Afghanistan – Obama’s Vietnam?

Differences of Opinion on Strategy
CBS News reports that President Obama is focused on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, rather than the Taliban. Thus he is considered unlikely to fulfill General Stanley McChrystal’s request for up to 40,000 additional troops. [1]

There is a deep difference of opinion among U.S. officials, with Obama leaning toward a “limited war,” and a strategy of reaching out to “moderates” in the Taliban. [2]

As recently as August, before the Afghan elections, Obama was telling the Veterans of Foreign Wars that the Afghanistan war was a war of necessity and not a war of choice, and that it was very important to keep Afghanistan from again becoming a haven for al-Qaeda terrorists.

Is It Like Vietnam?
It seems that the situation is looking too difficult and too complicated for Obama to want to get more involved. General McChrystal has said that without a substantial number of additional troops, we risk failure of the mission. But Obama is looking at the unpopularity of the war as recorded by the polls. So is Congress and they will decide on funding.

Obama’s advisers are downplaying the Taliban threat, according to a McClatchy article.
“One phrase that always comes up in the administration's strategy sessions is ‘public opinion,’ one participant told McClatchy.” [3]
This war has some characteristics seen during the Vietnam War:

1. Decreasing public support
2. Opinion widely split over strategy
3. Substantial danger of involvement by surrounding countries
4. Political leaders leaning toward “limited war” strategy, with no real plan for victory.
5. Political leaders would rather have an exit strategy than a victory.

Risks of Not Going for Victory
1. Steady, if slowed, progress by the Taliban in taking over Afghanistan
2. Anti-Taliban people who have supported America and NATO will likely be murdered.
3. Afghan civil war could reignite and draw in India and Pakistan, both with nuclear weapons, on opposite sides.

CBS News online reports: “‘A Taliban-ruled Afghanistan will be wide open for al Qaeda to expand its current sanctuaries and safe havens and I would argue al Qaeda's nothing without sanctuaries and safe havens,’ said Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University.” [4]

The McClatchy article quotes a senior U.S. intelligence official as follows:
“‘The region right now is as volatile as I have ever seen it. The tension is not waning; it is on the rise,’ another senior U.S. intelligence official said. ‘The Indo-Pakistan issue looms like a dark cloud on a horizon that might look clear blue, but it is actually a tidal wave that is rushing in.’

“Finally, failure in Afghanistan would deal a massive blow to U.S. international standing to the benefit of Iran, Russia and China , and undermine the NATO alliance, [other] U.S. officials said.” [5]

Difficult Choices
So Obama faces a fateful decision. How much consideration should be given to the request of his top commander in Afghanistan? Obama has indicated that he’s uncomfortable with the idea of victory. I hope he won’t be unduly delayed further by concern over domestic matters. What needs to happen is this: Mr. Obama should show actual leadership by taking a firm decision and getting it carried out, and also explaining the realities of the matter to the American people. How will his decision affect our homeland security? How will it affect our relationships in NATO and our interests in the world?

Like Vietnam, we could, at substantial cost in lives and money, be fighting a “limited war” with no real goal of winning. Fortunately, we are not likely to lose as many lives in Afghanistan as in Vietnam, but each death is a tragic loss. Military personnel in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, and as our troops did in Vietnam, are courageously doing a great job in an environment most of us could hardly imagine, much less work effectively in. I think Obama should have victory as his goal. If it’s a “necessary war,” then it’s one that should end with America and NATO winning and the Taliban and al-Qaeda losing.

But it’s Obama’s call. Prayer and wisdom are needed.

[1] CBS News.com, “Obama Focusing on al Qaeda, not Taliban,” 10/08/2009, at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/08/politics/main5371942.shtml?tag=stack.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott, and Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers, “Officials: obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers,” 10/11/2009, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3330066.

[4] CBS News.com, see [1].

[5] Landay, et al, see [3].

Photo: Dreamstime.com

EU Wants U.S. To End Death Penalty

“End death penalty, EU tells U.S.” – Headline
The European Union wants the United States to abolish the death penalty. They cite examples of people wrongly convicted and sentenced to death and maintain that the death penalty is subject to errors and doesn’t help human dignity.

“‘For the EU, it’s a matter of principle,’ said, John Bruton, former Irish prime minister and the EU ambassador to the United States.’” [1]

“‘The EU believes that the elimination of the death penalty is fundamental to the enhancement of human dignity and to the progressive development of human rights,’ [Swedish Ambassador Jonas] Hafstrom said on behalf of the 27-member political union.” [2]

“EU wants death penalty halted; Perry says butt out” – Headline
Governor Rick Perry of Texas, the leading state for executions in the U.S., has been unmoved by the EU’s calls for death penalty abolition. Replying to an EU request to him in August 2007, was the following:
“The governor's spokesman, Robert Black, said in a statement that ‘230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination.

“‘Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas.’” [3]

Some Arguments
There have been a few cases of the death penalty being applied in the U.S. in recent years in which DNA evidence did not support the guilt of the person executed, or prosecutors illegally withheld mitigating evidence. These cases are regrettable and actions are being taken to use DNA evidence where possible and judges are likely more sensitive these days to use of evidence against defendants. But these items, unfortunate, tragic, as they are, do not present a convincing case against capital punishment.

Any law can be mistakenly applied. If the death penalty were being illegally or erroneously applied in many cases, there would be an argument for making it illegal. But such is not the case. The philosophical and legal arguments should be the basis of decisions on the death penalty. Here are some reasons I support it:

1. There are cases in which the death penalty represents the only possibility of approaching a just punishment. Many crimes are extremely horrendous and any punishment short of the death penalty appears to almost excuse them.

2. The state does not offend human dignity by properly applying the death penalty. It offends human dignity by not punishing serious crimes sufficiently.

3. The state has every traditional, legal, and moral right to execute perpetrators of very serious crimes, provided they do so in accordance with the law.

4. Some object to the death penalty on biblical grounds. But the Bible indicates that use of the death penalty under strict rules is not only acceptable, but was sometimes mandatory. While we do not have the same laws as ancient Israel, nor should we, the aforementioned fact shows that scripturally, the death penalty is not, ipso facto, wrong, although it can be wrongly used.

People interested in the legality of the death penalty may find the following exchange between Alan Keyes and Barack Obama of interest. This is from a debate when both were candidates for the Illinois Senate seat which Obama won:



President Obama has said that he is in favor of the death penalty in certain extreme cases, such as child rape. He has also said he would support the death penalty for Osama bin Laden. My own views are quite in agreement with Mr. Keyes on both the death penalty and abortion. Dealing with life and death issues stirs emotions on all sides. While I can see an execution as a tragic event, it normally follows an even more tragic crime. Sometimes, justice simply cannot be served with a lesser punishment. But in any case, serious deliberation and careful consideration of the evidence is needed. Otherwise, one crime is compounded by another.

Does the EU Know What’s Best?
The other issue involved in the EU call for ending the death penalty is that of the appropriateness of the EU getting involved with American laws:

“The EU said it was helping capital punishment foes in the U.S. by filing amicus curiae briefs in appellate courts hearing death-penalty appeals. The EU also has funded studies by the American Bar Association to investigate the fairness of specific cases.” [4]

I see this as somewhat inappropriate, similar to the Supreme Court using foreign laws to help them adjudicate cases.

In a prior case, as commented upon by Debra J. Saunders at sfgate.com,

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gave Our Betters in Europe a taste of their own bitter medicine. Angry at the governor's refusal to stop the Dec. 13 execution of convicted four-time murderer Stanley Tookie Williams, city leaders of Graz, Austria, mobilized to remove Austria’s most famous son's name from a stadium. Schwarzenegger responded with a ‘Dear Hans’ letter. In it, he revoked the city's permission to use his name on the stadium and promote Graz as a tourist destination. Schwarzenegger also returned a ‘ring of honor’ bestowed by his hometown in 1999....

“It apparently takes a European-born American to see what the Euro-elites are -- so desperate to promote themselves as better than Americans that they kowtow to thugs.

“One ‘human rights’ group, the Association of Christianity and Social Democracy, proposed that the stadium be named after Williams. That makes sense: Flaunt how your opposition to capital punishment makes you superior by honoring a felon who shot an unarmed man in the back, then later shot a father, mother and their adult daughter and left them to die slow, painful deaths.” [5]

Americans are not always fond of being preached to by European authorities, whom many view has having little moral authority to lecture the U.S. We do not need to make pleasing Europeans on this issue a high priority. We have already compromised our national sovereignty in too many other ways.

[1] Alexander Besant, Hearst Newspapers, “End death penalty, EU tells U.S.,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram online, 10/09/2009, at http://www.star-telegram.com/nation/story/1675231.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] “EU wants death penalty halted; Perry says butt out,” My SA News 08/21/2007, at
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA082207_2B_perryexecution_3221f1d_html35741.html.

[4] Besant, see [1].

[5] Debra J. Saunders, “The governor strikes back,” SFGate.com, 12/29/2005, at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/29/EDGG6GDPDE1.DTL&type=printable.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Cap and Trade Support? It Gets Curiouser and Curiouser

This Won’t Make the Economy Better
We’re apparently still in the recession. Unemployment is up again, now 9.8% for the U.S. with some states well into double digits. And yet we’re expected to believe that somehow cap and trade is a good idea. It’s a bad idea in the best of times, but in the current economy, it’s the gateway to a real depression if enacted. If both cap and trade and Obamacare are enacted, a depression will be unavoidable, and cap and trade alone could bring one.

Why, oh, why are we willing to even entertain the idea of cap and trade? Do we really need our whole energy economy to be restructured for the purpose of trying to deal with a problem, man-made global warming, that likely does not exist, and to the miniscule extent that it might exist, nothing can be done that would produce any measurable effect on the climate. The idea is to regulate “greenhouse gases,” especially carbon dioxide, which in fact is neither a pollutant nor a problem.

The environmentalist activists are in support of this legislation. So is the Obama government and Democratic Congress, because it will provide greatly increased government power to regulate just about everything to do with any aspect of energy, and supposedly provide billions of taxpayer dollars in new taxes, which would allegedly be used to create “green jobs.” If this wasn’t so deadly serious, it would be laughable for its ridiculousness.

Obama Explains Some of the Effects of Cap and Trade
Just to refresh your memory, here’s Barack Obama discussing his ideal cap and trade plan:



This same government that does basically nothing to encourage off-shore drilling, nuclear power development, domestic oil refining capacity, i.e., things that would actually help our energy situation, now wants to place a heavy tax on all users of fossil fuels or producers of more-than-average CO-2 emissions. And they want to reward their Wall Street pals (think Goldman-Sachs) with a lucrative new carbon-emission permit trading industry.

Where’s the Compassion?
Legislators who support this bill will demonstrate conclusively that they are not interested in the well-being of the American taxpayer or the unemployed. They are about as “compassionate” as the pre-haunted Ebenezer Scrooge, if not worse. When House Minority Leader John Boehner read for an hour on the House floor some of the strange things that were in the House bill, it should have been enough of an embarrassment to kill the whole thing right there – but not to these shameless Democrats.

Economic Damage
According to Heritage Foundation analyses, the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce GDP by $9.4 trillion (adjusted for inflation) from 2012 to 2035. Also there would be no net new jobs, but rather, millions of jobs lost. Consumers would suffer from having to pay higher prices for many goods and services. [1]

“In addition to the direct impact on consumers' budgets through higher electric bills and gasoline prices, the resultant increase in energy costs will reverberate throughout the economy and inject unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production. It would suppress economic activity and reduce employment, especially in the manufacturing sector. Virtually all costs would eventually filter down to the American people.” [2]

There are so many costs to American taxpayers and so much freedom given up, it is difficult to see how Americans could be willing to give up so much and receive so little in exchange. The emissions effect would be almost unmeasurable. Even if one accepted the environmentalists’ ideas about CO-2, etc., there would be no net global decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, because growing economies such as China and India will not adopt anything like this to restrict their own emissions. Not only does this not help the emissions “problem,” the bill would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage in world markets, since our prices would have to increase due to higher energy costs.

