Category Archives: Uncategorized

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”- Thomas Jefferson, primary author The Declaration of Independence

What we are now seeing in France is a reflection of the worst of human fallibilities, most of which are embedded in the tenets of socialism.  The failing way of Spain, Greece and Ireland can be explained mostly by the massive entitlement spending which has ensured government stewardship over the lives of the people from cradle to grave, and then some after that.  As a major player in the indebted EU, France was to help lead in the movement of austerity and responsibility.  Instead, the people of France have chosen to do the exact opposite.

In opposition to actually taking responsibility, the people have furthered their dependence on government by electing their first Socialist president in seventeen years, Francois Hollande.  Monsieur Hollande’s announced agenda will increase taxes, government spending, its debt, and further push Europe toward the brink of collapse.  What has happened there, and has a significant probability of occurring in the United States, is the political game of ensuring voter dependency- where votes are bought with utopian promises that can not be kept, whose failure of fruition will ultimately doom the very citizens that voted for their implementation.

Before delving into the inherent problems of expanded government influence in the lives of its people, let us examine some of Presidente Hollande’sagenda:

• A seventy-five percent tax on income earners over 1M euro (40% on earners over 100,000 Euro income).
• Increase government spending by 20B Euro- a fitting proposition for a country that faces a public debt consuming 80% of its GDP
•  A return to a 35 hour work week and lowering the retirement age back from 62 to 60- not surprising considering the riots we’ve seen amongst the young and ultra-privileged in Europe

After reading this short list one can understand this writer’s doubts on the ability of Monsieur Hollande to deliver prosperity to France through the implementation of these campaign promises, as they will surely plague the nation’s already weakened economy for a generation.  But there is a more significant problem.

The newly elected French president, a socialist, Monsieur Hollande’s agenda will only further dependence of his citizens on the state- and simultaneously weaken both. (telegraph.co.uk)

There will always be people in the world that cannot fend for themselves, and it is human nature to feel inclined to take care of these people, and we should.  As a society it is our duty to care for those, especially children, who may be plagued with hardships so excessive in number or so unforgiving that they cannot be overcome.  But too often, it is a person’s choice to give up when faced with the realities of the world.  It is his choice to look to government to take care of him, even if he has the ability to do so regardless.  Politicians capitalize on those who make this choice by making pie in the sky promises like the new French President; implementing policies that ultimately go against the grain of logic when the actual plan of governance is analyzed.  They place the expenses of these programs, which are massive, on the backs of other citizens who are vilified for their wealth and success.   And simultaneously, it never dawns on said politicians that this approach will have a dire effect on the country’s prosperity and morale.  The votes for these programs are then essentially bought at the expense of others.  And currently in the United States, President Obama is the highest bidder.

The Obama campaign’s newly released internet marketing tool is “The Life of Julia”.  This serves as an advertisement of President Obama and his party’s government-centered ideology, cementing their departure from President Bill Clinton’s New Left policies that once proclaimed the era of big government over.  In Julia, we see a young woman whose life progress- ranging from ages 3 to 67- is charted by her participation in welfare state programs championed but still unreformed by Democrats.  Free birth control, business loans (meaningless under the weight of Obamacare) and social security are just some of the programs highlighted in this ad.  Naturally we are not told how any of this is paid for (higher taxes) nor are we informed how Social Security and medicare will somehow be stabilized in the latter part of this century.

But the soundness of these expectations is not the issue.  The issue is the ad’s implication that this young woman’s life will be shaped by government programs and not her autonomous decisions.  Is this the America the President envisions, a nation of serfs who depend on his initiatives to survive, as if they cannot do so on their own?  The United States has made it this far without turning to European styled Democratic-Socialism.  Why would we need it now?

And that’s the rub.  The United States is home to the most innovative and self-reliant people in the world.  But when these false promises of comfort and security are dangled in front of our eyes, some people, maybe even a majority, will flock to that safety net during these hard times.  President Obama is taking advantage of the continuing economic stagnancy by using the fears of those who struggle as an end to rationalize his crafting of a leviathan government defined by unregulated spending on programs that will be financed on the backs of other citizens, deemed the wealthy.  When such pledges are made, citizens and then their children begin a life of dependency that ultimately begets subservience to the politician who ensures them he will spread the wealth, and force others to pay their fair share.   The public’s mobility is then limited, and he or she is set on a path hitched to a set trajectory as displayed by “Julia.”  In Mr. Obama’s America, the government shapes the lives of the citizenry- and their freedom of choice and expansion of wealth and industry is then suffocated.

As we approach November, it is imperative for Governor Romney and republicans to hammer the problems of this radical agenda home.  The President ultimately has a vision, one that will remake America in the image of our European brethren: where personal responsibility is no longer an imperative in the life of a citizen, and an ever expansive nanny state’s insistence on regulating most aspects in our lives will finally lead to its fiscal self-implosion.  Mr. Obama’s vision will lead to this disaster from which there may be no return.

We must always foster programs that help those who are in need and struggle for reasons beyond their own control.  But the United States government, currently plagued by debt and ineffectiveness, cannot shoulder the burden itself.  There are avenues through churches and other institutions that can raise and distribute aid and welfare in a streamline of efficiency, as opposed to the bungled bureaucracy of the federal government.  There is nothing wrong with a safety net provided by our elected officials- but once politicians begin to take advantage of the pleas of those in need, and use those pleas to advance their own agenda to enlarge welfare programs for citizens who simply choose to receive their benefits, the existence of the United States as the safeguard to an autonomous citizenry is threatened.

President Obama wishes to remain in office, and he cannot do so based on poor state of the country which has endured through his first term.  But as we saw in France this past week, there seems to be another campaign approach he can take to reach that goal.

– John P. Burns

“A handful of soldiers is always better than a mouthful of arguments.”– Georg C. Lichtenberg, eighteenth century German scientist and satirist.

September 11, 2001 changed the United States, and the world, in as many ways as one could fear.  Our nation has been plagued by a war not of its choosing for ten years.  Today, we see ourselves sickened by the images of maimed or dead American soldiers still returning home from foreign wastelands in the Middle East- as we question what will be gained from our continued presence there after our initial response to the horrific attacks of 9/11.  Not since the fall of Saddam Hussein and the day of the first free elections in Iraq were Americans able rejoice as they did May 1st last year with the success of the mission to locate and kill Osama Bin Laden.  And even with those feelings of jubilation, relief and even closure, the American political class cannot get out of its own way to politicize the issue- turning an American triumph into a divisive argument once again.        

One could date this display of gross politicization back to last May when the news of the mission’s success broke.  Democrats immediately flocked to a party rallying cry, after brief platitudes celebrating the SEALs, of malice and vindictiveness toward President George W. Bush.  After eight years of demonizing the former president, they wanted to take it a step further, making the claim (to paraphrase) “what Bush couldn’t do in eight years, Obama did in two.”  Thankfully, the average American keeps him or herself well informed, and was able to see through this political parlor trick; it had been noted time after time that Mr. Obama has kept intact most of President Bush’s anti-terrorism measures.  These measures played a vital role in the gathering of intelligence on Bin Laden’s location. 

