Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Iran Helps Obama Get Relected?

Iran in is in the process of helping Obama get re-elected, and Obama is trying to manage world events to make sure that this come to pass.

At the moment, the Middle East is set to explode. 

Most of the governments are in the hands of radical Islamists.  They are unstable, aggressive, and aligned against American and Israel.

When this tinderbox explodes it will send oil prices through the roof, crashing the US economy, create an international crisis and potentially, a world war.  This will be a huge factor in the upcoming election, and it will either help or hurt Obama depending on how it all gets started. 

If Obama looks inept, indecisive, or weak, he is finished.  If he fails to support Israel or if Israel suffers huge losses, the Jewish vote will abandon him, and he is finished.  If he initiates aggressive military action he will anger the Occupy part of his base, and he is finished. If an oil shock sinks the economy he is finished.

He needs to look strong and decisive.  He needs Americans to unite behind a war-time President.  He needs the oil shock and the war to be someone else's fault, and he needs someone else to start the war. 

Most of the scenarios play out with Obama getting booted out of office.  Only one plays out in his favor:

Obama launches pre-emptive strike:  Obama authorizes a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.  The Iranians try to close the Straight of Hormuz, and oil prices skyrocket.  The anti-nuke strike is only partially successful, requiring additional hostilities to destroy more facilities and keep shipping lanes open.  Russia gets antsy, threatening war.  Iran attempts to widen the war by attacking Israel.  Pro-Islamist goverments throughout the Middle East attack Americans or stage massive demonstrations. The UN announces sanctions against the US.  The American people support the strike, but are dismayed by world reactions and $15 per gallon gasoline.  Obama loses in November.

Israel Launches a Pre-Emptive strike:  Israel launches a pre-emptive strike.  US forces detect the strike, but to not interfere or assist.   The Iranians attempt to close the Straight of Hormuz, and oil prices skyrocket.  The strike is only partially successful, requiring additional hostilities to destroy more facilities and keep shipping lanes open.  Iran attempts to widen the war by attacking the US forces in the gulf.  Pro-Islamist goverments thoughout the Middle East attack Israel or stage massive demonstrations. Russia gets antsy, threatening war.  The UN announces sanctions against the Israel and Obama must choose to veto and support Israel, or pass the measure and alienate the Arab world.  The American people support the strike, but are dismayed by world reactions and $15 per gallon gasoline.  The American Jews are angry at Obama, the economy collapses, Obama looks weak, and he loses in November.

The Iranian - Israeli conflcit is about to become important to Obama
Iran attacks Israel or closes the Gulf:  The Iranians make good on their threats and attack Israel.  The Iranians close the Straight of Hormuz, and oil prices skyrocket.  US forces retaliate, clearing the shipping lanes and defending peace.  Hostilities continue.   Pro-Islamist goverments thoughout the Middle East attack the US or Israel or stage massive demonstrations. The UN announces sanctions against the Iran and praises Obama for defending the world. The American people are dismayed by $15 per gallon gasoline but blame the Iranians, not Obama.  The American Jews are delighted with Obama, the economy is bad but people view it with war time stoicism, Obama looks strong and he wins in a landslide in November.

Since Obama will never attack first, the only two scenarios in play are Iranian or Israeli aggression. It is imperative to Obama, therefore, that Israel be prevented from striking first. 

As you watch this develop over the next few months, watch how Obama makes it clear to Israel that we are not their friend and that we will not support them in the event of a first strike.  In fact, I predict that the US will leak intelligence that we have detected Israeli preparations and training for such a strike in an effort to dissuade the Israelis. 

Obama is not stupid.  He knows that if Israel attacks he is screwed.  Obama will betray and sabotage the Israelis at any cost.

Also watch for demonstrations of weakness or appeasement to the mullahs in Iran.  He needs them to think that we will not be aggressive in response to an attack.   We can expect Obama to do everything he can to invite a strike by Iran.

