Revolutions Around the World

There are some amazing things going on right now around the world.  Young people everywhere are standing up for their rights.  President Bush once said, “I believe all these things because freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is the Almighty God’s gift to every man and woman in this world.”  I believe people around the world have an innate longing for freedom.  They are sick of being told what to do, sick of being oppressed, and sick of not having a voice.  The big question for us is, “What is America’s role in this?”

It is very difficult to understand what we should do because truthfully we don’t know a lot about the groups that are revolting and what they stand for.  You can listen to the media, but a lot of their information has been formulated in the last few weeks as they try to figure out what’s going on over there.  From everything I have read, the only common denominator is that people in these countries were miserable and decided to demand change.

Some conservative blogs say we need to get in there and make sure we get the “right” leader.  The United States is already gearing up militarily to enforce a no fly zone in Libya.  However, no revolution will be as genuine and hold as much historical value if the revolution has a “Made in the USA” stamp on it.  Like capitalism, sometimes you have to go through some bad times to get to the good times.

So what should we do?  I think we need to be prepared to partner with any leaders that can overhaul a government and be ready to talk about democracy.  Too many times we’ve been too involved in trying to prop up the “right” leader who will work with us.  The problem is that power corrupts, so even if they are working with us, it doesn’t necessarily make them the best leader for their country (take Egypt for example).  The only thing that we can do is hope for, push for, and help promote democracies.

Imagine a radical Islamic group is part of democratic process.  As radical as they may be, as soon as they have to start negotiating with those people they disagree with, certain successions begin to happen.  People complain about our democratic system as being slow at times, but all the checks and balances prevent radicalism and promote conversation and the open discussion of ideas.

Our goal should not be to prop up the “right” leader but to promote democracy and shake the hands of those brave enough to stand up for what they believe in.  Obviously, this subject is much more confusing than this small article gives it credit, but history has taught us that we haven’t been successful when we try to prop up the “right” leader, getting involved militarily costs us a lot of money [that we don’t have], and revolutions have more impact when there is sacrifice.

Iraqi Voters Show Bravery

Iraq had their second national election since the overthrow of Saddam and most would agree that it was a success. Millions of brave voters showed up, despite many warnings of violence. The United States armed forces and the Iraqi Security Force performed beautifully. Iraq has many dynamics that make every election interesting.

While Iraq is 94% Muslim, there is a drastic amount of infighting between the Shiite Muslims and the Sunni Muslims. Saddam was a Sunni and his policies heavily favored the Sunni Muslims. However, now that Iraq has a democracy with majority rule, the Shiites (60-65% of the population) have more power than the Sunni’s (32-37% of the population).

In 2005, a group of Sunni’s bombed a Shiite mosque right before the election and many Sunni’s boycotted the election. While the votes and polls have not been tallied, early reports show that Sunni’s participated in greater numbers this year than in the 2005 election.

The Sunni’s participation could be a sign that the Iraqi people are starting to see that you really can make change by showing up to the voting booth vs. using violence to show discontent. In Iraq, they have proportional representation. In short, if the Sunni’s get 30% of the vote, they get 30% of the Congressional seats. It is not like the United States where the Green Party could get 10% of the votes and get zero seats. With their parliamentary system, it encourages each sect to vote to ensure they get representatives.

No country, including the United States, is good at “nation building.” That being said, it is a wonderful sight to see the empowerment of a nation embrace democracy. It helps us all cherish the freedoms we have in the United States. I wish I could go back to late 1700’s and early 1800’s and feel what it means to go from tyranny to freedom and have that vote be the sign of change to come; to feel the power of knowing that your opinion matters and that the government should fear the people, and not the other way around. Today was a great day for democracy around the world.

Haiti in Trouble

Our hearts go out to all of those in Haiti who are suffering from the earthquake.  The quake hit just 10 miles west of Porte-au-Prince, their capital, where there are 2 million people.  With a population of just 10 million people, it could not have hit in a worst place.  In addition to the 7.0 magnitude earthquake, there were 33 aftershock quakes that were quite powerful as well.

