Another Tuesday is upon us already. And that means open mic. I will use my first topic to respond to Black Flag on his rant on the Iran being a threat article. This time of year I often struggle to find the time to dole out the responses at the appropriate times and with necessary detail. When I devote an entire article to one person’s point of view, I at least should ensure that I find the time to answer that person. Such is the case here. On top of this topic, there are some other compelling ones for tonight. We have more climate madness. We have the Senate Majority leader inserting foot into mouth quite well. We have the possible dropping of the public option altogether on the health care bill (including why I don’t think this is a good thing). And finally, we will have a quick hit on the fact that Obama’s poll numbers are now below 50% for the first time.

I hope today finds everyone well. Don’t forget, only 16 more shopping days to get out there and get your favorite blogger a Christmas gift! Tonight I am going to be doing something a little bit different in terms of what I offer. This doesn’t fit quite into the category of philosophy or into the category of commentary. But I think it is a good, and important read. I want to offer a bit of wisdom written many years ago, and subsequently translated from French to English. The author is Frederic Bastiat. And the piece that I am going to discuss here is a work called “The Law.” This essay by Bastiat is a brilliant dissertation on, you guessed it, the law. It is available via Amazon and many other avenues. I humbly recommend that everyone pick it up and read it, twice if necessary, until you understand it well. It is short, only 54 pages, and at last check was only $7.95 at Amazon. Such a short book to read, but one with tremendous impact on those that take the time to read it.

Claude Frédéric Bastiat (1801 – 1850) was a French classical liberal theorist, political economist, and member of the French assembly. Bastiat asserted that the only purpose of government is to defend the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property. From this definition, Bastiat concluded that the law cannot defend life, liberty and property if it promotes socialist policies inherently opposed to these very things. In this way, he says, the law is perverted and turned against the thing it is supposed to defend.

I am quite a fan of Bastiat’s works. I feel as though understanding the concepts put forth in works like “The Law” is the first step in having a far better grasp on liberty and freedom than anyone who ignores his work. Many philosophers have made important contributions to the discussions on liberty, Bastiat is just one of them. But Bastiat’s greatest contribution is that he broke the ideas and concepts down to a basic level and made ideas on liberty so clear that even the uneducated can understand them and statists cannot refute them. Clarity is crucial to persuading our fellow American citizens of the moral superiority of personal liberty. And make no bones about it, persuading many, many more folks of that moral superiority is a key facet of what we are going to have to accomplish in order to right this ship.

I am not going to attempt to share the entirety of “The Law” here. While a short read, it is still too long for this forum. What I am going to do is offer several sections that I think are paramount to understanding where the law is in direct conflict with liberty and personal freedom. We can discuss from there.

The Results of Legal Plunder

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

The Fate of Non-Conformists

If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.”

If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought: “That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force.”

Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not ever be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

So there you have the first section that I wanted to share with all of you. I see this as an important opening aspect of the law that we have somehow failed to address in today’s current environment. Bastiat clearly saw that those who use morality as a guide would be denounced by those who would pervert the law in a way that benefits one group by punishing another group. One only needs to look at how folks like Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, or even Black Flag, are ostracized in political discourse to see the power of the collective in enforcing law as morality as opposed to seeking truly moral law.

In today’s society this is more evident than even in the time of Bastiat. We have spent 100 years traveling down the path of consistently taking from one group to give to another, endearing the idea of  “the greater good” as a form of moral righteousness. In fact, the idea of the greater good is in direct contrast with morality, at least whenever the promotion of that greater good comes into conflict with one’s natural right to life, liberty, and property. Bastiat saw the danger in this, and the basic lack of morality in pursuing such a belief system.

Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the pro-tection of every person’s liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues—-and only two—that have always endangered the public peace.

Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property. It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime—a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World—should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States—where the proper purpose of the law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs— what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?

Ah, that a mere 150 years ago an intelligent guy like Bastiat could only identify two issues that assume the character of plunder in the United States. I don’t inlcude it here, but Bastiat makes it clear that as he speaks to the horrors of legal plunder and socialism, he is speaking of Europe, specifically France and England. His view of the United States was that it was a country of moral law, established to protect life, liberty, and property. In his time, the US was a beacon of hope for a world of intelligent thinkers who saw the evils of an over-reaching government for the destruction it could render upon its citizens. He truly hoped that the failings of Europe and his warnings of such would be enough for such a moral premise as America to ensure that the same pitfalls would not make the United States simply another failure.

And there were those who fought to eliminate these very two issues. In the north, there were those moral folks who refused the idea of slavery. They sought to eliminate it from the equation, and therefore put America back on course. Unfortunately, those same folks, who saw Bastiat’s vision on one issue, completely failed on the other. The sought tariffs on those in the South. The South, on the other hand grasped the inherent flaw of protectionist tariffs (South Carolina as early as the 1830’s wanted to secede because of tariffs), but failed to see the light on slavery.

And doesn’t this speak directly to the situation that we find ourselves in with the two major parties in America? Each sees the fundamental flaws in one issue, only to push for a similar type of flaw in a different area or issue. This is the basis for the cries of hypocrisy from all those free, intelligent thinkers who seek a moral stance, regardless of whether it is a help or a detriment to them personally.

Two Kinds of Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has said: “We must make war against socialism.” According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he meant: “We must make war against plunder.”

But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case— is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The presentday delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

And we get to one of the major points of the essay for me. The identification of illegal plunder. That he states it so flawlessly and so plainly that it cannot be misconstrued by later reading, even after 150 years.

“See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals.”

This is perhaps one of my favorite statements in the entire 54 pages. It can be stated no more clearly than that. If it is taken from one person and given to another, then it has failed the moral litmus test and should therefore be abolished. And this is where I feel as though the “bleeding heart” liberal loses his way (not attempting to pick on anyone here, just a general observation). Because that liberal knows in his heart that taking from one to give to another is wrong. Yet they attempt to use that wrong to make a right. It is noble and honorable to want to help our fellow man. It is evil and immoral to use the law to force another man to help against his will. It is for this reason that I oppose social welfare and income redistribution. Those two things cannot exist on a moral basis. They are a perversion of the moral concepts that what I earn is mine.

I will be interested in hearing what everyone has to say about this little trip into the mind of an early 19th century philosopher. I urge everyone to take the time when you are able to read this little gem of an essay. And once you do, I challenge you to do this: Find fault with what Bastiat offers. Show me where there is a flaw in his thinking. I don’t believe that you can read and comprehend “The Law” and come out the other side still believing that income redistribution, a form of socialism, or forcing one group to finance another, are moral concepts that should be defended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat

A happy new week to all! Tonight I am going to offer the first of what will be my “fall back plan” during the holidays. As many of you are aware, I run a sales operation. As such, I am in the busiest 5 weeks of the entire year. A little over 30% of the entire year in sales is accomplished between Thanksgiving and Christmas. What that means for me is, as the boss (and the best at what goes on there ), I end up with a lot of long days and nights where I need extra sleep. As a result, I am unable to research and write as normal. However, I think there are so many important things going on, I want to ensure that we are still maintaining our edge and having important discussions. So my plan is, on the nights when I am unable to write as usual, I will offer perspectives on what is written by others, allowing some discussions to happen on the subjects in a different way.

