I have been seeing and hearing conservatives screaming to high heaven that Barack Obama has “fired” the CEO of GM, Rick Wagoner… that the federal government has taken interventionism to a new level. We need to hold our horses for a second. The “firing” of the CEO was done by the market months ago, what the president “did” was make a symbolic move, albeit a wholly irrelevant symbolic move, in order to convince America that he was doing something about these failed companies and not simply handing them a blank check. Of course, the administration is handing them over a blank check, especially when you consider that the Wagoner’s replacement, Fritz Henderson, has worked at GM for 25 years and was the president and chief operating officer who stood alongside Wagoner during the whole crisis. In other words, nothing has really changed; the makeup of the GM leadership remains intact and I expect that the federal government will still find a way to hand over billions in taxpayer dollars to the company. John McCain said it best “Calling for GM CEO to resign is unprecedented window dressing. GM needs restructuring as part of pre-negotiated bankruptcy package.”

Next, as to the claims that the president “fired” the CEO, I demand this: show me the executive order forcing the CEO to step down. There is none. The administration asked the CEO of a company to step down in return for a better chance at receiving federal funds. Forget the fact that the CEO agreed to resign, the problem is that the government is going to be spending our money on a company that has been struggling to survive for years instead of letting the market run its course. To be clear, I’m not for laissez faire economics at this time because we’ve created a monster and we need to gradually step away from this mixed economy that has tipped towards socialism, but when conservatives kick and scream about the government “firing” the CEO, they are missing the larger point and are being a bit dishonest. The CEO resigned. With the irresistible incentive for companies to accept federal funds during this recession, the government can ask for almost anything they want and the companies in question will probably acquiesce. While I do agree that the state is becoming more powerful under this administration, we are not yet at a point where the president can simply rule by decree. With the liberal movement in full swing and the treasury’s printing presses set to maximum, it might be a reality sooner than later.

Now, why do I think that Wagoner should have resigned? Because billions of taxpayer dollars have already been burned on the auto industry and now they are asking for more. I doubt that they could have kept themselves afloat without the taxpayer bailout that Bush gave them and Obama supported, meaning that the market has already all but fired this CEO. Obama, in this case, happened to agree because it suited him politically. On the other hand, if the government were to bail out these companies, which I expect, then firing Wagoner makes no sense. So close to the finish line and we decide that they need to change horses? Obama didn’t really do GM a service by pressuring him to leave.

What GM needs to do is undergo restructuring under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, that would allow them to renegotiate union contracts and streamline. Of course, given the current crisis , the government should play a role to soften the blow, as I previously wrote. We just can’t become free marketeers overnight. Here is an article I just found from a site called Vox, which compiles “commentary from leading economists,” and outlines pretty much what I just said in more detail.

At the end of the day, the real unprecedented economic intervention is happening before our very eyes in the form of wealth redistribution, corporate socialism, and inflationary fiscal policy. Market or state, Wagoner’s days were already numbered.

-AG

Apparently, entering the seventh (season) year of operation, President Obama has made it his mission to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp… Al Qaeda (AQ) sympathizers around the world rejoice. What remains to be presented is a coherent plan. Where will they go? Mainland U.S.? Housed with general population at supermax prisons where they can indoctrinate and train run-of-the-mill murderers and turn them into AQ mercenaries or members? Back to their home countries?

The latest member to be kicked off the island is Ayman Saeed Abdullah Batarfi, a Yemeni doctor, who appeared in Afghanistan alongside AQ and/or Taliban fighters and is accused of treating wounded AQ terrorists, even meeting Osama bin Laden (OBL) on two separate occasions. Of course, this is not all proven yet, although he has confessed to being part of a group with ties to AQ and meeting OBL, though he was forced to help the AQ and was not a terrorist. In my opinion, the fact that he claims he was not a combatant does not mean that he is wholly innocent (in case he’s being truthful), since he was willingly part of an organization that helped AQ, which declared war on the United States. The Justice Department, though, has agreed to release him to an appropriate country (not to Yemen).

We should not be releasing possible terrorists or enemy participants in the Afghanistan war, especially those who helped AQ directly, without first putting them through some sort of trial. Not in a civilian U.S. court, but in a military court with rules that conform to international standards. The fact that we are releasing them shows the underlying difference between Al Qaeda’s strategy and the United States’. Al Qaeda emerges from a movement that wishes to expunge non-Muslim influences from the Muslim world. They don’t think it will happen today or tomorrow, they believe that the problem took a very long time to come into being and its solution will require a very long struggle. They will keep attacking until they feel that western-isms are in retreat. On the other hand, the United States generally is ignorant of this and has been lulled into a sense of complacency since AQ has not struck the US since 9-11. We seem to be playing checkers… probably because America is a young nation without the baggage of history fueling centuries-old conflicts or antagonisms. To help rid the world of this extremism, our strategy has to be more robust… it cannot be based merely on military engagement nor can it be based on retreat… nor can it be confined to one country. Bush had many things wrong but at least two things right: we must bring the fight to the enemy and Afghanistan is only one part of the problem. We cannot show the enemy that our resolve is weak and give them the impression that if they hold out for a few years we’ll release prisoners and withdraw from the Middle East. AQ will migrate, regroup, and strike again, especially if we repopulate their ranks with newly radicalized former Gitmo prisoners. We need to release the innocent and try the guilty. Already, the administration has dropped the charges against the USS Cole bombing suspect and stopped all court proceedings. This is not the way to hold terrorists accountable for their crimes against our people and humanity. Obama should take care not to keep treating our enemies with kid gloves… or we might just vote him off the island.

