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.

The undemocratic democratic Party

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2010/03/hoyer_process_only_interesting_to_us.html

According to Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, Americans don't care about the process only results. He used his own phrasing of course but that his the essence of his statement. And it is probably the most undemocratic and un-American sentiment that one can have.

Consider this, the Founding Fathers had difficulty agreeing on a Constitution because of PROCESS. They weren't arguing about policy, they were arguing about process! Taxation without representation? Well that is a process problem. Detaining foreign combatants without Miranda or bringing charges? That's process. When Hoyer states that Americans don't care about process he is completely wrong.

James Madison and others worked so hard on the process the Constitution would set up for lawmaking in Congress. They knew that the deliberate process would be slow and would be frustrating and cumbersome at times, but that was their intent. In fact, they stated the very opposing position of Hoyer, the process is MORE IMPORTANT! Obviously they wanted an effective process that made the country free, prosperous, and secure and therefore built the necessary energy and authority into it. It was a major departure from the Articles of Confederation in that way. So in effect, the energy and decisiveness is exactly where it was intended to be Mr. Hoyer. Current circumstances are completely irrelevant.

This is the attitude of American liberals. The Constitution is a "living document" and must evolve with the times because things are different now, we are different people and this is a different world. It must be made more flexible and more amenable to the results the American people want. That is the argument. The Founding Fathers would disagree. Any flaws or weaknesses in the Constitution that make it ill-suited to the changing times, can be fixed through legal processes such as lawmaking or Constitutional Amendments. This would preserve the integrity and meaning of the Constitution without turning it into a relativistic document that means what it "needs to mean" for us to make progress. We did not end slavery, establish women's suffrage, establish equal protection, or lower the voting age through a Supreme Court decision or some legislative trick.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has been weakened since the 1930s. We even had a President expand the size of the Supreme Court to get HIS interpretation. This more flexible interpretation of the Constitution has led to a power grab by the federal government and a slow and gradual erosion of individual rights.

Ambitious tyrants and oppressive groups always make this argument. The Constitution, the law, or some group is getting in the way of progress and harming the country. We need a strong, centralized, and effective government unhindered by such processes. In fact, Madison addressed this in the Federalist Papers in #10. This is essentially tyranny by the majority. The esoteric processes, as Hoyer would describe them, protect minorities from the potential tyranny of a majority faction. In this case, the democratic party.

These procedures, rules, and Constitutional provisions do indeed make it a challenge to govern the country. And rightly so. That was its purpose. Instead of trying to side-step it, bitch about it, or outright violate it, the majority must work with the minority even when it dominates with such majorities in both Houses and control of the White House. The United States was not built on the theory that elections decide policy and that the loser must step aside. Far from it, elections just give one faction a momentary advantage, nothing more. And I think the moment of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is ending soon.

What is Leadership according to Taoism?

The very great leaders in their domains are only known to exist.
Those next best are beloved and praised.
The lesser are feared and despised.
Therefore when faith is insufficient and there is disbelief,
it is from high value placed on words.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 17

Why does government exist at all? Because men are not saints and therefore order must be established and maintained. Harmony cannot exist on its own where men are not saints. Without harmony there is no freedom, no prosperity, and no justice. When government is established how do we judge its greatness and effectiveness?

The Tao teaches that the greatest leaders are only known to exist. How could this possibly be??? In America, we are always learning in the news what our President is doing, what his positions are, how he proposes to change things, to make things better. If we don't, people ask "what is he doing?", "why isn't he doing something about this, or about that?", "he must be weak, incompetent, or simply does not care about the problems that plague society". And so we seek government where the President is beloved and praised. Everyday we take polls to learn how people feel about our President and what the think of the job he is doing. Everyday the President and his advisors take note of these polls as does everyone else serving in public office or in the bureaucracy. We gauge success or failure by use of approval ratings. It is because we place an overly high value on words.

