incident probably did more for the Tea Party than any other of these major BS media stories.

There were posters responding "we are NOT racist" or "I don't give a ___ that Obama is Black, it scares me to death that he is RED". The speeches were about government spending, taxes, corruption, greed, and the various offenses to the Constitution that President Obama and other Democratic leaders are responsible for.

There were no Neo-Nazis, no Klan members, no one advocating that all illegals should be rounded up and kicked out, no one calling Obama a fascist but plenty calling him a socialist, this was a regular political protest with nothing radical to speak of. No one called for revolution or violent overthrow of the government, much to the disappointment of Bill Clinton. His "fear" of these anti-government protests is really just fear that Democrats will lose power in November.

One of the speakers had an interesting comment: When asked by a reporter what the Tea Party was, where is its website, and who is its' leader, this woman laughed answering "we are not some top-down movement with some sort of demi-god at its head. This is as grassroots as you can get, decentralized, spread out, and very large. No professionally made signs, no corporate or political money bringing us together. In fact, if any insurance companies were paying these protestors, she feinted anger that she didn't get a check."

Sorry to disappoint democrats, socialists, liberals, and others out there. No crazies. This is a legitimate and mainstream political protest that is large in scale and threatens to completely destroy the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate in November. Should it continue, President Obama has little chance of re-election. Even now his job approval has been consistently below 50% for over a month now. A Healthcare Reform and Nuclear Treaty failed to create any momentum.

The Tea Party is a rejection of a large federal government, taxes, encroachment on individual rights, and the attempted takeover of the economy. It sometimes ventures into other issues but this is its core, if one existed. Nothing racist, nothing radical, no revolutionary themes, actually it is the opposite. It is a counter-revolutionary theme in direct opposition to the dramatic changes President Obama and Democrats have attempted to bring to us. It is rooted in the Constitution, the beliefs and writings of the founders, and the conservative principles that have been around the whole time.

This is different than the right-wing of the Bush Presidency. This is not driven by Evangelicals or a desire to change the world. This is more focused on the United States itself, its very Foundation, and the future of the political system that was formed 230 years ago. It is actually more conservative in that sense than Bush or his Evangelical Base. It is likely larger and can reach into virtually every state in the Union (as opposed to the more Christian Fundamentalist regions of the country).

It is grassroots, decentralized, and unguided by any political elite. Its as American as you can get really. Will it succeed? Will it lead to change in November? The evidence strongly suggests yes. This is still a center-right country and this rejection of the Government policies of the past three to five years was, in many ways, inevitable.

The Summer of Tea

The Tea Party seems to continue its momentum into the Spring of 2010. Why? Because it is a widespread popular movement of strong beliefs about the role of government in our lives. This is not a protest of one issue that is important this year or next year, this is a movement with an ideology that has long term aspirations and impact. It is limited government (in authority, money, and people), individual rights (they respect the entire Bill of Rights, not just one or two of their favorite amendments), and free markets.

It is large as well. Rasmussen has released a survey indicating 48% of Americans feel the Tea Party Movement reflects their beliefs better than the President (who got 44%). Gallup just released a survey showing the Tea Party is fairly mainstream in terms of its demographics. That means it is not "all white", not "all wealthy", not "all republican", in fact it is not "all" anything.

Will they change things in November? Well lets see the evidence so far: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia. In New York, the conservative activists and tea party supporters successfully kicked the appointed republican candidate off the ballot in favor of the Conservative Party choice. Republicans won big victories in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009. Massachusetts had a lot to do with Scott Brown but you cannot deny that a powerful pro-republican trend is being set. Do Tea Partiers like the Republican Party? Not really, but they have their favorite candidates in various races and guess what, their favorite candidates are all Republican.

They independent-minded men and women with little affiliation with the current party leadership. And that is exactly how the Tea Party likes them.

