Getting Serious About Iran?

The Obama administration may finally be getting serious about Iran. Today's New York Times reports that the U.S. military has been deploying missile defense systems to the Persian Gulf, continuing a build up started under George Bush. Patriot missile batteries with American military personnel are reported to be based in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. In addition, our Navy has cruisers with advanced anti-missile defensive systems patrolling off the Iranian coast at all times.

These deployments suggest Obama may be prepared to take more aggressive steps against Iran, although it doesn't necessarily presage a military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities, since these defensive missile systems are also consistent with a policy of living with a nuclear-armed Iran.

I have had the view that Barack Obama wouldn't let Iran develop nuclear weapons because, if nothing else, of the devastating political consequences for him and Democrats. Obama's desire to impose his healthcare plan on America undermines that premise, since Obama has certainly inflicted great damage on his political standing to pursue his leftist policy agenda.

While it may be too much to say the Doomsday Clock has receded a bit with the missile deployment, it is a hopeful sign of seriousness on the part of the administration.

Scott Brown's Impact

This week, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg changed his tune and now opposes trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan. Quickly, New York's overwhelmingly Democratic Congressional delegation came out in opposition to the plan, after initially supporting it.

It now looks like the Obama administration will accede to the public's deep unease with his plan.

Some Democrats are claiming that the Christmas Day attempted airline bombing has changed the situation, making the risk of terrorism more real. As if 9/11, the Daniel Pearl beheading, the numerous terrorist attacks this decade, and the Fort Hood shootings didn't make those risks visible.

I think a more convincing explanation is that with Scott Brown's victory and the decline in the Democratic party's standing with voters, it is now safer to oppose the President on policies that are politically dangerous. Democrats are now running scared, fearing voter backlash this November, and Obama's agenda will suffer for it.

This Could be Good

New Jersey's new Republican governor, Chris Christie, won his primary contest last spring as the moderate candidate, with many conservative/libertarians concerned that he was weak on limited government issues.

Christie took office recently, and if his words can be matched by deeds, which will be challenging in a state with the legislature controlled by Democrats, he may end up being much more effective than he appeared on during the campaign.

Christie has ruled out tax increases to balance New Jersey's large budget deficit, which is impressive since tax increases have been the solution du jour for state Democrats to tackle deficits.

But just as impressive is Christie's attitude toward education reform. New Jersey has one of the nation's highest per capita spending per student in public schools, which has been one of the factors leading to sky high taxes, and has been resistant to promoting educational choice. Christie has appointed Bret Shundler, the former Jersey City mayor and gubernatorial candidate with a strong track record of promoting educational reform, as his state education commissioner.

But best of all is Christie's response to the question as to whether his appointment of Shundler sends a message to the powerful teacher's union, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA). Christie replied: "I don't think the appointment of Bret Shundler sends any signal to the NJEA. The election of Chris Christie sends a message to the NJEA."

Pigs at the Trough

The state of California, facing continued massive budget deficits, has come up with a new way to help balance its books: asking the federal government for $6.9 billion.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger bases his rationale on two items: that the federal government mandates states to have certain programs but doesn't pay for them and that California residents pay more in federal taxes than they receive in benefits.

In many ways, those are very valid complaints - but the problem lies in the welfare state that has grown out of control the past 75 years. Lower welfare spending would reduce or eliminate the burden of mandates and change the tax paid/benefits received imbalance.

Too bad Arnold and his fellow statists don't say anything like that. Instead, they are just more pigs at the trough looking for a federal handout in the Age of Bailouts.

China's Attack on America

Google's disclosure that Chinese-based hackers infiltrated Google's network, including accessing the email accounts of Chinese activists, led to reports that 34 companies had their networks breached. Subsequent news stories expanded on Chinese cyber attacks directed against the American government.

The hidden nature of such attacks, and the ability of the Chinese government to deny their involvement, cannot mean that we simply must grin our teeth and bear it. The Obama administration is reported to feel constrained to press China hard on this due to a lack of definitive proof, but such a standard will only embolden China to continue making such attacks against America.

We need to make China pay a real price for such behavior, or we will never stop it.

America's Global Standing

Barack Obama made much of America's supposed declining global standing in popularity under George Bush. Unfortunately, under Obama, America's standing on things that really matter has fallen. The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal produce an annual ranking of economic freedom among all the nation's of the world.

The U.S. suffered the largest drop in freedom among the world's 20 largest economies, and now ranks eighth on the list - behind Canada and Ireland.

The list is highly correlated with prosperity, so America's decline is further evidence that Obama's policies are retarding our growth prospects.

Is that part of the "change" Americans intended to vote for with Obama's election?

Let Freedom Ring II

It has been quite a week for advocates of liberty. In addition to Scott Brown's election thwarting Obama's healthcare plans, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned some restrictions on political contributions by corporations and unions. Previously, certain corporations that are in the media business (think the New York Times or Wall Street Journal) were allowed to express political views freely but other corporations (everyone else, and labor unions) had severe restrictions on their ability to do so. The new ruling helps right this wrong.

The Democrats like muzzling groups they think tend to oppose them, and are more than willing to abandon the principle of free expression for political advantage.

Moreover, attempts to limit spending on political campaigns have two main effects: forcing spending into less visible channels to get around the restrictions, and benefiting incumbents who get plenty of free publicity as incumbents and making it more difficult for challengers to succeed.

The Supreme Court decision will increase political competition and make spending more visible - both good things for freedom to thrive.

Let Freedom Ring!

America witnessed a stunning victory by Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley for the U.S. Senate seat from heavily Democratic Massachusetts - a state so heavily Democratic that all the Congressman and all but a handful of state legislators are Democrats.