Tonight, for example, I offer an article from Fox News that discusses the wish of some Republicans to draft Dick Cheney as a Presidential candidate in 2012. I will quickly hit on that idea, but focus more on a question that the article doesn’t ask: Are the core Republicans, those who feel that Cheney represents them, relevant any longer? So first, the article from Fox:

Draft Cheney? Conservatives Have Competing Visions Over Former VP’s Role

Dick Cheney is clearly enjoying private life, settling into his role as the foremost defender of the Bush administration and one of President Obama’s fiercest sideline critics.

But some people are asking: Is that all you got?

As unlikely as it sounds — and even though Cheney himself describes it as absurd — a movement is afoot to “draft” Cheney into running for president in 2012. Some conservatives want the former vice president to do more than just beat Obama in the press. They want him to beat the president in the polls, too.

Public discontent and anger toward Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration are widely blamed for the success of Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008. Many Republicans in Congress have taken pains to distance themselves from the Bush years; one of the most withering attacks against John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign was that he represented a third Bush term.

But Christopher Barron, who last week filed papers to launch his “Draft Cheney 2012″ group and Web site, says Republicans need Cheney — that he’s the only one with the experience and conservative credentials necessary to lead the party at a critical juncture in its quest for identity and dominance.

He knows Cheney is opposed to the idea. But that doesn’t matter.

“We know that Dick Cheney doesn’t want to run for president,” Barron said. “This is about convincing the former vice president that we need him to run.”

Barron, a political consultant and former political director for the Log Cabin Republicans, said his organization is already attracting contributions and hundreds of followers who want to see Cheney do more with his life.

“This is one of those seminal moments in the history of our party. … What is this party going to stand for?” Barron said. “And I think there is only one man who is capable of bringing the entire Republican coalition together and speaking with clarity about the values that have made our party great. And that is Vice President Cheney.”

So much for moving to the center.

But even among conservative Republicans, Cheney is far from the top choice to lead a Republican resurgence in Washington.

In a poll conducted by The Washington Post last month, only one in about 800 people who lean Republican picked Cheney as the person who best reflects GOP principles.

Last February, when the Conservative Political Action Conference conducted its straw poll asking attendees whom they’d pick in 2012, Cheney’s name wasn’t even on the list. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee topped that roster.

And Cheney, who already decided once not to run when President Bush’s term expired, says he has zero interest in returning to politics. Cheney also has had four heart attacks and would be 71 in 2012.

“Why would I want to do that?” he said in a recent interview with Politico.com. “It’s been a hell of a tour. I’ve loved it. I have no aspirations for further office.”

The man whose extensive career took him from chief of staff under President Gerald Ford to member of Congress to defense secretary to vice president has what appears to be a more satisfying vocation: defending George W. Bush’s administration against any and all attacks from the Obama administration. He’s gone from the shadows of the Bush administration to the glaring spotlight of the interview and lecture circuit.

When Obama started the process of closing Guantanamo Bay and limiting CIA interrogation methods, Cheney blasted him.

When Attorney General Eric Holder decided to begin a probe into Bush-era CIA interrogations, Cheney blasted him.

When White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the new national security team had to start from scratch with Afghanistan because the Bush administration left it “adrift,” Cheney blasted him — and accused Obama of “dithering.”

When Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged 9/11 conspirators would be tried in a civilian court on American soil, Cheney blasted him.

He’s also dabbled in playing kingmaker, or queenmaker, endorsing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the race for Texas governor over incumbent Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Scott Stanzel, former deputy press secretary to Bush, said Cheney will probably never be convinced to run for president.

“I don’t believe that Dick Cheney has any desire to run for office again and I take him at his word,” Stanzel said, adding that he’s “very influential” in the role he’s already in.

“There are a lot of people out there who feel strongly about his service, but that’s not to say they are advocating for him to run for president,” he said. “I do not think his desire is to define the Republican Party. … He is almost solely focused on defending the policies of the Bush administration.”

Cheney is certainly able to get a rise out of Democrats almost every time he rebuts.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Vice President Joe Biden have both slammed back at Cheney. After Cheney claimed the president was projecting “weakness” in a recent interview by “agonizing” over his war plan, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that Cheney’s got little room to talk.

“They started something,” Hoyer said of the Bush administration. “Frankly, they turned tail. I get pretty angry when I hear the vice president talk about something they didn’t finish.”

And the idea of Cheney running has generated a slew of punchy, Chuck Norris joke-esque slogans on the Internet, including: “I know what the hell I’m doing” and “I already control everything — let’s just make it official” and “The only time I’ll bow before a foreign leader is in preparation for an uppercut.”

After Cheney’s daughter, Liz, casually, and perhaps jokingly threw out the idea of “Cheney 2012″ on “Fox News Sunday” last month, comedian Jay Leno chimed in on the idea:

“In fact, that’s apparently in the Mayan calendar too, you know. Cheney becomes president, and then the whole world ends. That’s exactly what happens,” he said. Bu-dum-ching.

So late-night comedy would surely have no problem with a Cheney bid taking off. That’s material.

But Barron said the attention Cheney receives just goes to show how influential he is and could be as a candidate.

“Every time Dick Cheney speaks, it grabs the attention of the entire party and the entire country,” he said.

While the Post poll showed him with scant public backing, another November poll conducted by “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair showed 10 percent of people view Cheney as the country’s most influential conservative voice — the same percentage that Palin drew. Radio host Rush Limbaugh was the top pick, with 26 percent.

Barron is planning an all-fronts campaign to push his candidate. He plans to have a presence at the Conservative Political Action Conference meeting next year. His group is on Facebook and Twitter and is selling an array of merchandise from “Draft Dick Cheney 2012″ mouse pads to coffee mugs to bumper stickers to shirts. Barron said he’ll move next to travel to events sponsored by the conservative Tea Party activists to try to attract more followers.

It’s unclear whether he’ll find an audience. While the Tea Party crowd got involved in the upstate New York Congressional District 23 race to support third-party candidate Doug Hoffman — who narrowly lost — the activists are more focused on pushing conservative economic policy than the hawkish foreign policy that Cheney represents.

“He’s just not a name that comes up one way or the other,” said Jenny Beth Martin, a Republican Tea Party activist in Atlanta. “He’s just not quite on our radar and what we’re focusing on right now.”

I presented the article in it’s entirety here, but if you would like to visit the original it is here:  FOXNews.com – Draft Cheney? Conservatives Have Competing Visions Over Former VP’s Role

OK, when I first saw this headline, I actually chuckled a little bit to myself. After all, I recall that when Hillary ran for President, the Republicans had a firm grasp on the concept that she actually had a lot of “negative” ratings, meaning that regardless of who she ran against, over 50% of the country said they would not vote for her. I agreed with the Republicans on that point. I did not feel that she could overcome those negatives and win a general election. The Democratic party knew it to, which is why they made sure the charismatic nobody ended up getting the nomination.

