Democrats constantly talk about their desire to help the “little guy,” the disadvantaged and the hard worker trying to make ends meet. Democrats used to target these core voters found in: union homes, lower and middle-income families, recipients of the earned income tax credit, immigrants just beginning in the U.S. workforce, and Federal Taxpayers with Annual Gross Incomes less than $50,000 who pay no federal taxes.

Of course, the impact of the Democrats’ “no drill, no nuke” position hurts all these voters in a myriad of ways, for example:

·         Food costs;

·         Transportation expenses (including summer holiday trips),

·         Home renovation projects (including to name just two - the rocketing costs of all petroleum- based products such as vinyl, high-energy windows and PVC irrigation piping);

·         Small farmers stretched thin who must sacrifice something else just to afford diesel fuel for their tractors so they can plant their crops;

·         Commuters who bought a home beyond the suburbs, where they could afford one, and find it too expensive to commute now; and  

·         Retirees and others who need their IRA, 401K, or other investments to sustain them. 

Has the Democratic Party grown so prosperous from contributions by lobbyists, Hollywood types, and fat cats that they do not care about “the little guy” anymore? Perhaps, they have grown cocky reading about the plight of their opponents and have concluded they can get away with anything now?

What should we conclude about this apparent indifference by Democrats to the difficulties caused so many over energy cost? Why do “no drill, no nuke” democrats continue to trot out various arguments that are laughable, weak, or nonsensical.  

The Democrat “can’t doers” in Congress are appearing arrogant and callous to many voters who are reminded multiple times a day of how this stubbornness and delay are reducing their standard of living. If we were living in ancient times, we might even see this Democrat hubris foreshadow a long period of exile from political leadership.  If oil prices keep rising, we can only hope history repeats and Democrats get the boot or they quickly see the error of their ways and take action to lower prices.

Thank you for your service to our country.

There has been a great deal of news about oil prices since January 2007 when both houses of Congress came under the control of one party. I think gas was around $2.33 a gallon at the time and today it is over $4.00.

 I have just one question about oil prices.

Please tell me it isn’t true that China is drilling on behalf of Cuba and the Castro government just sixty (60) miles from our coastline? 

If China is drilling for Cuba 60 miles off our shore, why can’t we pass legislation immediately to expedite drilling and exploration off our coasts and the Gulf of Mexico beyond 60 miles?

I look forward to an explanation.

Sincerely,

·         Here, then are some of the political passages from the fuller version of “The Audacity to Hope” text reprinted in What Makes You So Strong?:

In order for a people to have taken a negative and turned it into a positive, surely somebody had to have had the audacity to hope. In order for a race held in bondage to slavery to have taken a proclamation not worth the paper it was written on and to have turned it into a proposition that produced a race full of giants, somebody had to have had the audacity to hope. Abraham Lincoln is remembered as the “Great Emancipator” of the slaves, but in reality, he did not see black Africans as equal with whites. (The issue of slavery was paramount for him because it threatened the unity of the country. The primary reason that the Civil War was fought was not to free the slaves, but to save the United States.... [p. 104]) 

2.      “Left in Church, Deep inside the Wright Trumpet” by Stanley Kurtz.  

·         Having now left Trinity United Church of Christ, can Barack Obama escape responsibility for his decades-long ties to Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright? No, he cannot. Obama’s connections to the radical-left politics espoused by Pfleger and Wright are broad and deep. The real reason Obama bound himself to Wright and Pfleger in the first place is that he largely approved of their political-theological outlooks.

·         The reticence, combined with Obama's radical ties, begs the question: Is he hiding an un-American agenda?

We know his longtime mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, detests America and its capitalist system, viewing it as unjust, oppressive and enslaving to minorities. He and his fellow travelers think they have in Obama the perfect candidate to remake America into a self-loathing dispenser of apologetic largesse to victim groups at home and Marxist regimes abroad.

Key among these is reverend-turned-professor James Cone, who believes merging Marxism with the Gospel will liberate African-Americans from the supposed economic slavery of "white" capitalism. "Together," he says, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society." (Emphasis added.)

Cone is the mentor of Obama's mentor, Wright. Wright adopted Cone's "black liberation theology" as his church's core doctrine. According to Cone, the reverend "is really the one who took it from my books and brought it to the church."