Before the quake, Haiti was not doing well.  About 80% of the country is living under the poverty line, more than two of three people do not have formal jobs, just 52.9% of 15 year olds and older are literate, they have one of the worst, if not the worst telecommunications infrastructures, and roughly 60% of buildings were not safely built.

I am not going to post anything political about this situation but say that it is times like this that I am most proud of Americans.  Instead of running away from the fire, they run towards it to see if they can save a life.  It is through these tragic times that Americans come together as one people and do what is right.  America is currently leading the rescue efforts down there and I pray that we can help that poor country recover.

Afghan/Iraq War Tax? We’re Already Paying It!

Wisconsin Democrat Congressman, David Obey, is calling for a tax to pay for the wars we are currently in.  It makes sense, we are spending money doing an activity, so we should tax to pay for it.  However, early interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court may not agree with Congressman Obey.

In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed income tax unconstitutional (ruling was in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. on the basis that it was a direct tax).  Article I, Section 9 of the original U.S. Constitution provided that “No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census.”

In the early 1900’s, amendments were made to our Constitution to allow our government to charge income tax.  Our government immediately implemented the tax, but only about 2% paid it.  During WWI, the tax was extended (they even had an “excess profits” tax) as the democrats added progressive rates; the tax was accepted as a means to pay for WWI.  During WWII, the war effort again was used as a reason to increase income tax; the number of people paying income tax went from 3.9 million to 42.6 million people in just a few years.

Is it inconceivable that our government would raise taxes during war?  History would say that it is logical to increase taxes during this time of war to pay for the war effort.  However, wars have been used to increase taxes to increase political power rather than a rational means of covering war costs.

I believe there are some primary functions that a government should do, such as provide police and judges, build roads, and have an ARMY for protection of our property!  All of the social programs, pork spending, and bailout money would be secondary (actually, it should not be a priority at all). The hundreds of $billions that our government already takes from us should do more than cover our primary governmental functions.  If we don’t have enough revenue to cover secondary or tertiary expenditures, than we probably shouldn’t spend the money.

Mr. David Obey, the government has plenty of money to fund the war, we do not need a new tax for it.  We maybe don’t have enough money to buy bad debt or car companies, nor spend billions on pork projects, but I think Americans are alright with that.  We’ll somehow survive.  So do a little exercise called “re-prioritization” and we’ll be just fine.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act (government spending bill) for FY2010 that the house just passed is 11.4% over FY2009 and 24.4% over FY2008 spending.  Not a good start Mr. Obey, not a good start at all.

Afghan War – Win, Lose, or Draw?

There is a lot of debate about Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan War.  Did he take too long to decide what to do?  Did he send enough troops?  I do not believe many people are privy to enough information to answer those questions.  Arguably the most debatable question is whether President Obama should have given a timeline for the War (roughly 18 months).

Logically, it seems to me that you can only have three options:

1. Stay in the war until a deadline
2. Stay in the war until certain goals are met
3. Get lucky and meet those goals at the deadline.

I believe President Obama’s policy is the first option, he hopes for the third option, and will probably end up having the second option.

President Obama wants to get out of war – peace time will help him pay for all of his social programs and he just seems morally opposed to war.  The positives about a timeline is that it tells the Afghan people that eventually they are going to have to be responsible for their own safety and begin training, etc.  Further, I believe it is important to have a goal in mind when trying to accomplish something (although I’m not sure I would share that goal with my enemy and the rest of the world during war time).

The disadvantage of giving a timeline is that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have the patients to wait it out and let us leave before they begin causing havoc again.  I think there has to be some goal in the Afghan war; if we are just fighting until a timeline, not a goal, what is the point of being involved in the war in the first place?  If there is nothing we are trying to accomplish, let’s not risk American lives.

At the end of the day, I don’t think we’re going to leave Afghanistan until certain criteria are met that I believe our military leaders have.  I am simply interpreting Obama’s words as another politician’s empty promise.  The best thing we can do is pray for the men and women who are fighting for our country and vote in leaders who trust and work with our military leaders.