What if the President did not have daily press briefings? What if he did not take interviews? What if the only speech you heard was the State of the Union? In the early days of the American republic, most people never heard the voice of the President, received publications of his speeches and words very rarely, in fact it was not known to the people what the President was doing unless he was declaring war, peace, signing a major piece of legislation, or nominating someone to a post. Otherwise it probably didn't matter. Was there anarchy? Were those Presidents irresponsible? Those Presidents were Washington thru FDR. FDR became the first to engage the people on a weekly basis, the first to be on television, and the first to be a constant in the lives of the people.

Taoism would caution modern society on its constant demands on the President, both in words and action. It would also caution our obsession and high value on words. So the question is do we buy this?

Imagine a society where the people do not really hear daily about their President or their Congress. They know who they are and periodically what they do but for the most part they only "know them to exist". How is this possible? First, the people would have to live where the actions of the federal government seldom affect their lives. Second, when there is cause for complaint, the people do not see the federal government as providing the solution. Perhaps a local magistrate or some private action would provide a more expedient resolution, whatever the case they don't look to central government. Third, the people are living peacefully and prosperously and see no problems requiring government interference. There will always be problems or issues, but no great injustice, no war, no violence, or no poverty that demands large scale action.

Today, liberals and many moderates do not see this kind of world. The federal government must serve an important role in the daily lives of the people. They are taught that are major problems with this country that require solutions. Things are wrong. There is poverty, social injustice, racial injustice, legal inequality, inadequate social services, global warming, and there are people out there that will take advantage of you if no one stops them. They are next taught that these are big and complicated problems that require big and complicated solutions that only the federal government can provide.

Conservatives have different beliefs. They resent the role the federal government has in their daily lives. They believe there are problems, some big, some small. But many, they believe, are exaggerated. They question the level of alarm that many have on the issues of the day. They are also highly suspicious of the required solutions. They feel they do not warrant big and complicated solutions and certainly do not think the federal government can provide those solutions. They feel the federal government is already in excess and that further action is not desirable in the least.

So how do conservatives convince others? One way is they debate the scale of these problems, which has been marginally effective at best. Most people believe these problems exist and are big. Another way is to argue the federal government cannot solve them. This has been more effective but there is an obvious question: then how do we solve them? Conservatives are not very good at answering this second question. Sure they have answers, but they have proven unpersuasive to others. Often the retort is that there are other ways but its not through the federal government. But people want clear solutions and clear details. They want words, they want something to praise. To them, conservative solutions just don't seem compassionate or "good". Their liberal education leaves them skeptical.

What about the Tea Parties? What you are seeing today is a massive rejection of the big and complicated solutions offered by the federal government. People do not believe it is the solution to these problems, but believe these problems do exist. Is that enough to get us back on track? No its not. Because the people are still looking for leadership and solutions they can praise. We are stuck in the middle rung of governance and need to get out. Until then, the defeat of liberal democrats on today's issues may provide conservatives a victory but it may be short-lived. It won't be long before the people give republicans another chance and if they cannot solve this puzzle, their reign will be short-lived as well.

I don't have a theory on the solution yet but am working on it.

Will Healthcare be Obama's Waterloo?

Republicans had often mentioned that if they can defeat Obama's Healthcare plan, it could be his Waterloo, they famous defeat of the mighty Napoleon. There was criticism in that the Republicans did not have the interests of the country in mind but only the political interest of destroying the new Democratic President. Republicans countered with criticisms of the Plan itself but by then realy it did not matter. This was all in the Summer and Fall of 2009 when the Town Halls and Tea Party were becoming louder and angrier.

As doubt rose as to the passage of the Healthcare Plan, Obama and the Democrats got two small victories. The first was in the House, when the more liberal and expansive plan was passed 220-215. The second was in the Senate, when a less expansive but still liberal plan was passed 60-40. In both cases not a single Republican voted for it (well one did in the House but won't the second time around) and again the criticism was they are just obstructing Obama in hopes of arguing in November that he has accomplished nothing.

