Will President Obama Stay the Course?
After following an Army battalion through the 2007 surge, author David Finkel gives a grunt's-eye view of the war in Iraq as soldiers attempt to secure a particularly violent area of Baghdad. This was the first attempt to implement the Army's new counterinsurgency doctrine. It was difficult to tell initially if any of these new tactics would work but a year later the neighborhood is markedly quieter, President Bushs surge has been a qualified success. General David Petraeus who lead the team that wrote the new doctrine and Gen. Stanley McChrystal have a track record in counterinsurgency. Now another President is faced with another decision about counterinsurgency doctrine, this time in Afghanistan. Important questions need to be answered... How many more troops will the President send to Afghanistan? How long will he send them for? Can the Afghan troops be trained? Will the Karzai government or cooperate? Who are the Taliban, anyway? Most importantly will President Obama decide to cut and run or will he stay the course?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Congressional Power Grab
There are many legitimate reasons to oppose the government takeover of our health care system. But before debating whether Congress should take this step, we must first determine whether Congress even has the authority to do so. Now dont misunderstand, Im not a strict constitutionalist. However, the intent of the constitution was to limit governmental power in order to promote the free will of every American. It flies in the face of reason to argue that government, forcing individuals to purchase a product or service is consistent with this ideal.
The only conceivable power Congress may use in requiring individuals to buy health insurance is its power to regulate interstate commerce, though many would argue that this itself is a dubious claim. The Supreme Court has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The most important word in this description of Supreme Court precedent is “activities.” Every Supreme Court case interpreting and applying the commerce clause, over nearly two centuries, has involved Congress’s attempting to regulate what people choose to do. None of those cases involved Congress requiring that people engage in an activity by purchasing a good or service against their will.
This is not a simple matter of Congress exercising legitimate power. When Congress attempted to require that individuals purchase health insurance in 1994, as part of Hillary care, the Congressional Budget Office concluded it would be an “unprecedented form of federal action.” In effect the healthcare mandate would grant Congress an entirely new power; the authority to force Americans to spend their money however Congress sees fit. Between 1994 and 2009 the Supreme Court twice found that Congress had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause. But even these cases involved activities in which people had chosen to engage. In United States v. Lopez, the court rejected a version of the commerce power that would make it hard “to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.” In other words the Supreme Court ruled that congress has no authority to force individuals to do things they dont want to do. Nevertheless this is exactly what Congress is attempting to do with the healthcare mandate.
If there is no difference between regulating and requiring and between incentives and mandates, why did Congress bother creating the Cash for Clunkers program? If buying fuel-efficient cars is so important for the economy, Congress could just require people to buy them. Why does Congress need complicated bailouts when it could simply order people to deposit their paychecks in certain banks, invest in certain companies or purchase certain products? If given this new power, Congress can tackle obesity by mandating that people buy fruits and vegetables. Where does it all end?
I understand the need for healthcare reform but are we willing to give Congress control of our paychecks in order to get it? Free will, choice, and economic freedom cannot exist along side government mandated spending. The Constitutional limits on federal power were intended to protect us from precisely this kind of government intrusion. Those limits mean nothing if the Constitution means whatever Congress wants it to mean. Requiring that individuals use their own hard-earned money to purchase whatever the federal government wants them to purchase will undermine the liberty of all Americans.
The only conceivable power Congress may use in requiring individuals to buy health insurance is its power to regulate interstate commerce, though many would argue that this itself is a dubious claim. The Supreme Court has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The most important word in this description of Supreme Court precedent is “activities.” Every Supreme Court case interpreting and applying the commerce clause, over nearly two centuries, has involved Congress’s attempting to regulate what people choose to do. None of those cases involved Congress requiring that people engage in an activity by purchasing a good or service against their will.
This is not a simple matter of Congress exercising legitimate power. When Congress attempted to require that individuals purchase health insurance in 1994, as part of Hillary care, the Congressional Budget Office concluded it would be an “unprecedented form of federal action.” In effect the healthcare mandate would grant Congress an entirely new power; the authority to force Americans to spend their money however Congress sees fit. Between 1994 and 2009 the Supreme Court twice found that Congress had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause. But even these cases involved activities in which people had chosen to engage. In United States v. Lopez, the court rejected a version of the commerce power that would make it hard “to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.” In other words the Supreme Court ruled that congress has no authority to force individuals to do things they dont want to do. Nevertheless this is exactly what Congress is attempting to do with the healthcare mandate.
If there is no difference between regulating and requiring and between incentives and mandates, why did Congress bother creating the Cash for Clunkers program? If buying fuel-efficient cars is so important for the economy, Congress could just require people to buy them. Why does Congress need complicated bailouts when it could simply order people to deposit their paychecks in certain banks, invest in certain companies or purchase certain products? If given this new power, Congress can tackle obesity by mandating that people buy fruits and vegetables. Where does it all end?
