The Democrat political strategy is to segment the American people into constituency classes that can be served separately.  Al Gore made a Freudian slip when he admitted while campaigning that “We can build a collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities, that we can be E Pluribus Unum—out of one, many.”  Democrats most often divide Americans along cultural lines (region, race, ethnicity, religion, and personal values), rather than along economic lines.  The party then employs class envy as an explicit strategy for righting perceived wrongs and offering a goal of future class equity.  This strategy tends to be very divisive, pitting one class vs. another in a zero sum game, never completely satisfying any constituent class.  Political power is ensured by retaining this underclass as a permanent voting bloc that can be exploited for ongoing political support.  Unfortunately nurturing a permanent underclass for political purposes has had unintended cultural consequences, which may eventually undermine our entire society. 

 

The United States has always been a compassionate nation, helping people at home and abroad. Over the last 75 years a number of social insurance programs were provided for protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, and unemployment.  All of these programs began life as temporary “safety nets” for those less fortunate.  Social Security was originally designed in 1935 as a New Deal retirement and survivor’s insurance program, funded by a payroll tax on current workers' wages.  In 1954 disability insurance was added, and in 1972 supplemental security income insurance was added.  Welfare programs began in the 1930s and are implemented in over 13 government agencies in more than 70 separate federal programs, funded out of the General Fund. The purpose of welfare is to assist individuals in need and ultimately to help welfare recipients out of poverty and make them self-sufficient.  Medicare was originally designed in 1965 as a Great Society health insurance program for all Americans age 65 and older and for the permanent physically disabled, funded by payroll taxes.  Medicaid is the means tested health program created in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty for people with low incomes and resources, jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and managed by the states.  These social insurance programs have expanded well beyond their original intents, and the unintended consequences has been to grow dependence on government support, instead of a return to self sufficiency.

 

After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in 1935, “Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”  Social Security and Medicare are rapidly approaching bankruptcy, spending more money each year than is collected.  The destructiveness of welfare goes beyond financial affordability and political dependency.  The more welfare that families receive from government, the less fathers are necessary for their support, undermining the basic building block of society, the family unit.  Lacking the role model of a responsible father, children grow up to believe that dependency is a natural condition of life.  The children of welfare moms are nurtured in a mentality that perpetuates dependency from generation to generation.  The impact of food stamps, Section 8 housing subsidies, Medicaid, and other support programs has been to create a permanent welfare class who, in terms of skills and attitudes, are poorly equipped to return to work.  The U.S. has spent $16 trillion since LBJ launched his “War on Poverty” in 1964, but the percentage of people in “poverty” remains essentially the same.  Despite the fact that illegal aliens do not contribute to the program funding, many states cover them despite explicitly being excluded.  Our culture has eroded so much now that dependence on the government has become an acceptable lifestyle for the permanent underclass, which has transformed our temporary economic “safety net” into a comfortable “hammock” for long term living.

 

By design Democrats have deconstructed our American culture into a loose confederation of disparate class cultures on the verge of open class warfare.  Democrats have nurtured an underclass politically dependent with a well developed sense of entitlement, which has taught generations that society owes them a living; that government is responsible for raising their children; working is not necessary; and everyone is entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor.  This policy shows a reckless disregard for the consequences of dependency, which will be terrible.  Welfare-state paternalism has bred and nurtured immoral, undesirable people because government entitlements create one of two attitudes towards society: either ingratitude or resentment.  If they receive what they're entitled to, there is nothing to be grateful for because you're entitled to it.  If they haven't received an entitlement, then they're resentful because you haven't received what you feel you are entitled to.  Evidence of this resentment can be seen in the black “flash mobs” attacking randomly in a number of U.S. cities and the U.K. hoodlum riots attacking random businesses.  We should expect to see more of this violence at the Day of Rage starting on September 17^th, since it was originally planned for non-violent protests in three cities, but has already expanded to a week of civil disobedience in at least ten cities.

 

Nothing less than a culture re-construction is needed to recover from the degradation of our western society.  We must resurrect the culture of personal responsibility.  We must re-teach the cause and effect relationship between hard work and achievement.  Relearning the art of parental discipline, and re-establishing the primacy of the moral code upon which western civilization was built are monumental but necessary tasks.  I hope we are not too late because it will take generations to undo the harm done to our culture.  Ultimately the concept of entitlement must be dismantled from the welfare state.

 

The Democrats have embraced class warfare as their primary political tactic.  The unintended (or perhaps intended) consequence has been the creation of a permanent underclass totally dependent on the government for their well-being.  Political power is maintained by retaining this dependence in exchange for political support.  Unless you are an unrepentant Marxist praying for a class uprising, this permanent underclass is condemned to a government subsistence existence and an inability to participate in the American Dream.

 

We have been bombarded with media of coverage over the last several months on the debt crisis in general, and the debt ceiling in particular. The net result of all this Presidential focus and Congressional negotiations is an agreement to not balance the budget, but simply slow down the growth. The American people will see through this bipartisan spin to realize that we continue to spend money we do not have and will for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile our President continues to apologize for American history and strength, which has only served to weaken our image across the globe. The 2012 Presidential race has already begun with numerous candidates asking for our support. These candidates have not yet identified the fundamental causes of our problems, so their current plans are short sighted and tactical. What is the role of our federal government and what are we doing today that we should cease and desist? Once the real root causes are understood, then concrete plans can be created to reverse the damage done to this country, begin to grow the economy again, and set the example for the rest of the world to follow. Who will emerge as a true national leader?

A true leader would identify actions that are needed in the first week in office. Repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial reform bills would right two of the biggest wrongs from the Obama administration. Next making the Bush tax cuts permanent would remove business uncertainty and jump start the economy. Another first week measure would be repealing Executive Orders 10988, to de-authorize federal workforce unionization, and Executive Order 13166, to define English as the one language of government, would set the tone that the government works for its citizens first. Finally during this first week, the new President should announce a high level study group to examine the United Nations, and the cost benefit of America’s future role.

