“We are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"), we are at war with something that is tangible: Al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered” - White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.

The fun part about Leftists is that they tend to be pretty straightforward (not always though) about their incompetence and cowardice. This was a response to Dick Cheney’s comments about Obama pretending that we are not at war with terrorism and it goes to show how the Left twists statements in order to score political points. The statement, to begin with, is intellectually dishonest because it redefines “war on terror” and makes it into an absurdism. To say that the war on terror is strictly a war against the tactic of terrorism is akin to saying that the war on poverty is a war against poor people, or the war on drugs is a war against all drugs (recreational or health-related)… apparently, if the White House is releasing such incompetence on their blog, then Cheney seems to be right about the administration being soft on terror because they do not even seem to understand the context of “the war on terror.”

My second observation is that, in explicitly writing that “we are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"),” the administration is making a quiet concession to our enemies: terrorism is an “acceptable” tactic. Just think about it, would Harry Truman have been criticized for saying that, after WWII, America was at war with genocide? What would have happened if the opposing party said “we are not at war with other countries’ domestic policies ("genocide")?” America absolutely should be at war with the use of terrorism abroad. When rockets are launched into civilian areas simply for the sake of killing civilians, we must respond. When suicide bombers board airplanes for the sole purpose of sending the world a message, we must respond. When planes are crashed into buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians while they worked, we did respond. There is a huge difference between guerrilla war and terrorism. So when the administration says that they are not at war against the tactic of terrorism, it sends the message to our enemies that maybe some terrorism, especially not directed at America, is acceptable. America is at war with terror… today it may be Al Qaeda, but we cannot ignore other organizations that use terror as a tool to destabilize regions and accomplish political goals. The world can never have peace as long as these organizations exist. To throw up our hands in defeat saying that we do not go to war against “tactics” is to enable this very tactic… and if this is what Obama has in mind with respect to our struggle against terror then, to quote Rush, I hope he fails.

-AG

Back during the dot-com bubble’s bursting, to my colleagues and family members I said that the economy would not explode but that money would flee from these high-risk securities which were “new” and exciting and seek greater stability. This occurred with the eventual rise in speculation on home prices and other asset-backed securities. At the time I openly worried about what would happen if the housing market crashed given that the economic power of the middle class, especially here in South Florida, was 100% founded on home values. Refinancing mortgages, taking out credit lines on one’s home, and easier access to credit due to home ownership increased consumption without a concurrent increase in average incomes. It was clear to me that a crash in the housing market would leave the America economy and money in general with little place to “go,” i.e. that I did not see where the market could make up its losses. Apparently, my concerns played out… but the government answered my question, the “new money” would come out of thin air, by printing money with reckless abandon. This, my friends, is something that seemed unfathomable to me because of how bad this idea was and is. What our economy has become is one that relies on government moves almost exclusively. Just take a look at the survival of US financial firms and automakers. Just take a look at the commodities markets that are being buoyed by a weakening dollar and lower interest rates. To all those investors out there, be warned, this is a bubble! The US dollar will not crash anytime soon and interests rates are destined to rise in the short- to medium-term. So the question is: what will the effects be of an economic system where the government picks and chooses (in a process that MUST be corrupt) what to inflate with bailout dollars and what not to? This is a question that is most interesting to me and I wondered if there was anything in history that resembled the sort of band-aid-bailout-economy where the temporary inflation of one industry or another would skew markets, hurt the dollar long-term, and keep dying companies alive. Actually there is a historical example: Japan.

While a lot has already been written about Japan’s Lost Decade and comparisons to the current recession, I am more interested in the medium to long-term effects of a bailout-driven economy since it is clear that the current administration has no intention of using this money to pay down our debt. An interesting article on Time focused on the idea of “too big to fail” and also spotlighted Japan’s bailout policies. On the former, the article highlights that South Korea let Daewoo fail, a company that was larger relative their economy than any company in the US, and their economy not only survived but grew, but that’s another topic. On the latter, the article talks about how Japan pumped money into companies that were failing and just continued to lose money, to quote:

“In a pathetic attempt to avoid losses, Japanese banks kept pumping fresh funds into debt-ridden, unprofitable firms to keep them afloat. These companies came to be known as zombie firms — they appeared to be living but were actually dead, too burdened by debt to do much more than live off further handouts.”

This exact scenario will not play out in our government’s own effort because US firms are doing things to turn themselves around and will continue to. Unfortunately, human nature plays against us here: people and groups of people win by the smallest margin they need. This means that it is possible that a lot of these huge companies, if they cannot make good profits for whatever reason, will exploit the lack of moral hazard that exists in American pseudo-capitalism and that an infinite loop of bailouts will continue. Ultimately, it is both moral hazard and competition that ensure innovation and economic independence… a bailout economy only dampens innovation and increases dependence.

The similarity with Japan is in the fact that with government pumping money into failing entities, the entities themselves actually did not improve in a real sense, they simply survived. In America’s case, we are pumping money into sectors that are not doing so well. The question that comes to mind is: once we pump money into some sector in the short-term, what happens then? Do we expect that private investors take over? Do we expect that demand for said sector’s products go up, just because the government pumped money into it? There are a few ways to create wealth, but borrowing from the taxpayer of the future to pay the government handout recipient of the present is not one of them. The market, on the other hand, eager to make profits will invest in “stimulated” industries and then take their money out as soon as the stimulus money moves elsewhere. This skews the market and does not create real wealth.

While this topic deserves much investigation and discussion I wanted to simply present the problem of a bailout-driven economy and what it means to capitalism in general. I do not believe that the dollar will be destroyed by a bailout economy, but I do believe that it will hurt the dollar long term. I truly wonder how such an economy can compete in the world and whether or not it is compatible with a global economy. One thing is certain, the ever-increasing debt that will exist as a result of such an economy will do nothing to help us. I will admit one thing, no candidate for any office will have my vote if they wish to perpetuate a bailout-economy because the only feasible result of such a system is full-fledged Socialism, be it of a corporatist flavor or a straight up nanny-state flavor. We need to retire this bailout by paying down the debt as soon as possible.

-AG

When the previous administration was in power, the United States could be expected to behave a certain way with respect to the War on Terror: stubbornly. This was both a good thing and a bad thing, leading to the uprooting of Al Qaeda, destruction of Hussein’s dictatorial regime, and keeping America safe while at the same time giving more moderate Muslims another excuse to hate us and having us follow a bad strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. When dealing with fanatics, it is necessary to have the resolve to fight. Al Qaeda could do nothing but hope that we would withdraw prematurely or hope that some sociopaths would carry out an attack in the West while calling themselves Al Qaeda. In general, the United States kept Al Qaeda on the defense, albeit not in an ideal fashion.

Enter the new administration. While we are still engaged in wars abroad, the intensity in Iraq has gone down and the tone in Afghanistan has changed. Al Qaeda leadership, in all probability, has decided that dealing with the Obama administration will be easier than dealing with the intransigent Bush administration. By looking at Obama’s proposed policies and reasons behind them, such as his plans to withdraw from Iraq because “it is a distraction,” or change our language with respect to the war on terror, it is abundantly clear to our enemies that this administration is more mindful of “how something looks” and of casualties. This means that, while they survive, our enemies will adopt a strategy that exploits this new reality, a new reality that some would call a weakness. Lucky for them (unlucky for us), terrorists have long used terror as a political tool rather than a military tool. Since Bush forced them to use it as a military tool, they have been unsuccessful; with Obama insistence on dialogue instead of conflict, they hope to go back to doing the thing they do best: sucker punches to make a point.

Terrorists view their terror attacks as a conditioning of the behavior of the target population. Many terror attacks come followed by some sort of terror group list of reasons for the attacks and with some demands. The demands of terrorists do not always come about, but the intention is not necessarily to score a win immediately, instead they aim to condition the enemy. Rewind back to 2004, when Spain was the victim of an Al Qaeda attack on March 11 and 191 people were killed. Did this condition the Spanish government? Yes sir, because shortly thereafter the Spanish withdraw their troops from Iraq. Fast-forward to 2009, when Pakistan invaded the Swat valley where Al Qaeda and the Taliban were holed up, a terror campaign swept the country in retaliation. Did this condition the Pakistani government? You betcha, because when the United States asked for help against the Haqqani Network in northern Pakistan, the Pakistani government refused. So when the United States and Yemen started cooperating more closely over Al Qaeda, they sent a lone Nigerian kid to take down a passenger plane, which he failed to do. Their aim is simply to condition the administration, saying without words “if you stop helping Yemen, we’ll stop sending terrorists.” The reality is that the spectacular attacks favored by old-school Al Qaeda are no longer possible because they have been weakened by war and now they are willing to engage in low level terror, because they have no choice. While spectacular attacks are out of the question, low level attacks will do two things: not pose a significant threat politically to the administration (keeping a condition-able leader in power) while simultaneously conditioning their behavior. Will Obama be conditioned by terror any more than he already has been? That is the question that both Americans and Al Qaeda are asking… the former are hoping that he won’t be… the latter truly believe that he will be.

-AG

With the withdrawal of United States support for freedom in Latin America (see Obama administration), citizens of nations that are threatened with socialist takeovers are rising up against their dictators and would-be dictators. From Honduras to Venezuela to Cuba, the political landscape in these countries and others is starting to change. After years of socialist advances in the region, opposition in these countries is starting to organize from the bottom-up, as opposed to top-down which was for a long time the norm.

New Conservative President of Honduras

In Honduras, elections were held in order to bring an end to the crisis that started when the courts deposed and exiled the then president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya, who was trying to hold an illegal referendum vote. Remember that it was Mel Zelaya who was following in Hugo Chavez’s footsteps, trying to turn the country into another socialist stronghold until the Congress, the courts, and the military put an end to his designs. In the November election, Hondurans were asked to choose between Zelaya’s former vice president, Elvin Santos, from the Liberal Party and Porfirio Lobo from the conservative National Party. Despite near-constant bombings carried out by pro-Zelaya supporters, voter turnout was estimated as being from 49% to 61% and Hondurans elected the conservative Lobo by 56% of the vote versus 38% for the liberal candidate, clearly an indication of the Honduran people’s will to move on from the Zelaya debacle and put their country back on a prosperous path. While the leftist governments of Latin America have all refused to recognize the new government, the United States and other nations have started to re-establish ties with Honduras. In the face of international pressure demanding the return of the socialist Zelaya (including pressure from the Obama administration), Honduras remained firm and stopped the socialist advance on their country. Hopefully, things will improve for them from here on.

Moving on to the nearly socialist state of Venezuela, where strongman/clown Hugo Chavez has made political opposition a highly stressful career choice and we see that the Venezuelan people have had enough. Despite the Obama-Chavez embrace heard round the world and with the Obama administration generally unresponsive to Chavez’s actions, Chavez has not toned down his anti-American rhetoric, in fact, he has increased it on many occasions. Basing his “presidency” on anti-Americanism and socialist redistribution of wealth has brought his country an increase in poverty, violence, and authoritarianism. I am talking about Chavez in this instance, not Obama. While in the past the traditional political structure was Chavez’s only challenger, a new movement is springing up in Venezuela that may prove more successful in kicking him out. A political party by the name Popular Will Movement led by Leopoldo Lopez, an ex-mayor of a Caracas district, has started gaining support across the nation, even with former Chavez supporters. Chavez seems to be getting worried saying that his opponents “are getting into the barrios. They are trying to organize coordinated movements, and they are going to try to win a majority in the National Assembly.” Apparently, he finds this to be a sinister plot. Funny thing is that this strategy is straight out of Chavez’s playbook, reaching out to areas that previously did not participate in politics as much (read “poor areas").

Popular Will Rally

The movement in Venezuela can only succeed if the old-school politicians decide to stay on the sidelines and let fresh new leaders with new ideas come out as the face of the opposition. (I think there is something that American conservatives can learn from the Venezuelan experience here… the Democrats did it in 2008, they put a fresh new face to their old political agenda and voila! Democrats now control Washington.) Let us hope that the opposition will not be rounded up by Chavez’s repressive machinery which has already arrested and exiled many opposition figures.

This brings me to Cuba, the Godfather of Latin American socialism. Unlike what many people predicted, the end of Fidel Castro’s (direct) rule did not bring about any significant changes in Cuba’s communist system. It has been kept almost totally intact by Raul Castro, whose only “shakeups” have been internal, a reshuffling of the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, if you will. Obama’s policy of reaching out to Cuba which culminated in an easing US policy towards them (more travel, more remittances) have produced no improvement in the Cuban situation. In fact, the anti-Americanism continues unabated. The Cuban situation can be explained simply: America’s enemies have a guaranteed foothold in the western hemisphere as long as this Cuban regime exists and Cuba is actively exports its brand of authoritarianism by aiding socialists/communists everywhere it can in anyway it can. Cut off the Castro regime and the benefits are obvious: you save many countries from the ravages of communist dictatorship and you ease a national security threat that exists just ninety miles from the coast of Florida. Since the current administration is unwilling to stand up the communist regime, the only people who have been posing a threat to Castro are the internal pro-democracy dissidents. These are individuals have lived most of their lives in the “revolution” and yearn for a change, either an abrupt change or a modest incremental change, towards democracy. Recently, an American citizen was arrested for giving away cellphones and laptops, only in a communist dictatorship can this be a crime, but it shows two things. The first is that the Castro regime does not want the normalization of relations and will go out of its way to set back any progress with provocative acts like this one. The second is that the regime understands that the new empowerment of democratic activists on the island with access to video cameras and the internet is the greatest threat to the communist system. Dictatorships thrive in the shadows and while the US government cuts funds for radio broadcasts into Cuba, it is the Cuban people that are taking initiative, using technology, and risking their lives to shine a light on the realities on that island.

Yoani Sánchez, Cuban blogger

The change is bottom-up with people like blogger Yoani Sánchez, recently beaten and detained for typing the harsh reality she lives, and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, serving a 25 year sentence for speaking out against Cuba’s policy of free abortions and talking about human rights in public (gasp!), leading the charge and taking hits along the way. What this goes to show is that, even without a clear beacon for freedom, the human spirit will continue to fight against tyranny no matter what.

These developments to the south, ranging from a victory against socialism to a campaign that is certain to result in thousands more tragedies before any real change comes about, can provide a blueprint for how we, as Americans currently facing a government that ignores the people, can start changing the system. Change (to borrow that slogan from the demagogues) cannot come from the top-down anymore, it must come from an energized, grassroots movement that takes on the establishment from the bottom-up. Sometimes these popular movements are hijacked by personalities who pervert the original intentions and use this momentum for personal gain. The great advantage of the Tea Party movement in America is that there is no one leader but relies on one great commonality: our desire to make and keep America great. When the 2010 elections roll around, I expect some of the more savvy politicians to try and hijack the movement… let us guard against this. Americans, historically, do not blindly follow leaders, we are individuals. Let’s never forget this as we keep fighting on.

-AG

On September 11th, 2001, the United States was attacked by a terrorist network that operated out of Afghanistan. What ensued is what should have happened: the United States issued an ultimatum to surrender the terrorists deemed responsible and invaded once that ultimatum was ignored. Thus was born the War in Afghanistan. The conflict focused on two particular groups: Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. The idea was simple enough, to dismantle Al Qaeda, uproot the Taliban regime, and essentially give the country back to the Northern Alliance rebels.

Somewhere along the way, the clarity of our mission dissipated and we got stuck in nation-building. It did not happen overnight especially because of the Bush administration’s initial resistance to the idea, but as of now, we are knee deep in sending not only troops but specialists and advisers. The Obama administration has made it a point that success in our campaign cannot come only through military means, but through other factors:

“We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development … those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical,” Obama told ABC News.

This is the very definition of nation-building, though it seems that the administration will be content with leaving some shell of a “sustainable society” as opposed to making sure that the institutions we help establish will last. Which brings me to my point, how does “terrorist attack on American soil” eventually lead to “providing security, political stability, and economic development to Afghanistan?” In a bar fight, how many times does the winner drive the loser to the hospital, pay their bar tab, and make sure their car gets driven home safely? Yet this is exactly what we are doing and plan to continue doing in Afghanistan, a place that has never had a strong national identity nor strong civil institutions to match. Afghanistan is a made-up place whose national character has not developed yet and, in truth, may never develop. The problem with nation-building in Afghanistan is that we must build the nation out of whole cloth, not simply prop up or re-inflate certain parts of it like we did in Iraq. In Iraq there existed more of a “nation” than in Afghanistan and so we only needed to reinforce those parts of it that were necessary for stability. So when people wonder why the conflict in Afghanistan has taken so long, the answer is right before our eyes: insurgencies are a way of life for the Afghans and when regular Afghans see the Afghan flag, not enough of their eyes fill up with proud tears.

To reach victory in Afghanistan, we must not insist that whatever government take its place be democratic or ideal, it might be corrupt (like it is now), it might be a little authoritarian, heck, it might be a little bit of a militant Islamic state, but the absolute truth is that we cannot impose the centuries of political and philosophic development of the Western world on this “country.” What we need is to be pragmatists in foreign policy, unlike Bush and unlike Obama. This means that maybe we tolerate their opium economy but make sure that it is not in the wrong hands. This means we make the tough choices, the choices that a morally repugnant, the choices that lead to other problems in the short-term, because at the end of the day we must choose our battles. Do we fight the evil that killed almost 3,000 that September day and their allies, or do we worry about drug trade, the corruption, the human rights abuses, etc. prevalent in Afghan society? My vote is to stomp out Al Qaeda and the Taliban first and worry about the stability of their society second… ultimately, their national shortfalls will be regional threats but to leave Al Qaeda a safe haven would be an international threat.

The best way for America to spread freedom around the world is two-fold, defend freedom when under attack and serve as a role model for the world. We currently have an administration that is not so keen on doing either. My positions above are a bit cold, but in the end, they are the best ways to defend against Al Qaeda and get us out of long-term counterinsurgency campaigns that only cost blood and treasure. For a bit of perspective, the Colombian armed guerrilla conflict started in 1964 and only now is showing signs of abating… guerrilla wars are a long-term proposition, McCain knew that and seemed to have the stomach for it, but I do not want more Americans to die needlessly. We can accomplish our goals and come home, we just have to cast aside those silly ideas about nation-building that may take centuries to work.

-AG

For the first time ever, I was recently reading the Daily Kos website (link not included), a leftist blog that is set up quite like a leftist society would be: a council of supreme leaders (top contributors who post directly to the front page) and the teeming masses (individuals who posts “diaries” or simply comment). While they call themselves a “Democratic Party” blog, the majority of their content is from the leftist perspective, so a leftist blog it is. To my conservative friends, I would recommend taking a glance once in a while at what delusional rants and campaigns of distortion blogs and sites like this have to offer because as Sun Tzu said: “Know thy enemy.”

Their Great Leader

In general terms, it looks like the writers seem to cherry-pick the news and twist the truth beyond recognition in order to satisfy their liberal audience in a behavior I have heard people refer to as a “circle jerk.” For example, on December 24th, Jed Lewison (fine, I’ll provide the link) took time out of his busy day to criticize “right-wing activist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com” for demanding that the Attorney General “investigate Rahm Emanuel for… corrupt practices involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” First, Jed says that it was not, in fact, Freddie/Fannie, other government sponsored enterprises, and the government itself that created the conditions for the financial collapse by pushing for the financial industry to originate riskier and riskier loans (and by keeping capital reserves low) but rather it was all the banks’ fault. He tops this accusation by saying “[right-]wingers love it [the idea that gov’t intervention created the recession] because it not only absolves the financial and real estate industries of responsibility for the financial crisis, but it puts the blame squarely on the backs of blacks and Latinos.” This man is not only dead wrong about the causes of the recession but he is also a class/ethnic warfare antagonizer for characterizing all “right-wingers,” which I assume applies to me (a “Latino” according to this leftist class/ethnic warfare-monger), as “in love” with blaming blacks and Latinos for the recession. Both of his assertions are just plain wrong. The proof that government intervention was the principal cause of the recession is clear as day, not to say that Wall Street didn’t play its part… but the simplistic answers generated from the simplistic minds of these leftist liberals who assert that a kumbaya-singing, moral-relativistic, wealth-redistributionist socialist utopia would be the pinnacle of human development continue to ignore facts in order to satisfy their own limited and grossly distorted worldview. [Catches breath]. There is zero profit motive in giving away money to people who are expected to default on their payments, e.g. people with bad credit… that is, unless the riskiness of issuing those mortgages were lessened somehow: enter the federal government. That said, here’s an interesting video about government’s efforts to get financial institutions to loosen lending standards by using Freddie and Fannie:

The speaker here, Peter J. Wallison, had written a piece in 2005 about the need to regulate Freddie and Fannie and of course it is clear that he was right. You may say that he is a conservative and therefore his opinion is skewed, but facts are facts regardless of one’s political leanings; prior to government intervention under the Clinton and Bush administrations, no financial institution with sound business practices would make such risky bets on subprime mortgages.

Of course, the author continues by insisting that Republicans are racists because of a comment by Norquist that “Obama is John Kerry with a tan"… Obama is a liberal and he is darker than Kerry, it’s obvious! Is it racism to point out a fact like this, referring to visible physical characteristics of a person objectively? So if someone in public life his big ears or big eyes, should those observations be off the table? When it comes to certain “protected groups” it seems that PC standards have gone from don’t speak ill to don’t even mention. I believe that a nation where its citizens can no longer speak plain objective truth because of the hyper-sensitivity of other citizens is a nation with the wrong value set. What ever happened to freedom of speech? Since when was having a tan a bad thing? Who does this comment hurt? No matter, the liberals have ruled that one cannot say such things and we, the poor plebeians under their care, must comply.

Ultimately, Jed concludes that liberals should not be attacking the administration or Freddie/Fannie because… it distracts from “progressive goals.” He may be correct but this concern is not restricted only to conservatives or wingers, as he playfully refers to us, it is a national issue that affects everyone. With a rising national debt, how with liberals be able to accomplish all of these “progressive goals?” The truth is that regular Joes who happen to be liberal still see these programs as a sort of safety net for the less fortunate and when they see mountains of debt and the US government and Federal Reserve pumping money into Freddie and Fannie, they start to worry that these programs will disappear. The far left liberals are more focused on the forest rather than the trees and understand that the ultimate goal is not a “safety net” but rather a “spider web” that will trap a majority of individuals and put us on the path to a society where wealth is “evenly” distributed and individual achievement is punished or outlawed. So to liberals, conservatives, and independents who care about the behind-the-scenes corruption, unsustainable spending, and irresponsible behavior of any administration, it is your God-given right and duty to call for an investigation of such practices… just don’t expect the big government leftists to be on your side.

All in all, blogs like DK showcase leftist America, unfiltered… something that may help conservatives understand how far removed from reality their perspective is… and maybe even give us a clue about how to reach out to them because at the end of the day, we need all Americans to preserve freedom and bring prosperity back to our country.

-AG

I was not going to write any more today, but… a Nigerian man who claims to be tied to Al Qaeda tried to blow up a plane landing in Detroit but the explosive failed to go off as planned and he was immediately subdued by passengers. The explosive device was fairly sophisticated and the individual in question was already on counterterrorism lists, meaning that he should not have been on a plane to begin with and that security should have done a better job screening for this explosive device. Remember that the 9-11 planes were hijacked with box cutters and now, in 2009, this man was able to get on a plane with an explosive device, from a country that Al Qaeda is known to operate in. In time for Christmas, regular people stopped this would-be suicide bomber from killing the 278 passengers on board… it is a slight mixture of a Christmas miracle and the courage of individuals that made this possible. If only the current administration was as serious about stopping terrorists as it is about treating them more nicely.

-AG

First off, Merry Christmas to all! Now onto other pressing matters:

Few people in the mainstream media or on the Left would have thought that 1 year after Obama’s victory, Republicans would be poised for a comeback. In fact, few Republicans would have thought this either. The underlying reason for this is that this administration was elected to bring change and hope and in place of those things we have seen an Washington hand over trillions of dollars to Wall Street, continued expansion of federal government, massive deficit spending and debt, and unfulfilled promises. The final nail in the coffin for Left-wing politics in this country, at least in the short term, will be the passage of the Health Care Reform bill as it currently stands by the House, a piece of legislation that is currently opposed by a majority of Americans. What we are witnessing is an implosion of the Democratic Party which has chosen to swing the sword of federal power in order to satisfy mere political goals instead of leading all Americans. This will be of immense benefit to Republicans next year.

What has been the most interesting thing this year is that the main engine of the movement against the Democrats is not the Republican Party but rather a conservative movement that has swept the country. This means one thing, that Republicans, in the absence of some game-changing event (or fraud), will gain seats riding a semi-populist conservative wave of support… without actually creating or agreeing with the movement to begin with. We need to be clear on this: the conservative revival that is currently underway is not a Republican revival, it is fully grassroots and has taken aim at RINO’s and liberals alike. The question is: from the standpoint of a conservative activist, should Republicans benefit from this movement if they do not abide by conservative principles? Already, we have seen conservative defections in two different races: New York and New Jersey. Whenever they have taken power, Republicans have looked a lot more liberal than their constituents would have liked.

My view is straightforward, I would rather have liberal Democrats win elections against liberal Republicans for three reasons: first, liberal Democrats are more honest about their propensity for big government, taxation for taxation’s sake, being anti-life, etc. than liberal Republicans who try to toe the line and end up doing the same as Democrats (honesty matters). Second, if Republicans continue to vote down the party line instead of actually looking at the candidates, we will never truly have historic leaders. Republicans need to lead, they do not merely need to win elections. Third and most importantly, for the Republican Party to inch back from left-of-center to right-of-center, voters need to make it absolutely clear that Republicans will not win any vote that they do not deserve. To justify the left-of-center charge, look at the mismanagement of the Bush administration, not necessarily with respect to the wars, but rather with respect to growth of government, deficit spending, immigration reform, billions on foreign aid with no strategic value, the first bailouts of Wall Street, etc. we come to realize that Bush did not adhere to limited government principles. I am being a bit strict in my view that Republicans should fail until they come to realize the importance of sticking by conservative issues, but there simply is no better way to nudge them in the right direction. Pun intended.

What does this mean for 2010 and 2012? Simple: Republicans need to strengthen their support of free markets, individual empowerment, and roll back the big government takeover that is currently underway. It would also be nice if they stopped apologizing and bowing to foreign kings and emperors. If they do not, there may be and should be political consequences from the conservative “bloc.” We cannot allow Republicans to get complacent.

-AG

Yesterday, the day before to passing the Senate Health Care Reform bill with a vote along party lines: “I don’t see this as 60 Democrats versus 40 Republicans,” Harry Reid said. “I see it as 60 leaders who stood up to insurance companies and stood up for working families all across America.”

Yesterday: “mid-cap biotech stocks and large pharmaceutical stocks… two groups that could rise at least 10 percent over the next month. The legislation currently leaves both industries relatively unscathed…

Shares of large health insurers – the industry probably most affected by the legislation – have soared about 26 percent since the start of October, leading the charge for health stocks. The S&P Health Care Sector index has risen about 10 percent in that time, while the broader S&P 500 index has climbed 6 percent.”

Utter detachment from reality… or just flagrant lying to the American public. Like pointed out yesterday in my post about the government’s plans to destroy free and open competition, today’s passage of the Senate health care reform bill takes us one step closer to socialism. Despite taking flak from the left and the right, the bureaucratic powers that control our nation decided that they know what is best for us… they have resorted to ruling by decree while Americans are distracted by the holidays. We are witnessing the creation of a government program so intrusive that the very concepts of liberty and personal responsibility will completely take on new meaning in one generation; they will come to mean “the freedom government lets you have” and “the government takes care of us all so do whatever you like,” respectively. In less than one year, the United States has come a long way from the Constitutional Republic we once were.

While Imperial Democrats continue to repeat the empty party slogans of change and hope, saying that they have stood up to big business,just glance over at the stock market, where investors are doing backflips over the idea that the government will mandate people to purchase insurance… the lifelong dream of any company CEO: forcing people to buy your product.

While the Obama campaign promised an end to old-style politics, what we saw during this endeavor was the most audacious display of corruption at the highest levels of government. This “new-style” politics is more exclusive to liberal interests and more corrupt than ever before. They cut deals with big pharmaceutical companies. They cut deals with Senators who were on the sidelines by handing them blank checks. They handed out money for votes in a scheme that most people would consider illegal… in fact, a scheme that if carried out by any private individual, it would be called bribery, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment and fines.

The losers in this are clear: the American people, but there is a silver lining. This entire display of corruption and disregard for public will has shown to everyone how exactly these Imperial Democrats operate. This means that come 2010, the American public can express their dissatisfaction by throwing out the bums who helped increase the burden on American families through taxation and mandates. Now that they have removed their masks it will be much harder for nice-sounding speeches and Bush-bashing to win the Democrats any votes. All we need to do is point towards their pro-government expansion, pro-taxation, pro-entitlement spending, pro-Wall Street bailout agenda and unleash popular sentiment against these clowns. It’s funny that it only took one year of Democrat control of Washington for them to cram big government down America’s throat… it only shows us that the Left has had these plans in the works for years, they were just biding their time until they got decisive majorities. That said, we need to put them back in the minority ASAP. While political setback may pale compared to what the Democrats have planned for us, it’s something and it should give us hope that there still exists some semblance of freedom in this country.

-AG

I am simply stunned by the amount of opposition this one piece of legislation, the Health Care Reform bill, is getting from all sides… I am particularly impressed by the Leftist groups that are against this plan. A number of them want the Public Option included in the final bill, but they fail to realize that it is their fellow liberals who have negotiated the Public Option away. This ad by a progressive group catches Obama lying to the American public saying that he will not sign a bill without a public option and he also goes on record slamming individual mandates, something he now supports:

Then we have a union that is opposed to the health care reform bill. A union!!! They are opposed to taxing health care benefits:

The Republican Party has a number of ads; I like this one for its sheer simplicity:

These are just some of the ads that caught my eye. What they illustrate is an across the board rejection of the health care bill but unfortunately, time is running out. The Senate has scheduled a vote for tomorrow, Christmas Eve, as a little present for president Obama and a huge lump of coal for the rest of America. Taxes. Fines. Mandates. Government control of health care. A blue state bonanza of special favors and kickbacks to secure all the votes necessary to pass this bill. $1 trillion price tag, on the conservative side. Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare that simply foreshadow their approach: to make cuts in quality for more quantity. Most importantly, playing politics on a law that will affect every American for generations to come in order to pass a bill by the arbitrary timeline of December 24th. But these things we already know…

What we have not thoroughly discussed is what happens afterward. No matter which bill passes, the Senate version or the House version, the outcome will be the same. The first step is that smaller companies will eventually have to accept people with pre-existing conditions, fundamentally making it much more difficult to have a profitable enterprise, leaving mainly the large insurance companies in the market. The second step is that insurance companies, the ones big enough to survive, will use their every resource to blast holes in the bill so that they can deny coverage or reduce the amount of coverage legally. It’s what businesses do in the face of unsustainable regulation, look for loopholes. What more, given that the United States federal government will mandate that every individual must purchase insurance, the remaining insurance giants will stand to make a killing. The only thing standing between these remaining big insurance companies and high profits is the federal government. The third step is that, as occurred with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and other government-sponsored enterprises, government intervention essentially guarantees health insurance no matter what. This means that if government regulations prove too strict and the companies go under, the government is left controlling everyone’s health insurance and the taxpayer foots the bill (like with the bailouts). If government regulations are not strict enough, then we can expect the remaining insurance giants to form an oligopoly with limited competition, record profits, and higher premiums for consumers (like after the bailouts). Even if there is some middle ground and government for the first time in history is able to regulate the industry effectively, it is the average American who ends up paying on both ends, through taxes and directly through premiums. Of course, since insurance is, effectively, the pooling of risk amongst policyholders and the government has decided to increase that amount of risk by including people with pre-existing conditions while at the same time trying to decrease or hold down prices, because of the adage “there is no free lunch” ultimately something has to give, be it quality of care, direct nationalization, even higher debt/taxes, or something not yet imagined. This is Corporate Socialism 102 (with the Obama Bailouts being C.S. 101) and it results in either direct government control or indirect government control of all of us.

At first I was hopeful that this would not come to be because I knew that there was enough garbage in the mix to garner enough opposition at least on the conservative side, but I now see that Congress and the administration could care less about opposition from every side. Let us hope that some lone, courageous Senator decides to derail this thing tomorrow so we can go back to the drawing board and, at the very least, come up with a plan that is not born out of backroom deals, kickbacks, and just plain-old corruption.

-AG

Excerpts from an alternate dimension, recovered from the 2,000 page health care bill:

Journal entry 12/23/13

“All hail Chairman Obamao.

Waking up today in my standard issue gray uniform was wondrous: another day working for the glory of the State and the Party. Every morning I take the opportunity to thank my Party for their work on behalf of the people. Especially since I remember those days when the state was run by greedy “individualists” who cared nothing about the general welfare of the people, the days when the government was so aloof to the needs of the people that they would not substantially increase taxes on individuals and businesses in order to pay for the medical care of everyone else! Believe it or not, there was once a time when people had the choice to purchase their own medical insurance or not. Fortunately, our Dear Leader had the vision and the strength to mandate individuals to surrender a portion of their wealth for the greater good, all praises onto him. The system would have worked perfectly, like all of Dear Leader’s plans, but the traitorous “rich people” decided that it was in their best interest to leave the country, drying up the much needed revenues from those bourgeoisie scum. Now the Dear Leader is forced to ration medical care, but despite the hardships I am so proud that everyone in America has medical coverage… especially those alien migrants (formerly known as “illegal immigrants") who have it so hard. After passing the Great Socialist Medical Experiment Act, the population of alien migrants nearly tripled overnight, most probably because of the socialist utopia we were creating at the time. Now look at them, they are now receiving federal aid, medical coverage, they can drive, they can vote, and they can preserve their cultures by speaking their native tongues, if only they would take that final step towards citizenship but, regardless, I am thrilled to be working so that they can have all of these benefits. I hope more come.

The heater wasn’t working last night due too the limited amount of sunlight during the winter months and the low intensity of wind we’ve been experiencing. It was a bit uncomfortable, but in truth I am just happy that we were able to cap-and-trade away all those coal power plants that were turning this Earth into one big furnace. Last night, the reassurances of the Party kept me warm. Despite my ideological comfort, at one point I could not feel my toes, so I tried today to get some medical assistance and waited for a few hours in line at my local clinic. Foolishly, I had chosen to stand in the line on the wrong day, my rationing card clearly said that I could only get medical attention on Thursdays. I guess I will have to endure until then.

Tonight the Dear Leader gave a speech and I was reminded of the real reason that I voted for him all those years ago when people still needed to vote: his oratory made me melt inside. Since the Presidential Permanence Act of 2010, when people were asked if they wanted to keep Dear Leader until the recession ended, and “The People’s Tuesday,” when economists testified before Congress that the recession would never end, the people have not had to worry about those non-socialists coming back to power. Imagine what would happen to the single greatest accomplishment of our age, Health Care Reform, if we allowed those barbarians back into government. First, they would probably insist on reducing dependence on the federal government. But then who would take care of us?!? Second, they would probably insist on cutting deficit spending and paying down the debt. Fools! Don’t they know that we need to spend our way out of the recession caused by reckless spending?!? Third, they would probably insist on not taxing the rich at such high levels. It is here that these so-called “conservatives” make no sense: there are no rich people in America anymore! It is a great thing that the administration and the Congress, back in 2009, decided to ram the Health Care Reform bill through and increase the debt limit every time the debt got close to that limit. They say that the vast majority of Americans opposed the plan, but hearing Dear Leader, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi speak, it was clear that the three people who mattered the most were in full agreement. Just yesterday someone on the radio asked why there existed an individual mandate to buy health insurance if we get actually cannot get quality, timely care. He said that there used to exist hospitals where expense came secondary to actually saving people and that it was the administration that targeted these types of hospitals opting for quantity over quality. I know he was lying because he was almost immediately sterilized and lobotomized, for good measure. Where else, if not in a socialist utopia do you get that kind of immediate care for insanity?

If I could go back in time, I would let the Americans of 2009 know how great we have it now and that they should stop questioning the bold leadership of Dear Leader… if only I had a time machine and if only I could feel my shins.”

Hmmmm… somehow I don’t think the author got his or her message across.

-AG

As of now, the information that scientists have in determining whether or not global warming is caused by human activity is limited. By limited, I mean limited in determining whether human action is the principal cause of the warming that we are currently seeing (at least until the last few years), warming that might be temporary, or if it is principally a natural fluctuation in Earth’s temperature. Global warming events have taken place in Earth’s history long before the proliferation of the Hummer, but unfortunately the doomsayers continue to preach that humans are the principal cause and must be stopped at all costs. Interestingly enough, currently we have been experienced a drop in average world temperature over the last few years, but this neither refutes nor asserts the global warming hypothesis (here’s an interesting website). To put it plainly, the nearly “instantaneous” (in terms of Earth’s age and history) temperature changes that we are experiencing right now do not point to human caused global warming nor do they refute this claim and, equally important, Earth has been hotter or about as hot during past periods of human existence and nothing catastrophic has happened (see the Medieval Warm Period). Personally, I do believe that humans contribute to the warming of the planet that we have experienced simply because it is true that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and we produce significant amounts of greenhouse gases, but at the same time I recognize that our models do not and cannot accurately predict what will happen in the future. This means that it is possible that the planet might warm up a couple more degrees Celsius and then immediately start cooling because of greater cloud coverage caused by higher amount of water vapor in the atmosphere… it is also possible that warming will continue indefinitely and we will become a water world. My point is that we must continue to study the issue but not allow these environmental concerns, which may be wrong, to destroy the progress that human civilization has made. Most importantly, no matter what we do, a government-based “solution” to controlling greenhouse gas emissions will almost certainly fail. Government can help, but the only thing that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the free market and until the free market finds a profitable reason to do so, the current trends will not change.

Compiled from Hadley/CRU (Climatic Research Unit) temperature data

As of now, leftists around the world are trying to use the global warming argument as an instrument in the weakening and ultimate destruction of America. What is most unfortunate is that conservatives and libertarians have not presented the public with another option beyond calls to continue studying climate change. The truth of the matter is that there exist opportunities for the free market and for America as a whole to change our behaviors in such a way that will reduce carbon emissions drastically. While climate change is not a principal concern on my mind, as compared to the immediate dangers of militant Islam, nuclear armed rogue nations, and the threats against freedom, it just so happens that there is a solution to all of these problems: energy independence. What would happen if the United States of America reduced dependence on oil and/or developed a non-carbon based energy source? Would Iran be able to continue financing its nuclear program? Would militant Islam continue to finance international terrorism? Would human carbon emissions continue to envelope the planet? The answer to these questions is probably no. This is why I consider climate change a secondary issue, because the primary issues of security and energy independence can be solved by the same thing that would solve the climate issue. Here is where the free market comes in: if entrepreneurs out there came to realize the potential profits they can make by being the developers or producers of an alternative energy source (hopefully non-carbon emitting), then the United States will be safer, cleaner, and these entrepreneurs will be very successful. I have read articles here that showcase some of these types of entrepreneurs, but the effort has not been intense enough to produce the type of results that are necessary. If government wants to be involved, the most that it should do is aid in the research and development of these alternative energy sources.

Sadly, instead of tackling the problem in a common-sense way, government has instead decided that it will pump billions into a “green” economy that is inefficient and only expands government size. For example, the obvious solution to reducing emissions from coal plants would be to start building nuclear power plants, but the government has been reluctant to do so. The only environmental issue there is in the storage of nuclear waste, but at least global warming can be averted. Of course, the environmentalists are opposed to the obvious benefits of nuclear power, showing how detached from reality and attached to ideology that many environmentalists are. It is clear that the government is not serious about cutting our emissions nor about energy independence, but instead they use the threat of climate-linked catastrophe to justify government economic intervention. This needs to change. To continue to rely on the burning of carbon-based fuels at this point in history is absurd. It is about time that we move beyond this and develop an energy source that will not leave us at the mercy of third world dictatorships with ties to terrorism and, at the same time, will not contribute to the increasing global temperatures (we may not be the principal cause, but we do contribute somewhat). Since the problem of relying on fossil fuels for energy is a national security issue and an economic issue, we cannot allow the climate-change-doomsday-alarmists to use this in order to promote a government expansion agenda. At the end of the day, the only thing that we can do is wait for a free market solution to this problem, let’s just hope that government does not stand in the way of progress. That’s some irony though, given that many environmentalists tend to be die-hard opponents of the free market and the only thing that can save the environment is just that.

-AG

As is expected from politicians who know only how to pretend to know about things, a liberal Maine House member, Andrea Boland, is pushing for legislation that would place warnings on cell phones stating that they cause brain cancer. Is Boland an engineer? No. Is she a medical specialist of any sort? No. Is she a physicist with extensive knowledge of radioactive materials? Absolutely not. According to http://www.maine.gov, she is actually a real estate title examiner and an independent distributor of nutritional products. As for her education, “she graduated from Elmira College in New York with a B.A. in international relations and French… studied for a year at the University of Paris at the Political Science Institute and earned her M.A. in business administration from Northeastern University.” Apparently, a fluent knowledge of French qualifies her to know about the health effects of cell phone use…

In reality, there is no scientific consensus that cell phones cause brain cancer (here’s a great article), but that inconvenient truth is not going to get in the way of liberal encroachments on the free market. The question is, why would a politician try to present legislation that is not backed by real evidence if not for political gain? Time and time again, Democrats try to panic everyone over some false crisis and use this as an excuse to expand their power, tax more, spend more, intervene in the free market, and violate individual rights. The real crisis is the lack of logic on the part of leftists and liberals who simply take politicians’ word on technical issues and support legislation that ends up concentrating more power in the hands of the state. Though Boland’s incompetence will not affect us nationally (at least I don’t think so), it is another example of how these leftists chip away at freedom with the big government chisel on the small and large scale. The place to stop these types of people is when they are simply local politicians, when they are community organizers, and when their socialistic careers start taking form. Stopping them early is the only way to prevent their ascent to the national stage where they can cause, and currently are causing, all sorts of problems. The way to stop politicians like this is simple: blast away political agendas with cold hard facts.

As an aside, there are two reasons why Boland should not be concerned with cell phone brain cancer: first, the scientific community has not determined that cell phone use causes brain cancer (that’s the big one) and second, brain cancer can only develop in brain tissue. You can sleep safe, Andrea.

-AG

For those who do not understand the moral implications of appeasing one’s enemies I suggest they simply take a good look at what has been happening in the Senate these last few weeks. Senator after senator, seeing that the health care reform bill could not be passed without unanimous Democrat and Independent support, started holding the bill hostage for concessions for their states. With each capitulation on the part of Harry Reid and the administration, senators became more emboldened and demanded more for their votes. Nebraska got the federal government to pick up the tab for Medicaid expansion. Louisiana received $300 million in Medicaid funds from the federal government. Massachusetts and Vermont also got more federal funds for Medicaid. Vermont received an additional $10 billion for new health centers. The list goes on. What this shows is that when the enemy (or in this case, one’s “friends) smells weakness, they pounce, especially if one is known for appeasing at all costs. This applies to politics at home and diplomacy abroad… but the Democrats do not seem to understand this, despite the fact that they engage in the same type of extortion in Congress.

This pic makes my stomach turn

Interestingly enough, the president and Majority Leader Reid seem all too happy to hand out these payoffs in order to secure their legislative victory this year, knowing full well that they would have a hard time passing it next year because of the midterm elections. What this shows is that we can expect for any future legislative push from the White House or from the Democratic Party to be held hostage at every turn, especially considering the high dissatisfaction with Congress and the slipping poll numbers for the president which point to the probability of Republicans gaining some seats in 2010. This, in general, is a good thing legislatively (because it may end up stopping the big-government agenda), although a bad thing in terms of foreign policy. Washington is becoming a federal-funds gold rush for politicians hoping to cash in their votes, for corporations that are deemed too big to fail, for government agencies and programs that Democrats support, and for every special interest group that leans left. If we measure the success of a government by its willingness to create money out of thin air and hand it out with reckless abandon, then this one bests all the previous ones by a wide margin. As of yet, the new administration has not proven itself able to force anyone’s hand at anything… we were opposed at Copenhagen, Iran continues to defy us, North Korea also, the closing of Guantanamo is lagging, Pakistan will only cooperate with us so much, the banks won’t do what the president says, etc. etc. The only victories that the administration has claimed are victories that were handed to them either through luck, Democrats exercising their Congressional majorities, or luck. One of the major reasons for this is because of the weakness that a policy of total appeasement projects… which I guess reinforces my previous observation of evil: it ends up destroying itself.

-AG

Lately, my view of politics in this country has changed slightly. While in the past I was more willing to empathize with liberals in this country, I am less patient with them now. Remember also that I make a clear distinction between the “liberals” I can deal with (classical liberals) and the “liberals” that I cannot stomach (in a word: Marxists).

To all the liberals out there of all stripes, I get it, and in general I think that most conservatives get it, liberals do not like discriminating against the little guy and feel bad when some prosper and others do not. I understand that sentiment. What I do not understand is the self-delusion that many liberals suffer from where they believe that the great bureaucratic, inefficient, and colossally expensive monster that we call government can and will solve all of these problems. The leftist liberals are a lost cause, they have come to believe that everything American is evil and that the individual must be reined in by the collective at all costs, not cognizant of the fact that they can only legally have these counter-establishment ideas because of the establishment itself; we already know that counter-establishment ideas in leftist dictatorships result in imprisonment, torture, and death. Irony of ironies. This is not new, but what has lately pushed me away from the trying to bridge the divide is that modern politicians are mediocre leaders in extraordinary times. I am now even less patient with these mediocre personalities that dominate the public discourse.

Let me be clear: most of the people that I hear or read do not understand what they are talking about. Here I want to point out a great difference between people who truly understand things and people who pretend to understand things. The first group is what this country desperately needs to fix the mess that we are currently in and, unfortunately, the second group is what we are electing to office. Let us be frank, in the 2008 presidential election, with the economy as the biggest issue, the American public was asked to choose between a War Hero (and Air Force pilot) and a lawyer specializing in Constitutional Law (and a community organizer)… where were the economists? Where were the people with business experience (Romney supporters can chime in here)? What was most indicative of the irrationality that had gripped America after years of Bush mismanagement, we did not choose the War Hero despite the fact that we were in the middle of two wars!

The majority is now waking up from this mass hypnosis and to those former liberals I say “welcome back to sanity,” but the damage is done. Just think about how the current administration and Congress has decided to focus on tax increases, cap-and-tax, closing Guantanamo, and especially health care reform while unemployment spiked into the double digits. Wouldn’t the common sense approach be to focus all of our energies on the economy, period? Where are the brilliant leaders in government? Giving the banking industry billions and billions of dollars has saved many financial firms, but the rest of the economy is still ailing and all that the government has done is kick the problem down the road by drastically increasing the national debt. This is not a solution, it is a delaying tactic and will continue to drag out the recession. America needs to stop settling for the mediocrity espoused by our political parties and strive, instead, for American excellence. I do not care about folksy, small town politicians who I can culturally connect with or an everyman I can have a beer with, I care if they are clear-thinkers with America’s best interest in mind and at heart. I do not care for Harvard graduates who look down on regular Americans as simple masses who cling only to religion and guns. I want some real, down-to-Earth, intelligent people to stand up and get elected for their merits, for their ideas, and for their devotion to the welfare of this country.

This criticism is directed at both the Republicans and Democrats. For the Republicans, they should not continue to appeal to the cultural base nor continue promoting a populist message while simultaneously going to Washington and becoming immersed in bureaucracy and bowing to special interests. For the Democrats, they should not continue to appeal to the resentment between races and classes while simultaneously going to Washington and becoming immersed in bureaucracy and bowing to special interests. Americans need to support the thinking man’s party and not the populist party. The reason is obvious: populism leads to mass irrationality, like lynch mobs with pitchforks.

Right now, the Republican Party is closer to the thinking man’s party, but they have a lot of work to do and they should do a much better job of promoting their solutions rather than promoting their criticisms. This may run contrary to the beliefs of many “educated” people (group two) who have long caricatured conservatives as country bumpkins, but they are truly mistaken. Democrats promote policies that “feel right.” Democrats are constantly warning that without government the environment will implode, without government Americans will not be able to afford health care, and without government Wall Street will destroy the economy. Leftists simply throw “government” at every problem while conservatives actually have to think of a real-world solution. Conservatives want to use the most powerful organizing force in the world, the free market, to make our society better. The Republican Party needs more true-blue (or real-red) conservatives and less of these populists if it wants to be THE party of the America’s future.

In sum, Americans need to stop rewarding the “feel-good” candidate and start rewarding the candidate with the best ideas. Around the world, many people still equate the word America with excellence… let’s not lose the power of the American brand by falling into mass irrationality and mediocrity.

-AG

Democrat control of Washington has ushered in a new era of American politics, an era where the far left and the far right would put aside their constant bickering and finally come to agree on something. This is truly a historic moment where most Americans can clearly agree on what policy to adopt and what not to. This is happening right now: In Congress, we have unanimous Republican opposition to the health care reform bill. We have the Tea Party movement in staunch opposition to this bill. Now we have far left liberals, headed by Howard Dean and MoveOn.org who strongly oppose the same health care reform bill. This is amazing! The political stars have aligned and everyone seems to agree that this HC reform bill belongs in a porcelain bowl swirling towards oblivion.

In response to this, what have the Congressional Democrats decided to do? Ignore the will of the people, conservatives and liberals, and pass it anyways so that they can chalk up a “victory.” Is this a democratic republic, as envisioned by our founding fathers, or a Corporate Socialist state where government and big business conspire to eliminate American freedom? At what point do we, as a society, decide that enough is enough and that the Republic we founded more than two hundred years ago needs to be defended? The promises of better government made by the Democrats before wresting power from the Republicans in 2006 should have been warning enough… what we needed was not “better” government, we needed and desperately need now less government, limited government. Under the previous administration and Congress we had an expansion of federal power like never before and now, under this regime, we have an even more accelerated expansion of federal power. Add to this the fact that Congress does not take its marching orders from the people and what we have brewing is a more controlled society. Fortunately, the voting booth has not been outlawed yet… though we need to be vigilant so they do not start rigging this too. If Democrats retain control of Washington come 2010, then we, as Americans, need to take a very close look at our electoral process and see if in fact we continue to live in a republic or if the power-that-be have taken it away from us right under our noses.

-AG

Imagine you are an Al Qaeda terrorist and want to make it to the United States. Under Bush, such a plan would not have been so easy, especially after 9-11. But under Obama, the prospects just got a little bit easier. First, all that a terrorist needs to do is get caught. A terrorist can be caught for allegedly giving money to a terrorist organization, for attempting to recruit terrorists via the internet, or for threatening to carry out an attack. Normally, these terrorists would be placed in a detention center far away from the United States mainland, in a “magical” place called Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Nowadays, thanks to the Obama administration, these terrorist detainees may now be brought to the US mainland, where they can enjoy a stay at one of our federal prisons. This is what may come about in Illinois if the administration has its way, where a federal prison is may end up housing terror suspects now being held in Guantanamo Bay.

Potential Concert for Suspected Terrorist Inmates

What might be the problems of bringing terrorists to the US mainland? Though many persons may believe that this is obviously something to be avoided, actually the problems are not truly obvious. Just because it sounds bad does not mean that it IS bad. The true problems that may come from housing terrorists within the United States has to do with law. While it may be possible to station a small army in and around this federal prison (though this is unlikely) preventing escape or any other security concerns, the real threat comes from the fact that detaining individuals within the United States may be legally tricky. Without a doubt, we will have organizations lining up to represent the terrorists, to try and accommodate the terrorists, and to give terrorists more and more legal rights. The risks we run are the possible mingling of the run-of-the-mill prison population and the terrorists, infiltration of militant Islam among Muslims in prison, contact between organized crime with international terrorism, potential legal rights for terror suspects, and other unthinkable possibilities. The last thing America needs is for murderers and other criminals to learn the art of bomb-making from terrorist inmates. Giving terror suspects certain legal rights may also prove counterproductive in our war on terror. Imagine how difficult it would be to capture terrorists abroad if they somehow win the legal right in the United States entitling them to some form of Miranda rights. The great disconnect here between what the Obama administration wants and what is happening in the real world is that we are currently engaged in a WAR on terror, not in a law enforcement campaign. These terrorists have declared war on the United States and will strap bombs to themselves and murder children just to hurt us… worrying about their legal status should not be our primary concern.