·         Neither Obama nor his party seems to understand how incentives motivate human behavior — not force, not coercion, not mockery, not nursery-school regulation, but real possibilities of good fruits up ahead for free and responsible actions. They do not understand the wellsprings of a virtuous, free, and prosperous society. They are still entangled in the fantasies of the European Left of 150 years ago.

Thus, Obama is now the creature and the prisoner of the American far Left, which has learned nothing from the failures of socialist and statist and anti-capitalist ideas during the past hundred years. Many leftists learn nothing, know nothing, and propel themselves not with practical wisdom, but with outrage and contempt and a desire to punish those who do not agree with them.

My friend himself thought, he finally revealed, that the West has come to an epochal axial point in history. From now on, economic and political progress would grow far less quickly than ever before, and a long-lasting, precipitous decline is about to begin. Overseas, and also at home.

There is more to Senator Obama than merely a man: without McGovern’s military and political record, without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor, without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate, and without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976.  In addition to all these short comings, Barack Obama is a man with a far more radical vision than anything these pedestrian politicians have ever considered.  Each voter needs to fully understand the scope of that radical agenda.

Senator McCain, on May 12, 2008, said there is no doubt about global warming or climate change, the facts are clear, and the debate is over.  (Emphasis added.)

It would be interesting to hear Senator McCain respond to the signers of the “Oregon Petition” (Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?') who take the position:    

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.  

Or, perhaps Senator McCain should let George Will know.  In a Newsweek column, Questions For McCain, Mr. Will asked this question about the Senator’s dogmatic, proof positive, case closed position on climate.

• You say that even if global warming turns out to be no crisis (the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade), even unnecessary measures taken to combat it will be beneficial because "then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world." But what of the trillions of dollars those measures will cost in direct expenditures and diminished economic growth—hence diminished medical research, cultural investment, etc.? Given that Earth is always warming or cooling, what is its proper temperature, and how do you know?

Senator McCain’s statements on drilling and climate change strike a sanctimonious note for those who might question his point of view or want more agreement among the scientific community.  Not drilling off our coasts, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in Alaska, where the residents all support drilling, while billions go overseas to countries that fund terrorism only compounds the insanity for many. If his mind is closed once he reaches a decision, what does that suggest if a President McCain is ever in error?

Where is the straight talk?  What is Senator McCain’s plan?  The exorbitant costs to subsidize energy alternatives for gas and oil stagger the mind.  In Wind (23.37) v. Gas (25 cents), a Wall Street Journal editorial, the Journal reported that: “the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like.” Solar and windmills are a quixotic quest as a solution to our current energy problems.  

Reported costs for energy sources were listed by The Journal:

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59. [Emphasis added.]

As gasoline sprints towards $200 a barrel and Congress bickers over energy policy, many fear a declining standard of living that will deny them the American dream.  Rising gas and food costs for those on fixed incomes makes it increasingly difficult for families to make ends meet.  It must seem to them like another example of Michelle Obama’s complaint of someone raising the bar. What about drilling, nuclear power, flex-fuel vehicles, and more refineries? 

Instead of talking about global climate change, why not present a comprehensive plan now to break OPEC’s pricing power and get our energy house in order during a McCain first term? A leader would seize the opportunity to chart a vision, present it to voters without antagonizing them, and persuade us. 

Stanley Kurtz has written a detailed piece, Jeremiah Wright's Trumpet in the Weekly Standard that raises many questions about Senator Obama and sheds light on his lack of readiness to serve.  Kurtz’s in-depth look provides a confirmation that Senator Obama lacks essential qualities of a leader.  He is not being forthright, transparent, or truthful about his knowledge of liberation theology, Trinity United Church, or the views of Jeremiah Wright.  

Some have argued that Wright is a distraction and that Obama surely doesn’t believe Wright’s nonsense.  I still maintain, however, that since we know so little about Barack Obama that the Wright case helps shed light on Obama’s fitness for office.  Reverend Wright is very relevant for what he tells us about Obama as a future leader.   

·        Is he decisive in a crisis?

·        Is he truthful and forthright about the issues facing him? 

·        Is he transparent about his motivation in reaching a decision? 

·        Will he confront a problem quickly or endure a period of paralysis that delays a decision until the event reaches criticality. 

·        Is he credible? 