No Help from Other Countries
President Obama told the UN that climate change is so serious that everyone needs to cooperate to deal with it. That is simply not going to happen. Even the signers of the Kyoto protocol have not decreased their emissions and are doing worse now. Several countries are seeing the negative economic impact of laws restricting carbon emissions and are pulling back on them. Of course, Obama and company wouldn’t consider economic destruction a problem, since their main concern is government control and power. Otherwise, they would see that cap and trade makes no sense.

Another drawback is that the cap and trade bill relies on technology that does not yet exist, in order to meet the tightening emissions targets of future years. This is presumption in the extreme. Don’t be surprised if they pass laws relying on the development of time travel. The development of clean, renewable energy industries should follow market forces. When it’s profitable, private industry goes into action and puts it on the market.

The premise of cap and trade is that energy costs would increase to the point that there would be more demand for “green” energy development and fossil fuels would be conserved. Never mind that economic activity in general would be depressed even more than it is at present. A lot more. We would have less disposable income, i.e., we’d become poorer and have a lower standard of living.

It’s also odd that the government is no longer so much interested in real pollution (smog, carbon monoxide, etc.) in favor of worry over greenhouse gases, particularly the non-pollutant CO-2.

Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) committee is handling the Senate version of cap and trade, which is not expected to be much different from Waxman-Markey. I wonder if Boxer’s bill also has the provision that before a person can sell a house, it must be updated according to a new federal building code for energy efficiency. If the usual pattern is followed, the bill will be voted upon without having been read or perhaps seen, let alone put on the internet for public viewing.

Do You “Feel” the Need for This Bill?
I suppose that with the help of Al Gore’s efforts and stirring up fears of bad things happening to polar bears, baby seals, and those cute little penguins, proponents of this legislation have got some people supporting it so they will feel better. Meanwhile, ski resorts in the Western U.S. are starting their season earlier than usual this year.

[1] David Kzeutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D., William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” 08/06/09, The Heritage Foundation, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm

[2] Ibid.

Photo: Dreamstime.com. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Cutting America Down to Size

Warren Court Wasn’t Radical Enough
Lest we forget, President Barack Obama wants to redistribute income and wealth. He regrets that the Warren Supreme Court didn’t do enough in reinterpreting the Constitution to require forced redistribution:



Nothing suggests he has changed his view on this; he just can’t say it so plainly now. This is understood better by Joe the Plumber than by most citizens. For the Obama Administration, the purpose of taxation is less to raise revenue for the government and more to control behavior and redistribute wealth. It's about government control of the private sector through direct ownership or taxes and regulations, making resources available for redistribution as desired.

We’ll Make Them an Offer They Can’t Refuse
CNS News reports on the Inspector General’s investigation of TARP bailouts. It was found that the government made it clear to the nine largest banks that they had no choice but to accept bailout money and allow the government to take equity positions in their banks. The pressure put on banks by Fed and Treasury officials was reported at the time, but the IG report confirms and details it.

“The inspector general’s report also found that federal officials, including then-Secretary [Henry] Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and current-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner all viewed the plan as an offer the banks could not refuse.

“‘Officials at Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and other federal regulators felt strongly that the nine institutions should not be permitted to reject the government’s capital infusions,’ the report says.” [1]

Also, banks and other companies that received bailout funds or were taken over by the government will be under the watchful eye of the “pay czar” to make sure executive pay is what Obama thinks it should be.

Automakers GM and Chrysler received bailout funds of at least $110 billion and the government converted their debt to equity. The federal government is now the majority owner of GM, and they arranged for Obama’s pals the United Auto Workers union to own a majority share of Chrysler. This apparently is legal only because no one could stop it. For all the “help,” both companies went through bankruptcy, with the Administration guiding the proceedings. So much for checks and balances.

Spending into Oblivion
But these may be just fairly minor items in the big Obama plan. With the multi-trillion-dollar deficits being created, and the truly mind-boggling takeovers involved in Obamacare and cap and trade, the private sector will be severely squeezed, and companies that are not actually taken over will be taxed and regulated to the point of de facto government control. Many will go out of business or relocate overseas. These are the things that will lead to a depression.

Obama’s obvious plan is to weaken the U.S. economy to make it easier for him to control. People who are unemployed and companies that are on the verge of collapse will tend to look to government for help. And the “help” they get will bring, if not bankruptcy, even more government control. The “rich” will be taxed more aggressively, and this will exacerbate the current economic problems and create more. We will soon be experiencing massive inflation as more spending comes on stream.