Surely this same Republican party is not silly enough to think that Dick Cheney has a higher “negative” percentage than Hillary Clinton. I would think that Cheney has a lower amount of people that would support him against anyone else than Hillary had. In fact, the only person I think Cheney could win a general election against would be Nancy Pelosi. My bet is that she has the highest number of negative ratings of anyone in politics, worse than Bush or Cheney. But I digress.

I do believe that this is a non-starter. Cheney is a pretty smart guy, and he is as aware of this as we are. Not to mention that I don’t think he want to put himself back in a position where he has to care about people’s reaction to what he says. He likes that he is free to blast away now. And I don’t think he would even begin to entertain the idea of entering himself in a Presidential race.

And to be honest, I like Cheney right where he is. Don’t get me wrong, I think he would tear Barack Obama apart in a Presidential debate. I think Cheney is a tell it like it is guy (or tell it like he wants you to believe it is). He is straightforward, smart, and as the article alludes to, he has been in the political game for a very long time. But I prefer to have him out there just ripping the President a new one whenever needed. I like the fact that he is out there calling the Democrats on the complete lines of bullshit that they are shoveling to the American people. Let him stay right there doing that, where he can do some good.

But the real question I want to discuss comes in the form of the discussion that article begins to have about how Cheney is one of the very few people of stature that really represent the true Republican base. Specifically, the article states, “he’s the only one with the experience and conservative credentials necessary to lead the party at a critical juncture in its quest for identity and dominance.” It further states that a poll over who is the most influential Republican leader had him and Palin at 10% and Rush Limbaugh at 26%. There is a scary thought.

Does it really matter who is the most influential leader in the Republican party any longer? I know that some of the party’s past key points still resonate with many Americans. There are lots of anti-abortion folks out there. But I think fewer of them are in that stance for purely religious reasons than was the case in the past. I think many folks are in that stance because they follow their logic as opposed to because their priest told them that abortion is wrong. And I also believe that a lot of the “smaller government” folks who used to rely on the Republican party are also abandoning the anti-abortion stance because they embrace a concept of individual liberty that doesn’t allow them to dictate to others. And they are abandoning the party altogether because they have found that the party doesn’t really believe in smaller government.

I know that there are some communities where this is not true, but it also seems to me that religion in general is losing its influence in America. Certainly, the majority of Americans still identify themselves as Christians, roughly 70% if I remember correctly. But I feel like far fewer people are regular every Sunday church goers than when I was a kid. In fact, it feels like a vast majority of those age 20-40 have no real tie to the church anymore. And I think that this is reflected in the waning power of the christian right in the political spectrum. There are still tens of millions going to church, but not nearly in the numbers of even two decades ago.

This is backed up by the numbers that I could find from several sites, most of them being religion sites that are concerned about declining numbers. In general the number of people identifying themselves as Christian has dropped from 86% in 1990 to roughly 70% in 2006, more than a percentage point drop a year. Membership in churches has dropped steadily for decades, and at the current rates of change, they estimate that the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Christian will fall below 50% by the year 2035.

The religious right controlled the Republican party for a very long time. And with religion slipping so rapidly in America, I begin to wonder what the majority of Americans are going to move to. And that brings me to that statement that someone like Cheney, Palin, or Limbaugh represent the true base of the Republican party. That may be true, but if it is true, is the Republican party a fair representative of the American people any longer? Forget the argument that neither party in power truly represents the people… we all know I feel that way. But as a realistic approach, the Democrats in general seem to represent a large portion of the American population. I am not sure that I can say the same if Palin or Limbaugh are who they hold up as the ideal.

And that brings up another point, and that is the stance we see becoming a louder call from the two parties. The outright proclamation that they are going to use all their power to run out of town anyone running in their party who does not represent the “true core” of the party. Democrats want to eliminate the “blue dogs” because they don’t hold the hard far left line. Republicans want to eliminate the moderate Republicans because they have the audacity to be “liberal” on some social issues. Many years ago, the first time I began to question whether I should be a Republican was when I was told I wasn’t a “real” Republican by a major party leader because of my stances on abortion and gay marriage.

So what does everyone think? Is the Republican party as we know it dead? Are the core conservative values that the Republican party intends to hold all candidates to ones that the majority of Americans share any longer. If the Republican party sticks to the idea that people like Palin, Cheney, and Limbaugh are the true representatives of their core values, will they ever see themselves again rising to the level of influence of the Reagan years? I think the Republicans will win back control in 2010, but it will be because American is rejecting the Democrats as opposed to embracing the Republicans. Will it be a temporary surge, or am I way off base on judging the mindset of America?

Trends among U.S. Christians

There is no guest commentary submitted for this evening so I told Black Flag that I would respond to his comments about Iran as the topic for tonight. This is not going to be a long post, as we have hashed out Iran as best we could in past debates. We have, frustratingly, not agreed on much, as it seemed to me one side of the argument pointed out Iran as a danger, and the other was intent to instead point out the US as a danger. I will address that fact quickly below, and then move on, as re-hashing it will serve no purpose for us here. As for the topic, I know there are many here who are not interested in this topic. Feel free to use this thread throughout the weekend to discuss any topic you like. I will monitor when I can to respond to whatever subjects you bring up. If you would like to peruse the last discussion that we had on this subject in October, you can do so by clicking HERE (will open a new window). So on to the quick discussion topic…

Let me first address that aspect of the discussion from back in October. I am a former soldier. I was just a grunt enlisted NCO, so my knowledge is limited. I was fortunate to be part of some planning and strategy in Washington, but my insight can be limited. D13, as a Colonel, has far more insight into the battle planning, intelligence, and big picture stuff than I do. I can readily admit that. His career was longer (I think I remember him saying 40 years? I only served just under ten years in the military), more distinguished, and he certainly regularly dealt with things at a far higher level than I. Ask me to take down a target house, no problem. As for why that target house was important in the big picture, D13 is your guy. Make sense?

NCO’s make the military run, and I am proud to have been one, but we are well aware of the high level thinking of those we took orders from (except when they were butter bars, as their best move then was to zip it and listen to their NCO’s ). I volunteered to take a tough job in the Army that many cannot or will not do. I am proud of my service. I served the country I love. I traveled the world and I learned a lot. There are a lot of good memories and bad ones.

After serving, it is sometimes hard for one to admit that some of the things that the US does are not so good. After all, soldiers dedicate their lives to serving the will of the US government. No one likes to think that the things they did could have been done for the wrong reasons. I live under no illusions. I recognize the folly of political games and political agendas. And I despise them, because for every political game, there is a brother of mine that is placing his life on the line to play it. I support the United States military. I will always do so. When you attack the military, you are attacking me and my brothers and sisters. I will not stand for it because it is a cheap shot to do so. Attack the political system all you want. Leave those taking orders alone.

I do not suffer from the inability to look at the United States realistically. I do so quite naturally. I am very aware of our faults when it comes to foreign policy. I am very aware of our CIA exploits abroad and the negative impacts. I am well aware of the interventionist stance we have taken over the last 100 years. I know and understand all the faults of the US. Allow me to make that clear. It is a waste of time to argue with me that the US has been a bad boy. I know. Continuing to point it out as a way to make an argument on another subject is futile, and a waste of time. That applies to this conversation as well. The question at hand is whether Iran has the potential to be a danger to the world or their region of the world. It is not a trial where we are weighing the actions of the US versus Iran and determining who has done the most bad. Remember that as we go forward.