It is now March 2010, and Healthcare is still being debated. Obama had plenty of issues to choose from in his first two years: foreign policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, unemployment, illegal immigration, energy, education, and Terrorism in general. It is probably fair to say he has spent maybe 15-20% of his time on foreign policy and all of it turned out to be a continuance of the Bush Plan and the McCain Proposal in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan. He has spent 10% on economy with his failed Stimulus Package, Financial Reform, Mortgage Aid, and Bailouts. He is now only beginning to indicate an interest in illegal immigration. Cap and Trade barely passed the House and is stalled in the Senate but Obama does not seem to care too much. He has failed to close Gitmo by his self-imposed deadline and in the end may try the suspects in military tribunals as intended by Bush and McCain.

But his focus for over 50% of the time has been the passing of Healthcare. Everything else has been waiting or moving very slowly through the Congress. Obama is pressing this as his prime priority. This will be the one issue of his first two years.

So really, it is not Republicans that have wanted to turn this into a Waterloo, it is the President himself that has doubled-down his bets and continued to trudge forward with Healthcare, raising the stakes with every day that passes. As his other agenda items collapse, this is the one he wants most. And it is looking more and more like it will fail in the House. This is similar to a general putting everything he has in a single attack, high-risk, high reward. It is not Waterloo, it "Pickett's Charge".

At Gettysburg, General Lee had fought to a stalemate with the Union Army after two days. His Army took heavy losses but was still mostly intact and potent. On the third day he decides to commit the last remaining "fresh" units in his army to an attack on the very center of the Union line, unorthodox and very risky. Rather than withdrawing and trying to find another place to fight or forcing the Yankees to defend DC, he wanted to fight at Gettysburg. He had already committed most of his army to the battle and had not obtained victory. He was now going to commit the last portion of it. The attack failed miserably. Lee's defeat permanently crippled the Army of Northern Virginia. It lost 29,000 troops including some of its most experienced and capable soldiers. It would never again have the strength to directly attack the Union Army.

The same is happening here. Obama has used up a lot of energy in his vast "political army". With dominating majorities in both chambers of Congress he has had the firepower but in every battle up to now, he has managed only stalemates or minor victories. Now, as the tide of the battle in Washington is quickly turning against the Democrats, rather than withdrawing or attempting a more modest attack to gain what they can, Obama is going to hurl himself and his party one more time against the Republicans at the exact same spot on the battlefield. It is risky. If he fails, his party will limp into November having accomplished only a failed Stimulus Package, unpopular bailouts, a still open Gitmo, and no progress on Healthcare, Immigration, or Energy.

I give Obama credit for putting it all on the line. He is not a coward or spineless. If the Healthcare Bill dies in the House, as I think it will, Obama's political capital will have been spent, he will have a far more hostile Congress after the November elections and will not be in a position to "attack" or push any of his agenda items for the remainder of the first term.

As in Gettysburg, the Union Army did not force Lee to attack them and in fact did not expect any attack at all. It was Lee who decided on his own to take the gamble. Here, Obama has made the decision to put this much time and energy on this healthcare plan. It will be his Gettysburg, his Pickett's Charge, should it fail.

Republican Strategy Session: how to win in November

Here is a possible strategy for the Republican Party going forward:

First, the GOP is still not popular and there is no getting around that. Despite the victories of Scott Brown, Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell, it should not be assumed that America is ready to go Red and are touting the party. Those elections were unique. First, Christie and McDonnell campaigned on local issues, not national. Although many of their ideas and the problems facing their state are applicable to the nation as a whole, it cannot be concluded that the rest of the country, particularly independents, are going to turnout in those numbers and vote so heavily on the side of Republicans. Not all Republicans are Scott Brown.

