Iran: What's the Dealio?

Obama and Iran have entered into an historic agreement. Essentially, they have agreed to disagree and to look the other way while Iran builds a nuclear bomb. This is perhaps not the deal most people expected, but with Obama in charge was there really ever any other possibility? Here are the problems with the deal.

(1) It's Iran: In all deals with Iran, there is always one overriding problem: you just can’t trust Iran to keep to anything they agree to. No deal with Iran is worth the paper it is printed on. So if you reach a deal with Iran, then you are already a failure... and a moron.

(2) Fuzzy Promises: Turning to the deal specifically, the next problem is that the deal leaves all the key areas fuzzy. Here are some examples:

● Iran will be limited in its research and development into improved centrifuges, though apparently the limits are rather fuzzy and both sides already disagree about what they are. Those improved centrifuges, by the way, can’t be used to enrich uranium for ten years. After that, all bets are off. So expect an "Obama bomb" in 2025.

● Iran must uninstall some of its current centrifuges. That sounds good, except they are allowed to replace them with the more efficient centrifuges they are working on. Also, the numbers don’t make sense. When this process began, they had 12 centrifuges. They brought this up to 20,000 over time. They only run 9,000. Now we are told they need to reduce that amount to 6,000. That’s way more than 12, and it leaves 14,000 centrifuges ready to be run whenever they feel like breaking the agreement.

As an interesting aside, we are also told that Iran can’t enrich any more uranium. But if that is true, why let them spin the 6,000 centrifuges? The only reason to do that is to enrich uranium... which they aren’t allowed to do... except they can spin 6,000 centrifuges.

● Iran is required to reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium from ten tons to just a few pounds – less than is needed to make a bomb. But no timeline is given for this, nor is a method specified. Obama is claiming Iran will export the material to places like France, but Iran is claiming they can dilute it rather than getting rid of it. That will leave the stuff ready to be returned to military use at any point. It's a bit like "diluting" bullets by storing them with chocolate.

● The IAEA and the US wanted Iran to admit that they have been researching bomb design and detonators and to identify what they've achieved. Some groups even suspect Iran has developed a detonator. Iran has refused to answer this. The agreement is really vague on this point and even team Obama only says that Iran “will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns,” with no mention of what those measures are.

Essentially, on every significant issue, Iran has agreed to do something, but that something is always nebulous and vague and, even then, disputed.

(3) Trust, Don't Verify: Obama’s talking points meant to sell us on his “brilliant” plan also do a good deal of misleading bait and switch work. For example, Obama claims that the agreement subjects poor Iran to extensive snooping by international inspectors, with some surveillance lasting for up to 25 years! Sounds great, only, there will be no inspections allowed of military sites... where the Iranians would be building the bomb. Sure, you can look in my garage, but not in my secret lab in the basement.

And don’t worry about all those centrifuges Iran has because they aren’t allowed to spin them at the secret sites... only, no one is allowed to snoop at those sites, so no one but Iran will know what is happening there. Yet, John Kerry flat out lies in an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe: “To be clear, there is no aspect of this agreement that is based on promises or trust. Every element is subject to proof.” Right. Except the key provisions.

Obama also claims that sanctions could be snapped back into place if Iran cheats, but the agreement doesn’t actually allow that. Instead, it includes a dispute resolution provision that will likely take years before sanctions could be re-imposed... if ever.


So there you have it. I can’t say I’m disappointed per se because this is exactly what I would expect from an agreement negotiated by Obama. Seriously did you expect anything better?

Anyways, the way I see this going is that Iran will do whatever it wants and Obama will try to cover for them until it becomes too obvious to sustain. Then he will blame the next administration. In the meantime, Saudi will develop its own nuclear bomb. What happens next is anybody’s guess. Pakistan and India have avoided a nuclear war and Pakistan is batshit crazy. But Pakistan also doesn’t have Israel as a scapegoat, nor do they have a terrorist wing who would happily transport a bomb to some western city and set it off.

I guess the only thing we can say for sure is that Obama’s policy of pretend problems don’t exist is about to leave the world a much more dangerous place... again.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Thoughts On Cuba

Obama seems to be casting about almost randomly for anything that will create a legacy for him. Too bad for him that he doesn't understand what the American public actually cares about, nor is he apparently capable of working well enough with others to get help in finding a legacy. Oh well. His latest effort, loosening relationships with Cuba, is a good idea, but ultimately pretty meaningless toward his future. Here are my thoughts...

This Is Long Overdue

I get that some conservatives are stuck in the paranoid world of Cold War politics, but loosening relationships with Cuba is something that should have been done long ago. Why? Because history has shown that the only way to change a regime, short of military occupation, is economic liberalization. Yep. Sanctions don't work. For sixty years now, we have done our best to change Cuba's government by imposing strong economic sanctions on Cuba. The idea was to cripple their economy so the government would collapse and capitalists (and mobsters) could return to Cuba and exploit its economic qualities, e.g. cigars, sugar, tourism, gambling, etc. Despite our best efforts, those sanctions resulted in jack... nothing... squat... zip... nada. Why? Because sanctions don't work.

Indeed, look at the history of sanctions and you won't find a single instance where they worked... ever. And the reason they don't work is really quite simple. First, sanctions allow the sanctioned country to create an us versus them mentality which makes enduring the sanctions into a matter of pride and loyalty. That keeps people from attacking the regime over the sanctions. It also lets the sanctioned regime blame their economic and political failures on the sanctioning country. This becomes the perfect excuse for all failures. Third, sanctions just don't work because they will always be overcome by the power of human ingenuity. You will see this time and again. In fact, interestingly, despite a total embargo and continual bombing, Nazi Germany actually produced more war material at the end of the war than it did even at the height of its power.

Heck, conservatives get this when it comes to places like Iran and China etc. Yet, when it comes to Cuba, somehow nostalgia kicks in and seems to make conservatives stupid... "James Bond can't be black! And by God, we'll get those Cubans in another couple hundred years!"

At the same time, economic liberalization has crushed communist regime after communist regime. The communist regimes in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China and Vietnam all fell apart when their people got a taste of economic freedom and the joys wealth can bring. Sure, China and Vietnam are still technically run by the communists, but their control is little more than an illusion today, with their leaders understanding that maintaining their massive growth rates are the only thing keeping them from being tossed out by their own people. In the Soviet Union and East Europe, the inability of those regimes to deliver wealth led to their overnight collapses and replacement by regimes that shut down the secret police and opened the stock markets. Was it always perfect? Hardly, but it was fast and furious and fundamentally transforming. Sanctions, on the other hand, never even started the ball rolling.

Cuba will be the same thing. As American money and businesses pour in, a middle and upper class will form within weeks and they will demand an end to the regime's dominance. These are the people who keep the regime alive today. And when the regime is stripped of their support as they find a better deal getting rich, the regime must either retreat or collapse. I guess they could call out the Army, but that's almost never worked to maintain control once the public gets money-fever. In fact, outside of a temporary victory in China, which gave way to liberalization almost immediately, I can't think of an instance where this has worked.

So the moral is simple: if you want to change a nation, liberalize economic relations and let greed crush ideology. If you want to pretend to change a regime while actually strengthening it, then pimp for sanctions.

Obama v. The GOP

Obama thinks this will help him and his legacy, but it won't. This change will mean nothing to Obama's legacy because the public just doesn't care about foreign policy or cold war relic policies. In fact, all it will do is add to the vague sense the public has that Obama is weak.

On the other hand, there is nothing to be gained by fighting this or attacking Obama. The best the GOP can do in that regard is to be ignored. A more likely result is they will be seen as being a pain in the ass who are obsessed with ideology and ancient feuds that no longer matter to the public.

Where this change will actually matter is in Florida electoral politics. And in that, the GOP is best situated to be the winner. The Cuban community in Florida is largely Republican, though the younger ones are more Democratic. And while the older Cubans are generally opposed to liberalization, they will ultimately be the ones who benefit the most from this change because they will be the ones who fund all the businesses that will be opening in Cuba. That means the GOP's Florida base will soon be much, much richer. And if the GOP helps them in this, through the normal "client services" in which Congress engages, then the GOP will be directly responsible for helping that effort to go smoothly. You can make a lot of friends that way... newly rich, powerful friends. In theory, the Democrats could do this too, only they don't have the connections to the community that the GOP does and they are seen as sympathetic to the wrong people, i.e. communists. What the GOP needs to avoid is trying to throw up roadblocks to economic development which let the Democrats become the heroes of the Cuban community. They also need to avoid changing the immigration preferences for Cubans, which will not sit well with the community. Beyond that, they should seize this opportunity to transform Cuba and the electoral landscape of Florida... Carpe Florida!

