BLOG.THOMASPAINEPROJECT.ORG

Wars And Rumors Of Wars

2012-05-24T22:53:18Z

I live in a unique area - far up in the high desert of Southern California. From my backyard, I can see the southern most end of Edwards AFB. To the north west a bit is El Mirage, a dry lake bed that was formerly noted as a film location, and now is home to our drone building facility. Further out in the desert is the China Lake Naval Weapons Development Station - where all of the fireworks are designed to meet the new needs of our military.

To the south is Marine Corps Air Base Miramar - the famed home of "Top Gun". A little further south in San Diego is where the headquarters of the Pacific Fleet of the United States Navy. If you are out early enough on the strand (a narrow stretch of land running between south San Diego to Coronado Island) you can watch the SEALs training. It may be California, but it's a very military area.

Most of the time it all blends into the scenery. The civilian population goes about it's daily lives and doesn't really notice the military at all. That's a sign of peacetime, even in the eleventh year of the war in Afghanistan. There is no direct threat to the U.S. homeland, so we go about our business and don't think about it except when we read the news, or have a nephew or niece shipping out to some hell hole half a world away.

There are quite a few hellholes, too. We have already mentioned Afghanistan, where our stated policy under the current administration is to provide target practice in the form of U.S. troops, to the Taliban. We are consistently going into Pakistan chasing terrorists and droning them out of existence. We are still "assisting" in Libya (whatever that means). We have active CIA / military joint ventures in Somalia and Yemen hunting bad guys and blowing them up. And we have a few hundred "advisers" in central Africa propping up the current thugs in charge and chasing after Joseph Kony.

We maintain a huge base in Bahrain, and in fact are operating a total of 10 bases forming a ring around Iran. Not to mention the two full carrier groups deployed to the Persian Gulf right now. In that other troublesome neighborhood, we have 30,000 troops deployed on the Korean border, with another 37,000 sitting on the bench in Japan, just in case we need them.We have wars, more than we are aware, and we have rumors of wars abounding.

I mention the area that I live in, and the relative calm surrounding the military because of the recent changes that I have observed. Part of the joy of living in the desert is the quiet. The silence at night is only occassionally broken by the howling of a coyote or the hoot of an owl. Back near the end of February, that silence was broken by the unmistakeable roar of an F-22 Raptor, the stealth jet fighter of choice for the past several years.

But there was more than one, there were several, though I could not figure out how many. They were strafing through the sky on what sounded to be night training maneuvers. Dogfights, for lack of a better word. The skies over my home have not been silent since. There jets are airborne every night for several hours.

The drones (Obama's weapon of choice), which had been tested during daylight hours, are now being tested at night. At the altitudes that they fly (45,000 ft), they are neither visible, nor audible, but they are conspicuous in their absence during take-off and landing, where they provided a geek-tourist attraction. The "tourists" are now discouraged from hanging out.

I have access to all of the facilities named above, and a few others as well. Security has been beefed up and access has been tightened at all of them. Following a logical projection of thought, something is up.

Confusing reality with a movie reference, I am reminded of the opening of "The Day After". The film, starring Jason Robards, dealt with the after effects of a nuclear attack on America. The opening sequence was a montage of news reports playing in the background of everyday Americans trying to go about their lives. The news was about diplomatic troubles between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, pending war, insults between world leaders, American primacy being challenged, and a general fear in America. Granted this film was from 1983, in the Dark Days when Reagan took on the Evil Empire, but the backdrop looks a lot like real life now, with a different enemy.

Every day we are bombarded with news that has become background noise. Iran nukes. North Korean nukes. Islamic revolutions throughout the Middle East and Africa. China holding our wallet. An ineffectual Congress and an incompetent President, both trying to hang on to power. A citizenry pretty much agreed that we are on the wrong track as a country. That's our backdrop now.

The cynics among us are expecting an October surprise to be launched by the President. It's nothing against Obama, every incumbent comes up with one as a way to stay in office. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The danger here lies in the desperation of THIS President to stay in office.

THIS President is detached from the real lives of everyday Americans in ways that would make the senior Bush look like Joe Sixpack. His favorite pronoun is "I". When his policies meet with failure, he doubles down. He is irritated by foreign distractions. He is irritated by being questioned.

He has not led, except from behind. He is three for three on budgets submitted not receiving a single supportive vote in either chamber of the legislature. He had to be dragged off the golf course to watch the execution of Bin Laden. He is running a campaign of distractions because he cannot run on his record. He needs the mother of all October surprises - war.

Except he's already got at least 5 going, so this will need to be a BIG, IMPORTANT war. A war worthy of Obama's attention. That gives us two candidates - North Korea and Iran.

North Korea is an obvious no-go. Regardless of the condition of the country, if we attack, li'l Kim can lob a nuke into Seoul, and march his hundred thousand troops past us as we are reloading. They have South Korea as a hostage, and we are holding at a standoff that there is no alternative to. We believe that Obama understands that this would go badly for him,and after all, this is about HIM.

That leaves Iran. It is a pile of sand with grand designs. It threatens everyone in the neighborhood, and is run by Taliban-lite (or maybe Taliban-heavy). It is a soft target for carpet bombing. Almost no one in America cares about Iran except that a crazy man might get a nuke. Most don't care enough to go to war, but they would like to see the bug squashed. It would win him some support among the Jews as well.

Asset wise, we have well over 150,000 troops in the neighborhood. There are 10 bases ringing Iran, and yes, those two carrier groups. We are locked and loaded and waiting for the go. The go depends on what time frame benefits Obama most with regard to November. He has to be in a critical area of the mission, so that the voting public will think twice about replacing him, in the face of all other evidence against him.

We see the 90 day model. 90 days in we will have broken the mullahs, the Iranian military, and largely set the country back to the pre-Mohammed days. It will be a time of flag waving for our victorious troops, and a time for our serious war time President to go about remaking Iran in our image (another Bush policy borrowed).

The "GO" will be on or around August 6th. Many benefits to that. It will push the GOP convention off the news cycle. It will allow the Dem convention to be one patriotic war commercial for Obama. It will snuff out, for the last time, the abysmal Obama record and reset him to 2008 campaign mode. Obama wins, and Mitt is wondering how he got the tire tracks on his back.

Too cynical you say? He would never do that. Really? I have watched him through his 2008 campaign and in 3 years in office. Obama will do what benefits Obama. It is in his nature. This is a cold, calculated plan that has little chance of blowing up in his face. Whatever the rest of the fallout is, really doesn't factor in.

The troops are in place. The war planes are warming up over my home. Newer and bigger drones are also hitting the skies in my neighborhood. Obama has a few months to get them all in place. Mitt had better get started on real issues. He's about to get the rug pulled out from under him. Common Sense keeps open eyes.

RLB

Frack It!

2012-05-18T20:42:35Z

Fossil fuels, what a name... When I was a boy, the Sinclair Dino was everywhere. The theory at the time was that when the dinosaurs died out, they provided the base product that became oil. Even back then I wondered why they all walked to Saudi Arabia to die. As time went on, the theory was that the basis was the lush plant life of prehistory. Still I wondered how all of those plants got a few miles underground, in those big pools we could just tap into. It just didn't make sense.

In the 70's, when the Arabs cut us off, twice, and the environmental movement started to flex its muscle, the "fossil fuels" started to be called into question. It was both a pollutant, and because of the embargo, going to run out. Those of you from NYC or L.A. would have to agree with agree with the environmentalists' assessment. The smog was insane.

Of course the car engines were painfully inefficient, and up to that point no one had thought much about the smoke emanating from the exhaust pipe, just the noise. Eventually catalytic converters caught up to mufflers. Lo and behold, with a hundredfold (perhaps a thousandfold) increase in cars, the L.A. basin has a few "unhealthy" smog days as opposed to everyday being one in the hot summer months. That is the joy of a prosperous society. We didn't like living in filth, so we figured out a way to do what we did, but cleaner.

Still, oil is the villain. It is destroying the environment, and it is running out. In a few sentences we covered that technology can be created to address environmental concerns. Now to the myth that oil is in short supply.

If you accept that oil came from dinosaurs, then limited supply would seem logical - there were only so many of them around. For a time, there was a theory that oil regenerated itself. Wells that had run dry were gone back to for a second look when the price started spiking in the late 80's and were found to have oil in them again. The answer lies in the origins of the use of a material that is the basis of the modern oil industry - shale oil.

Shale oil is a mineral that has been in use since 13th century France. It is in solid form - a rock, of sorts. When it is crushed, heated, and hydrogenated (application of solvents) a thermal dissolution (breakup of organic matter) occurs. The result is, in essence, crude oil which can then be refined into any number of petroleum products. This is a process that has been known for centuries. It was a lot of trouble though - especially with an abundance of cheap whale oil. Then the whale oil was in short supply.

John D Rockefeller made his fortune in oil, as we all know. What many fail to realize is that initially he was refining his petroleum products from shale oil. Loading the shale oil onto trains, bringing them to extraction (retorting) facilities, and then refining the petroleum products. Rockefeller, and his company Standard Oil, developed over 300 petroleum products(tar, paint, vaseline, lubricating grease, as examples), and in 1893, with the creation of the Diesel engine, demand only increased.

The same process that Rockefeller used occurs naturally. The oil shale breaks down within the earth and the liquified petroleum gathers into pools deep underground. this is what we call crude oil. Oil was known and drilled for since the 1840s in America, with the first commercial well going into operation in Titusville, PA in 1849. As it works out, it was more economical to look for the lakes of oil than to process oil shale, so that what we've been doing ever since - looking for oil deposits.

The science for locating these oil deposits has improved dramatically, so the supply of oil has increased to meet demand. Still, much of the oil is in difficult places to get. Deep water offshore drilling gave us the BP disaster. Or it is in places that spoil the view of the shoreline, which is part of the objection to coastal shallow water drilling. Much of our perceived shortage of oil the reluctance of some to drill for it - the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) mindset.

We have become dependent on the Arabs, and a host of other countries that are either unstable or hostile to us. It is a potential economic crisis (What's gas going for this week?), and a potential national security crisis, should those hostile countries decide to cut us off again. Depending on whose numbers you use, we currently import between 49 -59% of our crude oil. This is a disaster in the making.

The argument is constantly made that the USA only has 2% of the worlds oil, and uses 20%. It is a great, but false argument. That 2% accounts for known and active wells. It does not count known oil that is not being drilled. Beyond that it forgets our roots in oil - shale oil.

The United States sits on top of one of the largest supplies of shale oil in the world. Estimates hold that if we make use of the shale oil, and not just the puddles of oil dripping from it, we could meet the energy needs of the United States for over a century without importing a single drop of oil.

