Archive for February, 2012


The Iranians are on a religious crusade that can only be stopped by deadly force. Pictured: a mural of the Battle of Chaldiran.

On August 23rd, 1514 on the Chaldiran plain in northwest Iran, the Safavid Shiite Muslims clashed with Sunni Muslims from the expansive Ottoman Empire. Believing that their leader, Ismail, was the twelfth infallible imam of Islamic teaching, the Safavid troops fearlessly charged into battle with inadequate training and archaic military equipment. Needless to say, the Safavids were soundly defeated, and their supposedly infallible leader slipped away from the battlefield and died ten years later. Today, the Safavid Empire – now called Iran – is attempting yet again to assert its authority over the known world; but this time around, the military equipment involved is neither archaic nor inadequate. And frighteningly, the same disturbed rhetoric that propelled thousands of Safavid cavalrymen to ride to their deaths almost five hundred years ago has only intensified.

In a recent speech to a crowd of youths in Tehran, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei cheerfully proclaimed that Allah’s “divine promise” would be fulfilled through the destruction of Israel and America. This divine promise is, according to Khamenei and thousands of radicalized Muslims around the world, the extermination of all those who do not believe in the Islamic faith. This promise is what has driven radical Islamic terrorists to fly fully-fueled jet airplanes into the World Trade Center and to slaughter innocent Israeli schoolchildren with well-placed rocket strikes. And it is this promise that has been the motive behind Iran’s hostile actions toward the United States and Israel. Yet, President Barack Obama and other world leaders continue to champion economic sanctions as the solution to this inherently religious dilemma.

Thus far, however, economic sanctions have proven to be absolutely worthless. Iran has continued to pursue an aggressive development of its conventional armaments in spite of these deterrent sanctions, and Iran has also continued to enrich its nuclear material for the creation of a powerful nuclear warhead. As a theocracy, the government of Iran is meant not to serve the people whom it controls but to serve the violent and vengeful God to which it is devoted. Thus, no matter how much the people of Iran suffer under economic sanctions, Iranian leaders will persist in their defiance of international authorities to accomplish their publicly-proclaimed religious objective: the utter annihilation of the United States and Israel.

Iran only offers to negotiate to buy time and prevent a foreign strike from crippling its nuclear program.

For the same reason, nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran have been fruitless. In fact, they have emerged as a positive for Iran’s nuclear program. Negotiations have consumed years of precious time, yet have won no concessions from Iranian authorities. And over these many years, Iran has been slowly building a nuclear weapon. Today, Iran is closer than it has ever been to acquiring a nuclear capability, and neither Israel nor the United States can afford to bear the devastating loss-of-life and the catastrophic economic costs that would be incurred by a nuclear strike. However, there is still time for the United States to play its winning hand.

Towards the end of World War II, imperial Japan refused to capitulate to the Allies’ demand for an unconditional surrender. Because of this, a troubling choice lay before the Allied Forces. A full-scale invasion and suppression of the Japanese Islands would take the lives of more than a million Americans and even more Japanese. However, by choosing to drop atomic bombs upon Japan, the Allies made a hard but necessary decision that saved millions in the long run. Similarly, a devastating preemptive strike upon Iran’s military installments, missile stockpiles, and nuclear facilities would save the lives of more than seven million Israelis, who would otherwise be at the mercy of Iran’s dangerous weaponry and zealous pursuit of jihadist genocide.

The stakes are too high for the global community to accept anything less than a comprehensive dismantling of Iran’s offensive capabilities. A preventative strike would eliminate or severely limit Iran’s ability to attack its enemies and would thus inaugurate a lasting peace and security for Israel and the world.

Timothy Geithner, President Obama's treasury secretary.

The Obama administration has long pushed the idea that the wealthy must bear the majority of the American tax burden. However, until now, the primary line of reasoning behind this ideological push is that the rich must contribute their “fair share” for the good of all Americans. However, a recent comment by Timothy Geithner, President Obama’s treasury secretary, has indicated a significant shift from the typical populist reasoning.

“Because if you don’t try to generate more revenues through tax reform, if you don’t ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to — the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security.”