-AG

Fool me twice, shame on The Miami Herald…

As one of the few remaining readers of the Herald (newspapers… remember those?), I’m shocked when I read editorials like the one today about North Korea. Less than a week ago, I reviewed Bush’s policy and recommended that the Obama administration not fall for the North Koreans’ extortion demands like so many past administrations have. Today, the Miami Herald puts out an editorial that urges the current administration to follow in the footsteps of the failed policies of Clinton and Bush II (second term). Let’s review again. Clinton offered millions in aid in exchange for a halt to their nuclear program. Result: North Korea keep their program going in secret, using much of this money for their military. Enter Bush, at first saying that we would not give in to nuclear blackmail and that we would suspend giving them aid because of their secret nuclear program (which North Korea admitted to having in October 2002) only to later, in his second term, agree to a similar aid-for-nuclear-freeze agreement after the North tests its first mini-atomic bomb. Result: North Korea has not fully complied, arrested American journalists on charges of espionage, threatened to destroy S. Korea, and is now planning missile tests in violation of U.N. resolutions. Here is a pretty thorough chronology of events. So what does the Miami Herald suggest? That the “U.S. should offer high-level dialogue if missile test is halted,” in other words, continue to give in to threats no matter the cost, no matter how often we look like fools for trusting them. Ridiculous.

On the other hand, though continual appeasement may be ridiculous, it is the most likely course of action given the current administrations inexperience and kumbaya mentality. I equate this type of “high-level dialogue” with appeasement because every time we dialogue with this regime, the United States loses and North Korea gets another lease on life. This type of dialogue requires that we ask them to back down from their threats, which only validates the strategy of threatening the U.S. Dialogue with N. Korea must be based on U.S. interests and policy in the region, not based on blackmail. Neither should we keep handing over aid for empty promises. The type of agreements and diplomacy that the U.S. has engaged in has been detrimental to our national security and global security.

To read that we should continue this policy because they are a threat to peace only reinforces the idea that we are not ready to engage in high-level dialogue with these belligerent rogue states, especially the type of bilateral talks that Kim wants. Even the list of what the editor believes to be North Korea’s desires is naïve, at the least (except for one). Let’s go through them:

• Normalization of relations – the only way to justify totalitarian rule under terrible economic conditions is to create a constant state of existential fear (that the U.S. will wipe them all out), normalization would open the door for U.S. pressure to democratize and increase local unrest, not something that Kim Jong Il would like
• Economic aid – okay, yes they want this.
• Security Assurances - they already feel confident that they can keep demanding and demanding and we will simply agree to whatever they want because we’re afraid of war or afraid of missile strikes on Japan or afraid of the utter destruction of Seoul or afraid that they will pass on nuclear secrets/materials/weapons to enemies/terrorists… nukes are the only security assurance they need, American promises of security means nothing in comparison
• Peace treaty – see above, siege mentality is the lifeblood of the Juche ideology (self-reliance) that justifies the Kim dynasty

N. Korea has already said that it would consider any sanctions adopted by the U.N. in case of a missile test to be a provocation which would jeopardize current nuclear negotiations. More blackmail. The problem with our reflexively dualistic approach to policy towards N. Korea is that many think that it’s either confrontation or dialogue. Neither has worked alone and sadly, dialogue has been discredited by the last two administrations. It’s disheartening that The Miami Herald sounds like Kim Jong Il himself when it prints “when North Korea acts up, attention must be paid.” As the sole superpower (for now), America must pay attention to all matters in the world, not simply because North Korea commands the world’s undivided attention. One decent result of Obama’s inexperience in foreign policy has been to leave Kim crying in the corner for the last few months, but it’s time to take a tougher stand with this rogue state. It must be a nuanced approach that balances confrontation and dialogue…

The Miami Herald should not be recommending that we give in to this totalitarian regime… or maybe this was one of the stories they lifted from the Communist Cuban News Agency.

-AG

The administration reports that they will deny billions of dollars in bailout money to GM and Chrysler because their business plans were not convincing enough. The White House has set a deadline of 30 days for Chrysler and 60 days for GM to come up with better plans. At stake: $16.6 billion more for GM and $5 billion for Chrysler. The Treasury has already surrendered billions to these companies and is even offering Chrysler and Fiat S.p.A., an Italian auto company, $6 billion to conclude ongoing partnership negotiations before the deadline. While all of this might sound like the Obama administration is finally going to allow the market to dictate the life or death of companies in this country, in my opinion this is merely a game of multi-billion dollar chicken with taxpayer money (or just a plain old bluff). It’s all but certain that Obama will flinch. He can’t afford not to.

Imagine if you will a scenario where the White House says no to giving money to these companies. If we let GM fail, which employs around 325,000 people, the political, social, and economic ramifications would be terrible for the party in power, particularly the Democrats. With a GM bankruptcy we can expect to see massive layoffs, which will draw the ire of the once supportive United Auto Workers union and everyone in the state of Michigan. Sales would invariably crash. Suppliers and companies that depend on GM throughout the Midwest will be hurt and we may see a region that was trending Democratic fall into the Republican column for the next decade or more. Billions of dollars in pensions will be in jeopardy and the government will have to pick up some of that slack (or rather the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation), meaning that even if we don’t bail out the company, we will still be obligated to bail out the employees. And even then, their pensions will be significantly smaller. Stockholders will probably see their investments go up in smoke. Even the CEO, on March 17th, indicated that bankruptcy would mean liquidation of the company (here’s another good article). For Chrysler, we can expect similar problems. All in all, the far reaching consequences of letting them fail would be politically difficult to survive for the party in power… meaning that Obama will probably not let that happen.

What’s the upside of a bailout for the democrats? Pretty much everything they want: to exert more influence over private enterprise, help unions by softening the blow of the recession and retaining their benefits (business revenues go down but unions insist on keeping their benefits the same or disproportionately higher than other auto workers around the country), and use inflationary-politics to gain support (printing money to fund every liberal project they can). All of this as part of the Left’s war on free enterprise.