We can do this because of great strides made in underground thermal dissolution of the shale oil - what they call fracking. It is pretty much the same process as used by Rockefeller in the 1800s, but on a scale that makes it as economical if not cheaper than locating crude oil deposits. We currently have large scale operations going on in North Dakota and west Texas (on privately held land). This would be the source of the oil from Canada for the Keystone pipeline as well.

Some call the practice dangerous. There have been reports of solvents and petroleum found in ground water. One of my friends at Caltech, who specializes in mining and geology has looked into it. The chemicals found may or may not be fracking related. The amounts are trace - on the same levels as lead or arsenic naturally occur in drinking water. The petroleum is most likely the seepage coming off of the shale oil into the water table as naturally happens.

Of course, the naysayers trumpet, there is only a hundred years supply. Many of these are the environmentalists who believe global warming will have destroyed us in 50 years - so what's to lose? It is a hundred years supply if we import no oil at all. There is still other oil,and shale oil on the planet. Lots of it. Centuries worth.

But still, it's only centuries. Not that it matters to anyone alive now, but we will play along and worry about our children's, children's, children's, children's, children. Not that those concerned about fracking even care about the debt being saddled on the next generation. Let's say we have 500 years. That would place us in the 2500s. Doesn't Star Trek happen then? Warp drive and Dilithium crystals?

Yes, I am being deliberately absurd. As are many of the opponents, though not deliberately. Let us just say we go with the hundred year supply in the United States. We have consistently argued that all of the "alternative energy" being touted by the current administration is either not market ready, or lacks the potential to feed the upcoming energy needs of America. This is not opinion, it is fact. The most optimistic minds advocating alternative energy are saying that the technologies we are presently looking at will take 20 years to make market ready, which does not mean the market will buy.

One hundred years of breathing room is a good thing. One hundred years buys us the time to find not only "a" replacement technology, but the "right" technology. Think of the advances between the years 1900 and 2000 - or even 1990 to 2010. There may be simple things that we haven't even dreamed of yet that could not only solve this vexing problem, but contribute to the advancement of all of us everywhere. That is the genius behind humanity, and particularly of America. Practicality and Innovation are our lifeblood. Let's use those talents. Common Sense says "Frack it".

RLB

Gay Marriage On Parade

2012-05-11T21:05:28Z

President Obama has officially come out of the closet and endorsed same sex marriage. He did it in the same clumsy style that he introduced other wedge issues into the campaign - this time by having chief spokes-gaffer Joe Biden throw the subject out there for all of our consideration. We remember this tactic with George Stephanopoulos introducing contraception bans as a question in one of the middle GOP debates. That morphed conceptually into the "war on women", which burst into flames with Sandra Fluke and Hilary Rosen.

I don't think anyone is surprised by this "new" position. The President has already refused to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act, brought into law under the Clinton Administration, effectively defining marriage as "between a man and a woman"). He also reversed the Clinton policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military. It isn't really a stretch to get to gay marriage based on his past performance.

All the buzz right now is on "why now?" - he's had better than 3 years to take a stand on this. Many of his supporters are claiming he did it out of "intellectual honesty" - it was his time to stop denying the obvious. Some claim it is to fire up his base, which if true, is sort of sad, and means that he is more than a little worried about his chances in November.

The probable reason is far less deep. Like the "war on women", the sudden open support of gay marriage is designed to distract the voting public from the economy, unemployment, gas prices, the multitude of wars and the ones still bubbling up. It is a campaign tactic, brought up to once again keep the GOP off message. We expect Mitt will rise to the bait, and waste another couple of weeks arguing a side issue.

I'm going to give Mitt his answer. Argue it once, and never again during the campaign. I am not going to argue morality, religion, oddness, or even on a societal basis, though I will embellish on why all societies recognize a distinction between a marriage between a man and a woman, and the relationship of a same sex couple.

The distinction that society makes in distinguishing the homosexual couple from the heterosexual one is simple - biology. Straight (no pun intended) out of Darwin's propagation of the species. The heterosexual couple, as a general rule benefits the human species by increasing it's number, and strengthening it's gene pool. It is why the "traditional" family unit as far back as science can trace has consisted of a male, a female, and their children.

This same principle is operative for most vertebrates, and all warm-blooded creatures on the planet. It is this way not because animals have an angry God shaking his finger and saying you are bad animals if you don't do this. It just is.

Yes, homosexual behavior has been observed in other species, which speaks to the point of homosexuality being hard-wired into the brain, and not a lifestyle "choice". Still the problem we face now is uniquely human. There are no known cases of a homosexual gazelle couple wanting the rest of the herd to bless their union and adopt a baby gazelle. We need to figure this one out.

Over time as the cave men formed tribes that developed into clans, and tribes and nations, the "normalcy" of the heterosexual state was folded into how these groups developed as societies. As the societies matured, customs and laws were created,in the fashion of each culture, to define the state of marriage, which has always been considered a male and female arrangement. There have been variants (mostly dealing with polygamy, and polyandry) but essentially the root model was the same. Male, female, children.

Humans have always been spiritual beings - whether they worshipped Ba'al, the sun, nature, pharaoh,or the God of Abraham. Over time, it became custom in most societies to seek the blessing of God when a couple embarks on the commitment to a family - to aid in prosperity, and to grant the gift of children.

Religion and the secular state, particularly in western societies, sought to enact protections in the form of law. Laws of inheritance, transfer of property, divorce, etc. Marriage was defined as a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family.

Medical science had not made much progress until relatively recently in understanding what makes children beyond the physical act of sex. Marriage applied to men and women because the expected result of heterosexual sex was a child at some point. It was not applied to homosexuals (who have always existed) because there was no expectation of children.

As the centuries passed, religion gave a moral tinge was given to homosexuals because they were different. Different was equated with bad. Bad was sinful, and so on. I'm not going to debate theology here.

This is the crux of the problem. Marriage, as it has evolved, is both a religious and sacred commitment before God, and a legal contract overseen by the state. This duality, depending upon religious beliefs, provides a moral and theological dilemma for many people. The question of homosexual marriage is a stunningly new occurrence, against a backdrop of thousands of years of human history and custom.

We are now arguing about a word - "marriage". That's all it is - semantic warfare. The legal standard of the definition of marriage is met with a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" in 20 states (including the ones that have legalized gay marriage outright). Most major employers, and a lot of smaller ones, offer benefits that recognize this status as well. That was the "deal" that was cut back in the 90's. It is, at the heart, "separate but equal". Brown vs. Board of Education was deemed unconstitutional not because it was separate, but because it was not equal. This, from a legal standpoint, is.

We're in 2012 now. The LBGT community wants official "marriage", which they have in the seven states that have legalized it. They want it in all 50. That's an understandable goal. The problem is that the word "marriage" carries religious as well a civil meanings. In the 32 states that have had referendums on gay marriage or preserving traditional marriage the LGBT community has come up with no wins - even in my bluest of blue states, California.

In the states where gay marriage was passed, it was generally over the objection of the citizens of that state. A law changes nothing except behavior. A law does not change minds. We think it ill-advised for these legislators to force the issue, and imagine that most of them will be replaced come November.

A society needs to change willingly - not by decree, whether by the executive, legislature or the courts. If you want to equate gay marriage with a civil rights issue, I would counter that Archie Bunker and the Huxtables did more to change minds on race than any law passed, any order signed, or any court decision. They opened a dialogue. Dialogue is key in persuasion.

The LGBT community has not sold America on the idea of gay marriage. It is a sale that may never be made. From my personal standpoint as a conservative Christian, I am willing to accept the tenuous compromise of the civil union - a committed couple should be afforded the legal rights available to any couple who commits for a lifetime.

At the same time, I struggle with the use of the term marriage for the commitment of a gay couple. It is not. To go back to race, it is stylish for young white teens to dress in the baggy pants, exposing their boxers and using black slang. As much as they want to call themselves black they are not. As much as a gay couple wants to call themselves married, they are not. Marriage is, at its most basic, an extension of our biological hard-wiring as expressed by how an individual society recognizes it.

It is not up to the LBGT community to demand. It is up to them to persuade. To date, they have not with a sufficient amount of Americans. Until they do, civil union is the path of least resistance, and affords what the community is most concerned with. In the civil union states, no one is being deprived of any rights except use of the word marriage. Nine tenths of a loaf is better than no loaf at all. So says Common Sense.

RLB

The Collapse Of The Eurozone

2012-05-08T22:17:34Z

We've all had the headlines screaming at us lately. The Eurozone is in trouble. The poorer nations (snarkily named the PIIGS), who were part of the Eurozone expansion, apparently fudged their numbers when reporting the state of their economies to the member nations. In short, the original Eurozone, laid out a sub-prime loan on an international scale, and the PIIGS are showing us their empty pockets. Oops.

The PIIGS are Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. Greece has been getting all of the press, but all of these countries are in about the same situation. They are broke, and teetering on the brink of default. The solution up to now, has been Germany and France sending them more money. In return they were asking for "austerity measures" - in short - stop spending.

There in lies the problem - cutting spending causes rioting. Why, you ask? We talk about cutting spending all the time in this country (though we haven't actually done it in years). The worst we get is OWS, because nothing says protest like living in squalor. Even when things turn violent (as events did in Seattle on May 1), the riot consists of 100 - 200 thugs. In Greece they get crowds in the tens of thousands. What has these Greeks so riled-up? Cut some government spending, balance the books and get on with life.

The Greeks have extremely generous social programs, and a vast horde of bureaucrats administering them. The private sector is now the minority in Greece. Lets count that in reverse. More people work for the government or are on the dole than pay taxes to support the government and the people on the dole. You've heard the quote. Democracy only works until people figure out that they can vote themselves other people's money. Then it collapses.

If the Greeks cut the government, it is not like here where you close a few national parks or drop a few expensive weapons systems. Maybe cut loose some bureaucrats who then walk over to K Street and get picked up by a lobbying firm. As I mentioned before - there's not a whole lot of private sector left. Those bureacrats then go on the dole, where they get a comfortable pension, free healthcare and more time to sip Ouzo. No money saved.

Cutting weapons systems for Greece would not save any money either, at least in Greece. It could save the U.S. money because we ARE the Greek defense. Well, us and NATO. When you don't spend money on the military, you can afford all sorts of social programs, until you can't anymore.

But the cruel Germans and French made demands on the Greeks in return for bailout money. The first thing that they demanded was for Greece to privatize it's healthcare system. I wonder if the irony was lost on President Obama. Probably.

Then there were demands to cut budget to bring it somewhere into line with what the Greek tax base can support. The choice is to raise taxes, or cut benefits. The top tax rate in Greece right now is 75%. Out of every dollar made, the Greek government gets 75 cents. I wouldn't want to work to only get a quarter of what I had earned. The rich are all leaving, because they can. Those on the dole pay not taxes, so the pressure is on to squeeze the small middle class for more money.

