Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Global Democracy?

It was Condoleeza and Brent Scrowcroft, two Secretary of States in the last fifteen years. Condoleeza addressed her mentor telling him that the Bush Administration is going to democratize Iraq. "How on earth" could be the only response from the realist foreign policy expert.

But is a fact. Post 9/11, Bush and his entire bunch running America believes America is the "last great hope" for democracy. By hook or crook, democracy must be forged in dark lands. Arabs, Russians, Chinese, Africans, etc...must realize democracy as their hope. Thus, the President tried and true heralds this message across the globe.

Trusted advisor, Jean Kirkpatrick, believed that "democracy makes America safer." Add heavy intellectual hitters such as Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, Bill Bennet, etc...who have for years advocated using American force to create global democratic change. Its a type of new domino theory. One democratic nation begets another and so on. And people around the globe will line the streets, cheer democracy, kiss their leaders, and hope for a better future.

To the credit of neoconservatives, successful interventions for democracy have occurred. Just the fall of the Soviet Union and the breakaways Baltic states created colossal momentum toward democracy globally. East Germany reunited, Checklosovakia, Poland, and Hungary stampeded toward democratic rule of law nearly immediately upon the Soviet Fall.

With nostalgic memories of Japan, West Germany, Singapore, and Taiwan, neoconservatives have their crown jewels of democratic institutions they can parade before Europe and the United Nations. Fledgling states turned into economic powerhouses in short time is what the Bush administration sees. And they are correct, for sure.

But President didn't enter the White House intent on unleashing pre-emptive strikes across the globe. Nation-building was foreign to his thoughts. It was 9/11 that tore President Bush from his moorings. And why shouldn't the "Pearl Harbor" event of our generation not refocus our President? It should. And President Bush broke from traditional conservatives because of 9/11.

Truman and Dulles' containment policy was of no use with turbin wearing wackos intent on blowing themselves up along with their enemies. Nixon and Carter's detente didn't fit the moment. Reagan's legacy of "peace through strength" wasn't enough. Taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan was the easy call, which even Lemond supported stating, "Today We are All Americans."

Saddam Hussein's Iraq, WMD's, torture, oppression, dictatorship, and previous war became the focal point of neoconservatives. If we can't take down the baddest guy in the Middle East, then our tanks, soldiers, technology, etc...are useless. Carter might give away the Panama Canal. But Bush #43 had hopes for the world. Hussein was first in line.

The President Bush demanded freedom across the globe. So the Palestianians held elections...we got Hamas. Lebanon held national elections...we got Hezbollah. Mubarak's Egypt held elections and then shut them down as the Muslim Brotherhood was rolling up impressive victories. Russians voted. We got Vladamir Putin, former KGB guy. Iranians vote. They give us Ahmadinejad. Venezuelans vote. We get Chavez. Evo Morales is no friend in Bolivia either amongst others across the globe.

Are these the kind of leaders we are to expect when the indiginous people excercise their right to vote?

Thomas Jefferson retracted his failed belief that France was prepared for rule by the people. Bloodshed revolution destroyed even Jefferson's faith that all people are ready for the responsibility and privlege of voting.

FDR was reputed to have stated, "He's a bad guy...but he's our bad guy!"

Secretary Kissinger would drink a toast to such policy making. He backed Nixon's plan to oust Alliende of Chile, the democratically socialist leader and replace him with Pinochet, the feared dictator.

So are bad guys are always bad for America? President Reagan armed Hussein to the hilt to stalemate the Ayatollahs of Iran fighting the Baathist's of Iraq. And do democracies in the hands of certain nations always produce safety for Americans?

Yet, the dye is cast in American politics since President Wilson assumed office. Wilson in 1916 called WWI "A war to end all wars". So he sent 250,000 courageous American GIs to die in a voluntary war. President Kennedy chimed, "America will pay any cost and bear any burden...". This ignited Vietnam. President Johnson stated, "We must end poverty, ignorance, and hunger around the globe..." This gave us 54,000 dead in Vietnam.

