Is it possible?

You'd have to have sworn a few years ago that the idea of one-world economic stewardship, by any one person or institution, was completely impossible. Capitalism defeated communism decisively when the Soviet Union came down, so it was inevitable that the lone remaining superpower would lead the rest of the world by the example of its free market system.

Now picture this. The world situation gets very bad as the repercussions of the financial crisis start reverberating into the "real world." There are food riots, protests against the G-7, and much finger-pointing. Everyone proclaims how the U.S. gov't bailed out Wall Street while letting "Main street" go downhill. The leaders of the world are at a loss what to do. Someone must step up to stop the downslide. How? Who? The how- by taking the same steps in every industry to "save" them as the U.S. gov't took in the financial sector. Of course. The who? Is there any doubt as to which party candidate will benefit from a bad economy during a Republican administration?

Is it possible what I am intimating? It doesn't seem so. It doesn't really seem possible for such an innocuous person. But the office frequently makes the man instead of the other way around.

Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil

"Reduce dependence on foreign oil."
"We have to reduce dependence on foreign oil."
"How are we going to reduce dependence on foreign oil?"

Have you heard this phrase? I've heard it. I've said it. McCain says it. Obama says it. I think George W. Bush has said it. There are not too many people in this country who don't agree it is something we need to do. But why? Why do we want to reduce dependence on foreign oil? What are our reasons for doing so? In a healthy world economy, we don't necessarily care about the source of our goods. If your country can provide us cheaper oil than we can provide it ourselves, we will buy it with the money you pay us for our vast food resources. In a healthy world economy, this is not a bad thing. It's called comparative advantage.

Where it's no longer an advantage is when one side of the trade balance decides they've got the other by the balls and so they put the squeeze on. This is prevalent with oil-rich countries. Countries that control the flow of oil include a sizeable list of America's rivals and enemies, including Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Libya. So when we buy their oil, we put money in their pockets, and they use this money to propagandize against us and directly or indirectly fund terrorism against America and our allies. So, yes, by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we stop the money flow to our enemies.

But we know this and it isn't why I'm writing this. The reason I'm writing this is because of the emphasis being taken off of foreign by the Obama camp. They don't want to just reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they want to reduce our dependence on oil, because they are focused on global warming and not at all on external threats from our rivals and enemies. That's why they don't want to drill here and take advantage of our own natural resources. The argument that it won't help us tomorrow or next week is specious. Just the fact that we are prepared to drill for our own oil would put a shock to the oil market. Countries and companies make long-term plans. When they see long-term moves, they realize that it changes the landscape. If we want a sure way to deal with a friendlier Russia, Iran and Venezuela, we can't just go there and talk. We need to show that we have plans to reduce our dependence on them, that they will at some point not be able to get their way around the world by playing the oil card, as Russia is doing now in Georgia, as Iran is doing with its nuclear program, as Venezuela is doing by nationalizing its fuel distribution network, as OPEC did in 1973. Sound foreign policy must include sound economic policies that favor us in the long and short terms. That will prevent more wars than talking to and appeasing tyrants. Now, if we want to add to this the development of cleaner energy, I'm not going to complain about it.

Russia is Betting Big on President Obama

Why is Russia suddenly so active? Invading Georgia, increasing their naval presence in the Mediterranean via Syrian ports, all of a sudden they are making some moves on the global board. My prediction is this will continue, albeit in a muted way, for the rest of the Bush presidency. They'll display some brinksmanship, back off now and then when necessary, and they will wait for comments by our two candidates. When it's McCain, they will overreact, call him dangerous. When it's Obama, they will very subtly demonstrate a willingness to hear him out. It will have to be subtle, because they can't be overtly pro-Obama, that would kill his candidacy. But if Obama can show that he has a gift with the Russians, he will appear to be the great statesman that this country "needs" to bring about cooperation around the world. If, Heaven forbid, he becomes president, watch for the Russians to start pulling some stunts and then accuse Obama of being "like Bush" if he overreacts.

Who's fault is this? Why, Obama's, of course. It is he who is setting up the idea that America has been too aggressive, that he must take the reigns of "change," to change the course of the country that Bush & Cheney have steered into such dangerous waters. Obama is going to have to deal with the fact that if he becomes president (it hurts just to think of it), he is going to have to answer to the leaders of these nations that he says he will talk to, as they say, "Yes, we agree Bush was a bad president. Now how are you going to make up to us for it?" He will have to back down in the international arena, or bend over backwards to get the wide consensus that he says we need for everything we want to do, as Russia, Iran, Venezuela, et al, have a field day with his "I'm sorry for my country's bad behavior, world" attitude.