A true leader would also identify key first year federal actions and expected legislation. A key federalism initiative would be to begin dismantling half of the Cabinet Departments and their associated federal regulations: Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Human Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation, with a target of completely decommissioning all of these Departments by the end of the term. Another long term process that must be done quickly concerns amending the Constitution: 1) amend the 14^th Amendment to clarify only children of citizens are automatically citizens themselves; 2) repeal the 16^th Amendment to abolish the income tax as a precursor to replacing it with a national consumption flat tax; 3) repeal the 17^th amendment returning to the state legislature the role of electing Senators; 4) a new Amendment to term limit federal Congress and Supreme Court judge jobs to 12 years; and 5) a new Amendment to require a federal Balanced Budget each year. There are also many parts of our federal government that really should be privatized: Amtrak, Post Service, Import-Export Bank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Reserve Banks, and ownership of General Motors. There is really no reason for the federal government to be in the insurance business, so privatize federal medical insurance, flood insurance, windstorm insurance, crop insurance, and terrorism risk insurance. Medicare and Medicaid should devolve back to state control. The federal government is notorious poor at selecting winners and losers in the free market, so stop funding agriculture subsidies, energy subsidies, and high speed rail. Cost benefit analysis should drive down our funding of the United Nations and our total foreign aid. Although many of these efforts may take several years to complete, the size and cost of the federal government should shrink by over $1 trillion per year.

A true leader would also recognize that the scope of repair needed will not be accomplished in the first year alone. Until the income tax can be replaced with a flat consumption / sales tax, major reform is needed to simplify and reduce the burden of the income tax system: lower to top rate for both corporate and personal tax to 25%, abolish capital gains tax, abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax, abolish the death tax, and liberate seniors for social security tax. The federal government must begin the transition to a privatized Social Security System with personal ownership, funding, and investment decision making. Here again the transition may take years to protect current users while new users migrate to private sector alternatives. Once the Energy Department is abolished, the energy market should revert to the free market without government subsidies tilting to favored sources. Leasing federal lands can unlock huge energy reserves and will be a huge step towards the goal of energy independence. Excess federal lands can be sold to raise additional monies to needed infrastructure investments. Finally immigration must be addressed to allow managed immigration of desired new citizens, while closing down our borders once and for all without rewarding those who came illegally in the past. Other countries struggle with the same problems that we have. Our solving these issues will once again demonstrate why America is exceptional and a model for other countries to follow.

The question remains is there a true national leader with the vision and strategy to return America to its former glory? Limited government, fiscal conservatism, and a strong international presence are not new principles. Many of the changes recommended are just a return to founding principles. Downsizing the government by 50% will be very painful. A return to economic common sense will cut the cost of government in half will be a shock to the bureaucracy. A return to American exceptionalism will be the easiest fix since only our President and his administration is talking this country down, while we still remain fundamentally strong and committed. It is so sad that it took 75 years for the “frog to realize that he was being boiled” and finally jump out of the pan.  It is never too late to begin the multi-year exercise of dismantling the damage done to our once proud country. All we need is a true leader to step forward with a vision and strategy to get there!

 

 

David Coughlin is a political pundit, editor of the policy action planning web site “Return to Common Sense,” and an active member of the White Plains Tea Party. He retired from IBM after a short career in the U.S. Army. He currently resides with his wife of 40 years in Hawthorne, NY. He was educated at West Point (Bachelor of Science, 1971) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (Masters, Administrative Science, 1976).

American citizens are privileged to participate in governing their nation by means of their vote. For a number of reasons fewer than 50% vote in any given election. More and more instances of voter fraud have been uncovered in recent elections. Absentee ballots are available for those who are unable to vote in person on the designated day of election. Those in the military away from home are supposed to receive their ballots with ample time to complete them and send them home for processing. However the military vote has been discarded or invalidated all too often in recent elections, thus disenfranchising those who protect this country and its way of life. This may be an opportunity to reengineer the election process using this abused subset of voters to prove the merits of a better scheme of voting.

Voter fraud exists and is more prevalent than most Americans understand. Fraud can occur at any phase of the election process, each contributing to an invalid result. ACORN’s voter subsidiary, Project Vote employed the Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm, paralyze, and discredit the voting system. Fraud in voter registration has been most visible since most prosecuted cases have spotlighted bogus registrations and organized efforts to overwhelm voting boards. The 1993 Motor Voter Act was enacted to increase voter rolls, but its input was based on flawed, inaccurate, and out of date data. The Department of Justice was tasked to validate the accuracy and integrity of the voter rolls but they have been unwilling and unable to fulfill their duties. Many states have not updated their voter rolls in years. Once invalid registrations are accepted ineligible voters (non citizens, unregistered, multi-voters, etc.) cast invalid ballots that corrupt election results. Normal machine errors such as mechanical malfunctions occur every election and are handled as exceptions. Some ballots are lost inadvertently or otherwise, or are only uncovered during dubious manual recounts casting further doubt on the results. History has shown us that voter fraud cases usually involve increasing Democrat votes or disenfranchising Republican voters.

It is particularly egregious for our country to ask the military to put their lives at risk and then not guarantee that their votes will be counted. The military is posted a long way from the United States in both urban and rural locations. The 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act was designed to increase enfranchisement of overseas and military voters and provided for a 45-day window for the ballot round-trip. MOVE also required voter registration and absentee ballot applications to be available electronically, as well as General Election information. It is no secret that members of the military services vote heavily Republican. In 2006 only about one third who requested absentee ballots had their votes cast or counted. Now we hear that several states, including New York and Illinois, even after receiving waivers from the MOVE Act have failed to mail their ballots in sufficient time for the November election. Instead of correcting their bureaucratic error by extending the deadline for receiving ballots, these states decided to effectively disenfranchise thousands of voters. Since absentee ballots are subject to the delays of mail delivery the extent of this damage is not uncovered until long after the election is over and enthusiasm has waned. This disregard for our military is a national travesty.  

Instead of wringing our hands for another election cycle, we have an opportunity to test a solution to this problem with a manageable subset of voters, the military. Considering our sad history even if the pilot is less than optimal, military ballots are many times not counted anyway! Since the MOVE Act requires voter registration and absentee ballots available electronically, why not extend this system to allow voting itself electronically without requiring the use of the postal system. Individuals trust their personal financial fortunes to electronic banks and ATMs so why not implement a similar approach to voting with a personal PIN number to protect the individual voter and printed record of individual votes. This pilot would cover less than 1% of eligible voters. Participation can be made voluntary to transition from the current to the future electronic system. Once proven this electronic approach can be used for all absentee voters and even extended to all voters in all states to replace the miscellaneous voting machines that have been introduced across the country. Imagine the day when voting can be done from the comfort of your home, office, or remote station. Each citizen will be enabled to cast their vote that is protected by their personal PIN number. The added benefit is that electronic voting would deliver instantaneous, accurate results without any manual tampering and all absentee ballots would finally be counted.

Let’s try to run this pilot for the 2012 national election. As a pilot it will not be perfect, we can learn from this test, and the military may get the idea that their vote is important, and not just their blood.