Referring to taxation as a means of essentially purchasing the “privilege” of being American is utterly ridiculous, as it counters the bedrock principles of our country’s founding. America has always been about working hard and producing your own success. This is clear when we read the Declaration of Independence, which promises the “pursuit” of happiness and of personal achievement to all Americans. However, in Timothy Geithner’s view, being American is about paying for your success, not the production of that success itself.

Being American is so much more than being successful, however. In fact, financial success contributes very little to being a good American. Someone who is active in his community and who loves his countrymen and his country but makes very little money should not be seen as anything less than a wealthy man who does the same. However, in the minds of Timothy Geithner and President Obama, wealth – not the lack thereof – reduces one’s status as an American.

It seems that the Obama administration is having great difficulty finding a good reason behind its continuous push to scalp wealthy and middle-class Americans. Portraying tax payment as a prerequisite to being American is just another example of this scrambling effort to justify failed policy and ideology with faulty reasoning.

Eliminating all nukes won’t make us safer

In his new budget, President Obama has asked the Pentagon to cut the United States nuclear arsenal by a whopping 80%. This move would reduce our nuclear arsenal from 5,000 to only 300 or 400 weapons. Although having good intentions, this move is a misguided mistake that is based upon a faulty line of reasoning. If indeed these cuts are approved, the security and safety of the United States will be in serious peril.

Destroying our nuclear arsenal will not stop other nations and groups from producing their own. Pictured: a US nuclear missile.

To justify cuts in nuclear arsenals, liberals like President Obama argue that having fewer of these weapons in the US will make the world a safer place. However, this is utterly false. Most developed nations possess large arsenals of nuclear weapons for their own protection, and as the years pass, more and more nations are enjoying access to nuclear technology and weaponry. The spread of nuclear technology is too widespread for the United States to suppress, and because of this, any reductions in US arsenals will not be reciprocated by other nations.

Reducing the nuclear arsenal of the United States will have immediate and devastating impacts upon the ability of our nation to defend itself. The politics of nuclear weapons largely center upon the concept of MAD, or mutually assured destruction. Under this theory, two nuclear powers do not attack each other with nuclear weapons due to the imminent threat of complete and utter annihilation on both sides. However, this theory only remains valid if both nuclear powers keep large nuclear arsenals that can effectively blanket the territory of the opposing power and wipe them off the face of the earth. Should one nation abandon nuclear weapons or slash their arsenal dramatically, annihilation would no longer be a concern for the other nation, and thus the nuclear option would be much more tempting in a time of crisis.

In a speech in Prague back in 2009, President Obama called for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons around the world. Although this is surely a noble objective, it is an unrealistic and naive one as well. Nuclear weapons are already widely disseminated throughout the world, and even if all of the nuclear powers in the world participated in a massive global weapons drawdown, nuclear technology would still exist. If Iran or another dictatorial nation illegally acquired or produced long-range nuclear weapons in this scenario, nations like the United States and even Russia would be powerless to stop a massive reign of terror in the Middle East by Iran, which would use its nuclear capability to destroy Israel and subjugate the entirety of the Middle East under its radical Islamic control. A comparative analogy to this is to the Ottoman Empire during the early modern era. As Western Europe developed new military and industrial technologies during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, conservative Islamist leaders in the Ottoman Empire saw this new technology as impure and unnecessary. In their rejection of the most advanced technology of the time, the Ottoman Empire – formerly the hegemonic power of Europe – entered a period of social, economic, and political decline and was disparagingly titled the “sick man of Europe” by other rapidly advancing European nations. Inevitably, the Ottomans’ technological inferiority forced them to depend upon other nations for their protection, and thus the formerly great Ottoman Empire lost its power and authority in the world to other European nations like Britain and France.

The best way to keep America safe is to do what the Ottomans refused to do a few hundred years ago. We must expand our current nuclear arsenal and embark upon a program of modernization to eliminate old, defunct weaponry and to create new, more powerful weapons for our arsenal. This, not utter disarmament, will keep America safe in a world of growing danger.

Again the crony-in-chief?

It is unacceptable for our president to buy votes and campaign donations with taxpayer dollars.