I would be surprised to see Obama follow through on his threat if in fact these companies do not submit substantially better plans. It’s a good move to hold the CEO of GM accountable and asking for his head, but this is not enough. In the long term, restructuring and streamlining of operations is the only thing that can help these companies. If we take a look at the business strategies of the Japanese automakers that have broken through the U.S. car market and hurt American automakers’ sales, we see that they were able to produce more fuel efficient cars, keep costs low, and mount effective marketing campaigns. The Obama administration should focus on making their restructuring and refocusing more orderly and have less of an impact on the market and the American economy rather than just handing out money like no tomorrow. Our children and grandchildren will thank us…

-AG

A famous general once said that “war is hell,” but many presidents have not truly meditated on this fact. Bush claimed to wrestle with his conscience over the issue of war, which he said he saw as necessary for the safety of the “homeland,” while at the same time sending American men and women into battle without adequate planning. To my conservative friends I say this: Bush mismanaged the Iraq war at the outset and the proof is in his tacit admission of failure when he fired Donald Rumsfeld, SecDef at the time, when he handed over command to Army General David Petraeus, and when he authorized the “surge” strategy. I scatter blame on the initial mismanagement on the Bush team proper, the Democratic Party, the anti-war movement, and the media.

• The Bush team deserves by far the most blame: did not plan for contingencies, did not secure the border, did not send enough troops, did not take steps to marginalize Iran (or at least get them to play ball), did not prepare enough to contain ethnic tensions, and most importantly, allowed Al-Qaeda to infiltrate Iraq. By any measure, Bush mismanaged the war. To his/their credit, they completely changed their strategy and started to win the war after 2006… far too late for my tastes since it discredited the idea of preemptive strikes (which may be necessary in cases where mass casualties would result, though America must be exceedingly careful in verifying the accuracy of its intelligence), it set up Iran as a more powerful regional player, and it diverted resources from securing Afghanistan for too long (we could have secured Iraq earlier and diverted troops to secure Afghanistan and helped Pakistan deal with Al-Qaeda/Taliban).

• The Democratic Party, instead of advocating a more sane strategy, pushed for complete withdrawal and kept insisting that the Iraq war was unnecessary. They played politics with the Iraq war rather than contributing to helping steer the war in the right direction. Democrat Senate Majority even declared that the “war is lost” . Democratic Senator John Kerry even insinuated that soldiers in Iraq were unintelligent and/or lazy, demonstrating the general lack of support for the brave men and women serving in Iraq. Constant talk of withdrawal at that time, when IED’s, suicide bombings, and guerrilla ambushes on American soldiers were routine occurrences, was tantamount to surrender. Of course after the surge, both parties and some of the media have finally admitted that there is definite progress in Iraq.

• The anti-war movement for being even more feverish in their support of unconditional withdrawal (aka surrender). They have the right to protest and express their opinion on how we should back down from the Iraq fight… but a dialogue on the best way out would have been better than chanting “Bush lied, people died.” I am being overly simplistic, but their insistence on withdrawal only (for example the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition) and bundling their cause with the Socialist Agenda (they are sister organizations with “The Party for Socialism and Liberation”) was not the best way to get their point across, in my opinion… and by the way, down with Communism (especially Castro, both of them).

• The mainstream media, in an effort to redeem themselves for being so “instrumental” in bringing us to war, did an about face and started to portray the Iraq war as a failed effort. It’s true that prior to the invasion it was biased in favor of war (also here), but in the 6 years since, we have experienced a constant barrage of negativity. A Gallup poll shows that most people believe that the news is overly negative and the positive news out of Iraq has been filtered out (some, not all). This can be confirmed by googling “iraq” and checking the news. Oddly enough, if one were to google “iraq elections” or “iraq surge” you get more balanced reporting from the media, which cannot easily deny the facts on the ground: progress is being made. Even Obama agreed that the surge worked (of course he had to criticize parts of it). He’s even planning a “surge” in Afghanistan.

Who I don’t blame for our missteps in the Iraq war are those brave Republicans who broke with the party line and advocated a more sane strategy in Iraq and military leaders who were honest in their assessment of what we needed for victory, such as Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, General Eric Shinseki, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and the list goes on.

Afghanistan is another issue. Thus far, the Afghanistan war has been a success, particularly in terms of the initial reasons for going in: remove Al Qaeda, defeat the Taliban, and not allow Al Qaeda to resume its training and planning operations in Afghanistan. Another goal of the Bush administration was to establish a democratic government, but if that has any hope of succeeding it must be an Afghan version of “democracy,” rather than a western one. On the military front, both the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been forced to relocate to the ungoverned regions of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, but have been launching guerrilla and terrorist attacks across the border, similar to the strategy employed by the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese in Laos and Cambodia. History repeats itself. America’s inability to invade Pakistan and root out the enemy has left the responsibility of defeating America’s enemies in the hands of Pakistan. From all indications, Pakistan has not been and is not being as serious as they need to be in order to take out Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Enter Obama. The current administration intends to withdraws some troops from Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan in what has been described as Obama’s “surge.” Obama must avoid the mistakes the Bush administration and reflect on that maxim “war is hell”… … particularly with regards to the number of troops and Pakistani involvement. Hopefully, Obama will listen to the generals carefully and give them all the tools they need to succeed as quickly as possibly… U.S. public opinion turns against wars the longer they last. On the whole it seems that Obama’s plan is very similar (at least in general theory) to Bush’s strategy, even his speech sounded Bush-esque. Unfortunately, one policy that has been retained is increasing the amount of aid to the Pakistani government. Bush has spent $10 billion already and Obama plans on spending more. Much of the aid has already been squandered or “lost” by a corrupt Pakistani government. Essentially, to root out Al Qaeda and the Taliban, America must provide a big enough incentive for Pakistan to help us and to give up aid before they make any progress is sort of putting the cart before the horse. We cannot afford to destabilize Pakistan, but at the end of the day, we need a push (pressure), pull (incentive), and implementation strategy in order to get them moving. By implementation I mean using our resources and expertise in helping the Pakistan government launch a campaign that explains to the Pakistani people the urgent need and benefits of helping root out terror groups. We should mobilize Pakistani politicians, religious figures, nationalists, and activists who also believe that if Pakistan is destabilized by the Taliban or Al Qaeda, then catastrophe will ensue… and we shouldn’t forget to remind them that there’s another party out there that may be interested in Pakistan’s implosion: India.