Where to go from here: There is a risk that the energy from the Tea Party Movement may slow by November, particularly if the jobs situation improves, the economy improves, or Obama manages to get some good PR on a foreign policy issue or illegal immigration. However, I don't believe this to be the case. Like I said above, the anger and emotion of the Tea Party Movement was NOT triggered by the Healthcare Debate. Sure, that definitely strengthened it but the foundation is elsewhere. And in the end nothing will change. The government will still be massive in November, taxes will still be higher in November, the government will still have incredible control of the economy in November, and the government will certainly still try to encroach on First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Tenth Amendment rights in November. As long as those things don't change, this energy will continue.

But let us not ignore the risk. How can the Tea Party remain active and energetic? Well Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and others have offered their advice and I agree with it. Keep informed, educate yourself on the candidates and the issues, make sure you are registered to vote and that everyone else in the movement is registered to vote, continue events, protests, fundraising activities, crashing town halls, and other such public displays. Continue to pound away at Democratic Congressmen via mail and phone calls. Finally, make sure that the weekend before the election, you set up very LARGE events to peak the energy right as the election is upon us. In fact, space events out evenly such as a 9/12 event, November 1st event, 4th of July Event, and Memorial Day Event. Every two months another big display. Doesn't wear people down but is sufficiently frequent enough to keep people up.

Tea Partiers should strive for nothing less than kicking the Democrats out of power in the House and shrinking the Democratic majority in the Senate. in 2011-2012, Tea Partiers should do their homework and get out the vote for primaries to make sure the right kind of men and women get nominated in the Republican primaries. No more RINOs or career politicians. I think this is all possible, reasonable, and realistic. Even expert analysts place odds of a Republican takeover at 35-50%. Pretty good if you ask me.

The Polarity Strategy: Demagoguery

Politics is almost always saturated with the use of the polarity strategy. Polarity requires one designate an enemy, a wrong, or some sort of bad trend that compels people to act. In war, its the use of propaganda to get the people personally angry at the enemy such as the characterizations of the vicious bloodthirsty Japanese in World War 2, or even when the Nazis used constant propaganda techniques to demonize the Jews, then the Poles, then the Soviets. It stirs the people into anger and they demand action.



It does not need to be a specific enemy or person. It could be a crime. Groups have always used the traumatic imagery of tragedies to stir anger and mobilize the people to action. A little girl kidnapped from her parents, sexually assaulted and murdered successfully mobilized people into utilizing the new Amber Alert, increasing punishments on sex offenders, and creating the sex offender registry. Mothers of Drunk Drivers (MADD) would tell vivid stories of their family members lost in auto accidents involving a drunk driver. That raised the drinking age to 21 and strengthened enforcement against DUI and raised the penalties. It is important to note that a cause pushed through polarity strategy isn't necessarily without merit or substance. Drunk driving and pedophilia are two things that certainly warrant attention and action. But it is a strategy, that is all, it can be used for any cause.



Today both political wings use it a lot. The right-wing demonizes abortion doctors, gay marriage advocates, the atheists of the ACLU, elitist liberals, greedy labor unions, and criminal illegal immigrants. The left-wing demonizes health insurance corporations, Wall Street, dirty industry, greedy doctors, heavy-handed police officers, reckless soldiers, cruel and greedy white men, and sometimes churches.



The left wing has also done an excellent job of using the dormant polarity strategy. That is, demonizing opposition to their own cause. Those who oppose public education programs are anti-children, anti-teachers, and anti-education. Those who oppose Universal Healthcare are selfish greedy people who don't want to pay for basic healthcare for the poor, the needy, and others. Those who oppose their Immigration Policies are racist, intolerant, and anti-American because the history of America is one of immigrants. Those who oppose their foreign policy are warmongering, imperialists, and anti-Muslim.



This multi-directional use of the polarity strategy has not been successful in swelling the ranks of the left-wing but has successfully persuaded a majority of moderates of the virtue of their cause. In this case, it has worked very well for Democrats over the past five years.



What about merit? What about substance? There is substance to some of their positions but that is not how they persuade a center-right country to back their cause. They need to use the polarity strategy, demagoguery, at every turn. Look no further than the Healthcare Summit. While Republicans argued numbers, specific provisions in the bill, and the overreach of the bill, Democrats told stories of poor Jesus in Reno, and other poor minorities who could not afford insurance and are suffering.