To Fight or Not to Fight, That is the Question

There are currently 68,000 troops in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban.  Currently, it would appear that President Obama is not listening to the military leaders who are asking for more troops.  If we do not support the military, more soldiers will die and the Taliban could win (according to our military leaders).  If the Taliban does win, the military leadership believes that their ability to recruit will increase immensely.

In the early 90’s, Rumsfeld tried using less troops and it did not work.  In Iraq, it was a military surge that brought success and got American/Iraqi forces back in control.

The way I see it, our country has three options for Foreign Policy:

1. Work 100% through diplomacy/sanctions, but do not get involved in military disputes
2. Stay completely out of the foreign scene
3. Get involved militarily with threats to America

The United Nations has a long history of working through diplomacy/sanctions.  Even during times of genocide, they tried sanctions instead of military action.  North Korea has launched many missiles, despite direction from the U.N. not to.  Many people believe transnationalism is the key to success.  However, if out-of-control dictators lack such morality, that they believe in genocide and supporting terrorism, do you honestly believe that they will be stopped by sanctions?  While I believe diplomacy is the first step before we go in guns-a-blazing, sanctions have never worked at stopping the people that threaten the United States.

The libertarian in me wants to stay out of foreign issues and let countries fight themselves until there is no one left.  In America’s past, we have had success in isolationism.  However, today’s economic world mandates that we have connections across seas and that we protect our interests abroad as the world’s super power.

I believe that we should get involved militarily if we feel there is a threat to America.  This is very difficult to define, but the main question I have is: Do you believe that there are terrorist groups around the world who are trying to cause harm to the United States?

Since 9/11, three bombs were let off in Israel (49 dead), car bombs in Indonesia killed 202, there were 229 people killed in a theater in Russia, 41 dead by bombs in Morocco, 34 dead by bombs in Saudi Arabia, truck bomb killed 60 in Turkey, explosions on commuter trains kill 191 people and injure 1800 in Spain, in a school in Russia, terrorists killed 330 people and injure 800 (most of them kids).  There have been over 20 planned attacks in the United States that have been thwarted by counterterrorism operations…a taxi driver from Denver is currently in court in New York for his planning of a terrorist act.

Data shows that terrorist groups are constantly trying to take out innocent civilians in the United States and in our allies’ cities across the world.  If we just try to combat them here, it may be too late.  If terrorists were able to get a nuclear weapon into the United States, it could be a disaster of epic portions.  It is key that we go to where our enemies are and fight them on their soil.

You may ask, which of the three options does our President (Commander-in-Chief) choose?  I’ll give two examples of his recent responses:

• After Iran announced recently that they developed a new nuclear plant that is adjacent to their military base, has an air defense system, and is at the base of a mountain to defend against an aerial attack.  President Obama is pushing for sanctions, which will include energy, telecommunications, and financial if Iran does not cease their nuclear program.
• After struggles in Afghanistan, military leaders requested more troops immediately.  The lead commander commented that he has only spoke with President Obama once since he took office and has yet to answer him on sending him more troops.

It is obvious that President Obama does not wish to be involved in military actions and that he would rather use diplomacy and sanctions.

Bush Liked By Former Pakistan Leader

Pakistan’s former President, Pervez Musharraf, discussed in front of news camera’s what he thought about former U.S. President, George W. Bush.  Many believe that President Bush was hated by everyone around the world, but Musharraf gave a different perspective today.

Musharraf stated that he appreciated that Bush was “a man who can look into your eyes and talk straight” and that he was “a good friend.”

Musharraf was a key ally in the fight against terrorism.  While people can disagree with President Bush’s foreign policy, people always knew exactly where he stood and had a clear vision on how to tackle terrorism.

Looking Out For #1

On August 23rd, I wrote an article entitled, “Different Cultures Indeed.”  The article discussed the release of terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi by Scotland on ‘compassion’ grounds.

