President Obama came into office believing that the United States should immediately withdraw from Iraq, talk our way into victory in Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo Bay.   He also thought he could borrow money and spend our way into prosperity, but that is another subject.  All of these goals were incredibly naïve.  But Obama had so little experience that he literally believed he would speak and everyone would think, “Oh, now I understand.”  This would result in a prosperous economy, world peace, the end of terrorism and salvation from global warming.  Unfortunately, he made some important decisions based on this naïve world view that are now doing grave harm to our national security.

Prior to Obama, every recent U.S. President asked one question immediately whenever there was a trouble spot anywhere in the world:  “where are my carriers?”  Obama does not ask that because he knows where these carriers are located.  They are in port waiting for repairs he has not funded. 

http://www.defensestudies.org/cds/where-are-our-carriers-increasingly-at-home/

It was bad enough that Obama spent most of his first year in office traveling the globe apologizing for our excessive use of force by other, less brilliant, Presidents.  But in addition to that, his actions have decimated our military to the extent that we couldn’t respond even if he did accidentally wake up with a backbone. 

http://oldnfo.blogspot.com/2011/03/where-are-our-carriers.html

In my personal opinion, which is very similar to that of the oath of office taken by the President of the United States, the primary duty of a President is to preserve, protect and defend this country.  Obama probably believes that as well, but he apparently does not feel that having a seven-ocean navy is essential to our defense.   Obama thought he was a uniquely gifted person who truly understood the world.  He thought all of the world’s problems would be solved by merely putting someone with his great intellect in charge.  He was the one we’ve been waiting for.  He viewed our military strength as an inconvenient burden.  In April, 2010, Obama said this in a speech:

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them,” Obama said.

 Now we are facing problems over the world and the question is no longer whether or not we should flex our military power but rather whether we have any real power available to use.  Of course the main stream media will blame this on overextending ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is somewhat true.  But the primary problem is that we apparently have a President who considers having a seven-ocean navy as an unnecessary expense item.

This is not unique to Obama.  Many leading Republicans were anti-military and extremely isolationist prior to World War II.  There were a lot of well-intended people who naively thought reducing the size of our military would reduce the chances of getting caught up in another war.  Sadly, they were very wrong.  Instead, the lack of military power and quick response to people like Hitler and Mussolini resulted in World War II.  History has shown us that failure to respond quickly, when dealing with these kinds of threats, just increases the ultimate cost of dealing with them later.  The real issue is not how Obama is handling Egypt and Libya, but rather that now the entire world knows they can challenge us with impunity.  Not only do we have a President who is incapable of providing leadership, he has decimated our military capacity to the extent that one questions whether he even could respond.   In the meantime, our national security is being “carriered” away.

TDM

The Obama administration is staggering toward some kind of conclusion in Libya.  This would be hysterical to watch, if it wasn’t for the sad fact that when Obama looks this bad, our country looks this bad.  There are only a couple of places in the world where any new government is likely to be better for us than the status quo.  One of those places is Iran, since it is hard to do worse than an Islamic fundamentalist state whose president is a firm believer in the 12^th Iman.  The other is Libya, home of the dearly beloved Moammar Gadhafi.  Ronald Reagan described him as a “Mad Dog,” which seems about right.

Obama kissed up to Gadhafi big time and the United States agreed to participate in the UN Human Rights Council in May, 2009.  George Bush also tried to play nice with Gadhafi, even sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Libya for a nice chat after Gadhafi got the nuclear itch scared out of him with our attack on Iraq.  But Bush never considered joining the Human Rights Council so we could get advice on how to improve our own human rights performance from fellow members like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cameroon and, of course, Libya.

That all changed in May, 2009, when the United States proudly joined these marvelous symbols of enlightenment, beginning with the appropriate apology:

We have not been perfect ourselves,” said Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador, after the United States got 167 votes out of 192. “But we intend to lead based on the strong principled vision that the American people have about respecting human rights, supporting democracy.”

Actually, Obama has pretty much avoided talking about human rights, unless he was apologizing for the United States.

Gadhafi thought Obama was just great and told the entire Muslim world that Obama was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Since I am not sure they even have sliced bread in Libya, you know that was special.

The pattern here is crystal clear.  If you are one of our enemies, like Iran or, now Libya, then protests against the government are ignored.  After all, we don’t want to stir things up unnecessarily.  But if you are a friend of ours, like Egypt, then Obama is much quicker to jump on the protest bandwagon.  Isn’t democracy great?  Who cares if the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to take charge?  We can handle that.  I mean it’s not like they hate the U.S. and want to annihilate Israel.  (Actually, it’s exactly that.)