In the United States, in an age of cable news, the internet, and instant communication, demagoguery is very effective. It will continue to be effective as long as people vote on what they see and hear on television, on the internet or otherwise. As long as the facts are shrouded in darkness or distorted in public discourse, the polarity strategy will reign.



What is the counter-strategy to the polarity strategy? Well, one that has developed over the past couple centuries has been the demagogic tendency toward paranoia. As a faction continues to label individuals and groups as enemies, the list grows and soon one cannot help but wonder if that faction has become paranoid, irrational, and delusional. How can everyone be the enemy? How can so many be the enemy? It is more than just playing the "blame game", a faction that uses polarity to excess begins to lose its grip on reality, if it cannot stop itself from creating enemies. Aggressive tyrants are especially prone to paranoia (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Push them to perceive steadily more and more individuals and groups as enemies and soon the rational observer will begin to see the paranoia.



What about the people? Will we ever come to realize we are allowing ourselves to be persuaded by a parade of demagoguery and fear? Some are coming to their senses, to be sure. But the reaction seems to be the demagoguery in the reverse, the demonization of the Democratic Party, liberals, and socialists. That is hardly an improvement. It is also equally divisive as the Democratic polarity strategy.



Another is to focus on the performance of the Democratic Party. According to the raw numbers, they have governed poorly. This has been used well so far but can be improved. The Democratic Party has been in control of Congress for almost 4 years now. And yet, we seem to look at a record only 1 year long. Bush may have been President, but the Democrats were a key player in the government policies of 2007-2008, the period that preceded the recession. One can also blend fact with fiction. One can argue Democratic policies likely led to the banking and housing collapse, or that they had an opportunity to avert the disaster but decided not to.



This is done all the time on both sides. Republicans are not quite as effective in utilizing this strategy. They need to get better.



Not only has the economy, financial reform, unemployment, and other problems arisen under their watch, but the outlook for the country is poor. Experts do not expect unemployment to return to 5-6% for at least three years. Meaning, Democratic efforts to bring us to economic recovery have failed. Economic growth is very weak and will be weak for years, hence the Democrats have done nothing but prolong the crisis, just as they did in the 1930s. The myth of the New Deal and FDR can now be broken with our recent experiences with government stimulus and centralization of the economy. The New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, World War 2 did.



There is also another effect of the polarity strategy. The people want action, but who will act to punish the offender, destroy the evil cause, or stop the evil from occurring again? The Democrats have always promoted central government solutions, central government action. They do not want individuals, groups, or even state and local governments solving these problems. To them there is only one solution. Nationalization, Centralization, and government authority.



It is important to point out: every action exerts power and authority. By calling for action, the Democrats are asking for more power and authority.



Who do Republicans want to give power and authority to? Well, taxpayers and businesses. Unfortunately that comprises barely half of the population (only half the country pays federal income taxes), and businesses are not visible people with families or dreams. What about state and local governments? Very few Republicans seem to want power or authority in these areas to solve these problems. They argue the negative but offer no compelling alternative. At least it is not compelling to the non-ideological moderate.



Do we want to call people to action? As stated above, a polarity strategy to counter a polarity strategy is a troublesome idea. It is short-term and does not allow Republicans to hold the moral high ground. Even now they are no more popular than the Democratic Party. The Republicans seem to arbitrarily use substance and merit as well. Attempts to portray Democrats as paranoid has also been seldom used.



In my mind the Republicans should consider the following:



(1) keep control of the reverse polarity strategy, don't just demonize the Democrats, liberals, and socialists. That will help you make short term gains but it lowers your potential growth and exposes you to potential problems later on if popular opinion swings again.



(2) Portray the Democrats as paranoid, seeing nearly everyone as the enemy: Wall Street, industry, corporations, health insurance companies, doctors, police officers, soldiers, CIA agents, veterans, gun-toting Bible-thumpers, people on television, and anyone else you can get them to blame. Make them appear as if they are pointing their finger at everyone around them.



