What I Wish He Would Have Said

On Monday evening, President Obama spoke on the military action in Libya.  Contained in his speech are the markings of developing Obama Doctrine.  I wrote a post yesterday examining what that means. You can read it here. 

After sleeping on it, I think I have figured out what really bothered me about his speech.  It, of course, comes in the section where he outlines how he perceives American leadership.  He says,

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

  

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

I was on my best behavior as I wrote my analysis yesterday, but the honest truth is that I absolutely detest this last paragraph.  What enemy of the United States would read or hear those words and not feel emboldened; that their actions may go unpunished.

As I said, something about the wordplay bothered me.  Today, I figured out what it was.  I dislike his wording, because it contradicts the heart of a historic address by another President. 

I never want to be known for only criticizing and not offering a helpful suggestion.  So, with that in mind, I offer this; the section of another speech I wish he would have echoed.  (Feel free to yell out when you know who is speaking)

...the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge -- and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Those are the words of President John F. Kennedy at his inaugauration.  Read the whole speech here.

In his speech, he talked of the need to strengthen the UN, the need to negotiate with others and the need to always seek peace where possible.  But he made it clear to our Communist enemies where he stood.  We can fault some early missteps during his Presidency, but this speech was a highpoint.

I want our President to make it clear to the oppressors that they should no longer expect to have free reign to terrorize the citizens of the world.  That America will lead the charge toward a better world that will not abide the trampling of liberty in any its hidden corners.  We will always strive to lead the community of nations against tyranny in all its forms wherever they exist, but  America will never backdown from acting alone in the service of our own liberty and security.

That's what I wish he would have said.

The Obama Doctrine Examined

President Barack Obama finally spoke to the American people tonight after committing our nation to a military campaign in Libya 9 days ago.  It has been standard practice for Presidents to address the nation at the time they begin a war.  Obama instead, kept to his schedule and went on a South American trip to increase our exports by agreeing to fund and purchase oil from Brazil's off-shore oil fields and without visiting two nations, Panama and Colombia who have pending Free Trade Agreements that this administration has chosen to ignore.  It was an odd trade mission and an even odder moment to take it.

During the run up to this speech, critics from both ends of the spectrum were asking for greater clarification of the essential goal of the mission, his justification for bypassing Congress and what national interest Libya held for America.  On Sunday the administration sent Secretaries Clinton and Gates to several of the morning new shows to answer some of these questions.

Under questioning by Jake Tapper on ABC's This Week, Secretary Gates answer to the question of whether Libya posed an actual or imminent threat, was

"No, no...It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about.  The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake."

Later in the interview, Tapper in asking Secretary Clinton why the administration did not go to Congress, prefaced his question by noting that both Clinton and Obama as Senators stated that President Bush would need to have Congressional authorization before acting against Iran. 

"Well, we would welcome congressional support but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

With the foreshadowing of an Obama Doctrine cast about on Sunday, the President stood before the American people to lay the specifics out for us.  He began by stating the steps that led to his decision to use force in Libya.  He summed up those efforts thusly,

Ruminations From the Void



Not a legal play.....

One weekend of March Madness left to go.  My bracket has been begging for over a week to be put out of its misery.  VCU happily obliged and finished it off.  All the fun aside, I must admit that this is probably a terrible way to determine which team is the best in the nation.  Does anyone really believe that VCU belongs in the Final Four?  Of course they don’t.  But it sure has been fun watching them get there.  NCAA football probably has the better system for deciding the best team, even though it is the most disparaged.  Despite the inherent problems of allowing 68 teams to play a one loss-you’re out tournament, I’m still a big fan of March Madness though.  It’s a three week party for both the hoops aficionados and the March-only fans.  Plus, what championship can top “One Shining Moment”?

>>  GE recently announced that they have stolen many taxpayer dollars from you and me.  The company reported profit of $14.2 billion, $5.1 of it from operations here in the US.  Any guess to how much in tax they paid?  That’s right class – a big fat goose egg.  Well, technically that’s not correct.  They actually received a ‘benefit’ of $3.2 billion.  By my simplistic math calculations, our tax dollars supplied 63% of domestic profit.  Feeling angry yet?  Remember that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt was selected to head President Obama’s Jobs Council, which I thought was as an unpaid volunteer, but it’s hard to say now.

So how does one go about such thievery?  The New York Times explains,

an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

As NRO’s Kevin Williamson writes at his Exchequer blog in a post aptly titled, Our Tax Code is Corrupt,

In spite of our having the second-highest nominal corporate-income tax rate in the developed world (Hello, Japan!), the rates actually paid by businesses vary wildly according to their political clout. Progressives look at that and see the evidence of businesses’ having undue influence on Washington; I look at that and see evidence of Washington’s undue influence on business. But it’s a two-way street, and the end product smells the same.