Many in the international community, especially the United States, were quite upset by the release of a convicted terrorist.  When the UK, a very close ally to the United States, was challenged, they said they allowed Scotland to make the call and completely evaded any responsibility.

New reports are showing that Abdel was potentially used as a bargaining chip for the UK to secretly gain access to Libyan oil reserves at a discounted price.  While many are shouting ‘foul,’ I wish to look at it from a different perspective: this is a story about a State leader that is looking out for his constituents when times are tough.

The UK’s unemployment rate is now at 7.8% (2.43 million people – roughly double what it was last year), the only spending that is increasing in their economy is the governments, and gas prices have reached as high as $9/gallon.

Due to the international recession, many countries are struggling to get their economies going, manage their debt, etc.  Politicians have always proven to care about job security more than their country’s best interest; however, politicians are being held accountable by electorates more aggressively in these tough times.  For a shining moment, politicians’ job security and the States’ best interest collide.

Universal Healthcare and Cap and Trade are both programs that I’ve heard the argument, “Well, they do it in Europe.”  While having good relations with other countries is important, I think it is MORE important that we look after ourselves first and quit spending in the name of ‘good global reputation.’

Universal Healthcare and Cap and Trade have been disasters in Europe.  We should be looking at those programs and deciding on whether to have them based on the data, not the feeling others may get if we do it.  While I hate that the UK let go of a single terrorist, if it reduces their oil rate to put more money in people’s hands to invest in their economy and reduces business expenses so they can invest in hiring more people, then the net benefit for the country may outweigh the threat of a dying prisoner being released.

Are our leaders going above and beyond to protect our interests or are they focusing on global reputation?

Different Cultures Indeed

Earlier this week, Scotland released convicted terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on ‘compassion’ grounds as he was diagnosed with terminal cancer.  Megrahi had been held responsible for blowing up a plane and killing 270 people, most of them Americans.  After spending 8 years in jail (roughly 11 days/murder victim), he was released to Libya, where he could live out his last days with his family.

Upon return to Libya, Mefrahi was welcomed as a hero by many.  It is pretty crazy that a man who had murdered hundreds of innocent people (including women and children) was seen as a hero.  This leaves me to believe that our cultures are so completely different, that I simply cannot fathom what that must be like.

My actionable response is that there is a history of belief that is very difficult to change in the Middle East.  While I appreciate that President Obama has taken steps to reach out to the Middle East this year, I still wonder how we’ll ever be able to transcend our different cultural beliefs.  If we are friendly and nice, will they change their mind about us?

The ugly truth is that there are countries that hate the West in the Middle East.  When Israel was firing back at the Palestinians, people urged them to talk.  However, one of the major goals of the Palestinians is to destroy Israel – as recent as last Monday, Palestinian leadership claimed their right to Israel and their commitment to a violent struggle.  Will talking change the minds of the Palestinians?

Respect is not earned, it is a gift.  While we should be respectful of their sovereignty, we must understand that our good-faith effort to reach out to the Middle East may not equate to respect if their leadership does not challenge the ancient thoughts that consume their cultures.

Poor Timmy Geithner

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has the misfortune of having to talk to China about their investment in the United States and the strength of the dollar.  China essentially gave us money to invest in our economy and instead, we spent all the money on random pork.

Not only are we unable to pay them back right now, but our deficit is increasing.  Our INTEREST payment for our debt now stands at $26 billion per MONTH.  Glenn Beck points out that “With one monthly $26 billion interest payment we could fully fund the annual budgets of the Centers for Disease Control ($6.1 billion, annual budget), Coast Guard ($8.7 billion) and the Department of the Interior ($11.1 billion).”

Beck goes on to say, “With our annual $300 billion in interest payments we could fully fund the Departments of Commerce ($8.1 billion), Education ($68 billion), Homeland Security ($42.3 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($52.3 billion), Energy ($23.2 billion), Justice ($25 billion), and Labor ($49.6 billion) for an entire year.”

Because interest compounds, it is projected that our interest payments will go up.  I wonder what the Chinese government officials think of our spending.