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Definition of Insanity Is...

Leftists can be so delusional. And they have such short memories. This time, it’s an article at Politico about their hope that Hillary can fix Obama’s foreign policy mess. This thing will make your head spin.

The article begins by telling us that Obama’s foreign policy is a mess. It’s a mess, says the author, because Obama’s foreign policy is basically “focused on fixing his predecessor’s mistakes.” The article then says that “‘Don’t Do Stupid Stuff’ may be sound advice for college-bound kids, but it’s not a foreign policy doctrine.” Wow. Of course, the article points out that this isn’t really Obama’s fault. See, since Obama was forced to spend so much time fixing “the economic mess he inherited. . . it’s understandable that Obama sought to limit America’s exposure to foreign conflicts.” Hence, it’s not his fault that even six years later he still has done nothing in the foreign policy arena.

Whoa! Hold the phone. That’s completely false.

Obama ran on the idea of closing Gitmo, fixing our foreign relations, and making the world love and respect us again. He promised to stop droning people, to end torture, to stop supporting dictators, to tell China to stop hurting our exports, and to refocus our foreign policy on do-gooderism. That was his promise, not “I’m going to ignore foreign policy while I fix the economy.”

And consistent with that, Obama tried to do precisely this when he first took office... sort of. Specifically, he did the bow and apologize tour and he expected that would fix the Middle East. He declared Bush evil and promised to never act that way again. He hit the reset button with Russia. At the same time, he tried to stand town tiny Honduras and bully tiny Israel into a settlement with the Palestinians. He sent people to dance for the Chinese and he promised to lead from behind at Copenhagen.

So the entire premise of this idea that Obama focused on the economy is wrong. The real problem is not that Obama did nothing, it’s that nothing Obama did worked. The bow and grovel tour didn’t change a thing. When nothing got better, Obama expanded droning and he continued to authorize torture until he’s out of office. Oh, and he expanded the droning into Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia. He also got us involved in Syria and Egypt and Libya, and he sent the navy to make sure any pirates near Somalia were OSHA compliant. Now he’s going back into Iraq. Iran is still going nuclear. He didn’t move the Israel-Palestinian thing even an inch, despite repeated attempts to beat the Israelis into submission. He’s also muddled his way through the Arab spring, ultimately siding with dictators in Egypt.

Standing up to Honduras didn’t work either. They ended up flipping us the bird and Obama walked away in a huff, leaving South American to Brazil, Argentina, and Cuba to carve up. Russia has been on a tear ever since the reset button, invading countries, arresting political opponents, extorting Europe, selling arms, and generally causing problems all around the world.

Obama did call out al Qaeda for racism in hiring, but they didn’t really change. He discovered he couldn’t close Gitmo because no one wanted these people back, so he tried to take away their rights and make them non-people. China laughed in his face and proceeded to cause problems in the region which are slowing building to armed conflict between China and Japan and some others.

Even at Copenhagen he discovered what happens when you let other people lead... they do things you don’t like, and he let them all but kill any international effort to fight climate change.

So let’s be honest. Obama did exactly what he swore he would in foreign policy and it blew up on him.

So what would Hillary fix? Well, this is where it gets interesting. See, the first premise was that Obama basically had no foreign policy. We just debunked that, but the author runs with it. He says Hillary must put human rights and democracy above our national interests and must stop dealing with evil dictators. She must support popular uprisings. And she must be willing to use the US military to back these things up.

But that’s exactly what Obama did!!

Moreover, at the same time the author says this, he attacks Bush for his “freedom agenda,” which he describes as “utopian.” The “freedom agenda” was an agenda to put human rights and democracy before our national interests and to stop dealing with dictators. Sound familiar?

Honestly, my head is spinning. So Obama did what Bush did, but it didn’t work, so the author pretends that Obama did nothing. He then tells Hillary to do what both Bush and Obama did, which didn’t work, but he criticizes Bush for advocating the very things he’s now telling Hillary to do! BANG! Arggg. My head!

Einstein's definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and to expect a different result. Think about that.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Syria-ously?

Let’s interrupt today’s article about Obamacare and instead talk about Syria, rather briefly. Here are my impressions. Please share yours in the comments:

For those who haven’t been paying attention... like pretty much everyone... Obama is preparing to go to war with Syria. They probably won’t call it war. They’ll call it something like “intervention,” but it will be war. My guess is they’ll drop a bunch of cruise missiles on government buildings and military bases. They’ll bomb some rocket sites and some tanks and blow up some MIG something or others. Then it’s likely they will set up a no fly zone.

Economically the stock market dropped, which is a load of el toro kaka because Syria has no connection to the world economy at all. They make nothing. They dig up nothing. They transport nothing. The only thing they export are Syrians.

This has been an interesting build up to non-war-war because Obama drew a very clear line in the sand for the Syrians to avoid war. He told them, “Don’t use chemical weapons or my own rhetoric will force me to act.” This was a well chosen line too because Syria had no need to use chemical weapons, i.e. they have more than enough conventional power to slaughter their enemies. So using chemical weapons suggests they wanted to pull Obama into this.

For his part, Obama now has no choice but to act. But here’s the problem:

(1) This is again a Western country attacking an Arab country. In the past, the left has screamed that this is what inspires Islamic terrorism. So why has Obama attacked Syria and Libya and illegally bombed the crap out of people in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia? Secret Muslim my Ramadanadingdong.

(2) There is no endgame here. The rebels are even worse than the regime. The ideal solution would be for a Syrian-sized asteroid to crash gently on the country. Guess we shouldn’t have cut NASA’s budget, should we Mr. Obama?

(3) The Europeans are spent when it comes to war. Their ten soldiers are too tired after Afghanistan and won’t be out of therapy for decades. So we’re going this one alone except for possibly Turkey, and letting Turkey in raises questions of a larger regional struggle.

(4) The public hates the idea of getting involved. That last good poll I saw on this showed 9% support for intervention... about the same number of people who think Superman is real.

(5) There is a chance that any violence will spark a larger war with Israel. Iran is talking about using Syria as a pretext to attack Israel, though I highly doubt this. Cojones is a Spanish word and they don’t speak Spanish in Iran, which means they ain’t got no cojones in Iran.

Finally, I should point out that the Magic Syrian never appeared... just as I told you it won't: LINK.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hey Foreigners: Here's Why Americans Don't Pay Attention To You

In my vast travels around the business world and the internet, I've run into a great many foreigners. Yeah, they're everywhere. We even have foreign visitors to this here blog. And one of the things I keep running into is this idea that Americans are self-centered and don't pay attention to foreign countries. Let me explain why this isn't true.

Americans care a lot more about domestic news than they do about foreign news. That's a fact. The evidence is overwhelming. Even here, I can cut readership by 40% just by mentioning a foreign country... Prussia! So there is some truth to the idea that Americans don't pay attention to foreign events. But you know what? We pay a lot more attention than other countries do. The problem is that most foreigners don't understand that just because you pay attention to us doesn't mean we have a reason to pay attention to you.

This is the problem. Foreigners pay a lot of attention to us. Our films and television dominate their entertainment. Our products are everywhere in their countries. Their newspapers and nightly newscasts typically lead off with coverage of America and what we are up to. If you ever check out their papers online, you'll see that most of what they talk about is us. . . our politicians, our economy, our military, our sports, our celebrities. Sooooo, naturally, they assume that we must cover them the same way because if they care about us, then we must care about them, right? Well, no. And when they discover that we don't care about them, they get rather put out. That's when they call us self-centered jerks who only care about America.

But that's not true, and here's why.

Consider London (to use an example outside the US). I will bet you that every paper in Britain is packed with stories about the goings on in London. Yet, the London papers probably don't say Lord Jacksh*t about the happens in Bumfkferdshire. Why is that? Is it that Londoners are self-centered? Probably. But beside that, there's just no room. A newspaper can only cover so much news, so they pick the things that are most likely to matter the most. That means reporting on the movers and shakers, and the movers and shakers don't tend to live in small, out-of-the way places. Not to mention, there are thousands of Bumfkferdshires, so how could London pay attention to them all?

Well, it's the same thing with countries. You pay attention to us because we matter on the world scene, but you don't pay any more attention to Krapistan than we do because they don't do anything that warrants your attention. That means to the good people of Krapistan, you are just as guilty as we are of being self-centered. The only difference is that Krapistan doesn't care if you pay attention to them or not, because you don't matter to them either.

