While Obama's away...

The President goes to Europe, and the Lefties start talking again about how things "should be"...

Seems its been too long since we last had a national debate about the tax rates, so the Lefties are back on track with plans for another 2% hike to the top income tax rate, a 5% hike to the dividends/return tax rate, and another 7% hike to the capital gains tax.

When its all said and done... that equals a top marginal tax rate of 62% (according to the WSJ). That's up from the current rate of 48%. That's too high, even for me... and here's why.

Keynesian economic theory says that balance is needed, but no balance can be found in the Left's agenda. In 1989, when Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 33%... while the average top tax rate of our ten largest trading partners around the globe was 51%. I might not be an economist, but I'd bet your dollar to my paycheck that THAT is why the US was able to create so many jobs over the course of the next 10 years. It was cheaper for businesses to build and grow in the US than it was for them to do so anywhere else.

Since 2006, that simply hasn't been the case. Our top ten trading partners now have an average top tax rate of 45%... while ours is rapidly rising above 48% on its way (if the Lefties have their way) to 62%. Where then will the jobs and wealth be created? Not here, I can bet you that.

There will be no long-term recovery from this "Great Recession" without a return to functional Keynesian policy when it comes to taxes and spending... and if the use of J M Keynes name (or Arthur Laffer, for that matter) is too distasteful for our conservative members to swallow, then lets just use Reagan's name, instead. Ron understood what I am talking about, as history shows.

A functioning example...

Want to see a functioning example of what I think those that still embrace "hope and change" really want to see happen here in America since the 2008 elections? Look at the headlines and news coming from Belarus.

Here is a post-Soviet state that has retained the government-controlled economic system implemented by the Soviets since their independence in 1991. The leadership in Minsk still "owns and operates" more than 51% of all jobs in the country, and dictates both exchange rates and domestic value of the Belarussian ruble. 12 months ago, that ruble was trading at a rate of 1900 to 1 against the US$... today it is at over 5,300 to 1, and they are looking at devaluing it another 50% before the end of the week. In short, the state-run economy is on the verge of a complete meltdown, and Belarus has no EU membership to partner it's way out of this mess, either (as Greece and Spain have already done).

Vital services like mail, trains and fuel distribution are facing utter failure, and gasoline and diesel prices are 40-50% higher in Belarus than they are in any other European state. National infrastructure is decaying fast, and ranks in the bottom tier for the entire continent (and that is really saying something).

Unsustainable government spending, massive national debt, a shrinking national revenue base with a growing portion of the population more dependant on government support than ever before... all on the shoulders of a freely elected and (seemingly) popular leadership party that openly declares itself to be "soviet" in nature and structure.

This is, perhaps, the last vestige of soviet-style planning in a free, democratic society where we (as Americans) can watch the centralized system of socialism fail utterly. No one can blame repressive, authoritarian regimes for not representing the will of the people in Minsk... they keep electing these "socialists" in free elections. This is socialism at its most free and functional best... and it is failing right before our eyes.

Time's up

The 1973 War Powers Act grants the President of the United States 60 days to conduct military operations without seeking the approval of congress.

US involvement in Libya behan March 19th.

Today marks 61 days & yesterday the CIC wrote a letter to congress explaining that US military involvement in Libya at this stage is so limited, so narrow, that it really isn't worth the effort to seek congressional approval at this point.

Really?

Is THAT what the law says? Sounds an awful like "advisors" in South East Asia to me. Which is exactly the scenario this law was intended to prevent from reoccurring.

****

In other news, the world is supposed to end at 6pm today. If it does, Im calling in. If it doesn't I may need to celebrate dodging such an apocalyptic bullet, thus facilitating a need to, call in. That's your classic "win-win" there.

The Rape of Israel

I am going to do my LEVEL BEST not to descend into a tirade of expletives here, and I mean that sincerely.

Son of a BITCH!

I am LIVID!

This is my first post since what I am dubbing the "Rape Speech."

I f you read this blog then you know that I was convinced that President Obama would abandon Israel with a partition scheme in the early fall. What he wasn't counting on was the deal Netenyahu made with the US congress (to address our body and state clearly the Israeli position on Palestine, which will be coming this week), and the "Arab Spring." I think these prompted the president to move up his timeline, and yesterday was the result.

Along with "pre 1967 borders" there are two important phrases in that speech that will have dire consequences. First - "contiguous." The PoTUS advocated a "contiguous Palestine" not based on Jordanian held territory, but on the 1967 boarders. That splits Israel nearly in HALF, and divides Jerusalem (which he promised APAC he would never do in 2008, as a candidate). Secondly, and I quote: "As for security, every state has a right to self defense. And Israel must be able to defend itself, BY itself."