Anyway, after withering and dithering and desperately seeking some hint as to the ultimate outcome so he could appear to be in charge, Obama finally decided it was time to take a stand.  He took time off between the Motown party and his most recent golf outing to read a statement warning Gadhafi his conduct was simply unacceptable.  Rumor has it that Qaddafi was really quaking in his boots at that.  Lately, Obama has escalated the rhetoric to “outrage.”  There are few things more frightening on this earth than seeing Obama read a TelePrompTer speech in his traditional monotone warning of dire consequences for those who dare defy him.  Actually this is rather scary when you consider the fact that this is the guy we chose to defend us.

So far, Gadhafi seems to be putting up one heck of a fight.  It reminds me of watching the O.J. Simpson low-speed police chase in the infamous white Bronco.  O.J. Simpson is a brutal murderer, but it was still good theater.  No one will shed a tear for Gadhafi, but the man does have a certain style.

In any event, the “Anointed One” has managed to get himself involved in the ultimate international keystone cops routine.  Who knows where this will go.  We could end up with either Gadhafi, Tea or Me:

Gadhafi

Moammar Gadhafi  ignores the rest of the world, as he has done for decades and just kills anyone who disagrees.  Although it is really hard to find a friend of Gadhafi these days, one suspects that at least some leaders are hoping he succeeds in stopping the revolution.  They don’t like him, but they also don’t like the sight of another government collapsing because of public protests. 

Tea

The Brits, who are trying to show some leadership to save the day.  I am not too optimistic after the British SAS troops promptly got themselves held hostage by the rebels they were trying to encourage on to victory.

ME

With Obama, it’s always about him.  I mean how else do you explain a President who plays golf while the world is on fire, yet has time to produce a feel-good video greeting for the Oscar crowd and even tries to steal some of the spotlight from the Superbowl by scheduling a softball interview with Bill O’Reilly?  With Obama the only thing you can ever count on is him saying:

“Me! Me! it’s all about ME!”

Libya is hardly a threat to us and regardless of what happens there it really shouldn’t matter, except for the fact that Libya has lots of oil and this has the potential to tank our already sinking economy.  Thank goodness we have a great leader in Barack Obama who knows that the one thing he can and should do is cut the red tape so we can “drill, baby, drill.”  Oops, I just remembered that the Obama administration sued for the right to continue the ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

I feel warm all over.

 TDM

Some people think that our most important President was George Washington.  The theory is that Washington could have become a king, but instead he chose to leave office voluntarily resulting in a peaceful transfer of power.  I personally think that John Adams was more important than George Washington.  Washington was getting old and it appears he may have just wanted to retire. He chose John Adams to be the next President, so he was comfortable with the transfer of power.  Washington had no children, so there was really never an option of him choosing a son or daughter to take over.  This is not to criticize Washington; it is just to put his decision in perspective.

But, John Adams did want to continue being President.  Jefferson and Adams were vicious political opponents by the time of the 1800 election.  Adams was bitter about the defeat and he thought Jefferson would be a terrible President.  Yet, Adams voluntarily turned over power to Jefferson.  In doing so, he established the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power, even when the results of the election are disappointing.

In Wisconsin, we have the opposite result.  The Republicans won control of the Assembly and the Senate.  Scott Walker was elected Governor.  Democrats were outraged because they strongly disagreed with the legislation proposed by Republicans.  They have a right to feel that way, and they have a right to voice their opposition.  But, unfortunately, all the Democratic Senators fled the state and the Democratic National Committee organized protests in an attempt to make it impossible for a peaceful transfer of power.  They resorted to extortion in their desperate attempt to regain political power.  The message sent by those Democrats is that elections only matter if they win.

 Unfortunately, the main stream media, including Fox News, does not grasp the significance of this action.  There are always a lot of people who are upset at the results of any election.  There were a lot of conservatives who were horrified when the 2008 election gave huge majorities in both the House and the Senate to Democrats.  They were even more concerned when Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.  Many of them predicted, correctly, that Democrats would abuse this power to pass controversial legislation that would destroy our economy, nationalize health care and promote their radical left-wing agenda. 

In my opinion, we are paying a terrible price, worldwide, for putting Democrats in power.   But, the solution is to win the next election; it is not to disregard our democratic process because we don’t like the results. 