Look, I hate to say this, but most of you live in Krapistan whether you know it or not... you just aren't that important to us. Wow, that sounds rude, but it's true. Is this helping? Anyway, I know the British and the French and the Germans and the Brazilians and the Whatnots all think that they should be at the top of our list of countries that matter, but think about the competition. Think about what countries matter to us directly and indirectly. Do Britain, France and Brazil even crack that list? Let's find out. Here are the countries that impact us directly at the moment:

1. China -- the economic and (possible) military enemy
2. Afghanistan -- we're at war there
3. Iraq -- we just had a war there
4. Iran -- we're planning a war there
5. Israel -- big Jewish lobby here
6. Mexico -- narco-war on our border, we have 11 million of their people here
7. North Korea -- run by lunatic who wants to nuke Austin
8. Russia -- run by closeted homosexual who tries to stop everything we do
9. Saudi Arabia -- exporter of oil and terrorism, houser of American troops
10. Pakistan -- all kinds of trouble for us in many ways

See the problem? That's just the first wave. Those are the countries who are constantly on our news because they do something that poses a genuine threat to us almost every single day. How many people in other countries need to pay attention to ten "hot spot" countries?

Then you have the second tier. These are countries who affect us less directly, but still make our news for one reason or another. This includes Germany, the owner of the Eurozone, Japan and South Korea where we have massive numbers of troops in harms way, and India, the land of outsourcing. This is where Britain finally appears too because we get their television programs. But I still don't see a France, an Italy, a Brazil, etc. even though each of those countries seems to think they deserve to be at the top of the list.

Do you see now why this perception that Americans don't pay attention to foreign countries is wrong? The real problem isn't that we don't pay attention, it's that you don't stand out from the crowd. If you want to get noticed, do something to make us notice you. Nuke your neighbors... turn to terrorism... build an economic bloc and let it collapse. Seriously, if Hugo Chavez can get noticed, then so can you. Don't blame us if you're boring.

In all seriousness, this has been somewhat tongue-in-cheek but the point is valid. Americans pay attention to a lot more foreign news than the rest of the world wants to believe, but since we don't have an infinite amount of time, we focus on the things that matter to us the most -- wars, terrorism, threats of being nuked, economic competitors who inflate their currency and launch cyber attacks on our companies, narco-wars on our doorstep, and so on. Americans are not self-centered... we're just busy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Drones And Our Warlord In Chief

When Bush was in office, the left screamed that Bush’s use of drones was a “war crime.” When Obama took over, the left became strangely silent on this issue, as well as all the other issues that they considered “war crimes” when Bush did them. Let’s talk about Obama’s foreign policy generally and why there is good reason to be upset at Obama’s use of drones.

Let me start by pointing out the hypocrisy here. When Obama first ran for office, he ran on opposition to the invasion of Iraq. He also opposed Bush’s use of secret C.I.A. prisons and the warrantless surveillance of the Patriot Act. He attacked Bush for denying Guantanamo Bay detainees civil rights, and he promised to close the facility. He said he would ban “harsh interrogation techniques.” And many on the left, though I don’t recall Obama saying this specifically, really hated the use of drones and wanted it stopped. And he spoke of having a humbler foreign policy.

Well, Obama took over and lo and behold, he did none of this – except ban waterboarding. To the contrary, Obama became uber-Bush. His Justice Department tried to strip the Gitmo detainees of person status, in violation of the Constitution and international law. His Justice Department decided that military tribunals rather than civilian courts were just fine. And now, his Justice Department has not only decided that drones are cool, but they’re way cool and they should be used with reckless abandon.

The left has remained completely silent on these points, just as they cheered when he tried to bully Honduras (after saying we needed to stop interfering in Central America), just as they cheered when he sent troops to kill pirates, to fight rebels in Africa, to bomb terrorists in Somalia and Yemen, and to basically fight a Laos-type war in Pakistan, just as they pounded their chests when he bombed Libya, just as they are now screaming for him to bomb Syria. This is all the things the left hated about Bush, only on steroids. As an aside, they also used to fight things like land mines and the use of depleted uranium in shells... until Obama took over, now they’re cool.

Now get this, this is rich. When the Justice Department issued their memo on drones the other day, the left finally decided they need to say something. Said some ACLU hack:

“That memo coming out, I think, was a wake-up call. These last few days, it was like being back in the Bush days. It’s causing a lot of cognitive dissonance for a lot of people. It’s not the President Obama they thought they knew.”

Cognitive dissonance my smoking rear end... try willful collaboration. You’d have to be willfully blind to somehow fail to see what Obama has been doing for four years and to only now understand that Obama=Bush.

Anyway, here’s the deal with drones.

First, the problem I’ve had with the left on this issue is that there is no logic to their reasoning. Leftists have opposed drones on principle, and the reason seems to be that they don’t like the idea of the American military killing someone without those people getting a chance to kill American soldiers. This is what they are saying when they whine about wars being fought by “remote control.” This is bull. There is no logic to this whatsoever, nor is there any morality to this. The idea that it’s only acceptable to kill someone if you endanger yourself in the process is, frankly, retarded thinking. And I think it comes from their anti-American sentiment in that they don’t want the American military to be able to fight without suffering casualties. This is as stupid as arguing that soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to use guns because it’s too easy to kill someone with a gun before they have a chance to try to knife you, and it’s immoral to argue that if we are going to go to war, then we need to take proportional causalities.

Over time, they’ve added a new strain to the anti-drone argument. This one holds that the problem with drones is that they are “indiscriminate.” This is, of course, nonsense. The US is not flying drones that are out there picking their own targets and fighting a war without human input. That’s the science fiction view, not the reality. And it doesn’t take a human pilot to be able to identify the targets that will be hit. So again, this is stupid.

Then they came up with the idea that drone strikes are evil because they are depriving terrorists of their constitutional rights. Only, they have no such rights. So the left hunted around until they found some dead terrorist with American citizenship and they claimed, “see, Bush is killing Americans with drones without due process.” The counter to this is, of course, that when you engage in armed combat against America, you really have no rights. Sadly for the left, however, before this issue caught on, Obama took over and they had to shut up for fear of hurting the image of their Warrior in Chief. So the issue went away.

BUT... now we come to what Obama is doing, and this is where the problem arises. Not only has Obama’s Justice Department decided that killing Americans is fine, but they went further. They decided that something called “signature strikes” are fine. Signature strikes are the racial profiling of the terrorism world. Basically, the CIA is allowed to blow you up if you engage in conduct that appears to be terrorism related even if it doesn’t have a clue who you are. In other words, Obama is letting the CIA blow people up because they are doing things that fit the profile of terrorist without any idea of who these people are or what they are doing. That actually is a violation of international law which doesn’t let you target non-combatants.

So the question now is, will the left stand by their supposed principles (fat chance) or will they continue their deafening silence to support Obama? To give you a sense, feminists haven’t said word one about the massive gender-based pay disparities in the White House, gays stayed silent for four years about Obama’s lack of support for gay marriage, environmentalists still won’t admit that Obama sold them out in Copenhagen, etc. etc.

I think conservatives need to turn up the heat here. Rand Paul is doing this and I’d like to see others do it too. Obama gets away with talking self-righteously but acting the opposite. It’s time to put an end to that. Make him choose... expose his left flank. Don’t think that by remaining silent, you will leave the door open for the next Republican president to do the same... the left doesn’t work that way.

Finally, there’s an interesting point someone made the other day which is worth tossing into the discussion. The thinking is that the reason Obama is using massive numbers of drone attacks is purely political: he wants to avoid capturing terrorists because he doesn’t want to deal with the headaches created by his rhetoric. Basically, he doesn’t know what to do with them, where to put them, or how to keep them without trying them, because his rhetoric wiped out all the options. Nor does he want to deal with the possibility of being in charge when a terrorist attack happens and people find out it could have been prevented if his administration had actually questioned the people they caught. Thus, he thinks it’s safer to kill them all. Interesting. Maybe they should have waited on that Nobel Peace Prize?

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Not Again....

Boy, the Arab Spring is really the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it? It's time for one more headache in that great arid part of the world--and also one more nail in the coffin for poor neoconservatism and its friends.

Welcome to Mali, home of sand, poverty and forgettable Matthew McConaughey movies. If you don't remember hearing anything out of this North African nation in--well--ever, that's okay; most people aren't even aware of its existence. But thanks to the unpredictability of foreign policy, we may have to start paying attention.