We'll they've run out of money again, so it's time to start cutting, which in the case of Greece is tossing gasoline on the fire. You can cut jobs in government, but that just moves those former employees onto the dole, or you can cut the social programs, which is what everyone is screaming about.

Let's say you go into your government cubicle one day and are told your services are no longer needed. From the dollar side of things you'll get near enough to full salary, so it's a paid vacation. Except that benefit is being cut too - and not by a little bit. Cuts are up to 40% depending on which of the PIIGS you live in. On everything.You can't go to work, because there are no jobs. The government is the largest employer in all of these countries, and the government is laying off.

Translate this to the USA. You get fired. The unemployment check that you get is half of what you were expecting. Your brother, who stopped working years ago has his benefit similarly cut. Your Mother's Social Security check cut as well. You get sick and go to the emergency room because the private doctors aren't covering expenses with what Medicaid pays out. Everyone else is at the emergency room too. Not a pretty picture.

This is all very dire, you say, but how does this collapse the Eurozone? Just cut Greece loose. They can go back to the drachma, do a Brazil or Mexico restructure with the IMF and everything goes back to normal.

It would,except the Greeks just voted to double down on their social programs. In the Greek elections this past weekend, the conservative leaning party lost seats, but remains the biggest single party at 17 %. The conservative leaners had been governing in coalition with a moderate liberal party to achieve a majority.They lost seats too, becoming the third largest instead of the second largest.

The big winner was the Syriza party, which is now the second largest party. It is a collection of radical lefties, socialists, and communists. Generally,people who will make Obama look better to us. The current conservative party has already failed to build a coalition. Now Syriza gets a shot at it. We doubt that they will cooperate with austerity. They campaigned on ending it. That flushing sound you are hearing is Greece going down the sewer.

So to quote the junior Senator from the state of Minnesota - "How does this affect me, Al Franken?"

The bailout process for the PIIGS has been structured and financed primarily by Germany and France. France this weekend dumped conservative (by European standards) President Nicolas Sarkozy for socialist candidate Francois Hollande. Hollande ran on ending French austerity, jump starting the economy, and liberalizing benefits. Hollande also is a big fan of Greece's top tax rate of 75%, and plans on doing the same for France. The French voted themselves other people's money. To give them credit, it was a squeaker, but that's what happens when vast amounts of people dependent on the government are offered more money.

Angela Merkel is tearing her hair out in Berlin as we speak. Germany is now in this all alone, and probably not much into the idea of financing everyone forever. In another irony, Germany is finally in the position to rule the vast majority of Europe, and doesn't want it anymore.

We have France jiggling the toilet handle on Greece, and Germany ready to pull the plug on the whole thing. Britain, on the other hand is enjoying it's "told you so" moment. They passed on currency integration (No Euros thanks.) and much of the rest of the agenda. It is a safe bet that the Eurozone will either collapse or lose a big chunk of the current membership.

Again, so what? Who cares if Greece or France or all of them go down? Most analysts are wringing their hands about how a collapse will reverb in the United States economy. It will, but not to the extent that the 2008 crash did. There will be pain, but it will sort itself out. In a strange way, if the Euro collapses, it is good for the dollar, which becomes the logical safe haven for investors. Of course, Russia and China will be looking for opportunities, but that's going to be a whole 'nother subject.

What we should be concerned with is that we are on the same track right now. America is borrowing without ceasing. Forty cents out of every government dollar is borrowed. Our debt is bumping up on $16 trillion. Germany bailed out Greece with $5 billion. That wouldn't pay for the paper clips that the US government uses.

While we're at it, real unemployment sits at 16% to as high as 20% depending on whose numbers you use. We have a leviathan healthcare system coming online. Social Security is broke. Medicare / Medicaid is on life support. OWS is our canary in the coal mine.

We have a choice to make this November. It's the same choice that sat before the French people, and as of right now it looks like just as tight a squeaker. We can continue the past 3 years of "transformation" to a European-style social democracy, or we can turn course and become America again. At this point I'll even settle for backtracking. America is a big ship to steer, it's going to take a while to right it. There are those who aren't happy with who wound up as "our guy". At least he's pointing in the right direction.

We need to open our eyes to the socialism that is collapsing parts of Europe, realize that it is a bad idea, and stop doing it here in America. The only way to do that is to replace the guy in charge, get a few more Senators, and a bigger chunk of the House. The alternative is not an option. Well, it is, which is what scares the hell out of me. Common Sense agrees.

RLB

Real Airport Security

2012-04-30T22:55:39Z

The TSA is back in our sights. Earlier this week they had a 4 year old girl in tears. She was given an enhanced pat down after giving her grandmother a hug at the airport. This was after the girl and her mother had cleared security, and as grandma was clearing security. The girl did what any four year old does. She ran to greet her approaching grandmother with a joyful hug. My boys do it all the time.

Then on the weekend, a terminal in Newark Airport was shut down for a half hour because a baby was improperly screened. A baby. Improperly screened. WTF?

Random searches are ideological idiocy. Coincidentally, they are being championed by the left. Not the normal, rational people who tend to vote Democrat because they see the Democrats as less Darwinian than the Republicans. Your average Democrat voter understands that it's a bad idea to traumatize a four year old, especially in this circumstance.

No, we're talking the flaming libtards who worship at the altar of progressivism - those who feel that the average person is too stupid to understand how to live. Our caretakers. In their Godly sense of "justice" and "fairness", it is preferable to search 4 year olds than to offend Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 40. How many 4 year olds have hijacked a plane lately? How many grandmothers? How many babies? And what threat was found? None. For all questions.

We have stated our position on the TSA before in Hands On Security and other articles. Taking the baggage handlers, giving them a crisp white shirt with an official looking patch on the sleeve, raising their salary by a dollar and giving them authority to rummage through our underwear is not security. It's not even a fig leaf of security. Even the TSA understands this which is why 4 enterprizing TSA agents were arrested in Los Angeles for smuggling drugs into the US by the DEA this past week as well.

I work closely with most of the law enforcement entities in SoCal - all levels - local, county, state and federal. The officers, deputies, and agents that I have spoken to this week about the 4 year old search sparked a sharp gut reaction. It was not positive.

All gave testimony that proper training would have avoided these situations. Proper training provides an officer with discernment - the ability to assess a situation and react appropriately. An officer in the field knows that properly assessing and managing a situation can keep things from going to hell.

Janet Napolitano has justified the search saying that the TSA agents were following procedures by the book. By the book is great, but getting to the book requires some flexibility. To a police officer in the field handling a 200lb male with attitude and decorated with gang tattoos is going to go differently than dealing with a drunk driver in a business suit, or the church treasurer with his hand in the till. If you agree, you have engaged in the vile dirty act of "profiling". You made a judgement call, based on your experience and the person's looks. Police do this to, but are better trained in it.

Profiling is a legitimate investigative tool. It focuses resources on the most likely culprits. If you have a gang murder, you focus on rival gangs. If you have corporate embezzlement, you don't focus on gangs, you focus on people who work in the business. If drugs are infesting a neighborhood, the local pastor is probably not a suspect,though he might be able to point you in the right direction.

The same principle can be applied at the airport. I'm not talking segregating all of the muslims. The TSA rationale for their random search policy is that eventually the terrorists will send someone who doesn't fit the profile. That is two dimensional thinking. The profiling is not just looks, but our experience, our understanding of the terrorists.

We need to profile by behavior. It's a simple skill taught at every police academy and community college with a law enforcement program. Most of us have an instinct for what constitutes suspicious behavior. It is why Secretary Napolitano wants us to report it, ad nauseum. That instinct can be honed with the right training.

Profiling and investigation, when done properly, can be unobtrusive. I'll give you a personal story. I have 2 young sons and the oldest has taken up T-Ball. I was with my youngest watching the game, when the little guy took off to play with a bunch of toddlers in a sandpile. I got up and went over to keep an eye on him. For those of you who don't know me, I'm in my fifties - so I look a little old to have a kid at this game, and a little too young to have a grandkid playing.

As I got over to the toddlers, I played in the sand with my son for a while before collecting him back. One of the mothers came over as if to get her child and engaged me in some conversation - "Do I know you? Have I seen you before?" That kind of thing. She asked about my work, and in return, I asked her about hers. She said she worked with the Sheriff's Department, and I made mention of some of the people that she worked with that I knew. We traded a few more words. She went back to watching the game, and I collected my son and went back to my team's side.

End of story, almost. A few days later I had to call one of the people we knew in common. I mentioned the story and he laughed. Hard. She was a deputy, and she couldn't figure out why a person of my "type" would be at a T-Ball game. I was profiled, investigated and assessed in 5 minutes of conversation, and I didn't even realize it. That's proper training.

To bring this around - there is in no way any justification for traumatizing a 4 year old. There are far more unobtrusive ways to investigate what was going on, which any trained police officer would have made use of. Instead we have the pretend McCops of the TSA going blindly by the rulebook instead of employing common sense and discernment.

This is why we are not safer. The only reason that we haven't had another successful terrorist attack is because the terrorists have been more inept than our own TSA. If you want to see how inept they have been link Is It That Hard To Get Good Help?

If we are going to have security at the airport, we need to do real security. Not pretend. Let's get rid of the baggage screeners, and use that money for a major beef up of the Air Marshall Service. Real Marshals doing real security and investigation. Have them in the air - two on every flight. Have them at the airport patrolling in uniform and plainclothes. Have them do what real cops do - look for suspicious behavior.

Create an intelligence hub in every terminal. Plant cameras and chemical sniffers everywhere in and around the terminal. Have all of those feed into the intelligence hub so that marshals may be dispatched at the first sign of trouble. Too Orwellian for you? There is a similar system in every casino in Vegas. In Vegas, when grandma sits down at a slot machine, she is safe, and so are those mountains of money behind the cashier's window. All without an enhanced pat down of everyone entering the casino. When something works you should go with it.

Finally, stop trying to find weapons like nail clippers and toothpaste, and concentrate on finding terrorists instead. The overwhelming majority of travelers are no threat and just want to get to their destination with as little hassle as possible. We will never be able to remove everything dangerous from every traveler. A committed terrorist can, as we have seen, fashion a weapon out of anything.

The answer is not in baggage screeners . It is in the creation of real, well trained and well equipped, highly motivated boots on the ground. Profile, investigate and secure. It's not rocket science. We even have a promising hiring pool out of the 100,000 active duty troops President Obama want to cut. Now there's a jobs program. And it is Common Sense.

RLB

Joe Returns

2012-04-24T22:29:26Z

It's Joe again. I'm usually the angry voice of TPP and Common Sense Dictates. I'm not angry today. Just sad, or maybe bittersweet. But I have closure now.