-AG

The European Union has been denouncing Obama’s efforts to lead us out of this recession, by saying that we are spending way too much… oddly, a fact not lost upon those few Republicans and conservatives that have stayed true to the faith (and not been led astray by the Bush’s conservative heresy). A few days ago the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mirek Topolanek, which currently holds the presidency of the European Union, expressed an opinion (though not necessarily all of Europe’s view) that the U.S. is going about the recovery all wrong. Of course, the economies of these nations are not as powerful as the United States’ nor can they easily print money as recklessly as we can… but they are worrying for the same reason that the Chinese are worrying… which should make all of us worry. If “worrying” leads to a serious loss of confidence in the U.S. debt, then we can pretty much say goodbye to U.S. economic superpower status and witness the collapse of the dollar. Pretty much, not even exaggerating the slightest, the future of our nation based on democratic ideals and human rights depends on having a leader or leaders who are fiscally conservative. Let me repeat that: conservative. For all of you Republicans and Democrats out there who are confused, George W. Bush was not a fiscal conservative, and from the looks of it, neither is Barack H. Obama. We need to push our leadership to fix this long term problem or the grand experiment that is America will go up in smoke… and be replaced by Chinese Communism.
Ni hao, comrades!

-AG

I was reading a report today on Tonuya Rainey, a Miramar, FL woman, who forced her 16 year-old pregnant daughter to take abortion pills in order to terminate the fetus. When the daughter gave birth in the bathroom, Rainey put the 6 month-old fetus/infant in a bag and dumped it/him/her in the trash. Apparently, the daughter reported that the fetus/infant was moving its arms and legs and was breathing. The body was not recovered and authorities are uncertain as to whether the fetus/child was breathing or born dead. This news greatly disturbed me, as I’m sure it disturbs many people out there, and it brings to mind my usual argument on abortion, which goes something like this:

If the fetus is a human being, then he/she/it must be recognized as having human rights. Since my statement is conditional, and it must be conditional because humans do not have “absolute truth” regardless of what some persons believe (even if scriptures are absolutely true, human interpretation is flawed), I do not pretend to advocate for enacting far sweeping legislation that makes it legal or illegal nor do I claim that the act of fertilization confers on a cell (fertilized ovum) human rights. The technicalities I leave to the experts. More importantly, religion and faith should have no place in making this determination. Morality cannot be compulsory… that defeats the purpose of being moral.

But of course, the devil is in the details. At our current stage of technology, fetuses can live outside the mother’s body far earlier than naturally possible and the issue of viability is another headache… only God (or natural law, or random chance, or whatever force(s) govern the universe) knows what is viable or not. Once we establish a baseline argument as to what constitutes the beginning of human life, we can start delineating whether or not abortion is a violation of human rights or when we can consider abortion as being acceptable.

The problem I have with the pro-abortion argument is that it strongly affirms that it’s a women’s “choice” to do what she will with her own body. I understand that but to keep parroting that line, which I hear countless times used in abortion arguments, is to promote a homicidal idea… why do I say this? Because to affirm that basic right to ownership of other human beings (based on “privacy” in this case) as the determinant factor when dealing with human rights is to validate many crimes against humanity. Some examples include: if the prevailing idea is that black people are property, then violations of their rights would be acceptable under this idea, i.e. slavery; if the prevailing idea is that Jewish people are not human, then violations of their right would be acceptable, i.e. Nazi-ism; if property ownership were the final say in all matters, then I could collapse the roof on my own house killing my annoying roommates just because its my house… Of course, my arguments are extreme examples, but then again it was reasonable people who knocked down the first dominoes that led to terrible atrocities: I’m sure that there were reasonable people who thought that denying Jewish people property rights wouldn’t lead to the Holocaust, or that the buying and selling of slaves wouldn’t lead to a Civil War costing hundreds of thousands of lives, or that implementing Marx’s ideas on the redistribution of wealth wouldn’t lead to the deaths of millions of people… all in all, seemingly innocuous ideas can lead to unimaginable atrocities when they are taken too far.

In the case of Tonuya Rainey, I believe that she was convinced of her right over not only the life and decisions of her daughter (unarguably a human being), but also that, as a guardian, the right over the fetus/infant was hers as well, because it was her (daughter’s) body. This is because the prevailing idea is that a person has the right to “choose” what to do with their body (in this case, their child’s body). Were the prevailing idea that the fetus did have human rights if alive, I believe that a rational person would think twice before murdering.

The abortion issue can be boiled down to three important questions: what is the beginning of human life, does a person’s right to their own body supersede another’s human rights, and does the federal government have the authority to pass sweeping legislation over the whole country on this issue. On the first question, I would err on the side of sooner in the pregnancy rather than later. On the second, I do not believe, within reason, that I have the authority to violate anyone human rights, even at the cost of surrendering some freedom over my body. On the final question, I believe that the federal government should not have the final authority without reconciling itself with the highest authorities: the rights of the people and the truth. When the government does not have certainty that a universal rule is both correct and necessary, it should err on the side of freedom and allow states to determine their own fate. Note that religion has nothing to do with this… God’s law is resolved in God’s court, not Man’s. Though I do believe that every person has the right to vote their beliefs and their conscience. I base this opinion favoring life, not on faith in God but rather on my faith in God-given (or rather “Creator"-given as described in the Declaration of Independence) human rights… which is the faith of both secularists and non-secularists who believe in the vision of the Founding Fathers.