The truth is that when Big Business and Big Government collude together, they win and we lose.  All I can add is Flat Tax FTW!  Loopholes aren’t the problem.  The whole ballgame is fixed; or rather in need of fixing.  But if voters don’t demand it, this reform may never happen.  While I have no place in my heart for GE, this isn’t an anti-business issue – it’s a political issue.

Casual Friday Edition

Welcome to today's Casual Friday Edition of Sam's Taste of Chaos.  We had a lot happening this past week as the battle on American Idol began to heat up.  So let's jump right in to the Chaos.

>>     Newsweek polled 1000 average American citizens and gave them the U.S. Citizenship test.  The good new - 62% passed.  The bad news - 38% failed.  The worse news - realizing that nearly 40% of Americans aren't qualified to be Americans.  I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry or crawl under my bed and hide.

Newsweek's website has 20 questions from the 100 possible that are used for the U.S. Citizenship test.  (10 are chosen at random & test-takers must correctly answer 6 to pass).  Take the test and put your score in the comments section (if you dare).  [I did get 20/20, but #17 was a guess.]

Here are a few examples:

When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

July 4, 1776.

Correct: 67%
Incorrect: 33%

What happened at the Constitutional Convention?

The Constitution was written, or the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

Correct: 35%
Incorrect: 65%

We elect a U.S. senator for how many years?

Six.

Correct: 39%
Incorrect: 61%

How about now?  Are you laughing, crying or ready to hide under the bed?

>>     For the second time in the past 18 months the White House has been caught making a $2 trillion error in its 10 year budget.  But when your budget is out of control, these type of errors will happen.  A couple different issues are at play in this most recent issue.

The CBO corrects them for $300 billion from obvious mistatements from the Obamacare legislation, another $328 in funding that has never been passed by Congress and the rest in unrealistic projections on future revenues.  As the CBO report states, "...10 years from now, CBO sees a $1.2 trillion deficit that’s almost $400 billion above White House projections."

As Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com put it,

The findings in this puncture two myths perpetrated by Barack Obama.  First, ObamaCare is not “deficit neutral” in the first ten years, let alone constitutes a savings over the decade.  That was true even before the “doctor fix,” but the suspension of reductions in payments that came later sends ObamaCare well into red ink.  Next, the White House is inflating future revenue projections in order to protect its plans for expanded federal spending.  The difference in this case comes to $400 billion in year 10 of the projections, a difference that almost equals the worst total budget deficit under George W. Bush.

I thought the original budget was bad enough - not one year had a budget deficit under $600 billion.  I'm not the only one who thinks his math is fuzzy.

>>     I'm sure some of you are still upset with my stance in support of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  Christian Schneider has a terrific article on why Gov. Walker tackled the public union issue as he did.  Concessions on pay alone won't fix the problem.

For instance, statewide average teacher salaries increased 6% per year in the 16 years before the Hortonville strike. In the 16 years after the strike, the increase is pegged at 7% annually. Not a big difference, for sure.

But salaries are only a part of the picture. Consider that in the 16 years prior to Hortonville [teacher strike], average state per-pupil spending increased 6.7% per year. Post-strike, it jumped to 9.6% per year in the 16 years following the Hortonville clash. [50% per year increase]

Today, K-12 education funding dwarfs the next-highest state spending program by a measure of 4-to-1. In 2011, Wisconsin spent $5.3 billion on public school aids, compared to $1.3 billion on Medical Assistance.

If those numbers don't make the case, then this graph will.  Notice how the spending curve change coincides with the Wisconsin teacher strikes in the early 1970's.

>>     While we are on the topic of government employees, I can only hope that you, as a taxpayer, are completely satisfied with the job performance of 99.94% of all Federal employees.  Why do I say that?  Because 0.06% of all Federal employees received a poor performance evaluation and were denied a step increase in pay according the most recent data from 2009.

Only 737 out of more than 1.2 million GS employees — or one in every 1,698 — were denied a regularly scheduled step increase and accompanying raise in 2009 because of poor performance...

That equates to a 0.06 percent denial rate, which is far lower than any estimates given of how many poor performers exist in the work force. OPM estimated in 1999 that poor performers make up approximately 3.7 percent of the federal work force. A 2000 survey by the Merit Systems Protection Board found that 14.3 percent of federal employees were judged by co-workers to be performing below reasonably expected levels.

"These step increases are tied to performance," Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said at a March 9 hearing on federal pay.

Well, I for one am glad to know that we have such high performing employees working for the Federal government.  Not sure how those $2 trillion errors keep happening with such good employees, but maybe that's caused by the elected and appointed leaders who can't seem to audit their own bookkeeping much less handle the Federal government's.

>>     A few quick hits on our efforts is Libya.  Here is the Senator Barack Obama in an interview with the Boston Globe during his run for the Presidency. 

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.

First, rather than berate the man, let me say that, flip-flop or not, I appreciate his position now more than before.  But his new stance does raise some questions.  John Hawkins writing at TownHall wants to know why the left's response to our intervention in Libya has been so wildly different than it was to Iraq.  Right now, we need to support our troops and the war effort, but there should be a discussion to follow afterwards about this.