I listed in the article in October the vast array of actions by Iran to extend violence to other countries around the world. One can choose to ignore them or attempt to rationalize them. But the fact remains that while Iran has not sent out her army to attack anyone, she has certainly sown the seeds of violence both in the Middle East and throughout the world. So let’s just admit those acts as evidence and fact. Unless someone can show a shred of proof that Iran has had their hands in the things I listed in that article, they are thus presented as fact.

So the claim that Iran has not initiated violence in 300 years is false. Iran has done so covertly for a long time. Yes, I am aware that the US has done so. I am aware that the US has been very bad. That is not the point. The point is that Iran has sown the seeds of violence. Period. To make a claim that this is simply a reaction to “being surrounded” is folly. They have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that are thus far unable to control the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let’s be clear, it Iran felt truly threatened by our presence in those two countries, they would be far more quiet these days. They feel no threat, they simply see an opportunity to use the current situation as a false reason to do the things they do.

The leadership in Iran is unstable at best. Just as I have stated before, they have threatened Israel and others time and again. I don’t want to hear any more nonsense about how Ahmadinejad opens every interview stating that he wants peace. Irrelevant. I would wager that the United States Presidents espouse a hope for peace more than any other country’s leadership by far. It doesn’t mean much coming from them either. Ahmadinejad can say what he likes to the camera. I have seen enough speeches from him with inflammatory rhetoric to know that he is not a stable character. The clerics may, in fact, live the good life in Iran. The politicians in Washington live the good life too, but that hasn’t made them passive and willing to rest on their laurels. I have been accused of polylogism, but using these arguments as grounds to show a peaceful Iran is certainly applying two different standards to similar situations, so I throw that claim back. My using it would have been if I were claiming that the US is a peaceful country, a claim that I did not make.

I do not ignore history. I instead look at all of it. As it was pointed out yesterday, the history of man is very detailed and the results of such are stark reminders. To claim that all governments are evil, and all exist to do evil, means that you cannot later claim that for some reason this government in Iran is different. They are peace loving folk who just want to be friends with all. No sir, the Iranian government is just as evil and corrupt as any other. They are liars and cheats. And they take advantage of their people and look to expand their power base and do all the other things that the US is accused of daily on this site.

JAC made the analogy to a rattlesnake. That was an accurate one. Iran is dangerous. They have the capability to harm their neighbors. They have been doing so covertly for years. To ignore this potential threat is a foolish move. As was stated, you don’t simply assume that rattlesnake won’t bite. You assume it will. Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. We can argue back and forth all day otherwise, but the fact is that they are doing so. And as D13 pointed out, they will get it, no matter what we or anyone else does to attempt to stop it. What happens from that point forward is anyone’s guess. Some feel they will simply use it as a tool for influence and power. Some feel they will attack Israel. Some feel they will control Pakistan. I don’t know the answer. But they will get a nuke.

Iran is unstable. And they have a bone to pick with Israel. It doesn’t matter whether you think that their issue with Israel is legitimate or not. They have it. That is clear. Many in their country wish to return to the days of Iran being a power player in the world. So they seek to become one again. They have no Xerxes to make them rise to power in that way again. But I imagine a nuke sure makes them someone we have to pay attention to. And that is what they want most of all.

I don’t know if they want to dominate the Middle East. But I know that they have the potential to become a major sore for the entire world. I know that they have the potential to be a very dangerous country. I know that they have the potential to ignite a conflict that could pull everyone into it. That potential is evident. And it is foolish and irresponsible to ignore that potential threat based on rhetoric such as “they haven’t attacked anyone in 300 years.”

History shows us many countries becoming global thorns without having attacked anyone previously. No one thought the US was a threat in the late 1700’s, and they were wrong. The world didn’t believe that Hitler had the potential to wreak the havoc that he did until it was too late. There wasn’t a history of Somali pirates taking ships in International waters at one point. History is filled with threats that were ignored. A Major in Ft. Hood had no history of violently gunning down soldiers.

I have in no way, at any point, advocated the invasion of Iran or an attack on Iran. I am not attempting to make a case to do those things. But to sit back and pretend that they can be ignored as no threat to the region is irresponsible. To do so is to live in a fantasy world. Or worse yet, it is to be so consumed with the idea that America is wrong that we become convinced that anyone who opposes us is right. That simply doesn’t make sense.

I await the rant filled with examples of American evil. I hope somewhere in it there will be a discussion of Iran and whether they are actually a potential threat.

Thursday night and I am back in the mix. Sorry to all that I was unable to write last night. I had a lot to do around the house the last couple of days, putting lights up, making the house like Christmas. I know that D13 has offered an analysis on the Obama speech the other day. I have intentionally not read his post on it. I have also intentionally not listened to any Fox News or anything else for that matter on the subject. I wanted to offer an analysis that was mine and mine alone. Without any thoughts from the MSM clouding my mind and making me pay attention to the parts that I don’t think are important. I have watched the speech, and I have read the speech twice. I will say up front that I think that the strategy and the speech were failures in my eyes. And I can honestly say that I don’t feel that it is simply because I don’t like Obama and nothing he would have said would have been good enough. I was looking for a few things from him. I didn’t get them.

First for the big parts. He is going to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to deal with the insurgency and resurgent Taliban control there. Good for him. A 30k boost in troops could have been the right move to make. At this point I don’t think it is the right move to make for reasons I will address in a bit. 30k, 60k, the entire US military…. whatever. I am still sore about the amount of time that it has taken to come up with a plan and make a decision. He did not explain to me a significantly different plan that warranted the 4 extra months that it took to make a decision and move on it.

He made the statement in the speech, “Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.” To be honest I don’t care if this is true or not. I believe this to be true, for the record. McChrystal’s plan, as I recall, asked for roughly 40k troops beginning in early 2010. However, I expect the Commander in Chief to make a thorough assessment immediately upon taking office. He ran on a platform of getting after it on the war in Afghanistan immediately upon taking office. And he then took ten months to approve this farce of a plan rather than truly re-assessing the situation and formulating a worthy plan. On January 21st, he should have called a meeting of the Joint Chiefs and said, I need a plan on my desk by February 28 that details how we can quickly win this conflict and bring our boys home. He is the President. It’s his job. He doesn’t need a General to tell him that we need to act on the war. He needs to tell them that we need to act, then accept their plan if it is feasible.

And it is not lost on me that the 30,000 troops are nothing more than a appeasement to the Republicans. I have to be honest here. I don’t want the President making any decisions to appease anyone. Ever. His job is not to appease people. His job is to be the Commander in Chief and make the right decisions for this country. Screw the Republicans. If they don’t like his plan, they can try to come up with a better run campaign next time around.

But of course he had to also appease the Democrats. And in doing so he made perhaps the biggest bonehead move of the entire speech. He decided it was a good idea to announce a timetable to the world. We will begin to leave in July of 2011. Brilliant. Just brilliant. Allow me to offer a little background on what really happened in Afghanistan over the last 8 years, since he so conveniently left out this part of the situation.

