WHAT'S NEXT?

We did not get into this foreign policy morass overnight and we will not fix it overnight.

This President has led us to a position of weakness from the start.  Let me count the ways:

1.  He advocated a "reset" with Russia and received nothing in return.

2.  He failed to get a "status of forces" agreement in Iraq before our wholesale withdrawal.

3.  Ditto for Afghanistan.

4.  He "led from behind" in Libya as well as Iran, North Korea, China and now Syria.

5.  He set a "red line" for chemical weapons in Syria apparently without a clue as to what his next step would be.

Syria is now dispersing its chemical weapon stockpiles. Going forward we can expect even more trouble from our adversaries. What can we do?

First of all, let's not do anything stupid. A short term solution such as a military strike now without sound leadership, national resolve and purpose is not the answer. Our problem requires a longer term view.

We can start by fixing our economy. Get rid of the impediments to our growth; fix the tax structure, reduce rates, cut government spending, reduce bureaucracies and regulations, substitute a rational health care system for Obamacare and take concrete steps to reduce our large unsustainable and crippling debt.

Strong leadership requires consistent and coherent polices. We need our leaders to take the lead, to inspire confidence in our allies so that they actually follow and support us. After all, aren't such weapons as nuclear and chemical arms a threat to all?

To back up what we stand for, we need to support our military. Better to have a strong military that we never need than an insufficient force that we are hesitant to deploy.

One last thought: To show Mr. Putin that we are truly committed to freedom and human rights let's support the Syrian rebels as we said we would and provide humanitarian aide to the millions of refugees resulting from the Syrian war. No speech necessary, Mr. President.

MILITARY ACTION (WAR) WITH SYRIA

We should all say "NO" to any military intervention (war) in Syria.
 Here are the reasons why:

1. There is no compelling reason that our national interest is in imminent danger.  Talk of a perception that our national standing may be diminished if we do not act is a poor reason to risk the lives of our proud soldiers and spend untold treasure which we can ill afford.

2.  Any action initiated on our part has a strong potential for a wider war. We know that Iran is a strong supporter of the Syrian regime and may expand the war not only in Syria but throughout the Middle East including Israel.  We know that Russia has interest in Syria and will not stand idly by if those interests are threatened.  We also know that Islamist extremists will be emboldened by our intervention and may cause untold havoc especially to civilians.

3.  Where is the strategic vision?  Assume we destroy Syria's ability to deliver chemical weapons (or even their chemical stockpiles)?  Don't you think they could get more from Iran or others? Assume we kill Assad?  Who will replace him?  Someone picked by Iran, Islamic extremists? Where will it end?  What is our strategic goal, Mr. President?  What is our exit strategy?

4. Where is the support from our allies? Each one may be ill equipped to take action on their own. But collectively, with our leadership, their contribution could be significant and not only in military terms.  Why couldn't you convince them at the G20 Meeting, Mr. President?  Is it because you are so right and they are so wrong?

5. Speaking of leadership.  The Administration insists on calling the "war on terror", everything but a war. It is calling the proposed action in Syria a "military action" not war. When there is a strong risk that American blood will be spilled and military resources spent in a foreign land, that is war.  We should have the courage to call it what it is.

6. This Administration has not proved competent in several areas.  The economy continues to be anemic.  In foreign affairs we have been weak, full of bluster with no followup, no meaning.  The Administration has dug a hole for itself in the Middle East and now it is asking us to dig the hole even deeper.  The way to build American strength is not through bluster or ill conceived responses.  The way to build American strength is through a healthy and viable economy in a free and civil society.  Let's get to work on that before we go off on another overseas misadventure.

7. A final word on the humanitarian crisis. The killing of civilians is a barbaric act. We should not intervene militarily when there is a strong probability that the Syrian regime's response will be more barbarism against civilians.  We can demonstrate our repugnance as a civilized society by providing humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees displaced by this awful war.  That is a proposition that I believe the American public and many foreign countries would agree to.  But, we need to set the example; we need to show REAL leadership.

Time for a Break

I've decided to take a break.

This decision is primarily due to other commitments and the fact is that I cannot, at least for the foreseeable future, give the blog the attention that I would like.

The break comes at a time when there's not much really new on the horizon. Washington politics haven't changed in substance.  The current administration continues in its free fall of incompetence and ideological arrogance. The Congress is its own worse enemy where the members' priority is reelection, not the national interest. And the Supreme Court swings from left to right depending on the views of one justice.

The lack of direction and leadership is frustrating but it essentially reflects a country that is deeply divided. Until "WE The People" come together on some consensus on the major problems before us, we will continue to see this split. It will require leadership, some compromise, time and yes, maybe even some sacrifice to "right this ship". Until that occurs, we will continue on our drift and the country will suffer for it.