The 2010 midterm elections are projected to be a Republican landslide and repudiation of everything President Obama has “accomplished.”  The question is why should voters select the Republican alternative? The Republican Party has become Democrat-lite led by moderates more concerned with raising money and getting reelected than leading with ideas for improvement. The Democrat Party has been taken over by “regressives” embracing failed socialist ideas from the past and ignoring the people’s wishes. Meanwhile mainstream America defines itself as conservative by a 2 to 1 margin and feels abandoned by both major political parties. In 2008 the political planets aligned: the liberal mainstream media came out of the closet as proud liberals; voters rejected the Republican party which won four years earlier with a landslide; and a brilliant media campaign was successful selling an inexperienced, nuanced, leftist with a theme of “Hope” and “Change.”  Now nearly two years later President Obama has rammed an unwanted agenda of legislation through a complicit Democrat Congress.  The American people have finally woken up to find their idealistic hopes and dreams have been replaced by an over-reaching government trying to takeover as much of the economy as possible.

America is waiting for someone to appear who will show the way back to American leadership and prosperity. This vision for change will require short term, medium term, and long term plans to return this country back to its original image. In 2008 change was desired, but unfortunately the change received only made the country worse. The last time change was called for and delivered as promised was in 1994 with the Contract for America. The transformation of this country back to its roots of free market capitalism, limited government, and a strong defense will take at least one term to reverse the damage done by the current administration and at least another term to begin the downsizing of our federal government back to the Founding Father’s common sense approach to government.

The “Contract from America,” is a blueprint for immediate short term action once real representatives are elected to Washington. Candidates for political office are being asked to sign this contract as a litmus test for support. The Contract is based on Individual Liberty, Limited Government, and Economic Freedom. There are ten actions to be taken immediately upon taking office: 1)Protect the Constitution; 2) Reject Cap & Trade; 3) Demand a Balanced Budget; 4) Enact Fundamental Tax Reform; 5) Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington; 6) End Runaway Government Spending; 7) Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care; 8) Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy; 9) Stop the Pork; and 10) Stop the Tax Hikes. This Contract has a strong emphasis on constitutional limits and restraints on legislation, spending, taxing, and government control of the economy. 

The “Road Map for America's Future” by Congressman Paul Ryan offers a comprehensive medium term proposal to ensure health and retirement security for all Americans, to lift the debt burdens that are mounting every day because of Washington's reckless spending, and to promote jobs and competitiveness in the 21st century global economy. It is a radical plan to balance the federal budget by slashing the sacred cows of American entitlement spending: Social Security and Medicare. It restrains government spending, and hence limits the size of government itself; it rejuvenates the vibrant market economy that made America the envy of the world; and it restores an American character rooted in individual initiative, entrepreneurship and opportunity. This Road Map focuses on helping the poor, while encouraging the middle class to take more personal responsibility in a dynamic economy. It is the appeal of security vs. the appeal of independence and enterprise. The CBO estimated that Ryan’s plan would accomplish what no other recent proposal could claim to do – it would strengthen the economy and put the government’s finances on a sustainable track.    The Road Map for America’s Future promotes our 1) national prosperity by limiting government's burden of spending, mandates and regulation, 2) ensures the opportunity for individuals to fulfill their human potential and enjoy the satisfaction of their own achievements, and 3) it secures the distinctly American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.

The missing link in America’s future is a long term vision of where this country should strive to be in ten years? What will the country look like after all the changes are made? Obama has been open about his disdain for the Constitution and the role of the federal government. One of the major themes of the Tea Party movement is a return to the original intent and limitations of the Constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments place limitation on the federal government that have been ignored or abused repeatedly in the last 75 years. Obama’s overreach may be the tipping point to finally begin the return of this country back the original design of the Founding Fathers. We not only need to change direction, but we need to repair the damage done by repealing a number of laws that stretched the Constitution all out of shape.

The federal government today is doing many things never envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and we should stop doing anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The first thing to do is to abolish more than half of the existing Cabinet Departments of: Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation. Many of these functions are best performed at the state level. There are many federal programs and agencies that should be privatized: Social Security; Medicare; Fannie Mae; Freddie Mac; Ginnie Mae; all ownership positions in various private banks, insurance, and automobile companies; the Postal Service; Amtrak; and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Abolish all grants that favor programs in select states. The federal government could easily be cut in half by privatizing or transferring programs to the states where they belong. This reduction in size and mission should also reduce federal taxes by at least half. Imagine a world with half the federal government and half the regulations! 

American people want to see a vision of where government is going and what it will look like once we achieve it. This framework must include a high level vision and then must expand into actionable plans for transition from where we are today to where we should be in the future.  Government can be viewed as a cancer that never sleeps and never gives up nibbling at our liberty and freedom. Just once it would be nice to see this cancer in remission and turned back. A return to our Constitutional principles is long overdue and will be a real transformative change that America will welcome. Whatever party leads this effort will require a long term commitment of at least two full Presidential terms to accomplish, since the damage is huge and repairing this much will require continuity and a complex phased migration. 

Many Americans have been yearning for someone to appear who can describe what needs to be done and the steps to fulfill his vision. The opportunity is now!

My name is Dave Coughlin and I live in Hawthorne, New York. I am a “Right Wing Extremist” and proud of it. Yes, I am active in the White Plains Tea Party group. Let’s see how I became a right wing extremist: grew up in the suburbs on Long Island and attended public schools – pretty extreme! I graduated from West Point, served in the Army for seven years – sounds pretty extreme to me! I then returned to New York to work for IBM (another extreme organization). Maybe pin-striped suits and wing tips are the new extremist uniform? I was laid off last year, but was able to retire after 31 years and not join the unemployed. I raised my children here in Westchester County and they attended public schools. I have been married 39 years. I pay my taxes and vote in every election. I am also a proud member of the Silent Majority! Am I the dreaded “Right Wing Extremist” you fear so much?  

Maybe it is the extreme ideology I picked up? I started out in the 60s as a JFK conservative Democrat believing in tax cuts and a strong defense. As the liberals took over the Democrat party and abandoned these principles, I became a conservative Republican believing in limited government and American exceptionalism. As “compassionate” moderates took over the Republican party and downplayed their principles, I became a Registered Independent. If nothing else I now receive less fundraising junk mail from the Democrats and Republicans ! I still vote in every election, but pay more attention to the individual candidate positions rather than just their parties. 