The Taliban knew ahead of time that they could not stand up to the United States military . Therefore, the had a different plan. When things got tough, the plan was to disperse. Merge into the population and lie low for a couple years. They knew the US would get complacent, reduce troop levels, feel like they have the situation totally under control. And then, BAM, re-emerge rested and re-organized against an unprepared smaller military force. Do some research. That was an organized plan. And it worked brilliantly. The resurgence of the Taliban is not an accident. It was a coordinated lay low and emerge later plan.

So our brilliant strategy, meant to appease the high school dropouts of the United States Congress, is to announce to the Taliban and Al Qaeda their new timetable of lying low and waiting to re-emerge. I think this sort of brilliance should be implemented in all our government agencies. From now on all hostage negotiations will have an announced timetable. Hostage takers will be told, “we are going to wait you out for 34.5 hours. At that time we will pack up our stuff and go home. Throw down your arms and come out now. We only have 31 more hours to get this situation resolved.” I have tried to think of a more boneheaded move to announce, but cannot come up with any. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that we announced our timetable to withdraw from Iraq and immediately saw a reduction in insurgents crossing the border? Is it possible they just figure that at this point they can wait it out and begin again after we go? After all they have the date set to an alarm on their iPhones.

But here is my problem with this plan on the “macro” level. I think that this plan is, in fact, a simple continuation (with a few slight variations) of the status quo. Maybe I am missing something here, but I don’t see any significant changes to the strategy of the last 8 years. We increase troops, train the government forces, root out the Taliban, blah blah blah. I made my position on this issue clear a while ago. I felt that we had to do one of two things. We have to:

1. Blow the whole strategy up and go with an entirely new plan that is tougher, meaner, more devastating, and more controlling OR
2. Call the game, chalk it up to experience, and bring our boys and girls home.

I will say that at this point I am for option #2. And here is why. We cannot and will not be able to set a course for what Afghanistan will become. Only the people of Afghanistan can do that. The second we leave, be it 2011 or 2061, the people will determine their own fate. We have to stop believing that we can alter the fundamental underpinnings of cultures that we cannot begin to comprehend. Our form of government will not work in Afghanistan because it is not something that jives well with their culture. The bottom line is that the US needs to revert to a defensive only posture. Secure our own borders and stop meddling and punish harshly those who attempt to attack us going forward. But the US will not take option #2 because to do so would be an admission of defeat in the eyes of most Americans. We don’t like to lose. And we will waste trillions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to find a way to lose without losing.

So we will attempt option #1 without actually attempting option #1. You know what was missing from this speech? Reality. Here are some of the realities of Afghanistan that we are not willing to address:

The “elected” government in Afghanistan is a farce. A fraud. “President” Karzai won a rigged election, and is a key player in all the things that are wrong with the Afghan government. The President made the statement, “Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it’s been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.” He is afraid, as the leader of the most powerful country in the world, to speak the truth. A legitimate government was NOT elected, there is massive corruption IN THAT GOVERNMENT, a drug trade SUPPORTED BY AND PROFITING that government.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban may share a common purpose and have long late night chats on the phone, but they are not one in the same. And you cannot continue to pretend that they are. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that got safe harbor in Afghanistan. We ended that safe haven for the most part. They will be forced to move on. When can “fix” Afghanistan (hypothetically) and Al Qaeda will never come back. They will instead operate from Pakistan, or Somalia, or Libya, or Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela, or Russia, or some other part of the world that likes their cause (and if their cause is to oppose the US, there are plenty who like that cause, some publicly, some not so much). We have to stop pretending that “winning” Afghanistan actually means that Al Qaeda will be defeated. It won’t. They are already rebuilding throughout the world. Somalia is teeming with them.

So if the US insists on staying in Afghanistan, here is what they need to do. Send over about 150,000 more troops, including all of 3rd, 5th, and 7th SFG (Those available, I know that some are already engaged elsewhere). Start on one side of the country and sweep across. Wipe out every insurgent, Taliban, Al Qaeda, supporter, etc. Set up a new secure border that will not allow them to re-enter through Pakistan or anywhere else. While sweeping across the country, burn every poppy field you come across. Eliminate the drug trade as the primary means of funding. Route out the corruption in the Afghanistan government, beginning with the crooks we put in place. Teach the country a new way to support themselves. Tell them that we are now leaving. And threaten them the same way my father used to threaten me. If we have to come into that back seat again, you will wish that I didn’t know what a belt was or that you were paralyzed from the waste down so you wouldn’t feel it.

Remember, I don’t support this plan. I want us out of there. But if you are going to fight a war, you fight it to win, and do so in devastating fashion. War isn’t nice. And you can’t win one by playing nice.

And now I will discuss the speech on the micro level. I will attempt to address some of the things that he said individually. I am sure that some will say I am petty with some of the things I address, but so be it.

Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban, a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

The Taliban was a ruthless government and I have no issue with this statement except for the last part. We turned our attention elsewhere because what happens in another country is none of our damn business. This is a statement that sets up the idea in the heads of the American people that our negligence is partly to blame for the situation that unfolded there. That is false.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the House was 420-1.

Yes, in days we declared war on Al Qaeda. Perhaps we should have thought more with our heads instead of our hearts. Perhaps Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and perhaps they weren’t (I personally believe they were). Those votes were worthless. There was no debate and the penalty for voting “no” was far too high.

For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5, the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies, and the world were acting as one to destroy Al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security. Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan.

Article 5 is a crock of bull. In my defensive only posture stance, an attack on one nation is an attack on that nation. Article 5 is nothing more than a way to give nations that want to wage war an excuse to do so at the slightest provocation.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It’s enough to say that, for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention, and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

He just couldn’t make a speech without taking at least one more shot at Bush.

After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, Al Qaiea’s leadership established a safe haven there.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with Al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

I see this as nothing more than the beginning of making a case for why we should have troops operating in Pakistan as well. He mentions the safe havens in Pakistan several times in the speech. I understand that this is an issue. How about we secure the borders and don’t allow them back in to Afghanistan any longer. I know that is a tough task, but possible (with my massive troop increase).

Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.

Oops, make that two shots at Bush. I find this one a bit offensive. President Bush was a lame duck President at best during the last two years of his Presidency. He couldn’t make the decision to send more troops without vastly jeopardizing the Republican party in the upcoming elections. Obama attempts here to paint a picture of his taking action and making the right decisions that the previous administration couldn’t or wouldn’t make. That is dishonest at best.

Since then, we’ve made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we’ve stepped up the pressure on Al Qaeda worldwide.

Again taking far more credit than he deserves, and everyone knows it except the most far left of pundits.

As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service.

You owe them more than that, sir, you owe them a strategy that actually has a chance of succeeding. You have not delivered a mission that is that or either of the two things you mentioned.

This review is now complete. And as commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

I was a little bothered by this statement. Because I don’t like that fact that he sat on this decision for so long, then offered 30,000 troops as an appeasement strategy for the right. He is now attempting to appear as though he is a real, live decision maker, who is making the tough calls. I resent that he is taking so much credit for being such when he is not one at all.

We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.

I would say you played your part in creating that highly partisan and polarized backdrop, sir. In fact I think you are one of the top ten antagonists for said polarization. Between the Executive branch and the Congress, the last 8 years of partisanship and polarization are indeed a blight on our country, but let’s not pretend that you didn’t help cause it, and that you are doing absolutely nothing to even begin to curb it. I haven’t seen you putting the brakes on partisanship or polarizing speech and actions from the Congress controlled by your party.

I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

A very interesting statement. I would offer a question to the President. How exactly does whatever we accomplish in Afghanistan do much to increase the security of the United States and the safety of the American people? Oh I understand the nominal gains of winning there, but there are far better ways we could spend our money if security and safety are our true objectives.

I, at this point, skip over the three strategy points he made because I have been clear what an effective strategy must look like. I will address the three criticisms that he chose to address.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we’re better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.

No, we were not attacked by Afghanistan, or even from Afghanistan. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, and they have no borders. This is a bit more like Vietnam than he admits. The government simply does not have the will or the desire to win this war. Much like Vietnam, they will prolong it only long enough to find a way out that they hope will save face. Also, much like Vietnam, we have soldiers in a war zone who are acting with their hands tied by ridiculous rules of engagement, faulty SOP’s, and objectives that don’t make sense and undermine the capabilities of the US military.

All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. And going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I’ll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

Close runner up as the most idiotic statements in this speech. At what point did someone decide that a war will be fought based on cost analysis? What the President is basically saying here is that we are going to move forward with a plan of fighting a war on a budget. That is just dumb. You fight a war by providing whatever is needed to take the best course of action going forward, costs be damned. “Sir, we can take out the base with 3 Tomahawk missiles and have no troop risk.” “No, we have to think about costs. A few soldiers cost less than those Tomahawks. Let’s find another way that is cheaper.”

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that’s why I’ve made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them, because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons. True security will come for those who reject them.

And while you go about the world talking about eliminating Nuclear weapons, the other countries of the world, such as Iran, have no intention of playing nice in the sandbox with you. The idea of what he is saying sure sounds good, but it shows him to be naive at best, incompetent on top of that.

We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

And those organizations are just as bad as can be. We dump billions into them, and for what? They accomplish nothing other than to erase national sovereignty.

What we have fought for, what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

And piling debt on my teenage son is good for him exactly how?

So there you have the official USWeapon review of the speech.

We enter December, the time for Holiday cheer and Congress debating bills that will ensure future Christmas days will be filled with disappointed children with no presents because all the money was spent by the reckless federal government. Watching some of the debates in the Senate are literally sickening. Nothing like watching future prosperity being bickered away by two groups who are desperate to ensure their own financial futures. Tonight was the President’s speech on the plan for Afghanistan. I listened to what I could and will listen to the rest tomorrow. I am not happy with the speech thus far. Tonight’s speech and the whole issue of Afghanistan will be the topic for tomorrow night, as I have plenty to say and not near enough time to both review the speech and offer my thoughts tonight. As for the topics below, I will attempt to participate in the conversations today in between errands and I may offer an additional topic or two throughout the day. As always I encourage everyone else to add as well!

I have to admit that I am quite surprised to see how the world of man causing global warming, or even climate change, is disintegrating right before my very eyes. You have to admit that the build-up was impressive. They really did a good job of snowing everyone, forcing compliance, and bullying anyone who dared to question the “facts about global climate change.” But over the last month, the revelations have been coming fast and furious. And the panic that is starting to appear in the global warming folk’s ranks is providing for some awfully good comedic relief. I am pretty sure that Al Gore is sitting at home attempting to come up with a plan. “If I could covertly detonate 43 nuclear warheads, the earth would surely have to heat up a little bit and we can get my money-making pyramid scheme up and running again in no time!”

You and I know that is pure fanatasy, but certainly no less fantasy than “An Inconvenient Truth.”

So the news comes out today that the University of East Anglia has “thrown away” much of the data that the predictions of global warming were based upon.  University of East Anglia? I know many of you said that as soon as you saw it. Is that like the Middle Tennessee State Municipal Polytechnical University Fighting Tree Sloths? The answer is no. East Anglia is one of the top universities in the world (according to the academics who vote among themselves and thus proclaim their alma maters as the top in the world).

The University of East Anglia have been at the forefront of the claimate change agenda for many, many years. Their Climate Research Unit was formed in 1972 and has been considered one of the better environmental research divisions in Europe. They have been a world leader in advocating anthropogenic polar warming as fact and anthropogenic global warming as well. Their collected data was the basis for much of the global warming hysteria and further claims throughout the last decade. Simply put… it all starts right here at UEA.

The University of East Anglia gathered the data from weather stations around the world. It was raw data that gave us important information from which research could be done. After all, without the knowledge of how hot today is we cannot say that tomorrow is hotter, colder, or unchanged. Once they gathered this data, they did  adjustments toaccount for variables in the way the data was collected (and this is important, very important, as you will see below). They saved the “adjusted” data, but for some reason felt that the original data, the un-doctored data, was not really important. After all, the governments of the world are only spending trillions and trillions of dollars and striking liberty and national sovereignty down in the name of the conclusions based on that data. So they deleted it to make room for more important things, like you tube videos of last week’s “Britain’s Got Talent” Semifinals.

This means that all of the other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. It means that the only “facts” we have to base conclusions on are the “facts” that were saved…. the adjusted data from the esteemed scientists at the University of East Anglia. I don’t know how accurate the adjusted data is. I am not a climate scientist. And I certainly wouldn’t be the guy to address the differences between the raw data and the adjusted data. Bu I do know this: If the world were spending trillions of dollars fighting climate change based, in part, on the data that I had in my computers, I would have that data backed up about 5 times over and I wouldn’t be deleting it under any circumstances. It is simply too important.

And of course we have “Climate Gate”. as Fox News has so eagerly dubbed the email mess. A couple of thousand emails exhanged between climate scientists that seem to indicate some “doctoring” of data and a possible intentional misleading of folks towards a conclusion that was desired. It appears, after reading some of the emails ( haven’t read them all), that the scientists in the emails had determined that they wanted the data to show a certain result and were willing to manipulate the data to ensure that the desired conclusion was the one reached. I say “seem to indicate” and “appears” because the reality is that I don’t kow the truth. I know what it seems like in the stuff that I read. But I acknowledge that I don’t know the scientists involved, and I don’t know what else might play in to what I read.

Because reading an email that says “we should terminate the program recipients” sure does sound like I am advocating the murder of people in some program when I may be discussing the possible changing of a contract that awards other program’s fiscal incentives. I simply wanted to eliminate the incentives, not kill anyone. Context matters. And I don’t have all the context for these emails. So I don’t know what the truth is. What I do know is that the emails are enough for me to have some doubts. I cannot reach a conclusion, but I can realize that I need to dig a little deeper.