In my first piece here Economic Reality: A Voice In The Crowd back in October 2009, I was angry and rightly so. Still I kept a reasonable tone. Things were bad, but it looked like the "government" help was well-intentioned, even if it was ineffective. By my second article A Recap From Joe published in June of 2010, had a harsher tone. In it I called out the hacks in both parties who were stealing money from my family in the form of taxes, to give to their pet constituencies. There was nothing effective being done to "fix" the economy. Most of it was causing more harm to my family. The GOP was rolling over and getting their share. TPP published a couple of my articles ripping Boehner a new one for being the lead roller.

In the time since then the crap has hit the fan. By January of 2011 my family was facing a panic mode. My job in the technology sector was still solid, but with my wife out of work for well over a year, we had fallen further and further behind. That hard talk at the kitchen table that Joe Biden made famous was about to be had at our kitchen table.

There was no longer enough money to meet our obligations. There was no hope of my wife getting a job anywhere in sight. The unemployment level in California for the education sector (my wife's field) was, and still is, near 30%. Obama really didn't save all that many teacher jobs.

We had started the death spiral of supplementing our income on what was left of the credit cards. We did nothing but play catch up on the mortgage, buy food and diapers, and keep the utilities running. We considered bankruptcy.

We actually went to a lawyer about it. Piece of advice - avoid going with the firm with the flashiest website. We were given bad advice that we paid up front for - stop paying the mortgage, and everybody else you don't need to live. I wasn't comfortable, but it made a certain kind of sense, since this was all going away in a Chapter 7.

In August the good news came. My wife was offered a job. It was less money than she was used to (about half of her last salary) but it was way better than nothing. Of course, for those of you out there who have not wound up in similar circumstances, that tanked the Chapter 7, which has a household income cap. To tell you the truth, I was ok with that. I never really wanted to go down that road. What I wasn't ok with is that the lawyer, who hadn't lifted a finger yet, kept the money.

My first concern was working things out with the mortgage company. We started working on one of those HARP applications to try to save it. During the process we received a letter announcing a sheriff's sale on our house. There was a similar notice attached to our front door. Foreclosure had started.

We could get no cooperation from the mortgage company anymore. I do some volunteer work for an organization that helps the poor and the homeless. I thought now might be a good time to kick the last of my pride away and see if someone there could help. They put me in touch with another volunteer who was well-versed in the HARP process and had several successes. He told us that time was short,but we had a very good shot of being approved.

He was a bulldog on our behalf and got all of the correct paperwork through. Lines of communication were opened again. The process was fast-tracked because of the upcoming sale, which was being delayed. Oh, and he never took a dime from us.

The long and the short of it is that the foreclosure sale never got delayed. A week or so before Thanksgiving we were served with a notice that the house had been sold out underneath us, while a HARP was being negotiated. The buyer was Fannie Mae. They just paid the bank the balance of what we owed on the mortgage. It was a no-brainer to the bank. We were told to get out. We were "incentivized" to get out by being cut a check to leave by a certain date. Our negotiator screamed bloody hell about this, but in the end there was nothing more to be done.

God intervened, as he does when the load is finally to big to bear, and within a couple of days we found a larger home in a nicer area, that came in at half the cost of our old mortgage. Of course, now it's called rent. We were gone on November 30, and collected our "shut up and go away" money.

All in all, it's been a blessing. The new home is bigger and in many ways nicer. There is a big yard for the kids to play in. The landlord is very accommodating. We still have a few credit card companies to deal with, but the car is paid off. My wife has been doing a good job at work and is soon to get a significant pay bump. We are no longer fighting against an impossible situation. Things are getting back to normal.

So what is the closure? Every once in awhile I would drive back to the old house, all boarded up, relive the fight to save it, and take a couple of sips of regret. It's not so much the economics of the thing. Nearly every house in our old neighborhood has been foreclosed on by now. It was what the house represented to me - continuity, commitment, a safe haven for my family, forever.

This morning I drove out for the first time in a couple of months. The boards were off the windows. There was a new fence or two. There was a young boy attempting to climb a tree that I had planted a week after moving into the house. His father was watering the lawn that I seeded. He waved and smiled as I drove by. I didn't feel anger. I felt peace. Finally, in my heart, as well as in my head, this is over.

This probably isn't the article that they are expecting. I could throw some harder punches in Obama's direction, but it's pointless because in the end I won. I won because even when on the defense, my family and I were fighting from a better position than many families. There are families out there just like mine who were hit harder, or started from a weaker position, and are still mired in trouble.

I'm not going to take the cheap shot and blame Obama for all that my family has been through. All of it hinged on the bursting of the housing bubble and the bad behavior of politicians from both parties over decades. I do think that the policies that he is pursuing made it far more difficult for us to recover, and is making it impossible for people less well equipped to bounce back or gain traction. I will not be voting for him this November.

I want to thank all of you who have followed and commented on my experience in all of this. I hope I gave a voice to some of your frustrations. It gave me a place to vent. My family is back on track. Time to make some changes in Washington so that the country can get back on track. God bless you all.

Joe

The Dream Team

2012-04-20T19:39:21Z

There are a fair amount of disappointed conservatives right now. Well, maybe disappointed is the wrong word. They are resigned - resigned to the fact that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee. Once again the nod goes to the next guy in line, not to a fire-breathing conservative who will excite us.

History tells us that this is not a good strategy for the GOP. We can cite John McCain, Bob Dole and even Gerry Ford. The GOP seems to do better when someone jumps the line - George W Bush (who pushed past McCain in 2000), Ronald Reagan (who took on a sitting President in 1976 and took the nomination away from the establishment the next time around). There was a washed up Nixon in 1968. You can go back as far as the GOP asking Eisenhower if he wanted to be President, after the shoe-in Tom Dewey, went down in flames against Harry Truman. Every one served two terms.

Still, barring an act of God, Mitt Romney will be our nominee. We need to go from lukewarm to on fire in our support. Why? Because the reality of the situation is that Mitt Romney is the only man on earth who will be in a position end the Obama Presidency. It's Romney vs. Obama come November, not Obama vs. whomever you would prefer. For those of you hoping for a white knight to ride in and save the country, he's here. It's Mitt. For those of you hoping for a third party challenge, we covered that in Third Party Temptations . Anyone inclined to sit this one out, by doing so, you are casting a vote for Obama.

Mitt needs to make the case to the conservative base, and I think that he will be able to accomplish this. We suggested in that a good way to start on this would be to make use of his nomination opponents in his administration, and to put those names out prior to the election. You might argue that it's never been done before, and that is true. Still, the American people are in no mood for a bunch of surprises, since it didn't work out all that well with Obama. It might be worth a try.

Would the Newtsters feel better knowing that Newt would be an active member of the Romney administration? Rick Santorum supporters? Fans of Sarah? Or Chris Christie? Ron Paul? The consolation prize of a place at the White House table would work for me. It has been pointed out that there is a wealth of talent in the GOP. Making use of that talent prior to the election can go along way to building excitement and easing doubts.

Let's have some fun with this. I'm going to set up my Dream Team Romney. I'll stay away from the Veep slot because only Mitt knows what he will require of his second in command. The others in the cabinet are just what Mitt is used to in the board room. Senior staff that carries out the policies approved by the boss. Employees. Here's our incomplete list. Feel free to add or change.

Newt has been lobbying for Secretary of State. We think that position would be a waste of his significant talents. We see him as Chief of Staff. He can spin ideas as he likes, and twist the arms of Congress and staff, which he has proven to be good at. He is the thinking man's Rahm Emanuel. We like John Bolton for Secretary of State. He will ardently conduct foreign policy with America's best interest in mind. Budget Director - that's a no-brainer - Paul Ryan. Homeland Security - Rudy Giuliani. Feel better yet?

How about we assign some people with tasks? Secretary of Energy - Sarah Palin, who, before becoming Governor was chairman Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission tasked with energy matters for the state. She is qualified. Charge her with dismantling the department. It has done nothing of value since it's inception. The tasks performed by it can be folded back into the departments of Commerce and Interior. Chief Trade Negotiator - Donald Trump - free up more markets and expand our exports. Plus, he would be fun to watch. Secretary of Defense - former general Stan McChrystal - to continue molding the military to meet new and future threats.

We like Ron Paul for HHS Secretary. He is a medical doctor, and will cast a skeptical eye on the regulations spewing from the agencies under the HHS banner, which are legion. Michele Bachmann would be a good choice there as well. It would signal in no uncertain terms that Obamacare is doomed. Mitt won't do this, but I'd love to see Ann Coulter as Press Secretary. Like Trump, it would be fun.

Just a few names and tasks, and I am happier about the Romney nomination. The list is nowhere near complete. Finding ways to make use of the talents of Allen West, JC Watts, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and any number of GOP governors willing to serve at the federal level.

With the exceptions listed above, I haven't tossed out the names of many currently serving in the Senate or the House. It's not that there is no talent there, it's just that the talent we have there is needs to stay in place.We can't forget that for Romney to accomplish much of what we are tasking him with the GOP will need to take the Senate majority, and build the House majority already in place. Pulling anyone out who is currently sitting in the legislative branch is counter-productive until we know what the final numbers will be.

In the end, Mitt in charge is better than Obama in charge. We argued that in The Fat Lady Sings Getting the people more confident in him is Mitt's biggest task. We think that even during the campaign, the others that he surrounds himself with will speak to the voter's perception of what a Romney Presidency will look like. If he surrounds himself with conservatives, it is much easier to accept the argument that he is conservative. If he surrounds himself with beltway boys, it's going to be much harder for Mitt to make the sale. So says Common Sense.

RLB

The Death Of Talkradio

2012-04-13T17:22:25Z

It wasn't the "Fairness Act". It wasn't a lack of listeners. It wasn't even a lack of facts. Still, somewhere along the line, and fairly recently, TalkRadio died as a means to educate people about conservatism and what is going on in DC that will affect all of our lives. We are now left with New Media alone.

What causes this dire proclamation? I listen to Talk Radio on and off - background noise, for info, news and entertainment. I'll get it in half hour doses, and flip between shows when it veers off into boredom. It had been a great mind opener into new ways to frame arguments and a source of perspective in the news flood that we sort through every day.

Today, I had a three hour drive up to Santa Barbara, CA. It was a beautiful day and I left my iPod on my desk, so I thought it would be good to have a solid dose of Rush, Sean, Glenn and the rest for some piercing conservative observation on the serious issues facing the country.

Imagine my dismay to find that the only things on the menu were Hilary Rosen dissing Ann Romney, and more Trayvon Martin. Oh, and Michelle Obama and the food police. WHAT IN THE HELL, PEOPLE???? We've got an economy in the toilet, unemployment numbers that if reported in real numbers would be at 16- 19%, a still crashing housing market, wars in ever increasing amounts of countries, a debt that our grandchildren will be paying off, and a deficit that continues to add to the debt. Inflation. Gas prices. Oil dependence on people we are generally at war with.