-AG

The Obama administration, known for leaving its enemies cowering in fear (note sarcasm), has recently asked Pakistan to crack down on the Haqqani network, a Taliban group that resides in the lawless regions near the Pakistani-Afghan border. The Pakistani government has flatly refused. Here is where the Obama foreign policy of appease-apologize-retreat comes into plain view and where the “with us or against us” foreign policy of the previous administration starts to makes more sense. The Haqqani network uses Pakistan as a safe haven to launch attacks on coalition troops in Afghanistan and has contact with senior Al Qaeda leaders, in other words, this group has attacked and killed US servicemen and women and is allied with the perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in our history. Unfortunately, with the current administration hell-bent on a quick surge and a quick withdrawal, it is unlikely that they will take any serious action against this group. In the meantime, while Pakistan “deals” with its own Taliban elements, a terror campaign has swept across the country (as I predicted before the whole Pakistani offensive started) with bombs hitting metropolitan areas and killing in excess of 500 Pakistanis. Just recently, a bomb ripped through a Punjabi town killing 33 as a display of the terrorists’ reach. Pakistan’s refusal to deal the Haqqani network foreshadows a possible cease-fire or peace treaty with the militants, at least some of them, and indicates that the terror attacks are dampening support for the recent Taliban crackdown. Democracies often cannot sustain wars very long, especially when bombs are going off in local markets around the country.

The real problem is the Obama administration’s strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clearly, if we do not have access to the command center of the Taliban because it is being offered safe haven by a neighboring country that we will not invade, then we cannot easily win the war. In such a scenario, we can only play defense for an indefinite amount of time until we either get lucky or the enemy gets tired. The other option is withdrawal and the president has made it clear that this is his intention. A winning strategy would not have us be held hostage by a neighboring country, but would, through sticks and carrots, have the Pakistanis either let us eliminate these targets within their territory or have the Pakistanis actively eliminate the insurgents themselves (all of them). A winning strategy will not set an arbitrary withdrawal date and publicize it for our enemies to see. A winning strategy requires bold action and listening to our commanders in the field. Already, our quick-paced withdrawal from Iraq has left the country open to terrorist attacks, which, contrary to what the media silence would have you believe, have been unleashed around the country, including within the Green Zone, the ultra-highly defended government area of Baghdad. Arbitrary timelines for withdrawal only embolden the enemy and, as I have heard people say, our surge begins this year while the Taliban-Al Qaeda surge beings in 18 months, when we are scheduled to withdraw. It is sad to see the world’s last superpower retreating before the rise of militant, nihilistic Islamic extremists. We are truly being defeated from the inside out… the irrational idealism of our so-called leaders has given way to the cold hatred of our enemies. We CAN defeat our enemies, if only Obama would let us.

-AG

I have often thought to myself that truly evil people could never thrive for long. The reason is that evil, by its very nature, it not only destructive but also auto-destructive and so any group of people tied together by a common belief in such destruction only end up destroying themselves. In general, the evil that we see in the world is not pure, at least not in groups of people. Evil as we know it in the world comes from purely evil individuals who last long enough to convince others that some truly horrible act or system is actually good. Hence we have the homicidal dictators of the world: Castro, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, etc. In American politics, I characterize the modern Left’s ideas as well-intentioned offspring of evils (or stupidities) that started many, many years ago. The modern Left has taken the justifications offered up by evil people and turned them into a political platform. Specifically, I refer to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism (Marx was more “mistaken,” Lenin was more “evil"), the ideas of police states, and the ideas of command economies, these were all ideas set up to benefit a single tyrant or a single party, but in America they are passed off as being ideas that help “the people.” Contrary to what the “dreamers,” “hopers,” and “changers” would have you believe, these ideas are inherently evil not merely because they were thought of by evil individuals (or mistaken individuals), but because they were created for the express purpose of subjecting entire populations to the whims of a supreme leader. So when a person says “let’s provide free health care for all” these people are proposing an evil policy (no matter how “nice” it sounds) because there is no such thing as “free” and because they, in the name of some ideal, wish to cause an injustice to someone else (in this case, by making some people pay for other people against their will). Only when people realize that certain nice-sounding policies actually have terrible costs and try to reach some sort of equilibrium between one’s goals and costs can a policy not be evil (liberals, there is hope!)… in other words, people should read Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and come away understanding that extremism, whether for good reasons or not, destroys virtue.

The idealist Plato discussing with Aristotle

A clear example of this is that a free man should voluntary surrender his freedom (somewhat) in the service of one’s fellow man, this is called having a job or giving to charity, for a “completely” free man would only end up destroying himself through having no attachments to the world. My treatment of this topic is light and oversimplified (not all collectivist ideas originated from evil people for example), but I hope I have gotten my point across.

This leads me to the master of disaster, the Democrats’ Doctor, the Bishop of Byaaaah!: Howard Dean. Just yesterday I read that Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, wrote an op-ed piece in The Washington Times explaining why he would not vote for the health care reform bill as it stands and urging senators to also not vote for it. Yes, that’s right, Howard Dean, the architect of the Democrat Comeback has decided to offer his two cents and help torpedo the Obama administration’s hopes to pass a health care reform bill soon.

This highlights my point about evil: they eat their own. The evil ideas that emerged from Dean and the evil ideas that emerged from Obama have clashed with one another for two reasons, the first is that Dean is more extreme (hence having more vice) than Obama and the second is that Obama, in his quest to get something massively expensive passed, does not care how many big corporations benefit from his plan as long as the government has more control. Their ends are the same, state control of the health industry for the “common good,” but their means diverge. In all truth, I morally prefer Dean’s approach because it is more straightforward and honest, his disdain of private industry is clear and so is his unwillingness to compromise with them. To be clear, I obviously disagree with him. Obama, on the other hand, is more willing to deal with a small number of big insurance companies and ultimately keep them under the control of the state. Dean is straight up command economy, while Obama is more Corporate Socialism (as I have described in previous posts). The end result is the same for Americans, economic power in the hands of state-sponsored enterprises and an end to free competition and choice.

Let us hope that the Democrats do not come to realize that both courses of action lead to the same thing. If clear-thinking voters gain a temporary victory over state encroachment on the free market, we should not squander it nor should we continue to count on the Democrats’ self-destruction. Defeating the collectivists requires exposing these idealistic sounding policies as being ploys to expand the power of the federal government… let’s just hope that the American public actually cares.

-AG

Text of letter that President Obama sent to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il

Dear Dear Leader Kim Jong Il,

First of all, I want to express my deep disappointment with your behavior over the last year or so. Since my election I have been reaching out to leaders, friend and foe alike, in order to bring change not only to America but to the world. You do not seem to understand how important this is… not only to world peace but for me, personally. I have long dreamed of the day that I could stand before you and deeply genuflect until my forehead touches the ground. It is a great shame that I have been able to bow before the Saudi king, the Japanese Emperor, and put my arms around Hugo Chavez but not be able to express my feelings to you, arguable more powerful than all of these other leaders put together.

I have many reasons to bow before you, not merely because it is my custom when first meeting tyrants, real and symbolic. You have truly impressed me with your big missiles and your nuclear explosions, but your most impressive feat is keeping those North Koreans in line for years. How do you do it? I, like you, have complete control of the press in my country, yet my poll numbers keep going down. Should I decree that polls should be illegal? I, like you, have works of art of me on display around the country (and the world) but I still have an opposition party that will just not stop opposing my plans to take over private industry. I suppose I could send the army to eliminate my political opponents, what do you suggest? I, like you, use fear to pacify my subjects, particularly fear of economic collapse, fear of swine flu, fear of environmental catastrophe around the corner, and fear of enemy weapons development. That last one is where you come in. I personally have no problem with you having nuclear weapons, just look at what I did after your tests… nothing. Actually, I said that I would tighten sanctions but seriously, we have no commerce, so I was merely trying to please the crowd. Anyways, “dealing” with your nuclear program will make it easier for me to exert influence (maybe even absolute power) in my own country. I need results. That said, I propose that you do what you have done in the past with my predecessors: come join the six-party talks, agree to very little in exchange for halting nuclear/missile development, and then just continue working on your nuclear/missiles programs “behind my back.” This way, I can continue with my program at home, you can continue with yours, and we both look like heroes. It’s a win-win!