-AG

Time for the another episode of the Michael Steele saga… instead of focusing on rebuilding a hurt Republican Party, he’s here entertaining us with his antics. He should either get to work or resign already.

-AG

Too often, Bush II Version 1 is confused with Bush II Version 2, i.e. the first four years of W. had a different foreign policy philosophy than the second four years. Version 1 was characterized by shock and awe, with us or against us, regime change, preemptive war, etc. Most people believe that this is what defines the Bush presidency, and while it may be the most visible dimension, it is by no means a complete picture of his foreign policy. Version 2, on the other hand, focused on multilateral action, exhaustive diplomacy, pragmatic war strategy, even setting the stage for a withdrawal from Iraq and advocating a refocus on the Afghanistan front. The second round reflected a progression up the learning curve in terms of dealing with other nations; particularly in light of the ill-managed Iraq War… unfortunately, some of those “lessons” were actually learned incorrectly. Case in point: North Korea. The failure with North Korea is the failure that American foreign policy often suffers from: an inability to understand the implacability of some of our enemies. Bush pursued multilateral diplomacy and ended up swapping aid for a promise of disarmament… fatal mistake… and ironically, Bush, who criticized Obama for plans to meet directly with Iran, turned into an Appeaser himself.

Kim Jong Il is a product of history… like a Stalin, a Lenin, a Hitler, a Pol Pot, a Kaddafi, a Castro, etc. etc. He believes that he embodies the entire nation and has a philosophy of self-reliance that is deeply rooted in the history of Korea. It’s a history of conquest, conquest, and more conquest… and they are not going to take it anymore. In Kim’s eyes, America is another empire threatening to swallow up Korea. North Korea’s general philosophy is independence and its foreign policy is not afraid to be defiant, therefore its military prowess, missile programs, and nuclear development are absolutely necessary to the identity and survival of that nation. We must understand this. We must read their works on the philosophical underpinnings of this country in order to know how to approach them. Of course, we made the mistake of believing that we could give them some aid and then have them stop their national mission: becoming unconquerable. Not going to happen.

So what a surprise when North Korea started to beat its chest as soon as a new administration came to power in the United States, even now threatening to back out of the disarmament deal if the U.N. slaps sanctions on them. Essentially, they want to launch a satellite with a missile that might have the capability of reaching Alaska and Hawaii or else. The U.N. has threatened to impose sanctions and Japan has threatened to shoot down the missile if they launch. No one knows what would happened if military action from Japan actually takes place… but the real problem has been the inability to deal with North Korea… and the danger of allowing this rogue state continue its aggressive pursuit of intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads is very grave. The current administration should make sure to pay attention and finally adopt an approach to North Korea that takes into account their worldview. Otherwise, we face confrontation (not likely to happen) or “appeasement” (Clinton also tried and failed since N. Korea continued their program in secret)… neither of which are conducive to world peace or American security.

Oh and by the way, the North Koreans have arrested two American journalists on charges of espionage. The more we wait before we address this threat, the higher the stakes will get.

-AG

Here’s a recap on a campaign promise made and a campaign promise broken. America voted to change Washington… I wonder if Washington’s changing Barack.

-AG

So let’s say that we were undergoing the most difficult economic period in the last 20 years and that we have spent trillions in taxpayer dollars to help save the financial sector form collapse, what would be the best course of action with respect to taxation? Well, since economic activity is at all time lows, unemployment is approaching ten percent, the major stock market indices are still at low levels, and we have endured consecutive quarters of economic contraction, it would seem that the common sense approach to taxes and government intervention would be to incentivize productivity, incentivize participation in the market, incentivize consumption, and incentivize small business growth. Absolutely not, says Obama and the Democratic Party. Here’s a breakdown between what we need, in terms of tax policy, and what Obama is proposing:

What we need vs Obama Plan

Increase Investments vs. 33% higher capital gains taxes

Strengthen Entrepreneurial Activity vs. Redistribution of wealth (higher taxes for successful small businesses and higher income Americans, tax decrease/credits for lower income Americans)

Increase Consumption vs. Increase taxes on energy products: higher taxes on
oil related goods and higher costs on electricity and tax cuts for those making less than $95,000/year

So what we see is that Obama has undertaken a plan that redistributes wealth instead of stimulating productivity. Higher taxes on market participation will only make it harder to recover. Higher taxes on small businesses will be passed on to both the consumer in the form of higher prices and to the employee in the form of layoffs, especially at a time of little consumption. While the Obama plan does include some tax cuts for those making under $95,000, the plan also includes an across the board tax hike on petroleum related products and on electricity, how much it will reduce or increase America’s discretionary spending is yet to be seen. Though even now, Democrats worried about increasing deficits under the Obama budget are proposing to eliminate the tax cuts altogether, resulting in a tax increase for all Americans. I guess the liberal philosophy is to redistribute wealth, punish small business growth, and increase the cost of living through inflation and taxing energy consumption in order to get out of this recession. I don’t agree… its convenient though that most Americans will probably forget that Obama promised “middle class” tax cuts for those making under $200,000 a year and has now reduced it to $95,000 a year. If it continues at this rate, the definition of middle class under an Obama plan will only include people living on welfare. The American people cannot let this war on productivity go unchecked and, at the very least, Democrats should be holding the administration accountable for what they promised to the nation. Responsible Americans should stand for the taxation necessary to fund the programs we need and a tax structure that is not overly punitive on the more productive members of society and those who provide jobs. If the Republicans are going to rebuild their party they should become not merely the party of business, but the party of productivity and the party of jobs. Otherwise, America’s days a the lone superpower may be numbered.