Today, people all over the Middle East are protesting their government.  I am certain that many of them genuinely want freedom and democracy.  I just hope they follow the example of John Adams and not the Wisconsin Democratic Party.  Freedom is not fleedom.

 TDM

One of the great moments in sports is to attend a hockey game at the University of Wisconsin (UW).  While Wisconsin fans are known for their over-the-top support of their football and basketball programs, this pales in comparison to the following of the UW hockey team.  They are quite simply some of the most rabid fans in the world.

One of the traditions at a UW hockey game is the “Sieve Cheer.”  This is the cheer given when the other team gives up a goal.  It is designed to intimidate the other team and to humiliate the opposing goalie.  It works!  At first there is loud cheering for the goal.  Then the stadium becomes deathly quiet.  Suddenly, everyone in the stadium starts whispering “sieve…sieve…sieve,” slowly, softly and in perfect unison.   You can hardly hear it at first; you just kind of feel the air move.  But each time they whisper sieve, they whisper it a little louder.  The chant builds and builds until the entire stadium is standing up screaming, “Sieve!  Sieve!  Sieve!” at the top of their lungs.  It is a thing of beauty.

The point is that some words are just like the Sieve Cheer.  When you hear them, you know something big is coming.  In terms of a President of the United States, there is a very similar word.  It is “impeachment.”  This is rarely used.  Only two Presidents in the history of the United States have ever been impeached:  Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton.  Both were acquitted.  (Many people assume that Nixon was impeached, but that is not true.  Nixon resigned because Republican Senators advised him that they could not support him if he was impeached.)

It is extremely rare for political opponents to use the word “impeachment” with regard to a sitting U.S. President.  There were some extreme left radical Democrats who talked about impeachment with regard to George W. Bush, but this was never taken seriously, other than by Dennis Kucinich.  Even the biased main stream media and liberal Democrats, including people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, knew they had no grounds for impeaching George Bush.

But this week, Newt Gingrich used the word “impeachment” with regard to Barack Obama, and he was serious.  I was stunned, because Mr. Gingrich is very bright and is a very serious man.  I believe he chose this word carefully and deliberately. 

Gingrich brought up impeachment with regard to the decision by the Obama administration to unilaterally decide that the Defense of Marriage Act is clearly unconstitutional.  The issue is not whether you agree with this legislation, or not.  The issue is whether the President of the United States has the authority to unilaterally decide the constitutionality of a law passed by the United States Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.  Gingrich did something brilliant.  He explained this in terms that even the liberal left can understand.  The following is from an interview with Newsmax.com:

“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”

First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.

I doubt that anyone is going to immediate jump on the impeachment wagon.  Republicans are terrified because of the fall-out from the Clinton fiasco.  The liberal left and the Democratic Party only consider impeachment when a Republican is in office.  But Gingrich makes a very strong point, and this is going to force a lot of people to take a serious look at this issue.  Gingrich is clearly right.  The question is whether anyone will do something about it.

Keep in mind some other important factors.  Obama is likely to be out of office in about 18 months.  As long as Republicans are confident he will lose, they are unlikely to take on the risk of launching an impeachment effort against another Democratic President. They are also more focused on cutting the budget and repealing Obamacare.   In addition, the world is on fire, and things are bad enough without paralyzing the U.S. Presidency with the distraction of an impeachment trial.  Obama is pathetically weak as it is.  This would become worse if he were being impeached.  If Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden becomes President of the United States.  Biden would be required under the constitution to name a new Vice President, subject to confirmation by the Senate.  That person would immediately become the favorite to be elected President in 2012.  Republicans could lose a lot of sleep over that scenario.  They already think they are going to run the table in 2012, and this could change everything.

I do not know where this will lead, but the word has been uttered by someone who cannot be ignored.  The main stream media has to address the issue because they cannot ignore this type of charge from a man like Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House.  This is just like being at a UW hockey home game and hearing that first, ever so soft “Sieve.”  You always wonder just how loud it is going to get.

TDM

Governor Walker has already won in Wisconsin.  It is all over but the shouting and the shouting is near the end.  The fat lady may not be singing yet, but she is warming up in the wings.   Notice how the Obama administration is trying to re-write history pretending they weren’t actively promoting the protestors:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/02/21/obama%E2%80%99s-attempt-to-distance-himself-from-wisconsin-rally-fails/

The union bubble has burst and the collapse is going to be bigger than you can even imagine:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49893_Page2.html

The unions will continue to put on a good show, because they have no other option.  But sympathy demonstrations in New York and California aren’t going to have much impact on Wisconsin.  The Governor is rock solid and so is the Republican legislature.  It is really quite simple.  Most of us, not employed by the state or federal government, have first-hand experience with the arrogance and incompetence of the bureaucracy. Combine that with the knowledge that they are making huge salaries,  don’t have to pay for benefits, don’t have to contribute to their flush retirement accounts and can’t be fired and annoyance turns to resentment.  Now fuel this with them calling in sick so they can scream and yell because they are being asked to accept a minimum cut in benefits, when a lost of people have been forced to cut their personal budget to the bone, and resentment turns to rage.