First, it was Solyndra. Then, it was Lightsquared. Then after that, it was the vaccine that we didn’t need. Time and time again, President Obama has displayed his disturbing inclination to spend precious taxpayer dollars on the projects of his campaign’s financial supporters. In another example of outright corruption, our irresponsible leader has given billions of dollars to major campaign organizers through his various stimulus programs.

After pulling support for President Obama back in 2008 through his organization Clean Tech for Obama, Sanjay Wagle received a seat in the inner circle of the Obama administration just as the president embarked upon his massive energy stimulus plan. Interestingly enough, over the next three years, the Obama administration gave a whopping $2.4 billion of funding to companies in which Mr. Wagle’s former employer, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had also invested.

The Washington Post in a Tuesday article about this topic also points out that “$3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.” Of course, the Energy Department has insisted that none of these grants were political in nature, assuring that the money was given based upon merit. However, I personally put very little stock in this, as the Obama administration blew almost half a billion dollars on Solyndra, the business plan of which was questioned from the very beginning by pretty much everyone except the White House. There is no motive for such a poor investment besides political gain.

By the way, I will have my latest webcast up and running sometime this weekend. Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel to receive updates whenever a video is posted!

As I mentioned in a recent article, the United Nations has called for a global tax to pay for worldwide socialist welfare policies. However, in the article, I held out hope that developed nations would not fall prey to the UN’s assault of the free market and capitalism. Unfortunately, White House economic council director Gene Sperling has just crushed my naively optimistic hopes…

“He [President Obama] supports corporate tax reform that would reduce expenditures and loopholes, lower rates for people investing and creating jobs in the U.S., due so further for manufacturing, and that we need to, as we have the Buffett Rule and the individual tax reform, we need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens.”

This statement is deeply concerning. President Obama’s support of a global minimum tax lends credibility to the United Nations’ radical push for a global world tax, which would fund a massive worldwide social welfare program that would strangle economic development and contribute to the very problems that it would attempt to solve. This is a very concerning matter, and I will continue to keep track of it in the coming days and weeks.

In blog news, I will be working on a video commentary to be released on YouTube sometime at the end of this week or next week. To receive updates from my YouTube channel, subscribe to my channel here. If you have any concerns or questions that you would like me to address in this video, please let me know by commenting on this blog post.

Obama's fiscal responsibility in a nutshell. Source: USDebtClock.org

Last night, the White House officially released President Obama’s budget proposal for the year. Sadly, under this plan, excessive spending will continue, and the wealthy will be forced to bear the costs of our government’s voracious appetite for tax dollars. Despite his pledge to soak the rich, President Obama has failed to cut the deficit and has thus broken his promise with the American people. Back in 2009, our leader promised to “halve the deficit” by the end of his presidency. However, under the president’s proposal, the deficit will actually grow from that of the 2011 budget.

President Obama has failed in two main ways. Firstly, he has proven utterly incapable at cutting spending. The president’s proposal cuts $360 billion from entitlements but does so over the course of ten years. Once President Obama is reelected, he could easily pass a second budget that eliminates or reverses these cuts altogether, as a one-year budget plan has no real authority over an entire decade of spending. Beyond this, however, no real cuts exist in his plan. More government subsidies and massive “shovel-ready” infrastructure programs eat up the savings from crippling defense cuts and the end of the Afghanistan War.

President Obama has also failed to create jobs. In spite of his growth of government entitlements and infrastructure projects, the number of people not participating in the labor force has skyrocketed, and officially measured unemployment numbers have only slightly decreased. To top this off, Obama’s stimulus programs and government bailouts have only made the situation worse for the industries they were intended to save. The economy is now sicker than ever, yet President Obama keeps prescribing the wrong drug.

I think that President Obama should try a new approach. He should slash entitlement spending and preserve the integrity of our nation’s defense by keeping defense cuts to a minimum. Along with reiterating his promise to halve the deficit, President Obama should promise to cut taxes across the board and to support a balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, our liberally-minded president will never do any of this, but we always have 2012 to look forward to.

Now that Rick Santorum has proven himself as a viable candidate, he needs to weather the increased scrutiny that comes with his new front-runner status. Pictured: Santorum addressing a crowd in Missouri Tuesday.