Unfortunately though, after their own brief platitudes celebrating the SEALs, Republicans chose to lower themselves to the Democrats’ level- immediately crediting President Bush for a job well done while simultaneously dismissing President Obama as a man who simply was in the right place at the right time.  Neither of these approaches to this matter bestows the proper, and necessary, credit due to the men and women who have served in the War on Terror: the soldiers that have strategically placed us in the position to carry out the mission, the intelligence operatives who gained the information through years of interrogation and the dangerous pursuit of one of the most vicious terrorist network in the world, and of course the SEALs who assassinated Bin Laden and completed the mission successfully.

President Obama’s National Security Team watches in suspense as SEAL Team Six Carries out its mission in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A resounding achievement for our armed forces and the President at the time, now turned into a divisive campaign argument for both sides of the political divide. (www.ABCnews.com)

Although I paint both parties here with a broad brush, and there are those who did not choose to try to capitalize on this event as shamelessly as I depict, the display we have seen this week is much worse than anything from last year.  Now, instead of Democrats choosing to taunt President Bush, party attack dogs and even the President have gone after Governor Romney.  A new Obama re-election ad was released last week, with President Bill Clinton narrating over shots of President Obama and his tough decision to give the go ahead on the mission to get Bin Laden.  Though the President insisted last year he would not “spike the football” by releasing photos of the dead Bin Laden, it seems his end zone dance is much worse, with the ad going as far to imply the accusation that his Republican rival would not have made the same decision. 

Unfortunately, again, Republicans have lowered themselves to this petty party bickering, where Governor Romney chose to meet President Obama head on, and make this statement in response to the ad: “Even Jimmy Carter would make that decision.”  Does that childish chide seem Presidential Mr. Romney?  And with all due respect Governor, who gives a damn what President Jimmy Carter would have done?  The man has been out of office for thirty years.  If Republicans are to cry foul over needless attacks on President Bush, then let’s please leave Mr. Carter (1977-1981) out of the conversation all together.  I understand this is an election year, and there is the natural need to meet every argument and every attack with full force to make sure one does not look cowardly or inept.  But let us for once elevate the conversation.  We have already seen President Obama fail to bring “Hope and Change” to Washington- Mr. Romney should do his best to pick up where Mr. Obama failed. 

Granted, any political strategist will make the claim this not a perfect world, and conceding that much ground in a debate is a sure fire way to hand over a big win to the administration.  That conclusion may have been correct, at least until Monday.  Monday, former and current Navy Seals criticized the administration for the ad released last week, and with the reaction shared by this writer, considered it beneath the President to “spike the football” over the success of the Bin Laden mission.  As stated in the article:

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’

This sentiment seems to reflect the feeling of the American citizenry, whose approval of the mission gave the President a six point bump in approval rating last Spring after the mission, but these numbers quickly came back down to earth as the initial jubilation had worn off.  At this point in time Americans still saw themselves in a stagnant economy, fighting to make ends meet as the unemployment rate in the United States sat above 9%.  Governor Romney should have taken the high road, and instead of invoking irrelevant memories of President Carter’s ineptitude, he could have put together a statement akin to this:

“If the President chooses to pat himself on the back over the Bin Laden raid as he campaigns across the country in place of governing it, good for him.  I’ll be sure to be the Commander-in Chief who celebrates our service men and women who risk their lives to get the job done, as well as propose a responsible Defense budget that will keep our soldiers safe and well-equipped to carry out such a mission again if needed.”

These simple words would congratulate SEAL team six while simultaneously admonishing the president for his weak fiscal policies which currently plague the nation.  If he is to win in November, Mr. Romney needs to remember to bring the discussion back to the issues the American people face on a daily basis, instead of getting into a mudslinging match a challenger going up against the White House will surely lose. 

The hypocrisy Americans see in their politicians is often disregarded, noted as a cost of doing business in a peaceful Democratic-Republic.  Today we see that hypocrisy shamelessly displayed on both sides of the aisle regarding the Bin Laden raid- both parties too eager to credit itself on managing a job well done, and as a result minimalizing the roles of the brave men and women who did the real work in the first place. 

– John P. Burns

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”- First Amendment, The United States Constitution

As we enter the sixth month period of non-stop general election coverage, there are few issues that will go unexamined by the Romney Campaign.  As the challenger to the incumbent, Mr. Romney will need to illustrate his own vision of leadership on every issue concerning the American people.  Aside from his campaign against President Obama, Governor Romney will need to lead the Republican charge for legislative contenders as House and Senate elections loom.  Just as it happens, our liberal friends in the House chamber have served up a softball for the governor to take a big swing at. 

On Wednesday April 18^th, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) proposed a joint resolution in the House, poorly named The People’s Rights Amendment.  The amendment, a very short one if you care to click the link, is aimed at limiting the right of free speech, and therefore assembly, to what is defined in the Constitution as the singular “people, person, or citizen.”  The amendment then claims that such a right does not extend to “corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities.”  As any person who has taken Social Studies at the age of ten would know, there are few truths in the United States as sacred and undeniable as the right to free speech and assembly.  With this bill, Rep. McGovern and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi seek to limit those rights.

The Framers' intention when forming the Constitution was never to limit free speech to the lone indivudal, but any person or group as a whole. (American Gallery.wordpress.com)

At this point in an election year, one would assume Ms. Pelosi’s experience from her leadership in the formation of the ever unpopular Obamacare would give her pause before allowing a bill to be proposed that would demolish the First Amendment.  The People’s Rights Amendment is not only an affront to federalism, but to the senses of all American citizens.  Yes, that word is used correctly, citizens.  Citizens often assemble and voice their opinions.  Whether it be Occupy Wall Street demonstrating the effects of a lack of good hygiene at Zucotti Park, or the Wall Street Journal editorial board(part of a corporation) endorsing Mitt Romney for president, the government has no right to infringe on any group’s right to express its opinion in open air or through the printed word. 

In a transparent attempt to take a stand, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. McGovern have developed this resolution to combat the Supreme Court decision over Citizens United, which allows the free flow of money to campaign super PACs from any entity, including that of corporations.  This amendment would prevent these corporations from using their money, and freedom of expression, to support whichever candidates they feel are best suited to hold elected office.  Though that debate still rages after the Court’s decision two years ago, this amendment does far worse than infringe on the free speech of corporations and their employees.  Much like Obamacare, it again changes the relationship between the government and the citizen as we know it.    

The first part of the resolution contains the claim that “people, person or citizen as used in the constitution does not include corporations…”  Unfortunately for those who drafted this resolution, using these singular terms in our Standard English would not protect the right of free speech for any group of people, as no group of people is technically one citizen.  Therefore, the right to assembly, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, is effectively thrown out the window.  This new amendment would give the Federal government, and whichever party is in power, the ability to limit the right to assembly of any group, not just the specifically named, and always vilified corporations. 