This was bound to happen.  The union bubble was bigger than the housing bubble and it was just as economically unsustainable.  The public sector unions thought this would last forever.  They would just keep demanding more pay and benefits and their lackey politicians would just keep raising taxes.  But the problem is that they ran out of people to tax.  No one, and I mean no one, is even pretending that raising taxes is the solution to our financial problems.  Even Governors like Brown are making significant cuts that would not have been considered just a few months ago.  This is just like the housing bubble.  Once you run out of buyers willing to pay inflated prices, the bubble will burst.  Well state governments just stopped buying.

Senator Kohl, from Wisconsin is a liberal Democrat.  He is also up for election in 2012.  He did not exactly come out in support of the union protests.  Instead he gave a marsh mellow middle of the road comment.  Just a few months ago, Senator Kohl would have never risked losing union support.  Now is he is at least equally concerned over being portrayed as too pro-union.  It is a remarkable change of outlook.

Democratic politicians all over the country are questioning the value of the coveted union endorsement.  Up until now, it was the only way to get elected in many states.  By 2012, it may be the kiss of death. It is impossible to overstate the significance of the change.   Not only are the unions rapidly losing political power, they are losing money.  Prior to the Cheese State Rebellion unions could be counted on to pour millions of dollars into electing Democrats who supported their agenda.  That worked for a long time.  It even worked in California during the 2010 election.   But, last summer the United States Supreme Court leveled the playing field by repealing portions of McCain – Feingold.  Suddenly the business community had enough money available to fight back.   This, in addition to the Tea Party involvement,  is part of the reason for the amazing results of the 2010 mid-term elections.

So, just at a time when unions are taking it on the chin because of a declining economy, they are facing real competition from the Chamber of Commerce and the Tea Party; they get kicked to the curb by Governor Walker.  For the public sector unions, this amounts to a perfect storm.  We do not know the full amount of havoc that will result from this storm, but we know which way it is blowing and we know who is going to get hurt.

The Union bubble has burst.  The decline will be more rapid and more complete than anyone thought possible.  It’s a beautiful thing.

TDM

I am, temporarily, renaming Hawaii as the U.S. Canary Islands.  Something’s happening here.  The Obama birth certificate issue was dead and buried.  Then, as if on cue, the main stream media started demanding that people like John Boehner and other “declare” that Obama is a U.S. citizen and “declare” that he is a Christian.  When both John King and George Stephanopoulos ask the exact same question, this is not a coincidence.  Since the main stream media is the publicity arm of the Obama White House, these actions are interesting.

Part of the problem is the new liberal Democrat who was elected Governor of Hawaii.  What were they thinking?  This guy is a hard-cord socialist, if not a communist.  He immediately shot off his mouth about how he was going to march down to the Department of Health and prove to the world that Obama was really a U.S. citizen.  Apparently he thought the prior Governor, a Republican, was withholding documents that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.  But the problem was that when he visited the cupboard, the cupboard was bare.  Oops.

But, even that story seems to have died down, so there must be another reason.  I suspect the real problem is that several states have passed or are about to pass laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to be put on the Presidential ballot in that state.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures the following bills have already been introduced on this subject:

Arizona’s HB2544, Connecticut’s SB391, Georgia’s HB37, Indiana’s SB114, Maine’s LD34, Missouri’s HB283, Montana’s HB205, Nebraska’s LB654, Oklahoma’s SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.

There may be many more, but it actually only takes one state.  This creates a huge problem for Obama and an even bigger problem for the Democratic Party.  Unless the Supreme Court rules these laws unconstitutional, Barack Obama, or anyone else running for President in 2012, is going to have to provide proof that they are a natural born U.S. citizen.  What is the Obama administration supposed to do?  Are they going to sue Arizona and argue that demanding that someone prove they are a natural born U.S. citizen before being on the ballot is a violation of federal law?  That would result in a political firestorm.