Over the last twenty years I have been increasingly dissatisfied with the direction this country has been going. A year ago I heard about and attended the first White Plains Tea Party demonstration in front to the Country Center and was hooked. I attended the New York State Tea Party and spoke on the steps of the Capital expressing my dissatisfaction with the direction our state is going. I attended the September 2009 March on Washington where I found close to a million people who were equally dissatisfied with our country’s direction. A recent Pew poll found that 78% of Americans “dissatisfied with the way things are going in the county today.” This country has made a left turn which is unacceptable to me, and apparently millions more, who can be Silent No More!

So what has happened to Washington? Politicians say wonderful things and promise wonderful changes if they get elected. Unfortunately once they get elected I think they undergo electro-shock therapy because they seem to lose their Common Sense! It is as if before election they want to work for me, but once elected they become tone deaf and view me only as a revenue source to fund their re-election. Many of the things they do Make No Sense to me!   

So what is the impact on me? I am unable to vote FOR a Presidential candidate, but instead I am forced to vote AGAINST the other candidate….. holding my nose when I depress the lever to vote.  I believe I am not alone in my thinking and that a significant number of people either vote their conscience like I do or they don’t vote at all. Perhaps the fact that less than a half the eligible votes in any given election bother to cast their votes is a reflection of this dissatisfaction. The days of a thought leader who inspired your vote is a distant memory.

So what would I like to see? I am an eternal optimist still hoping for a charismatic leader, who believes in American exceptionalism, free market capitalism, limited government, and a strong defense.  Wouldn’t it be nice if this leader also had a plan how to undo the damage done over the last 75 years? If that person could be found, I believe the citizens of this country would embrace this vision and elect this person to multiple terms. I am not really an “extremist.” The most important next step is for we, “extremists,” to vote out the current hacks and vote in politicians who represent us!   

God Bless America!

David Coughlin

Obama’s actions and legislative agenda has revealed him as a leftist trying to evolve the country into a socialist heaven, but his approval numbers reflect an erosion of support for him and his government transformation ideas. His strategy has been to incrementally transform America into a big government nanny state.  The sheer volume of change has awakened Americans to their Constitution: (1) The nationalization of car companies and banks; (2) the subordination of the car companies' legal bondholders to union bosses; (3) the creation of trillion-dollar slush funds (the stimulus package) used for, among other purposes, the corrupt purchase of congressional votes; and (4) the mandating of individual health insurance purchase against the will of Americans. The rule of law emanates from our Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land and may only be altered only by a laborious process that requires the support of an overwhelming majority of the people. Obama would like us to ignore the specific language in the Constitution that limits the federal government to specific roles and responsibilities, and to accept unquestioningly his interpretation of certain clauses to justify his over-reach into roles never envisioned by the Founding Fathers. He employed the Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm the Congress and the electorate with the number and reach of his changes, hoping to pass legislation before the real agenda was understood. Public reaction was quick with the emergence of the Tea Party movement that protested against the runaway spending and the overall direction that America was headed. Now the latest polls show the American people awakening from their electoral dream to find not “change they can believe in,” but “change they can’t believe!”

Obama has been open about his disdain for the Constitution and the role of the federal government. His role model has been FDR who also viewed the Constitution as something to get around to justify his governmental expansion. One of the major themes of the Tea Party movement is a return to the original intent and limitations of the Constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments place limitation on the federal government that have been ignored or abused repeatedly in the last 75 years. Obama’s overreach may be the tipping point to finally begin the return of this country back the principles of the Founding Fathers. We not only need to change direction, but we need to repair the damage done by repealing a number of laws that stretched the Constitution all out of shape.

There are so many things the federal government does today that are not in the Constitution, and we should stop doing in the future. The first thing to do is to abolish more than half of the existing Cabinet departments and all of the programs that they manage in the Departments of: Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation. These Cabinet functions are best served at the state level. There are many federal programs and agencies that should be privatized: 1) Privatize the entitlements: pension plans (Social Security) and medical insurance (Medicare etc.); 2) Remove the federal government from active management of the financial sector including: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, and ownership position is various private banks and insurance companies; 3) Sell all federal land not required by the federal agency that owns it and retain ownership of land on which the federal building is built and the military bases require.  The government does not need to be the biggest landowner in the United States; 4) Sell the Postal Service, since the private sector has already proven they can deliver mail faster and cheaper; 5) Sell the Amtrak train business and rights of way, since no need to subsidize transportation alternatives; 6) Sell the Tennessee Valley Authority, since the federal government has no role in energy production.  The federal government has no role redistributing wealth between the states, so abolish all federal grants that favor programs in select states. The best programs exist close to the customers that they serve, which precludes most federal management of programs. The federal government could easily be cut in half by privatizing or transferring them to the states where they belong.

Abolishing entire Cabinet department, privatizing major entitlement programs, and devolving many programs back to the states should cut the cost of federal government in half. This reduction is size and mission should also reduce federal taxes by at least half. The powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively.  Many of these programs may be found to be redundant, outdated, or irrelevant.  The bad news is that the programs now residing solely in the states will require increases in state taxes. The good news is that these programs will execute closer to where the people live making these programs more accountable and responsive to the electorate. Differences in state politics may accelerate the migration between states as people vote with their feet to protect their wallets. Moving money to the states also moves the power to the states

A Return to Our Constitutional Principles is long overdue and will be a real transformative change that America will welcome. Obama has revealed a future that the American people reject. Now we need an American leader to show us a vision of what needs to be repealed, rolled back, or abolished to achieve that Founding Fathers principle-based vision. Cautious incremental change is not what is needed. The Contract from America was an excellent direction for the first 90 days of the next Republican lead Congress. Congressman Paul Ryan’s Framework for Growth offers a first draft of what needs to be done to save this country from its socialist demise. Most of these existing government programs can’t just be stopped, but require detailed planning to migrate from their current instantiation to the future state we need, and this change may need to require over a decade to migrate. Whoever leads this effort will require at least two full Presidential terms to accomplish, since the damage is huge and repairing this much will require continuity and a complex phased implementation. Now that we have seen the alternative, the American people will be energized and motivated to finally put this country back on track.

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.ReturnToCommonSensesite.com

The Democrat political template is very predictable and depends on a complicit liberal Mainstream Media (MSM) to cover up and obfuscate for shortcomings in policy execution. The Democrat political strategy to inundate, exaggerate, obfuscate, and inoculate policies is evident in domestic policy initiatives as well as foreign policy efforts.  The process begins with a classic Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm the public with “crisis” after “crisis” that only Democrats can successfully address. 