Thankfully to amend the Constitution, two-thirds of the House would have to vote this into law, and barring the largest and most shocking electoral upset in recorded history, there will not be nearly enough turnover in 2012 for such a bill to pass.  Naturally one would be disturbed that representatives in the United States Congress would propose such a bill, but there is a silver lining as well: more campaign ammunition for Gov. Romney.

Whether or not President Obama would support this- and seemingly he would be too intelligent to damage his re-election hopes in doing so- this is an issue that could be used to define the Democrats over the next six months.  The fact that it is supported by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gives this attack added weight as she is a significant leader in her party’s power structure.  President Romney and Republican Party leaders can use it to their advantage in the general election against the president, along with advancing their goal to widen the Republican lead in the House and gain a majority in the Senate.  According to the Real Clear Politics Poll Average, Republicans have a slim 1.4% lead over Democrats on the generic congressional ballot.  This bill, compounded with Obamacare, provides additional evidence of the Democrats’ insistence in treading on the Constitution, the rights of the people (ironically so given the amendment’s name) and their own transformation into a party favoring totalitarianism; hell bent on holding power over the hearts and minds of its citizens. 

The Democrats’ determination in portraying corporations as some evil board of directors is part of the problem that has defined the Obama administration the past three years.  This approach has led to divisive rhetoric aimed at our most vulnerable citizens, a failure to propose tax policies that would promote growth and reform, and pie in the sky jobs plans that never came to fruition.  Our stifled growth in the eighteen months after the 08-09 Recession ranks at historic lows- a divergence from past periods after a recession in which the United States has roared back in its economic progress and gross GDP.

All of this can be tied to the government-centered ideology advanced by the Obama administration, its congressional allies and now what is currently embodied in one poorly written resolution to amend the Constitution.  It is time for The People’s Rights Amendment to get the negative attention it deserves.  Governor Romney and Republicans can use it to ensure that a bill with such overreach and disregard for the principles this county was founded on will only serve as a final act of hubris displayed by this generation’s Democrats, shortly before the collective hammer of rejection is levied in election booths this coming November.

– John P. Burns

“It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program- on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off- than on any positive task.”- F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

The first act of The Fight for the Presidency is all but over.  With Sen. Rick Santorum’s gracious exit from the Republican presidential field, Governor Mitt Romney has all but officially sealed the deal.  Although no less than twenty minutes after Santorum’s announcement Newt Gingrich announced he would be the “conservative candidate” to take the fight down to Florida, Mr. Romney will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.  It has been a tough slog for Mr. Romney since the summer.  He was the frontrunner from the beginning and had to fend off a wide array of challengers to reach this point in the campaign.  And the frontrunner doesn’t always win- one can ask Secretary of State Hilary Clinton about that statement.   Instead of sharing in Rush Limbaugh’s lament over the “establishment” victory, let all conservatives tip our hats to Mr. Romney for a hard fought victory; the first of what will be a three act play in the race for President.

Stave I: In a year where conservatives came out of the woodwork to the right of Mr. Romney, who we all forget was considered the most conservative candidate in 2008, the governor was able to temper his own conservatism with practical policy arguments.  He executed a country-wide strategy allowing him to seriously contend for delegates in every state primary.  This, coupled with his challengers self-destructive campaigns, allowed him to prove to an extensive majority of voters so far in the process he was the man for the job.  Despite the far right’s claims that the primary battle was far from over after Wisconsin, the comparisons to halftime of a football game failed to acknowledge that entering the locker room Messrs. Santorum and Gingrich were down by five touchdowns.  Now with Mr. Santorum suspending his campaign, the path is clear for the former Massachusetts Governor to reach the 1144 delegates needed before Tampa.

Last week President Obama attacks Paul Ryan's efforts to restore fiscal sanity in the United States. It is so far the most venomous of what will be a series of negative campaign attacks by the President.

Stave II:  This is the period of the campaign between now and the conventions.  We know Mr. Romney will be the nominee and the remaining votes cast may just be a formality, but these trials will serve as an important exercise in Presidential politics for the former governor.  Here, Mr. Romney will need to continue to campaign in these states, but instead of spending money on TV ads to battle his challengers, he needs to deliver a clear message of his own vision in contrast to that of President Obama’s, while simultaneously disparaging the President’s record of governance.  In order to win the Presidency Mr. Romney must gain ground with independents in the high valued swing states.  Votes are still to be cast in primaries in Indiana, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.  Mr. Romney will spend a significant amount of time in these states to lay the tracks for his national campaign in the fall.  His team, as well as congressional Republicans like Paul Ryan, will begin the campaign push by outlining a plan to combat the President’s seeming insistence that the United States function as a “government-centered society”, a label Mr. Romney skillfully employed in Wisconsin in what will serve as a campaign charge all the way to November.

In turn, the President began his campaign in the fall with the Obama bus tour across the Midwest, kicking off his crusade to achieve “fairness” in the United States.  In hopes of hammering this theme home, the formerly hopeful Obama and his administration will devote their time to campaigning in the negative.  In his recent speeches attacking the Paul Ryan budget and Supreme Court, we have seen Mr. Obama err on the side of viciousness.  This anger will be directed at Mr. Romney, and the “rich folks” who President Obama views as an excellent scapegoat for the woes of the country.  The strategy has been formulated as a three step attack by the Obama camp: demonize the rich, paint Romney as one of them, divide and conquer.    

Stave III:  The final act will include Mr. Romney’s VP selection (Christie, Haley, Jindal, Portman, Rice, Rubio, West ect.), both conventions, debates and then the final stretch on the stump through November 6^th.  All citizens should brace themselves, for this will be an ugly ugly campaign.  The “Chicago-way” the President has employed in office will come off like a Disney World theme ride in comparison to his team’s strategy for the months before the election.  He will continue to seek victory by trying to divide the country into the classes of have and have nots, as opposed to Governor Mitch Daniels’ positively crafted outlook for our citizens as the “haves and soon to haves.”  Hope and change will not play on the liberal side of the debate.  It will use terms like rich and poor or Wall St and Main St, doing everything in their power to construct an argument pitting our own citizens against each other.  Mr. Romney will have two choices to fight that strategy: dive down into the depth of depravity the Obama campaign team will be operating at, sending attack add after attack add against a sitting president.  Or he can elevate the argument, as Mr. Obama seemingly did in 2008, and work to restore the American experiment that places the emphasis of importance on the individual, and letting society coalesce behind its own future.

We now know how Act I will end in The Race for the Presidency.  The second and third acts are predictable in how our major players will perform.  For the final scene it is too early, and close, to call.

– John P. Burns

“You gotta know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.  Know when to walk away, and know when to run.”- Kenny Rogers, “The Gambler”

Considering Senator Rick Santorum’s populist approach to this primary, you’d be surprised to hear his education credentials.  He is one of two candidates to hold both an MBA and J.D., the other being Mitt Romney, and would carry that MBA into the White House as only the second President to ever hold this distinction, the other being President George W. Bush.  Naturally, Mr. Santorum would not want to be linked with either man considering the lives of privilege they have led, as he continuously positions himself as the working man’s candidate for President.  But one cannot run from his past, or his education for that matter.  And someone as well educated as Mr. Santorum should understand that his current tact as a candidate is not only foolish and deconstructive for his campaign, but the conservative cause in general. 