If we have no enemy, we have to invent one. What good is Superman if there is no Gotham City to protect from bad guys.

Thus, President Bush #43 stated, "Western civilization hangs in the balance...if terrorism is not defeated...Americans will never be safe until the terrorist enemies are defeated".

Is this really true? Or just a bit of hype to win over the masses?

More lines...more balony...more lines to come.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Senator McCain & Truth Syrum?

George Carlin once said, "Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."

Enter the Straight Talk Express of Senator McCain:

The Straight Talk Express full of honor, integrity, and truth syrum promises the cold hard truth above all else. So what happens when we evaluate Senator McCain's words and voting record?

  • In 2001 and 2003 Senator McCain voted against tax cuts for the American people.

  • In 2004, McCain voted against repealing the inheritance tax

  • Said was for the upholding Roe v. Wade in 1999; said he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned in 2006

  • McCain voted to fund stem cell research with federal dollars

  • McCain crafted legislation eliminated gun shows from American soil in 2002

  • McCain crafted legislation restricting free speech concerning political elections in 2005

  • Voted against (DOMA) Defense of Marriage Act

The war hero from Arizona, since 1999, has gone maverick on Republicans and disguised himself as a conservative. The record is clear. So what does Senator McCain believe? He is a Rockefeller Republican. Schwarznegger, Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chaffe, etc...have a new bedfelow, John McCain. He is now a RINO- a Republican in name only.

The truth is that Senator McCain in eight years has evolved. A true first rate conservative for the first 19 years of political service, the Senator has made a calculated decision. Conservativism cannot get him elected to the White House. So instead of honorably representing The Senator claims the mantle of integrity, honor, and sacrifice.

Senator McCain has chosen to clamp down on people's freedoms. In 2002, he crafted legislation that would eliminate gun shows on American soil. In 2005, the Senator created more legislation limiting the free speech of all Americans during political campaigns.

So what is going on with McCain? No to gun shows, no to defense of marriage, yes to stem cell research, no to lowering taxes, no to conservative judicial appointees are all McCain specials. His votes defy conservatives. His votes defy Republicanism.

Senator McCain says he is all about "Straight Talk" with the American people. If so, then why Senator McCain call yourself a conservative since the term "moderate" fits the facts much better in your two runs for the Presidency?

Thursday, January 10, 2008

The McCain Hoodwink

Ronald Reagan introduced war hero John McCain to American politics in 1980. On Reagan's coattails, this young war hero rode into Washington as a conservative. McCain parades around as if honor and integrity mark his campaign and his life. Honor on the battlefield is a horse you can ride on only so long in politics. Then the truth emerges at some point. Consider the following:

With a recession in the making in 2001, Senator McCain who just lost a bitter political battle against President Bush stated, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.”

In 2003, Senator McCain again voted against additional tax cuts by President Bush to spur economic growth further. In 2004, the Senator sought to block with Democrats any attempts at repealing the inheritance tax, instead seeking a larger government role in legally confiscating private wealth.

Today McCain defends his anti-tax cut message. Revising history, McCain says that he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the tax cuts because there was not a cut in spending attached to the legislation. Senator McCain's memory fails him. He clearly voted against giving Americans back their money stating that the rich shouldn't receive money back while the middle class receive nothing. Is this the integrity that he lives by?

What about the breathtaking 2002 McCain Feingold bill that McCain is so proud of? Stifling free speech by pointing out another candidate's record is apparently unacceptable to the Senator. Maybe the Senator is fearful of being swift-boated like John Kerry in 2004 as he prepares for another run at the White House. According to a Real Clear Politics article, "McCain has stoutly insisted that the regulation of politics -- and especially his restrictions on the quantity, content and timing of campaign speech -- does not restrict speech."

In contrast, conservative commentator George Will in a 2006 article describes what Senator McCain's said about the First Ammendment:

"I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

Lets see---free speech guaranteeed by the 1st Amendment? Or clean government? Clean government over free speech is apparently Senator McCain's position.