I understand the need for healthcare reform but are we willing to give Congress control of our paychecks in order to get it? Free will, choice, and economic freedom cannot exist along side government mandated spending. The Constitutional limits on federal power were intended to protect us from precisely this kind of government intrusion. Those limits mean nothing if the Constitution means whatever Congress wants it to mean. Requiring that individuals use their own hard-earned money to purchase whatever the federal government wants them to purchase will undermine the liberty of all Americans.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Dodging Bullets
Now that Washington has rejected the $700 billion bailout its safe to say the American people have dodged a bullet... for now. With wall street, legislators on both sides of the isle, and even the President eager to "act" , another bailout plan is a near certainty. The only real question is how much damage they will do.
News flash folks, the federal government does'nt have $700 billion so where does the money come from? Well... the federal reserve could print it but that would cause inflation and prices to rise. We could borrow it but that would further damage our financial standing in the rest of the world and increase our dependancy on foreign economies that are now becoming unstable because they are largely backed by the floundering U.S. dollar. Not to mention the fact that both of these solutions would add billions to the already staggering national debt.
So whats the answer? LET WALL STREET FAIL! Obviously there would be consequences to all of us if this were to happen but at some point we have to let the market correct, suck it up and move on. How much debt are we willing to pass on to the next generation to avoid a recession today? Recessions generally last 1 to 3 years and would do far less damage to our economy this government proposed bailout.
Most businessmen and economists say recession is imminent with or without a bailout so why saddle taxpayers with more debt for the sake of preventing the unpreventable? Here's an idea America should live within its means! How about spending less than we earn instead of more? How about letting a failed banks fail and the CEO's of those banks go down with them! If this leads to recession, so be it. It has been said that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, this bailout would have been just that.
News flash folks, the federal government does'nt have $700 billion so where does the money come from? Well... the federal reserve could print it but that would cause inflation and prices to rise. We could borrow it but that would further damage our financial standing in the rest of the world and increase our dependancy on foreign economies that are now becoming unstable because they are largely backed by the floundering U.S. dollar. Not to mention the fact that both of these solutions would add billions to the already staggering national debt.
So whats the answer? LET WALL STREET FAIL! Obviously there would be consequences to all of us if this were to happen but at some point we have to let the market correct, suck it up and move on. How much debt are we willing to pass on to the next generation to avoid a recession today? Recessions generally last 1 to 3 years and would do far less damage to our economy this government proposed bailout.
Most businessmen and economists say recession is imminent with or without a bailout so why saddle taxpayers with more debt for the sake of preventing the unpreventable? Here's an idea America should live within its means! How about spending less than we earn instead of more? How about letting a failed banks fail and the CEO's of those banks go down with them! If this leads to recession, so be it. It has been said that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, this bailout would have been just that.
Friday, July 4, 2008
July 4th Cancelled?WTF
This is the kind of crap I've come to expect from the moonbat movement. They say they support the troops but not the war. They want others to have less so they can have more. They want free speech as long as they are the only ones talking. Then, when slapped in the face with their own contradictions they resort to their not so secret weapon: Bashing America. The following is an excerpt from a column written by a leftie libtard in of all places, Philadelphia, the very city where our great declaration was signed.
By Chris Satullo
Inquirer Columnist
Put the fireworks in storage.
Cancel the parade.
Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.
This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.
For we have sinned.
We have failed to pay attention. We've settled for lame excuses. We've spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago.
So put out no flags.
Sing no patriotic hymns.
We deserve no Fourth this year.
Let us atone, in quiet and humility. Let us spend the day truly studying the example of our Founders. May we earn a new birth of courage before our nation's birthday next rolls around.
To view the entire column click here
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080701_Chris_Satullo__A_not-so-glorious_Fourth.html
By Chris Satullo
Inquirer Columnist
Put the fireworks in storage.
Cancel the parade.
Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.
This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.
For we have sinned.
We have failed to pay attention. We've settled for lame excuses. We've spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago.
So put out no flags.
Sing no patriotic hymns.
We deserve no Fourth this year.
Let us atone, in quiet and humility. Let us spend the day truly studying the example of our Founders. May we earn a new birth of courage before our nation's birthday next rolls around.
To view the entire column click here
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080701_Chris_Satullo__A_not-so-glorious_Fourth.html
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Obama's Reaganesque Attempt
In Senator Obamas patriotism speech one could hardly help but notice its Reaganesque tone, at least at first. Heres what Obama said: "You know, on a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists -- farmers, and merchants, and blacksmiths, and printers, men and boys, they left their home and their families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an empire."