On the other hand, the 2012 Presidential campaign is already underway.  Republican candidates are lining up and early debates are already scheduled.  By this time next year many of the primary elections will already be over and we will be well on our way toward having a nominee in both parties.  This creates a huge problem for the Democratic Party.  The standard has changed from assuming someone is a natural born U.S. citizen, unless proven otherwise, to requiring the candidate to prove they are a natural born citizen.  If Obama wants to run for re-election, he will have to pony up his official birth documents.  The only thing we know for sure is that he definitely does not want to do that.

The Democratic Party cannot afford to wait until January of 2012 to find out whether or not Barack Obama is going to be a candidate for re-election.   If they are going to replace him, they need to start finding a candidate NOW!  Hillary Clinton has been traveling the globe shooting herself in the foot, so I doubt that they will want to just draft her as a candidate.  In addition, Bill Clinton is, well, Bill Clinton; who brings with it the good, the bad and the ugly.

I believe that this media campaign was started in the naïve hope that some major Republican would “declare” that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, so that Obama could use this “declaration” as a substitute for providing real documents.  So far, no Republican has been dumb enough to do that.  Instead they have said that they have not challenged him on this subject and they consider this issue to be an unnecessary distraction.  They are not going to fall on their sword and risk the embarrassment of having Obama trot out real authentic documents.  But they also aren’t going to let him off the hook by declaring him to be a natural born citizen.

The coal miners used to carry canaries down into the mines as an early warning device.  Canaries are very vulnerable to gas, so if the canary died the miners knew it was time to go.  This time the Canary Islands (Ok…Hawaii) may be providing a warning signal to both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party that an ill wind is developing with the potential to blow him out of office.  One thing is sure, we have not heard the end of the Obama birther conspiracy theories and it would be unwise for anyone in either party to ignore this issue.

TDM

The showdown in Wisconsin is more than a political disagreement; it is a fight for our democracy.  Public sector unions have grown so powerful that they have transferred the legislative, executive and judicial power from the public to the unions. We are now at the point where we either fight back, or we lose our liberty. 

FDR, a solid union supporter, warned about the danger of public sector unions:

Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”   …a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”

FDR understood that public sector unions would ultimately result in a threat to our democracy.  The New York Supreme Court also issued an opinion in 1943 warning about the danger from public service unions:

To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.

The public sector unions in Wisconsin are doing exactly what FDR and the New York Supreme Court predicted they would do.  They are attempting to use extortion to circumvent the legally elected government. 

Democrats have always allied themselves with unions. Republicans have always opposed unions gaining too much power.  This is why it was Democrats who passed the Wagner Act allowing people to form unions and it was Republicans who passed Taft Hartley restraining their power.  But prior to JFK, even Democratic presidents were opposed to allowing federal employees to organize.  Here in California, we can thank Jerry Brown for authoring public sector unions during his first attempt to destroy our state.  It is somewhat ironic that the severe financial crisis facing Governor Brown today has its roots in the abuse of power by those same public sector unions he set loose in 1977 when he signed SB 839, the State Employer Relations Act. 

Note:  Even the Sac Bee realized this was a big mistake and wrote the following in an editorial:

“A system of union elections and collective bargaining for state employees could weaken the civil service system and, what is worse, could put union leaders in positions where they could dictate to elected officials on government policy.”

Looks like the SacBee nailed that one.  What ever happened to their editorial board?

The power of public sector unions is a clear and present danger to our democracy.  It is nearly impossible to get elected to statewide office in California without union support.   That is why even Meg Whitman tried to cut a deal with the police unions to gain their support.  (If she had stood up to public sector unions instead of trying to compromise with them she might be Governor Meg Whitman today.)  It was also the unions who spent millions preventing Arnold Schwarzenegger from passing his reform propositions.  It is easy for Republicans to criticize Schwarzenegger for compromising with democrats, but when the public failed to back him in his proposals for change, he probably had no other option.

But this time we finally have a politician with the moral courage to directly challenge the public sector unions.  Governor Walker, with the backing of a Republican legislature has done the unthinkable.  He has taken on the public sector unions without apology. 