Right now Mr. Santorum is seeing the beginning of the end to his miracle run.  And as I imagine for any man gunning for the highest office on the entire planet, feeling it begin to slip away is no easy thing to deal with.  His campaign so far has been a surprising administration of political execution.  His Iowa win came seemingly out of nowhere, employing the Scott Brown approach to a state wide campaign fueled by a Chrysler pickup and intimate moments with voters.  His plain spoken appeal and central campaign themes hark back to the days of Andrew Jackson- positioning himself as the man between the two Harvard Law guys (Messrs. Obama and Romney) as the one candidate for President who can relate to and understand the current plight of our declining “middle class.”  Once this was established in his campaign, and Mr. Santorum emerged as a major player out of Iowa, the task was set to hammering the frontrunner.

And there is nothing wrong with that.  There is no doubt M. Romney’s central fault, specifically for this campaign, is the issue of healthcare.  Considering the President we are trying to defeat is a big government liberal whose central legislative achievement is what may be deemed an unconstitutional healthcare upheaval, it is a real problem that the frontrunner from the outset is incredibly weak on the issue.  Sen. Santorum has used this as his central attack on Governor Romney the whole campaign, as well he should have.  But now as the delegates continue to amass for Mr. Romney as we move towardTampa, “true conservatives” are beginning to coalesce around him. 

Governor Romney is congratulated by Rep. Paul Ryan in Wisconsin on his 3 primary sweep Tuesday. Ryan, as well as other conservatives, are beginning to voice their support for Romney to start to bring an end to the primary process.

Initially, from what we heard from conservative radio heavyweights like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, the people supporting Romney in the party were the “establishment types.”  Men like Governor Chris Christie who didn’t understand true conservatism: Washington and political elitists far removed from the base and central struggles of the American dream.  Granted, this may be a hard sell coming from multi-millionaire radio hosts, but the reason they have that money is because they sell their opinions so well.  Somehow overnight, Chris Christie, a conservative governor in a failing liberal state, became part of “the Establishment” after holding elected office for a grand total of eighteen months.  Santorum saw his point of attack and ran with this narrative.  But as the endorsements begin to roll in for Romney from “true conservatives” like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio, it is a clear message to Mr. Santorum to close up shop.  But he’s not hearing it. 

It is a reasonable message to now send to the Senator.  Obviously no man can tell him how to live his life, but it does not take a J.D. or MBA to understand how destructive this primary has become.  President Obama, whose approval rating still sits below 50% as it has for months, now leads Governor Romney in major swing states across the board, and possesses an even larger lead over the Senator.  The image of the primary in which party heads lob grenades at each other constantly, providing the President shade from the spotlight of criticism, does not bode well for any Republican.  And now as the math clearly dictates that Mr. Santorum cannot win the nomination without a floor fight at the convention, he seems determined to take it there, arguing it will “energize the party.”  When such an obvious falsehood as this is stated by a politician, it is a result of one of two things: an abject display of ignorance or a rationalization so extreme it serves no one but himself.  In this case, it is the latter.

This is the point in a presidential campaign where the walls begin to close in on the underdog who overachieved, and the dedication to country and party that drove Mr. Santorum into the Lion’s den of presidential politics is hijacked by hubris and ego.  Even speaker Gingrich, who has made similar claims in the past about a floor fight inTampa, seems to be backing off now with the acknowledgement of how damaging it would be to the Party.  Mr. Santorum has had a great run, and certainly advanced the conservative cause in his arguments throughout the campaign.  But he has also made drastic mistakes to contribute to his own undoing:

• Arguing with college students about homosexuality in New Hampshire only two days after his victory in Iowa- establishing the deconstructive narrative that Mr. Santorum is not only the social issue candidate, but the extreme social conservative.
• Coming out as the sternest and therefore most ideologically driven during the contraception debate, playing into the liberal narrative that the GOP is waging a “war on women.” 
• And just recently, reprimanding New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny for misquoting him over remarks made about Mitt Romney, who in fact was accurately quoting Mr. Santorum, and then cursing at him in a heated fashion.

As in all political campaigns candidates stumble, display lapses of clarity and misspeak.  But these three instances listed, as well as the last debate, stand out as Santorum’s worst moments – moments that came in times when he was presented the chance to actually move past Romney as the nominal front runner, and never took advatnage.  The last, his attack on Jeff Zeleny, shows a man at the breaking point, who feels his candidacy slipping away and is lashing out at anyone who reminds him so.  As seen by the new wave of conservatives coming out to support him, the writing is on the wall for a Romney victory in the primaries, but a general election defeat if this nomination process goes to the floor in Tampa.  The only person who can’t read it is the good Senator from Pennsylvania, a man who now more than ever can affect the future of the Republican Party and the country.  He may not reach his original goal of attaining the Presidency, but he can help contribute to the collective goal of removing President Obama from office.  How he conducts himself over the next two and a half months will determine that outcome.

– John P. Burns

“Once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right“- The Grateful Dead, “Scarlet Begonias”

Of the many things I hoped to write about when creating this space, it had never crossed my mind I’d be writing about a suggestion made by Van Jones, the former and resigned Obama advisor for “Green Jobs” and alleged 9/11 truther.  Yet here I am, perhaps falling for some Democratic trap set for the national election, about to agree with Jones and make the case for his argument.  On Sunday’s This Week, hosted by George Stephanopoulos, the subject of Republican Vice Presidential nominee arose.  Though Republicans do not yet have an actual Presidential nominee, it can be argued Romney has all but sealed the deal.  If so, then the next logical step – after planning a campaign strategy more inspiring to the people than hallow platitudes about American exceptionalism – is to create the “shortlist” for the Vice-Presidential nominee.  At that point the usual names will fly across the wires: Governor Chris Christie, Senator Marco Rubio, etc.  One name that has not gotten such attention yet as a slam dunk pick is the name suggested by Mr. Jones on Sunday: Condoleezza Rice.

Initially, this proposal may give Republicans pause considering the fact that Ms. Rice was a prominent member of the Bush administration.  Though she was never as vilified as the triumvirate of President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Sec. Rumsfeld, she served in the role of National Security Advisor and Secretary of State to an unpopular President who will be remembered for his Foreign Policy initiatives above all else.  President Obama and his campaign team can immediately revert back to the “Bush’s fault” argument that they have intermittently (and cowardly) used to cover up his own problems in this first term.  Now, there will be arguments created to link Mr. Romney to President Bush, no doubt with allusions to “the continuation of failed policies.”  Having identified the only apparent drawback to Ms. Rice’s position on a national ticket, let us examine what she brings to the table.

Condoleezza Rice, pictured above advising President George W. Bush, would bring invaluable experience in foreign policy to a Republican Presidential ticket.