·        Does he take charge or is he controlled by events? 

·        Does he quickly make difficult decisions or does he miss the mean between acting too early or too late? 

·        Does he respect the voters or condescend to garner their votes by trying to talk through an issue and provide insincere and invalid arguments? 

·        Does he have a hidden agenda for his policy actions?   

Of course, the answer to these questions is obvious to all except the Obama "True Believer."  Senator Obama's performance during the media interest in Reverend Wright left much to be desired and does not support the arguments that he is ready to lead us during challenging times. 

  A, May 11, 2008, New York Times Editorial, "Rethinking Ethanol," captures the quagmire Congress has created with its failed corn ethanol policies and examines the fairly easy remedial steps that should be taken to fix the problem. Rather than endless debates about an abbreviated summer holiday from the Federal gas tax, here is a way for Congress to begin to right the market place by recognizing its mistake and taking a step back from the precipice.

In a time of worldwide increasing food shortages due to a displacement of food production for ethanol, many may starve around the world before they ever have to fear loss of life from apocalyptic environmental conditions. Additionally, the plan to increase corn ethanol production could actually accelerate global warming.

The Times recommends:

A. end tax breaks for corn ethanol;   

B. end a 51-cents-a-gallon subsidy to ethanol blenders; and

 C. end the five-fold increase in ethanol production.

For once, even I agree with the New York Times. It is time for Congress and the Administration to take action.

Senator Obama recently explained why he took off his American flag lapel pin.  The Senator’s explanation is that the pin has become a substitute for patriotism and he would henceforth demonstrate his patriotism by his words.

Perhaps we can take the Senator at his word or perhaps his rationale is more a disingenuous explanation as the Senator moves further left in an effort to satisfy his far left supporters who: (a.) deny there is a war going on, (b.) think whatever problems we face from terrorists are all Bush’s fault, or (c.) hate the jingoism of the Fox News hosts who wear their lapel pins.

Whatever his motivating reason, today the Chicago Sun Times clearly spanked the Senator for his comments by remarking that: “Obama’s latest spouting off makes us question his judgment” and “his polarizing comments make him sound like a hardened leftist.” 

Ouch! “Questionable judgment” and “hardened leftist” are not exactly descriptions of a new generation of politician who will reach out and find consensus. 

Today Senator Reid spoke out against the anticipated nomination of Ted Olson as Attorney General.  Reid vowed to block Olson because he is a partisan.

The grounds were pure nonsense even for Senator Reid who during his Senate tenure has been almost as stalwart for his quotable nonsense as the profound Miss Pelosi in the House. 

Ted Olson a former top appellate lawyer for the government isn’t disqualified in the Senator’s mind because he is unqualified.  He is disqualified because he is Republican, lost a wife on 9/11, and would presumably direct the department in a manner consistent with the desires of the President and his administration.

Could it be that in the Senator’s mind no one is capable of this job but the Senator himself? After all, isn’t Senator Reid the epitome of the non-partisan man?  Why not Harry Reid for AG? 

Yesterday Hugh Hewitt interviewed Secretary Chertoff about the pending Immigration Bill (transcript and comments). The interview with the Secretary was quite disappointing. If the Secretary gave up time to appear on the show because he cared about the audience and wanted to persuade President Bush’s supporters that the Immigration Bill is a good one, he did more harm than good. To call his answers evasive or less than persuasive is being too kind.

I recall someone saying that if Homeland Security had been headed by Bernie Kerik there would not have been a Katrina story. He suggested that the New Orleans issues would have been resolved quickly by Kerik who focuses more on solving a problem than working out every detail before starting action. Unfortunately, Judge Chertoff reportedly negotiated for days with the inexperienced Louisiana Governor over terms for Federal action in New Orleans. The speaker said Kerik would have gone in immediately, removed the people from the Super Dome stadium and then worked out the details with the governor. While listening to Chertoff yesterday I was reminded how unfortunate it is that the Department doesn’t have a man of action now.

I have to think the same analysis is true regarding the construction of the fence. I just returned from Dubai this week and construction cranes are everywhere as multiple projects are brought on line with 24/7 split shifts working round the clock. Of course this sort of “can do” action requires someone who has a sense of urgency and importance with regard to building the fence. The Secretary obviously believes there is no rush. Neither the President nor the Country is being well served by this construction process.