In a focus group on television tonight, many Democrats who voted for Obama voted for Brown, and said they didn't like the healthcare legislation and spending splurge by Democrats.

In short, America rejects socialism.

John Adams would be very happy at the turn of events.

A Proposal You Can't Refuse

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York pressured AIG in late 2008 to amend its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Such filings are made public, and the New York Fed wanted to avoid disclosing which firms benefited from the government's bailout of AIG.

But there is a revealing comment about the nature of how government power is wielded in the brave new world we live in.

Thomas Baxter, the general counsel of the New York Fed, said "there was no effort to mislead the public," adding that "the final decision rested with AIG and its external securities counsel."

Let's analyze this. AIG's initial draft of its SEC filing included language naming its counterparties. Then the New York Fed pressured it to change that language, and AIG complied. AIG presumably thought it should disclose the information, hence why it drafted the initial document as it did. Moreover, AIG eventually had to disclose the information anyway since the SEC pressed it to amend its filings.

So to say that AIG had the "final decision" ignores the enormous power the Fed had over AIG through the funds it invested in the company under the bailout and its regulatory authority.

If a man is being tortured and confesses to something he didn't do, would you say "the final decision to confess rested with him so he must be guilty"?

If a gangster demands "protection money" from a local business, would you say "the final decision to pay rested with the owner so he must have entered into a normal business transaction"?

The economic system where the government controls and regulates businesses, without government ownership, is fascism. With government ownership, it is socialism.

Welcome to our part fascist, part socialist, part capitalist economy.

Anti-Americanism

I recently read that in 1945, a Gallop poll reported that 54% of the French expressed disfavor of America.

This after America liberated France from its Nazi occupiers.

Nothing highlights more clearly that we can't expect to be popular with foreign nations, that anti-Americanism is a long-standing matter and not just born under George Bush's presidency, and that Barack Obama's attempt to make America more liked is silly at best and dangerous at worst - dangerous because to the extent Obama appeases world opinion, he is often acting against America's values and interests.

Scientific Consensus

Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal illustrates that politicization of science is a broader problem than just "climate gate".

The Journal ran articles on the benefits of exercise in reducing the incidence of illness and health problems. One of the articles discussed the work of a researcher, Paul Smith,who believes that the guidelines for how much exercise people should have is insufficient, since his data shows that higher amounts of exercise lead to better health outcomes.

But Paul William's work is shunned by others in the field and he is denied involvement in panels who review these guidelines because of the fear that if the public knew that more exercise was even better, many people would conclude they shouldn't bother exercising at all since it is too daunting an effort.

It is reminiscent of the government-led nutritional guidelines published in the 1950s which said fat should be reduced from your diet - but didn't differentiate between good fat like monosaturated fat vs. bad fat like saturated fat. Researchers at the time knew all fats weren't bad for people, but preferred a simpler message ("all fats are bad") to the correct message ("trans and saturated fats need to be reduced").

These dietary guidelines missed important nutritional information due to a desire to create a simple message. Simple, and wrong.

These examples illustrate why I'm skeptical when people speak of a "scientific consensus" as it relates to matters relating to public policy - it is very tempting to either impose your own values on the issue, like global warming, or to insist that a simpler, dumbed down explanation is better.

We deserve, and can handle, the truth - in all its complexity.

Global Warming Scaremongering

This article from 2005 predicted that in 2010 there would 50 million "environmental refugees" arising from global warming because of rising sea levels, the encroachment of deserts, dried up aquifers, flooding, and other weather-related problems.

This prediction didn't quite turn out as hoped.

If the global warming scaremongers can't get a forecast five years out correct, how can we take seriously their 100 year forecasts? Never mind that the forecasts are based on models which are based on faked data and that don't "backward predict" historical weather patterns.

The author Michael Crichton wrote about the "state of fear" that many seek to induce in the public about environmental issues. This article, and its false prophesies, is such an example.

Crime and Economy II

It is nice to see Heather Mac Donald writing in the Wall Street Journal on the decline in crime during this recession as a contradiction of the left's belief that crime is a function of economic difficulties. This is the topic I wrote about in a recent column (here), and she provides additional information on the history and implications of this terrible idea.

Who Needs Freedom Anyway?

The founding principles of our country, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, took a severe blow during the Christmas holiday break.

First, the Senate passed healthcare legislation that represents a dramatic increase in government control of our economy and in the healthcare decisions effecting everyone. Obama and the Democrats, unwilling to confront the open-ended commitment for government to pay for an unlimited amount of healthcare in Medicare, has chosen the path of controls, regulations, and restrictions to address the problem. They systematically oppose ways to address healthcare spending that are consistent with freedom and choose the path of socialism instead.

Second, the Obama administration ended the limits, previously set at the staggering amount of $400 billion, on the amount of government investment in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now Obama can pump in as much money as he wishes into those entities, and since he has directed them to engage in money-losing actions to support mortgage modification programs, on top of all their other problems created by Democratic pressure for the past 15 years to expand lending to low-income borrowers. Renters and homeowners who pay their bills, will subsidize those who defaulted on their mortgages held or insured by Fannie and Freddie. Their existence is an affront to the principles of a free society, in addition to their being a conduit for directing subsidies to favored groups.

Last, the attempt to blow up the Northwest flight on Christmas day illustrates that when the President won't call our efforts a "war on terrorism", it reverberates throughout the government agencies. Should I risk being labeled a racist for tracking a Muslim target? Should I work late at night, when I could go home, to connect the dots quickly on a potential terrorist? Why do these things when the President doesn't think the problem is that big a deal?

The obscenity that a number of the leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen are former Guantanamo detainees released by George Bush to satisfy the left's furies over the detention facility, that Obama recently released six more and was about release dozens more, comes down to this: how many Americans should die so the left feels good about themselves?