On Tuesday night, presidential contender Rick Santorum pulled off three stunning victories in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. Although these are all non-binding caucuses, Santorum’s startling wins have given him fresh cash and momentum, both of which will allow Santorum to present a challenge to Mitt Romney in the upcoming Michigan primary (Feb. 28). Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich’s abysmal performances in these three states have revealed some serious difficulties in his candidacy, while Ron Paul’s continued losses are precluding his ability to become a major player in this race.

Rick Santorum is well-positioned to accumulate a significant windfall of cash between now and Michigan’s primary, which will serve as a test of his ability to challenge Mr. Romney on his home turf. Romney was born and raised in Michigan, and his father served as governor for the state for three terms. However, Santorum’s pro-manufacturing initiatives such as a 0% tax on manufacturing plants and equipment will be received with open arms by Michigan, which is the historical heartland of American manufacturing. Additionally, Rick Santorum has received the backing of the Red White and Blue Fund, a well-funded super PAC that has produced several advertisements in support of the former US senator.

Newt Gingrich’s awful performances in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri for now has relegated him to the bottom tier of candidates. Gingrich’s campaign will have to run on fumes until the next debate, which is later this month. By then, however, it could be too late for Newt to revive his candidacy anyway. Voters are concerned about the baggage Newt carries, particularly regarding his relationship to Freddie Mac, the government mortgage giant. Santorum appears to be a less flawed candidate with a much better chance of succeeding against Romney in Michigan, so it is unlikely that voters will split the vote and give Romney an easy win and Gingrich a second chance.

Santorum is shaping up to be an excellent candidate who has largely been gaffe-free. Hopefully, Mr. Santorum will survive his trip through the media meat grinder and will make it to the Republican National Convention as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

Liberals hate the Constitution because it specifically guards against the construction of an entitlement society. Art by Jon McNaughton.

In a New York Times article yesterday, columnist Adam Liptak proclaims that the influence of the US Constitution is waning. He claims that amending the Constitution is too difficult and that the document itself is too old. Mr. Liptak also bemoans the fact that the Constitution does not defend “rights” such as the right to travel and the entitlements of health care and education. He even cites Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said that she would “not look to the United States Constitution” if she were drafting a constitution this year. However, it seems to me that both Mr. Liptak and Judge Ginsburg are completely missing the point of having a national constitution in the first place. In their view, constitutions are meant to govern the people of a nation, while in reality, these documents are meant to prevent governments from suppressing their people.

The reason that the Constitution is difficult to amend is to protect the people of the United States from aggressive government suppression. By providing a nearly immobile set of concrete guidelines for government officials, the Constitution effectively bars the usurpation of the rights of Americans by the government. It is only through a significant majority of the states that the US Constitution can be amended, and thus the average American is well-protected from radical policies and people.

Something I noticed while reading the NYT article was the harshness with which our US Constitution was described. Mr. Liptak referred to the Constitution as “terse and old,” and even had the audacity to proclaim that the document “guarantees relatively few rights,” citing the fact that healthcare and food entitlements are not protected under the Constitution.

Contrary to Mr. Liptak, I agree with the Founding Fathers that the role of government is limited to governing. Government was never intended by our Framers to become a massive entitlement society that scalps the well-off in order to foster the dependency of the masses. Rather, the Founders wanted a government that would ensure that every citizen has an equal opportunity to personally create their own wealth and seek out success. Liberals, on the other hand, want a government that ensures “social justice” by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, the liberal vision of equality never manifests itself in a positive manner. In the Soviet Union, for example, socialist policies equalized the wealth of most Russians, but did so by dramatically reducing the quality of life for all. Meanwhile, the government officials that dictated these social engineering schemes profited enormously. America’s Founders wisely foresaw the devastating crises that accompany entitlement societies, and – consequentially – the Founding Fathers did their utmost to defend the freedom of the individual when they wrote the Constitution.

The Constitution is a timeless document that should not be replaced. By defending the freedom of the individual from the oppressive grip of government, it enables the continued success of the United States and perpetuates the values of freedom that made this country great.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers