The Media & Senator Obama

Has Senator Clinton fallen off the planet? It seems she was handed her hat and coat the moment she suspended her campaign and wished Senator Obama good luck. It’s as if she was sucked into a galactic black hole as she stepped away from the podium.

There is nary a reference to her in the newspapers, on the broadcast and cable news, on the internet, or in the weekly news publications. It’s conceivable that she is holed up in some private compound licking her wounds after an arduous campaign.

To pretend the disappearance of the Clintons isn’t a blessing would be disingenuous. About as many are thrilled to be living in a Clinton free zone as those who are looking forward to the Bush family permanently retreating to Texas. Twenty years of these families is enough.

But Hillary is not old news. She has enough delegates and ardent supporters to turn the Democratic convention into a socialist blood bath. So even granting her apparent loss and the Democratic Party’s need to unite its base, her out-and-out disappearance is suspect.

There can only be one plausible reason for this anti-matter phenomenon. Our illustrious liberal dominated media is in full throttle to canonize its favorite Christian convert. To accomplish this mission they must capture the hearts of the eighteen million Hillary voters.

They are in full erasure mode; convinced Hillary’s non-existence will swing the Democratic moderates into the Obama camp. This is the same media that slapped her around with the long end of the publicity stick once Obama’s ethnicity and brand of politics inspired its ranks.

There is nothing new about the media’s strategy. For months now it has ignored the volume of good news emanating from Iraq. The stabilization of this country since the military surge is incredible. It worked. A US victory is within grasp.

This substantiated fact makes Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi and their anointed candidate real losers. That’s why the subject of Iraq is in full erasure mode.

This is the same media that would have Americans believe that Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Michelle’s anti-America rhetoric aren’t worthy of its attention. Nor do they believe the US electorate should be informed that Senator Obama voted against adopting English as the official language of government.

This is the same media that hasn’t protested the fact that Senator Obama refuses to make his birth certificate available to the public. Strange, isn’t it? They don’t care what he is hiding although they attempted to have Senator McCain’s candidacy disqualified because he was born in Panama.

This is the same socialist bent media that ignores the 2000+ corporations that have been scooped up by foreign interests since George W. Bush was inaugurated. This detail is difficult to explain without examining the US corporate tax structure.

Is it possible that these media tax & spend aficionados don’t want the public to know the economic consequences of having the second highest corporate taxes in the world? This knowledge puts their candidate’s higher corporate taxes prescription at odds with America’s security.

And why isn’t the media screaming for Obama to participate in the give-an-take, town hall style forums? The answer is obvious. The questions can’t be vetted, nor can the questioners be vetted. The media realizes that he would be ripped to shreds without it running interference for him.

Obama owes his political existence to the media’s protective cocoon.

Energy Independence First

Today, the survival of Western Civilization depends on the production of energy. It’s the universal source of food, shelter, clothing and the fulcrum upon which our nation’s economy and security teeters.

The refusal of congressional Democrats to recognize our absolute dependency on energy is placing the nation in great peril. And time is running out. Their practice of holding energy independence initiatives hostage to environmental sensitivities during a time of war is beyond traitorous—it’s insanity.

Energy—the nation’s lifeline—is heavily dependent on fossil fuels from foreign suppliers. This dependency has enslaved our economy to the dictates of foreign countries and made our nation vulnerable to the goals of Islamic fascists.

When the US was the primary buyer of energy in the twentieth century, it controlled the marketplace. The rapid industrialization of Third World countries, especially China and India, changed the balance of power. The competition for oil has made the United States vulnerable to international blackmail. The cost of oil is already depreciating the value of our currency.

That the United States imports about 20% of it oil directly from the Middle East is both dangerous and moot. If the production flowing from the Arabian Peninsula is severely interrupted, the competition for other sources will be intense. No industrialized country will have a safe harbor.

If the disruption is prolonged, the western democracies will suffer economic chaos.

The Islamic terrorists, those determined to destroy western civilization, understand this dependency. Although the pipelines remain vulnerable to clandestine attacks, the control of the oil reserves and pipelines by Islamic fundamentalist/fascist caliphates is the greater danger.

Iran has already fallen under Islamic fundamentalist control and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine the US efforts in Iraq. If the US military exits Iraq before stabilizing its government, the Islamic fundamentalists will gain control of Iraq’s reserves and outputs.

Now, let’s give Iran a nuclear weapon. They don’t have to detonate it in Europe or the United States to destroy us.

Just threatening to annihilate Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait if they fail to curtail or cease their oil production could reduce the world oil output by about 50%. One bomb dropped on Saudi Arabia would send the western democracies into a decades’ long economic tailspin.

With this very real possibility a few hours away, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are screaming for the US to bequeath Iraq to Iran. And the Democrats are even protesting the consideration of terminating Iran’s nuclear threat with military force.

The failure to acknowledge—or comprehend—that US energy independence must take precedence over environmental concerns is a prescription for disaster. Global warming and animal habitats are irrelevant when compared to the catastrophic consequences of US transportation at a standstill, the shutdown of commerce, cold homes and food shortages.

Patriots?