Rewind to Ronald Reagans tyranny of the "evil empire" and the simple quote "evil is powerless if the good are unafraid"
Obama: And the odds against them were long, and the risks were enormous, And yet they took that chance.
They did so... on behalf of a larger idea: the idea of liberty, the idea of God- given, inalienable rights.
And when the first shot of that fateful day, a shot heard 'round the world, was fired, the American Revolution and America's experiment with democracy began. Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots.
Rewind to 1964 and Ronald Reagans "A Time for Choosing" speech: He said "should the patriots at Concord bridge have put down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead that fought to stop the advance of the Nazi's did not die in vane. Where then is the road to peace? Its a simple answer after all, you and i must say, there is a price we will not pay there is a point beyond which they must not advance."
Unfotunately for Obama the similarities end here. In the very next sentance he offers some statistics on the Iraq war: "At the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it's fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism, theirs and ours--We do so in part because we're in the midst of war. More than 1.5 million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 60,000 have been wounded. Over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce."
While all this is true, if he was trying to arouse our sense of patriotism he stumbled badly, unless his real intent was to contrast victories of our past with his perceived failure of Iraq. Taken in this context he may have accomplished exactly what he intended. It seems a bit disingenuous to equate patriotism with a war he does not support.
click here for the full transcript http://www.nytimes.com/
Rewind to Ronald Reagans tyranny of the "evil empire" and the simple quote "evil is powerless if the good are unafraid"
Obama: And the odds against them were long, and the risks were enormous, And yet they took that chance.
They did so... on behalf of a larger idea: the idea of liberty, the idea of God- given, inalienable rights.
And when the first shot of that fateful day, a shot heard 'round the world, was fired, the American Revolution and America's experiment with democracy began. Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots.
Rewind to 1964 and Ronald Reagans "A Time for Choosing" speech: He said "should the patriots at Concord bridge have put down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead that fought to stop the advance of the Nazi's did not die in vane. Where then is the road to peace? Its a simple answer after all, you and i must say, there is a price we will not pay there is a point beyond which they must not advance."
Unfotunately for Obama the similarities end here. In the very next sentance he offers some statistics on the Iraq war: "At the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it's fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism, theirs and ours--We do so in part because we're in the midst of war. More than 1.5 million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 60,000 have been wounded. Over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce."
While all this is true, if he was trying to arouse our sense of patriotism he stumbled badly, unless his real intent was to contrast victories of our past with his perceived failure of Iraq. Taken in this context he may have accomplished exactly what he intended. It seems a bit disingenuous to equate patriotism with a war he does not support.
click here for the full transcript http://www.nytimes.com/
Monday, June 30, 2008
The War Inside NBC
The guest list for the funeral mass for “Meet the Press” anchor Tim Russert was an “A list” of politicians and media mentionables. Real reporters mixed with the television personalities and the network executives who control their lives. It was a black day for journalism in NBC: Russert’s death released one of the last brakes slowing NBC’s descent into political activism and journalistic irrelevance.
NBC was once the proud home of real journalists. People such as Chet Huntley and David Brinkley brought its standards to -- and above -- the level prevalent in most news organizations. But now, it’s an asylum for people such as Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.
Matthews has made himself a caricature of the liberal news anchor. In one memorable moment of the primary season he said he felt, “…this thrill going up my leg…” while listening to an Obama speech.
Were that not bad enough, NBC’s leadership -- NBC-Universal CEO Jeffrey Zucker and NBC News President Steve Capus -- are pushing the network off into liberal la-la land. Russert, who tried hard to be fair to liberals and conservatives alike, was in a shrinking minority. Except for Russert, the moderates have been marginalized in favor of hyperventilating liberals such as MSNBC dolt-laureate Keith Olbermann.
The war within NBC is between the network suits and the real journalists who remain. They see what’s happening: the suits are using NBC to make MSNBC credible and to get their political jollies.
NBC’s news reporting has long been riddled with liberal bias. But over the past two years it’s divorced itself from the news business and gone into political activism. Its programming is so biased it could be confused with a broadcast arm of the New York Times.
Exhibit A is the May 19 letter written by Presidential Counselor Ed Gillespie to NBC News president Steve Capus. The letter was precipitated by the previous night’s Nightly News broadcast of an interview with President Bush. The interview was a setup, and the tape edited deceptively to make the President’s answers to questions from reporter Richard Engel appear to be something the clearly weren’t.
A perfect sin in journalism, the editing made it appear that the President accepted Engel’s premise that Bush’s speech to the Israeli Knesset equated negotiations with Iran to appeasement and was a calculated political attack on Barack Obama. In print journalism, this wouldn’t have made it past a rookie city desk editor. On NBC, it made the prime-time broadcast.
