What Was Newt Thinking?

Whether one loves or hates the guy, most would agree that former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is a truly brilliant man. So when I heard that Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday and seemed to characterize Rep Paul Ryan’s budget reduction proposals as right-wing social engineering, I was dumbfounded. I immediately thought, what was he thinking? Not because he was breaking Ronald Reagan’s 11^th Commandment: Thou shall not criticize a fellow Republican but because in an effort to appear to be “fair” by criticizing his own side, he committed a rookie error and was factually incorrect to boot!

By definition, social engineering is a proactive measure where, through the use of laws, taxes, regulations, etc., the government tries to manipulate the behavior of individuals or the population. Therefore, budget cuts that reduce the size, scope and influence of the government cannot legitimately be labeled social engineering.

By bobbling this routine “political ground ball to second”, Speaker Gingrich handed the Democrats a juicy “Two for” – he damaged his own presidential campaign and provided them with a powerful weapon to use against conservative ideas in the future. To be sure, we will see this clip of Gingrich on Meet the Press again and liberals will say, “See! Even Mr. Conservatism himself, Newt Gingrich, calls these cuts right-wing social engineering.”  

Right now the race for the Republican nomination is wide open and there is still a long way to go. The candidates need to avoid future, self-inflicted, gunshot wounds to the foot and concentrate on promoting a positive, pro-growth agenda. They should contrast their proven ideas against President Obama’s failed liberal ideology. And when given the opportunity, they should praise their fellow Republican candidates and point out that any one of them will make a better president than Barack Obama. The nomination will take care of itself!

Whether or not Newt Gingrich’s campaign for the Republican nomination is irrevocably damaged remains to be seen. One thing that is certain is that back-biting among the Republican candidates will leave any potential nominee bloodied and weakened and return the profoundly beatable, Barack Obama, to the White House where he can continue his mission to shepherd the decline of America.

Representative Ryan had it right when asked about his friend Newt’s comment and said, “With friends like that, who needs liberals.”

Moral Development, Taxes, and the Liberal

When I was a midshipman at the Naval Academy, I was required to take a psychology course as part of my leadership training. One subject I found particularly interesting was Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. According to Kohlberg, humans reach their level of moral development by progressing through six identifiable stages. The first stage is characterized by obedience to authority; children understand right and wrong based on what adults (e.g. parents, teachers, etc.) tell them to do. As we mature, most of us move on to the second stage characterized by acting in one’s own self-interest. This is sometimes described as doing what feels good and avoiding what feels bad. The third level is where one seeks to gain the approval of others; often meaning bowing to peer pressure. The fourth stage which Kohlberg believed is the highest level attained by the majority of people is characterized by abiding by the law and living up to one’s duty. Stages five (doing what is best for society and the welfare of others) and six (following higher universal principles and one’s own individual conscience) are attained only by a relative few. From listening to liberals, especially when it comes to their profession that they are willing to pay more in taxes, one would come to the conclusion that they are all operating on level five or six. However, in practice their actions paint a very different picture. This year, April 18^th presented liberals with their annual opportunity to demonstrate their advanced level of moral development and once again they fell short.

I used to be fond of saying if liberals really want to pay higher taxes all they have to do is write an extra check to the US Treasury and I guarantee it won’t be returned. Upon further reflection, it occurred to me that paying more of their “fair share” is actually even easier than that. One pays taxes based on adjusted gross income or AGI which is the sum of all sources of income minus all legitimate deductions. Legitimate deductions are those expenses or activities authorized by the tax code to be itemized and thus used to reduce the amount of taxes one pays. Authorized means allowed not required, so all a patriotic liberal need do in order to pay more of their “fair share” is simply not claim all their deductions. But this causes a real dilemma for liberals. Do they do what is legally right or do they follow their conscience?

Nothing demonstrates this better than the tax return information released by President and Mrs. Obama. The Obama’s reported a combined income of $1,795,614 in 2010 and paid $438,949 in federal income taxes which equates to an effective tax rate of 24.5%. This is far less than the maximum rate of 35% they could have paid had they not taken all their deductions. Did they do anything wrong? No, they obeyed the law! But they also didn’t take the opportunity to do what the president says he believes i.e. that since he is wealthy; he should pay more in taxes.

I was brought up to believe that you “Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.” and that “True character means doing what is right even when no one else is watching.” These ideals were reinforced during my years at the Academy.  So if wealthy liberals feel they should pay more in taxes, they shouldn’t need the laws to be changed in order for them to do what they say is the right thing to do. They should strive for that higher level of moral development, follow their individual conscience and pay the higher taxes they say they believe they owe without having to be coerced by the law.

And while we conservatives will never agree that paying more in taxes to a wasteful government is the right thing to do, we will all certainly applaud our liberal friends’ personal growth.

AMF Osama

Well done to President Obama, the US Military JSOC- especially the Navy SEALS, and the US Intelligence Community!

Bring the Boys (and Girls) Home

Now before you jump to the conclusion that I have suddenly become some sort of anti-war protester, let me explain. I'm talking about EUCOM - the U.S. European Command. We have continued to station thousands of troops in Germany since World War II. Until the demise of the Soviet Union, this was critical because there was a real danger that Russian tank divisions would come rolling through the Fulda Gap. Today though that scenario is highly unlikely. So why do we still have approximately 50,000 troops in Germany? In our current economic situation and considering Germany's reluctance to support the NATO effort in Libya, I assert the money we spend keeping troops in Europe could be better spent elsewhere - like in our own country.