Governor Walker shows no signs of backing down and the tea party is quickly organizing to provide him with vital support.  I wouldn’t underestimate the ability of the Tea Party to mobilize people.  The liberal media is screaming that Walker is trying to bust the public sector unions as if this is the ultimate crime against humanity.  Well I have news for them.  He is trying to bust the public sector unions and it is about time.  The real mistake was allowing them in the first place.  I think Democrats and unions are going to be shocked to discover that a high percentage of people agree with the Governor.  That is why they voted for him:

According to ABC News, Organizing for American, which is the official campaign arm for President Obama, operating under the umbrella of the Democratic National Committee, has been mobilizing union members and supporters to rally against the Wisconsin budget measure.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-national-democrats-mobilize-state-employee-protests/story?id=12949812

John Boehner, Speaker of the House, has warned the White House about this:

“According to news reports, the White House has even unleashed the Democratic National Committee to spread disinformation and confusion in Wisconsin regarding the governor’s courageous actions,” he said. “I urge the president to order the DNC to suspend these tactics.

This is more than Obama just publicly disagreeing with Governor Walker.  President Obama has a right to disagree with this decision by the Governor of Wisconsin, but he does not have the right to interfere with the State’s legal authority.  The actions of the unions in conducting this work stoppage are potentially illegal.  Obama may be guilty of publicly encouraging people to participate in an illegal work stoppage.  He may be guilty of more than that; he may be guilty of openly aiding and abetting illegal activity.  It is possible that we are headed toward a constitutional crisis. 

Where, exactly, is the line here?  Is it appropriate or even legal for a President of the United States to encourage public sector employees to participate in an illegal work stoppage?  What if the Governor of Wisconsin encouraged federal employees to conduct an illegal strike?  How would the federal government respond?  Would this not border on insurrection?  There is a significant difference between disagreeing with the political policy of a Governor and openly encouraging people to violate the law as a symbol of protest.  Obama may well have crossed that line.    

The reason President Obama and people like Nancy Pelosi have responded so strongly to the situation in Wisconsin is that they know what is at stake.  If Governor Walker succeeds, this will spread across the country.  At first it will spread to states with Republican Governors and Republican legislatures.  That may already be happening in Ohio.  Eventually this will spread to every state.  It is impossible to overstate the political significance of a politician taking on the public sector unions and winning.

The Democratic leadership may have a major mistake.  According to reports a lot of people in Wisconsin, including union workers, are very angry about these protests.  At a time when the state is facing a $3.6 billion deficit, the unions are trying to extort the state into meeting their demands.  This will quickly go one way or the other.  Either the voters will be incensed with the government for daring to cut benefits for public sector union workers, or they will be furious with greedy public sector union workers for acting like spoiled children.

Democrats have proven, once again, why they cannot be entrusted with political power.  They know how to campaign, but they do not know how to govern.  They are gambling that the protests in Wisconsin will topple the Wisconsin State Government, just like the protestors in Egypt toppled that government.  But Wisconsin is not Egypt and Walker is not Mubarak.  Wisconsin is a state with a democratically elected government exercising power clearly within its constitutional authority.    

I also wonder if anyone in the Obama administration has even considered the consequences of success.  If the unions win this battle, they will simply increase their demands and we can expect more and more protests.  Eventually, they will challenge the Obama administration as well.  Of course Obama is so deeply in bed with the unions already that it may be difficult to recognize any change.

This is similar to other crimes of extortion, like kidnapping.  If one kidnapper gets a lot of money, the victim may be saved, but ultimately you just get more kidnapping.  The only way to stop kidnapping is to refuse to bargain with kidnappers in the first place. 

Harry Truman understood that, which is why he ordered the army to seize the railroads in response to a railroad strike:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-orders-army-to-seize-control-of-railroads

Ronald Reagan understood this which is why he fired all the air traffic controllers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12292.html

Governor Walker gets it.  Barack Obama not only doesn’t get it, he is openly encouraging union workers to participate in this irresponsible and potentially illegal work stoppage. 

Either Governor Walker or President Obama is really right or terribly wrong.  The one who is wrong is going to pay an enormous price for this miscalculation.

The Cheese State Rebellion has the potential to radically change this country for the better.  ON WISCONSIN!

 TDM

Everyone remotely familiar with NFL football is familiar with the prevent defense.  This typically occurs during the last couple minutes of a game.  Your team is ahead.  They have shut down the other team all game.  You are anticipating victory.  Then the announcer points out that your team has gone into the prevent defense.  This change in strategy is designed to let the other team gain some yardage, but “prevent” the big play.  Unfortunately the prevent defense often backfires.  The other team starts to move the ball effectively for the first time all game.  They gain momentum and the next thing you know they score the winning field goal or touchdown.  Once again your team has brilliantly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  The only thing the prevent defense accomplished was to prevent your team from winning.