Why does Barack Obama not recognize that when America acts in the world, it is to further the cause of liberty and freedom? It is not for oil. We don't have Iraqi oil. The price of oil has gone up since the Iraq war started- if we were pumping their oil into our own gas tanks then the price would have gone down. When Russia acts, as in Georgia, it is clearly for oil, it is for control of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline. When we act, people in Iraq hold up an ink-stained finger signalling that they voted, that they stood on line to vote when the terrorists were threatening to blow them up while they did so.

Obama's Midnight Runners

I was thinking how easy it is for Obama to criticize McCain's record, because McCain has a record. The difference here, using the word "record" as the cue, is that McCain has a multi-CD discography, like Led Zeppelin to use an example (or Frank Sinatra if you prefer). Sure, there are going to be songs you don't like on, say, Houses of the Holy, but that's because there's such a large body of work. Obama, on the other hand, is the one-hit wonder. His "Come on Eileen" is "I Want Out of Iraq." That's all he's got, and you either agree or disagree, but beyond that he has no record. His big criticism of McCain is "McCain is the Washington insider." Well, Obama is an insider, too- he's a Senator. You don't get more "Washington insider" than that, but he's touting his lack of experience as being a positive, but it's as thin as a cloud. Everything he is saying in his campaign is improvisation now, he has no history to back him up, and we have no way of knowing how well he leads or works within government. McCain is known as nonpartisan, maverick, and widely respected. What is Obama? Compromiser, stubborn, bull-headed, open-minded, what? We don't know, and that's what makes his criticisms of McCain, a man whose record of service to this country is enormous, not just hollow but flat, 2-dimensional. Obama's campaign is like watching the ocean on a movie screen. It looks realistic and the camera angles can make you feel like you're right there and the whole thing can stir your emotions, but try jumping into it.

Why the Anti-War Crowd is All Wet

This is very easy. The "Bush Lied, People Died" crowd that claims President Bush fabricated reasons for us to go into Iraq are just off the mark. There's no debate. It may seem like I'm being too sure, but I'm not. It's easy.

The onus was never on us to Prove Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The onus was on Saddam Hussein to prove he didn't. Why?

Remember the First Gulf War? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, unprovoked. A coalition of nations got together and supported an Allied invasion of Iraq. Then-President G.H.W. Bush stopped short of toppling Hussein, and was criticized for it, but he did have a coalition to keep together, a coalition which included Arab nations. So instead of defeating Saddam Hussein, we forced him to Surrender. And Surrender always brings with it- Terms of Surrender. And what were some of those Terms of Surrender?

United Nations Resolution 687:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Read from paragraph 8.

And that's it, really. The rest can be traced from this. No need to list the resolutions. I will, however, point out this highly pertinent article written by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, which was published in The New York Times 1/23/03:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html

Examples of Courage by Leaders of the Free World

I have never been a fan of Jimmy Carter, and his recent meeting with Hamas reinforced my negative opinion. Why, because he dared meet with Hamas? Not necessarily. It's because he got nothing and gave something away, very early on, too. What did he give away? He criticized Israel. He said the Israeli blockade of Gaza was a "crime" and an "atrocity" and "an abomination." What did he get in return? A Hamas promise to accept a peace agreement negotiated with PA leader Mahmoud Abbas IF it was approved by a majority of "Palestinians" in a referendum. IF Hamas would allow a fair referendum. Which is a big IF. What did Hamas get in return? Good public relations with a former president of the United States of America. Solid win for them, hollow empty nothing for us. Thank you, Jimmy Carter, for allowing Iran to hold America hostage for 444 days, and now for continuing to show what a great dhimmi you can be.

But maybe I'm being harsh. He was, after all, willing to criticize Israel in front of Hamas. What guts! Who else shares this extreme intestinal fortitude?

Ban Ki-Moon, at the Organization of the Islamic Conference, who criticized Israeli actions in Gaza as "inappropriate and disproportionate use of force." To be willing to put it all on the line by criticizing Israel in front of its enemies. Wow oh wow.