The problem is that I cannot dig a little deeper. Because the data to dig a little deeper into has been thrown away. You see, the emails in question were between the scientists who were adjusting the data at the University of East Anglia (Specifically Phil Jones, the Director of the Climate Research Center). They kept only adjusted data, and now the emails suggest that perhaps this adjusted data is tainted or even possibly outright dishonest. And with no original data, we cannot find out the truth. In those emails, Jones discusses how to stop critics from getting their hands on the original data. I wonder why any academic worth his salt would want to stop ANYONE from having access. If you believe your results are accurate, wouldn’t you want as many critical eyes as possible to look at the data? Well UEA didn’t. And now they have conveniently made sure that no one will ever be able to analyze that data. Let’s not forget that the emails in question are between the gentlemen responsible for the ever popular (and completely inaccurate) hockey stick graph that has been proven wrong so many times.

It seems to me that the data supporting the Global Warming / Climate Change / BS is beginning to crumble around the feet of those who would fleece us by using this crisis to do what they please. But there will only be a limited amount of folks who get to see the truth. Because it certainly is not going to be disseminated to the masses. As usual, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, and all the other liberal MSM are not covering this at all. “Nothing to See here” seems to be the mantra of the modern MSM whenever data or events or information doesn’t jive well with their agenda. Much like the Tea Parties, this is simply being ignored by the MSM.

My favorite thus far has to be the New York Times, perhaps the biggest liberal trash rag of the bunch. They decided to offer an explanation of why they are not going to run the story about the leaked emails. Andrew Revkin of the New York Times said that the email story would not be run because “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye.” (interestingly, Revkin has since gone in and altered that page on the internet so he no longer makes that bold of a claim, it changed overnight from one time I read it to the next). I found this interesting from a paper famous for running the “Pentagon Papers” story in 1971. Interesting from a paper that ran a series based completely on stolen communications within the tobacco industry in the 90’s. Interesting from a paper who ran a front page story based on illegally acquired information about wire tapping by the Bush administration. Even more interesting from a paper who was so eager to run with the hacked Sarah Palin emails.

I have to say that I am growing more and more weary of the excuses and lame cover-ups by the main stream media these days. The tobacco example above is the most relevant comparison to this situation. In that situation the New York Times actually fought in court to expose what was in those stolen documents. In this case, they wouldn’t even face a court challenge, but they will refuse to run with a very pertinent story anyway. The MSM is a joke. The New York Times is the Hardy to MSNBC as Laurel. And for the record, anytime a major news outlet claims to be not running a story based on “moral” reasons, you should immediately thrown the shenanigans flag. If it bleeds, it reads. That is the only mantra they go by. Morals have no standing in the media of modern America (or the politics of modern America either, for that matter, but that is redundant as the two are one in the same these days).

So the climate change bullcrap continues to crumble. The MSM continues to attempt to cover it up. And the politicians and the United Nations continue to attempt to act fast before the world wakes up. As I reported last week, India and China have already made it clear they are not on board with the massive BS in Copenhagen. These nutjobs in Congress and President Obama had best not sign a treaty that redistributes our tax money and sacrifices national sovereignty based on what appears more and more to be a fictional account of climate history.

All of this comes as a paper has been uncovered that was written by the top environmental bureaucrats in Switzerland a couple of years ago outlining the goal of the United Nations Environmental Network to become the ultimate authority over all nations in terms of climate change legislation. They want to create a situation where they have ultimate authority over global economic and political decisions. The best quote from their bullshit paper: “Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” with a close second going to, “The current environmental challenges and opportunities will cause the environment to move from often being considered as a marginal issue at the intergovernmental and national levels to the centre of political and economic decision-making.”

I read the unofficial paper that these high powered environmental bureaucrats put together. It is clear in the writing that they are looking to use propaganda to influence the youth of the world and gain power while “not appearing to do an end around on national governments.” In short, they are looking for UNEP to gain ultimate power over the world’s economic decisions through the use of climate change hysteria. It is a troubling document that I am sure those who hate my conclusion will claim means nothing. But there are only so many references to a single body having control over all nations that I can take before I have to accept that there are some out there with a lot of power who would like to get to a new world order.

And now they are doing based on some very questionable data that is no longer available to be disputed. We have to put a tamp on this climate change bullshit fast, because it is a powerful tool in the hands of those who would control us all.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html?test=latestnews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_East_Anglia

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911277498/energy-and-environment/climate-smokescreen-at-the-new-york-times.html

Document Reveals U.N.’s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks – United Nations – FOXNews.com

Whew…. What a weekend. As many of you know I run a retail business. And that means that this was a big weekend. I can’t speak for where the economy is headed, but there were a ton of folks out this weekend spending money. Tonight I ran across an especially passionate lady who, once started, was fired up about politics as anyone here. I didn’t intend to get into a political conversation, as I try to keep those separate from work. But she sucked me in and I invited her here. I hope she joins us as I would love to have yet another passionate voice eager for action in a positive direction. I mention her because I see more and more folks like her every day. Incensed with the direction of this country. Not just the Democrats in Congress, although she certainly could see their ills at the moment, but with both sides, with bigger government. With an out of control Congress that is working to tax and spend everything, right up to breathing at this point.

And the question I have to ask is whether, all of the sudden, Barack Obama is finding that the direction he wants to take the country is a direction that the country is going to ensure that they do not go?

We all know that politics in Washington. One batch of leaches is just as bad, corrupt, and self serving as the other batch of leaches. The Red Shirts and the Blue Shirts are in this together, while playing much of America for the fool. What we saw in November of 2008 was a perfect storm of George Bush hatred, weariness of the two wars, an entirely complicit media, and a silver tongued man who made Americans believe that he was the hope and change they had been waiting for. Make no bones about it, Barack Obama wrote a whole slew of checks that he had no intention of paying. At this point I believe that he outright lied to America, and very few of us were able to see it for what it was at the time. He ran a campaign in the middle, and now wants to take us far to the left.

Oh, I know that some of you are seething that I would say it that bluntly. “He has not had enough time” or “he is only doing what the realities of the Presidency have forced upon him” are the common excuses. But I say NO. He was lying when he said many of the things that he said on the campaign trail. Of course there are other things that I think he was being completely honest about, but that many in America were unwilling to permit themselves to believe that he meant them the way he said them. Some cases in point:

• Promising transparency when he had zero intention of delivering. Even going as far as promising a hard set period of time for Americans to review bills before they were passed. He obviously failed that test on the first stimulus bill…. and every single bill passed since that time. Far from transparent, his administration has thus far remained as closed, sometimes even more closed, as any administration in my lifetime.
• Promising that 95% of Americans would not “see a single dime of increase in their taxes”… The instances where this has been broken started early and continued through today. Taxes have been increased over and over for Americans. Sin taxes, “penalties” that he attempts to say aren’t taxes, rising energy costs to pay for corporate taxes and Cap and Trade madness, and coming soon, massive increases in the amounts that Americans pay for health care and health insurance. This was an intentional lie from day one.
• Saying Afghanistan is the “right war” and the one we must win at all costs, only to falter as soon as a General makes a request for more troops. He has done absolutely nothing to further the progress that Bush made towards leaving Iraq. And Afghanistan has become a decision that he is either not willing, or not mentally equipped, to make. This was a lie too. He knew he couldn’t win the election opposing BOTH wars, so he lied and said he supported the convenient one. Now he is exposed.
• Saying that he was bringing change to Washington. He didn’t lie here, he meant what he said. Many Americans simply believed that he meant good change, when he in fact meant a massive expansion of government and a reversal of any program that provided an obstacle to his plan for American citizen dependency and loss of liberty (specifically I am talking about the effective welfare reforms that were erased immediately so that the poor can once again become government dependents). The increase in the size and scope of government in just one year has been both unbelievable and faster than anyone since FDR.
• Promising over and over again that he would never support health care reform that included taxing employer provided health care coverage. This was a major part of his campaign (His campaign spent $44 million on 16 different television ads hammering John McCain on this). We are seeing in the ongoing debates and his own comments that this position has been totally abandoned now that the campaign is over. These taxes were included in the House Bill and are expected to be in the Senate version as well.