Second, Marc Thiessen raises another important issue in his article at the Washington Post.  Marc writes,

The U.N. Security Council’s stated objective is “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence.” This is entirely incompatible with President Obama’s stated objective of getting Moammar Gaddafi “to step down from power and leave.” If the violence ends, Gaddafi will not leave. To the contrary, if military intervention succeeds in achieving the United Nations’ goal of forcing a cease-fire on the warring parties, it will lock in the status quo on the ground.

What does this mean?  If the United States of America wishes to remove Gaddafi by force with anything other than air power, we can't.  And if Gaddafi stops fighting, we're done.  In signing on to the resolution, we have signed away our choice in the matter - unless you believe President Obama will defy a UN resolution.  Perhaps even worse, it ties our hands in aiding the rebels.

Once a cease-fire is in place, the terms set by the Security Council will have been met, and military action by either side would violate international law. This means that if the rebels attempt to remove Gaddafi by force, they could be the ones violating the mandate of the United Nations. The U.N. resolution could end up protecting Gaddafi and guaranteeing the survival of his regime.

The resolution also reaffirms the U.N. arms embargo, which most of the world interprets as barring the transfer of arms to both government and rebel forces.

Whether it's a rookie mistake or part of the plan remains to be seen.

NUTS

>  Hugo Cavez is as big a nut as they make.  Here he is explaining what may have happened to life on Mars. [h/t HOTAIR]

"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day.

"Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Chavez said, sipping from a glass of water.

For the record, here is the truth on our forest lands in America,

About 30 percent of the 2.3 billion acres of land area (745 million acres) in the U.S. is forest today as compared to about one-half in 1630 (1.0 billion acres). Some 300 million acres of forest land have been converted to other uses since 1630, predominantly because of agricultural uses in the East.

The forest resources of the U.S. have continued improving in general condition and quality, as measured by increased average size and volume of trees. This trend has been evident since the 1960s and before. The total forestland acreage has remained stable since 1900.

Two significant changes have helped stabilize our forestland.  One, Teddy Roosevelt began the modern Conservation movement and two, we moved away from using wood as an energy source.  What replaced it?  Coal and oil.  Who has a lot of oil?  Venezuela.  You'd think the President of Venezuela might know about this oil stuff...

>>  War by committee.  Apparently France believes the Libyan war should be fought under the direction of a steering committee.

France objected to NATO being in command of the war operations on a day-to-day basis and has now proposed a new "political steering committee," made up of foreign ministers from the United States, European, and Arab states, to oversee the war.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé announced on Tuesday that the British are in agreement with the proposal but the French government has not said anything about the position of the Obama administration.

If you've ever worked with a steering committee, God help you in getting anything accomplished quickly.  I can only hope that we are not on board with this idea.

>>  President Obama ran off to Brazil to create jobs back here at home.  Which makes this a little hard to swallow.  From Reuters, [h/t Gateway Pundit]

The United States seeks to be “a strategic energy partner” to Brazil, which recently discovered major new offshore oil reserves. Obama said the United States wants to be one of Brazil’s “best customers” when the oil starts flowing.

In addition, we will loan Brazil money to get the drilling started.  On a side note, thousands of American oil workers are still out of work waiting for the Obama administration to allow the Gulf rigs to operate. 

As Big Government put it, "To be fair, President Obama is in favor of drilling…but just not in the United States."  Sad, but true.

>>  Anthony Wiener, New York Representative, can often be seen on Fox, CNN, MSNBC yapping away like, well a little dog.  Here he is taking two sides on Obamacare in two different stories.  Here, he says,

"If lightning strikes, and it turns out that as many of us believe, the Supreme Court turns out to be a third political branch of government and they strike down the mandate -- big deal,"

"The solution, if the mandate is struck down, is not that the bill falls like the house of cards ... the solution is going to be offering something everyone agrees is constitutional and that's the public option in the exchange."

As he contemplates running for mayor of New York City, he has a different take,

"If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan."

Funny how these legislators do one thing in Congress, but it's suddenly all different out in the real world.  Let's not forget that the entire state of Maine has received a waiver from core provisions of Obamacare, so it should be a cinch to waiver NYC.

Mitt Romney has suggested giving a waiver to all 50 states.  Wouldn't it be easier to just repeal the stupid thing?

>>  NBC's Andrea Mitchell took up the task of defining the Obama Doctrine since the White House won't.  Here is Allahpundits view at Hotair.

it’s simple as can be. If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.” Question: What if (1) and (2) are satisfied but not (3)? Just … let ‘em die, then?

This seems to leave a fairly large hole in the logic.  My local police department, sheriff's department and the Missouri State Highway Patrol may find working together on a big bust to be beneficial, but they don't need each other's approval to stop a crime in progress.  Neither should the United States of America.

Use the United Nations for whatever good we can, but we should never allow them to hold the leash on our military.