North Korea just shot off a rocket that we may or may not have shot down. Iran is inches from nuclear. The EU economy is about to tank and drag us with it as a thank you to us tanking them in 2008. Syria is telling the UN to F-off (which really, we should be doing...). The Arab Spring is turning into the Muslim Brotherhood Lollapalooza. And we're talking about a catfight and a tragedy that no one would have noticed if Al Sharpton hadn't stuck his bullhorn into it. Obama as well.

Seriously, what Rosen said about Mrs. Romney was in poor taste - so much so that the White House has been backpedaling from it at breakneck speeds. It is not a stain on the national character. And while the Trayvon Martin incident is a really sad affair, the truth is that the same thing happens to black, white, latino and "other" kids, every day in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and DC. Sometimes horrible, stupid crap happens. I feel for both families, but this is no more national news than when some cute white girl gets kidnapped and the mainstream media gets their panties in a bunch.

Now Talkradio is buying in. OK, I get it. It is first and foremost entertainment. If I want news, I need to go to actual news sources. I have the news feeds for a couple of dozen legit wire services streaming into my office 24 - 7. Ditto on FedGov and New Media. My computer screen looks at any given moment like a slot machine with news articles spinning with the speed of cherries and dollar signs getting ready to spit out a jackpot. Still...

Conservative Talkradio positions itself as being in "the" position to educate on conservative philosophy and principles. This is no longer occurring. In what all of the national "hosts" are calling the most important election of our lifetime, and maybe ever, they choose to focus on minutiae or BS sideshows rather than actual issues. While stressing that we must take Obama on by going after his record, they indulge in a strokefest with the mainstream media in hyping things of absolutely no consequence to America in general, or the conservative cause in particular. Of late, Talkradio has stood opposite the mainstream media assisting in tossing gasoline on the flames from the other side.

We are being given "bread & circuses" by both NPR and ClearChannel. By Rush and Maher. By Hannity and Jon Stewart. It is all fake news. At least Jon Stewart still acknowledges that what he does is fake news. It would be responsible for our "icons" to do so as well. If nothing else it would be a public service to their listeners to acknowledge that they are chasing ratings, not a higher truth. But that would spoil the illusion.

Voters of America, it's time to wake up. Talkradio has taken the pillow next to mainstream media, and they are spooning. Rush isn't going to save you. Sean isn't going to save you. Glenn isn't going to save you. They are all going "didn't" to the mainstream media "did". They are not educating. They are not furthering the debate. They are filling the air with, as Shakespeare said, "sound and fury, signifying nothing." It's a bad thing to base a vote on.

It is up to us, Tea Party style, to reclaim the country, the Constitution, and the American ideal. There is nothing to do but to rescue ourselves, not to look to the big voices to do anything other than keep talking, and keep us off message. To paraphrase the often misquoted quote - Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country... So says Common Sense.

RLB

Game Change

2012-04-10T23:39:12Z

In the heady days of all of 4 months ago, a jubilant Rick Santorum declared "Game on!" in his unexpectedly good showing in Iowa. Today that game was walked away from. Rick gave a classy speech, with his trademark upbeat message and call for the shoring up of families as the way back to prosperity. We wanted to accord Senator Santorum the respect of not going for the obvious title.

We liked Rick Santorum a lot. We saw him as dedicated, intelligent, thoughtful and humble. It is the humility that we admired the most. In a race filled with ballooned egos and to use Rick's own word "grandiosity", he remained centered and decent. It was something we commented on as Rick stepped into the not-Romney role. We said that his only weakness was that he was too decent a man to do the things he would need to do to win the White House.

Speaking of grandiosity, Newt jumped in right away as the "only true conservative choice" and lobbying for Santorum supporters. It was unseemly at best, and speaks to the opportunistic nature of the former Speaker. It was akin to showing up at a funeral and asking the widow if he could move in and share the bed once the minister shut up. He did not help himself at all, especially since he essentially conceded that Romney would be the nominee come August. There's your contrast - a bloated ego claiming the mantle of decency and humility.

It's not that Rick was perfect, none of them are. We just had a soft spot for him. But now we move on. We had declared Mitt inevitable in our last piece The Fat Lady Sings and gave the Romney campaign a way to get the love from the GOP base. Our position was that the numbers don't lie. If it was going to be mathematically impossible for Santorum with 269 delegates to catch Mitt, it is even more impossible for Newt to overtake Mitt with 140. (just so the Paulistas don't feel left out, Ron has 67).

If Newt stays in it's just to be a burr to Romney. Again, it's all about Newt. We already have an egotistical child running the country shouting "me! me! me!" . I'm a little tired of it, regardless of how entertaining a debate with Obama might be. If Newt does get lucky, he may parlay his delegates into a VP slot, and we could have him beat up on Joe Biden. Of course that would be like Mike Tyson in his prime taking out Steve Urkel. It's just not sporting. Rumor mill has it that he wants Secretary of State. We see him as Chief of Staff.

We see all of the candidates and former candidates being of great service to a Romney Administration. It is an amazing pool of talent that would serve America well. Perhaps that is another way for Mitt to start building bridges. A true leader builds a team. Once the nomination is assured, we see only pluses in dropping the names of his former rivals and his hopes for their roles in the new administration. Getting a picture of the whole package in advance might mitigate the lack of excitement currently enjoyed by Mitt. Or at least the key players. Assuming those choices are wise.

So this is the game change. It is no longer a game. Now it is a full-fledged campaign that will determine the direction of the country not only for the next 4 years, but depending on the outcome, maybe forever. We need to keep ourselves focused on that.

Mitt might not be ideal, but I challenge anyone who says there is no difference between him and Obama. Mitt will respect the Constitution. Mitt will rebuild our military. Mitt will restore our image abroad. Mitt will not apologize for the United States, he will proclaim it's virtues. Mitt will not actively change us to a European-style socialist state, but will restore the American ideal that those who work hard and play by the rules can go as far as their talent takes them. That's a big difference to what we have now.

What do we do with this game change? We bring that change to DC. Not that "hopey, changey thing" but a restoration of American ideals that have been sorely absent over the past several years. Fiscal responsibility, leadership from strength, promotion of individual liberties,and rolling back the federal leviathan. A strong and proud America. We need to restore Common Sense. We have a far better shot of getting that with Mitt than we do with Obama.

RLB

The Fat Lady Sings

2012-04-04T20:55:43Z

Regular readers know that I like a good math problem. There's nothing like cutting through the numbers to come up with the truth. Numbers don't lie. This time the math problem is not mine. The math is a problem to anyone who is not Mitt Romney.The fat lady is singing right now. Mitt is going to be the nominee. Time to wrap our heads around the idea and figure out how to win in November.

Here's your math. 1144 is the magic number to clinch the nomination. The current count is Mitt - 652, Rick - 269, Newt - 140, Ron - 67. If this was a two person race and all the delegates from the not-Romney club were combined, the not-Romney would have 476 delegates. That might be a horse race, but the not-Romneys still have a deficit of 180 delegates,and we're moving into some fertile ground for Mitt.

Primaries still coming include NY, CT, RI, DE, IN, OR, CA, NJ and UT, all of which will lean towards Mitt. California, NJ and Utah are winner take all contests. The winner of the primary in each of these states gets all of the delegates. With Mitt winning all 3, he is a handful of delegates short of the nomination. Every other primary grants proportional delegates. The only way the math works out for a not-Romney is a single not-Romney candidate, combined with a major implosion of Mitt's candidacy. Since Mitt has been running for President since 2007,we don't see a train wreck coming.

A good amount of you are groaning at the prospect of a Romney nomination going up against President Obama. Let's do the list. Romneycare. Fuzzy conservatism. Mediocre record in Massachusetts. Out of touch with everyday Americans. Failure to connect with voters. And he is the personification of the rich white guy that Obama has been running against since the class warfare strategy came forward. Once again the GOP nominates the next guy in line, and once again, we're not in love with the guy. We are so screwed.

Or are we? In 2008, wasn't Romney the conservative alternative to John McCain? Yes, he was. He would have had my vote if he hadn't dropped out before the California primary. If he had won the nomination then, we may have never had to deal with Obama. Remember your numbers - McCain was four points ahead of Obama right up until the economic meltdown. Then McCain turned into the crazy old man soiling his pants while Obama remained cool as a cucumber. I cannot picture Mitt Romney going into panic mode.

What was our wish list as the process started? Executive experience. Check. A record of accomplishment. Check. Knowledge of business and the economy. Check. Intelligence. Check. A deep love of America. Check. Respect for the Constitution. Check. Belief in a strong defense and a secure America. Check. Honesty. Check. Humility. Check. Honor. Check. Conservative values. I'll even give him a check on that one. He has shown no desire to lie, so I will take him at his word.

Who is left in the field who fits that bill? Rick Santorum, who I like very much, has no executive experience. While his ideas will be different than Obama, he will come to office in legislative mode. We need someone to lead a nation, not a sub-committee. Newt Gingrich, who I have great respect for, comes off a bit too mercurial for the office of President. We need a steady, firm hand piloting the ship of state. Besides, the scuttlebutt is that he's trying to deal for becoming Secretary of State. Ron Paul? He lost the GOP on foreign affairs and national defense. Sorry, part of the job of the President (and some would argue the primary job) is looking out for America's interests abroad. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't cut it.

So, it's Mitt,and I can live with that. The process has worked, and we are getting what we asked for. He's no Ronald Reagan, but if you think about it, neither was Reagan in 1980. Or in 1988. Only history proved him to be the President we so admire now. Mitt has the same potential.

How does he help himself? That's the question. We don't want to go to polls in November holding our noses, or worse yet stay home. Both of those actions assure an Obama second term. Mitt needs to move beyond being electable, to being the obvious choice to get our country back on track. It's a tall order, but not impossible.

First will be Mitt's choice for VP. The VP pick should be someone who can act as a counter balance. Uber-solid conservative cred. Well respected. Tea Party friendly. Scandal free. Ready to hit the ground running. Santorum fits the bill - along with Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, JC Watts - there is no shortage of people in the GOP who will add luster to the Romney campaign. Marco Rubio is unfortunately absolutely out as this morning. He stated flatly that he will NOT be the VP candidate.

Mitt can reach out to ALL of the other GOP primary candidates for their active support. Team building is an essential trait for a successful leader in business. We suggest Mitt make use of this talent immediately. Use the talents of other GOP heavyweights as well. Voters who are lukewarm to Mitt now, may be persuaded and excited by passionate support from Chris Christie, Allen West, Stan McChrystal, and even Dick Cheney, if he's well enough.