Credentials:  When running for President, especially against an incumbent, one of the biggest hurdles to overcome for a first time candidate is the issue of Foreign Policy.  You can be as learned, self-made and successful as Mr. Romney and still have little to no Foreign Policy experience in your background entering a presidential election unless you’re Dwight Eisenhower.  Despite whatever faults he may have, Mr. Obama is at an advantage in this area simply by holding the title of President of the United States.  Placing Ms. Rice on the ticket helps offset that advantage immediately.  Condoleezza Rice is a credited Doctor of political science, who served as the first female National Security Advisor and the second female and African-American Secretary of State in our nation’s history.  In the eight years of President Bush’s administration Ms. Rice became the most compassionate figure of his major advisors- an elegant face to an administration endlessly criticized by Democrats and the media for its crass approach to politics and governance.  She could conceivably discard the traditional VP role as a master of ceremonies, and resume the expanded role Dick Cheney originally brought to the 2000 campaign ticket as a seasoned veteran of foreign affairs.  Her self-reservation and erudition regarding foreign policy would be an asset on the campaign trail to Mr. Romney and his team.

Electoral Map:  If Ms. Rice were to be nominated for Vice-President, it would be the first time in the nation’s history a political party had a woman on the national ticket in consecutive elections.  Regardless of her faults as a candidate, Governor Sarah Palin provided a huge boost to a failing McCain campaign right out of the gate of the Republican convention in 2008.  McCain’s approval rating skyrocketed, particularly amongst women, and arguably he could have pulled off the win in November save for the economic collapse under the sitting Republican president.  Ms. Rice would provide such a boost serving as both a female and African-American.  Her role as a woman on the ticket would help combat the false Democratic narrative that the GOP is waging a “War on Women” in the phony contraception debate.  Her placement would also mark the first time in our nation’s history two African-Americans were on both party presidential tickets as well, helping dispute the (again) false Democratic narrative that Republicans disregard minorities in their policies.  The race factor may also limit the Obama campaign team’s attacks on Ms. Rice’s role with the Bush administration, with David Axelrod and Plouffe hesitant to bring out the propaganda howitzers against an African-American woman as respected and accomplished as Ms. Rice.  Granted, we have yet to see such restraint in the Obama Propaganda machine since January 2009, but there’s always the chance they actually emulate the civility they so often call for in the political arena.

Competition:  As stated in this space before, the Republican bench is probably stronger and more popular than the four current candidates we have for President.  Of the names kicked around by pundits the two most prominent figures have been Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ).  While both have become heavyweights in the party, neither has the credentials of Ms. Rice to bring to the ticket.  Rubio may be the best suited for helping in electoral victory as a Hispanic and Tea Party darling, but if the Tea Party and conservatives don’t rally around Romney before he picks his running mate, then Mr. Romney has much bigger problems than his running mate choice.  Also, these two men serve in prominent and powerful positions as Republicans: Rubio, a strong and articulate leader in the Senate and Christie, the no-nonsense governor fighting destructive liberal policies in a failing liberal state.  Both are examples of the successes of conservatism and will have their time for the national spotlight down the road; having both entered their respective offices in 2010, let them build up an impressive resume before either makes his move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  Rice has extensive experience in the White House and would serve as a senior advisor in her role as Vice-President, while both Rubio and Christie would simply serve as window dressing to a currently uninspiring Romney campaign.

In selecting Vice-Presidents, presidential nominees often have two choices: the electoral choice, where the second name on the ticket will help round out the respective candidates’ electoral map, or the experience choice, where the VP will serve as a balance to the ticket of a younger and/or outsider candidate.  In Condoleezza Rice Romney gets both.  Dr. Rice should receive substantial consideration from his campaign, and conservative commentators should do more to get her name out over the wires for the strategic reason of unpredictability.  The Obama campaign team is crafting their attack plan as we speak; Rice’s selection would not only throw a curveball at them, but in the words of Van Jones drive them “crazy.”  Perhaps it’s time in this election season a Republican presidential hopeful started doing that.

– John P. Burns

“But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.”– Publius, The Federalist No. 51

It is hard to remember an issue in our federal government that did not feed the beast of divisiveness.  We seldom hear the media cover a topic in politics where the hot button words of -right and left, red state and blue state, conservative and liberal- are not used ad nauseam.  While this writer has no stomach for politicians and pundits’ phony pleas for civility that once (but actually never) existed in American politics, I would like to see an issue in which people of both political spectrums come together to form an agreement over policy and implementation.  There is a chance, however slim, we may see such a miracle in the Supreme Court’s ruling on the case of Florida, et al., Petitioners v Department of Health and Human Services, et al.  This of course, is the case concerning the legality of Obamacare.

In writing this essay I must proceed cautiously.  First, there is no guarantee the law will be overturned, no less parts of the law such as the individual mandate, which has come under the most scrutiny of the court in the three hearings this week.  The Court overturning the law or just the individual mandate will be a victory for the conservative cause, but if it is done through a 5-4 majority along party lines, it will create an even more unstable situation for our currently frail country as it enters the heated presidential election season.

People rally as legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act take place at the Supreme Court in Washington. March 26, 2012. Reuters

The Justices of the Supreme Court are selected by the President when a seat on the Bench becomes available by the retirement of a sitting justice.  While there is no real “party line” for justices, each justice is usually selected by a President who shares the same ideals towards the Constitution and its role in the rule of law in the United States.    Conservatives like President George Bush choose men like Samuel Alito and John Roberts, judges who view the Constitution as a document that leaves little room for interpretation, no less imagination.  Federalism, the separation created by the Constitution in the power delegated to Federal and State governments, is usually a significant matter these justices apply to law when judging the overreach of the federal government.  President Obama and liberal presidents select justices like Sonya Sotomayor, whose interpretation of the Constitution is that of a “living document”; a school of thought that took hold at the turn of the 20^th century by the Progressives of that era such as Oliver Wendell Holmes.  Justice Sotomayor and others of her ilk feel the Constitution is up for interpretation (most notably in this case the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 3) and that of her own “life experiences” will provide a base to make more informed opinions on specific cases.  This ideology appears to stand in opposition of the traditional blindfold donned by Lady Justice in all legal disputes, regardless of circumstance and mitigating factors such as race and sex.  Through these two approaches, we see the ideological lines drawn in the Highest Court in the Land.

Our nine justices and their political tilt is obviously a serious issue in the decision of the case.  The central argument which has taken precedent over other issues regarding this massive law- a cruel and absurd 2,700 pages as noted by Justice Scalia– is the subject of the individual mandate: the all binding rule in Obamacare that the law is built upon.  The expected and predictable outcome of this law is that it will move the country closer to a single payer healthcare system, where healthcare coverage is subsidized by the federal government to the point that prices will drive employers to drop their existing plans and force insurers to go out of business.  This will ultimately leave the all-knowing and all mighty United States government to provide affordable and outstanding healthcare for 300 million people and counting.   As a result, healthcare for individuals in the United States will ultimately be subsidized by other citizens’ money.  The higher costs, usually applying to the older and sicker, will be supported by the younger and healthier.  And in order to keep this house of cards sturdy, at least until the debt crisis brings it all down, it is unsustainable unless all citizens are forced to partake in the system.  The Obama administration now realizes how ridiculous this sounds once said out loud in a courtroom, as Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argues that no one will be forced to buy healthcare insurance, but will have to pay a fine if they refuse to do so.  Leveling a fine against someone if he doesn’t do what you want him to do is a way of forcing him to do it in my mind.  And considering the way these arguments have gone over the last three days, it sounds the same to the justices as well.

