Are you a Conservative or are you Progressive (apparently the new term for “Liberal”)? Take the test and report your scores below and share your thoughts.

Take the Test Here

I took and scored a 147/400. Which apparently makes me “Very Conservative”. I think their ranking system is a bit skewed. I would say that I am just regular conservative at best, certainly more moderate than many of my blogging peers that I interact with on other sites. Of the three legs of conservatism I would say that I am following:

- On Fiscal issues and the Economy: Very Conservative. I am a capitalist through and through. Sure, I think there does need to be taxes and some regulation, but too much of both stifles economic strength and growth. A strong economy = a strong nation more than anything else.

- On Social Issues: Standard Conservative. I do believe that there should be some moral standards placed on society; otherwise our culture and society will fail. I am pro-life. While I think there does need to be social programs to help the poor and less-fortunate, I believe the programs need to be limited and designed to encourage/force personal improvement, education, and finding a job. People cannot receive a full ride off the government. If a person is poor because they refuse to work and make more money off of welfare, they need be dropped and left to their own devices. At the same time, our government needs to develop more educational opportunities for individuals. An educated society is key to our national health. This should be done with accountability and setting expectations on teachers, parents, and students. Throwing money at it doesn’t work. Finally, I hate and despise social security. What a piece of trash legislation. First of all the government has no right to say that they need to set up a retirement account for anyone. But since they have, they have no right to use the money we are forced to put into it to pay for other programs. But since they have done that too and bankrupted the system, it needs to be either dropped and the money paid out to everyone or it needs to be fixed by 1) Ensuring all money put into social security stays in social security, in safe and insured accounts that accrue interest over time, even if it is just 1% interest. 2) We should be given the OPTION to choose to invest any percentage of our SS that we want into the stock market, mutual funds, futures, and so on just like a 401K. If we mismanage it and lose it all after we CHOSE to do it, tough for us.

-On National Security: Moderate Conservative. It’s simple, freedom and security are inversely proportional. When one goes up the other goes down — aka, the more security we have, the less freedom we have. I like freedom a lot. I don’t like big brother. The Bush Administration went to far in the name of protecting us, just listen to a speech from former DHS Chief Michael Chertoff and you will be scared to death. (Sadly, the left wants to infringe on our freedoms just as much, though in a different manner. Either way we lose.

President Obama’s biggest push in this down economic climate appears to be punishing the “evil”, “greedy” corporations who caused this mess (a claim that is dubious at best). He wants to be the next FDR, a champion of the little-man, a champion of those who are poor. That is well and good, it is extremely important that we as a society take care of those less-fortunate than I. But increasing the tax burden on corporations and the wealthy, while claiming to cut taxes for those don’t actually pay taxes is not the way to do it. Among the most basic principles of fiscal economics is that raising taxes stifles business growth, at least in a competitive world - which we reside in. If one pushes and pushes, they will eventually push business out. Thus, losing jobs in America.

In today’s economic climate this is the last thing we need. We need to create jobs, not lose them. But Barack, in continuing to support disasterous policy after disasterous policy, is starting to further lose them. His refusal to cut the corporate tax rate to be more competitive with other countries may now be driving some industries out of the country:

A wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland — mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama’s tax-seeking administration...

Over the past six months companies including offshore drilling contractors Noble Corp and Transocean, energy-focused engineering group Foster Wheeler and oilfield services company Weatherfield International have all announced plans to shift domicile to Switzerland.

“Switzerland has a stable and developed tax regime and a network of tax treaties with most countries where we operate,” Transocean Chief Executive Bob Long said in a statement in October, when it announced its move. “As a result, the redomestication will improve our ability to maintain a competitive worldwide effective corporate tax rate.”

“One trend that we see is that particularly Bermuda-based companies are now moving to Switzerland,” said Martin Frey, a partner at law company Baker & McKenzie. “That may only partly be obviously for tax reasons, but also for security reasons and the fact that the Obama administration may go after them.”

There is a reason that various states and foreign governments lower their corporate tax structure: to lure business. This is no secret, yet President Obama seems so bent on “punishing” corporations (most of which are ethical, productive, and valuable to our culture and society) that he completely disregards the economic consequences and, thus, the long-term health of our country; not to mention the long-term negative impact to the people in our country that he says he is most concerned about.

Also Published at Dry Fly Politics

A few months ago when Secretary Gates and the Department of Defense listed Mexico as one of the countries in the future that face destabilization. At the time the Mexican Government and many in America scoffed at the idea. But now the reasoning for DoD’s warning is becoming apparent and probably sooner than anyone expected.

Historically, Mexico’s internal problems have been with Zaptista and other rebels in in its southern provinces. While these rebels have certainly been formidable and been the occasional thorn in the Government’s side, they have been something that the Government has been able to deal with. These groups have mostly just been a cause for Rights Activists in the U.S. and elsewhere, but no big deal.