In a nutshell, here's what's happening: In the past four years, the U.S. has been heavily involved in counterterrorism work in Mali and other Saharan countries, providing military training and equipment to their armed forces. These armed forces, theoretically, could then do our job for us, keeping out Islamic terrorists in these nations without requiring a direct military presence on our part. As so many things do, it probably seemed like a great idea at the time. So what's the situation now? Well, a revolt has broken out in the north, a revolt which is both gaining steam and has fallen under the control of said Islamic militants, namely Al-Qaeda and assorted other jihadist groups, which is always fun--especially since some of the army officers who received our military aid defected to their side. To make things worse, another of those army officers we just invested time and money training took it upon himself to overthrow the government and establish authoritarian rule. So the choice now is between a strong-arming tyrant in the capital and rebels proclaiming a mixture of democracy and radical Islamism. Is this ringing any bells?

As usual, there's all kinds of potential geopolitical ramifications at work. A success by Al-Qaeda and company in taking over Mali, or even in carving out a chunk of territory, would firmly establish Islamic terrorists in North Africa, creating a whole new front next to Libya and Egypt, which will become so much more stable as a result. As for what the U.S. has been doing in response, we've already pledged to send drones in to help out the government and the French, who have sent in a handful of ground troops and are being their typical effectual selves. Where our involvement goes from there is anyone's guess, but more importantly, the whole episode is another argument against such an involved foreign policy.

While I still don't like to knock Bush too much for how the War on Terror played out, it is undeniable that the goal of retaliation against our enemies became badly entwined with the dubious aim of "building democracy" in the Middle East. We saw it in Iraq, we've seen it in Obama's interventionist policy in the Arab Spring, and now it appears we may see some form of it in North Africa. The idea--under both Bush and Obama--has been to establish and safeguard democracy in the Arab world, partly because it's the "right thing to do" and partly because it serves our interests. There are any number of reasons why this has been coming back to bite us, but the main one is this: However popular it is or isn't, a democracy/republic/constitutional government can not simply be called into being one day. It's something that has to evolve over decades, even centuries. The West doesn't have such a form of government because of its religion or culture or superior technology (although those didn't hurt); it developed democracy after long periods of interaction and competition between elements of society. I can't write an essay on it, but the point is that you have to work with the political culture and structures you find, not simply create carbon copies of whatever the U.S. has. No one in Washington, Republican or Democrat, seems to understand that, and we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

Bottom line: I'm becoming more and more sympathetic to the idea that we ought to end our foreign involvement in its current form altogether. In a fight between authoritarian rulers and Islamist democrats, what's the scenario where we win? I don't see a way out of it. Maybe these areas are best left alone.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Thoughts On The Middle East

This has been an interesting couple weeks in the Middle East. Israel attacked Hamas in Gaza. A peace deal was reached. Meanwhile, Egypt erupted into chaos, but that appears to have stopped. And then the UN recognized Palestine as kind of sort of similar to a state. Should we be worried? Actually, no.

Issue One: Stop Shooting! Get Him!

When Israel started sending Hamasters to meet their virgins, the President of Egypt jumped right in and did his best to negotiate a ceasefire. For those who don’t know, this dude’s name is Mohammed Morsi, and he’s from the Muslim Brotherhood, who dominate the Egyptian government. No sooner did Morsi arrange a ceasefire than the head of the Muslim Brotherhood condemned the ceasefire. This freaked out Team Obama, who issued a sternly worded letter.

What does this mean? Believe it or not, it’s probably a good thing.

Look, when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt, I wasn’t worried. A lot of conservatives were worried because they don’t really understand what the Muslim Brotherhood is. They see them as an arm of al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization and they never bothered to learn their history. Liberals weren’t worried at first because they saw the Arab Spring as all unicorn poo and fairy dust. They wanted to believe that now that the oppressive dictators were gone, the Muslim people (who we know are just like liberals everywhere) would create a peaceful democratic government that would usher in a utopia. But then liberals changed their minds once the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t turn out as cuddly as they seemed. So now they’re worried too. Everyone is worried. . . except me.

History and human nature tell us that there is a huge difference between the way people speak when they have no responsibilities and how they act when they are actually given power. Bill Shakespeare picked up on this in “Henry V” when Hal’s friends are shocked to discover that the playful, irresponsible drunk they knew suddenly morphs into a joyless, serious King. It’s human nature. With power comes responsibility. And once you take over a government you suddenly discover that it’s not all “kill the infidels” anymore.... it becomes, why wasn’t my garbage picked up... do something about crime... there ain’t no jobs. At the same time, you pretty quickly learn that you can’t really go angering the Great Satan because Uncle Satan gives you billions of dollars a year which keep your economy from going down the Khomeini. And about wiping out those dirty Jews... well, let’s just say it gets a little harder when you know the Jews plan to bomb your house first in retaliation.

What’s going on here is that the Muslim Brotherhood has done exactly what history, and their history, suggests they would. They took over the government and they intend to govern. This is what they’ve done in other countries where they’ve been the loyal (non-loony) opposition. This is what they said they would do when they swore off violence. This is what revolutionary movements almost always do. And them negotiating a cease fire is evidence they want to become a respectable government.

“But they still condemned the ceasefire!” Yeah, so? This actually gives me even more hope, quite frankly. Think about this for a moment. Think about how cynical this is. This is the Muslim Brotherhood making a choice to ACT responsibly while cynically lying to their followers to maintain the image of being irresponsible. Does that remind you of anyone? That’s right, they’re the Democratic Party in pyramid print. What this means is that they grasp the difference between rhetoric and action and they have chosen the path of making the world happy, not their followers. That is a great sign.

Moreover, the statement they issued to their followers has a laughable caveat. They state that, yes, the evil Jews must die, but not today... not today... we shouldn’t even try to fight them until “all the Arabs are unified.” Wink wink. That will never happen.

Seriously, pay attention to the cynicism. This is how a revolutionary party becomes a respectable government without losing its supporters. This is how China can be both deeply communist and deeply capitalist. It’s intensely cynical, but it also gives me hope that they’ve made their choice and they want to steer Egypt away from the Irans and the al Qaedas.

Issue Two: I Am Your Pharaoh, Beeeatches!

The more interesting (read: more disturbing) issue happened while Morsi was making peace between the infidels and the Hamasters. When no one was looking, Morsi issued a decree which allowed him to re-try anyone for any crime committed prior to his taking power from Mubarak. Within this decree was a pardon for everyone on the winning side. It also held that any decrees Morsi issues from now on will be unappealable. In other words, rule of law is dead.

This resulted in a serious backlash from any number of groups, with the Supreme Court itself calling for strikes. People are saying he made himself into a modern Pharaoh and they point out that this is more power than even the evil dictator Mubarak had. Should we be worried? No. Honestly, this strikes me as a win-win-win for us.

● Scenario one: he becomes an evil despot and the people hate him. We win in that regard because it destroys the credibility of Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. No longer will the reason for the people’s suffering be this fake claim that an American imposed dictator is making them suffer, this time it will be someone they chose themselves. That takes us a step closer to ending our role as permanent scapegoat.

● Scenario two: he becomes a benign despot and uses his power to impose needed reforms. Again, we win because Egypt would become less of a basket case. And the more middle class they become, the less dangerous they become.

● Scenario three: the public rises up and he needs to back down. Again we win because that’s another seed that can sprout democratic ideas and institutions. . . the public demanding rule of law.

The worst case is that he becomes evil and attacks Israel out of desperation to save his butt when things go wrong, but that doesn’t really fit his prior actions or his personality. Plus, the military doesn’t support him enough for him to do that. Not to mention, Egypt’s army wouldn’t make it fifteen steps into the desert before Israel destroyed them because their army is decrepit and is really just built to control the public.

Issue Three: Hey, I Know You!

The UN Department of Thugs and Perverts voted to give the Palestinians observer status, which kind of implies they’re a real state. Ok. Yawn. Sorry. This has upset a lot of people, but honestly, so what? The Palestinians basically run their own state now as it is. How does UN recognition change anything? Iran already arms them. Saudi Arabia already funds them. Egypt already helps them smuggle in toys for the kids.... Torture Me Hosni is very popular this year. Seriously, how does this change anything?

Frankly, the best solution for the Palestinian/Israel issue has always been for Israel to carve out territory, hand it over, throw up a wall, and say, “you got what you want, now go away.” This is because once the Palestinians have a state, everyone else is going to get sick of hearing their whining. Why? Because “They stole our homeland and are keeping us prisoner” is a pretty compelling argument, “We wanted better land for our homes” is not.

Honestly, I see this recognition as a mistake by the Arabs. They have basically taken a step to make Palestine less interesting to everyone by making their demands a lot less compelling. Less compelling means less interesting. And less interesting means lower ratings. And lower ratings means you get cancelled.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Oh, By The Way...

There are some things you might not have known before the election. We meant to tell you about those, but you know. . . we got busy. Sorry. Anyway, America, here is what you might have missed.

● Why Obamacare May Fail: Boy is my face red. See, it turns out there might be a problem with Obamacare actually working, which NO ONE foresaw. See, the nation faces a doctor shortage. And we all know shortages just happen, they have nothing to do with supply and demand signals which redirect people to different professions.

Anyhoo, it turns out that the nation will need another 52,000 family doctors than we are expected to have by 2025. Unfortunately, we won’t have that because doctors are greedy. They are choosing to go into specialties rather than work for long hours for low pay which can’t pay back their massive student loans by becoming family doctors. //sigh What will those evil rich do to us next?

Oh, and part of the problem is that Medicare won’t pay enough for people to want to be doctors. . . rotten, evil Medicare. Someone really should fix that.

Anyway, just some sidenotes from the study: Obamacare won’t make this worse when it brings 38 million new people into the system (hey, wasn’t that 43 million a couple years ago?) because these numbers already include that. . . unless you think the study is lying (hint hint: it is, prior studies pinned this number above 100,000). And this MAY change your ability to actually see your doctor, but don’t sweat that because you will have guaranteed coverage (subject to doctor availability). Also, if there should somehow happen to be an access problem, like in Massachusetts, which has tons of family doctors (second highest ratio of family docs to other docs in the country) and still can’t keep up with demand, then maybe we need to drop this idea that people should be seeing doctors and should instead see nurses. . . or talk to an online doctor? (translation: learn to be happy with less, folks). And/Or maybe we should force doctors to work in “patient-centered homes, where everyone works on a team in effort to increase the number of patients per provider.” (translation: work harder you f*cking doctors. . . arbeit mach frei, my friends). Yep, smooth sailing ahead!

And remember, socialism only failed because no one ever tried it right.

● And About Those Human Rights: Hey, did you hear about this? Drone strikes. Kill lists. Renditions to secret CIA prisons. Attacks on countries we have not declared war against. Undeclared wars in Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, etc. Secret military tribunals for our Arab guests. Bush is evil. . . Obama is evilER. Fortunately, human rights only matter when the wrong people violate them!

● Remember When You Worked Full Time? Ok, a history lesson. Europe is a basket case. If you’re old and got your job in the 1960s-1980s or if you work for the government or if you’re a professional, then things are fine. If you’re anybody else, well, you’re f*ed and not in a good way! See France and Spain offer the classic examples. They imposed all these laws to help “workers.” And despite everyone being absolutely sure that business wouldn’t try to get around these. . . somehow, they did. What they did, was they started hiring people only as part-timers so the laws wouldn't apply. Hence, those benefits you normally would have gotten, you no longer got those, and forget the new ones the government “gave” you too.

Well, if there’s one thing the Democrats have learned, it’s to never pay attention to history. So they’ve been busy passing all kinds of laws forcing companies to give benefits to workers, like Obamacare. Yep. And we KNOW that business will happily give such benefits, just as they did(n’t) in Spain and France!

Along comes Olive Garden. . . and Papa Johns. And they have announced they will cut worker’s hours below 30 hours so they all qualify as “part time” and they aren’t required to provide healthcare to any of their employees. Sooo sorry if your wages suck ass now, but hey, NO ONE could have seen this coming. These are just the first, too. Olive Garden is owned by Darden, which owns dozens of other franchises. And other companies are saying the same thing. Expect this to spread throughout the service industry. So basically, the gay waiter, single mother and youth demographic who depend on these jobs (all core Obama supporters) is about to discover that life will be a lot harder under their Messiah. Whoops. Maybe we can raise the minimum wage to help them? That always creates jobs, doesn't it?

● We Didn’t Really Mean It? Do you remember how Obama promised to make those evil rich suffer to placate the spite of his followers? And do you remember all those corporate loopholes Obama wanted to close to put a worker’s boot up the ass of our rich cousins? Uh... not so much. The Democrats have signaled that they want to raise the limit on who will be taxed to maybe $500,000 or even a million, and they aren’t really interested in going too high with the rates either. Moreover, they don’t want to close any loopholes, like the Republicans want. I guess the rich found a friend in Comrade Obama.

So basically, gays, youths, single mothers and people who need government-provided healthcare will suffer because of Obama. . . and the rich get off unscathed. I wonder if Obama's moronic followers will see the irony in any of this? Probably not.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Glimpse of the Future

Now that we’ve had a day to digest the election, let me tell you why Obama won and why his followers won’t be happy with him.

● Why He Won: A lot of people are giving a lot of reasons why this election went the way it did. And to a degree many of them are right at the margins. But at its core, this election turned out the way it did for one simple reason: “short-sighted self-interest.”

Our government is a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment where people are enticed into investing with promises of unsustainably high returns. Those returns are paid for with the money taken from new investors. Essentially A’s benefits are paid using the investment of B and C. B and C’s benefits are paid using the investments of D, E, and F. And so on. As long as enough new people keep entering the scheme, the benefits will flow. But the moment the new money slows down, the entire scheme collapses. That is how our government is structured, as a fraudulent investment that pays out way more than it can afford because it is stealing from the future to pay the present.

Many people don’t understand this. They only see the high benefits they get, so they want the scheme to keep going. To them, it is manna from Heaven and they don’t want it to stop. These are core Obama supporters – progressives, welfare cases, minorities. Others understand the nature of the scheme but still invest in the hopes that the system won’t fail until they have made more than they invested. These are suburbanite Obama supporters – soccer moms, professionals. Others know the system will collapse any day, but also realize that so long as everyone else will get these benefits, they might as well get them too until the system collapses. These are union workers and government workers.

Here’s the problem for Obama. He can’t keep the benefits flowing. Why? Consider these problems Obama now faces.

● The Deficit: In the past four years, Obama added more to the national debt than all prior presidents combined. Our debt ($16 trillion) now equals the size of our economy (102%), it was 51% in 1988. This means we can no longer spend money without risking a Greece-like meltdown. Moreover, we are still headed in the wrong direction. The deficit is now one trillion dollars per year. This means Obama cannot spend more because there is no more. But he has a problem. . .

● Interest: Because of the deficit, our credit rating was downgraded already and we are warned of worse to come. The cost of servicing the national debt is already $450 billion at 2.8% interest (historic lows). That’s 12% of the budget. If we continue on this course, we will be downgraded again and again and our interest costs will rise. Every 1% rise in rates adds $160 billion to the deficit each year.

● Military: Right now, the budget is balanced on the idea of taking about $200 billion a year from the military budget. This was always fake and will return to the budget. Moreover, war with Iran (or Syria) will add about $300 billion a year.

● Medicare: Obama faces two problems with regard to Medicare. First, he’s promised to steal $700 billion from it (about $150 billion a year). That is a fake accounting gimmick and will return to the budget. Secondly, Medicare is becoming a worthless benefit because doctors will no longer take it because it doesn’t pay enough. Fixing this will cost around $100 billion per year, increasing by 20% per year.

So if Obama does nothing else, the deficit will increase by between $350 billion a year to $750 billion a year, plus interest cost increases. We could be looking at $2 trillion a year in deficits by 2015. And that’s just the beginning.....

● Obamacare: If you assume a best case scenario, Obamacare is estimated to cost $1.76 trillion over ten years, or $176 billion a year. But you never get best case in government. The long-term reliable estimate for government spending is five times the initially estimated cost. That would be $880 billion a year. Moreover, this assumes most people will stay on private plans, but there’s no reason for employers to keep those plans. Also, health care costs, which were projected to go down, are going up 21% per year.

● Unemployment: There are 23 million unemployed after the prior jobless decade. Another 20 million jobs will be needed just to stay level with population growth. Obama’s policies kill jobs. Moreover, estimates are that if taxmaggedon happens, we are looking at another 6-10 million jobs lost. All of those unemployed people will need benefits. Even if we give only $10,000 a year to these people, you are looking at adding $480 billion a year in support payments, not to mention the lost tax revenue from them not working. Black unemployment will remain in the 20% range as will youth unemployment.

So now we’re looking at deficits of $3-$3.3 trillion a year. And it gets worse.

● Retirees: The federal government owes $2 trillion in unfunded retirement benefits to its workers. The state governments owe $5.2 trillion in unfunded retirement benefits to their workers. But that’s nothing compared to the coming Boomerpocalypse. The Boomers never bothered to save for retirement, choosing instead to rely on SSI. Over the next three decades, 81 million boomers will retire. That will create a $25 trillion unfunded liability in Medicare, plus another $21 trillion unfunded liability in Social Security. Moreover, these people will stop contributing to the tax base.

Further, there is strong evidence that all the economic bubbles we’ve experienced are actually the result of the boomer bubble itself. The boom of the 1990s appears to have been fueled with a massive spending binge by baby boomers. And now that the boomers have stopped spending, the economy may not recover. In fact, long term stock market trends predict that we are in a long term collapse nearly identical to the Great Depression. . . because of the boomers.

● State Bankruptcy: Several states, with California taking the lead, will go bankrupt in the next 2-4 years. They have committed to spending too much and cannot raise taxes enough to cover their debts. They are hoping for a Federal bailout, but that won’t come because there is no money to give them. Look for the shock of this to push the economy into depression and to result in court ordered (1) breaking of state employee union contracts, (2) massive across the board tax hikes, and (3) slashing of benefits, which will worsen the death spiral.

So this is what Obama faces, an economic and fiscal catastrophe caused by the actions of his party over the past twenty-plus years, actions his own policies made worse. He now faces stark choices: bankruptcy or letting Medicare die as an effective benefit, bankruptcy or killing Obamacare, bankruptcy or letting the unemployed starve. His supporters will now face (1) a likely depression or deep, jobless recession, (2) broken state budgets resulting in jobs cuts for union workers and benefit cuts for core Obama supporters, and (3) a federal government that has no power to spend money to save any of Obama’s supporters from the problems they will face. The ponzi scheme has run its course and his drones will not be happy when the money stops flowing.

Moreover, Obama will need to go to war with Iran or watch as London or New York goes up in smoke. He will need to turn his back on Eurozone requests for a handout to save them from their folly – not to mention, our economy still drives the world and our depression will drag down everyone else. He will need to spend vast sums on military preparations to face down a China made aggressive by their own economic malaise and by Obama’s perceived weakness. The falling dollar will crush Mexico, Germany and China, who rely on exports to us. His policies will make gas, food and electricity costs more expensive. And he can’t deliver on any of his legislative promises.

And all the while, his people will be wondering why the ponzi scheme has stopped paying out.

It’s going to be an ugly four years.


Also, let me stress... I am NOT predicting doomsday here. That is not what this is. Each of these issues can be overcome, but they can't be overcome with Obama's policies or in ways that will leave his supporters happy.

That is the real point here, Obama faces a dilema: let the country sink and outrage his followers when the money stops OR fix things and outrage his followers by taking away their benefits.

So don't read this as an end of the world prediction.... leave that to the Mayans.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It's Your Problem Now. . .

I warn you up front that this will be an ugly article. But last night's election really brings to light that something has gone drastically wrong in this country and it's time we realized that. It's time we realized that America is indeed two nations, just as John Edwards said. There is productive America and handout America. And it's time we stopped enabling the leeches. They created this problem, let them pay for it now. Here are my thoughts on the election, the future and the country as a whole.

● To The Retards: Congratulations. You proved once again last night that one can never go broke underestimating the American public. You, my slow cousins, just re-elected a man who has put the country on the brink of bankruptcy and whose plan to fix that is to (1) spend more money that doesn't exist to create jobs that won't exist, (2) create an unfunded entitlement program that is bigger than the entire national budget, and (3) tax his way to prosperity. Good luck with that, assholes. Good luck because you, his mindless supporters will be the ones hardest hit when the economy tanks and when the government can't afford to pay the benefits you voted for yourselves. Indeed, good luck when gas prices hit $6 a gallon, when your taxes double, when your employer drops your healthcare and you get fined for not buying your own coverage, when your doctor stops taking Medicare or Medicaid, when your welfare check stops adjusting for inflation or shows up as an IOU, and when you lose your job to China because Obama won't stand up to his debt-pimp. Good luck finding a job too with the economy being 23 million jobs short and your idiot Messiah's plan being to hire 100,000 new teachers. Not to mention he'll need to create another 10 million just to keep up with population growth. But don't worry, he'll get even with all those rich bankers for you. . . only, he forgot to tell you, he's their bitch. That's right, he passed regulations that let evil Wall Street wipe out small local banks so that they can make a mint on your stupid ass.

● To My Productive Friends: This election was a battle between productive Americans and leeches. The leeches won. But guess what, you still have options. I recommend the following:

(1) Everyone should apply for every government benefit they can. None of these programs are funded and they rely on good people being unwilling to apply for them, i.e. they only work because only a fraction of people who qualify actually take the benefit. It's time that changed. It's time for everyone to demand every penny to which they are entitled. Employers should drop their employee health insurance and shift that cost to the government, just as Obama wants. Take up tax avoidance strategies. Find tax shelters. Apply for subsidies. Reagan broke the Russians by spending them into oblivious, you can do the same to Washington. There is no shame in taking from a thief.

(2) Stop subsiding liberal cesspools. Conservatives need to move their businesses from blue states to red states. Stop buying from blue state companies. Buy instead from red states or foreign companies.

(3) Conservative governors, don't be stupid. Grab every penny you can from Washington. Sign up for Obamacare or you will only end up subsidizing the states that do. Being frugal in a zero-sum game only means you end up paying the bill for others binging.

● To Congress: The Democrats are now talking about the Republicans needing to come together to work with Obama to solve the nation's problems. Why should you? Pelosi proved in 2004-2006 that the public would not punish them for standing in the way of everything Bush wanted. To the contrary, they got more seats. Harry Reid and Obama proved in 2010-2012 that they could stand in the way of everything as well, and they too got rewarded. For six years now, the strategy of paralysis combined with character assassination has proven effective. I see no reason why the Republicans in the House and the Senate shouldn't do the same. Let the country fail and let Obama take the blame -- America is strong enough to pick up the pieces in six years. It's time for scorched earth. No more good faith. No more acting for the good of the country over partisanship. If a deal gets done, make sure it benefits red states at the expense of blue states. . . forget shared pain. And never stop the character assassinations. This was Obama's plan and now it needs to be yours.

● To The Religious Right: Go away. For several election cycles now, it's been clear that the Religious Right has become an increasingly heavy drag on the party. It is simply impossible to win women and moderates when your party is the party of old white guys who proclaim rape to be the will of God and who want the government to obsess over gays and abortion. Your bullshit will never pass and all it's doing is turning off the people we need to fix the country.

● To Conservative Whites: It's time to face the fact that the electorate is changing and we need to embrace Hispanics. If Romney had gotten into office, I think we would have seen a serious change in this regard, but he didn't. So it's up to us. It's time we STOPPED talking about deporting illegal aliens. That will never happen anyway and whining about it only upsets Hispanic voters who don't want to hear us running around talking about deporting their friends and family. Get over it.

● To My Foreign Friends: The joke's on you, seriously. I've been speaking with several foreigners who were very much rooting for Obama for a variety of reasons. Sadly for you, you are about as misinformed as humans can get. Here are some things you thought would change "from the evil Bush years" which didn't and which won't: Obama won't close Gitmo, he won't stop the war on terror, he won't stop using drones or landmines. He won't rein in America's out of control debt. He won't take the lead on climate change or on saving the Eurozone circle jerk. Oh, and to my Chinese friends, all that paper you are holding marked "Backed By The Good Faith and Credit of the United States" isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sorry, you backed the wrong horse.

Do I sound bitter? Probably, but I'm not. I'm just telling you the truth. In reality, I really don't care about last night because it doesn't affect me. The people who will be hurt are the very people who wanted Obama to win, and it's kind of hard to care about them, since they decided to use the ballot box to steal from the rest of us to support their own worthless lives. But I'm through saving you from your own incompetence. You've created fiscal and economic tsunamis that will now strike. And like I said, it's your problem now.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Romney Wins By A Hair, Obama Loses By A Mile

Romney proved himself to be knowledgeable and thoughtful last night, and he showed himself to be quite Presidential. Obama also came across well, though not quite Romney’s equal – he was more political. Thus, Romney won the debate by a hair. But Obama made key mistakes that caused him to blow his last chance to win the election.

● Bob Schieffer: Schieffer did an excellent job and should be commended. His questions were thoughtful, fair and he allowed a solid debate.

● Romney Succeeds: Romney had one job last night and he did it. He needed to come across as someone you would trust as Commander in Chief. He did. He had much more knowledge than Obama on every single issue and clearly had thought through his solutions. He presented a solid vision, a plan to achieve that vision, and knowledge of the details of every single issue covered which helps you believe his plan will work. He passed the test.

● Obama Strategy Fail I: Obama had two jobs last night and he failed at both. Obama’s first job, the one he really needed to achieve, was to give people a reason to vote for him. He didn’t. All he did was repeat his five point plan that hasn’t excited anyone yet and he attacked Romney as wanting to help the rich. These arguments failed in the first two debates and merely repeating them here won’t change anything. He needed something more and he didn’t give it. Indeed, his strategy last night was surprisingly stupid and I think he lost the election last night by default.

FYI, Obama plan: (1) he wants to help manufacturers invest here with tax code changes, (2) he wants to make our education system the best in the work and he wants to retrain workers, (3) he wants us to “control energy” by investing in clean energy, (4) he wants to tax the rich so he can “invest” the money in R&D, and (5) he wants to hire teachers (later he added hiring veterans to build roads).

Then he accused Romney of wanting to help the rich, of wanting to add $7 trillion in debt through military spending and tax cuts (all of which has been debunked), and said Romney wants social policies from the 1950, economic policies from the 1920s, and foreign policy from the 1980s. None of this helped in the prior two debates, and it won’t help now. To the contrary, all this did was open the door to Romney to repeat his devastating attack on Obama’s record which I’ve written out several times already. (see Romney’s Theme). Romney also repeated that he wants to champion small business, which will help him with the Tea Party, and he talked about education reform, which will help him with women. He also pointed out that he balanced budgets in private business for 25 years, at the Olympics, and four years as governor... Obama has yet to balance a budget.

● Obama Strategy Fail II: Obama’s second job last night was to land a knockout blow on Romney. He never came close because the lines he used were horrible. They were petty and bully-like, and these detracted from an otherwise solid performance. Examples include:

● He condescended to Romney by trying to explain to him what an aircraft carrier is and what a submarine is.

● He described Romney’s foreign policy as Obama’s policies only “saying them louder.”

● He implied that the US jumped in on the side of the Arab Spring protestors right away, even though that’s false. But more importantly, he said this was his idea and he blurted out, “Me!” Kind of a Howard Dean moment there.

● He waved the bloody shirt of 9/11 by claiming that he brought “closure” to the son of someone who was killed on 9/11 – something the left (and Obama) savaged Bush for doing.

● Obama accused Romney of wanting to use military force as a first resort. This stupid attack, repeated throughout the night, let Romney demonstrate repeatedly that he is not reckless or bloodthirsty.

Obama lost the election on the above, the rest below is just details.

● Obama Tactics Fail I: Obama’s biggest tactical mistake was using a shotgun approach on Romney. He attacked on too many issues and used too many details. Moreover, many of his attacks sounded like Obama was trying to pull quotes out of context, such as when he accused Romney of not seeing al Qaeda as a threat – no one will believe Romney said that. These fake attacks polluted all the rest of his attacks and made everything he said sound like a distortion.

● Obama Tactics Fail II: Another tactical failure was accusing Romney of being a reckless warmonger, but then simultaneously accusing Romney of advocating the exact same policy Obama is following. That doesn’t work.

● Key Moments: Here are the likely key moments:

● Romney neutered the bin Laden thing and bought himself serious credibility when he congratulated Obama on getting bin Laden and then said, “but we can’t kill our way out of this mess.” In echoes of my articles on the topic, he said we need a comprehensive strategy to get the Muslim world to reject extremism in their own ranks through promoting: (1) economic development, (2) better education, (3) rule of law, (4) gender equality, and (5) the creation of civil societies. This is brilliant because it stopped Obama from bragging and it highlighted that Obama has no plan – Obama later played “me too” and tried to claim this is what he’s already doing.

● Romney highlighted Obama’s failure to give a reason to vote FOR Obama by repeating, “Attacking me is not an agenda.”

● Obama said of Iran, “We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world.” This is interesting because Paul Ryan said the same thing and Joe Biden called the claim ridiculous.

● Israel: A lot was said about Israel, but Romney had the key moment and Obama may have blown a key moment. When Schieffer asked how they would respond if Israel called and said their planes were on the way to bomb Iran, Romney jumped in and said they shouldn’t answer a hypothetical like that. He also said that his relationship with Israel’s Prime Minister was such that this would never happen. This made Romney appear statesmanlike if he already has solid relationships with our allies. Obama ducked the question.

Then Schieffer asked if they would guarantee that an attack on Israel was the same thing as an attack on the US. Obama sort of said it was, but seemed to hedge. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. Romney then suggested that Obama was talking about helping Israel only diplomatically.

● Obama Lies: At several points, Obama simply lied to hide his record. He claimed that he did support the Green Revolution in Iran, even though he remained silent for nine days. He claimed he did not propose $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts on the military, which is technically true but still a lie. Harry Reid proposed them and Obama demanded they be included in the budget deal. His claim to arm the Syrian rebels is a lie. He lied about not going to the UN on Syria. And he lied by claiming he had implemented non-existent policies to promote democracy overseas.

● China: Obama made a huge mistake when he labeled China as our second biggest national security threat after terrorism (he forgot Iran) because China will not be amused. Our relationship with China is based on false facades of friendship, which both sides are careful never to violate. Obama did.

Romney then turned this against Obama by pointing out that China is an opportunity. He said (as I’ve suggested) that China could be made an ally because economic growth is vital to them as they need 20 million new jobs a year to maintain civil order. But we need to get our budget in order, we can’t cut our military, we must strengthen our commitment to our allies in the region (read: Taiwan), and we must go after China for unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, counterfeiting and stealing of intellectual property. Obama countered that Romney owned stock in Chinese companies. This was a mistake because whereas Romney gave a plan to fix the problem, Obama took a political cheap shot.

Romney also used China to talk about engaging Latin America in trade, which will help him with Hispanic business owners.

● Syria: Obama did a lot of doublespeak on Syria. He talked about taking the lead in “mobilizing the world, providing humanitarian aid and organizing the opposition.” As with Biden, he implied that we armed the opposition and then turned around and accused Romney of being a warmonger for trying to arm the opposition. The arms actually came from the Saudis, not us. And Obama asked the UN to take the lead. Romney also denied wanting to send any American troops or planes to fight, proving he’s no warmonger, which caused Obama to flip his strategy on its head and accuse Romney of proposing to do exactly what Obama is doing, only being reckless somehow.

● The Closings: The closings were interesting. Obama went negative. He blamed Bush for his problems and then accused Romney of wanting to help the rich before he repeated his five point plan. This was uninspired.

Romney’s closing was Reaganesque. First, he made two great points. He repeated Obama’s record and called it the President’s path. Obama said we shouldn’t go back to the policies of a decade ago, and Romney countered that we don’t want to relive the last four years. Then Romney made an appeal to bipartisanship, which will play well with independents. He noted that he worked with a legislature that was 87% Democratic in Massachusetts and he said he could work with good Democrats and good Republicans in Washington. Then he spoke about the greatest generation and how they have passed the torch and he described America as “the hope of the Earth.” Basically, he gave people a reason to support him. Obama didn’t. All of this is classic Reagan.

● Good Night For Price: Romney tracked my foreign policy discussions on issue after issue. This is very encouraging because it sounds like he’s looking for real solutions and he’s no Bush neocon.

● Conclusion: This was an odd debate in the sense that Obama didn’t really play to win. I’m wondering what he was thinking. Yes, he performed well, he was Romney’s equal most of the night, and he took some cheap shots that will thrill his ignorant base. . . but he played for the draw when he really needed a blow out. This makes me wonder if his campaign team just isn’t that bright or if he knows he’s lost and he’s look for future political opportunities. Whatever his plan, he failed to take the risks he needed to win the election.

I now expect the MSM to go into desperation mode to win the election for him. But the polls will show Romney climbing a couple percentage points more. At that point, the cracks will appear on the left and they will savage him for his bad campaign.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Final Debate Thread

Home stretch people, home stretch. Tonight is the last debate. . . thankfully. Tonight is about foreign policy, which probably means ratings of between 14-18 people. In that regard, we now have a CIA memo which blows a hole in the Obama Administration plan to blame the intelligence community. Obama seems to have decided that less than 4 deaths per embassy is optimal. And Joe Biden is looking for veterans of our recent wars with Iraq and Iran. . . idiot.