A prosperous people are harder to control than a dependent people. Once a majority of voters are government-dependent non-payers of income tax, Obama hopes to have majority support for ever-increasing taxation of those who do pay, thus redistributing their wealth to the non-earners, and especially, to the government. “Immigration reform” will help him with this, since it should add millions of new Democratic votes. Never mind that all this reduces revenues to the government, increases the deficit even more, generally ruins the economy, and brings more human misery. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right?

Anyone Can See the Dangers; Obama Accepts Them
I said it’s an obvious plan. Anyone who successfully completed Economics 101 should be able to see that increased deficits and increased taxes cannot bring prosperity to our economy in its current condition. The problem was characterized by over-spending and high deficits. It can’t be solved by the same measures.

This is known and understood by the Administration. The goal is not prosperity but dependency. Obama thinks America has been too prosperous for too long and deserves a humbling dressing down. And he’s just the guy to bring it. It’s either that or he is truly clueless. I don’t think he’s clueless. His plan is consistent: Stop the initiatives and programs that really could help. Like domestic energy production, lower taxes, less regulation, less control over everything in sight.

Foreign Policy Can Wait
Obamacare, the Olympics and various domestic considerations appear to be the reason the president cannot get to a decision on Afghanistan in a reasonable amount of time. As recently as August, Afghanistan was a “necessary” war, and we needed to prevent Afghanistan from becoming again a haven for al-Qaeda terrorists with the Taliban in power. Now, that’s just one option among several.

So far, Obama’s top foreign policy accomplishments include closer friendships with Ortega, Chavez and others, apologizing for America numerous times, trying to get Honduras’ deposed president back in power, and giving up on the Poland-Czech missile defense to curry favor with Putin.

The main focus has to be on domestic policy and Obama’s great fascist program of nanny-state regulation, statist corporatism, and the traditional liberal tax-and-spend, but on a greater scale. He may be a lot nicer than the Big Brother of Orwell’s 1984, but he still wants government to be the center of America’s world, running as much of it as possible. Given the history of government running things domestically, it’s not a promising prospect.

[1] Matt Cover, “Inspector General: Treasury Secretary Forced Banks to Surrender Ownership Interest to Government,” 10/05/09, CNS News.com, at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55017

Unemployment Continues To Increase Despite Stimulus

“THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION SEPTEMBER 2009

“Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in September (-263,000), and the unemployment rate (9.8 percent) continued to trend up, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses were in construction, manufacturing, retail trade, and government.

“Household Survey Data

“Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 7.6 million to 15.1 million, and the unemployment rate has doubled to 9.8 percent….”

(Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/02/09)

Forecasts: Joblessness To Increase
Unemployment continues to worsen in the U.S., with increasing unemployment expected through 2010 and beyond.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, appearing on the ABC-TV program This Week, said the United States is likely to see 10% employment levels “for a while.” [1]

“The [BLS] report shows that the worst recession since the 1930s is still inflicting widespread pain and underscores one of the biggest threats to the nascent economic recovery: that consumers, worried about job losses and stagnant wages, will restrain spending. Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of the nation's economy.” [2]

“The uncertainty that surrounds the recovery has made employers reluctant to hire. The Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs from large corporations, said earlier this week that only 13 percent of its members expect to increase hiring over the next six months.” [3]

Even top presidential adviser Larry Summers has predicted that we are facing years of “unacceptably high” rates of unemployment. [4]

Political Problems for Mr. Obama
It is widely agreed that continued high unemployment will not help President Obama’s political situation. For example:
“Persistent joblessness could pose political problems for President Barack Obama, who pushed through an ambitious $787 billion stimulus package in February intended to "save or create" 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010.” [5]

Robert Kuttner noted the political difficulty that President Obama may experience as a result of the unemployment situation: “If the unemployment numbers keep rising into 2010, the Republicans are primed to pick up dozens of seats in the House, crippling the Obama administration's capacity to recoup in the second half of the president's first term.” [6]

The $787 billion stimulus is not showing job-creation results. It is mainly a political pork program designed to reward Obama’s political allies. Only a small percentage has been spent thus far, with the rest to be spread over several years, with most spending to be in the out years. While the stimulus may be of some benefit to direct recipients, it cannot stimulate the economy in general, and will contribute significantly to the federal deficit.