The new threat in Mexico is scary, well-funded, and a real threat to Mexico and even the SW United States. This threat is the battles between various drug cartels and their battles with the Mexican police force and government.

Over the past half-year battles have raged in northern Mexico between these cartels. People have been murdered, villages pillaged, and women raped. It has gotten so bad that Ciudad Juarez has been determined the most dangerous city in Mexico and Mexican government had to send its military into the city. What makes this scarier is that Ciudad Juarez is literally on the U.S. border and shares the Rio Grande with El Paso, TX and there are indications that these drug wars are seeping into U.S. territory with an increase in drug-related murders and other criminal activity in places along the border from Houston to San Diego.

With this recent development of the Mexican army entering Ciudad Juarez it greatly increases the likelihood of a Mexican Civil War, however hopefully this is a minor threat and will not spill over throughout Mexico. As long as the cartels can say divided against each other there is a good chance a civil war can be avoided.

The Mexican army’s best course of action may not be to stop all the violence but only to maintain law and order in its towns and cities and protect the innocents not involved in the drug trade. It may be in their best interest to allow the drug cartels to battle it out and attenuate their numbers and, hopefully, influence.

But a long-term solution to this problem with the drug trade is more complicated. Most importantly is that the government needs to ensure that it is providing opportunities for economic growth, aka in needs provide job growth. There also needs to be good local governance and infrastructure improvements. The government needs to ensure that it or peaceful entities are providing the services and security people need rather than the cartels. They must not allow the cartels to do their jobs.

For the United States the threat is certainly not as dire, but it needs to watched closely; fortunately the Obama administration is doing so. It was reported today that the administration is looking at the possibility of deploying the National Guard to the border (but isn’t that more of a Governor’s decision?). Certainly there are political considerations to be made here, we don’t want to be “occupying” our own territory with the military. Nor do we want to get directly involved militarily with an internal Mexican struggle aside from perhaps providing equipment and logisitical support to Mexico’s army.

Nevertheless this situation needs to be watched closely and our media and people need to take this more seriously. How can there be such a major crisis right on our border, but no one seems to know or care? This threat in Mexico is both among the most serious facing U.S. Foreign Policy and also one of the best opportunities for us and Mexico to counter the drug trade and to help Mexico along in its next step towards modernization. Remember it wasn’t until the 1990’s that Mexico became a democracy, they still have a long way to go.

The U.S. Economy is going through one of the toughest times in its history. While the U.S. Economy may get better and may even boom in the next 10 years, the fact of the matter is that there is no way the U.S. can contain itself with the economic structure as currently constituted.

Race42012.com is one of the best websites for conservative, yet usually pragmatic - not overly hysterical discussion. Yesterday, a frequent commenter who goes by “MWS” posted one of the more honest and thoughtful posts on the realities of what is to be done with the economy. Below is his post, and then a few of the more well thought out comments. What are your thoughts on the ideas?

Suze Orman- a personal finance guru for whom I have tremendous respect- says that much of our personal finance troubles come from our willing belief in lies, and that we can only free ourselves from these problems when we start to acknowledge the truth about our money. It is high time that we as Americans, and as Republicans, stop lying to ourselves about the single greatest economic threat to America. It is high time that we faced the truth about the nation’s debt, and our party’s role in creating it. So here are some facts:

When Ronald Reagan took office, the National Debt was $934 billion dollars. That was about 30% of GDP.

When George W. Bush took office, the Debt was $5.7 trillion. That was about 60% of GDP (that figure actually dropped in the Clinton years).

Currently, the debt is fast approaching $11 trillion, close to 70% of GDP. INTEREST on the National Debt in FY08 amounted to $451 billion, around 20% of government expenditures, and $1500 for every man, woman, and child in America.

The deficit for just the first four months of FY09 is $569 billion. Obama’s “stimulus” hasn’t even begun.

Obama has assured us that we will have trillion dollar deficits for years to come. That means that the next Republican President- even if she wins in 2012- will inherit a cumulative debt around $15 trillion. Considering that the economy is currently shrinking, and that the CBO projects that Obama’s “stimulus” will drag the economy in a few years, that means the next Republican President could well inherit a debt that is larger than our entire annual economic output.

The economic boom of the last 25 years was largely artificial. While the federal government spent around $10 trillion we didn’t pay for, the private sector followed suit. According to the Federal Reserve, Americans held around $2.5 trillion in consumer debt at the end of 2008. That’s about $8500 per capita, and THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE MORTGAGES. Estimates vary, but leverage and falling home values probably have 20-30% of homeowners owing more on their homes than they are worth.

While we are not Argentina, it is worth noting that Argentina had a National debt less than 60% of GDP when they defaulted in the 90s. They still haven’t recovered.

It seems clear to me, at least, that we are on a downward spiral that is going to end very badly. China is already closing off the tap of credit, as they are funding their own $600 billion stimulus. I cannot see how the not-too-distant future does not bring high inflation and high interest rates. And all of these problems don’t even begin to address the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare.