(3) Finally, find a way to occupy the moral high ground with clear alternatives unrelated to demagoguery. Your call to action should be one of disarming those who act. Government solutions always fail. Solutions are better left with individuals, businesses, but particularly state and local governments. It is time to look elsewhere for solutions and it is time Republicans become clear and coherent in their offering of alternatives.

The United States today

This is the United States today. Today, a corporation is required to make filings with the SEC regarding its business decisions and outlook that directly affect shareholders. If you say something in that SEC filing that is contrary to what the U.S. Government wants, you just might be called to Washington D.C. to testify as well as make available e-mails, memos, and internal papers on the subject.

This is our country today. If a private corporation makes a government filing that does not support government policy or make it "look good", you are in trouble. And to all other private corporations that are considerng making such filings and God forbid, tell the truth in them, you might want to think about what the government wants, their interest, because in the end it is the federal government's interests that are most important, not yours and not the shareholders.

This is in reference ot the news that the executives of AT&T are being called to testify in front of Henry Waxman's Committee about a recent SEC filing that stated they will be re-evaluating their healthcare benefit programs of their employees and retirees as a result of the recent legislation.

In the United States today, if you want to go to college it is going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars. If you want loans to help pay for it, you will need to go to the federal government. They now control the entire student loan industry. They have positions in numerous large banks, they have control of the Federal Reserve of course. In short, if you want a loan, credit, or money in general you will have to get it from the federal government.

In the United States today, it is important for the President of the United States to give his full opinion on Supreme Court decisions and criticize the Justices on national television if necessary. These are Justices that serve on the Court for life, are not beholden to voters, and certainly not beholden to the President. In some bizarre world, the opinion of the President matters to the Supreme Court, the executive branch has the right to go after the judicial branch.

In the United States today, any reference to God or Christianity is a clear endorsement and establishment of a State Religion. You can't call it Good Friday, its Spring Holiday. Its not Merry Christmas, its Happy Holidays. If the word God is anywhere on Government document, engraved on a wall or statue, or mentioned in the pledge of allegiance - it is bad. This country must take the initiative to eliminate all symbols of religion from the country out of fear of it magically establishing a State Religion, or offending someone somewhere, and to make this country atheist as soon as possible.

This is the United States. If there is anywhere one has the right to offend one another it is here. It is what Free Speech and Free Religion directly involves. You are allowed to practice these things regardless of who it offends. That is the point. Many came here because these activities offended someone in their home country. This country is not atheist, it was not founded by atheists, and the Founders certainly did not want to establish an atheist country.

This is expansion of government power and control of private citizens and individuals, control of all money, and the suppression of a person's right to exercise their religion, and for people to acknowledge that in this country there are Christians and that those Christians have holidays and our calendars reflect that. Instead of pretending religion does not exist, we should fully acknowledge these facts and also realize that this in no way is a declaration of some endorsement of a State Religion. These symbols have been present for 230 years and yet we still do NOT have a State Religion.

Of course, none of this matters. In ten years or less, we will be bankrupt. The economy will be in ruins, we will retreat from the world, and our role as a global power will be extinguished.

When it comes to Nuclear Disarmament: Obama can't compete with Bush

Few will remember the Moscow Treaty, negotiated around 2002. At the time, the United States and Russia had about 6000-7000 deployed operational nuclear warheads. The treaty, negotiated between Bush and Putin required that both countries reduce the number of deployed, operational warheads to about 2200-2600 warheads.

Liberals and main-stream media did not talk about it, and when they did, they argued it was pointless considering Russia could take the warheads offline and put them in reserve, then just bring them back up to operational status if necessary. Bush could do the same. It did not require actual dismantling of weapons.

Well Bush went farther. He not only lowered the number of US operational warheads from 6000 to 2200, he also ordered the reserve warheads dismantled and eliminated. Wow, this from a President that was such a warmongeror!!!!

What does Obama accomplish this week? He will lower the number of US operational warheads from 2200 to 1500-1600. Wow, and the media and others all think this is such a ground-breaking agreement. Bush lowers our operational force by over 4000 warheads, Obama gets rid of 600. Bush gets Putin to reduce his operational force by 4000-5000 warheads. Obama is getting 600. Wow. What would we do about Russia if it weren't for Obama. We were on the path to confrontation clearly under that madman Bush.

Why is it that the most assertive and "warmongering" Presidents get the greatest results in terms of peace and disarmament? Reagan's election saw the release of hostages from Iran, and he placed tremendous pressure on the Soviet Union. His VP continued that pressure and we saw the end of the Soviet Union and the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

Under Clinton, India and Pakistan become nuclear powers. North Korea gets the uranium necessary to build their first nuclear weapon.

Under Carter, our ally, the Shah, fell and a radical fundamentalist regime took over. The new regime took hostages that Carter could not get released in over a year. Under Kennedy, the Soviet Union decides to put nuclear missiles in Cuba after meeting the man. Granted, Kennedy did a superb job in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, but we got their because the Soviets perceived weakness.

A pattern has emerged. The main-strem media, as well as the liberal establishment knows nothing about actual disarmament and maintaining international peace.

President Obama has done nothing but take a teaspoon out of the bucket, while Bush almost empties it completely during his term. I did not know this until I read about it in the Weekly Standard. It is just more evidence that we need to go beyond the headlines to learn the truth.

Obama backs U.S. away from Israel: what it could mean

Obama's recent remarks and actions suggest the United States is trying to put some distance between itself and Israel in terms of their relationship. This is almost unprecedented. Obama, thus far, is the least friendly American President to Israel since Carter, a borderline anti-semite. Prime Minister Netanyahu returned to Israel and convened the Cabinet to figure out what to make of all this.

Imagine you are Prime Minister Netanyahu. You are the head of the Likud Party, the more nationalist and assertive party while your opposition is the more dovish and prefers a soft-handed approach. You got to power because of your record on security and tough rhetoric. You have been rebuffed by the American President, your closest ally and the most important foreign policy item. You have returned with no agreement, a behind closed doors meeting, which is a humiliation. To not have a public talk or a press conference alongside the American President demonstrates that Israel is no longer considered the close ally of the United States.

The settlements in Jerusalem is a central part of your domestic policy. There is no compromise on that, you cannot back down. Your own party would fire you if you agreed to Obama's demands that settlements stop being built in East Jersualem, your capital. So what do you do?

Israelis are upset there is no agreement. They are starting to question your abilities. Politically you have been weakened by this. What to do...How can a hawkish Prime Minister regain the support and respect of his people? Hmmm...

Netanyahu does not agree with Obama and politically cannot backdown on the settlement question. Netanyahu has to feel he cannot trust the United States to back Israel on any issue, in particular security. He has to think that it is likely that Israel may have to face security threats in the future alone, without US support and even face possible sanctions from the UN. The U.S. will not stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, they can't even get sanctions. Iran will have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb and they have the missile technology to deliver. They have been talking about wiping Israel off the map for years.

You are a hawkish prime minister in need of some momentum and positive results, you could strike Iran first. No one else is going to stop Iran. the UN, the US, Russia or China. You know they want weapons and you know they are close, you cannot tolerate that. You must strike. It will cause international uproar and may lead to condemnation from President Obama and the US. But the US is no longer a reliable ally anyway...

You could try to persuade Obama and work with them to get the US back on your side. It didn't work this time but you could try again. That would be quite humbling considering how the last meeting went. He has nothing he can offer Obama and the US to get them back on his side. Is there a middle road? No. Obama and Netanyahu clearly are not on the same page and the likelihood of working together is low right now.

Netanyahu has to ask himself, does he have much to lose by striking Iran pre-emptively? Relations with US are already chilly, the Europeans and most of the UN doesn't like what Israel is doing now, Iran could strike back. That is really the only issue, if the strike succeeds can Israel defend itself from Iran. The U.S. would have to step in to avert a war. Wouldn't they?

That is what is likely being discussed. What happens after the initial strike? Can Israel do what it has done in Iraq and Syria? A quick strike, then back away. War did not erupt when Israel struck the nuclear facilities of those two countries. Will Iran be any different. Guessing from their crazy rhetoric, yes.

Iran will try to aggressively arm its proxy groups (Hezbollah and Hamas) but in the end they can't destroy Israel through conventional means. Is Netanyahu, a hawkish Prime Minister, willing to do something that could erupt an open and intense conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah, maybe even Iran itself? What will their neighbors do? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. They may condemn the attack but privately, will be happy to see their Iranian nuke program destroyed or at least set back. Syria could be the lone problem. But Israel bombed Syria a year or two ago and now is negotiating a peace treaty with them to settle the Golan Heights dispute. Would an Iran strike kill that? Would Syria honor their alliance and fight Israel over this?

My thoughts? A rift has been steadily growing between Syria and Iran. Syria appears more willing to join the more moderate Middle East and the more Sunni. In Iraq, Syria and Iran are on opposite sides of the political developments there. Odds of Syria declaring war or joining Iran? Moderate to low. Odds of Iran invading Israel? Very low. Odds of a war with Hamas and Hezbollah? Very high. Would Netanyahu, a hawkish leader with his strength in security, be willing to start a war to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? The answer is yes.

In my mind, Netanyahu would have to argue that unless the United States can end the Iranian nuclear weapons program and allow him to use it as a morale booster, he will need to move soon on his own. A strike on Iran is becoming a more practical option for him. This spat with Obama has only increased its practicality.

Obama's desire to pull the U.S. away from the Middle East will leave the countries in that region to solve their own security problems. Their solutions are not as nice and peaceful as ours. By pulling back, Obama is potentially encouraging countries in that region to act unilaterally to protect themselves. Not a good idea.

Tipping Point - A majority faction has gone too far

The events of the last couple months ought to give us pause. We have leaders that demand that members of Congress vote on a bill before they can read it, they freely admit they make the rules up in the House as they go along, they believe they can "deem" a bill passed, they believe an executive order can change current federal law, they do all this with no regard for the minority party in the Congress or the majority of the people in the country.

There are those within the democratic party that claimed that life was sacred at the moment of conception and that no federal funds should be used to fund abortion, and yet they vote for the bill. The lie is exposed. There is no such thing as a pro-life democrat. There is no such thing as a democrat with principles. Anything that furthers the power and influence of themselves and their party is a worthy endeavor.

We have a new massive program added, with only half of it paid for with higher taxes the rest on fictional Medicare cuts. As history has taught us, it will likely cost much much more. As basic social science teaches us, it will not lower premiums, will not improve care, and won't lower the deficit.

Democrats are far more than simply too far left for the country, they have intentionally ignored the U.S. Constitution. President Obama, Pelosi, and Reid care very little for this country, the apologize for it throughout the world, they criticize its people, its businesses, its habits, and even the manner in which they talk about public issues. And what disgusts me is that the University of Chicago paid Barack Hussein Obama to teach Constitutional Law to law students. And conservatives are just paranoid of liberal universities and faculty? Hardly. Obama's regard for the Constitution is just above the scribbles on a notepad. But what makes it more clear, is that: if the United States was such a great country, and the Constitution such a perfect political charter, why has such transformational changes, ground-shaking reforms, and outright defiance of the Constitution been required for what is a PUBLIC SUBSIDY!

We are not talking about an existential threat to the country, it is not slavery, it is not war, it is not political oppression or tyranny. We are not talking about women's suffrage, conscription, Prohibition, or social security. We are talking about paying for 31 million people to get Health Insurance. Not healthcare, health insurance. We are mandating that Americans buy health insurance, whether they like it or not. It is a taking. It is a perversion of the Commerce Clause authority. It stretches the hand of the central government farther than it has ever been stretched before. Every one of our Founding Fathers would be outraged by the events of the last couple months. They would be standing outside the Capitol Building with actual pitch forks, ready to tar and feather Pelosi, Hoyer, or Stupak.

And yet they applaud inside. They know these things, they are not stupid. They just don't care. The Constitution is a dusty old document with only marginal relevance. Power, control, and dependence is what they want. It has been done numerous times in the world. the fact that there is no Gestapo does not make it any less true. No tyrant freely admits he intends to oppress the people before he does so.