Do you get what that means? I am NOT capitalizing and italicizing "by" for effect. The president did that. Listen to the speech, he went out of his way to raise his voice and pause on that phrase "BY itself." And this is no accident. I posted here some time back (a matter of months) about an interview I witnessed conducted with Samantha Powers. She is the #2 foreign policy advisor in the White House, and wife of Cass Sunstein, the "Regulatory Czar." And she didn't just intimate, she flat out said that the administration must be willing to alienate 1/6th of it's political base in order to redirect billions in US dollars aiding Israeli security efforts, and channel that money into building a Palestinian state. Who do you think that 1/6th is? Wanna take a guess?

This president is overseeing the dissolution of the 63 year relationship between the US and Israeli governments, period. And he CERTAINLY wants the dissolution of the state of Israel as we know it. His partition avocation is equivalent to our telling Canada that the US must have a contiguous boarder with Alaska, AFTER having spent decades trying to wipe Canada off the map, I might add.

The president's first chief of staff once quipped that in politics, "You never let a crisis go to waste", implying you get things done during a crisis you never otherwise could have. The "Arab Spring" is that crisis.

Just think about Titus' apt observation yesterday - there is an inherent trait, something in the cultural DNA of the West that sees a trend towards democratic forms of government. He listed various examples (I would add the Florentine Council, but I guess it's arguable that it was in actuality a mini Medici Empire). YET there is no such historical trend in the East, especially the near East. So what is the proof, or even the indication, that the Arab Spring will produce a sweep of democracies that Israel can now do business with along the 67' borders???!!!

Can anyone tell me whom the leader of Egypt will be 6 months from now? Tunisia? Yemen? Pakistan? Hell, even Iraq? The ENTIRE region is in play, and it's amidst THIS chaos that the president says, "no worries Israel, it will all work out, you can go back to the 1967 borders now."

IS HE OUT OF HIS MIND!? Answer: NO. This has been long in the making.

See this, having advisers such as Samantha Powers, the Israel is "BY itself" comment, the Rape Speech in its' entirety, the the 67' borders demand, THIS is why things like the Reverend Wright scandal MATTER. These windows into a man's soul MATTER. I don't know if this president is anti-Semitic, but he's certainly anti-Israel, and the people with whom he's asking Israel to trust are without question, BOTH.

The bottom line: Israel will NOT comply.

They will NOT recede to the 67' borders. And this isn't a matter of simply rolling back a few tanks and check points, there are entire Jewish communities there, settlements. It just will NOT happen.

So now what?

The United States government is on record as opposing the policy and territorial claims of the state of Israel. What happens now?

Answer : WAR.

I promise you (especially if Obama wins reelection) this will result in war. And when that war erupts, remember the words "defend itself BY itself." It won't be a hot war between the US and Israel of course, but a witholding of support, cold war style opposition, everything short of boots on the ground. The type of legal preventions in place that preclude Lockeed Martin et al from doing business with Iran or Syria will be imposed on doing business with the sate of Israel. The thousands of able bodied strong men, private citizens of the US, that will flock to join Israel's fight will be held up, delayed, and prevented.

You think that can't happen? You think this president won't go that far? Ask yourself, how many times has he answered that question already to our shock and dismay? Israel is being set up for rape, and our CIC is providing the bed chamber.

But here's one other thing he didn't "count on." How seriously the Israelis take the motto their nation is built upon - "NEVER AGAIN."

If he 's looking to stir a fight, well by God he's going to get one.

I've been thinking...

The Queen has just wrapped up a very impressive and historic visit to Ireland, and the stories and photos from that trip have had me thinking. I'm no Anglophile, mind you... at least not in the way my wife is. She loves everything British, and loves everything "Royal", too. She drank deep of the heady draft that was the wedding of William and Kate, and she is always ready to recall the drama that was Diana and Charles, too.

I won't lie, though... Her Majesty is 85 years old, and while I wish her all the best (God save the Queen and all), it is probably unavoidable that we will soon see what hasn't happened in the English-speaking world since 1952: a royal funeral followed by a coronation.

I'm wondering who will follow her?

Obviously, I know Charles is the "heir" to the throne. He is the next King of the United Kingdom... but he doesn't have to take the throne. Nor am I sure he should.

Charles has lots and lots of baggage. There's the whole Diana divorce, which made him look bad no matter who's fault it was. Then there is the Camilla factor... his first love and current wife, the Duchess is an accepted part of the Royal Family now, but I find it difficult to think that the Queen wants her as the Royal Consort to the King... she is divorced, and was a primary party in the divorce of the Prince of Wales and Diana.

Charles is 63 years old himself... no spring chicken, he. He has rarely showed the poise and grace of his lofty office over 35 years the way his oldest son has since the death of his mother. He's never seemed to want to be King... and I think it is important to make that distinction.

The Monarchy is important and relevant today, but to remain that way the Monarch has to fill a very specific and focused role. Can Charles do that?

I don't know if Charles can... but I really do think William can. The man is a master at getting the cameras and limelights to always catch his "good side"... a trick he must have learned from his mother, who never met a camera that didn't like her, either.