These “crises” are many times based on real national problems, but are exaggerated and personalized to manufacture the idea of impending doom that will appeal to the emotions of the electorate, without factual backing or scientific proof. The housing crisis, the banking crisis, the automotive industry crisis, the climate change crisis, and now the health care crisis all focused on real problems, but hyperbole and exaggeration ruled the debate. Catastrophic consequences are predicted for inaction, and exaggerated results are guaranteed with Democrat intervention. The liberal MSM acted as a cheerleader during these phases of the policy debate, finding anecdotal evidence and writing puff pieces to support the need for action. 

Legislation was then crafted that is so huge and complex that it is not understandable by the public or even the Congress, camouflaging government waste and over-reach at every turn. The Bailout bill was $700 Billion and passed without reading, and every major initiative afterwards was over 1,000 pages long, close to $1 Trillion, and unreadable. Once passed visible “low-hanging fruit” aspects are feted while insidious top-heavy bureaucracies are defined and staffed, with organization continuation and expansion as the primary mission.  The “saved or created” jobs are a classic example of obfuscation to disguise a absence of any real positive results. 

Now the MSM plays a vital role covering up initial results that fall well short of “expectations” and the financial justification erodes before our eyes. Never once does the MSM compare real versus actual results, or re-examine the business case, or question the ability to achieve the desired outcomes. The stimulus inability to create jobs and the inconsequential climate improvement promised by the “cap and trade” bill are conveniently ignored by the MSM. The Mainstream Media is an active co-conspirator to government greed and manipulation, hiding in plain sight, and has forfeited any credibility as a fair and balanced check and balance of power.

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.ReturnToCommonSensesite.com

Obama and company have passed the Health Care Reform bill that only 38% of Americans favored, so now Republicans need to be very clear what they plan to do when they regain control of Congress in November.  Since late last summer, when details of the Health Care Reform bill began to leak, public support has declined and opposition sharply increased. Obama’s personal popularity has plummeted to a new low of 44%, and he has polarized the nation with 21% more people Strongly Disapprove than Strongly Approve his performance.  

The "official" unemployment rate hit 10% in November and has remained there.  He revealed himself as a leftist zealot when he abandoned his “laser focus on jobs” that the public wanted to focus exclusively on controlling health care (insurance) as a means to take over one sixth of the economy.  Iran is said to be only months away from having a nuclear bomb.  Meanwhile diplomatic blunders have been committed with Great Britain, Israel, and South America.  A would-be terrorist tackled by passengers while attempting to detonate an explosive device over Detroit was questioned by intelligence officers for fifty minutes, then whisked into the Miranda-ized world of the civilian court system.  "Party crashers," in three separate incidents, got past security and attended White House functions. The list goes on to include jihad lawyers hired into the Justice Department; the President's time-out to go to Europe to lobby in favor of bringing the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago; the White House chief of staff twisting arms, naked, in the Congress-only shower; and a credible charge that a White House "bribe" was offered to a politician as inducement to get him to stay out of a U.S. Senate race.  

Sunday was a high water mark for Democrat ascendency and over-reach, and also the “straw that broke the camel’s back!” Now is the time to explicitly punish those who voted for this unwanted government takeover by voting them out of office, and replace them with people who will represent their constituent’s wishes and not their political party’s leftist dream of socialism. When independent-minded people away from the heat of Washington consider the Health Care Reform bill, the question then becomes "Can America get along without a President?"   Republicans would be well served to articulate their plans to repair the damage done by Obama: repeal the TARP; repeal the “stimulus” spending; and repeal the Health Care Reform bill before all the money is spent and irreparable damage is done to our economy.  The good news about the health care reform bill is that the taxes begin immediately while benefits don’t kick in for several years, so a quick repeal will stop only the financial pain. 

It is time for voters to be heard and their ideas for the country to guide policy and not a left wing agenda that was hidden during the election campaign. It is time to return to individual freedoms, free market capitalism, and American exceptionalism and “Throw the bums out of Congress.” “We the People” will have to learn how to run the country for two years while the lame duck President keeps the seat warm in the Oval Office and finishes his term.

(“Democrats Have Painted Themselves Into a Corner” by Jed Skillman dated March 20, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/democrats_have_painted_themsel.html

“Health reform and the specter of Alf Landon” by Dana Milbank dated March 21, 2010 published by The Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031902636.html )

David Coughlin Hawthorne, NY www.ReturnToCommonSensesite.com

Someone needs to wake up President Obama that the Global War on Terror (GWOT) is still very active around the world and the United States remains the number one target of opportunity.  The war is hot and deadly around the world: decreasing in Iraq, increasing in Afghanistan, occasional drone strikes in Pakistan and Somalia, and currently quiet in Malaysia and the Philippines. Yemen has put itself on the GWOT radar training future combatants. In 2009 the United States has been attacked twice on American soil: first at Fort Hood and now at the Detroit airport, and five other plots were thwarted before execution. “Connecting the dots” on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab , the Christmas bomber, should not have been that tough since intelligence about terror threats rarely comes on such a silver platter:

·    His Nigerian banker father went to the U.S. Embassy in Lagos to warn that his son had fallen under "the influence of religious extremists based in Yemen" and was a security risk.

·    This came after months of U.S. intelligence intercepts about al Qaeda plans for an attack using a Nigerian man.

·    He paid for his ticket with cash, didn't check any luggage, and didn’t leave any contact information.

We were spared the horrible consequences of our incompetence, only because of his technical incompetence.  Abdulmutallab’s name went onto the list of 400,000 people who might have links to terror, but not the list of 14,000 subject to multiple screenings before boarding an airplane nor the list of 3,400 people who are not permitted to fly.  The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center's "reasonable suspicion" standard reads: "Reasonable suspicion requires 'articulable' facts which, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to, terrorism and terrorist activities, and is based on the totality of the circumstances. Mere guesses or inarticulate 'hunches' are not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion." This “political correctness” to not tag him as a person of interest raises questions not only about airline security, but about how we are fighting the real war we are in. Unlike the war on crime, or the war on drugs, this is not a metaphorical war, and there is no presumption of innocence, rather a presumption that he is a terrorist and did not act alone. The immediate imperative was not to read him his Miranda rights, but to subject him to intense and hostile interrogation so that U.S. forces can quickly find, fix, attack and kill his comrades and camp followers. The first 100% truthful thing that President Obama said was that “U.S. intelligence had enough information to uncover the terrorist plot to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight but failed to piece it all together before the suspect boarded a plane for Detroit armed with explosives.”  Look for Obama to throw Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and/or Counter-Terrorism Czar John Brennan under the bus for incompetence to cover his own cluelessness! Bush's premise that Islam would negotiate with the West was false, but Bush loved America, and he protected America, even if he refused to see the enemy for who and what it was.  It was no accident that America was safe for eight years post-9/11, but our security is now being unraveled by a weak and pro-Islamic president.  I fear the jihadi attacks on America in 2009 were staggering, and it has only just begun. Maybe now Homeland Security will finally begin profiling for actual terrorists like El Al Airlines has done successfully for years, and stop focusing on such dreaded implements of terrorism as nail files and shampoo bottles!