When the Shiite cleric, al-Sadr, and his henchmen quit the Iraqi Cabinet, after Prime Minister al-Maliki refused to set a deadline for a US troop withdrawal, his Shiite stronghold became fair game. This opened the door for General Petraeus to actually clean house in Baghdad.

A real inconvenient truth is now emerging. And it doesn’t bode well for any presidential or congressional candidate who has yammered for America’s retreat. The General’s initial success has dampened the cut-and-run yapping, as it is no longer guarantees a politically safe haven.

This explains the sea change in the Democratic Party’s anti-war rhetoric. They have already stopped referring to the Iraqi War as “their war,” inferring only conservatives have a vested interest in its success.

But this doesn’t automatically clear the path for an Iraqi victory. A new test is emerging. The “surge” in Baghdad is taking its toll on our military. Extended tours of duty are tough on the troops and their families. By early spring, 2008, many of our best and bravest will head back to the states. There are few reserves ready to take their place.

Ten of the eleven new Iraqi Divisions are fully trained, but barely battle tested. Whether they can fill the void is open to conjecture. It would be pitiful if the blood and treasure the US expended to calm Baghdad is eroded by the Iraqi troops’ inability to sustain the gains.

And hold they must, as the remaining US troops engage the retreating al-Qaeda and Shiite forces regrouping in northern Iraq, and clamp down on the Syrian jihad gateway. A US ultimatum to Damascus could end this al-Qaeda support machine, and indirectly temper Iran’s interference.

But in truth, it appears President Bush has capitulated to the Democrats’ distress over potential civilian casualties. The leftwing is still wringing its hands over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s a twisted morality that prefers American deaths to ending the hostility; and one which equates retreat with reduced losses.

The Iraqi dilemma is further compounded by the lack of statesmen in its government. They’re still mired in yesterday’s tribal hatreds and mistrust—a shining example that all politics are local. But Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is a survivor.

His recent trip to Tikrit, a Sunni stronghold, underscores his realization that the Democrats’ demand for an immediate US troop withdrawal places intense pressure on the administration. To persuade the Republicans, President Bush and the American public to stay the course, he made an all out effort to win Sunni cooperation. He also structured a new alliance with the Shiite Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the major Kurdish political parties to bolster his parliamentary support.

The political progress, although disappointing, is bending in the right direction.

Watch the Democrats’ reaction this September. If we see them gnashing their teeth and tearing their garments, know our nation is winning, despite their best efforts to achieve a defeat.

If the reports of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker encourage the nation that a win in Iraq is feasible, the Democrats will feel betrayed. They will all but call the General a liar, claim the reports are filled with deliberate distortions, and scream for a national military draft to undermine the nation’s willingness to continue.

And they call themselves patriots . . . .

Retire as a Winner Mr. President

President Bush’s second term is on its last legs. He is not in retreat. More accurately, he is licking his wounds. His final efforts in office will concentrate on Iraq and salvaging what little is left of his conservative credentials.

During this sixteen month hiatus, he will dust off the nearly forgotten power of the presidential veto. The Democrats will pass bloated spending bills which he will promptly trash. But it doesn’t have to be this way. He can go out a winner.

The theatrical fits and frenzy of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Reid, the Majority leader, are not inspiring. With the Democrat’s congressional poll numbers in the tank, it’s obvious the electorate isn’t depending on them for solutions. Their mock, anti-war legislation and mouthy, witch hunts haven’t endeared them to the public.

It would be foolish to believe any meaningful, presidential sponsored legislation would see the light of day. But this doesn’t prevent the President from setting the stage for the 2008 showdown. He can outline an agenda which contrasts and unmasks the fiscal lunacy of the social prescriptions offered by the Democratic candidates.

A good douse of common sense will devastate them. As the “shared responsibility” rhetoric soars, there is but one question: Where’s the money? The Democrats’ boilerplate answer: If we cut and run in Iraq and sell the Islamic jihadists as concocted bogeymen, we can raid the Pentagon.

If President Bush and the Republicans can’t counter this pitiful strategy, they had best retire to San Francisco where they can read about the glorious virtues of socialism in the Chronicle.

The country is looking for thoughtful, well constructed solutions—not excuses, finger pointing and temper tantrums. President Bush must use the left wing’s ranting and vitriol as a foil to a sanguine, intelligent fiscal agenda. Where to begin?

Brian Riedl, Grover M. Hermann Fellow for Federal Budgetary Affairs, was recently asked to highlight the top three (3) federal budget policies that would bring the current US fiscal mismanagement under control.

His answer:

1) A federal law capping the growth of the federal government at the inflation rate plus population growth.

2) Legislation overhauling Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This would include Social Security personal accounts and bringing more choice/competition into Medicare . . . to bring intergenerational equity [which would] improve retirement and health care policies.

3) Movement towards a flat tax or sales tax, whereby consumption is taxed only once and at the source with minimal economic distortions.

These concrete objectives, coupled with Representative Richard Burr’s revenue neutral proposal to provide health insurance to an additional 24 million Americans, are a winning formula. When contrasted to the trillions of extra tax dollars the Democrats are demanding for federal handouts, the American voters will unite behind this fiscal sanity. Yes, President Bush, you can leave the stage as a winner.

And Promises to Keep

Although the 2008 presidential election cycle is in its early stages, it’s apparent that neither side is ready to address the details, nor the consequences, of their proposals. The contenders are all stalling. It’s a familiar political pattern. Spouting about the state of the nation from 50,000 feet through tinted lenses leaves plenty of wiggle room.

So far we have heard nothing but standard boilerplate. Within a few degrees, the political platform shared by the leading Democratic presidential candidates focuses on new entitlements, higher taxes, abandoning Iraq, the introduction of nationalized healthcare and their disdain of Corporate America. The platform of the Republican front runners is the anti-thesis of the Democratic message.

There is a new element in this equation that both parties are ignoring—loss of faith. Americans are results oriented and are tired of trivia, bickering, name calling and platitudes. They feel forsaken and betrayed.

The vast majority of voters are moderately conservative, which explains President Bush’s low approval rating. He ran as a moderate conservative and fell in lockstep with the liberals. Setting aside the tax cuts and the appointment of two strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, his record is appalling.

His push for illegal alien amnesty was the last straw. Coupled with his unwillingness to veto out-of-control spending legislation and revenue busting earmarks, the electorate now regards his conservative credentials as doublespeak. The result: He is not a lame duck; he is a dead duck.

The two faces of President George W. Bush is a major problem for all the 2008 Republican presidential and congressional candidates. That he played fast and loose with conservative principles engendered no party loyalty. The current mistrust of the conservative label was also fueled by the congressional spending antics of the Republicans prior to the 2006 elections. They were arrogant, spendthrift fools.

The new Democratic, congressional majority misconstrued its 2006 win as a referendum on Iraq. While they concentrate on losing the war and administer over 300 separate investigations of theoretical White House misdeeds, they have become the ultimate do-nothing-important congress. This pandering to the ultra-leftwing has opened the door to a Republican resurgence.

Remember Newt Gingrich's “Contract with America?” It was a no nonsense litany of promises to be kept. It detailed specific legislative goals. America signed up! Republicans delivered!

It’s time for a new Republican contract—solid, factual, achievable and imminent—one that doesn’t pander, hesitate or shift. Every Republican seeking office, speaking in one voice, should endorse and use it as a rallying point. Rather than untangling the nuances of similar policies, let the voters determine which Republican presidential candidate is the best qualified to implement the plan.

The voters are hungry for action and they don’t want fuzzy answers. It’s the right time for the Republicans to deliver hard and fast solutions. With a clear message and united front, they will sweep the 2008 contests.

Conflict of Interest

WE have all used the expression, “I can’t win for losing.” Everyone has experienced those kinds of days when everything goes wrong. We usually say this when our goals are side swiped by a string of setbacks, or worse yet, a head-on collision.

Americans have always accepted setbacks with a disgruntled grace, stiffened our resolve, recalibrated our tactics or strategy and tried again. There is something innate in the American spirit, maybe it’s in the water, that doesn’t allow us to give up on our goals. We believe in success. Think of our history. General George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and even Richard Nixon didn’t quit after suffering brutal loses.

We have carried this spirit unto all battlefields—domestic and foreign. The Preamble to our Constitution begins “We the people . . . .” and that is the secret of our strength and resolve. We have always banded together in the face of adversity.

All wars have generated heated debate. That’s natural and wise in a Republic. But the conflict in Iraq—the major battlefront in the war against terrorism—is insidiously changing the American perspective. The Democrats’ slogan, “We can win by losing,” is sending America down a dangerous path.

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and Senator Charles Schumer, NY, have publicly advised their Democratic colleagues that they can win the White House in 2008 by undermining success in Iraq. In effect, they are willing to flush our military foothold and security down the drain for political gain. Their recent bill to inform the terrorists the day the US military will withdraw from Iraq, tells us that these are not hollow plans.

And we all heard Senator Reid unilaterally declare defeat in Iraq. I’ll bet this surprised al-Qaeda and put some swagger in Iran’s President Mahmud Ahadinejad’s footsteps. This is the same Senator Reid who recently proposed pulling American GIs off the front lines, and using them to train Iraqis—after bashing the former Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfield, for the identical policy.

It’s obvious that Senator Reid has memory problems, but how can Senator Schumer forget 9/11?

It’s neither fashionable, nor politically correct, to question their patriotism. So I won’t. I’ll merely suggest they have a conflict of interest in the war against terrorism. What emboldens them? They are driven by polls, their hatred of President Bush and traditional values. I don’t much care for President Bush either, but he does understand the difference between popular opinion and principle. They don’t.

Common sense suggests the Democrats’ words and deeds strengthen the resolve of the terrorists. If this sounds harsh, answer these questions:

If you were a terrorist, or a nation supporting terrorism, how would you act if the most powerful nation on earth was totally united in its effort to eradicate terrorism, and unflinchingly demonstrated this resolve in Iraq?

In the heat of combat, would you want to share a foxhole with Senator Reid?

The truth is, we haven’t lost in Iraq; we are just recalibrating. And this is the only message that will cause Arab and Persian terrorists to tone down their exuberance for celestial virgins.