Well, that's my time.  You've been great.  I'll leave you with this last image of the new Wonder Woman for TV.  Please add your thoughts on the redesigned heroine's costume.

God Bless.

Dude, Where's My Recovery? - Part I

Dude, Where's My Recovery? - Part II

After committing our military to fight a (air only) war in Bosnia...no, uhm, Somalia....uh....Libya (sorry, I was looking through the Congressional minutes for the authorization to use force, but I can't seem to find it), President Obama went on a Job Creation Jaunt to South America, where he samba'd, kicked a few soccer balls and agreed to fund and purchase oil from Brazil's newly discovered off-shore oil fields (I could of swore he meant create domestic jobs, but I must have read that memo incorrectly).  Except for a few snapshots in Rio with the landmark Christ the Redeemer statue, not sure why he didn't just take a trip to Miami & New Orleans.

Here in North America, spring has begun.  With the arrival of the warm air and sun, the new housing numbers came in.  New home sales in February were the worst ever for a single month in the 48 years these numbers have been tracked.  I remember hearing alot about Recovery Spring, then Recovery Summer last year as Washington tried to inspire a recovery, all to no avail.  But I've heard nothing but crickets about a Recovery Spring this year. Seems no one in Washington wants to talk about the economy.  So you may ask, "Dude, where's my recovery?"

While we are no longer in recession, the economy can't regain lost ground without going into overdrive.  Simply resuming normal economic activity will not create jobs to replace those that were lost.   President Obama has made the claim over and over that he acted to stop the fall, but stopping a falling economy is only half the battle.

Ruminations From the Void

Double standards - noun - any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another...

Hypocrisy - noun - the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour

Double standards exist when two groups are held to differing standards due to an inherent difference between the groups.  People often have different standards for men and women given the many differences between the groups.  It is somewhat less acceptable to regard groups of different ethnic or religious cultures differently, but it happens.  With the exception of a few fringe groups, the standards for humans and animals are wisely very different.

Hypocrisy on the other hand is when a person exhibits a standard for others and refuses to hold themselves to that same standard.

A double standard says "some for this one, but not for that one" and hypocrisy says "some for me, but none for thee".  Got it?  Of course there is always a situation where one simply has no guiding principles and improvises standards all willy-nilly. 

Beyond that, some use an immutable guiding principle for their words and actions.  See if you can spot which approach is being used in each story of today's Ruminations.  Don't be afraid to call me out too.

#1 - Here is President Obama in remarks made Friday, March 18th 2011,

Now, here's why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.  The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.  The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.  Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

And that's why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at he United Nations. Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya and holding the Qadhafi regime accountable.

Our decisions have been driven by Qadhafi's refusal to respect the rights of his people and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians.

In 2007, an interview with Senator Obama began with this lede,

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

In Obamaland, UN Security Council Authorizes Use of Amercian Troops

In 2002, Congress authorized military intervention in Iraq.  Because the UN was less supportive, Bush was derided for acting unilaterally.

In 2011, the UN authorized military intervention in Libya.  Even though Congressional approval was not sought or received, Obama is praised for acting multilaterally.

My conclusion - UN approval is more important than Congressional approval for a fairly large segment of the American population.

Yikes!!! 

I don't like double standards.  I try to avoid using them.  They serve no real purpose other than justifying incoherent judgements.  That said, I'm sure to be accused of using one when I say that President Obama's use of force in Libya is wrong while Bush's action in Iraq was right.  But don't judge me too soon, lest you look foolish.

I judge such matters by the level of agreement between the executive and the legislative branches.  I read the news and I try to stay informed.  But I'll never have as much information as our nation's elected leaders.  Asking me whether military action is justified in certain circumstances is like asking me to second guess Tony Larussa's use of the St. Louis Cardinal's pitching staff.  In one situation, it may be a no-brainer, but in another, only someone in Tony's position has all the information to make that call.

When the President sees the need to use military force, it is his duty to seek authorization from Congress to act.  Due to the modern nature of military activities, the authorization to use force has become the equivalent of a Declaration of War.  If the President and Congress then agree that military action is the correct move, then who am I to disagree?  If I do disagree, then I can seek to change that in the voting booth.

Occasionally, action must immediately be taken in our nation's defense.  Under such circumstances, I want the President to act first, then seek to justify his actions before Congress as soon as possible and seek authorization for any continuation of military operations.

Bush's action was not correct because I agreed with him.  It was correct because Congress agreed with him.  Obama's is wrong for the same reason.  Congress could have debated and voted on an authorization in less time than it took to pass a resolution at the UN.  Obama has offered no excuse for bypassing Congress.

It's not as if timeliness was an issue.  He supposedly changed his mind on the use of force sometime Tuesday, but no action took place before Friday.  Congress declared War on Japan and Germany in less time after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What is worse is that even if timeliness was an issue prior to the use of force, it is not delaying him from seeking a declaration now.  But is he doing that?  No, he left town for South America.  That is wrong and unconstitutional.