Recently there have been a number of articles advocating the decriminalization of marijuana and all illegal drugs.  The justification has been that the drug war has been unsuccessful controlling drugs in this country and breeds contempt for the legal system. The belief is that taxes can be used to modify behavior while being a revenue source. Drug use can be a slippery slope that can progress from recreational use to occasional use, then frequent use leading to addiction and a degenerate life style, and even death. It is not surprising that no one who has had a relative or close friend travel this destructive path is advocating decriminalization or legalization of any drugs. It is also a hidden truth that taxes are notorious for non-achievement of desired behavior changes and unintended consequences. If marijuana is decriminalized then the same logic can and should be used to roll back the profusion of other personal behaviors and activities regulated by the state today.

Wasn’t the United States of America founded on the principles of freedom and liberty over 225 years ago?  Individual freedom and liberty allowed any personal action as long as it did not adversely impact any other person. Actions are not dictated by any moral, racial, or religious creeds, but are legislated by our Congress for our “common good.”  Over time our legal system has grown to regulate and restrict personal actions, personal consumption of legal and illegal products, and behaviors that affect our personal health.  The question is whether we have gone too far trying to implement social engineering with restrictions and taxes on morals, actions, or sins?

What is the role of the government vis-a-vis individual liberty and behavior? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The state should protect the liberty of individuals to act as they wish as long as they do not infringe upon the liberties of others. Freedom is the right to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others. From a philosophical point of view, it can be defined as the capacity to determine your own choices. Libertarianism seeks to maximize individual libertyand minimize or even abolish the state. American laws struggle to find the right balance between individual freedom and the “common good.”

There are many types of activities and behaviors regulated by the state today.  There are a number examples of regulations designed to protect us from ourselves such as seat belts, motorcycle helmets, and bicycle helmets. There are also regulations to control our personal behavior for our own good such as personal hygiene, who with and where we can perform sexual acts, and what foods and where we can eat. Finally there are numerous regulations concerning “sinful” acts such as consuming alcoholic beverages, smoking of tobacco products, and personal use of recreational drugs. All of these activities and behaviors are personal choices that only impact ourselves, since other laws regulate potential interactions with others.  

There are degrees of regulation and restriction, both positive and negative to affect our personal behavior. The fear of negative consequences is the most prevalent form of regulation such as making the behavior illegal and penalizing breaking the regulation with monetary penalties or restricting future behavior as the biggest threat. A common negative restriction is requiring a certain age, usually 18, as a prerequisite such as driving, drinking, or contractual obligations.  Another technique employed is to uses taxes to interject affordability into the behavior decision such as increasing taxes to discourage excessive drinking or smoking. Positive behavior modification is employed with constant reinforcement of the positive consequences associated with following the regulations such as statistical proof that helmets prevent head injuries and seat belts prevent automobile deaths.  It has been statistically proven that fear of negative consequences is the strongest of these behavioral incentives.

A better solution may be to decriminalize behavior by removing criminal penalties but retain ability to regulate. A society may come to the view that an act is not harmful, should no longer be criminalized, or is otherwise not a matter to be addressed by the criminal justice system.  Decriminalization removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations. Decriminalization reflects changing social and moral views, and focuses on treatment. The term “victimless crime” refers to infractions of criminal law without any identifiable evidence of an individual that has suffered damage in the infraction. Examples of subject matter which have been the subject of changing views on criminality over time in various societies and countries include: prostitution, homosexuality, and drug use. While decriminalized acts are no longer crimes, they may still be the subject of regulation; for example, the licensing and regular medical testing of sex workers, or a monetary penalty in place of a criminal charge for the possession of a decriminalized drug.  

Meanwhile behavior modification with taxes has been ineffective influencing behavior. Taxes are sold as means to discourage behavior, but cost is rarely the critical decision factor. Alcohol and tobacco taxes are not designed to impact consumption, but rather to raise revenue, which is felt most by the lower and middle classes. In most cases the amount of revenue projected is rarely achieved and, all too frequently, the revenues are diverted to other purposes than originally promised.  Alaska, Zurich, and Amsterdam all decriminalized drugs for small users, but found consumption grows and addicts multiply.

The best thing this country could do would be to repeal all the personal behavior crimes and let individuals be responsible for their actions and the impact of their actions:  

·    Define the age of 18 as the entry into adulthood with all the associated responsibilities that come with that milestone such as adult penalties for misbehaving; 

·    Repeal all laws on personal behavior for adults (smoking, helmets, seat belts, etc.); 

·    Legalize all drugs for anyone over 18 years of age;

·    Repeal all sin taxes (tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc.) as inefficient at influencing behavior, ineffective incenting desirable behavior, and discriminatory;

·    Implement positive behavior modification techniques to reward desired behavior, such as health insurance discounts to reward healthy lifestyle;

·    Only punish bad behavior if it impacts others. 

However there is no reason that all taxpayers must subsidize these personal choices and their consequences. In order to make this change effective, negative behavior consequences must also be implemented by removing eligibility to all government safety nets such as food stamps, welfare, and health care. New Hampshire says it best, “Live Free, Or Die!”