-AG

Maybe McCain had a point…

Even Fox seems pretty fair and balanced on this one…

Timothy Geithner today is scheduled to release details on the government’s plan for relieving the burden of toxic assets on the financial sector. Essentially the plan has three parts:

- Setting up a public-private partnership that will share half the cost with private investors of buying toxic assets. This may use up the rest of the first bailout fund.
- Use part of $1 trillion dollars from the Fed to extend loans to investors purchasing toxic assets
- Include FDIC support in helping deal with toxic assets and failing financial institutions

Total Cost to Taxpayer: $1 Trillion

While the plan is not perfect, some believe that it can help bring us out of the current recession, at least as a first step. The first problem I have with this plan is that it essentially makes the taxpayer pick up half the tab in order to help financial institutions free themselves of their own bad decisions. Second, it accelerates the use of taxpayer funded bailouts, possibly putting pressure on Congress to pass another bailout in case this doesn’t work fast enough or at all. Third, given that the government is paying for part of the toxic assets, whose value is not known, banks may decide to inflate their price at the taxpayers’ expense. Fourth, it is unknown if private investors are ready at this point to start buying up bad assets, even with the government incentives being offered. Fifth, if they do start buying up these assets, essentially the government has decided to hand over money to hedge fund managers and investment firms (they’ll be the ones buying the toxic assets), making this the third or fourth bailout of Wall Street.

All in all, it’s the market that will determine if this is a good move for the economy and if credit markets will start opening up. If it goes as planned, we will start seeing some movement by the end of the year according to Christina Romer , an Obama economic adviser. Personally I believe that while this may start solving the lending problems with the economy and help buoy the market, the effect on the taxpayer and the deficit may prove to be another problem altogether. That is the problem with government intervention, and I guess physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. All we are doing is shuffling around these bad assets with the hopes that over time they become profitable, and if they don’t, it’s okay because the taxpayer will just pay for it… like we’re paying for $1.487 trillion in bailouts, $1.2 trillion in newly printed money from the Federal Reserve, $410 billion omnibus bill passed by Congress recently, and $3.6 trillion dollar budget proposed by the Obama administration. In the meantime, the Corporate Socialist economy continues unabated.

-AG

As the economy continues to deteriorate in the face of largest infusion of money from the Federal Reserve seen in modern times, populist rage and confusion over these developments spreads across the country. Pundits and politicians alike fan the flames by making examples out of firms like AIG which recently used some of the bailout money for employee bonuses ($218,000,000), all without addressing the important issues at hand. In this particular episode, common sense would dictate that if the taxpayer is giving funds to a company, we have the right to not only know what they are using the funds for (they actually did report that they were going to give these bonuses three months ago) but we also have the right to include some rules over the use of this money. After all, how can we trust the judgment of this company or these companies that got us into this mess to begin with?

So who do we blame? Do we blame the AIG executives’ judgment? Do we blame the Bush administration for giving them the money without preconditions? Do we blame the Obama administration for continuing the policy of paying them to stay afloat without preconditions? Do we believe the Obama administration when they say that they found out last minute? I believe that the blame lies with all parties involved… but at the end of the day, the AIG bonuses brouhaha is nothing more than a distraction from the fundamental issue at hand: what should the relationship of the federal government to the free market economy be? How do we balance free enterprise and government intervention?

A failure of the system is the fact that the federal government believed it was necessary to bail out certain companies that were/are deemed “too big to fail.” The mere idea “too big to fail” is somewhat antithetical to capitalism in that the property of a large number of participants in the economy can be threatened by the actions of one entity, running contrary to the spirit of competition and free enterprise inherent in capitalism. Of course, economists, public figures, and journalists have all but written off the idea that letting them fail is acceptable and have all conspired to create this untenable situation where the taxpayer must spend trillions upon trillions of dollars in order to save some of the most wealthy corporations in the world. We have entered into the world of corporate socialism… and the solution presented to us is more corporate socialism. Some even advocate total nationalization of the financial sector and government regulation of the economy, i.e. classical socialism. But just as in the natural world, in free market capitalism organisms are born, live, and die. In the case of corporations, those that fail must die in order to continue the cycle… otherwise, the public will be left keeping a failed corporation on life support… the very situation we experience today. What this has created is a bailout plan that resembles a machine gun starting with Bush and painfully accelerated by Obama and most of that taxpayer money has been sunk into failing companies.

While it may be too late to let these companies fail, it is not too late to re-examine the government’s relationship to business. Right now, the calls for more and more government intervention have become deafening. This approach is to simplistic. Government was part of the problem: pushing Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to loosen credit requirements in the late nineties to today (increasingly issuing subprime loans), the federal government policy of guaranteeing either fully or partially against homeowner defaults on mortgages (reducing the moral hazard of issuing higher risk loans), and the Federal Reserve raising the interest rates during a time when adjustable rate mortgages were a significant proportion of existing mortgages (contributing to defaults of mortgages that started the major decline, rates started coming down as soon as the recession worsened considerably). Government action was complicit in the crisis. On the other hand, government inaction in regulating the securitization of mortgages was also a major factor. So the simple answer of more regulation, something that the government itself supports (more power in the federal government), is not the answer to the problem. But then again, government actions in general have been counter-intuitive: to give more and more money to the companies that were part of causing the recession and asking for more money from the taxpayer.