Clean government does have its advantages. Its working well for Putin and the KGB types running Russia. Just ask famed chess player Gary Kasparov jailed for opposition to Putin's policies as Kasparov was preparing a campaign for the Russian presidency. Pol Pot loved clean government-swift, immediate, and clean. The killing fields of Cambodia are testament to clean government instead of free speech.

Mubarak of Egypt, Castro of Cuba, Mussolini of Italy, and most Musim countries can attest to the effective role of clean government. Why have free speech instead of clean government? Chavez, Jintao, and Kim Jong Ill would surely come to the aid of McCain's efforts to have clean government- don't you think? Many an autocrat began rule with democratic institutions only to then erode free speech liberty for safer and cleaner government. Just ask the new Chancellor of Germany in 1933 how democracy helped him create clean government.

Concerning climate change, Senator McCain visited America's most northern city in Alaska to investigate global warming with Mrs. Clinton. Upon returning he stated, "We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role.'' Of course, a backlash against this frenzied man-made global warming theory is taking shape. Facts may have little to do with the Senator's position, except the fact that he is positioning himself for a White House campaign.

In other matters, didn't the Senator declare in 1999 to the San Francisco Chronicle that abortion is the law of the land and should not be overturned? By 2006 on an ABC interview, McCain stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Another case of the honorable war hero shooting straight with the American people, right?

What about McCain's famous 2005 "Gang of 14" coaltion? This Senator, who stated that Roe v. Wade should never be overturned, also decided to fillibuster with liberals the appointment of conservative judges. On whose side does the Senator land on?

Concerning open border Americans, this stalwart defender of America chose to produce no legislation to shut down the borders. In fact, why did Senator McCain ally himself with patriot Ted Kennedy to craft a bill graning illegal aliens a path to legal citizenship in America? Americans were not for it. They were against it. Yet, McCain still tried to jam this piece of legislation down the throats of all Americans.

Although Senator McCain claims to be defender of the American family, what is his record on family legislation? In 2006, maverick McCain joined Democrats and liberal Republicans in voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect traditional marriage (Wikipedia, McCain, John; 2007).

Of course, the record wouldn't be complete without Senator McCain producing and co-sponsoring legislation in 2002 shutting down gun shows for good across America. Most liberals despise the 2nd Amendment. Apparently, Senator McCain fits very nicely into the Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid camp? On the other hand, most Republicans look to defend the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

We all knew what side McCain fought for against the Communist enemies in the 60's and 70's. Today his war is against the American people. Honor and integrity are how the Senator wants to be described as. But honor requires that he talk and vote the same way.

However McCain's votes and positions betray his conservative past. Mayor Bloomberg at least had the courage to jump ship from the Republican party. Lets hope this former war hero chooses to do the same before he alters the Republican message completely.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

The Cry Heard Round the World !!!

It was the cry heard round the world. An exhausted and exasperated Hillary Clinton broke down before America. The Barack Express, leading by 12 points in the polls, was steamrolling Mrs. Clinton's invincible machine. As the cameras rolled 24 hours before New Hampshire residents voted, Mrs. Clinton broke down and said, "It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together. Some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some difficult odds."

Was she crying? Was it tears? Whatever it was, it was pure genius.

She captitulated for a brief moment. We all do at some point. But she capitulated on television for the world to witness. Such raw emotion from a steely woman like Mrs. Clinton was unprecedented. With Obama up by 12%, the Clinton campaign in disarray, and Obama prepared to bring down the Clinton dynasty, the "Cry Heard Round the World" was born.

It was Tarzan's call to the wild animals to come and help. Mrs. Clinton's breakdown was nothing short of the most primal solidarity call to all women.
It wasn't a call you could hear if you were a male. The poll results showed men overwhelmingly voting for Obama. The men failed to understand the signal.

Experts and pundits scratched their heads watching the election returns roll in. How could they have been so wrong? How did Hillary pull off the Hail Mary pass to bring victory?

It was the Tarzan principle. As Tarzan cusps his mouth and extends his clarion call for help when he really needs the help, the creatures of the jungle risk life and limb to show up at Tarzan's side.

Hillary's silent tears brought qualified females 40 years and older to her side. Did these women really listen? With 58% of these undecided women voters breaking for Hillary at the last minute, these sorority sister's listened and bailed her out. The Tarzan Principle worked.

It was powerful. Solidarity and pity rolled into one vote. Is she the best candidate for the job? It doesn't matter. She's a woman. She needed help from the girls club of the Granite state and they gave all too willingly. Thats all that mattered on this day. Will Mrs. Clinton employ the Tarzan Principle again during the primaries? We may never know.

We know, however, that the Senator from New York believes that she has "found her voice" and will live another day to fight. As Obama stood on the stage conceding the Granite state, he looked as if he had been sucker punched.

Sucker punched he was. It was the females. It was the Tarzan Principle. It was hysterical emotion trumping intelligent debate. Called into a mission that saves a fellow woman from disgrace,they now go back into the wild awaiting their Tarzan's next set of orders tomorrow.

Monday, January 07, 2008

The New 21st Century American

Benjamin Franklin, "The First Great American" has given way to the new "21st Century American", Barak Obama. Franklin's civility, virtue, and wisdom altered the course of our nation. The first "21st Century American", Obama, whose soaring rhetoric, magnetic appeal, and transcendent presence promises to strip America of its heritage in favor of global unity.

What exactly is a "21st Century American"?

Obama symbolizes this new American fully. He is the American that won't wear an American pin on his lapel in honor of his country. He is the one who finds placing his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the national anthem a little too patriotic. He calls the soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq "wasted". The 21st Century American is the one who has declared war against war.

This man is more comfortable amongst world leaders than with his own countrymen. The United Nations, the Enviornmental movement, and humanitarian causes across the globe take his time as much as anything happening in his land of birth. AIDS in Africa, peace in the Balkans, starvation in Korea occupy this man's thoughts as much as the Constitution. Defending America is but a small portion of his time. Making the world a better place is his passion.

The 21st Century American believes Americans owe the world much. More aid overseas, more taxes at home, and more promises for the world to eliminate hunger, poverty, and ignorance represents the cultured cosmopolitan 21st century American. Wealth creation to the 21st Century American is tantamount to fleecing the poor. His goal is to equal the outcomes between the haves and the have nots. Guaranteed success is the goal; not a guarantee of opportunity.

Too much patriotism is dangerous. Patriotism breeds love of country; not love of humanity. We can't let our kids be trained like this, can we?

America's role around the globe must be reshaped. "We are the World" will replace "I'm Proud to Be an American" by Lee Greenwood. The United Nations becomes the agent of change getting America's attention and money.

The Secretary of Defense gets much less attention. Daily military briefings are put on the back burner. The Russians convince the 21st Century Americans that a weapons shield is unnecessary. Agreements are made. The military is gutted slowly but surely.

Canada, Mexico, and America must have a superhighway connecting goods to people. Borders become less important-except to collect new tariffs and fees for the government. Illegals that are here get to stay here. If we can build a wall across Mexico, then so be it. But no urgency needed. After all, we are a melting pot, right?

Obama may well be this kind of globalist at heart. Humanitarian issues across the globe, hunger, poverty, and ignorance will be attacked as the real enemy of America. A "Mother Theresa" foreign policy employing our military will have soldiers handing out snack packs, rice, and beans on every continent.

The 21st Century American will trust the Russians, Chineese, Venezuelans, Syrians, and Iranians.

The no-strings-attached good faith meetings will be the hallmark of the 21st century American president. Prime Minister Chamberlain would be proud this new 21st Century American. Ahmadinejad's Iran will pray for the 21st Century American leader. He is exactly what the Iranian mullahs have been waiting for.

Instead of the "Axis of Evil", Iran, Iraq, and North Korea will be redefined as the "Axis of Equality". Why? Hard-earned American taxpyaing dollars will be diverted in huge sums to play nice nice with bad leaders. It will be called foreign aid.