The Republican leadership continues to use the prevent defense with regard to Obama’s birth certificate.  Lately liberal left wing news reporters have been challenging Boehner and others to “condemn” anyone who dares questions Obama’s birth certificate.  They also challenge Boehner to condemn anyone who dares believe Obama is a Muslim.  Please!  That is utter nonsense and it should be treated as such.  Boehner has never claimed that Obama is not a U.S. citizen nor has he ever claimed Obama is a Muslim.  But that is not enough for the rabid dogs on the liberal left; they want him to condemn anyone who dares have a contrary opinion on the subject.  Not only must you agree with them, you must publicly condemn anyone who doesn’t.

In effect, the Republican leadership has been employing the prevent defense when they should use this to attack Obama.  Every time I see some Republican asked about Obama’s birth certificate or his citizenship, I keep waiting for them to say something like this:

“The real question is why doesn’t President Obama just sign a release authorizing Hawaii to release his records.”  If he has nothing to hide, why wouldn’t he do that?

Repeat as often as necessary.  Democrats never answer questions, why should we?

We all know that Democrats use talking points all the time.  For example they never fail to blame Bush for the Obama deficit.  This is because they know the “prevent defense” loses.  When they don’t have a good answer, they just attack Bush. 

I am sick and tired of Republicans always being on the defensive with regard to topics where we actually have the moral high ground.  The questions about Obama’s birth certificate are the result of Obama’s refusal to sign a release.  They are not the result of a Republican conspiracy.

The questions about Obama’s religious faith are also the result of actions and statements made by Obama.   But our leaders are so afraid of being considered politically incorrect that they don’t put out the obvious.  The reason some people believe Obama is a Muslim is that he has a Muslim father, a Muslim step-father and a Muslim name.  This type of reasoning also explains why most people assume someone named Bill O’Reilly is probably an Irish Catholic.  When a Republican is asked about Obama’s religious faith I would like someone to say something like this: 

Barack Obama is the only one who can answer that question.  I don’t expect Barack Obama to comment on my religious beliefs and I see no point in my commenting on his.  You are asking the wrong person. 

Then if pressed further say:

If you want to know why some people think Barack Obama is a Muslim I would suggest you ask them. 

Finally, drive a stake in their heart with the following:

The only reason the liberal left keeps bringing up these issues is to distract people from the pathetic performance of the Obama administration on fiscal policy and foreign affairs.

Repeat as necessary.  These are loser issues for Obama and for Democrats, unless the Republicans continue to use the prevent defense.

TDM

The fires of rebellion are spreading throughout the Middle East.  Since most countries are much less tolerant of foreign journalists than Egypt, we don’t have much news coverage.  We do know that there were clashes in Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Palestine, and Iran.  There have also been reports of unrest in Lebanon, Gaza, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  We also don’t even know the final results in Egypt. 

So far the pattern has been for the governments to make desperate concessions in an attempt to end civil unrest.   At some point, this will end.  Unfortunately, it will probably end in bloodshed.  I fear we are on the eve of destruction.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.  Following is a statement given by Alexander Guchkov on May 10, 1917.  Mr. Guchkov was the Minister of War and he was a key figure in the “Revolutionary Government” and personally had accepted the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II.  The similarity between the Russia of 1917 and Egypt today are remarkable.  We do well to read his word and pay attention, because history has a dreadful habit of repeating itself.

Alexander Guchkov on Russian Civil Unrest

Unfortunately the first feeling of radiant joy evoked by the revolution has given place to one of pain and anxiety.

The Provisional Government explained the cause of this in its recent declaration, in which it was pointed out that the destruction of the old forms of public life, to which an end had been put by the revolution, had been effected more rapidly than had the creation of new forms to replace them.  ….

Gentlemen, some time ago the country realized that our motherland was in danger.  Since then we have gone a step further, for our motherland is on the edge of an abyss.

If you want to read more on this subject, following is the link to the website:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/russia_guchkov.htm

Guchkov warned that the destruction of the old forms of public life is much easier than the creation of new forms to replace them.  This is the problem in Egypt and it is the problem all over the world.  Those who are unhappy are inspired to destroy the existing form of government.  That is understandable.  But it is always easier to destroy something than to build it up. 

We do not know what governments may fall as a result of this wave of unrest.  But if there is a rush to form a new government, without taking the time to get it right, the results are likely to be disastrous.  

The Revolutionary war was fought from 1775 to 1783.  Following the war our country was governed by the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles of Confederation were written in 1777 and they were designed to manage a war.  Our current constitution was not signed until September 17, 1787 and the government it created did not start to function until March 4, 1789.  It took us 4 years to develop a working form of government and even after agreeing on the constitution it took another year and a half to hold elections and have that government take power.