It doesn’t appear, however, that the Senator really considered the facts on the ground. Thanks to Max Boot for all his work at getting the story in Iraq and writing about what is happening as a result of the new operation headed by General Petraeus.

Max Boot looks at the progress in Baghdad, Baqubah, Ramadi, and Falluja in an article today in the Weekly Standard: “Can Petraeus Pull It Off?” For me this was the money quote:

Nevertheless, with only three of five extra brigade combat teams on the ground, the situation in the capital has already shown signs of improvement since Fardh al-Qanoon [Operation: “Enforcing the Law”] started in February.

The whole article is recommended.

Wisdom is a much sought end for its own sake. Over the generations many seekers of wisdom begin their search by looking to Socrates for guidance. Today, conventional wisdom supports the idea of an exit strategy; it is especially favored when we are talking about pre-nuptial agreements, which plan for marital failure, and military conflicts, which plan for military failure. For example, per conventional wisdom it would be gross negligence to begin a war without an exit strategy at the ready in case military conflict becomes difficult.

In light of the foregoing, here is a list of ten reasons why we need an exit strategy from the United Nations.

1. The U.N. Security Council could not even pass a meaningful resolution on January 26, 2007, specifically condemning Iran or its President for comments about wiping Israel off the map or denying the Holocaust.

Comment: A resolution was passed that “condemns…any denial of the Holocaust,” but it doesn’t mention Iran by name or condemn Iran’s President for his denial of the Holocaust or his repeated threats that Israeli will be wiped off the face of the earth.

2. The U. N. Development Program is believed to have been distributing cash directly to the North Korean government for years while these “funds have been used by Pyongyang for its own illicit purposes.”

Comment: U.S. deputy ambassador Mark Wallace alleged Friday, January 26, 2007, that the UNDP’s North Korea operation had been run “in blatant violation of U.N. rules” for years. He demanded an outside audit focusing on concerns that development funds had been used by Pyongyang for ‘its own illicit purposes."

3. Corruption in Iraq Oil-for-Food Program.

Comment: Saddam manipulated the sanctions by bribing individuals who acted on behalf of U.N members. The failure of the Security Council to enforce sanctions in cases of repeated violations of UN Resolutions actually exacerbated the situation. For example, if all 5 members of the Security Council spoke with one voice, the chances Saddam backs down without military action and complies with the resolutions improves. The lack of seriousness of purpose by the other members of the Security Council, however, actually increased the odds the UN would be ineffective and the resolutions would be meaningless.

4. Member nations have refused to approve recommended reforms despite overwhelming evidence of mismanagement, fraud, waste, and wide-spread ineffectiveness.

Comment: In 2005, the U.S. contributed over $5 billion dollars to the United Nations. The need for financial reform continues as evidenced by the recent example of the UN plan “to finance the expansion of U.N. headquarters in New York City. The renovation costs will be in the neighborhood of two billion dollars — many times the amount that developer Donald Trump says can be justified.”

5. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is a failure.

Comment: The war between Israel and Lebanon during the summer of 2006 demonstrated the abject failure of UNIFIL peacekeepers stationed in Lebanon since 1978 to ensure peace. The new arrangement of increasing the number of troops did not improve the chances for peace; in fact Hezbollah has replenished and increased its weapons arsenal and ignored all the terms of the U.N. Resolution.

6. UN Peacekeepers commit criminal offenses and misconduct in several Africa countries (e.g., sex abuse, rape, and extortion of those they are charged with protecting), but no action is taken against the offenders.

7. The sooner we exit the U.N. the sooner we can begin to re-construct a world body capable of living up to U.N. ideals.

Comment: Continued membership is a mistake. At some point it was clear the League of Nations was broken and continued membership was not only a mistake, but delayed the option of creating a better organization. Now, members refuse to comply with basic UN obligations such as submitting to inspection procedures in Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. They play the system while others refuse to enforce the rules for their own personal reasons. The UN has become like a reality game show for countries around the world that play Lilliput and see if they can tie Gulliver (the U.S.) down.

8. The U.N. is not even living up to the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Comment: In his September 19, 2006, address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Bush began by noting that the principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world.” One of the authors, a Lebanese diplomat named Charles Malik insisted that these principles apply equally to all people, of all regions, of all religions, including the men and women of the Arab world.