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.ReturnToCommonSensesite.com

On the surface Obama appears to be helter skelter with his multiple disconnected objectives, but in reality all these initiatives are integral to his socialist transformation that requires dismantling the Constitution and fundamental political, cultural, and economic changes.  Ever since Obama took office, critics of his leadership style have accused him of tackling too many initiatives at once. That blurs the focus of the White House and Congress and prevents the president from communicating a clear theme about his agenda to ordinary Americans. Now, as Obama’s approval rating in polls has dwindled to 47%, that criticism has grown louder. President Obama's anti-American philosophy lies in his willingness to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution...." and to believe he is exempt from the Oath of Office he took to "protect and defend the Constitution."  Within such a paradigm, anything is permissible, including the complete destruction of American economic strength as part of an abstract notion of redistributive justice. As an anti-capitalist Obama equates money with power and has no problem printing more “monopoly money” and buying votes  in Congress or now in Copenhagan in order to advance his socialist agenda. As a shrewd socialist Obama employs the 1966 Cloward–Piven strategy to overwhelm Congress with their leftist transformation agenda creating serial “crises” that are too big to understand, but require immediate radical “reforms” without the need to read the 1,000+ page legislation. It is a very real problem since the attention is scattered and the message is scattered as well. Obama is a master at obfuscation distracting attention from his unpopular initiatives by diverting attention to minor media issues such as Obama’s birth certificate, Harvard race profiling, and White house gate crashers. Meanwhile he is not averse to throwing staffers and acolytes “under the bus” to extend controversy while stealthily advancing his liberal agenda behind the scenes. Obama has also drawn particular fire for the substance of his foreign policy agenda, which emphasizes “photo op” dialogue with foreign allies and adversaries alike with no pre-conditions and apparently no progress required. The White House believes that multiple priorities and messages are tailor made for the new media infrastructure on the Internet, social networks and niche publications. The belief is that there has been a fundamental shift in how people consume news and information, and in-depth knowledge of issues is no longer necessary. It is in Democrat’s best interest that no one has all the information, so spoon feeding selected data and “sound bites” to selected audiences is part of the overall communications strategy. President Obama’s biggest political exposure is that the impact of his policies will not live up to expectations and his approval will continue to plunge with disappointing results in economic growth, unemployment, health care, the Afghanistan war,  and international relations.

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.returntocommonsensesite.com

Obama is failing on his domestic agenda: Obama is failing on his foreign policy agenda; and now even his Afghanistan speech at West Point disappointed and failed to inspire or convince anyone! His speech was flat and received a cool welcome from the cadets, even after they were asked to respond “enthusiastically,” as he confusingly tried to satisfy the entire political spectrum. Obama did not take ownership of the war calling it the war in Afghanistan, not Obama’s War. He had a chance to rally the country and the world around defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but he was not up to the leadership challenge – not even close. The first 15 minutes of his speech was a straightforward explanation of his Afghanistan decision, but then for the next 20 minutes he unsuccessfully tried to sell this decision. Barack Obama only sees the trees and completely misses the forest: a lot of criticism of the Iraq policies; a lot of talk about Afghanistan and Pakistan plans; but nothing was said about Iran and its emerging nuclear weapons program or Islamic extremism exported abroad! LTG McChrystal asked for at least 40,000 troops, and 60,000 to ensure success, but President Obama dithered for three months and finally decided to authorize an additional 30,000. Obama’s focus on ramp-up followed by early exit marks his strategy as the equivalent of a “drive-by shooting,” hoping for the perception of success rather than victory, but more importantly quick political escape. The close juxtaposition of his statement to send more troops with that of a pledge to begin withdrawing them after 18 months is confusing to the American public, America's NATO allies, and most unfortunately, to Afghans and Pakistanis, who are all too familiar with the U.S.'s history of turning its back on this volatile region. He seems fixated on corruption and fraud in the Afghanistan elections but refuses to see rampant corruption in Minnesota elections or the country-wide plague of ACORN fraud. From a policy standpoint Obama’s acceptance of the Taliban, Islamic extremists and terrorist enablers, as legitimate Afghanistan players is like embracing “reformed Nazis” after WWII. America’s perceived weakness will undermine the Afghan government, encourage many Afghans to hedge their bets by cultivating better ties with the Taliban, and undermine Pakistan's resolve to confront the Afghan Taliban leadership that finds sanctuary within its borders. Obama made his debut as a war president in his West Point speech, but unfortunately he didn't inspire confidence…more of a sinking feeling. The President came across as an uncertain political leader eager to split the differences within his divided Administration to implement an exit strategy, despite the likely disastrous consequences of such a plan. Like in the Wizard of Oz when you see the real Obama behind the Wizard’s curtain, you are very disappointed how weak he really is!

Iraq – The Right War for the Right Reasons

The Global War on Terror (GWOT) did not begin September 11, 2001, but was the defining act in a continued war on the United States that began decades before. These Islamo-fascists were actively supported and financed by a number of autocratic regimes throughout the Middle East. These terrorists are not limited by any conventions or rules of law, and routinely targeted innocent civilians as an accepted tactic. Terrorist acquisition and potential use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), including chemical, biological, or nuclear, is a real threat, since high volume destruction is a stated goal of these terrorist groups.

Iraq invaded its neighbor country of Kuwait in 1990. In 1991 a United Nations coalition, lead by the US, liberated Kuwait and drove the military back into Iraq. The international community maintained a policy of containment towards Iraq. This policy included numerous and crushing military and economic sanctions, US and UK patrols of Iraqi no-fly zones declared to protect Kurds in the north and Shi’ites in the south, and ongoing inspections to prevent Iraqi development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Meanwhile the UN passed a series of Resolutions demanding enforcement of the arms control disarmament. The US and the UK enforced the truce and monitored the arms control inspections, until the inspectors were thrown out in 1998. In October President Clinton signed the “Iraq Liberation Act” to establish a program to support a democracy in Iraq. Iraq regime change was openly discussed as a national objective.

President Bush was elected November 2000. On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists. On September 20^th President Bush announced the new Global War on Terror (GWOT), including the doctrine of pre-emptive military action, termed the Bush Doctrine. In October the US and UK launched Operation Enduring Freedom to invade Afghanistan, capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban which had provided support and safe harbour to al-Qaeda. Later NATO troops joined the conflict in Afghanistan.

In September 2002 President Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq. After considerable debate the UN Security Council adopted a compromise resolution, 1441, which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised “serious consequences” for noncompliance. In October 2002 the US Congress passed Public Law 107-243 “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolutions of 2002.” In March 2003 the US and the “Coalition of the Willing” of 50 countries invaded Iraq.