I won’t rehash the skewering objections made by the conservative (as well as liberal) justices regarding the individual mandate as they have already been replayed throughout the week by the media – although my favorite is Justice Scalia questioning if the government can regulate the food market and force people to buy broccoli.  My concern for this space is over the final decision and the number of supporters.  The issue of Obamacare enveloped the country for the better part of a year, and though 2009-2010 would have been better spent by the Obama administration and a Democratic legislature crafting plans to fight the recession and the debt, it is an issue that can define the relationship between government and citizen for years to come.  The image of a partial or entire rejection of the law by a 5-4 majority, where conservative justices outvote the designated liberal justices, will paint the picture of disunity referred to above.

In December 2000, the Supreme Court issued a ruling almost as important as this one.  As the nation waited for a new President for over a month, the Court decided the Florida Presidential election re-count had gone on long passed the legal time period set by  Florida’s constitution, awarding Governor Bush Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the Presidency as a result.  Though the majority ruling was based on the law as it was written in the Florida constitution, it was a 5-4 vote split along “party lines.”  This kind of decision, where the majority bases their ruling on the existing law and the dissenters allowed their politics to play a role, is the exact opposite of what the Framer’s intended in granting Justices lifetime appointments.  Lifetime appointments for justices was a provision in the Constitution to shield them from the influence of power that may have nominated them to the bench in the first place.  The decision over Bush v. Gore set a tone of divisiveness for the coming decade, kicking Mr. Bush’s presidency off with the unmitigated hatred of the opposing party, something Democrats had forgotten about when President Obama was shown the same courtesy in 2008.  And now, we are again at an impasse.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while ambitious, is a frightfully bad law given the circumstances our country faces, most notably overwhelming debt as a result of unsustainable entitlement protections.  It was barely passed in Congress, reaching the maximum Democratic support and garnering barely any from Republicans .  If overturned, I only hope our Justices can come to an agreement in which constitutionally speaking, the government has no right to force people to purchase health insurance.  Once that is established by an encouraging and significant margin in the decision, we can move on to how the law needs to be broken down as to what is kept and what is not, barring the law is not overturned in its entirety.  But the Mandate is the ballgame.  If that is permitted to exist as written, then Federalism as we know it is no more.  Hopefully our Justices can see beyond their own political loyalties and vote on the legality of the law and nothing else.  If not, a 5-4 split will leave us entering the November elections no less healed than were are now, than we were in 2008 and even 2000.  Perhaps a court so often split down the middle can exemplify the unity this country desperately needs.

– John P. Burns

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”- Albert Einstein, formulator of the Theory of Relativity

If one were to think about the age old adage that politicians “campaign in poetry and govern in prose,” the image of President Obama would not escape you.   In 2008, then-Senator Obama’s campaign was well disciplined and ran on all cylinders, no part more so than his oratory on the stump which literally made voters swoon in his presence.  Few swoon in response now to President Obama, particularly because the divisive campaign rhetoric that the President employs is a much coarser approach than the politics of unity he championed only four years ago.  Though none of the current Republican contenders have Mr. Obama’s oratory skills, they can learn from a fellow Republican – one who, given the country’s dire fiscal situation, conveys the notion that it may be best to actually campaign in prose and leave the poetry at the door.  The Republican I speak of is Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI).

At only forty-two, the Wisconsin representative is perhaps the most mature amongst our elected officials in the nation’s capital; he is certainly one of the most serious.  Mr. Ryan chooses to recognize reality, and therefore he is able to acknowledge that there is a problem with a system that functions (for lack of a better word) while operating at an annual deficit of over one trillion dollars per year.  Mr. Ryan’s common sense approach to governance uses the statistics and actualities of the real world as evidence to the fiscal death spiral in which our country is caught.   Instead of employing empty speeches regarding the debt and making grand overtures to an always elusive remedy, Mr. Ryan has actually created a plan offering real change to confront the policies which have brought the Republic to this point, in what he deems the “the most predictable crisis we’ve ever had in this country.”

On Tuesday this week, Mr. Ryan unveiled the House Republican Budget Plan for the United States Federal Government for 2013.  The plan calls for a simpler tax code, breaking our current tax bracket system down from six brackets to just two, at twenty-five and ten percent.  It recommends a plan to reform the various problems of Medicare, arguably the biggest weight on the government’s sinking ship of insolvency, by proposing the use of the real market system to temper high costs without cutting the benefits to seniors or shifting the bill onto the shoulders of posterity.  The bill cuts discretionary spending throughout the autonomous agencies existing in our federal government which are currently run by faceless bureaucrats that function beyond the reproach of the voting citizenry.  These cuts also allow for more serious budget for Defense, which is currently being gutted for $600 Billion over the next ten years as a result of last year’s deficit reduction deal; these are the very cuts that Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, along with other military dignitaries, admitted would have dire effects on the American military.  And most importantly, the budget cuts spending by five trillion over the next decade, and though this writer is no financial wizard, these remedies all sound like warranted changes for a country in debt for fifteen trillion dollars.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveils a budget plan Tuesday that actually begins to confront the fiscal problems facing the federal government.

But this is not what Democrats would have you believe.  For the party whose leader campaigned on confronting the lavish spending and irresponsibility of Washington D.C, these politicians seem to believe that the campaign poetry does not need to be backed up with the governing prose.  Why make the hard decisions to change the policies that have put our country on this fiscal path of self-destruction when you can rehash the same baseless attacks on your opponents who are making an attempt to do so:

From Jay Carney, White House Spokesman:  “What we see in this proposal is, again, much like its predecessor, essentially a shift of money from the middle class, seniors and lower-income Americans, disabled Americans, to the wealthiest Americans.”

From a statement released by House Democrats: “a vicious plot to destroy our nation’s promise to our seniors.”

Coincidentally of course, the largest bloc of voters in the United States is seniors, so what better way to win them over than by creating an environment of fear and panic over the bill?  Does anyone honestly think Mr. Ryan, a husband and father of three, has the sinister intentions of bankrupting senior citizens, or even worse, denying them the healthcare they need?  The most important part of this plan is in fact the Medicare reforms.  The public’s current despondence with the federal government is rooted in its failure to come together and confront the problems our country faces.  Entitlement reform is the whole ball game, and Democrats are paralyzed with fear to actually confront the problems of these programs in an election year.  The Washington Post displays the true colors behind this mindset in the very first sentence of its article describing the Ryan proposal:

“House Republicans laid down a bold but risky election-year marker Tuesday, unveiling a budget proposal that aims to tame the national debt by reshaping Medicare…”

 “Bold but risky.”   I imagine when facing fifteen trillion dollars in debt, a bold plan to change damaging policies is necessary to deviate from that course.  In terms of risk, it is only risky if democrats choose to politicize these remedies rather than attempt to meet Mr. Ryan half way, or God forbid actually move forward with his proposals.  It is only risky if Democrats choose to demonize Mr. Ryan by appealing to a nation already stricken with uncertainty with accusations of the Republican’s “vicious plot.”  It is only risky if Democrats refuse to acknowledge the reality of our situation in the public conversation, and remain steadfast with the Democratic-utopian view that everything will be fine as long as we tax the rich a little more, and then spend a little more.  Proposing actual solutions to save a debt ridden super power should never be considered “risky.”  The only risk is to treat the problem as it has always been treated: by acting with ignorance, hubris and ultimately self-destruction.

For Mr. Ryan, this reaction by Democrats came as absolutely no surprise.  He is prepared to back up his plan with the cold hard facts and grim reality we face if nothing is done to change our fiscal policies; Medicare reform, decreased discretionary spending and a simpler tax code is just the tip of the ice berg.  Anyone who truly believes we can continue to coast along without recognizing the damage already done, and the deluge coming our way, seems much more determined than Mr. Ryan to formulate a vicious attack not only on our seniors but on the future of the United States.  There are of course changes that can be made in this resolution to address its weaknesses and oversights- such as the two tax brackets and what will sure be an issue over the “cutoff” point bumping your income tax from 10% to 25%.  But considering the challenge in front of us, this certainly seems like a start towards the rebuilding of the United States and strengthening its position in the world.

Despite the coming back and forth over the resolution, which will occur between both parties as well as within each party, it is obvious now that the President’s Hope and Change of 2008 was left at the door by his party and administration once Mr. Obama took the oath in January 2009.  The proper prose to back up this poetry was never apparently written.  The only change we hear about now is from a Wisconsin congressman, and it is the best chance for hope we’ve got.

– John P. Burns

“Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.” —Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winning Economist

In my current reading of Theodore Roosevelt: Preacher of Righteousness by Joshua David Hawley,  I have reached the part of the Colonel’s life where he chose to make the ill-advised attempt to run for President for a third term, challenging his handpicked successor, incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft.  President Taft had just been delivered a “shellacking” at the polls, losing 53 seats in the House to Democrats in his midterm election in 1910.  While this was not as bad as the defeat handed to President Obama in 2010, it was a categorical public repudiation of a president and his party that left Colonel Roosevelt itching to throw his “hat in the ring”.

Juxtaposed in the book with this internal party strife is the ascent of Woodrow Wilson, which also began in 1910.  Wilson, the Godfather of modern day “progressivism”, sought to develop a stronger coalition of Democrats by breaking from the restraints of the William Jennings Bryan populism they had linked themselves to in the previous two decades, resulting in failed attempts to win the White House in four consecutive elections.  He was intent on developing a more modernized Democratic Party, one that could rival and ultimately defeat the Republicans who, though in power, were falling into complete disarray.  Wilson saw an opportunity, and he would not let the moment elude him.

 In reading about these century old circumstances, it dawned on me that there is another issue for Republicans to fault the President: the failure to transform and unite the weakened Republican Party. 

Four years ago, Clinton Campaign architect James Carville wrote about the coming Democratic dominance that would last for forty years with the ascendancy of President Obama.  Republicans had been in power in the White House for five of the previous seven presidential terms, and in his logic they had worn out their welcome.  While forty years is an overstatement, Democratic dominance would not be so surprising for a sustained period of time.  American politics is cyclical, and more often than not the American public becomes disenchanted with any party in power, such a Republicans for the last quarter century.   

At the end of President Bush’s term, Republicans were faced with exactly that kind of disenchantment.  The President never felt the need to explain his polices or defend attacks against them.  His rejection of the media and other outlets he could utilize to reach the American Public ultimately turned these institutions against him.  Congressional Republicans let their leadership slip into the coma of self-indulgence, oblivious to the corruption that was spreading in the Chamber.  Republicans were in power too long, and they let it show in their nonchalance toward massive spending ventures which helped dig the gigantic hole of debt that we are in today.  Democrats took advantage of that in 2006, and ultimately in 2008 when a fresh faced Barack Obama ran against the “politics as usual” caricature of Washington.  His charisma, youth and appearance (the first African American President) led people like Carville to believe there would be actual change in the Capital.  How wrong they were.

So wrong, in fact, that President Obama and the Democrats were challenged by the American citizenry within two years of their mandate.  Though it is not odd for a siting President’s party to lose seats in his first midterm election (again, the American inclination to reject the party in power), the extent to which Democrats lost in 2010 was historical.  The president overreached with his stimulus and Obamacare, allowing the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to drive their congressional supermajority off a cliff.  In two years Mr. Obama’s radical approach to government squandered the Democrat’s opportunity to take hold of the Federal government and run the show.  Their greed and hubris got in the way of responsible governance, ignoring the country’s growing awareness and concern over the national debt and an increasingly controlling nanny state.  Now as the President scrambles for re-election by essentially ignoring half of the “accomplishments” of his first term,  this good political fortune leaves Republicans dumbfounded.   

As odd as it may sound, the President’s weakness and ineptitude as a leader has created a problem for the Republican Party.  When parties are exiled from power it allows their members, and most importantly their leaders, to restructure their approach to government to fit the challenges facing the country.  In 1910 Woodrow Wilson understood his party’s plight, and therefor plotted accordingly to draw on the emotions of the progressive reform movement to gain favor with the American public.  Insofar, we have failed to see such advancements amongst the Republicans. 

We currently are viewing a Republican Presidential primary notable for its volatility in polling, fueled by increasingly negative propaganda from all sides.  This “he said, she said” approach to a Presidential campaign is not only undeserving of the public, but completely deconstructive for the Republican brand.  Despite the failures of the Democrats in the last three years, Americans still have a bad taste in their mouth from the end of the Bush years, as congressional Republicans currently poll at an approval rating of 23%.  Whether it is Mitt Romney speaking in platitudes about American exceptionalism or Rick Santorum’s angry tone on social issues, the candidates opposing our incumbent President do little to inspire the citizenry.  Four years ago I don’t think any Republican would have imagined beating President Obama after his meteoric rise leading to the White House, and if he accomplished even half of what he promised in his first term this Republican field would be fittingly weak for this Presidential election.  But without their time in exile from political power, a time that could have been spent formulating serious advancements in reconstructing the tax code, re-evaluating our Foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East, entitlement reform, expanding our energy resources, and so on- we put forward a Republican field to the American people that differs very little from the field in 2008.  Only now, instead of pushing the country forward, men like Romney and Gingrich are forced to address the policies of a President who has reached so far left that the Bush-era Republican platform looks like relief from the policies we see today.