Realizing that we must now ask: Okay, they won't vote for Republicans just because their Republicans, how can we get out the vote? If you run as the opposition party, yes you will gain ground against an unpopular President and an unpopular Congress but it may not be enough. Usually when the national government is unpopular, turnout is pushed way low. That favors Republicans, as said before but we need to gain 39 seats in the House and 10 seats in the Senate. Being the "other party" is no guarantee of retaking either chamber.

Candidates must run personalized campaigns, not really as a Republican candidate, but a reform candidate and in many cases the conservative candidate, tailored to their personality and the personality of their district. Talking up the party is not helpful. So what do candidates talk about? Candidates need to learn as much as they can about the Tea Party, its principles, and what those people want. They also need to talk to other conservatives that regard themselves as independents and may not have voted in recent elections. Republicans are feeling good but we need to make conseratives feel good. About 40% of this country is conservative while only 27% is liberal. By reaching out to conservatives, particularly those that are unaffiliated with the Republican Party, candidates can tap into a voting block that has for the most part sat out elections over the past four years.

Okay, from the candidate's perspective, it is focus on grassroots, run conservative and run reform. What about the Party? Does the Party just keep quiet? Yes. The current Republican Party, the incumbents in Congress, and the leadership needs to shut up and prepare to step aside if necessary. We cannot allow ego or turf wars to thwart the growth of the party.

People do not like them and do not trust them. In particular: Michael Steele, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are not favorites of conservatives at all. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell invoke a collective yawn. They may be conservative but they do not inspire much enthusiasm. The Party establishment must keep quiet and let this conservative movement manifest itself without intervention in order to see it reach its full potential.

In some cases, the party bosses will see newly elected Congressmen and Senators that will probably not be their ideal choice. But for the good of the country, they need to let conservatives decide through primaries who will be the new generation of Republicans that will retake this country from socialists and radicals that don't care about the prosperity of this country and only take care of parochial interests among their small but loyal base.

Conservatives are not loyal partisans. If they were, Republicans would dominate year in and year out (like I said, conservatives 40%, liberals 27%). Conservatives will stay home and not vote at all if they think both parties are garbage. On the other side, liberals got REALLY excited about Obama and nearly all of them turned out to vote in 2008. That will not happen in 2010.

Who is the future of the Republican party? Who will be the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012? The odds are, we don't know them yet. I am beginning to think it will not be a familiar name.

Healthcare Predictions

The new Healthcare plan will fail to pass the House as is. The Abortion language will be put back in but will still come up short with only 205-210 voting in favor. The Senate will use reconciliation to use a compromised version of their own that will hopefully be more acceptable. It will pass maybe with 56-57 votes. But no Healthcare Reform in 2010.

President Obama will lash out at Republicans as obstructionists, insurance companies for buying off Congressmen, Tea Partiers for misstating his plan and fearmongering, and will also quietly criticize Pelosi and Reid. He will no longer campaign for either of them and will try to get new leadership in Congress.

He will be forced to move on to illegal immigration, cap and trade, and financial reform. Out of those three only financial reform will go through. The Summer and Fall will come and Obama will campaign full-time for Democrats, doing speeches and using his appeal to help keep a majority in the House. He will fail.

Iraq will continue to improve, Afghanistan will start to turn around slightly, Iran will probably have nuclear weapons - whether they admit it or not, and European Union will be in full catastrophe mode when Italy and Greece collapse financially. So really Obama's positives will be in foreign policy but he cannot acknowledge that and will not. Because they are succeeding because he adopted Bush's strategies.

The Democrats will thus be dealt a fatal blow. Unable to govern, incompetent, and clearly unconcerned with the will of the people, they will lose control of the House of Representatives due to a couple more retirements between now and November. Republicans will likely hit 219-222 seats, a slim majority. The Republicans will not regain the Senate but will get within 2-3 seats.

President Obama will then be forced to work with a Congress that is far less friendly.

This reform will fail in the House. The Democrats will self-destruct and it will have nothing to do with Republican dissent. I am hopeful that March will be a good month for the Conservative Movement and Republicans.

Political Considerations: Are Obama's misplaced?

There are reports that Obama is willing to shift the 9/11 conspirators from civilian courts back to military tribunals. It is also becoming clear that Gitmo will not be closed anytime soon. In this particular area, Obama is showing some regard for political realities and practicality. Trying these terrorists in civilian courts was a horrible idea and the closing of Gitmo on a specified date was just a stunt. Its not as easy as closing down a prison, the prisoners need to go somewhere and no solution had been found.

And yet, Obama has shown no willingness to compromise on Healthcare other than to sprinkle a couple Republican ideas on the giant behemoth he is proposing, and drop the public option. Why? Why is it that a legislative issue that is not a priority of the country and not a priority of the national government in general warrants such stubborness and uncompromising tactics? Why? Why is it so important to liberal democrats to pass Healthcare Reform as is without any compromise and yet an important issue of the rule of law and individual rights is open to it? I thought Obama was a former law professor.

Democrats started with a public option, which most of the country did not want. They then moved to a $1 trillion plan that would make Medicare cuts, add all sorts of new mandates, create price controls, and require the insuring of millions of people. From this point they have only reduced the size of the plan by bits and pieces to get a couple more votes.

Its clear that this Healthcare plan, which gives the federal government all sorts of new authority and necessity for new bureaucracy, is important to liberal democrats because of control and because they believe it will be good for the country. The evidence of its projected damage to the economy, the budget, and that it won't reduce costs clearly shows that the effectiveness of the plan is not important to them. Control is important. It gives them more levers to pull, more strings, and more "favors" they can do. They simply do not trust anyone to do this right other than themselves, the elite liberal aristocracy.

It should give us real pause that the President is willing to shift his principles on legal rights and Gitmo, but not on Healthcare, an issue that is far less based on ideological principle.

Opponents of the bill must stand firm and those on the fence be fully aware that a vote in favor of this plan will end their political career in November. I hope Republicans keep the heat up on this issue as well as the economy and jobs. There is a good chance if this passes that the Democrats will lose control of the House and the Senate.

U.S. needs to start teaching men to fish

The Proverb: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish. Feed him for a lifetime.

The U.S. does not seem to see the wisdom in this proverb. Today we hand out fish to people that need it because of a bank meltdown, layoffs, economic downturn or whatever. We extend unemployment benefits past six months, isn't that just handing out fish? We give tax credits to people who don't even pay federal taxes. We gave bailouts to automakers and banks. We gave bailouts to states so they could keep their public employee unions happy and keep those high quality pension systems intact.

And where are we now? Outta fish.

Here is the liberal democrat explanation: Some people have trouble fishing because of historical and cultural barriers, or that the Wall Street crisis is so severe that people are no longer be able to fish on their own and will starve without the government handing out fish for a couple years. Maybe some people just aren't good fishermen, and so we need to help them. Where does that lead us? According to studies there are more people dependent on the federal government than at any point in U.S. history. We are now supplying more fish to more people.

Why is it that as time passes and we have progressed in the modern era, we seem to have become steadily more incompetent as fishermen. Why is it that despite the breakthroughs in nutrition, exercise, vitamin supplements, and carcinogens that there are so many more of us with physical and psychological defects that make it difficult for us to fish. Has the modern era made us more incompetent?

The answer is no.

We have been slowly persuaded that this group needs extra help, that group needs help, that its only temporary and only a one time deal. But entitlement programs are never temporary and it seems that these bailouts are massive and come around every 6-10 years. Meanwhile the needy groups are weakened into a sense of utter dependency. They never learn to fish because they don't have to. But what happens when we run out of fish to handout?

Examples: Look at the southside of Chicago and other parts of the country where liberal policies are enacted and government handouts are distributed at amazing rates. How are those communities doing now? How has the southside done thanks to all the community organizing that Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama have done over the past few decades? They are exactly where they were decades ago because the democrats have sold them false hope. The income disparity remains, the education disparity, the high crime, and other problems remain.

We need to stop handing out fish. It does not work, it makes people dependent and in this world you will eventually have to fish for yourself. The United States must find ways to teach its citizens how to fish, not just hand out fish. We don't do that through entitlements, high taxes, bloated public service programs, bailouts, or stimulus. The government must help citizens become independent, teach them how to fish.

It most cases it is merely getting the hell out of the way. Let the people learn on their own or let them return to fishing rather than just going to the big G store. In other cases it might be lessons on fishing, providing lures, line, and poles. But in the end, they have to catch the fish.

Isn't Democracy Grand?

The Healthcare Bill is going to the House and many Democrats are rethinking their vote. They are in districts that are potentially competitive and they are well aware that this bill is unpopular and might cost them their job. There are about 15-20 Democrats that are probably already toast as a result of voting for the first healthcare plan in the House. They represent centrist or conservative districts that do not like the radical Obama agenda.

And make no mistake, it is radical, in its financial scale and its deviance from the Constitution. So is this sort of political self-preservation instinct something that should be celebrated? Particularly if it leads to the defeat of Obama's destructive agenda? We reach the issue of whether we want representatives that vote their conscience and their principles or we want representatives that vote according to the will of their constituents.

It is easy to slam politicians for "saying and doing whatever it takes to get elected". They vote for questionable bills and make backroom deals with other politicians in order to ensure their seat is protected, whether through special interest support, campaign contributions, or gaining porkbarrel projects for the home district. Some of this is indeed undemocratic and probably illegal, but another part of it is very democratic. A politician is a politician because he got elected by voters. He got elected because he is doing and saying what he thinks the people want. Is he not carrying out the will of the people? Isn't that what a representative government is?

It is not that simple, but lets not completely throw the spineless politician under the bus. Because in the end, we the voters seem to elect these people quite often.

It is really the great thing about a Republic. House members want to keep their jobs. But now they are aware that they will lose their job if they defy the will of their constituents. But their party wants them to ignore their constituents and vote "what is best for the country, even if its not popular". Well, there are certainly times when political courage and sacrifice are laudable, but not here.

Only socialists and statists really believe the Obamacare plan is for the greater good.

And Pelosi is not the principled ideologue that some may make her out to be. Pelosi's district has been gerrymandered to the point where essentially she selected her own constituency, and it is the one that gives her the most power and control as a Congresswoman and the Speaker. When public officials are able to define "niche" constituencies that are unrepresentative of the country as a whole, you don't have anyone that has the greater good in mind, only the good for their customized constituency. Its like a criminal defendant picking his own jury.

Those on the fence, the moderates, are there because they are not making decisions on principle. They are making decisions for the sake of self-preservation and the perceived will of their constituents. This type of Congressman is always the last to decide.

In this case, it just might be those sleazy spineless politicians that stop this Healthcare Bill because it is the will of the people. And they believe it will help them keep their job.

Thank them for blocking the Healthcare Bill. Then vote them out in 2010. At that time voters need to find out which candidates are simply the same type of spineless politician and which are principled individuals. It is not easy to tell the difference but it is our responsibility to try. Otherwise, we are culpable in the blunders of our representative government.

Who should run for President?

It is pretty obvious Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum want to run for President. People like Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal are probably strongly considering it as well. Some of these names I like more than others but I have a couple of suggestions.

What I look for in a Presidential Candidate
A record of reducing the size of government, cutting spending and other waste, leadership in times of crisis, political courage, and an ability to communicate clearly to not only conservatives but independents. A strong knowledge of foreign policy and economics is also preferable. I don't care about experience by itself, conservative credentials, endorsements, fundraising ability, geographical origin, gender, race, or hair color.

1. Mitch Daniels, Governor Indiana
Daniels cut spending during a period when almost every state was increasing its spending. He introduced a health savings account plan that has been shown to lower premiums, he cut property taxes as well as simplifying them. Finally, he brought a period of economic growth to Indiana just before the recession. He is conservative on economic and fiscal issues, a federalist, but also proven to be able to "get things done" rather than just spout out rhetoric. He is smart and well-spoken. The only negative is that he is on record of saying he doesn't want to run for President. He is also on record being a bit critical of the national Republican Party (a positive for me but not for the Republican Party that would nominate him).

2. Bobby Jindal, Governor Louisiana
Jindal doesn't quite have the list of fiscal accomplishments but has been a popular leader and more than capable of dealing with a rough situation down there. Replacing a fairly incompetent governor, Jindal has kept the state relatively stable. He is a true conservative as well, intelligent charismatic. On the negatives, his accomplishments are not long. He is young, perhaps too young. Finally, it is important he is able to stand up to the Party, which he has shown a reluctance to do at times. He needs to be tested a bit more perhaps. It could be that by 2011-2012 he will have completed a distinguished term as governor.

3. General David Petraeus, Commander of Central Command
The hero of Iraq and probably the best general we have, Petraeus also has a strong background in regular foreign policy and public policy. He has a masters from Princeton and can speak knowledgably on almost any subject. His ability to handle Congress in hearings shows his ability to communicate and to withstand criticism is very strong. He is adored by his men and his leadership is beyond question. However, Petraeus's real value would not be in the fiscal area, in my opinion. He is also an unknown, who knows how he would handle the political world. It is not like commanding troops in battle. He is still high on my list.

4. Mike Pence, Congressman Indiana
Another Hoosier, but this one has experience, votes conservatively year in and year out, and has been a more vocal member of the House Caucus. He is smart and charismatic as well. However, he has no record of leadership or accomplishment outside of the Congress and in fact even that record is a bit short. I am also pretty averse to legislators in general. He would be a fine choice but he has a bit of baggage more than likely since he served in Congress during the Bush years where there was more spending.

I am a huge fan of Paul Ryan (Rep. from Wisconsin), John Thune (Senator from South Dakota), and the new governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell. However, I would rather have those three where they are. The House Republicans need to start reforming themselves and putting in younger leadership. In my opinion Paul Ryan should become the new leader of the Republicans and hopefully the Speaker if they retake the House. The same for Thune in the Senate. We need great people in both chambers as well as a new President.

Romney, Huckabee, and Pawlenty are good men but they are fairly moderate. They speak too much to moderates and want to be loved by all. I don't think they have the political courage and leadership necessary. They also lack good track records of reducing spending or reducing the size of government. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, there is a shortage of female leaders. Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, and Kay Bailey Hutchison are excellent but none are really there yet in terms of accomplishment and leadership. They also have shown no ability to appeal to anyone other than their base.

Noticably missing from the list is Sarah Palin. Palin is VERY charismatic and adored by many, her policy expertise is steadily growing as well. However, she clearly has gaping holes in her knowledge and is inexperienced. 2-3 years as governor of the smallest state of the union is insufficient in my opinion. She clearly has political courage and leadership qualities but needs to build up the rest of the resume. She is young and will be a voice for conservatives for years to come. If she runs in 2016 or 2020 that would be excellent, but I think 2012 might not be the right election for her.

Others:
Newt Gingrich is too old and clearly wants to be on television more than anything else. Rick Santorum has no record of accomplishments and too overly focused on social issues, which are not relevant in 2010 and won't be in 2012. Scott Brown is a moderate so people need to stop pointing to his victory as a sign of things to come. Mike Huckabee is not qualified to be President.

Any thoughts? Additions?

Government of the Sages: An Intro to Taoist political philosophy

Not exalting cleverness causes the people not to contend,
Not putting prices on hard-to-get goods causes the people not to steal.
Not seeing anything to want causes the mind not to be confused.
Therefore, The government of the sages empties the mind and fills the middle, weakens ambition and strengthens the bones, always keeping the people innocent and passionless.
It makes the sophisticated not dare to contrive;
action being without contrivance, nothing is disordered.

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 3

The Tao Te Ching is the famous book of poems and sayings that represent the essential philosophical foundation of Taoism. This chapter in particular demonstrates one of the key principles of Taoist political theory. Some of the following is the interpretation of prominent Taoist experts, but some of it is also my own interpretation.

The prominent phrase is that the government of the sages "weakens ambition and strengthens the bones". One of the essential objectives of government is to weaken the ambition of its people, particularly the sophisticated (the clever, intelligent, etc.). Ideally, a state is governed so that the sophisticated have no means of feeding their ambition or satisfying their desire for power and influence. The phrase "strengthens the bones" balances the idea by showing that this is not to be done by disabling the people physically. Taoism does not promote the systematic repression of people for the sake of order and equality.

This principle was widely accepted by the Founding Fathers, although they probably were not aware of the Tao Te Ching and certainly did not express it in such poetic terms. The Founders wanted a system of government where it was made nearly impossible for aspiring tyrants to seize control and satisfy their ambitions. At the same time they devised a Bill of Rights protecting the people from the government's attempts to usurp power or crush the ambitions of the people through use of force. The U.S. Constitution is a grand attempt at weakening ambition while strengthening the bones.

Exalting cleverness is something that unfortunately American society is known for. In Greek times, public figures were often judged on their oratory skills or mastery of rhetoric. This type of cleverness or trickery was often rewarded with elected office. In modern times, we place such an emphasis on not just the oratory skills of public figures, but also physical appearance, voice, and symbolic gesture. The Presidential debates, public speeches, ribbon-cutting events, and other such practices are done because we value figures with such abilities of showmanship. It is something that Taoism abhors and for good reason.

President Obama was highly regarded early in the campaign for his rhetorical skills, good looks, great speeches, and beautiful family. The American people did not seem to place emphasis on his lack of legislative record, or lack of achievement in public service in general. In fact his small record of extreme leftist policy was intentionally ignored because he sounded like a reasonable man who would reach out to moderates and even conservatives. We simply did not want to believe that such an elegant and good looking guy could have the same beliefs as Rev. Wright, Mr. Ayers, or Karl Marx.

The "pricing of hard-to-get goods" is very relevant today. Government is not to control the market through creating demand, as well as controlling or pricing goods. The government is attempting to create value in certain the areas of healthcare, insurance, carbon allowances, and other areas essentially "creating value" and setting prices. The State should not have a role in the economy. In this case, Taoism is clearly in favor of a free market and the Founders were as well.

"Not seeing anything to want" refers to the actual ambition of the State itself and not necessarily one individual or a group of ministers. Today we see the federal government "wanting" more control. In areas of healthcare and cap and trade, the legislation does not actually achieve the state objective (the health plan has been shown to not lower cost or provide better care, cap and trade has been shown that it will not significantly affect carbon emissions). It is not about climate change or lowering the cost of healthcare, it is about control. With more control, and more levers to pull, the government has greater authority and thus public office provides for the ambitious. It is done without the usual visual indicators of ambition like a secret police, a big powerful paramilitary force, or a suspension of individual rights. It is more clever and very well-contrived.

In an ideal system, the State is organized and governed by the rule of law. The rule of law imposes restrictions such as separation of powers, federalism, and Constitutional prohibition on certain acts by the state. A sophisticated aspiring tyrant "dare not contrive" in most cases but not all. We must all be careful and vigilant when the ambitious are allowed to contrive and the sophisticated propose grand designs and promote them through cleverness and showmanship. Some may even try to confuse the meaning of the Constitution in order to move past its potent restrictions. In a State where the Constitution becomes relative, all things are possible for the clever and ambitious.

Sadly, I think we failed in 2008. I think the sophisticated have rallied behind a clever and highly exalted leader with grand ambitions. We must reverse course in 2010 and 2012 and began restoring the legal limitations on the State to "weaken ambition" and while also protect the prosperity and strength of the people "strengthen the bones".