My Congressman, Dr. Tom Price, speaks out against the Dodd-Frank "Permanent Bailout" bill:
I just finished reading a beautiful article called Revenge, Reconciliation and Responsibility by Professor Kenneth Wald, a political science professor at the University of Florida. Published in the Voices of Conservative Judaism magazine, Professor Wald describes his visit to Grosrohrsdorf in Germany – the town where his grandparents lived before being driven out during the Kristallnact pogrom.
Professor Wald had been invited to Grosrohrsdorf by three townspeople who decided to tell the story of the town under Nazi rule. Wald, whose grandparents perished in the concentration camps, describes his meetings with the sons and daughters of the Nazis and sympathizers, and their reaction to him and his message.
A very insightful article – highly recommended.
With Georgia tax receipts down by over $2 billion, the Georgia's Hope Scholarship program dipping into its reserve fund, and public schools furloughing teachers to save money, I am happy to learn that the state legislature spent some time debating a truly monumental problem – the tough choices faced by drivers who run over a deer or a bear.
Senate Bill 474 was passed by the 2010 Georgia legislature. It allows drivers to keep any bear or deer they might run over. Previously, such roadkill had to be scraped off the roadway and given to the Department of Natural Resource, where the carcasses were stuff, mounted and installed in various state owned properties.
Apparently the DNR has run out of places to mount the roadkill. Perhaps the state taxidermists were also furloughed. I suppose all those pesky budget issues can wait until next year. No word on whether restaurants using roadkill will have to disclose same on their menus.
Judge Andrew Napolitano offers a cogent take on how Congress has expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause far beyond anything contemplated by our founding fathers. How any American can approve of the overreaching nature of our federal government is beyond understanding. Like the frog that gets boiled alive in a pot of gradually heating water, our civil, economic and personal liberties are being taken from us by the controlling nanny state.
When I was in Hebrew School many years ago, I remember a spirited discussion in class about whether we should consider ourselves American Jews or Jewish Americans. I remember that someone asked the teacher – who's side would you take if Israel and the United States were ever to become enemies. The teacher looked at the student as if he had 3 heads – America and Israel will always be friends, he stated – we have far too many common interests: culturally, militarily and politically.
Fast forward to 2010. Take a look at these videos, which illustrate far more eloquently than I can opine about the decline in official U.S. support for Israel:
First, we have vice-President Biden delivering his message:
Next we have the President's top political adviser, David Axelrod, himself a Jew, roundly criticizing the Jewish State, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs adding his criticism and a report that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has joined in the condemnation as well. This report is from the Al Jazeera network:
Finally, we have another take on the controversy: Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman reacting angrily to this seeming about face in U.S. policy. Interestingly, Lieberman points out that the building permits at issue were issued as part of a lengthy process and that the buildings at issue might not see the light of day for several years, if ever.
Stratfor's George Friedman makes a compelling argument that current American policy towards Iran involves two equally unappetising options – either pursue a policy of sanctions that has been rendered ineffective by the refusal of China and Russia to participate, or to pursue military action and risk the consequences of outright failure or an indecisive outcome that would leave the region destabilized.
Friedman argues that the U.S. has previously shown itself willing to ally with an enemy of that enemy had common interests – examples he cites are Roosevelt's agreements with Stalin and Nixon's approach to Mao. Is such a stunning reversal of course under consideration by the Obama Administration? Friedman suggests that it just might be.
The United States apparently has reached the point where it must either accept that Iran will develop nuclear weapons at some point if it wishes, or take military action to prevent this. There is a third strategy, however: Washington can seek to redefine the Iranian question.
As we have no idea what leaders on either side are thinking, exploring this represents an exercise in geopolitical theory. Let’s begin with the two apparent stark choices.
This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR
The diplomatic approach consists of creating a broad coalition prepared to impose what have been called crippling sanctions on Iran. Effective sanctions must be so painful that they compel the target to change its behavior. In Tehran’s case, this could only consist of blocking Iran’s imports of gasoline. Iran imports 35 percent of the gasoline it consumes. It is not clear that a gasoline embargo would be crippling, but it is the only embargo that might work. All other forms of sanctions against Iran would be mere gestures designed to give the impression that something is being done.
The Chinese will not participate in any gasoline embargo. Beijing gets 11 percent of its oil from Iran, and it has made it clear it will continue to deliver gasoline to Iran. Moscow’s position is that Russia might consider sanctions down the road, but it hasn’t specified when, and it hasn’t specified what. The Russians are more than content seeing the U.S. bogged down in the Middle East and so are not inclined to solve American problems in the region. With the Chinese and Russians unlikely to embargo gasoline, these sanctions won’t create significant pain for Iran. Since all other sanctions are gestures, the diplomatic approach is therefore unlikely to work.