Hammer Obama's record every day. Borrow from Bill Clinton. It's the economy stupid. Jobs, gas prices, inflation, housing still tanking. Stimulus not working. Green jobs turning into bankrupt companies. We'll be entering our 4th "summer of recovery", and we're still waiting for the recovery.

Argue as well against the dangerous results of Obama's knee-jerk reactions to crises around the world. When the US doesn't stand strong, the bad guys feel like they have a free hand. This one will be especially important when the October surprise comes early in July as things go south with Iran.

Vow everyday to repeal Obamacare and deliver on that promise. Mitt has refused to disown Romneycare, so he will need to spend a little too much time clearing up the issue. Simple Constitutional principle - Amendment 10 grants the authority to the states to do what they feel best for their residents. The Federal government has no such authority. Massachusetts has the authority to set up their health system for Massachusetts. The United States does not have the authority to create a plan for all 50 states. This issue may be moot if the Supreme Court moves to strike down Obamacare or the mandate.

The GOP is not in bad shape. Obama is ultimately beatable. As Rush is fond of saying, Obama is "landslideable". Any of the GOP candidates is capable of doing it. All of the candidates would need to follow a similar strategy. It looks like Mitt will get the nod. We might not like the idea now, but we need to get our act together before November. Otherwise, Obama gets a second term, and we get 4 more years of the same or worse. Common Sense would rather see a change in the occupant of the White House.

RLB

The Birthers Of A Nation

2012-03-29T19:19:31Z

My head is about ready to explode. The vast majority of my readers are engaged, informed and thoughtful, however there are nuts in every box of Cracker Jack. I may lose readership because of this, but someone needs to take this on.

In the course of our Facebook communications yesterday we passed on a story about how Marco Rubio has endorsed Mitt Romney. We commented that this looks like the beginning of the end of the GOP primary process.

The response of course, was fast and furious (and not in that Eric Holder sort of way). I understand the Newters and the Rick people standing up to defend their guy, but what broke my brain was the birthers. Sure there were the original Obama birthers, but now we have a whole new class of birthers going after the GOP candidates - specifically Mitt and Rick, and inexplicably Marco Rubio, who isn't even running. Time to put this crap to rest.

First off, Mitt Romney - and regular readers know that I'm no big fan of him, was born in Detroit, Michigan on March 12, 1947, making him a natural born citizen. He was born here. Check your 14th amendment, and nearly 150 years of interpretation since. No birther issue here.

Mitt Romney's father, George, was born in Mexico,and came to the United States when he was 5. The circumstances leading to that was Mitt's great grandfather, Miles, an American citizen, fleeing to Mexico in 1885 to escape religious persecution. Neither he, nor his son Gaskell, or grandson George (Mitt's father) became Mexican citizens. Mexican law forbade it. George Romney's birth certificate lists him as an American citizen born in Mexico. This apparently was good enough for everyone when he ran for the GOP nomination for President in 1968. That was before so many people had their heads up their butts.

Rick Santorum was born in Winchester, Virginia on May 10, 1958. Being born here, again according to the 14th Amendment, he is a natural born citizen. His father Aldo, immigrated to the United States at the age of 7 from Italy. He served in the USAF during WWII, and was honorably discharged in 1946. He became a clinical psychologist serving at various VA hospitals during his career of service to his fellow veterans. He passed away in 2011.

Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida on May 28, 1971, again fulfilling the 14th Amendment provision of being born here. His parents arrived from Cuba in 1956 and became citizens in 1975. Their lack of citizenship at the time of Marco's birth has no bearing on his natural born citizen status, because HE WAS BORN HERE.

This is your anchor baby argument from the other side. Those who protest illegals having babies here that get automatic US citizenship. You can't have it both ways.

If you want the seminal Supreme Court decision on this check out the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. The case goes back to 1898. In it, an American born man of Chinese descent was denied reentry into the US after spending a lengthy stay in China. This was based on the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which sought to limit Chinese immigration, allowed Chinese nationals residence but denied them citizenship, and denied reentry into the country of any Chinese national returning to the US from China.

The Court found for Mr. Wong, who was born in San Francisco, and thus a "natural born citizen". The fact that his parents were not citizens did not disqualify his citizenship. The basis for the decision was the 14th Amendment and the common law tradition that there are only two accepted reasons for denial of citizenship to a person born here. The first is that the child was born to foreign diplomats. The second is that the child is born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of American territory.

Just to keep things clear, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and no one seemed to have a problem with that.

For those of you still harping on Obama's birth certificate, well, you lose. On a few fronts. First he was born in Hawaii, which is one of the 50 states. Natural born. Second,if you believe he was born in Kenya, Indonesia or Saturn, his mother's US citizenship passes to him by statute.

The Constitution does not define "natural born". The" Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization"‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, "...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." Obama's father was a resident of Hawaii at the time of his conception, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not.

Contrary to what has been gurgling through the internet there is no pending case anywhere in the United States challenging Obama's citizenship. No court is going to go after Obama on this because it is just silly. Even Joe Arpaio, a man I greatly respect, is losing credibility on this.

Nothing is accomplished by wandering down this dead end. Even if it were true, it does not negate any law passed under Obama. If he were removed, Joe Biden is sworn in and he just re-signs everything.

Most of you have noticed that the country is on fire. Wasting time on nonsense like these birther issues is not helping to put out the flames. It is akin to refusing to pour water on the fire because the buckets were made in China. Geez people - grow up!

We have an economy in the tank, real unemployment at nearly 16% nationally, gas at $4.35 a gallon, the Mideast and Africa forming the caliphate, Iran going nuclear, the Federal Reserve devaluing our currency, and China holding our wallet for us. We have REAL problems to address. We're 8 months away from the election. At this point I don't give a damn about where Obama was born. I wanted him voted out in November.

We aren't going to do that coming up with crazy conspiracy theories about our own guys. Everyone who stepped forward for the GOP nomination would do a better job than the current occupant of the White House. Of those left in the field, I will vote for any of them over Obama. There is too much at stake this time - the very nature of our constitutional republic is being threatened. It's time to act like adults, educate ourselves, and start punk-slapping the nutjobs who are sucking the air out of the campaign with nonsense. It's the only Common Sense thing to do.

RLB

Third Party Temptations

2012-03-16T22:50:34Z

You stay informed, so you've heard the rumblings. All through the primaries, the Newt people hate the Mitt people, Rick and Newt are asking each other to drop out. And Mitt, well, he's a nice guy, but a little out of touch, and we're not in love. Ron is crazy or scary. We get it. There's no perfect candidate unless we combine the best of each candidate. There have been rumblings of a brokered convention or just "Please send us someone else".

Doug Schoen has written a piece in Politico extolling the virtues of launching a third party bid for the Presidency. He cites the disaffection of both Republicans and Democrats with their respective politicians, and the percieved mood in the country that all of us are just disgusted with politicians in general. He backs up his argument by presenting numerous polls showing that the public is fed up with both parties.

Schoen, a Democratic pollster and Pat Cadell, a former pollster for Jimmy Carter, have been promoting "Americans Elect". Visit at Americans Elect 2012. The concept is to hold a national online primary over the next few months to pick a candidate that answers directly to the American people, rather than to their respective parties. In theory it sounds like a good idea, but when theory meets practice, theory loses.

First, you need to go to the website. Of their slate of declared candidates, he biggest name appears to be Buddy Roemer, former governor of Louisiana. The "draft" list includes Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Barack Obama, and, seriously, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I was taking this as a credible idea at the start. Now it looks to me that the project was put together by The Onion.

The "About" section is loaded with hard-hitting platitudes and cutting vagueness. "Hope and change" in 16 talking points. But enough about them. Here's why this is a bad idea.

Not to throw a bucket of water on the whole idea, but the last third party candidate to win the Presidency was Abraham Lincoln, as the Whig party slowly withered away. All third party runs since than have split either Democrat or Republican votes, and have served the spoiler function.

If one wanted to travel to ConspiracyLand, you might wonder how two fiercely partisan Democrat operatives, have suddenly got all warm and fuzzy on the idea of ditching the system that has been a cash cow for them. If you wanted to travel even further into CrazyTown, you might see a medi-savvy administration trying to capitalize on voter apathy and the GOP looking to anyone but Romney. But of course, that's nuts.

We have lamented that with more reliance on open primaries, the process of picking nominees for President has been trivialized into a beauty contest. This process would degrade it even further, making the selection of a President a version of American Idol on steroids. We don't need less qualified candidates. We need candidates who are prepared to lead. We proposed a few suggestions in It's Party Time and Grumpy Old Men . The answer is clear principles, and term limits on ALL federal elected officials.

Voter education would be helpful as well. Jefferson said "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy". Most people are not like you,for a variety of reasons.They are disengaged from politics except for a few weeks every four years. Some are too busy struggling against the economy, gas prices, and job insecurity to take the time to educate themselves. Then there are the Snooki followers - people who don't really care at all, but still show up to vote for President. Then there are the people who accept the mainstream media as unquestioned truth. The reporting may be true, but there are always questions to be asked. What a shame that the MSM no longer asks them.

The current party nomination process is flawed, but it is fixable. Too much weight is given to a few small states. We support the idea of a natioal primary day, or if that is not possible, limiting primaries to maybe four - not regional, because that presents it's own problems. We propose dividing the states into well mixed groups - big and small, red and blue, rural and urban. Then rotate those groups with each new Presidential season.

Finally,we want to stress that whether America Elect is legitimate or some crazy diabolical scheme, a third party run hurts the conservative movement. A conservative who votes for a third party over the GOP nominee has cast a vote for Obama, because the third party candidate will not win. The third party will most likely split the GOP, not the Democrats.

The Tea Party has done a valuable service in trying to reform the Republican Party back to it's traditional conservative ideals. Ron Paul is trying to do it as well in his push towards strict Constitutionalism. It would be a shame to lose all of that hard work by refusing to support our eventual nominee because he isn't "my guy". That just hands the White House back to Obama, which stands in defiance of Common Sense.

RLB

Handicapping The GOP Final Four

2012-03-12T21:13:19Z

It's March Madness for more than just the NCAA. The GOP is moving into elimination phase, that could after tomorrow's primaries set the stage for the GOP championship. Two men standing. The final contest to see whether we wind up with Mitt or the not-Mitt in November.

Alabama and Mississippi are the battlegrounds, and both are too close to call according to recent polling. Mitt, Newt and Rick are in the high 20s / low 30s. Over the weekend Kansas provided a big win for Rick Santorum. He has momentum going in to an area where his conservative message will resonate well.

Mitt countered with a win in Wyoming and a few of the US Territories. He came out about even with Rick on delegates over the course of the week. Not a lot to show for the money he is spending, but a win is a win. And he does have more money.

The man who wasn't there was Newt. He's putting all of his chips on tomorrow's contests, and hoping that he holds a good enough hand. He did give a tell though. It was during an interview after his Georgia win. He let it slip that if he didn't win Georgia, he was going to fold up his campaign and go home. This shows that even Newt thinks he's in trouble.