Whether he feels that Congress would support action or not, he must seek its approval.  Because he has not sought such, it can only be assumed that Obama considers that the UN resolution is an adequate authorization for military action.  Congress cannot let such a precedent stand.

Our military intervention in Libya may be the correct action for the US.  But then again, it may not.  Obama has decided it is.  Now that he has put the military in harm's way, he has my support; but not my faith.  He'll have that when he seeks and receives an authorization for his actions; not from other nation's leaders, but from our nation's leaders.

It's time for Congress to reassert its authority by debating and voting on this military action.  To allow the President to supplant Congressional authority with the UN Security Council's would set us on a course that may soon jeopardize our sovereignty.

Walk Softly and Carry a Moderately Sized Stick

Whether accurate or not, President Obama appears clueless.

Understand, even when I don’t agree with someone, I always try to see the other guy’s view.   I have no fear of having a calm rational discussion with people.  I’m not reactionary as a rule.  I always feel comfortable praising or complaining about the actions of politicians regardless of the R or D in front of their name.

I disagreed with Rush Limbaugh after Obama was elected.  I didn’t want to see the President fail, no matter his policies.  I opposed him because I felt his policies had no chance of succeeding, not because I didn’t like them.  I wouldn’t complain if it turned out I was wrong.  Unfortunately, I wasn’t.

I have to say that I offered praise for his refusal to scrap Bush’s defense measures that have continued to protect us from terrorism.  While I disagree with some changes he has made in that area, I can see his reason for doing so.

But right now, I just don’t see what he is seeing.  I can’t grasp what is going through his mind.

When the people of Iran rose up in protest, Obama was silent for days before offering a tepid, “we are witnesses” line.  We did nothing to support or protect the brave Iranians.

A year later, when northern Africa was struck with a wave of uprisings, Obama was slow to respond.  Once he did, he never seemed to know what he was saying.  Neither did those who worked for him.  From day to day, his stance seemed to shift so much that I’m still not sure where he stood.

On Libya, the President seemed wholly incapable of forming any type of coherant policy.  I wasn't the only one to notice. [h/t Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy]

Clinton stayed out of the fray, repeating the administration's position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step. She also did not voice support for stronger action in the near term, such as a no-fly zone or military aid to the rebels, both diplomats said.

"The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned," one of the diplomats told The Cable.

Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

Eventually, Secretary Clinton along with France and the Arab League drug Obama into taking a solid stance on Libya this past week.

Contrary to what Obama’s team has said, UN Resolution 1973 creates a marathon rather than a sprint.  Over a decade after the first Gulf War, US and UK planes were still enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq.  A no-fly zone is an efficient way to achieve a forced peace with a limited military engagement.  But it is not a quick and temporary job.

Reports from administration officials say that they expect these actions to last days, not weeks, but Obama contradicts them in his statement,  

So we must be clear:  Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced.  That is the cause of this coalition. 

     As a part of this effort, the United States will contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission to protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.  And as I said yesterday, we will not — I repeat — we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.

An effort that has a “front end” can probably be expected to last more than a few days.

The problem is that the resolution has no teeth to coerce Gaddafi; the limited military action offers no real threat to him.  He can play a game of cat and mouse in an effort to test our stamina.  He will pull out Saddam Hussein’s playbook in dealing with the sanctions.  Until there is a deadline with deadly consequences, the Libyan dictator is free to play the game for all it’s worth.

The no-fly zone is fine for what it is – an open-ended commitment to protect citizens.  But in Libya, a country undergoing an open rebellion, when does the no-fly zone cease to be a defensive effort and become an offensive weapon for the rebels?  Are we then putting our military personnel in harm’s way - not to protect innocent civilians, but to aid a revolution?   I’m not stating opposition to that, but shouldn’t all of this be discussed in Congress?

[Remember when the President would seek and receive authorization for war from Congress and it was called acting unilaterally because the French didn’t agree?  Now the President acts independent of any authorization from Congress and it’s called a multilateral action because the French are on board.

Oh, the bitter sweet irony]

If Obama believes this will only last a matter of days, not weeks, he is either misguided or seeks to give the rebels cover to swiftly overthrow Gaddafi.  But if he really meant to give aid to the rebellion, then we waited too long to act.  When the opposition troops were on the outskirts of Tripoli, a no-fly zone may have paved the way to a succesful regime change.  Instead we waited until Gaddafi's troops had pushed them back to Benghazi.

It’s getting more and more difficult to see any method to the madness of Obama’s diplomacy.  In announcing his decision to support military intervention by the UN, his administration took pains to explain his change of position carefully.  Instead they exposed his naivety.  Here’s Ace at Ace of Spades HQ,

Oh, dear God. Our President -- leader of the free world, commander in chief of the armed forces -- really thought that sanctions and a vague threat of force (while appearing very disinclined to carry out that threat) would be enough to convince a dictator to voluntarily relinquish power.