President Obama wants Egypt to form a new government tomorrow.  He wants the transition to start now.  He apparently believes that speed is the essential ingredient in the transition to democracy.  The only question is whether he is ignorant of our own history or he just chooses to ignore it?

TDM

Watching the Egyptian people celebrate is like watching the ultimate party.  But, following every party there has to be a morning after.  Egypt is probably going to experience a gigantic hangover.  For those who are celebrating the resignation of Hosni Mubarak from Egypt, I attach the following news article regarding the departure of the Shah of Iran.  This was published on January 16, 1979.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1979/jan/16/iran.martinwoollacott

The idea appears to be to confront Ayatollah Khomeini with a choice between dealing with the moderates or facing military intervention and massive repression. The situation itself suggests that such a coup might be attempted if the Ayatollah goes for a takeover.

No was predicting that the Ayatollah Khomeini would take over in Iran.  Instead, they felt that if he “tried” to take over there would be a military coup and even more repression.  The “experts” expected the Ayatollah Khomeini to moderate.  But moderation is not in the Muslim extremist dictionary.  As we all know, those predictions were very wrong.  Within a very short period of time the Muslim extremists took over.   

There is one big difference between the situation in Iran and that in Egypt.  In this case what really happened was a military coup.   In Iran, there was a coalition government.   The protestors are celebrating a major victory, because they successfully forced Mubarak out.  But, he was not exactly replaced with a coalition government.  Instead the military took direct control, which means the Egyptian constitution is no longer in effect.   

This could go in one of two directions quite quickly.  The military may decide that they have learned from Iran, and they may move in boldly to re-establish control.  They would allow the people to celebrate, tell them they have won, and get them to go home.  Then, quietly when the cameras are turned off, they would re-take control.  It would not be surprising for them to clamp down hard on the Muslim Brotherhood and anyone else they consider to be a threat.  If this happens, the military government may be even more repressive than now.  Suleiman will probably be the public face of the new government.  But, if things don’t calm down, the military will probably put someone else in place.  The military, not the constitutional government, now runs Egypt.

The protests may also be far from over.  There does not appear to be any leader that the people are willing to accept.  The protests appear to be focused on getting Mubarak to go.  Ok, he’s gone.  What now?  Do they go home and celebrate victory?  Or do just keep upping the ante?  The only leaders available seem to be connected with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Fortunately, so far, most of the protestors do not appear to be very interested in turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood.  That means is there is no leader.  Since there is no leader, this could literally head off in almost any direction. 

The people in Egypt are feeling great, but unfortunately, not necessarily thinking great.  It is precisely at these times that tyrants often seize opportunity.  The Muslim Brotherhood will try to slip their guy in, probably disguised as a moderate.  The military will try to retain control.  Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the military will lie about their true intentions.  One will never be satisfied with anything less than a true Islamic state.  The other is unlikely to willingly turn over control to democratic civilian rule.

We could get lucky.  There could be a moderate Egyptian General that is both capable of taking over and willing to facilitate true democracy.   But, such people are very rare.  One tyrant is often exchanged for another.  South Africa was blessed with Nelson Mandela.  However, most countries are not nearly that fortunate.    

The Obama administration continues to be clueless.  The daily, if not hourly, flip flops on this situation have made them look foolish.  In addition Capper, our head of intelligence, said that he considers the Muslim Brotherhood to be a “secular organization.”  That is absurd.  If the Obama administration really believes that, they are hopelessly naïve.  It is, after all the “MUSLIM Brotherood.”  One would think that would provide an important clue.    

Regardless of what happens in Egypt, the overthrow of Mubarak means that these protests will spread throughout the Middle East.  They are also likely to spread to places like Iran and China.  The fuse has been lit.   Much of the world is on fire and it is far from being controlled.  We do not know how far or how fast it will spread, but we do know that it won’t stop in Egypt.  U.S. insurance carriers that specialize in global risk are strongly warning U.S. companies to prepare for worst case scenarios with regard to evacuating personnel.  We seldom realize our greatest hopes or our worst fears.  In Egypt we are likely to get one or the other.  Because of the speed at which this is moving, the lack of leadership in Egypt and the incompetence of the Obama administration, a bad result seems more likely than not.

Obama was just on TV, celebrating the party.  I wonder if he will be as thrilled about the coming hangover.

TDM