Though in this essay I “blame” the President for what we are seeing in the Republican race, I hope this can be taken both facetiously and seriously.  Facetiously because the President is blamed for almost everything by conservatives like myself, and it is ridiculous to actually blame him for this weak roster of candidates we have trotted out before the American people for the last year.  Though at the same time, it is a serious critique of Mr. Obama’s record in almost four years of governance.  If he addressed the issues facing the country from the outset of his Presidency, like unemployment and the debt, as opposed to the Democratic love child of universal government-run healthcare, our country would be facing a much brighter future and most likely a smooth Presidential election for the incumbent.  Instead, his insistence to ignore the challenges facing the American people face leaves the country in far worse shape than 2008, with no leader ready to solve these problems on hand. 

– John P. Burns

“Please excuse any painful display of ignorance in this essay, as the subject of foreign policy to me is well… foreign.”- Editor, Tammany-Hall.com

On Monday in Washington, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered the keynote speech at AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), concentrating almost solely on the current standoff with Iran regarding its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Mr. Netanyahu’s speech was a powerful one, contrasting his sharp wit with a serious tone on a situation that is as deadly as any we have seen in the last quarter century.  He recognizes he and President Obama face inherent difficulties in this conflict with regards to military action againstIran.  Unfortunately for Mr. Netanyahu, these complications are unavoidable and sadly warranted.

One of problems facing PM Netanyahu and President Obama right now is the lasting image of Americans rallying against the “false pretense” used for conducting Operation Iraqi Freedom.  At the time when the decision was made to invade Iraq, President Bush was working with extensive intelligence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction in his country.  After the tragedy and horrors of 9/11, this was no longer a possibility theUnited Statescould let go unchecked.  As noted by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the United States based this information on our own intelligence as well as that of United Nations inspectors who reported Iraq was in the developing stages of these weapons as far back as the early 1990s.  President Bill Clinton, upon leaving office noted that something would have to be done about Hussein sooner or later- it apparently was sooner.

When the dust and rubble of invasion settled, it was revealed that the Hussein Regime was not developing such weapons.  This left the United States with a nation building project on its hands that it was not prepared to face.  Today, despite the late success inIraq, the American public shutters at the images of 2006 Fallujah and now more recently the “die foreigners die” chants of the citizens ofAfghanistan.  We are not only unwanted in the Middle East, but our soldiers are depicted as foreign invaders in countries we have tried to rebuild in the (perhaps foolish) hope of spreading democracy.  These lands native to religious zealots and Islamist extremists present a danger to our soldiers who are handcuffed to take serious action against them, and are now currently in danger working closely with the very Afghanis we have made our allies.

When we leaveAfghanistan, there is a good chance we will leave it with no lasting political effect, save for the decimation of al-Qaeda.  Though that was our initial and most important goal, our mission there grew out of control; spiraling into a hunkered down presence of occupation and nation building, leaving us in the longest conflict in American history.  Amazingly, considering the turmoil surrounding Iraq during the Bush years, Iraq will most likely be left in better condition than Afghanistan to move forward on the world at large.

In the wake of the murder, violence and outrage over the “decimation” of Korans, it has become evident that our attempts to transform Afghanistanfrom a terrorist hotbed never had a chance.  In actuality, these Korans were technically already ‘decimated’ per Muslim teachings, as messages were written in their pages by Afghani prisoners.  These messages were used as communiqués between the prisoners, putting our boys and Afghani soldiers responsible for their detention in danger of inmate reprisal.  This is no matter to the Afghani people though as they rage, burn, and murder their way to the perimeter of our bases to display their vociferous protest, leaving any inkling of common sense and human compassion at the door.  American citizens see all this through the wonders of a twenty four hour news cycle and the internet, and at this point they are finished with our expeditions in Arab lands.

Which brings us back to Iran.  Our military forces have been bogged down in war for a decade, and the amount of blood shed by our brave soldiers in these sand traps of the Stone Age has left the American people defiant of any attempt to save these corrupt countries from themselves.  ButIran, Mr.  Netanyahu tells us, is different:

“A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella. Let me try to explain what that means, a nuclear umbrella.  It means that Iran’s terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas will be emboldened to attack the United States, Israel, and other countries because they will be backed by a power that has atomic weapons.  So the terrorism could grow tenfold.  A nuclear-armed Iran could choke off the world’s oil supply and make real its threat to close the Straits of Hormouz… And here’s the worst nightmare of all, with nuclear weapons, Iran could threaten all of us with nuclear terrorism.  It could put a nuclear device in a ship heading to any port or in a truck parked in any city, anywhere in the world.  I want you to think about what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in the hands of those who lead millions of radicals who chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

Mr. Netanyahu paints a bleak picture, but a seemingly accurate one.  A nuclear warhead and the capability to create more in the hands of Iran could easily lead to scenarios described above.  The Obama administration has led a valiant effort in their attempts to neutralize the threat by enforcing serious economic sanctions, but Iran remains undeterred.  Unfortunately, the cloud of Iraq casts a shadow over the accuracy of our intelligence, leaving the door open for the possibility that Iran is in fact not developing such weapons, and creating doubts about the necessity of a military strike.  These reservations are now only compounded by calls from other world powers for the U.S and Israel to continue their diplomatic efforts before considering any military action against Iran.

Regardless, Mr. Netanyahu remains determined to protect his people, the region, and indeed the world from the (dare I say it) domino effect that would be created by a nuclearIran.  A strike against Iran’s nuclear sites would be a tactical attack; hopefully with limited loss of life and conducted through a strategy sound enough to marginalize the danger Israeli forces will face in such an operation.

There is another matter as well, highlighted by the Prime Minister later on in his speech:

“Israel’s fate is to continue to be the forward position of freedom in the Middle East.  The only place in the Middle East where minorities enjoy full civil rights; the only place in the Middle East where Arabs enjoy full civil rights; the only place in the Middle East where Christians are free to practice their faith; the only place in the Middle East where real judges protect the rule of law.  And as Prime Minister of Israel, I will always protect Israel’s democracy – always.  I will never allow anything to threaten Israel’s democratic way of life. And most especially, I will never tolerate any discrimination against women.”

In our attempts to rid the Middle East of its dictators and repressive regimes that create the environments which serve as terrorist breeding grounds, we must recognize the importance of Israel described here by Prime Minister Netanyahu.  The Middle East is a region of instability and hatred, leaving Israel as the lone shining light in that dark corner of world.  Despite our misgivings about military action, we must recognize the long shadow cast over the Middle East by a nuclearIran, and put ourselves in the position of Benjamin Netanyahu and his people.  If the Venezuelan dictator and American hate monger Hugo Chavez was determined to develop nuclear weapons, would we not be inclined to act to protect our country?  And as noted by the Prime Minister, that is a conceivable outcome if Iran is to develop the technology for a smart bomb.

Looking up, we now see that the clock is ticking.  If Israel chooses to move forward with military action against Iran’s nuclear sites then the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with her in the aftermath; we must hammer Iran with sanctions after the strike, not only to cripple their nuclear ambitions, but to display an enduring alliance of dedication and resolve with Israel against the all too familiar face of terror in that part of the world.

– John P. Burns