UN out of the US!

The UN is charged with ending war, supporting human rights, enforcing treaties, and promoting social progress.  It is hard to do that when you were educated at Patrice Lumumba University and live in the Bronx.  Their appointed ambassadors never do anything, and they constantly work against the United State and support our enemies.  The United Nations is a bloated, anti-American, anti-freedom mess.

The UN staffers are burdened by working in the best place in the world trying to grasp the issues that affect the worst places in the world. This is too difficult.  They need to be closer to the problems they are trying to solve.  Otherwise, they see the US as the problem, an work against our interests.

It attracts thousands of eager bureaucrats from the myriad Third World hell holes to work and live in New York.  Naturally, they never want to leave.  They get very used to the levels of luxury that only a free capitalist country can provide. 

New York provides a standard of living that is unattainable back in their socialist, tribal homeland, so naturally they go to work each day with the intention of destroying the United States.

I think the people at the UN have lost their perspective and their sense of urgency.

I have a solution:  Move them out of New York

UN headquarters should be moved from the best place in the world to the worst place in the world.  I nominate Zaire, but, really, any country in the bottom of the Heritage Foundations rankings would be just fine.

Spend a few hundred million building the roads, power grid, and other infrastructure required to house the UN.  Make the staffers live in the hellish conditions where there is no rule of law or basic sanitation. Let them live much closer to the real problems in the world.

Once you build the buildings, bars and restaurants, dry cleaners, taxis, and other services will quickly follow.  It will create a pool of capitalism in a despotic swamp. 

It should not take the UN staffers too long to grasp the fact that liberty, property rights, and the rule of law are the basic building blocks of prosperity.

It will be instructive to see how quickly things get cleaned up in the new host country.  A new found appreciation for the rule of law might do the UN some good, and it will certainly do Zaire some good.

Watch as bureaucrats suddenly decide that 20 years at the UN is enough, and that they should return home to help build their own countries.  This is a win for the member countries, who now see their brightest students disappear into the maw of the UN, never to return.

The UN would remain headquartered in the new host country for 10 years.  Then the General Assembly would move to the next country on the list.

Repeating this over the next 50 years will do more good for the world than the UN has done in the last 50 years.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Wrong Answer, Rick!

Rick Santorum demonstrated over the weekend why he will lose in a general election against Obama.

In response to questions on Face the Nation he announced his opposition to amniocentesis:

GOP presidential candidate and former senator Rick Santorum sharply criticized President Obama’s health-care law again Sunday for requiring health-insurance companies to cover certain prenatal tests, because some procedures are used to identify abnormalities and “encourage abortions.”

“The bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions” said Santorum.

This is the wrong reason for the right answer.

Santorum is opposed to this particular government intrusion into our privacy because he doesn't like the results.  He apparently support the intrusions that have outcomes he likes.  

This is no different than Obama, or any other big government statist. 

In an argument over which form of government oppression is more palatable, Republicans will lose.  Democrats have already staked out the emotionally appealing easy positions.  Santorum is conceding that the government has the power to make amniocentesis mandatory.  He just disagrees with the outcome, so he wants to exclude that particular procedure.

Americans should be opposed to mandatory amniocentesis coverage on the grounds that it is a GROSS violation of privacy and is not permitted under the Constitution.

A proper statement would be as follows:

Obamacare mandates every single aspect of your relationship with your doctor and your insurance company.  As an example, it demands that all insurance companies cover amniocentesis for free. This is un-Constitutional.  The Federal government has no power to regulate the relationship between you and your doctor. This is an issue of Freedom, and as your President, I will restore your freedom seek medical care as you see fit, without the Federal government dictating every procedure and test.

Instead, he is arguing that the ends (more abortions) are not justified, so he does not like the means (testing).

I am personally opposed to amniocentesis and declined the procedure when it was offered to me. This is a personal issue, and Rick should keep it that way.

This is a dead end philosophically, and a huge trap that will sink him faster than the Titanic.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Recess Appointments Palooza!

Executive appointments are once again in the news. 

This was once a relatively orderly and legal process that has descended in to anarchy.  And it is entirely the fault of the Democrats.

It started with the treatment of Bork when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, and has gone down hill since that time.

The Democrats refuse to bring any nominee to a vote when the Republicans are in power.  During the Bush administration there was a back log of several hundred appointments.

When the Republicans held the Senate they began to return the favor, blocking review of Democratic nominees.

But here we have something entirely new.

A Democratic president is being blocked by a Democratic Senate.  For the first two years of the Obama presidency, the Democrats had a super majority in the Senate, and could nominate and approve anyone they wanted.  Republicans could not stop them.

Democrats lost the super majority after the 2010 elections, but they still retain control of the Senate.  He is whining that there are some 90 nominees that have not been voted on in the Senate that he controls.

If Harry Reid wanted to schedule votes on these nominees he could.  But he has not.

Democrat Nominees are being blocked by hyper-partisan Harry

Why?  I am guessing that the nominees are so radical or unfit that he cannot get the 50 votes he needs from his own party.  Democrat Senators facing re-election know that they cannot go on record having voted for radicals, communists, and other fellow travelers.  They will get bounced out of office in their state elections.

So we now have the Democratic Senate declining to vote on Democrat nominees and placing the blame on Republicans. 

Harry has now gone so far as to call for Obama to make recess appointments of these nominees.  This is clearly dereliction of his Constitutional duties.  It is crystal clear in the document that the Senate has the power and the DUTY to perform this function.

Harry Reid should be impeached for this.

I will again call for a Constitutional Amendment to address this issue.

I proposed the following changes:

The Senate must vote on every executive appointment within 90 days. Failure to hold vote will be considered dereliction of duty, and will result in the automatic impeachment of all Senators of the party that control the Senate at that time.  Special elections will be held to fill these seats.

All recess appointments shall be subject to Senate confirmation within 30 days of congress being convened.  All officers appointed during a recess shall not remain in that office for more than 120 days.

This will return the process to the balance of power envisioned by the Constitution.

My previous post on this topic:


Thursday, February 16, 2012

Unilateral Disarmament too Risky.... for his Campaign

President Obama made two interesting announcements this week.

They are unrelated, but provide an interesting perspective on the priorities of the man charged with protecting and defending this nation.

After many direct criticisms of Super Pacs, including negative remarks during the State of the Union address, Obama has changed his mind and is now forming a Super Pac of his own. This is seen as a way to increase the amount of funds available to him to ensure his re-election.  When he was asked about the flip flop on this issue, USA TOday reported the following:

“We’ve got some of these (Republican) super PACs that have pledged to spend up to half a billion dollars to try to buy this election,” Obama said yesterday in an interview with WBTV, the CBS affiliate in Charlotte, N.C.  “And what I’ve said consistently is, we’re not going to just unilaterally disarm.”

He also announced this week that his administration plans to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 80%.  They plan to do this without seeking corresponding reductions from our enemies. In other words, they are unilaterally disarming our nuclear deterrence capabilities.

So now we see President Obama's priorities. 

His re-election bid is so critical a battle that he cannot risk unilateral disarmament.  

But the survival of our nation in a world awash in hostile powers and nuclear weapons, well, there we can unilaterally disarm with no concerns. 

General Welfare Indeed!

The current argle bargle over free contraceptives under Obamacare raises some interesting Constitutional issues.

General Welfare in Pill Form!

I am not referring to the obvious infringements on the First Amendment freedoms.  Rather, I am wondering how the Federal government is authorized to demand or provide free contraceptives in the first place.

The prevailing logic at the Supreme Court is that free contraceptives are authorized under the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution.

This is where, in the Preamble and Taxing and Spending clause, the founders revealed their true intentions to grant the Federal Government unlimited powers, thus invalidating every other part of the document that keeps referring to limited powers.

Some critics have scoffed at the idea that this falls under the general welfare clause, but, if you think about it, free contraceptives are just about as close to 'providing for the general welfare' as you can get.

Other freebies from the Feds only help the person who gets the cash.  Food Stamps, HUD, WIC, etc, provide direct benefits with little or no benefit to the general welfare.

But free contraceptives are different.  They do directly benefit the general welfare.

Now millions of women are free to have no-strings-attached sex with little downside or the need for a long term commitment.

This not only benefits those women, but every un-attached male in the land.

General Welfare indeed!

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Bill Whittle for President

I have been looking around the web for voices of reason, people who can effectively communicate the vision of america that Ronald Reagan was able to evoke in the hearts of americans.

I have found such a man.

Bill Whittle.

In addition to his work at Declaration Entertainment, Pajamas Media,  and his YouTube channel, he spoke at Mike Munzing's Conservative Happy Hour.  (http://ww.munzingfor2012.com/)

I could tell you how fabulous Bill is at capturing the essence of our current challenges, but....

I will let him speak for himself:

Part 1: Our Progressive Nightmare

Part 2: The Conservative Solution

Part 2: The Conservative Solution

Waterloo for Catholics

The Obama administration is forcing religious affiliated institutions to provide free abortions and contraceptives to all employees as a part of their mandated health plans. 

The Catholic Bishops are objecting, claiming this infringes on the free exercise of religion.

The Obama administration claims that women's health matters more than religious freedom, and that free contraceptives are the cornerstone of women's health.

I have several thoughts on this:

He who dines with the Devil should bring a long spoon:  The Catholic church has been a supporter of and willing accomplice to the leftist agenda for 50 years.  When the Democrats started building the welfare state the Catholic church went right along with it, calling it 'charity', and proclaiming it to be the moral thing to do.  When Obamacare was being debated the church came out and supported it, again under the auspice of Christian charity.  Well now they are hoist on their own petard.  The Left is not a friend of religion, and only regards the Catholic church as useful idiots.  Now that they are no longer needed, the Church will be attacked and destroyed. 

Free Lunches are the key to a socialized future:  Obamacare is the Trojan horse for socialized medicine and a single payer system.  Once the nation has such a system, freedom and liberty are doomed.  But people will not give up Liberty for nothing.  They must be bought off with baubles and trinkets.  The 'free' goodies in the early years of Obamacare are the key to locking this system in place forever.  Once women get used to the idea that free contraceptives are a god given right, it will be impossible to repeal the health care law.  Obama is fighting hard for this because he knows that once people start getting free stuff, they will sell their souls to keep the swag flowing.

Ex-communication is under rated:  The Pope should immediately excommunicate the politicians who passed this bill or support this law.  A Catholic can, as an individual, go astray from the teachings of the Church without being removed from the church. If we could not, well, there would be a lot fewer Catholics.  But there is a huge difference between personal sin and passing laws forcing other people to sin.  People who use government power to force people to commit sins are agents of the devil, and as such, should not be allowed to call themselves Catholic.   The Pope should give notice that any politician casting a vote that forces Catholics to violate the teachings of the Church will be removed from the Church.  The Democrats can advance their evil plans, but they should not be able to claim they are Catholics while doing it.

Waterloo for Catholics:  This crisis will be a defining moment for the future of the Catholic Church in the United States.  If the Church takes a firm stand and wins, it will energize the laity and reshape the political landscape.  If it loses, however, it will mark then end of the Church as an influence in American life.  If the Church cannot defend it's teachings in such an obvious and important area, it is doomed to the shadows of ineffectiveness. 

All of this will turn on one simple question: will Catholic women side with the teachings of their faith, or will they deny the Church and line up for free goodies from Obama?   At this point I am betting on the filthy lucre.