I am sorry if it has looked like I was ignoring North Korea, that was not my intention. I simply believed that you, like most other world leaders, would come to summits and meetings so that I could apologize for America’s behavior over the years and promise that I would do better by not bothering so much with human rights and terrorism issues. Also, I have been so busy devaluing my country’s currency and gaining favor by throwing money at special interests and organizations that helped me get elected that it would have been impossible to devote my time to you, time that you truly deserve. I heard you had some health problems, I would advise that you travel to the US in disguise before my health reform plan kicks in… I couldn’t bear the thought of losing you. I’m tearing up just reading the teleprompter that is telling me what to write in this letter. Well, I hope you get better and most importantly, I hope to one day wrap my arms around your frail body and tell you how deeply sorry I am for America so that one day you could forgive me…

I Love You,
Barack Hussein Obama

PS I have enclose a photo of me bowing to a person of the same physical build as you so that you could imagine what it would be like at our first meeting:

Rick Sanchez is an incompetent liberal (redundant?) and I’m sick of him parading around his ignorance for the world to see. Specifically, this poor excuse for an anchor, who lived in Miami and was on the air for a long time here, was recently discussing the issue of regulation and the banking industry with Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Minority Whip. Below is the actual video of the exchange:

His analysis of the situation is simplistic, although for his own intellect, this may be as complex as it gets: the cause of the recession was not enough regulation of greedy bankers on Wall Street and the only solution is to regulate them until they cry uncle. Now for a general overview of the real reasons we are in a recession and not this populist, leftist, haves-versus-have-nots drivel:

The reasons that we are in this recession are not simple because they involve many players, many problems that we could have averted and many problems that we could not have averted. It is easy to point the finger at a particular scapegoat and say “it was all their fault,” and we have examples of this: from the right you hear that it was the government’s fault and from the left you hear that it was Wall Street’s fault. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. It starts with government intrusion into the economy which used Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other outlets to increase the ease with which people with less than ideal credit could get homes. This very same government then lowers interest rates and under both the Clinton and Bush administration pushed for expanded home ownership no matter what the cost. The Federal Reserve lent money at preferential rates to government-sponsored enterprises that competed directly with private financial institutions and these government enterprises set out to give mortgages to people who normally would not have qualified for them. Then the Federal Reserve set interest prices low and made lending money easier across the board. Add in the Clinton recession and the 9-11 attacks and the federal government tried to make absolutely sure that the economy would be revived through easy access to money. Most importantly, the federal government, like most other government around the world, have an implicit contract with the big financial institutions: the government would never allow them to fail and these firms knew it, especially the government-sponsored ones.

Then the private sector got more involved. With low interest rates, pressure to give loans to more risky borrowers, and competition from the public sector, private financial institutions started offering adjustable rate mortgages more and more, with artificially low starting interest rates that would shoot up after the initial grace period. The banks and other firms started taking on more risk and leveraging themselves more and more. So what is the logical thing to do if one’s portfolio is more risky? Try to minimize the risk by diversifying, spreading it around, and selling more risky for less risky assets. This became the general practice of these financial institutions and all in all, it was a smart move. What went wrong was the fact that the financial instruments that they created to hedge their risks were so complicated that no one knew how risky they actually were. They bundled high, medium, and low risk assets together and the independent agencies that were supposed to give them an accurate rating failed miserably at understanding them. There were probably those within the firms that originated these financial products that knew that these securities were being overrated, but why would they say anything? Investors around the world, seeing too-good-to-be-true returns on securities that had very high ratings should have been wary of them, but because everyone was doing it, irrational exuberance took over.

Then we swing back to government, which set the conditions for easy money and then, with so many adjustable rate mortgages on the market and with financial firms so leveraged already, the Federal Reserve started to increase interest rates. It was at this point that they noticed that a housing bubble had formed, but any analyst with a degree could clearly have seen that house prices had skyrocketed, not because homes were now made out of pure gold or came equipped with rocket boosters, but rather because of pure speculation. No one acted fast enough, particularly in government, to slow the obvious growth of the housing bubble. The incompetence was across the board. We have the CEO of Freddie Mac testifying that they did not need to increase their capital reserves because investing in houses was “a sure thing.” We have the Democrats in Congress stopping the Bush administration from regulating these government-sponsored enterprises that held the majority of US mortgages because they said that the companies were sound. At the same time, many of these Democrats got sweetheart deals on home purchases made during this time period… but then again, corruption is expected from these clowns. By the time the foreclosures started rolling in, it was too late, it was a bubble created by the state and burst by the state. The second half of this is where Wall Street gets some blame: poor risk management, lack of transparency in describing these new financial instruments, and the buying and selling of these credit derivatives put investors around the country and the world at risk of massive losses if the defaults continued… and continue they did. Voila: Recession.

Now, the ultimate cause of the recession, in my book, was the government and the Federal Reserve. Not one of these events would have occurred without government intervention in the first place; the idealism of having an “ownership society” espoused by Bush and predecessors alike, plus the situation we found ourselves in at the time, and of course government’s insatiable thirst for resources and size all conspired together to set the conditions for the recession. The problem was not that these financial firms were under regulated but rather that the regulations in place were not the right ones and the right regulations that were in place were not successfully implemented (on regulations, I may devote another post to discuss more thoroughly). The problem was not that banks created derivatives upon derivatives, but rather that the way they rated and measured their risk was terrible. If I may be so bold, I believe that we need more of these credit derivatives to help manage risk and the only regulation that we should place on them is to make sure that investors have all the pertinent information about them, i.e. to make them transparent. Yet what I hear out in the world, day after day, is that we need “more regulation,” that Wall Street must be held accountable, and that capitalism has failed us all. This is what politicians and those in power would have you believe, but it is false. While many of the “fat cats,” to use an Obamaism, deserve no love for some of their actions, to cut off our financial industry at the legs in order to satisfy some collective need to hold someone accountable is wrong when the true culprit is the one who has placed the bankers in the gallows. It is the State that has done this and for them to come to us with a scapegoat and a set of penalties for them only does two things: it fools us into thinking that the government itself was just an unwitting victim and it consolidates economic power in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians who should not and cannot run an economy without destroying it for their own political ends. Look at what is being done right now, how the government, instead of focusing on getting people back in their homes, instead of trying to get people back to work, instead of reducing the burden on the everyday man, is engage in more government intervention, more government takeovers, and passing more government spending bills that do nothing but inflate their powers and increase our dependence on them.

Which brings me back the DUI driving, pedestrian-slaying Rick Sanchez who, with absolutely no qualification in economics, mathematics, quantitative risk analysis, or any other related field of study, has the gall to stand before the CNN audience and say that the only solution is to increase regulation and end certain Wall Street practices that he finds offensive. When are we going to realize that these people that are on air know nothing about technical matters and are witting tools in an overt agenda to get people to conform to a line of thinking that would rather have us out in the streets with pitchforks, lynching the haves a-la-French Revolution rather than have us take a good, hard look at the real hand behind all of these events. To the astute thinker these things are worrisome: the State created the conditions for an economic bubble, watched the bubble form, burst the bubble, and in its aftermath engaged in asserting its control over the financial sector, the car industry, the energy industry, and the health care industry, to name a few. At the forefront of this all is a government led by an individual with few credentials, little experience, little courage but a whole lot of charisma who is treated like royalty by the majority of the mainstream media. We cannot let these characters lead us like cattle to the slaughter… we need to be objective, we need to educate ourselves, and we need to realize that we cannot listen to everyone out there with a microphone…

-AG

Health Care Socialism is almost upon us. All that the Imperial Democrats, who currently run Washington like the mob, have to do is close ranks in the Senate and bludgeon the opposition with their supermajority in order to pass one of the most ambitious government takeover plans in our history. What the Democrats want to do is take one industry, an industry already heavily influenced by the hand of the state, and control almost every aspect of it… including consumers. The health care reform plans that they are currently debating in the Senate include employer and individual mandates to buy health insurance. We need to be clear in understanding this fact: the federal government will have the power to force American citizens to buy the product of their choosing and to impose penalties if we do not comply. This is a targeted intrusion in the lives of all American citizens in order to satisfy political goals… this is this first domino in what we can expect to be a long line of government programs intended to erode the entrepreneurial and free character of our nation.

The truly insidious part of the health care reform plan is in the Democrats’ blatant lying about the costs of the new health care experiment that they are trying to set up. Many American’s are every day being fooled and confused about the costs of this new system, but the truth is plainly clear: health care reform will, in the short AND long run, cost this country more than a trillion dollars. The reasons are abundantly obvious: Democrats want to expand government subsidized care, penalize private insurance causing more people to be on government programs, and increase the taxes on every American by demanding that a certain percentage of their income be used to purchase health care. This means that regardless of the incessant hot air coming out of Obama’s and the rest of his cronies’ mouths, health care reform means that you will be poorer and America will be closer to bankruptcy. What else can you expect from the political party that just passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill without breaking a sweat, a spending bill that increases the funding across the board for government programs. That’s right, government programs are getting a revenue boost while everyday Americans are tightening their belts and making sure that they live within their budgets.

The last line of defense is the Republican Party, an irony given that they have also been fiscally undisciplined during their time in office… but the Democrats have been spending at a breakneck pace that would put the national debt at 85% the total gross domestic product of the United States by 2018. Let’s just hope that by 2012 we can start changing course.

-AG