Gillespie’s letter went on to document a series of anti-war, anti-Bush positions NBC had taken in its reporting. What he didn’t document was the hyperbole MSNBC’s hosts engage in regularly.
Exhibit B is Olbermann’s relationship with the NBC’s leadership. Buoyed by some of the highest ratings among MSNBC’s shows, Olbermann regularly delivers himself of near-profane rants. In one last May, he advised the President to “shut the hell up.” Two years ago, he denounced then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a “quack” pushing “fascism.” In a June 23 article in the New Yorker, Peter Boyer reports that the Rumsfeld rant earned Olbermann an attaboy from Capus.
Boyer wrote that Capus told him, “I think we’re onto something. That’s what we keep hearing from the audience, more and more, is that they appreciate that we have people who are actually speaking truth to power, or being transparent in their own personal viewpoints.”
Transparency in their personal liberal viewpoints, that is. That attitude -- and its leakage into NBC’s primary network news operation -- is the cause of the conflict within the network.
NBC’s corporate parent -- General Electric -- is feeling the heat generated by the Olbermann rants. Capus’ favorite screecher created a feud with Fox and its most popular host, Bill O’Reilly. Olbermann had falsely accused Fox Chairman Roger Ailes of providing campaign advice to Rudy Giuliani, and was regularly attacking O’Reilly in very personal terms.
As Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz reported on May 19, the feud triggered high-level conversations between Ailes and Zucker as well as between News Corporation owner Rupert Murdoch and Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of GE. The latter were apparently about O’Reilly’s criticism of GE for trading with Iran.
O’Reilly’s high-temperature criticism of GE and Immelt -- calling him a “despicable human being” responsible for the deaths of American troops in Iraq -- may even have contributed to GE’s stock slide. From a high of $42.15 on October 2, 2007, GE’s shares have lost 36% of shareholder value, closing last Friday at $26.83.
That fall is comparable to the New York Times’ loss in shareholder value under Pinch Sulzberger. Liberal bias and media political activism don’t benefit shareholders.
Russert’s death left NBC’s best news show without a host in the critical time of the presidential race. Zucker and Capus have brought back liberal elder statesman Tom Brokaw to host the show until the election.
Zuker reportedly believes the future of NBC is not the broadcast news of old, but MSNBC and its online presence. According to a report published in “Broadcasting and Cable” in February, Zucker told a Harvard Business School conference, “The definition of NBC News is really changing, and it’s becoming more MSNBC and MSNBC.com.” Zucker added, “I think [MSNBC has] found its identity. Politics is their calling card.”
As Boyer reports, politics -- going far beyond liberal bias and into political activism -- is behind the turmoil in the network. He wrote that Brokaw is uneasy about the conflict within the network: “Listen, it’s a strain,” says Tom Brokaw, the longtime anchor of ‘Nightly News,’ who remains an active and revered figure at NBC. ‘And it’s under constant examination. There’s dialogue going on behind the scenes all the time. It’s not perfectly sorted out.’”
Nor will it be before November. The professional journalists in NBC are more frustrated by it every day. They know they’re losing the battle. With Russert gone, there’s no one left to stand up for them in the fight against the suits.
NBC has chosen sides, and its reporting will continue to boost Obama, attack the President and paint Sen. John McCain’s candidacy as the promise of another Bush term. Republicans -- especially senate candidates -- will be targeted as often as McCain.
When the New York Times published its thinly-sourced smear of McCain in February, implying a non-platonic relationship with an attractive lady lobbyist, McCain’s top advisor Charlie Black told the Politico, “We’re going to war with them now.” So far, that war is entirely one-sided.
Sen. McCain needs to respond reflexively. If his campaign is to survive the media assault it will have to have its own truth squad, prepared to issue statements and make campaign commercials much faster than usual to go after the activist media.
It takes CBS, NBC or ABC -- and, of course, MSNBC -- only hours to prepare an attack ad to be passed off as news that night. If McCain’s crew cannot respond just as quickly, the war Charlie Black declared will be lost, and millions of votes with it.
Republican candidates need to do the same. There will be many close Senate races this year, and few Republicans will follow the model of John Thune’s campaign, taking on a big newspaper that was allied with his opponents. Americans know the media is riddled with bias, and they don’t respect candidates who don’t fight back.
And there’s one way for the journalists who remain at NBC: get yourselves together. Form a small committee and demand a meeting with Immelt. Make him listen and promise to restore NBC’s journalistic standards to what they should be. If he refuses, start circulating your resumes. There will be no future for you with the Olbermann Network.
Author Mr.Jed Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He is the author of "In the Words of our Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" (Regnery, 2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