The military option has its own risks. First, its success depends on the quality of intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities and on the degree of hardening of those targets. Second, it requires successful air attacks. Third, it requires battle damage assessments that tell the attacker whether the strike succeeded. Fourth, it requires follow-on raids to destroy facilities that remain functional. And fifth, attacks must do more than simply set back Iran’s program a few months or even years: If the risk of a nuclear Iran is great enough to justify the risks of war, the outcome must be decisive.
Each point in this process is a potential failure point. Given the multiplicity of these points — which includes others not mentioned — failure may not be an option, but it is certainly possible.
But even if the attacks succeed, the question of what would happen the day after the attacks remains. Iran has its own counters. It has a superbly effective terrorist organization, Hezbollah, at its disposal. It has sufficient influence in Iraq to destabilize that country and force the United States to keep forces in Iraq badly needed elsewhere. And it has the ability to use mines and missiles to attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf shipping lanes for some period — driving global oil prices through the roof while the global economy is struggling to stabilize itself. Iran’s position on its nuclear program is rooted in the awareness that while it might not have assured options in the event of a military strike, it has counters that create complex and unacceptable risks. Iran therefore does not believe the United States will strike or permit Israel to strike, as the consequences would be unacceptable.
To recap, the United States either can accept a nuclear Iran or risk an attack that might fail outright, impose only a minor delay on Iran’s nuclear program or trigger extremely painful responses even if it succeeds. When neither choice is acceptable, it is necessary to find a third choice. Read the rest of this entry »
Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper) reports that an Israeli company called Innowattech, with the cooperation of the Technion University has developed a technology that turns highway traffic into electricity. The system works by installing piezoelectric materials 2 inches below the surface of the asphalt. Piezoelectric materials generate electricity in response to mechanical stress.
Project manager Lucy Edri-Azoulay stated that installing the technology on a single traffic lane stretching one kilometer would produce 200 kilowatts of electricity hour and a four lane highway with the system implemented would produce a megawatt of electricity, enough to power 2,500 households.
Unlike solar and wind technology, this piezoelectric system would not be dependent on the weather nor would it require significant infrastructure outlays.
It is certainly too bad that so much of the world spends its time figuring out new ways to isolate and castigate Israel. Arab oil producers, fat and lazy with easy money created by exploiting the finite petroleum reserves that happenstance put under their feet certainly have no interest in supporting alternative energy technologies and, in fact, they have an incentive to stop this type of development.
Energy consuming nations, however, have no excuse. Arab oil money empowers Islamist radicals and their destructive, terrorist ideologies. When their oil dries up, the Saudis and their ilk will be back herding camels within three or four generations.
Western democracies as well as eastern regimes like China would be wise to embrace the intellectual resources that Israeli society produces in endless supply.
I never thought I would see the day when a reliably left network like NBC would allow a cynical (well, maybe not exactly biting) skit to open its popular Saturday Night Live. But here it is – cast member Fred Armisen portraying a bumbling Barack Obama reassuring his critics that they should not fear him because he has done "nothing" since taking office.
Sad but true.
My friend, Scott Italiaander, published this very insightful post on his blog. Despite what those on the left may think, conservatives and libertarians do not want this president to fail – especially when it comes to national security. At best, it seems that the president and his staff have far more on their plate than can be handled. At worst, they are increasingly coming off as bumbling amateurs who are foolishly appeasing our enemies at the expense of long-time allies like Israel, Poland and Honduras.
The Iranian response to the president's desire for engagement surely must be the cause of concern in the White House.
And why has Secretary of State Clinton been so silent in the face of these very significant foreign policy challenges?
Let's hope that the president and his advisers return to a policy of operating from strength and not from weakness.
Now – here is Scott's take on the current state of the Obama White House:
September is proving to be a cruel month for the Transformer-in-Chief.
Early in the month Van Jones, President Obama’s czar in charge of “green jobs,” resigned after having been unmasked as an avowed Communist with Marxist ideas. Jones was fired in order to short-circuit scrutiny of Jones’ ties to Leftist front groups which in turn have ties to the President. Too late: thanks to the likes of Glenn Beck, the Jones affair opened up an avenue of inquiry into the Obama White House’s ties to radical activists and their incendiary political philosophy.
Next, Obama made his much hyped address to Congress to pitch his health care plan. The highlight of the speech was the “You Lie!” charge which earned Republican Rep. Joe Wilson a rebuke by Congress and about 2 million dollars in online contributions. But the accusation only put the spotlight on Obama’s fantastic assertions about his plan, causing the politicians to promise to remove language in the bill that Obama insisted didn’t exist in the first place. Read the rest of this entry »