In our economy that values consumption rather than production and has created a system based on “paying later,” what the government is doing is a continuation of the same old policy: borrow and spend now, worry about paying later. In this case, they are “borrowing” from the U.S. taxpayer, present and future, without a clear direction or plan out of this situation. The administration passed a $787 billion stimulus package without an explicit plan of how we can fix the economy. The Federal Reserve just printed $1.2 trillion dollars to prop up the economy a few days ago (all during the AIG debacle, many people missed this news) and the value of the dollar tumbled against all the major currencies, betting that a bit of inflation can bring us out of this and hoping that we can control inflation later (which we probably can). The administration is also expected to ask for another stimulus after this one is underway. What is not being addressed is the fact that these companies were able to affect our economy so substantially. The governments role should not be to spend taxpayer money to save big business nor to spend taxpayer money to pay themselves more or regulate more, it should be to regulate the those parts of the market that are essential for the existence of our free enterprise system and protects the average citizen. Furthermore, the government must make sure that there are no companies that are “too big to fail” in the first place. If we continue to surrender power to the state, they will continue to make business/market decisions based on their social policies, such as pushing for subprime loans to “help” lower income families and then jacking up interest rates a few years later. Or worse, we may end up losing our rights for private property, rights to privacy, and free enterprise system which will have ramifications in abortion issues, first amendment rights, second amendment rights, internet privacy/security, etc. The long term question is simple: do we want economic freedom or government planning? If that choice is economic freedom, we must remain vigilant and make sure that we watch what we need to watch, be careful in enforcing social policy on the markets, and not allow companies to become too big to fail. A company that is too big to fail is synonymous to an individual possessing a nuclear weapon; while the company/nuke-man has the right to free enterprise/right to bear arms, there must be reasonable limitations based on collective well-being/safety… and both should be illegal. Inversely, if that choice is government planning, then the taxpayers must prepare to keep handing over its money to the state and the state oligopolies that control our fate. In that case, God help us all.

-AG

Since Barack Obama’s victory last November, the Russian reaction to our new government has been getting more aggressive. Only when referring to the fact that Obama may back down from plans that Moscow dislikes do the Russians have any kind words for our president. Right after the election, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned the United States to not repeat past “mistakes” and to abandon plans to set up a missile defense shield in eastern Europe, that the US has insisted was to protect against missiles from rogue states particularly Iran. Medvedev believes that the missile shield is directed at Russia and threatened to set up a missile system in Kaliningrad, in Eastern Europe, neighboring Poland. Apparently, these threats have worked because the Obama administration has seemed to put the missile defense shield on the table in exchange for cooperation on Iran. The president has denied this through using ambiguous language, but many believe this to be the case. Since Iran already has thousands of centrifuges in operation and will within a couple of years or less have the capability to produce nuclear weapons and since the current administration is averse to the Bush policy of preemptive war, it may be too late to stop the Iranians. Furthermore, with spending going out of control due to the recession, Obama may not have the political backing nor the political will to push forward on the missile shield. The president has made clear that it would not be the top priority and that before deploying we would need to reassess the program’s cost effectiveness and feasibility; also, many believe that the president thinks that the missile shield is unnecessary. Given these realities, Russia has the ball in their court and they could cooperate on Iran if they wanted to or they can wait for Obama to back down on his own… remember, when the Soviet Union existed, they stared down the threat of nuclear war for decades without being phased, I don’t believe that a missile defense shield will be much of a bother.

With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visiting officials in Russia, the Obama administration expressed its desire to “reset” our relationship. But instead of a reset, what we have experienced is a reassertion of Russian strength in the world. With each aggressive move, the US has not responded decisively and Russia has taken this as a sign of American weakness. With the myriad of problems plaguing the Bush administration, the perception of timidity was not one of them. The examples have been numerous and they started during the final months of the Bush administration with the invasion of Georgia (ironically, the only neighboring country of Russia that has the same name as one of our states). Not to get into too many details, here are some of the actions and reactions:

• In November, Russia indicated that it could supply Belarus short range missiles in response to the missile shield. US response: Suggest that the US could withdraw plans to move forward, apparently if Russia could help with Iranian issue.

• In January, without warning to Ukraine or the rest of Europe, Russia cuts off natural gas which is used by 20% of Europe during the winter. The European Union is forced to intervene in the contract dispute between Ukraine and Russia where the latter is demanding payment of $2 billion owed to Gazprom (Russia’s gas monopoly) and an increase in price of gas by nearly 40%, all during this recession and at a time when Ukraine is near bankruptcy. US response: none.

• Last month, Kyrgyzstan refused to keep hosting the US base (Manas airbase) after they accept a multi-billion dollar aid package from Russia. Kyrgyzstan’s ambassador admits that this decision was influenced by Russia even though the official story is that Russia had nothing to do with it. This complicates Obama’s plan to commit more troops to Afghanistan. US response: none.

• Last month, a day before the Obama visit to Canada, a Russian bomber was intercepted by the Canadian air force as it approached their airspace. Canadian air force was not violated. US response: none.

• Yesterday, Russian Air Force Chief speculated that they may station strategic longer-range bombers in Cuba or in Venezuela. Supposedly in response to the presence of US ships in the Black Sea, Russia insists that it was speaking of hypotheticals. US response: none.

• Russia trying to block the extradition of international arms dealer Viktor Bout, Russian businessman, from Thailand who has provided arms for America’s (and our allies’) enemies and was captured in a DEA sting operation. US response: Pressuring Thailand for extradition to the US.

All in all, the Russian strategy has been to expand its influence to pre-nineties levels using every weapon it has: economic, military, political, and diplomatic. It has opposed NATO expansion in the former Soviet republics and has supported their destabilization, from Georgia to Azerbaijan to Ukraine. Opponents of the Kremlin have been assassinated on foreign soil and the march towards the centralization of government power in the hands of only a few is continuing. More worrying is that US disregard for Latin America has left an opening for Russia that is being rapidly exploited. Russia now has strategic alliances with Venezuela and Cuba and is currently in the process of aligning itself with Bolivia (military deals and natural gas cooperation), Nicaragua (economic, diplomatic and military cooperation, possibly even building a Nicaraguan canal to rival the Panama Canal), and Ecuador (nuclear energy cooperation). Not to mention their alliances with Iran and Syria. In sum, they are allying themselves with every nation that is openly anti-American, especially in our own backyard.

We must not ignore the rise of Russia in our time. Increasingly, they seem to be using aggressive steps against the West in order to solidify their position as a newly resurgent superpower. The current administration should not continue the push-over diplomacy it has been demonstrating with respect to Russia. Our relationship with Russia should be based on mutual respect, not on threats. As Obama takes on the market he must also take on Russia: two bears that threaten America’s place in the world.