It looks like Obama wasn't able to gain any momentum from the last debate so tonight could be critical. Maybe he should talk about the 47% of Pakistanis Romney hates. . . or the 57 states he's visited since he became a professional golfer president.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Here Comes “The Republican War On Jews”

Obama has a Jewish problem. That’s been pretty obvious. You just can’t keep attacking people without them eventually getting upset. And Romney is now trying to win over Jewish votees. So it’s time for Obama to whip out the dirty tricks. Here comes the War on Jews.

Let’s start with the obvious. Obama lacks popularity. Anyone who has followed his approval rating knows that it looks like the famous Al Gore “hockey stick” only held the other way around. Check out this graph from Rasmussen, which shows a quick fall followed by remarkably stable unpopularity.

Obama has made this worse with policies that have hurt people and rhetoric that offends them. What this means is that Obama no longer has broad popularity and he needs to spend his time trying to excite his supporters group by group. That’s why we had the War on Women meme, the War on Hispanics/Immigrants meme, the War on Blacks meme, the War on the Poor meme, the War on the Middle Class meme, and a few others I’ve probably forgotten. Now it’s time for the War on Jews.

Obama’s popularity among Jews is fading. He’s down to 68% according to Gallup, though the real number is likely lower. Why? Well, his policies have largely undermined Israeli security in favor of the Palestinian radicals he knew in his youth. ObamaCare threatens Medicare, which is very popular with older Jewish voters in places like Florida. And his attacks on bankers have a distinctly anti-Semitic ring to them, so much so that the Wall Street community has openly complained about his rhetoric and have begun to close their wallets. And with Romney now making a play for Jewish support, it’s clearly time to act.

Hence, Nancy Pelosi fired the opening shots in the new meme this weekend when she claimed that Republican-leaning Jews are “being exploited” and that Republicans are merely “using [support for] Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth.” In other words, Jews, like blacks and women and everyone else before them are too stupid to realize that the Republicans are only lying to them about their beliefs and only want their votes so we can cut taxes on the wealthy. This woman is insane.

Interestingly, Pelosi must have realized calling Jews stupid was a bad move, so she quickly added this little contradiction: “And they’re smart people. They follow these issues. But they have to know the facts.” How can they both know the issues and yet not know the facts? That’s like saying, “he understands football, he just doesn’t know how football works.” Then she proceeded to explain some of the facts these silly deluded Jews didn’t know:

“The fact is that President Obama has been the strongest person in terms of sanctions on Iran, which is important to Israel. He’s been the strongest person on whether it’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, any of these weapons systems and initiatives that relate to Israel. He has been there over and over again.”

Ok, so they didn’t realize that Obama has been pushing sanctions, that he’s been “the strongest person” on various weapons systems being built by Israel, and that he’s been to Israel. Uh... if they don’t know these “facts” then can we really say they know the issues? These aren’t factors anyone who “knows the issues” could have missed. Frankly, I’m finding her whole line of “you’re so deluded but you’re really smart but you don’t actually know jack” a tad bit insulting. Also, I should point out that Obama has not yet visited Israel even once since he's been in office, so she’s lying. . . as usual

Anyway, this weekend also saw Obama using foreign policy for electoral gain. Romney has been talking about Israel. He also just visited. And his speeches have gone down rather well. Said Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu about Romney’s Nevada foreign policy speech, “Mitt, I couldn't agree with you more.” Netanyahu also pointed out this about those sanctions Pelosi thinks Israel wants:

“We have to be honest and say that all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota. And that's why I believe that we need a strong and credible military threat coupled with the sanctions to have a chance to change that situation.”

So much for Pelosi’s facts. Romney, by the way, said in Israel that he has a “zero tolerance” policy toward Iran obtaining nuclear capability and said:

“Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object, and who will look the other way. My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away; and neither will my country.”

One of his advisors even said that Romney would respect Israel’s right to strike Iran unilaterally.

So guess what mysteriously happened this weekend? SOMEONE let slip that Team Obama has presented Israel with a plan of attack for striking Iran. Let’s be honest. Obama’s national security team chose this weekend to leak that they have a plan to attack Israel because Romney’s speech was very well received and his support among Jews is growing. This leak is a disgusting political ploy which risks the lives of US personnel in the event of an attack, and it fits the pattern of leaks Team Obama has been guilty of in trying to make their effete foreign policy seem more muscular. Heads needs to start rolling for these leaks.

This administration really needs to be shown the door.

99 days to go!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Romney Blasts Obama’s Foreign Policy

President-pending Mitt Romney spoke at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Nevada this week, and he gave a rather devastating critique of Obama’s foreign policy. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.

Romney began by laying out his standard for what our foreign policy should be, and he did this by ripping into Obama. Consider this the “Romney Doctrine”:

Has the American economy recovered?

Has our ability to shape world events been enhanced, or diminished?

Have we gained greater confidence among our allies, and greater respect from our adversaries?

And, perhaps most importantly, has the most severe security threat facing America and our friends, a nuclear-armed Iran, become more or less likely?

Bingo! That’s perfect foreign policy! That is exactly the test any President should apply to all foreign policy decision. Not coincidentally, this test also proves to be a devastating takedown of Obama’s failures because Obama cannot answer yes to any of these points.

Romney then got specific. He noted that Obama’s policies have strangled the recovery, which weakens America’s ability to project its power. He claimed Obama exposed the military to unjustifiable cuts which threaten the military. He attacked Obama for mishandling national secrets, which endangers our policies and our people. And he pointed out that Obama has “given trust where it is not earned, insult where it is not deserved, and apology where it is not due.” All true.

When our economy is weak, we stop being the shining beacon to the rest of the world. Our enemies see us as in decline and decide the opportunity to strike is at hand. Countries like China have used Obama’s term to bury us in debt, to push for the elimination of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, to become much more aggressive in Asia, to build up and modernize their military, to hoard resources, and to begin the unchecked economic colonization of Africa.

Our military has been stretched to the limit since 2001 and not only has Obama done little to help them, he used their budget as a bargaining chip. To get a budget deal, which the Democrats now refuse to perform, he proposed ripping a trillion dollars in cuts from the military. I don’t believe the military budget is inviolate, but that is obscene. Moreover, he’s politicized the military at all turns, from don’t ask don’t tell, to using the military as a campaign prop, to ignoring abuses by our frenemies like Karzai in Afghanistan while punishing and neglecting the Americans who risk their lives to prop up these failed policies. There is even a report out today that the Army stopped an investigation into a corrupt and horrific hospital in Afghanistan (the Dawood National Military Hospital) in 2010 because the report would have been issued too close to the election for Obama’s comfort.

This administration has been horrible about protecting secrets as well, which is ironic as they ruthlessly go after whistleblowers. They fed classified information to Hollywood so they could make films that are mere propaganda for Obama’s campaign. And now they’ve been leaking classified documents to the New York Times, e.g. documents about US cyber attacks against Iran and “kill lists” Obama has authorized. Even the Democrats admit these leaks are coming from the White House. Said Sen. Diane Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.” Democrat Pat Caddell has actually accused Obama National Security Adviser Tom Donilon of being the primary leaker.

Frankly, this has all been done to make Obama look tougher. And of this, Romney told the VFW: “[the administration] betrays our national interest [and] compromises our men and women in the field.” Again, all true.

Finally, Obama has been harsh to our friends and weak to our enemies. As Romney put it, he “abandoned our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic” and he kowtowed to Russia and China. And Romney said this about Israel:

The people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the leader of the free world. And the chorus of accusations, threats, and insults at the United Nations should never again include the voice of the President of the United States.

And don’t forget, Obama tried to support a coup in Honduras against our friends in favor of a Chavez-like dictator wannabe. He’s been rude to Britain and India. He flooded Mexico with illegal guns. He stopped a needed Canadian pipeline. He’s been useless on the Euro crisis and useless in the Middle East. Heck, he didn’t even placate the world’s sensibilities by closing Gitmo. And he lost control over environmental issues to the BRICS and he managed to make pirating super profitable.

Obama’s record is a disaster. He’s made everything worse and achieved nothing. Is the US better off than it was four years ago? Hardly. But let’s let Romney sum this all up:

This is very simple: if you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.

Damn straight!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...