The reasons are clear and have been proven by the results of the invasion. The primary rationale was to enforce the multiple UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed since the earlier Gulf War. The second reason was to ensure the WMDs were destroyed as required by the UN Resolutions. The third rationale was to remove the regime that supports terrorists and terrorism. The final rationale was to topple Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses, began with a series of 23 “Whereas” clauses justifying the war. Twelve of these reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein. Ten of these reasons for going to war refer to the elimination of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or weapons development programs. Ten of the reasons for going to war refer to support for international terrorism or harboring terrorist organizations. Five of the reasons for going to war refer to the need for freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal regime

Many questions remain about the WMDs. Iraq was able to use chemical weapons in its war against Iran and to kill large numbers of its own Kurdish population in the 1980s. By the time UNSCOM left Iraq in December 1998, it had eliminated a large portion of Iraq's chemical weapon potential. UNSCOM had overseen the destruction or incapacitation of more than 88,000 filled or unfilled chemical munitions, over 600 tons of weaponized or bulk chemical agents, some 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals, some 980 pieces of key production equipment, and some 300 pieces of analytical equipment. After UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq in December 1998, U.S.-led forces bombed many sites believed to be chemical weapon plants. After the bombing, reports emerged that Iraq had rebuilt many of those sites, and that the sites appeared to be operating. No large stockpiles of WMD munitions were found. Small number of old chemical shells were recovered. Several suspected chemical weapons factories were uncovered after the invasion. Evidence of chemical weapons development was found and capable of being used to reconstitute the weapons development in a relatively short time.

Iraq managed to produce anthrax, aflatoxin, botulinum toxin, gas gangrene, ricin, and wheat smut, and was also known to be working on cholera, mycotoxins, shigellosis, and viruses (including camelpox, infectious hemorrhaghic conjunctivitis and rotavirus) as well as genetic engineering. There are suspicions that Iraq was also working on smallpox. Many aspects of Iraq's biological weapon program remain unknown. These unknowns include the total amount of germ agent Iraq produced and the status of Iraq's unaccounted for stocks of biological growth media, agents, production equipment and handbooks, as well as munitions and warheads. Iraq admitted that it weaponized biological agents between December 1990 and January 1991. The types of munitions under development for use with biological weapons included Al Hussein missile warheads, R-400 aerial bombs, aircraft drop tanks, pilotless aircraft, helicopter-borne spraying systems, 122 mm rockets, LD-250 aerial bombs, and fragmentation weapons. Furthermore, inspectors say that Iraq became self-sufficient; meaning it no longer needed imports to fuel its BW program. The uncertainties that surround this program made it all the more threatening in the absence of inspections and monitoring.

Iraq has pursued the development of nuclear weapons since the 1980s. UN inspectors learned that Iraq's first bomb design, which weighed a ton and was a full meter in diameter, was replaced by a smaller, more efficient model, that made it small enough to fit on Iraq's Scud-type missiles. Iraq mastered the key technique of creating an implosive shock wave, which squeezes a bomb's nuclear material enough to trigger a chain reaction. The inspectors determined that Iraq had managed to develop a successful bomb design and lacked only the fissile material to fuel it. Tons of enriched uranium were recovered after the invasion.

There is no question that Iraq had programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. There is also no question that much of their stockpiles were destroyed during the ‘90s as part of the UNSCOM inspection program. It is believed that one quarter of Iraq’s WMDs were destroyed under UN pressure during the early 1990’s. It is believed that Iraq sold approximately another quarter of the weapons stockpile to Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990’s. It is also believed that the Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last months before the war. With no record of there destruction there will always be a question of their disposition and whether they can be reconstituted as a weapon for use in the future. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam’s nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq when the coalition forces arrived in 2003, but were stolen from under the Americans’ noses and sent to Syria. Syria is one of eight countries in the world that never signed a treaty banning WMDs. Depending on what was shipped out of the country; the ability to reconstitute a WMD program is undetermined. The recent air raid by Israel in Deir al Zour, Syria was designed to destroy the nuclear work underway there, and discourage any further work developing nuclear material there. At this point the only assurance is that Iraq no longer has this capability. There is also a hope that any country that may have received this material will not be foolish enough to try to weaponize this material for their own or any terrorist organization use.

Iraq is one of seven countries that had been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UN Security Council Resolution 687 prohibited Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. There is ample evidence now available to substantiate the claim that the Iraq government actively aided and abetted radical terrorist groups. In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals. Iraqi intelligence met with Osama Bin Laden in 1995 when Bin Laden requested that Iraqi radio broadcast his speeches. Bin Laden also “requested joint operations against the forces of infidels in the land of Hijaz,” which is Saudi Arabia.  In November 1995 al-Qaeda bombed the Saudi National Guards headquarters in Riyadh, killing five Americans. In 1999 Fedayeen collaborated with Uday Hussein on plans to sabotage, bomb, and assassinate Kurdish areas in Iraq, Iran, and London. Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians. Iraq sheltered several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.  Iraq also sheltered the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq. In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."  Iraq maintained a terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

The final rationale was to topple Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people. President Clinton signed the “Iraq Liberation Act” to establish a program to support a democracy in Iraq. Iraq regime change was openly discussed as a national objective.  Saddam Hussein rejected every attempt to address the UN Security Council Resolutions peacefully. Meanwhile Saddam Hussein led a repressive regime that murdered thousands of its own citizens. A key principle of the Bush Doctrine was to replace dictatorships with democratic governments as both morally justified, since it leads to greater freedom for the citizens of such countries, and strategically wise, since democratic countries are more peaceful, and breed less terrorism, than dictatorial ones.  Removing Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime freed 25 million Iraqis to live a life free of fear. Although the al-Qaeda has replaced the Baathists as the source of fear, the recent surge has finally turned the corner on returning the country to its freely formed government.

In summary invading Iraq was the right thing to do in 2003, and is still the right thing to do, now that we know the full extent of Iraq’s progress destroying their weapons of mass destruction programs, their support of international terrorism, and their repression of the Iraq people.

 

 

The Global War on Terror in general is covered at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/terrorism.html and the Middle East Theater in particular is covered at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/middleeast.html .

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

I wish I could vote FOR a Presidential candidate, but more likely I will vote AGAINST the other candidate….. holding my nose when I depress the lever to vote for whoever is left.  Let’s look at my voting record over the last 10 elections and who I voted for or against:

 

1968: voted AGAINST Hubert Humphrey

1972: voted AGAINST George McGovern

1976: voted AGAINST Jimmy Carter

1980: voted FOR Ronald Reagan

1984: voted FOR Ronald Reagan

1988: voted AGAINST Michael Dukakis

1992: voted FOR Ross Perot

1996: voted AGAINST Bill Clinton

2000: voted AGAINST Al Gore

2004: voted AGAINST John Kerry

 

I consider myself an Independent who is morally conservative. My voting record reflects my lack of enthusiasm for either party. I believe I am not alone in my thinking and that a significant number of people either vote their conscience like me or don’t vote at all.  Perhaps the fact that less than half the people vote in any given election is a reflection of this dissatisfaction.

 

The days of an inspirational leader receiving my vote is a distant memory… “fuhgettaboutit.”