You want proof of their lack of care, look at the poor African American communities in Chicago, Detroit, or Philadelphia. For decades, they have been run by liberal democrats cut from the same cloth as Obama and Pelosi. And today, they are poor, in some cases poorer, they still live in what we call ghettos, and they still march and demand this and that from an unfair country. Socialism does not work. The democratic model does not work. We know this and we have known this for a while. But we just feel so damn cruel and guilty for not supporting these wasteful, ineffective, and ambitious social programs.

Well, read Federalist #10. The majority faction has been more than happy to overrun the minority here in order to get their way. They care little for process or rules. They expand their power and authority over all at the expense of all. But as long as you are within their dependent patronage armies, you will get taken care of. As the country slowly descends into economic ruin as did Argentina, Japan, and others have before us, we will all slowly become more miserable, hopeless, and weak.

That is our future under this President and this Congress. Unless they are defeated and their efforts repealed, our country will see its fall in 5-10 years rather than a few decades.

What to do about Obamacare

1. Repeal it
This is extremely difficult and historically not likely. To repeal, the plan would have to pass the House and the Senate (with 60 votes). Even if Republicans regain the House in 2010, they will not have control of the Senate until at least 2012. Even then, they are 19 seats away from controlling 60 seats. The odds of a democrat joining with Republicans to repeal it is nil. We would need 19 Senate wins, control of the House, and we must defeat Obama in 2012. A very tall order.

2. Legal challenges
Numerous states are going to try this. I don't know if this will go anywhere. Some of the most heinous provisions may be defeated but Obamacare as a whole will survive legal challenges.

What about the 2010 election?
If Republicans campaign on repealing Obamacare, it will score points in conservative districts and states. About 25-30 of the competitive House races would qualify along with 2 Senate races. Not enough really considering Republicans were probably going to win almost all of these races anyway. It might be a rallying cry to mobilize conservatives and Tea Partiers in many swing districts if they are not mobilized already. However, as a campaign issue, I don't think it helps in swing district.

Also, I am doubting how wise it would be to keep rehashing our defeat on Healthcare. What about the focus on Jobs this year? Unemployment? The lack of stock market movement in the last 6 months? How about Iran?

There are plenty of things to strike at Obama and Democrats with. The country is probably sick of Healthcare talk. Now that it is passed, I think many political junkies (myself included) will be glad to see it go. If anything, Republicans should slam Obama on the economy relentlessly for the next six months.

Was it Obama's Gettysburg? Well we would have to re-write history. In this case, Pickett's Charge succeeded and Obama now controls the high ground over Gettysburg. The Union Army will have to retreat and lick its wounds, but it was not destroyed. It must replenish itself and regain its composure and focus. Lee's Army (Obama), even with this victory, has completely worn itself out. It won the day but at what cost? Can Obama push through any other part of his agenda? No. Will it help him with a second term? Highly doubtful. Will it save Democrats from big losses in November? No, the best they can hope for is a wash on the issue in November.

What is the Democratic Strategy?
The Democrats will do everything they can to mitigate their losses in November. If they come out with majorities in both chambers, it will be a small victory for them. They will use 2010-2012 to pursue more popular policies and be more responsive to public opinion. That way, this rough term will be forgotten and the Republicans would be hard-pressed to make gains two elections in a row. Obama will have a legitimate shot ata second term, and Republicans would have to fight hard to retake either chamber.

If Democrats maintain majorities in both chambers in 2010, I think Obama can claim the first two years were a success in some measure. Rather than the disaster at Gettysburg, Obama could claim a draw and try for more small-scale operations from this point on. In the end, he got his Healthcare Reform.

If Republicans want to avoid this trek, they need to retake the House in November. That means that it has to be about more than just repealing Healthcare, there are plenty of issues to slam Democrats on. They cannot remain fixated on this battle, they need to move on and look for opportunities to counterattack Lee's weak Army (Obama). Boehner as a strategist is thoroughly unimpressive. McConnell has shown a bit more ability but not much. Steele is outright incompetent. The Union Army will have to find victory through the strength and energy of its soldiers (grassroots campaign) not its generals.