To his credit Newt is doing a full press in tomorrow's contests. He has been literally camped out there since Georgia. We don't know how it will play out. If you win on effort, Newt should be further out front. If you win with cash, Mitt should have a commanding lead. Only Santorum is polling better than expected, mostly because many people are having a hard time figuring out how he took the mantle of the not-Mitt. It could be because he's the last guy left.

Depending on the results tomorrow, we might be down to 2. This is what we see as we do our handicapping:

Win or lose, Mitt continues on. He can lose badly in both contests and it doesn't really matter except in delegate count. Mitt goes to the convention. Getting the nomination maybe a fight, but he gets to keep fighting.

Rick is riding momentum, even after some shaky performances last week. A win or two - even squeakers - will boost his momentum further. This would be good news going into the next round of primaries, where he will need to bring the fight to Mitt. A second place finish in either or both contests does not do a lot of damage if he comes in at a close second. If it is, as the polling suggests, a 2 or 3 point split between the three candidates, coming in third doesn't really hurt him either.

Newt is in trouble. His money is drying up. His mercurial personality sometimes gets a bit off-putting. He hasn't been able to shine at a debate lately. He does have "home court" advantage in the South, and he has been working it hard. Still, he's going to need big wins to justify continuing his campaign. Winning by a point or two will not do much to revive his campaign. A double digit win does.

Ron Paul remains the wildcard, and could determine the outcome for the other 3 candidates. Many of his libertarian leanings play well with the voters of these two states. He really didn't help himself with being for legalizing marijuana though. Or his foreign policy that might sound nice on paper, but naive in practice.

If Dr.Paul comes out in single digits,he will be pulling votes from Mitt more than the others, so it should affect nothing other than the placement for the gold and the silver in these two states. If he pulls double digits, and if Newt doesn't perform above expectations, he may be the torpedo who sinks Newt's candidacy for the final time.

That's how we're calling this one. Let's hope that everyone is on their A game, and may the best man win. We will be one step closer to finding out who we will be voting for in November. And it will be the GOP nominee, no matter who gets it. Sitting home on Election Day because your candidate didn't win, is just casting a vote for Obama. This is too important to let that happen. So says Common Sense.

RLB

Of Cabbageheads And Kings

2012-03-09T05:38:01Z

OK, I can't stand it anymore. We have an economy in the toilet, wars in 10 or 12 countries, with Iran and Syria on the back burner. Real unemployment (the kind that doesn't filter out the people who ran out of unemployment benefits, part timers, and people who have given up all hope of getting a job) sits at 15 - 16%. Gas is rapidly approaching $5 per gallon in my home state of California.

Obama has killed the Keystone pipeline, which would have provided jobs and price relief at the gas station. The Gulf of Mexico is still shut down for drilling (again jobs and gas prices) while we give a couple of billion dollars to Brazil to develop their drilling capabilities. Mexico too. It's okay, we're borrowing the money from China - which is building up their military off of our interest payments and our trade imbalance.

Obama has committed us to an ever growing number of wars, while at the same time attempting to gut our military. He proposes cutting our troop levels by 100,000 (which would add them to the unemployed - nice.).

The housing collapse is not at bottom yet. There will be more foreclosures this year than in any year that the number has been recorded. Enabling this is Fannie and Freddie coming in and paying book values for homes so that the banks don't take the loss (Joe is working on a piece for us now).

Taxes will be going up in 2013 as the Bush tax rates expire again, the payroll tax goes back to normal, and more of Obamacare comes on line. The middle class will eat most of this.

And what are we talking about? Birth control. Seriously. Birth control. Not even birth control in general. We're wasting all of the air in the room on one woman who apparently needs $3000.00 worth of birth control in a year. Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, Greta, Hannity all wasting time on this B.S. sideshow that means NOTHING in the spectrum of issues that face this country. It's MSNBC's job to make us look like idiots. They are paid to do it. Our guys shouldn't be volunteering their time for free to add to the American people being distracted from the real issues.

We were sympathetic to the original issue in our piece Catholics, Conscience and Contraception . This has now devolved from a legitimate political issue regarding the federal government's ability to micromanage our lives,and infringe on our religious liberty, into an episode of Jerry Springer. And we are buying in - our media, our candidates, and our agenda is getting lost in this black hole that is sucking the issues out of the campaign. We are Cabbageheads taking on the King. Literally.

Here's one for you - PrezBarry spent the morning lobbying some problem Democrat Senators to get them to block the Senate amendment sponsored by the GOP to approve the Keystone pipeline. He succeeded in turning most of the 11 who agreed with the GOP, into no votes. Harry Reid crowed about the victory. Did you hear about that one? Of course you did. You stay informed. Not a peep anywhere else - even on FoxNews. It's all about the birth control.

Our candidates need to take control of their message again. Our media needs to focus on real issues again. This is when a well-delivered Newt punk-slap is in order for nearly everyone on our side. We need to refuse to rise to the bait once the "issue" turns from legitimate into farce. We just look silly doing it.

The issues are the economy, jobs, housing, our overstretched and underappreciated military, our weakened presence on the world stage, energy, price spikes, federal encroachment into our personal lives, and the degradation of our liberties. Toss in simplifying the tax code, dealing with the debt and deficit, and restoring America's greatness. Add a side of American pride.

Mitt, Rick, Newt and Ron all understand this in theory. They need to put it in practice instead of getting distracted by the media like a cat that gets distracted by a shiny object. There is too much at stake here to dive into the steaming pile that the MSM is serving up.

And Rush - the next time you spend 3 hours on a bogus story like this (Monday's show- I was stuck in traffic, heard the whole thing, was ready to switch him off several times, but everyone else was talking this up too - not a real issue to be found anywhere) I'll have to assume that you are working for the Dems. It might be good radio, but it's bad for the cause.

Stay on real issues. It's the only way we win. It is the Common Sense approach.

RLB

Paring The Pentagon

2012-02-28T23:40:30Z

Let's get this straight. President Obama has proposed gutting $500 billion from the military budget. He's cutting 100,000 active duty troops. He wants to reduce our nuclear stockpile by 80% to 300, and he wants to do it unilaterally (no mutual cuts from Russia).

At the same time we are involved in military actions (active troop deployment and/ or destroying things in air, missile and drone strikes) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. We are providing military "advisors" (can anyone say Vietnam?) to five central African countries. We have committed to a stronger presence in Asia, at the same time our debt finances the Chinese military buildup. Then there's Iran. And Syria.

We have right now, the finest, best trained, strongest and most honorable military in the world. National defense is one of the few mandated functions of the federal government. The Department of Defense should be first in line to receive our tax dollars, and the last department to be cut. Peace comes through just strength. War comes from perceived weakness.

Still, I am not an absolutist who believes that every dollar that goes to the military is either necessary or spent wisely. There are ways to trim costs in significant ways without committing national suicide, which is what these proposals amount to.

First and foremost, other than Afghanistan and Pakistan, to borrow a phrase from Ron Paul, what are we doing in all these "foreign wars?" There is no strategic importance to any place that we are actively wasting our blood and treasure on. Yemen, were chasing terrorists from our catch and release program. Somalia - chasing pirates (which, funny enough is how the Marine Corp came to be). In the rest, we are injecting ourselves into civil wars between dictators and the next group of thugs seeking power in countries that will never develop the capabilities to threaten us.

Libya is particularly galling. All we wound up doing there is carrying water for the French and the Brits because they can't defend their own interests anymore. Yes, it was about oil. If it was about preventing the slaughter of civilians, as President Obama so gravely explained, we would be in Syria right now. We wasted a few billion dollars in missiles being fired to turn mud huts into rubble, and rubble into smaller rubble. Fine use of our resources.

Afghanistan was supposed to be a roundhouse thrown as an answer to the sucker punch we took on 9/11. Nation building was not what we signed on for. We signed on to deliver the message that it is never worth screwing with us. Not to care for another basket case of a country. An ungrateful basket case run by our own corrupt stooge. We went from a bad plan under Bush, to no plan at all under Obama.

I haven't done the math, but on whole it looks like choosing our missions wisely, would have saved us at least that $500 billion. We could then direct those resources at things actually threatening our national interest. Like Iran. I don't think that having a nuclear armed Iran controlling the flow of oil out of the gulf to be a very good idea. Or Russia, where Putin wants to restore the empire. China maybe? That's a heck of a big navy that they are building.

So we get out of the wars that we have no compelling national interest in. Money saved. We pursue a strong national defense in areas where there is compelling national interest. Money spent but not wasted.

Our military forces have two purposes - engaging in battle, and logistics (getting men and weapons to where the battle is). With 5 branches of military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard), one would think that there would be a lot of duplication of effort.

This had started to be addressed by the conversion of domestic military facilities into multi or combined force bases. Andrews CFB (which the President flies from regularly) is an example of this. It houses both Air Force and Naval Air Force at the same time - thus reducing duplication of non combat activities (repair, storage, inventory, housing, meals, training, administration - the list goes on). All of this trims fat without harming our military capability.

We can go even further - How about combining the Air Force with the Naval Air Force? No cuts in planes, pilots or support personnel, but removal of duplication of effort of nonmilitary functions. We could go further and fold both services under the Navy - all air delivered weapons under the same banner. We can fold the Coast Guard in as well. The costs are removed from the bureaucracy, not the fighting force.

So, theoretically, by combining the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, we are able to get significantly lower operating costs, while preserving the strength of our forces. Of course, in practice, each branch has a rich history and sense of pride, so combining forces will meet with massive resistance. Still, at least this was thought through - not a random slashing of the military budget.

We should rethink our forward bases as well. We do need military representation around the world. We don't need as many forward bases as we have. All should be combined forces type bases with full capability to engage an enemy with a sufficient force level to meet perceived threats.

For a contrasting example - let's get down to one in Europe. If Europe goes down it will be because of economic implosion or the slow stragulation of multi-culturalism; not because the USSR is invading. Keep it in Germany - it's centrally located, and Germany has a history of troublemaking. And keep the nukes. They are the only deterrence Russia understands. Expand our capabilities at our base in Bahrain. That's where the trouble is going to be in the near future. It might be a good idea to have 50,000 - 100,000 troops on hand just in case. Stick a forward base in a friendly country close to where we see trouble coming. Our priorities should protecting our interests by projecting strength.

Where else can we find opportunities to keep our national defense strong in a smarter fashion? President Eisenhower warned us about the shady relationship that is called the military-industrial complex. We need to equip our military. We need to develop new weapons and weapon systems. These are facts. What we don't need to do is contract for a new tank or jet or missile system for say $20 million, and have nothing to show for our money after shelling out $200 million.

I am not saying that the whole system is corrupt, just that too often projects are financed not because of a military need or want, but because a Congressman or a Senator wants to bring home some bacon, and is then helped in his re-election bid by the defense contractor. Through legal channels of course.

Projects need to come in at or near the original budget. We understand that things sometimes go wrong and costs can go up, but we should be demanding reasonable proof that the project works or will work in the near future, before pouring an endless flow of money down a bottomless hole.

Common Sense Dictates

This was not intended to be an absolute solution, but to demonstrate that there are ways to get significant more bang from our defense dollars, without crippling our military capabilities. There are yet more structural changes that can be made to optimize our strength. Many relate to a greater emphasis on the more mobile and more lethal capabilities of our ultimate weapons - our highly trained SEALS and Special Forces.

We do need to remain in top shape for all possibilities. It is only when we are perceived as weak that we are challenged. When we are challenged, wars break out. War always costs more than a strong military during peacetime. We need to actually learn this lesson, rather than keep retaking the test. The proposals made by the President are foolish on the face of it, and dangerous if pursued. Common Sense solutions exist. We have presented a few of the glaring ones.

RLB

Done With Debates

2012-02-23T23:41:25Z

Well, no, this was not the last debate - there will be continued debates ad nauseam. I'm just going to stop watching them until it's our guy up against President Obama, assuming that he agrees to debate. I'm stopping because I knew going in how this one was going to go. Rick Santorum was going to get ripped on contraception and earmarks. Mitt was too smooth by a half. Mitt and the current not-Mitt slapped each other around. Newt gave his trademark punk slap to the moderator. And Ron Paul was Ron Paul. Nothing of substance was discussed in any manner that gives more clarity. More bread and circuses.

We discussed this in Debating Debates . These are not debates. They are infotainment marketed to the YouTube generation which has the attention span of a 10 year old with ADD. I'm not going to get what I want in this format. PrezBarry will. So, I'm done. Have Reince Priebus call me when they settle on a nominee and I'll vote for him.

It's not that the candidates aren't trying. Mitt tried to talk policy but all that anyone remembers is his catfight with Rick. Newt tries to steer the debate back to issues, but it's like turning a river with a teaspoon. Rick has his shot over the next two weeks with the Reagan Democrats in the rust belt, but he's got to find a way to speak his views on issues of importance other than social issues. He needs to do that in spite of the media insisting on putting him back on social issues. And Ron Paul is Ron Paul.

This is the debate I want to see. Questions of substance, no time limit on answers, probing followup questions, no gotchas. I do not want to be entertained, I want to be informed. The Presidency of the United States is arguably the most important job in the world. These are serious people running for the GOP nomination. We need to treat the vetting process just as seriously.

Here are some of the questions that we need to understand our candidates position on:

1 Unemployment - Current levels of unemployment are unacceptable. What specific policies would you pursue to bring it back to the 4 - 5% levels?

2 Economy - A consumer driven economy does not recover until consumers start spending. What policies would you pursue to restore consumer confidence?

3 Housing Bubble - The housing collapse has been a prime driver of the economic meltdown. The artificial propping up of the housing market is preventing recovery in the same way that sub-prime lending caused inflated home prices. What policies will you pursue to correct this situation?

4 Energy - Gasoline has broken $4 per gallon in California. What policies will you pursue to lower energy costs?

5 Mideast - The mideast and northern Africa are on fire, with dictators being replaced by Islamists. We feed the area (and those people "who don't like us very much") hundreds of billions of dollars which they use against us. What policies will you pursue to make the area irrelevant to the U.S.? Yes I did say irrelevant. As in not having to play in their sandbox anymore because we no longer need the oil.

6 Debt and Deficit - What are you going to cut? Will you commit to pursue policies to reduce or eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt in real dollars, not accounting tricks ?- see Crunching the Numbers Will you push the Ryan plan, the so-called "penny" plan, or do you have your own plan?

7 Social Security and Medicare - What specific policies will you pursue to make Social Security and Medicare / Medicaid fiscally sound and sustainable, or unnecessary?

8 Obamacare - All of you have committed to repealing Obamacare. What is your plan for doing that? Be specific.

9 National Security / Military policy - China and Russia are resurgent and intent on achieving Superpower status. The Mideast and Africa are hotbeds of radical Islam. Europe is going down the tubes. What policies would you pursue to guarantee American security at home and abroad ?

10 The Federal Reserve - Currently, the Fed owns about 80% or our national debt (about 12 of the 15 - 16 trillion). They are financing that by inflating the currency which is spiking prices across the economy. Will you appoint Ron Paul to head a commission to investigate the Fed? ( OK, that's more of a personal dream...).

There are many more issues, but 10 seems like a good start. Take your time. Explain yourself clearly. Expect followup questions. Do not expect vagueness or spin to be tolerated. It will not be tolerated. We, as the electorate, are tired of the BS that we are being shoveled.

As conservatives, we understand that most of the answers do not lie with the Federal government. They lie in the can-do American spirit. This is too important this time. We want to make sure that our next President has given some thought to how he will govern, not fly by the seat of his pants. Or muck things up worse. As candidates you need to stop sucking up to the media, and start having a serious discussion with the American people. Common Sense demands it.

RLB

Catholics, Conscience and Contraception

2012-02-12T01:00:06Z

"Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul" - Rabelais

Most of you are aware of the controversy of the new rules emanating from Health and Human Services. For those who are not aware, they require all employers to include in their health insurance plans full coverage for contraception, sterilization and the drug RU-486 (alternately called the "morning after" or "abortion" pill). RU-486 is taken after unprotected sex to cause a spontaneous expulsion of a fertilized egg, or embryo, in effect aborting the pregnancy.

RU-486 was heavily lobbied against by the Roman Catholic church, other Evangelical churches, and the pro-life movement. All of these groups hold as a core belief that life begins at conception. As a condition of allowing FDA approval, then-President George W Bush instituted a rule exempting health care providers who could not offer this drug without violating their personal convictions. The rule did not deal with insurance coverage.

President Obama, in the rule announced by HHS Secretary Sebelius, has required all employers to offer this coverage. The Roman Catholic church, and the other groups cited above have said that they will not comply, on the grounds that it violates their beliefs and their teachings. The line has been drawn in the sand.

Talk radio listeners know that this has been the major issue over the last few days. It has been framed as a war against the Catholics, and a religious liberty, or freedom of religion issue. We don't think that is a wise strategy, for a number of reasons.

Framing the argument as an "assault on Christianity" makes for lively radio, and gives Fox News a bump in ratings, but going down that path is setting us up for a sucker punch. "This violates our beliefs" only sets us up as another victimized group looking to benevolent DC for an exemption. Even when couched in terms of war, and civil disobedience, using that argument has us dealing from a defensive position. As Rush has been fond of saying, you don't win anything on defense.

First - it legitimizes the rule, and HHS authority to issue it. In the technical sense, Sebelius was granted the authority under the Obamacare bill passed in questionable circumstances. In reality that authority is being questioned as Obamacare goes up the judicial food chain to the Supreme Court. The entire question could be moot, should the court throw out Obamacare over the mandate. Without the mandate, Obamacare does not work, and it will collapse in on itself.

Second - what happens when other groups have their beliefs violated? What happens when a Muslim group decides that a part of the plan violates sharia? Or a Jewish group claims that it violates their beliefs? What do we wind up with? A hodgepodge of exceptions, or the crushing of all faith sponsored charities, schools and hospitals? 25% of all of the hospitals in the United States are affiliated with the Roman Catholic church. Right now the Catholic church is being threatened with a $150 million fine. How many will need to close to pay the fine?

Third - It is not an argument that resonates on the secular world. People of devout faith will be moved by this argument. People with a secular mindset, or where a relationship with God is 5th or 10th or way down on the list of priorities will not relate. They will just hear more whining. It makes us look crazy.

Here is the argument that all can relate to. Employment is a private transaction between an employer and the employee (or the employee's union in the case of collective bargaining). Terms are settled on between the parties. They are either agreed on, and employment occurs, or they are not.

Everyone working at a Catholic sponsored institution is working there willingly. No one is holding a gun to their head and demanding that they work there. The employee, at least at the time of hire, thought it was a good deal. If they ever decide it is not a good deal, they can negotiate better terms, or work elsewhere (except in Obama's economy).

The federal government has no business in this transaction. No law was passed in Congress to address this issue, except in the vaguery of the Obamacare wording. This is merely one bureaucrat's opinion, endorsed by the President, and so ordered. We are finding out that if we accept the principle that the government can give us the right of "healthcare", than they can determine how that "right" will be bestowed. This is not a matter of one group's faith being violated. This is a matter of all of our rights being abridged, one group at a time.

The problem is not Catholic employment practices. It is Obamacare. First they mandate that we purchase insurance or be fined (headed to the Supreme Court as we speak). Now a bureaucrat has injected herself into the mix by deciding that the Catholic church must provide funding so that it's employees, who have not complained about it, will be provided with a benefit that is anathema to their teachings.

There is no compelling reason for this act. No one's rights are being violated by not providing this coverage. No one is stopping any woman from obtaining contraception. You can go into any drugstore and purchase it, including the abortion pill. If that provides a financial burden, Planned Parenthood gives it away for free. Rights are being violated by enforcing this rule.

The current compromise offered is actually more draconian in it's reach. The compromise puts the church in a far worse situation. Instead of the church paying for practices against its beliefs, it makes it impossible for it to not violate those tenets of faith. Insurance companies will no longer be given the option to offer policies that do not include "contraception services". With healthcare so intimately tied to employment, the choices that the church faces under this arrangement are to surrender their core principles, to no longer offer healthcare insurance (which would be of benefit to Obamacare) or to self insure.

In our Colonial past, King William III sought to restrict the religious liberties of Catholics, those who did not believe in the trinity, and those of non-Christian faiths. He ordered the shut down of all of these churches in the American colonies. One man refused - William Penn, who developed Pennsylvania as a haven for personal religious belief - a radical idea at the time. He said that he would not comply, and Pennsylvania did not. We see how that has worked out over time.

The argument of strength, in the words of a letter issued last week by the Bishops of the United States was the same - "We will not comply". We will not do it. We will pay no fine. We will continue to operate as we have. We will teach this from the pulpit. Consistently. We are glad to see the Bishops standing firm against even the back-handed compromise.

Obama graciously deemed it fair to allow the church one year to adjust their insurance coverage. Wait him out. He's either gone in November and the issue goes away, or he can explain how this is helping his constituency of poor - in the closing of charities, hospitals and schools all designed to help the less fortunate among us, in order to pay a fine to the federal government. It is time for all of good conscience to stand in opposition to this lessening of all of our liberties. As Ben Franklin said - "We must all hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately". We stand with liberty. Common Sense dictates so.

RLB