And that is the story they want out there.

The other story is that Obama just kind of doesn't make decisions for weeks at a time and then flip-flops his way into half-a**ed ones.

I want very much, to be able to support my President.  But the guy has to be smarter than this.  Teddy Roosevelt said to speak softly but carry a big stick.  For weeks, Obama talked loudly, then was surprised that his talking didn’t get the needed result.  So now he brings out a little stick.  In his announcement, he states that ground troops will not be deployed.  His attempt to stave off any concern about the use of ground troops seems to support the notion that the little stick may be inadequate for the task.  If so, what do we do then?

When we gradually increase the size of our stick, it fails to serve its purpose.  The reason we carry a big stick is for its intimidation factor - not because we want to use it.  Too often, liberals fail to comprehend this basic strategy.  When we show the big stick, it eliminates a lot of the need to use it.

Time and again, we see Democrats who want to use an escalating scale of military intervention with no clearly defined goals.  If you want to know why Vietnam became Vietnam, the answer is “an escalating scale of military intervention with no clearly defined goals”.  In Vietnam (Kennedy & Johnson), Iran (Carter), Kosovo & Somalia (Clinton) and now Libya (Obama), Democrat Presidents all wanted to tiptoe into military intervention.  They act as if Roosevelt had said, "Walk softly" instead of "Talk softly".

Agree with him or not, but once Bush felt that action was needed in Iraq, he followed the proper playbook.  He made the case in Washington and Europe.  He used UN resolutions to give Iraq’s dictator a deadline to meet certain requirements and laid out the consequences for any failure to do so.  With Congressional backing, Bush used the big stick in an attempt to intimidate Saddam into compliance.  When that failed, he swung the big stick.

Despite his failure to move Saddam to act, Bush’s big stick did move Libya’s dictator to voluntarily end his weapon’s programs for fear of the same fate.  This, of course, is the same man who now thumbs his nose at Obama’s little stick.

President Obama has said several times that Gaddafi must go.  But it must be decided whether we have a vested national security interest in that and that discussion should take place in Congress.  If we do, then Obama needs to bring out the big stick, give Gaddafi an exit plan and a deadline, and then enforce that deadline.

Mr. President, just as Gaddafi once paid attention to the actions of George W. Bush, the leaders of Iran, Syria and other nations are watching your actions today.  You can talk to them all you want; and when you do, follow this little piece of advice - say what you mean and mean what you say.  But I can promise you that they hear what you have to say much more clearly when they see you holding a big stick across your shoulder.

Casual Friday Edition

I got into hot water a couple weeks back when I suggested on Facebook that Stormtroopers could wear their Khaki armor and loafers on Casual Friday.  Yoda in particular, seemed to take offense at the thought.  I tried to give voice to the notion that even clones are people too.  But to some, they are simply cattle to be herded.  Please add your own thoughts in the comment section on this important issue.

>>     I wrote a post, Tell Them About the Twinkie, to highlight that arguing over non-defense discretionary spending is only a tiny battle in a much bigger war on spending.  Jeffrey Anderson at the Weekly Standard blog tells us that mandatory spending has now swallowed the entire Federal Revenue,

We have now gotten to the point — as I noted yesterday — where if national defense, interstate highways, national parks, homeland security, and all other discretionary programs somehow became absolutely free, we’d still have a budget deficit. The White House Office of Management and Budget projects that in the current fiscal year (2011), mandatory spending alone will exceed all federal receipts. So even if we didn’t spend a single cent on discretionary programs, we still wouldn’t be able to balance our budget this year — let alone pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt that we have already accumulated.

Speaker of the House John Boehner has said that he thinks people just don't understand the issue.  “People in Washington assume that Americans understand how big the problem is,” he said. “But most Americans don’t have a clue.”  Cutting a few billion in foreign aid or increasing taxes cannot fix this problem.  Only adjusting the future of entitlement programs can.

Representative Paul Ryan is the point man in the House on tackling this problem.  Ryan told Mike Huckabee on Fox News. “If we do it now, we do it on our terms, meaning we don’t change anything for people in and near retirement. But if we wait, if we keep delaying and kicking the can down the road, then it will look like Europe — bitter austerity. Cuts will happen to current seniors, and that’s what we want to avoid.”

Delaying action is no longer an option.  Well, technically it is an option, but only if you consider retiring with no savings an option.

>>     Over at NRO, Conrad Black covers a lot of ground in his article, On Libya, the US Is a Pitiful Giant.  He compares the heroic Japanese response in their current fight for survival to the horrid response in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.  Flaws at the national, state and local level in New Orleans to be sure, but Americans do not come out to well in the comparison.

Black then goes on to blister President Obama's weak response in Libya.

As for Libya, there is room for legitimate debate over what to do there, but I cannot believe that there is a single conscient American who has followed these matters who is not appalled by the grotesquerie of American policy fumbling that has stalked, wreathed, and bedeviled this issue. The president, draped in what is becoming infamous sanctimony, said, of Qaddafi, “He has lost all legitimacy and he must go. . . . The best revolutions are organic. . . . We are not sure.” Weeks pass, thousands are massacred, and the White House has no standing to assess the legitimacy of foreign governments under challenge and portentously to asseverate moral imperatives, and then waffle over the course cried out for by the majority of Libyans and urged by the European Union and the Arab League, representing the entire adjoining regions. This president (of the United States) famously said in Prague in 2009, “Words must mean something” in reference to arms control, which he has pursued in regard to the United States but not to Iran or North Korea. He was correct; they must, when uttered by the holder of his great office, but they don’t, at this sadly disappointing time, in arms control or the assistance of the forces of oppressed legitimacy.

I remember past Presidents agreeing with my father when he told me never to say anything I didn't intend to back up.

"If you're gonna talk the talk, then you better walk the walk"

"Speak softly and carry a big stick"

All over the mid-east people are dying for the cause of liberty, while we continue to talk....to witness....to watch....to do nothing. 

>>     I'm still holding out caution on Japan's nuclear crisis until all the fact are in.  By their design, even a total meltdown should be able to be contained.  A large issue is the lack of water and the particles in the available water.  Clean de-mineralized water will not react with the fuel and thus any steam would carry little radiation.  But saltwater and other impurities in the improvised cooling water will react and release larger quantities of radiation in the steam that is released.  Meltdown or not, the containing vessel should keep the fuel from being directly released into the atmosphere, which is what happened at Chernobyl.  But as I said, I await the facts before making a call on this situation.

>>     Waiting on those facts doesn't mean I can't share a couple of tidbits.

First, it has been noted by a researcher working for the World Health Organization, that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself with regards to radiation.  Gateway Pundit has the story.

a top expert on radiation says that fear of radiation is a bigger health threat than radiation itself.  Technorati.com reported:

A top expert on radiation, doing studies for the World Health Organization, reports that fear of radiation exposure has caused more health problems than the radiation itself. Other experts on psychological effects of radiation agree. In addition to the fear of the effects of the radiation, survivors are stigmatized by their society, increasing stress and feelings of isolation. This stigmatization can interfere with the survivors getting proper health care, jobs, and economic stability. Others turn away from them, fearing that association with those who have been exposed to radiation can be “catching.” Experts who have studied these impacts at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, say that the fear and stigmatization causes so much stress in the people affected that, overall, the stress is more damaging to health than the radiation itself.

Someone needs to forward this to Shepard Smith on FOX who has been fear-mongering all week.

The other side of the issue is brought to us by Newsbusters,

The dangers of nuclear power, while serious, need to be put in perspective. To that end, here's an interesting fact you won't be hearing from the mainstream press: wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy.

You read that right. According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010. Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.

The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 did not kill or injure anyone, since the power plant's cement containment apparatus did its job - the safety measures put in place were effective. Apparently the safety measures associated with wind energy are not adequate to prevent loss of life.

As I already have stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis in Japan.  I just found both bits of information interesting.

>>     The House of Representatives voted to defund NPR today.  It has no chance of passing the Senate, so NPR is safe.  But why?  I ask the same question of PBS - why?  What need is there for the government to fund a TV and radio network in America?  Funding the Voice of America abroad I can understand.  Our nation should have a global agenda that will be furthered by a variety of mediums.  But domestically, do we want our federal government promoting an agenda through the media?

I know, I know....NPR and PBS are independent voices that do not receive their orders from the government.  That's fine and I accept that.  So tell me again why we fund them.  What purpose do they serve our government and the taxpayers if they do not take their orders from them?  If they provided a service that no one else in the marketplace wished to provide, this would be more acceptable.  But unlike say the Water Department, NPR and PBS have dozens of competitors doing pretty much exactly what they are doing.

If the Water Department in your town shut down tomorrow, there would be reprecussions to the taxpayers. that would be felt immediately.  But if NPR and PBS had really been defunded today, would you notice if you weren't told.  NPR and PBS are quality products that will not have any trouble finding the funds to continue to operate.  In fact, they might be surprised at just how well they flourish when they are finally dumped into the private sector. 

If Big Bird and Kermit can profit at the toy store and the movie theaters; on DVDs and CDS, I don't think there is any need to put them on the endangered list when they no longer receive my tax dollars.  Now shows like the Delicious Dish may be another matter....

>>     It's time for March Madness.  Sadly, my Mizzou Tigers bowed out about halfway through the second half Thursday night.  I did call the Richmond and Gonzaga upsets, but I had the wrong #13 seed - I picked Princeton over Kentucky.  Morehouse State's upset over Louisville will hurt through the weekend as I had the Cardinals making it to the Sweet 16.