9. Subordinating our national interest to a rogue gallery of dictators, genocidal regimes, and corrupt world leaders, in order to achieve consensus, is not only immoral, but against our national interests. Further, we are frequently only achieving agreement at the lowest common denominator rather than taking the morally right and effective action.

Comment: For example, the failure of other Security Council members to act with a singleness of purpose against Iraq gave Saddam Hussein a false sense of security that required us finally to take military action. As a result of the failure of other members to support past resolutions (due to the influence of the Oil for Food scandal), we were left with a series of bad choices. Due to our good faith efforts to work with the UN, our situation was aggravated by the delay when an election in Turkey closed a planned access into Northern Iraq.

10. Genocide has become all too acceptable as the UN delays action in Darfur and the world becomes complacent about the immorality of such slaughter after being desensitized by Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda.

Comment: As recently noted in Genocide Awaits Us, starting in 1992, the U.N. failed over 200,000 men, women, and children in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Rwanda in 1994, the U.N. abandoned 800,000. And in Darfur, it is too late for the 500,000 already dead and thousands more who perish every month while the U.N. dithers.

In Darfur, UN lack of action is immoral. Members are unwilling to protect those at risk and take action against the offenders. While those who commit genocide are guilty of crimes by commission, the UN’s failure to act is a crime of omission. It is immoral; a stain on all those belonging to the organization, and our acquiescence destroys any moral authority we might have as a democracy to call for action in future cases.

And this is only a partial list of UN deficiencies. What would Socrates say after reviewing such a list? Whether he would consider an exit strategy a sign of real wisdom or not, since he believed in keeping promises, it is likely he would say these are valid reasons to end your relationship with a failed organization, however well intended when founded. It is time to place the UN next to the League of Nations as a failed experiment. We can do better.

Ralph Peters’ column today, Ugly Choices, covers the broader strategic issues we face in the Middle East and looks at the conflict between our short and long-term interests. This is a thoughtful analysis that will make the current machinations over nonbinding resolutions in Washington frustrate and anger you even more. Serious times require serious people and our elected leaders in Washington are fiddling while Rome burns.

The whole article is worth reading, but here are some essential questions Mr. Peters raises.

In all-too-real a sense, backing either side, Sunni or Shia, is just betting on black or red at the roulette wheel - knowing that the house always wins in the end. And the house is the collapsed and vengeful civilization of the Middle East.

But we're locked in the casino; we have to make our bet. So here are the fundamental questions the administration has to ask itself before pushing the chips across the table:

* How do we defeat Iran's government without alienating the Iranian people?

* Do our long-term interests truly coincide with repressive Sunni Arab regimes?

* Are we once again in danger of starting a fight we lack the guts to finish? The administration's less-than-half-hearted military policy in Iraq and Israel's disastrous loss to Hezbollah last summer aren't encouraging models.

* By reinvigorating our "alliance" with Saudi Arabia and other repressive Sunni states, are we just setting ourselves up for another round of "let's you and him fight," with American blood defending Arab oil wealth? Are we still the Saudi royal family's whores?

Today, Senator John Kerry at the Davos economic summit attacked the Bush Administration for isolating the U.S. and turning it into "a sort of international pariah."

Others have commented on the inaccuracies in his allegations, but there is also the troubling aspect that Senator Kerry and a few other Americans feel at liberty to travel overseas and then attack the United States. Gone is the old tradition that criticism of your country ends at the waters’ edge.

In his defense, Senator Kerry may see himself as more the cosmopolitan man with world-wide portfolio and allegiance to no country. If, however, he still considers himself an American first and foremost, then perhaps he and others congenitally cursed with foot-in-mouth disease, should, at least during this time of war against a ruthless enemy, return to some basic concepts of civic duty.

In Civilization And Its Enemies, the author explains the role that forgetfulness plays in the fall of civilizations. His comment on civic duty is one that Senator Kerry should take for action.

They [Civilized people]forget that to fight an enemy it is necessary to have a leader whom you trust, and how, at such times, this trust is a civic duty and not evidence of one's credulity. They forget, in short, that there has ever been a category of human experience called the enemy.

Senator Kerry needs to recognize the risks he, and all our elected officials, create for our troops and the Country when they provide talking points to our enemy.