Thanks for all of you who followed this blog and especially those who took the time to write comments. The blog will remain open at least for now and I invite you to continue any comments you have as long as you like. I will continue to butt in when I can.

Thanks,

Norm Pineault

The State of our Freedom

During the current week, we will observe the anniversary of our Nation's birth. We will celebrate our independence from a "Tyrant--unfit to be the ruler of a free people--". We also celebrate the genius of our constitutional form of government established to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" but not to be so powerful as to undermine those very Blessings.

As we know, freedom is a fragile concept. Consider the words of these political commentators.

In the "Reflections on the Revolution in France" (1790), Edmond Burke:

     --- denounced a revolution that led to a reign of terror and ultimately to chaos and the despotism of Napoleon.  "Armed with a doctrinaire logic of rights , these revolutionaries were indifferent to history and hostile to tradition. 'The age of chivalry is gone', wrote Burke. 'That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded---' From Paris, Robispierre would show how an undisciplined--sentiment could animate the berserk certitude of a homicidal revolutionary. (Burke) accepted that sovereignty was formed by the social contract of free individuals. But Burke's social contract wasn't 'dissolved by fancy'. ----He prized 'civil liberty' but only for those citizens capable of putting 'moral chains upon their own appetites' ".  (Quote from Jeffrey Collins in "A Disciplined Sentiment" (a review of "Edmund Burke: The First Conservative" by Jesse Norman) Wall Street Journal- June 19. 2013).

Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" (1833):

     "---marveled at the way Americans preferred voluntary associations to government regulations. 'The inhabitant of the United States', he wrote, 'has only a defiant and restive regard for special authority--'. Unlike Frenchmen--- who instinctively looked to the state to provide economic and social order, Americans relied on their own efforts". (Wall Street Journal article "The Regulated States of America" by Niall Ferguson-June 19, 2013).

Later de Tocqueville said:

     "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." (from "Discourse pronounced in constitutional assembly in a discussion of the constitution project" (1848) as quoted by F.A. Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom" (1944)).

In his book, Hayek added:

     "---socialism was early recognized as the greatest threat to freedom---- The French writers who laid the foundation of modern socialism had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong, dictatorial government".

 Niall Ferguson in "The Great Degeneration" (summarized by George Melloan in "A Jeremiad To Heed"-Wall Street Journal- June 20, 2013):

     "Western civilization has entered a period of decline due mainly to the strangling of private initiative by the ever encroaching state.---The threatened institutions are representative government, the free market, the rule of law and civil society. Mr. Ferguson is dismayed at the explosion of public debt, the destruction of markets by excessive regulation, the replacement of the rule of law by 'a rule of lawyers' and the decay of civil society as represented in part by the thousands of private voluntary organizations (Rotarians, Elks, at al) that have contributed so much to social order and progress in America."

Compare Ferguson's observations to those of de Tocqueville  and to the warnings of other writers. From Burke (and before). history has shown that freedom will not thrive in either a state of chaos or that of tyranny. Freedom requires balance: a government with enough power to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" but not so much as to smother those Blessings. As Niall Ferguson observes, we have swung too far in the direction of concentrated and authoritarian government.

                      We can only conclude that the state of our freedom is not good.
     

"Amateur Hour" at The White House

A front page article in this past week-end's edition of the Wall Street Journal "Behind Obama's About Face on Syria" states that the President:

     "----personally rebuffed a proposal to arm the rebels despite appeals from David Petraeus, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State.-----senior British officials had been agitating for months for the U.S. to do more in Syria-----King Abdullah, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also argued to Mr. Obama that the U.S. was allowing three of its chief historic rivals in the Middle East-Iran, Russia and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah-to dominate the battlefield in Syria and help President Assad push back recent rebel gains."

In a related editorial, "Dabbling in Syria", the following comment is made:

     "All of which suggests that Mr. Obama still doesn't appreciate the strategic stakes in the Syrian civil war. Russia, Iran and Syria want to create an arc of influence from Iran to the Mediterranean while demonstrating to America's regional allies that the U.S. is a retreating power that lacks the will to support its friends."

Anyone paying attention for the last two years could have predicted with some certainty that lacking meaningful involvement by the U.S., Russia, Iran and others would take advantage to promote their own ends.

During the "Arab Spring"(where our involvement was hesitant and insufficient) radical forces gained the upper hand in Egypt and Libya. And in Iraq and Afghanistan, moderate groups have been in danger of being overwhelmed by extremists after we withdrew from a combat role.

The delay in providing arms to the Syrian rebels may be too little and too late. One can reasonably assume that we would have acted sooner had we not been in the middle of an election. A fair question is whether this President has subordinated our role in the world to political expediency.

We have witnessed since this Administration's start, the tendency to deny responsibility for all manner of bad news (unemployment, deficits, IRS malfeasance, attacks on journalists, Benghazi, NSA data mining etc.). What ever happened to Harry Truman's observation: "The buck stops here."? Or the need for a president to lead, to be decisive when required, to honor the Constitution (and the Office of President) and to be honest and straight with us? In short, to be "presidential".