Perhaps I would have made the right selection if I had more time to ponder my choices.  I was off work Monday and Tuesday, but I had a pretty full plate at the house.  I still had a few tax returns to file for some family and friends.  I installed a new gas oven for the beautiful Dawn.  I spent many hours poring over several years of healthcare data and preparing a presentation.  I cooked dinner one night, while my wife did the other.  Somewhere in there I filed the financial aid application for my soon to be collegiate student and prepared some bills for payments.

Suffice it to say, that it wasn't until late on Wednesday before I had any real opportunity to put some thought into my bracket selections before heading off for my job on the overnight shift.  When I arrived home Thursday morning, I quickly jumped on the computer to enter my picks into ESPN's bracket challenge before heading to bed for a few hours sleep before the first games began.

Busy as that may sound, I would gladly follow my routine over and over rather than be in the unenviable position that our President finds himself.  The crisis in Japan, the critical situation in Libya as the UN debated taking military action, the still developing movements in other mid-east nations, the war in Afghanistan, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, global terrorism, the budget battles in Congress along with the still weak economy and raging unemployment would seem to be overwhelming.

Yet, apparently Obama not only had enough time to spend on his bracket - which I can understand (everyone needs a break) - but he had time to go out of his way and record a spot for the networks to cover his picks and analysis.  Look, I can easily see the importance of symbolic sports gestures - throwing out the first pitch at Major League games, phone calls and White House visits for champions.  But surely in the middle of all that is happening at the moment, there is something else the President of the United States should be doing.  After all, this is the man who felt it necessary to fly across the Atlantic to lobby for Chicago's Olympic bid.  Isn't there somewhere else he should be right now?  The UN just approved military action in Libya, but it may be too late for that rebellion.  Maybe Obama could have sped the UN process up in person rather than taping a fluff piece.  Playing golf while the world falls apart just doesn't make for a good picture.  (Or does it?)

I don't really know.  I just know how powerless I feel as I view world events and the one person on earth who has more power at his disposal to affect them, seems distracted. 

Last week Obama said that it would be easier to be President of China because the world doesn't hang on his every word.  Years ago, when the Soviet Union still stood as a world power, President Reagan wanted his every word to be heard - from the halls of the Kremlin to the smallest cells of their gulags.  With his words, he sought to strike fear in the despot and bring hope to the oppressed.  Sadly, this is sorely missing from Obama.

The President needs to stop talking.  He needs to say something and he needs to mean what he says.

NUTS

*  Harry Reid, rejected making any changes to Social Security when questioned by Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC.  "Two decades from now, I'm willing to take a look at it," said Reid, 71, in an interview to air Wednesday evening on MSNBC. "But I'm not willing to take a look at it right now."  [h/t The Hill.com]

*  Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi apparently has had a memory lapse of the past several years as she proclaims that "Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility...".  For the record, I would take issue with that statement from a member of either party that has been in office over the past decade.  Ed Morrissey at HOTAIR attempts to remind Mrs. Pelosi,

Not only did Democrats under her Speakership raise discretionary spending 18% in three years, not only did she pass a Pay-Go law and then fail to adhere to it even once, Pelosi became the first Speaker since Watergate to fail to pass a budget resolution for a fiscal year.  In 2010, despite having a 77-seat majority in the House, a Senate which her party held by 18 seats, and a Democrat in the White House, Pelosi failed — or refused — to pass a budget for FY2011.  Instead, she pushed continuing resolutions in order to hide spending until after the midterms, and failed even then to pass a budget.

*  Donald Trump made news during his recent Good Morning America appearance as the Daily Caller recounts,

On Thursday’s “Good Morning America,” Donald Trump questioned whether or not President Obama was born in the United States, and pushed back on the notion that others who question President Obama’s birthplace are idiots.

Regarding questions surrounding Obama’s birth, Trump said:

Everybody that even gives any hint of being a birther…they label them as an idiot.  Let me tell you, I’m a really smart guy.  I was a really good student at the best school in the country.  The reason I have a little doubt — just a little — is because he grew up and nobody knew him.  …Nobody knows who he is until later in his life.  It’s very strange. The whole thing is very strange.

Can we kill two birds with this one?  If not for the entertainment value, I would be happy to be rid of The Donald and I would very much like to be rid of the whole birther issue.  Can this be like matter and anti-matter where both are annhilated as they come into contact?  It's just a question.

*  The largest story not being reported by the mainstream press remains the death threats made against Republicans in Wisconsin.  Read Lee Stranahan's story at the Huffington Post.  Given the press' accusations that the Tea Party people are dangerous and violent extremists,

Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It's bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.

*  In today's edition, I have two bits questioning President Obama's efforts and abilities, so I guess I can be included in the nuts section.  It's just exasperating to see such a failure of leadership.  But don't take my word for it.  This is what is being reported by Joshua Hersh at The Atlantic,

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits. 

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

I'm not often inclined to agree with Secretary Clinton.  If this means I'm nuts, so be it.

Please do your part.  Give a hoot, don't pollute.  Be informed before you argue.  Spend more time listening than talking (two ears, one mouth).  Kids eat free on Tuesday.

God Bless.