Kyoto and Bali will be revisited. The 21st Century President will save the planet. He will attend Earth Day. No matter the cost, no matter the facts, the 21st Century President will dilligently work to manipulate Americans into funding climate change. He will cower to foreign demands for America to pay the largest share of all nations. After all, Americans are rich. we can afford to pay the lion's share of CO2 emmissions, right?

What does this culturally sensitive 21st century President do with the military?
First, he must never establishes a national interest. That is too selfish. He can't fight for oil. That is too greedy. He can't fight bad guys doing bad things unless everyone else in the world agrees to fight. That would take too much courage. But he can condemn many bad guys and their bad deeds at the UN.

The 21st Century American has global interests in mind; not American self-interests. He has a global image to upkeep. His vision is a global free lance melting pot. The America First philosophy of Harding, Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Reagan is replaced. The UN, the IMF, SEATO, etc...are the new laws. The EU becomes our model of chartered government. Europeans promise to show us the way.

The 21st Century American trusts government more than individuals. More government, more spending, more programs, more bureacracies, the 21st Century American's dream.

Save the people from themselves, help the people from having a quality life, and give to the people what they didn't ask for. What else could we ask from the 21st Century American leader who wants to make life better for all Americans...I mean citizens of humanity?

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Obama Thoughts & Ramblings

A striking tall lean figure is capturing hearts at every stop in the campaign. Soaring rhetoric, flocking crowds, intelligent persuasion, and positive oration make up the charm of two year Senator Barak Obama. He is turning heads. He is changing minds. He is winning primaries.

So who is Barak Obama? What does he want with America? He wants to be our President!

The unbelievable groudswell of support that is following the most charismatic figure of the 2008 election primaries is stunning. For the Clintonistas, its down-right terrifying. So badly are they looking for dirt to sling, the Clintonistas resorted to attacking Obama's written paper in kindergarten expressing a desire to be President.

James Madison in Federalist #70 proceeded to explain the qualities necessary to be found in the President of the United States. Much which can be added capacity and intelligence. If these were the only requirements, it appears that Senator Obama qualifies.

Of his voting record however, Obama has failed to show up about 33% of the time to cast his Senate vote. Obama has especially, and maybe purposefully, missed votes on 9 of the Iraq war funding bills. Its fairly easy to be the sharpest war critic if you have chosen not to vote. The pattern to not cast a vote stems back to the Illinois Senate. Voting "present" at least 52 times instead of for or against a piece of legislation, Obama skirted the "heat in the kitchen" that President Truman mumbled about.

Obama abstained an inordinate number times from voting on critical state-wide issues in Illinois. While other state politicians took the heat for their positions, Obama was apparently abdicating his duty to vote. The easy votes- no problem. The more difficult votes require an Obama vote to abstain so as not to make future enemies. Smart politically, but classic Obama on not being tied down to conviction on specific votes.

A plethora of other issues that might or might not make a difference:

Smoking pot in high school? Just like any other purposeless high school punk kid-right? Obama admits it. And he moves on.

The silver-tonged orator wants to talk with Iran; but invade Pakistan if Musharaff isn't cooperating with us in the war on terror. Obama wants a complete withdrawal of Americans from Iraq. Obama voted against the surge. He even says that the surge is working only because Sunnis see that American Democrats are likely to win the elections in 2008. Thus, Sunnies are being forced to make nice with Shia's before Americans are gone. Is there any more stretched logic than this?

Obama's flare for philosophic abstract rhetoric is rather impressive, but it can draw him into trouble. "Wasted" lives is what Obama called our troops in Iraq when they die. Apologies were forthcoming for misspeaking. With 32 Virginia Tech students gunned down, Obama referenced foolishly the violence of so many other kinds that must be addressed as well.

His gaffe in not wearing an American pin on his lapel, and haphazardly placing his hand over heart during the national anthem became questions of patriotism. Obama retorted that pariotism "is a matter of the heart"; not what you are wearing.