As we have stated in prior posts, Obama is a community organizer in the tradition of Saul Alinsky. He is clever but is he wise? Based on his record, his background and commitment to a far left ideology, he is not and cannot be an effective president in the mold of most of his predecessors. He has "dabbled" in foreign affairs, is unserious about many of our problems and lacking in executive experience. Or put more succinctly, he is an amateur at a time when we need serious and expert leadership.

Are Today's Politics Injurious to Our Constitutional Liberties?

Nowhere in our Constitution are political parties mentioned. The founding fathers saw them as contrary to good government. They realized (and hasn't history shown us?) that political parties arouse public passions leading to politically expedient solutions.

During times of crises--real or imagined--the Executive often easily assumes greater power. And so we have seen the passage of the Patriot Act after 9/11 and the increasing surveillance of American citizens. Going back to the early 1900's, there have been steady accumulations of power by over 2000 separate agencies, boards, commissions and departments (not including czars). Each of these has established a "new normal" which then becomes the basis for change for yet another crises.

As we have seen this past week, some changes were made to governmental authority without the Congress' or public's knowledge. As stated in the New York Times editorial of 6/6/13 regarding NSA data gathering:

     "Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."

Our Constitution provides limits to government power. The government is granted ONLY those powers specifically enumerated. To underscore this very point, the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) lists those freedoms that the government shall not infringe. Lest there be any doubt of the limits to government power, Amendment X states:

     "The powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Apropos of the current controversies, Amendment IV says:

     "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Current activities in data collection by the NSA, IRS, FBI and potentially HHS (and the IRS) in administering the Affordable Care Act call into question their actual and potential infringements on our Constitutional liberties. The founding fathers understood that power can be abused and sought to limit its impact. On any grant of power, we must be vigilant, not only for its immediate effects but also its potential for misuse by future administrations. 

The Obama Administration is Unraveling--Here's Why.

President Obama came to the White House with no executive experience.  It shows. Working from his background and the mindset  of a community organizer, he is dedicated (by his own admission) to the "redistribution of wealth". His administration has used the power of the federal government first and foremost to attain that goal. All other considerations are secondary and distract from his primary agenda.

The President prizes his communicative skills. They explain much of his political success. But he gives the impression that a good speech is the solution to most problems, be they substantive or political. Scott Engers in a letter to the Wall Street Journal published on May 22 wrote:

     President Obama "---seems to think that he simply has to say that he will not tolerate something  and it will stop. He will not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons--sexual harassment or rape in the military--school shootings--IRS targeting conservative groups--another debt ceiling debate--a nuclear armed Iran". 

These statements sound forceful. But too often there is little followup indicating that the Chief Executive is not fully engaged.

There have been numerous occasions where the Obama Administration has demonstrated ineptitude with its misguided policies and mismanagement. To wit:

             *The effort to harass  news organizations such as the AP and Fox News in violation of their First Amendment rights.

             *The targeting by the IRS and other agencies of non- profit conservative groups.

             *The mandate under Obamacare for religious organizations to provide health care services that are contrary to their beliefs.

             *The Administration's struggle to implement Obamacare, a poorly conceived and poorly written law that will cost us more than advertised.

              *Recess appointments to administration positions that were illegitimate and unconstitutional.

              *Changing immigration regulations without proper legislative authority.

              *A seeming indifference to our national debt and its implications for our economy and national well being.

              *The failure to protect our diplomatic delegation in Benghazi and the transparent efforts to downplay the obvious dereliction.

              *The President's confused leadership in the war on terror. Are we at "war" or not? How do we handle enemy prisoners? What if they are American citizens? These questions should have been resolved long ago.


David Axelrod, a  former advisor to the president recently said the following in connection to the IRS targeting of conservative groups:  "Part of being president is that there is so much beneath you that you can't know, because the government is so vast." (Quoted in an article "Government Gone Wild" by Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal on May 23).

Mr. Axelrod is correct; the government is too vast. But given this Administration's record in expanding the government, Mr. Axelrod's comment comes across as an inept explanation for the President's failures rather than a serious recognition of a very real problem.

The Constitution established a system of government with limited enumerated powers. It includes the Bill of Rights which list specific freedoms that are not to be abridged. Amendment X of those Rights states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Today our freedoms are threatened by the very government instituted to protect those freedoms. Cries to redress the government's excess of power falls on deaf ears. Politicians have become a professional and privileged class responding to special interests. The average citizen finds it difficult if not impossible to penetrate the curtain of power and secrecy.

Honesty compels us to say that we cannot continue on our current path as we are certain to lose whatever remaining freedoms we have. How do we get out of this morass? And who will lead us?