And this is throwing away some of his large lies that were exposed prior to even being elected. For example his promise to stick to the $84 million in campaign financing provided by the federal funding so long as his opponent did. He scrapped that as soon as he realized he could outspend his opponent by 5 or 6 to 1. McCain stuck to his promise, and as a result was outspent almost 6 to 1 in the campaign. Obama was the first President to do this. There was the promise to those who elected him in 2004 that he would not seek public office. He said, “Look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years.” Responding to a question from a reporter he later stated, “Guys, I’m a state senator. I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office, it just doesn’t make sense.” Man that good ole boy “that doesn’t make sense” is a line he has continued to use with frequency in the years since. It is as much of a lie now as it was then.

And lord don’t let us forget the nonsense about not knowing Bill Ayers that well, or the complete nonsense of sitting in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years and not knowing that he was a hate filled bigot who hate the USA. Or his relationship with the now infamous hooker helping voter fraud group ACORN.

Let’s face it, all politicians seem to be liars. It is common stock in the business. But I cannot recall someone getting caught lying so much and still getting elected. And I cannot recall any President so quickly breaking so many of his campaign promises. I mean, really, Bush was a polished turd, but his first year wasn’t this filled with reversals in his campaign stances. No President’s first year featured this much of it.

So now we come back to the present. It certainly appears that many more folks are beginning to see him for what he really is, a very far left guy. I know that communist and socialist carry such stigmas to them. So I will refrain from saying them. But I will say that he is slightly more of a fascist than the past few Presidents, but it is important to realize that he is more of one, NOT he is one and they weren’t. Each President has taken us further down this path, he just accelerated that train, now the wall seems to be looming and getting larger in the windshield at a much faster rate.

I think that what we are seeing is yet another perfect storm of awakening in the American people. I do, of course, realize that this could be nothing more than me seeing what I want to see in the population. So I am open to discussing it. But here is the perfect storm that I am seeing:

I see a President that was voted the most far left by his peers in the Senate, who ran as a centrist, but who is proving to be the most far left President in recent history. I see a Congress led by the most far left whack-job Speaker of the House that I have ever seen. I have seen some pretty influential and somewhat radical party leaders in my time, but Pelosi is as polarizing and as far out there to the fringe as any. And I see a media that is so over the top complicit in their support, through their puff questions, selective articles, non-coverage of critical news, and gushing tingle in the leg Obama love, that the American public can no longer ignore the fact that the media has nothing to do with news any longer and cannot be trusted on anything. Finally, I see legislation that is so corrupt, so dishonest, so self serving, and so not going to do what it claims, that the American public is finally beginning to understand that Washington DC isn’t doing this out of ignorance, it is an intentional screwing over of the American people.

And I think because of so much of this all coming to a head in such a short timeline (the last 10 years? with a marked acceleration over the last 18 months), the people are unable to ignore this any longer. The threat is now beginning to be seen as imminent rather than possible. The impacts of the last ten years of corruption in Washington DC is affecting a majority of Americans at this point as they lose their jobs, their homes, their peace of mind, their trust, and most important, their liberty.

I think the tea parties were just a start. They were not a fringe population. They were the few who were motivated. I think that if things continue down the path we are going, Americans will become even more frustrated, more vocal, more desperate, and will eventually come to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the federal government at all. Think of how fringe the idea of refusing to recognize the authority of the federal government was just ten years ago. Look at how the number who feel that way has grown exponentially over the last 5 years.

Obama’s approval rating is now below 50%. That is a fairly big swing. It is not all that uncommon, as most President’s see a drop in their numbers early in their Presidency. But it is a surprising factor for this President, whether those who support him will admit that or not. I remember early in the Summer talking to a guy who said to me that President Obama was already a lock to be reelected in 2012. I was hard pressed to dismiss that idea out of hand. But at this point, I have to wonder if he even stands a chance of being reelected in 2012? The opposition to him will not be the weak effort put forth by McCain, who ran the worst campaign in my lifetime.

I believe the 2010 elections will return Congress to the corrupt Republicans rather than the corrupt Democrats. Has anyone thought about the fact that this might in fact temper Obama just enough so that in his last two years, he is able to once again rally people to believe in him? Democrats winning in 2010 might be just what we need so that he continues the radical path that seems to be awakening more and more people to the perils of a giant federal government each day. Perhaps the best possible scenario is more of what the looney far left is pushing so that more of the people wake up. Remember, a revolution doesn’t occur until the tipping point is reached. That tipping point is coming, but it could be stopped with a Republican Congress that slows him down.

I look forward to everyone’s thoughts on this. Has Barack Obama’s luster worn off? Are the people of America finally beginning to see through the facade and see him for the true far left liberal he has always been? Can he possibly be reelected in 2012? At what point will the majority of moderate Democrats completely abandon the SS Obama? Can he destroy our country before anything can be done (and I mean really, think about it, not just a gut reaction)?

No topic tonight. I imagine no one would read it anyway, as most of you will be spending time with family and friends, giving thanks for all that we have. I am thankful for all of you, who allow me to rant and rave on a subject that is near to my heart, liberty. Politics is a passion that you all allow me to participate in, in my own small way. I am thankful for my health, my family, and my wife, who puts up with far more than she should have to bear. I am thankful for my puppy, the gargantuan cat, and a son who is my pride and joy. I am thankful for all that I have, as there are so many struggling to get by these days. Remember those folks today. Set aside your distaste for whichever side of the political spectrum you are on, make a plate of food from your leftovers, and go out and find someone who was going to go without. It will make you feel better, and it will make their holiday a little more bearable. For any who visit today, post away below on whatever subjects you want to discuss. Remember there will be no article written Thursday night.

Well, the open mic comes as we prepare to take a couple days for Thanksgiving. I will be taking some time off the blog as well. There will be no post on the night of Thanksgiving and I will do a guest commentary if I have one on Friday night, but if I don’t have a guest commentary submitted that night I will do either an open mic or not have an article. As many of you know, Friday begins my season of madness that lasts through Christmas. I will post as often as I am able, but there may be some nights with very little. I appreciate everyone understanding, as the season really is pure madness for me. The last couple days have been good conversations, but I do have to say that I am missing JAC and BF (Hope you feel better my pirate friend), especially on that first post this week about the path forward. I may have to rehash that article again later so that they can participate. I think we need to begin formulating a plan for what we can do. Tonight’s open mic has some good stuff, so I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say.