-AG

Some question the wisdom of having the chairman of the Republican National Committee sit in front of any camera that would show his bespectacled countenance rather than have him sit behind a desk drawing up plans to retake government and restore faith in our party. I am one of those who worries that showmanship has replaced hard work in the party. There are some signs that this strategy has been more detrimental than beneficial; I, for one, feel a sense of trepidation for the Republican message whenever I see Steele’s talking face on screen. Add to that his apology to Rush Limbaugh and the political threats against fellow Republicans who voted with the Democrats on the scattershot, special interests driven “stimulus” bill, and I see a leadership that exudes division and vulnerability. On top of that, he has again muddled the message by proclaiming that abortion is an “individual choice” rather than presenting the issue as one that threatens our definition of murder and the role of the federal government in making sweeping social policy that affects everyone. The Republican Party has long been regarded as the party of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but instead of emphasizing this, the chairman has further confused the public, alienated many in the base, and portrayed our party as unsure of itself. Steele, on the other hand, seems to revel in the publicity as the party continues to waffle and fail to project a unified, strong message. He is becoming the RNC Nero.

Furthermore, the inclusion of “hip” slang is woefully out of place, inducing widespread cringing whenever we hear members of the party of fiscal responsibility yell out such embarrassing phrases as “you be da man!” or “bling, bling-free stimulus.” MC Rove? Seriously? Urban slang makes sense in context and, by definition, Republican functions are about as far divorced from that context as an Eskimo in Miami… oh, and someone inform Mitt Romney that I let the dogs out and tell him not to ask that question ever again.

Back to the issue at hand, what conservatives need is a chairman who puts in the work, rolls up his sleeves, and expands the party. Most of all, we need a chairman who communicates the Republican vision for this country and how we are freedom’s final line of defense against the party of socialism. I don’t call for his resignation, but rather insist that he get back to the work that we hired him for: strengthening our party. With all of the distractions we have had, the last thing that we need is a public execution of the chairman of the Republican Party. Mr. Chairman, please get back to work, the sooner the better. Let us keep out disagreements private and put our solutions in the limelight. Otherwise, Rome will burn down permanently this time.

-AG

It has been suggested by some individuals within the Cuban-American community that our singular obsessive focus on the issue of Cuba has handicapped our own political participation. It has been suggested that Cuba does not truly matter anymore. They say that we have more pressing concerns, such as health care, national security, and the economy. Those who believe this threaten to destroy the foundation of freedom our community was built on and thrives on. Those who believe this undermine the unifying political consciousness of our people. For in truth, when it comes to choosing leaders, the Cuban issue must be the first. To us, who fought for freedom at every turn, whose families suffered at the hands of communism, Cuba will matter forever.

The importance of the Cuba issue cannot be overstated, especially with respect to the US political process. Cuba is not a singular political concept, it embodies questions that today plague the United States, from the health care debate to the immigration debate to the national security question.

Why does Cuba matter? Because nowadays, elements of the Democratic left are espousing views on health care that glorify the communist system and seek to imitate aspects of it. This is a dangerous road. In Cuba, for universal health care (if it can be so termed) citizens must pay a hefty price: all of their human rights. The vast majority of Cubans have universal access to a system with an extreme shortage of medical supplies, where one must bring their own pillows and sheets to the hospital, their own aspirin and other drugs that they procure from family in the US or on the black market. Some blame the embargo… yet medicine and agricultural products CAN be sold to Cuba. In fact, the US is Cuba’s largest agricultural trading partner. Furthermore, only the US has an embargo… the remainder of the world is open for business (about 6.4 billion people or so). Cuba teaches us to ask the tough questions about promises of paradise and utopia: What must we pay for this service? Are we willing to pay this?

Why does Cuba matter? Because nowadays, America debates the immigration issue without learning from the Cuban experience. Millions march in the streets in support of immigrant rights while countless others try to defend our borders without asking the important question: what are the principle causes of illegal immigration? Cuba teaches us that political repression, instability, government corruption, and abject poverty are the prime causes. America must understand that no man (nor nation) is an island (even if they are literally an island). To address the issue of immigration we must engage other nations and stabilize them while at the same time strengthening our borders. Latin Americans would not immigrate in such large numbers if their political and economic situations had at the least a modicum of stability and security. This does not even take into account that the communist regime in Cuba has helped foment revolutions and propped up guerrilla armies for the explicit aim of destabilizing American Civilization (North, Central, and South).

Why does Cuba matter? Because nowadays, America’s national security is in grave danger from violent extremists bent on spreading their ideology around the world, starting in their own backyard. This may be applied to the radical Islamists wishing to re-establish the Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia, or to Communist China wishing to dominate the entire continent of Asia by annexing Taiwan and using its North Korean proxy to stare down the West, or to the Cuba-Venezuela Axis wishing to create a new Socialist Bolivarian Super-State stretching across America. US policy towards Cuba can tell us volumes about our attitude towards national security. Cuba teaches us that evil must be confronted, not ignored nor praised, because evil will attack while we sleep. While we slept, Venezuela fell under Castro’s spell… and then Bolivia… and then Ecuador… and then Nicaragua… So we must ask: is our national security policy based simply on special interests, on corporations and competition for resources or on actual existing and rising threats to the United States? Do we confront Cuba because the specter of world totalitarianism is a very real threat or do we simply focus on those countries with vital resources? Should we ignore that Cuba and Venezuela have strategically allied themselves with Iran?

These are simply some of the current and more pressing issues affecting the United States seen through the lens of the Cuban-American community. To suggest that Cuba is not one of the most important issues of our time is to ignore the value of the historical lessons that we should have learned. The Cuban-American community did not endure so much suffering back in Cuba just to suffer the same abuse in a new home. We must understand that while America defeated tyranny long ago, tyranny continues to encroach on the American Dream.

-AG