The "NEW" American policy towards the Middle East:

It's surely new for this administration, anyway...

What happened to the promise made only two years ago that America didn't have the "right" to force change down another region's throat? How are Obama's efforts to remove Gaddafi any different than Bush's efforts to remove Saddam, fundamentally speaking? How is Obama's promise to support and reward "rebels" across the region any different than Bush Jr., Bush Sr. or Reagan's efforts to effect change in Afghanistan, Iran or Syria?

I'm really not sure what to make of this "new" policy. He seems to have taken just over 25 months to learn that Bush was right, and force projection was the quickest and easiest way to secure US interests in the region's hot spots.

I got on this topic because Ryan sent me a text saying he'd heard the speech. I got home from picking up the oldest from work and listened to it myself. The only part that really got my worried was the part about the US "supporting" a return to the pre-1967 borders with Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. To be fair, he said it would be a starting point, and that nothing was off the table for discussion... but these pre-67 borders did come up again and again.

Understand this: The Palestinains DO NOT want to go back to the pre-1967 agreement any more than the Israelis do. Why? Because that means that Jordan has all political and security authority for the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, while Egypt gets authority over Gaza. It was the failing of these two Arab states in keeping their end of the "bargain" in 1949 that started this whole mess in the first place. Had Jordan actually been able to adequately administer the "Palestinian territories" in the agreed upon manner (with full, unfettered access to all Jewish and Christian holy sites, at any time and to anyone, and that all holy sites would be administered by the respective faiths involved equally)... then the fighting over access wouldn't have grown into an all out war of conquest (on the Israeli's part) and extermination (on the Arab's part).

There can be no gray area here: Israel was acting in legitimate defense of its sovereignty when it initiated military operations against Egypt and Jordan in June of 1967. There were more than 100,000 Egyptian troops within 2 miles of the Israeli border on the Sinai, and another 80,000 Jordanians and Iraqis in the West Bank region. Egypt had "closed" the Suez to all Israeli-bound traffic in May of that year... an act that even the UN had said would justify military response against Egypt as early as 1957. The Soviets were force-feeding Syria false reports about Israeli troop movements (this became a known fact in 1998 with the opening of the Kremlin archives to the West) and the Syrians were calling for immediate mass invasion from all possible fronts.

I'm the first to admit that I have criticized Israel for what I perceived to be errors in strategic and political planning over the last 15 years or so... but (no matter what Ryan might think) I have never doubted Israel's right and obligation to defend herself against the very real and constant threat that is another Arab-Israeli war. The "occupied territories" are captured territory, that is true... but they are NOT areas gain through aggressive conquest or expansionist political goals. They are lands taken from aggressors who openly threatened and attacked Israeli citizens, with the intention of creating greater security and safety for those same citizens in the future. We are not to allow ourselves to see the "occupied territories" in the same way we saw Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in 1990, or Afghanistan after the Soviets invaded in 1980. Israel wasn't looking to "grow" into a Jewish Empire, for Pete's sake... it was keeping what was lost by aggressors in the legitimate defense of a sovereign state.

Frankly, I'm still not convinced that a "two-state" solution isn't the best course to follow... but NOT at the expense of Israeli security. And I AM convinced that the PA (and especially Hamas) does NOT want a return to the 1967 borders, either... since that would mean they'd have to recognize and abide by those borders as legitimate and sovereign. They primary goal, since their very inception as a people and a government is the destruction of Israel entirely and complete control of the entire Levant. It's written into their very Charter itself.

I'm also convinced that this is a can of worms that Obama is very rapidly going to wish was never opened.

Finally...

Do you really think the SF referendum is based, even circumstantially (is that another pun?) on anti-semitism? A pervading distrust of anything Israeli by the left?

Your sarcasm was spot on, and the dangers inherent in such anti-religious legislation are real and can be seen as a direct cause-and-effect issue with the rise of the Nazis in Germany circa 1933... but I'm curious to know if you really think that is the root of the effort.

I (personally) have no doubt that it is based entirely in an anti-religious sentiment... but I can't seem to grasp that it is specifically anti-semitic in its origins.

I'm so tired... physically tired... of seeing those posters and billboards screaming "Imagine... no religion" with the WTC front and center, as if all the tragedy that image brings to mind is the fault of all religious belief and action. Or the thought process that automatically labels all Catholic priests as pedophiles and molesting monsters, or that every parochial school student is a present or future victim of abuse.

Why doesn't anyone see that it is the "atheist" states of this world that have perpetrated the worst atrocities against innocents in the last 500 years? When do we stop hearing about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reconquista, the Conquistadors or the Reformation Era and when do we begin to see the Nazis, the fascists, the Communists and the Ba'athists for exactly what they are: secular, anti-religious or pro-atheist attempts to bring about "no religion"?