Liberal Prescriptions Won’t Solve the Problems
Robert Kuttner’s liberal suggestion: “The president should be making the case for increased deficit spending on job-creation in 2010 and 2011, followed by a program of deficit reduction financed by progressive taxation.” [7]

Liberals rely on a Keynesian approach of deficit spending, while conservatives recognize that such a program would only put us into a deeper hole. The solution to unemployment is to encourage economic activity in the private sector. This should be done by cutting taxes and increasing tax deductions for those who are paying income taxes. Liberals would have us believe that “progressive” tax increases affecting the “rich” would not affect those who aren’t “rich,” but in fact such increases would cause even greater suffering. Workers would feel the most pain, and the “rich,” i.e., those who could create jobs if the economic environment was encouraging, would refrain from doing so, seeing no opportunity for a good return on investment in the current economic climate.

Experience has shown, in the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, that reduced tax rates will yield increased revenues to the government, which will reduce deficits if spending isn’t increased.


More Trouble Looms If Obamacare and/or Cap and Trade Are Passed
The outlook at present is rather bleak, since deficits would likely increase if Obamacare or cap and trade is passed, Passage of both will assure us of years of double-digit unemployment.

It should be acknowledged that the current government program is not going to help the unemployment rate, and that increasing taxes and deficits won’t either. Perhaps some actual constructive steps will be taken before we see Great Depression II.

Still, There Is Some Hope for Improvement
A hopeful aspect of the current situation is that the market is strong and resilient and self correcting, if its mechanisms aren’t destroyed or stopped by government. Also, Americans have always found ways to work around bad laws to some extent. And, the 2010 elections could very well take away Obama’s Democratic majority in Congress. People are more inclined, I think, to vote for prosperity rather than a program of increased government controls that might fit some liberal-socialist theory, but not citizens’ real life needs.

We are now seeing something of the results of a comprehensive government program: increasing unemployment and continued economic stagnation, when we should have already been in a strong recovery mode. It doesn’t look very promising through 2010. But maybe after that ….


[1] “Greenspan sees 10 percent unemployment,” UPI.com 10/04/09 at http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/10/04/Greenspan-sees-10-percent-unemployment/UPI-64121254679910/.

[2] Christopher S. Rugaber, Associated Press, “Jobless Rate Reaches 9.8 Percent in September,” 10/02/09, CNS News.com at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54963.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Eamon Javers, “Adviser: High unemployment for years,” Politico.com, 09/12/09 at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27052.html.

[5] Rugaber, see [2].

[6] Robert Kuttner, “It’s the Unemployment, Stupid,” 10/04/09, The Huffington Post, at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/its-the-unemployment-stup_b_309205.html.

[7] Ibid.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Nanny State Goes After States Over Distracted Drivers

From a Fox News article by Nina Donaghy, 10/01/09: “Texting, using hand-held and hands-free cell phones, talking to passengers and even programming your GPS while driving can all be life-threatening distractions on the road, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and others said at a national Distracted Driving Summit Thursday.” [1]

LaHood said President Obama has just signed an executive order forbidding texting while driving for federal employees driving on government business. The administration wants to crack down on the aforementioned distractions for all drivers. The article reports that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) wants the auto and phone industries to support his bill requiring states to either forbid texting while driving or face the loss of one-fourth of their federal highway funding [2]

OK, we shouldn’t be texting while driving, and shouldn’t be distracted by other things. But where does the federal government draw the line on what is a federal issue and what isn’t? Apparently seizing any opportunity to regulate the lives of the American people, the Senator is promoting this bill, and has even given it a cute acronym/name, ALERT, for Avoiding Life Endangering and Reckless Texting, according to the article. That should make people want to support it.

This is right in line with the liberal, nanny-state mentality that believes that if anyone points out a serious problem of some kind, it’s the federal government’s responsibility to “do something about it.” This is an example of how the federal government gets involved in so many things that are properly and traditionally the domain of state and local authorities. The statistics on accidents and deaths caused by texting while driving (cited in the article) are available to and studied by all state departments of public safety, and numerous other agencies, non-profit organizations, insurance companies, etc., etc.

It seems that state and local authorities are quite aware of the problems and are at work on dealing with them. Various localities have restricted cell phone use by drivers and more rules are being considered. But that is not enough to suit Sen. Schumer, who thinks the federal government, specifically himself, should determine who may do what, and what the (serious) consequences will be for a state’s failure to comply. And he has them, in general, over a barrel, because most states can’t afford to give up a cent of federal money.

They don’t need Schumer’s bill to force them into anything. The federal government seems to have no respect for the state authorities and views them as subordinate units of the federal government, which they are not. Someone should be reading the Tenth Amendment, of which Schumer’s bill would be a gross violation.

It’s hard to question the motives of people who just want to “save lives” by whatever means. But, as usual, the U.S. Constitution is being trampled underfoot by power-seeking federal officials. What about chewing gum while driving? It’s just a matter of time, I suppose, until we get a law prohibiting that, too, on penalty of giving up another fourth of highway money.

I may have to send a text message to my congresswoman about this

[1] Nina Donaghy, “LaHood Pledges to Crack Down on Distracted Driving, Warns of Fatal Consequences,” Fox News.com at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/01/lahood-pledges-crack-distracted-driving-warns-fatal-consequences/

[2] Ibid.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Obama Hits Snooze Button on Afghanistan

Barack Obama met with his war council on September 30 for a three-hour discussion of strategy for Afghanistan. An official who attended said anonymously that the meeting highlighted differences among Obama’s top advisers, according to an Associated Press article by Steven R. Hurst and Philip Elliott. Appearing to favor a troop increase are Hillary Clinton, and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus support the request of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, top commander in Afghanistan. [1]

But other advisers are skeptical of the idea: Rahm Emanuel, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, and Vice President Joe Biden. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “on the fence.” Several more meetings are planned and it may take weeks for President Obama to make a decision. [2]

Meanwhile, the Afghanistan military operation languishes for lack of resources. Gen. McChrystal (who, it was reported, has talked to Obama one time, as contrasted with commanders under G. W. Bush, who frequently spoke to him) has reported that our forces cannot meet their objectives without a substantial number of additional troops.

August, the AP article reports, has been the deadliest month of the war for American troops, with 51 deaths. [3]

Why is the President so indecisive about a war that he has proclaimed we must win? He was going to track down Obama bin Laden. He was going to invade Pakistan if necessary to accomplish his goals. Now, he seems to be dawdling as American troops are dying. He is sensitive to the fact that American support for the war has decreased. His left wing base is not supportive. Of course, now he doesn’t want to use the word “victory.” How about “defeat”? Is that better?

Not long ago, Obama was adamant about success in Afghanistan:



As reported by Bob Woodward from Gen. McChrystal’s leaked 66-page report to the Pentagon, the commander wrote, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” [4]

Woodward also reports that Obama is considering several options in addition to the general’s request. “Obama said last week that he will not decide whether to send more troops until he has ‘absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be.’” [5]

It is reported that Obama has scheduled a teleconference with Gen. McChrystal, his second (!) direct conversation with the general.

It is disappointing that although Obama, who, as a candidate, seemed to have supreme confidence about what to do regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo cannot now decide in a reasonable amount of time about Afghanistan. Gen. McChrystal’s request is not exactly new as of today.

Apparently Mr. Obama needs more time, so he can go overseas to promote Chicago for the Olympics, and perhaps to take a few more polls about Afghanistan, or consult with George Soros or whoever. The delay is needed because Obama’s decision will impact his own political future. Meanwhile, American and allied troops must wait a while as danger increases. Decisions, decisions.


[1] Steven R. Hurst and Philip Elliott, “Obama’s war council divided on Afghanistan,” 10/01/09, Associated Press, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan_44

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Bob Woodward, “McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure’”, 09/20/09, The Washington Post (online) at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

[5] Ibid.

Photo: Dreamstime.com (Soldier at border checkpoint in Afghanistan)