An Internet search reveals that the annual budget for EUCOM is about $3 billion and if the military is a true representation of the American population as a whole, then using the 2008 average annual salary of $54, 124 means the 50,000 military personnel cost another $2.7 billion a year in pay. So we pump about $6 billion a year into the German economy. Why? We have an expeditionary military force which means it is intended to be deployed to fight abroad, not be permanently stationed there. The reality today, especially the political reality, is that any benefit gained by being closer to some potential hotspot is more than countered by the time it takes to make a political decision, build a coalition, or get a UN resolution passed. Once the political challenges have been met, our Navy and Marine Corps (or depending on the situation our Army airborne troops) can be on scene anywhere in the world in two weeks securing ports, landing zones or airfields for follow-on forces. Therefore, troops in Europe are unnecessary.

Instead, let's station the troops we bring back along our border with Mexico or at a minimum, have them perform their field training there. After all, in the last 30 years, our troops have been overwhelming deployed to places that resemble our desert southwest rather than the forests and fields of Germany. Moreover, we have a serious illegal immigration and drug trafficking problem that is concentrated along the Mexican border that requires additional manpower to resolve. 50,000 troops would certainly be very useful in assisting our beleaguered Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Drug Enforcement Agency perform their duties. This is especially true given the fact that the Mexican Drug Cartels are becoming more heavily armed and resemble a military force rather than a criminal organization.

Now before you throw posse comitatus in my face, let me say that this proposal would not violate the law prohibiting the military from performing law enforcement duties as long as the troops are accompanied by law enforcement personnel who would do any actual detaining or arresting if required. However, if confronted by narco-terrorists equipped with military-style weaponry, our personnel would finally have the firepower to respond effectively.

Redeploying our military personnel from Germany to the border areas of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas makes sense from an economic, political, military and homeland security perspective. For once, let's make a decision that would solve several of our problems at once in a straight forward, common sense way.

Will Lincoln Get An Extra Paragraph?

A few years ago there was a controversy over the content of history books used in the California public school system. Seems that while the text contained pages devoted to the Ku Klux Klan, there was only one paragraph on Abraham Lincoln. This preposterous lack of proportion was an obvious effort by those who have contempt for the country and love to portray America as a terrible, racist place. Since the left controls most of the education establishment in not only California but most of the country, it is clear who was responsible.

Now there is a new controversy regarding how history will be taught in California. The State legislature is considering a law making it mandatory to teach "gay history" in the public schools. The excuse is this will help teach tolerance and stop bullying. Once again, you don't need to be a member of Mensa to figure out what end of the political spectrum is championing this brilliant idea.

Look, I don't think the fact that some figures from history may have been gay should be ignored but I also don't believe that is reason enough for it to be a major part of the curriculum, mandated by law - acknowledge it "yes" but don't highlight it. This action in California may have far reaching consequences. Because California is usually a bell weather State for the rest of America, if this left coast proposal ends up becoming law, expect other States to follow.

There is an up side to all this though. Periodically, one historian or another revisits the rumors that Lincoln may have been either bi-sexual or secretly gay. So who knows? Maybe as a result of California's actions, Abraham Lincoln will end up with two whole paragraphs in new history books!

Cartoon Time



What Has Saddam Been Up to Lately?


 

 

Jamie Gorelick? Please Not Again!

I had been working on several other topics for this blog when I learned about this news so I immediately shifted gears. The term of Robert Mueller, the longest serving FBI Director since J. Edgar Hoover, will end this fall and the Obama administration is assembling its list of possible successors. Rumor has it that one of the names being considered is Jamie Gorelick and if true, it would demonstrate a stunning lack of judgement even for this administration.

If the name Jamie Gorelick doesn't ring a bell, let me refresh your memory. Gorelick is a longtime Washington Democratic insider and political interloper who has moved back and forth between high profile government and private sector positions for years. As a Justice Department official, Gorelick was the co-author of a memo that resulted in restrictions known as "The Wall" which prevented government agencies from sharing information. As a consequence, the FBI and the CIA were unable to share critical intelligence regarding the activities of the 9/11 hijackers prior to the attack that may have helped our government "connect the dots" and quite possibly prevent the single largest attack against the United States since Pearl Harbor. The 9/11 Commission cited "The Wall" as one of the most significant factors contributing to the intelligence failures leading to 9/11.

If that isn't enough, Ms. Gorelick was a Vice Chairmain of Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored entity responsible to Congress for maintaining stability, liquidity, and affordability in the housing and mortgage markets. Under her leadership for which she received a reported $26 million dollars over a 4 year period, Fannie Mae was the subject of a multi-billion dollar accounting scandal that made it appear to be financially sound when in fact it was in serious trouble. Ultimately, these troubles contributed to the housing crash in 2006. Amazingly, Ms. Gorelick receive a nearly $800,000 bonus for her performance!

As a result of these two catastrophes, Gorelick has been dubbed "The Mistress of Disaster." Personally, if I found out that Jamie Gorelick was booked on the same cruise or flight as I was, I'd change my reservation. But don't misunderstand, I'm not saying she shouldn't be involved with the FBI. I just think she should be the subject of one of its investigations, not a candidate as its director.