What must it say to our electorate when even Ahmadijad's Iran is praying for Obama's election?

Obama has been cultured, trained, and educated in elite schools. He has known the South Side of Chicago. He has learned his ways overseas in Islamic nations. This conglomerate mixture of cosmopolitan and liberal diversity in Obama's background provides much assurance to the Hezbollahs. How do we know? Even Hezbollah has connections inside the Obama campaign discussing the issues of the Middle East by their own admission. No such talks are to be found in the McCain camp---apparently???

Friday, January 04, 2008

Iowa Caucus & a New America?

"All the Kings Men" was a slimy political free-for-all Louisiana political plot that highlighted power politics, money, and dirt like we all know politics to be. Thats the politics of old. Iowa 2008 promises two different candidates far different in tone, attitude, and word.

Mike Hukabee and Barak Obama stunned political junkies and towered over competitors winning 34% and 38% of caucus going voters in Iowa. Both men embody inspirational connecting messages. One had money; the other did not. Both became unlikely heroes, at least for an evening across America.

Huckabee, outspent 15 to 1 by Romney, carried evangelical's hopes to the finish line. Pundits, pollsters, and most of us liken Huckabee to David and a slingshot. Romney's massive national effort barely made him respectable in Iowa. But one night "doth not make a victor". Nontheless, can anyone not help like the former Governor of Arkansas?

Clean rhetoric, simple style, authentic charisma, likeable personality, and acceptable ideas are bound to draw millions of dollars to carry on the Huckaboom Message into Hew Hampshire and South Carolina. True conservatives question this man's economic credentials. After all, hiking taxes 94 times including cigarette and alcohol while Arkansas' governor are not the favored policies of conservatives. But who would not want a governor to improve roads and education in a state where both were desperately needed? Does not the governor have a right to impelement the 80% mandate of Arkansas voters?

Of Obama Mr. GQ, can anyone ignore the infinite charisma, soaring rhehtoric, and energizing force of his appeal? The Audacity of Hope author has shattered the glass ceiling, and the ramifications will be felt for many states to come. Its a good thing. Americans are listening. Americans are captured. New Hampshire awaits. South Cariolina awaits the newbie Senator to resonate hope again. Charisma, however, is no substitute for quality ideas, policy initiatives, and experience over a full year's general election campaign. Ask Obama the difficult questions, and the ansers are murky.

Obama has brought life to Democrats and scored big in Iowa. The Clinton 100 million dollar machine, advisors, former President, major endorsements, and the Washington insiders that that they could jam inevitability down the throats of Iowa's voters. Instead, Obama rise to prominence shows that the people are not so taken by polls, pundits, and experts who "know everything" before votes are cast. The improbable has become possible. And though Clinton promises change, Obama promises change "you can believe in". Game-set-match!

Clinton may well win the large industrial states with her unbelievable political machine. But can she win the their hearts and minds when Obama is in the game? Liberals want change. They hated the war. Clinton gave the blank check for war and has never apologized. Liberals hate this. Obama, on the contrary, is the promise of hope. He is the promise of beleivable change.

Iowa, however, is a cruel state. Few first place winners run the table either for Republicans or Democrats. The black moguls await these inexperienced candidates. Both are likeable and intelligent. Huckabee, the soft-spoken teacher with just the right words comforting the people of our generation. Obama with incantations of Dr. King swirled together with sprinkles of JFK's elevated rhetoric, brings 240,000 promise-filled voters to Iowa caucuses who believe in a new day.

"Mr. Smith goes to Washington" has a new script this evening in Iowa. A Baptist minister turned governor of Arkansas and a newly minted African American Illinois Senator are re-writing the script, and possibly writing an entirely new book in 2008

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Romney Fleecing the Flock?

How real is Mitt Romney's social conversion to the GOP? His father, a Michigan governor, and mother, who ran for the Senate herself, were staunch pro-abortion candidates before Roe v. Wade was ever decided. Read the following:

Huckabee on Taxes