And so I am proposing the only heresy graver than questioning Israeli policy in the GOP…

It is high time that we acknowledge that we have both a moral and an economic imperative to raise taxes as soon as the economy stabilizes. It is time to forget everything you learned on the radio about economics. We have a moral obligation to pay our bills.

Now I can already hear the objections. “We are already overtaxed!” That may be true, but we still aren’t paying for what we are spending. And for historical perspective, the top marginal rate in Reagan’s 6th year of office was 50%, and that rate kicked in at a lower income than Carter’s top rate (adjusted for inflation). So for most of the “miraculous 80s” the top rate was 50%. In the roaring 90s, the top rate was 40%. Currently, it stand at 35%. Now I know you don’t raise taxes in a recession, but raising them when the economy stabilizes will not be the end of civilization.

Objection #2 brings in the full force of Talk Show Economics. “Cutting taxes INCREASES revenue, and raises taxes DECREASES revenue.” This is only half true, and only to an extent. Generally, lower taxes stimulate growth, so it is fair to say that cutting taxes raises more revenue than would have been raised at the lower rate had the economy not grown. But it is not necessarily true that tax cuts raise more revenue than would have been raised had the rate not been cut. It depends on what part of the Laffer Curve you are on. And this is only common sense. If tax cuts ALWAYS brought in more tax revenue, then let’s cut taxes to 0.0000000000001% and we’ll have the debt paid off in no time!

We also cannot simply cut domestic spending and get out of this. The time for that is WAY past. Simply cutting “fraud, waste, and abuse” will hardly put a dent in it, despite popular fantasies about government bloat. If you really want to cut spending, make people pay for what the government is spending. If you want to shrink the government, make the voters actually pay for their government. Stop the free ride.

So what does this mean for 2012? I don’t expect any Republican to have the guts to propose a tax increase, no matter how high the debt. So I would look to a candidate who showed real leadership when faced with a deficit. Any knucklehead can cut taxes and run up the debt. That’s easy. Shoot, Bush could do it. I want to see a candidate who made tough choices that actually closed the gap, whether in the House, Senate, or Governor’s mansion. I want someone who was willing to do what needed to be done.

Folks, it’s not 1981 any more, and we can’t promote the same policies that made sense in 1981. We can no longer afford the Empire. We cannot afford all of the good things that government can do for people, and we cannot afford tax rates that do not pay for what we spend. It is time to cut spending, and raise taxes. The 25 year bubble has popped. We can’t fake it any longer, and the longer we try the worse it is going to be. It is time we stopped lying to ourselves about money. Let the Era of Austerity begin.

-Matt Sanders

Comment, Matt C.

Kind of yes, kind of no.

I agree that we as the GOP must take full responsibility for our hand in creating the current deficits and debt. But just raising taxes will NEVER solve the problem because no matter how much extra money the government takes in, it will spend it on something else and create even larger deficits. Hundreds of years of history, with only a few that had balanced budgets, bear this out.

We absolutely must decrease domestic spending – and here’s the rub: we’re not going to be able to make a dent just by talking about discretionary spending. We need to take on welfare – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. Those social welfare programs eat up well over 50% of our federal budget every year, leaving us little to work with and showing just how ridiculous focusing on “pork” really is.

Here’s my plan, and I’ve been developing it for quite some time now:
• Institute a 1% federal sales tax applicable to every good and service purchased. Include in the legislation that the total revenue from this tax must go directly to paying down our national debt, and that when the national debt hits zero, the tax is automatically eliminated with no opportunity to reinstitute it unless deficit spending occurs – and only then with a supermajority vote.
• Pass a balanced budget amendment requiring every budget submitted to Congress to be balanced except in the case of national emergencies, such as war or Katrina-like national disasters.
• Completely and totally privatize Social Security. The idea that the federal government is involved in a retirement program is philosophically ludicrous, and even moreso when you see that the average rate of return on SS investments is less than 2%. Sell it to the American public as a X years-long phase out plan and that they are getting more of their money on every paycheck to put in a retirement account of their choice – more money in the hands of more people, giving them more freedom and more choice! With the right salesman (or woman) this could be a winner.

Just eliminating the national debt and Social Security frees up over 33% of our total federal budget, and it heads off the impending fiscal doom of social security going broke and costing us trillions upon trillions of more money. The next step then would be to massively reform the rest of the welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which currently take up another 25% or so of our federal budget and are threatening to, just by themselves, increase to the point where spending just on those programs will be larger than our entire current federal budget. That is the part of the plan I’m still working on…

Comment: MWS

Oh, I forgot a couple other things, too - privatize the Post Office, which loses money every year they’re in existence. There’s probably a slew of entrepreneurs that would jump at the chance to open a mail delivery company, and I’ll bet you anything they’ll do it more cost effectively than government workers.

Also, privatizing Social Security frees up billions of dollars (if not more) of business money, since companies will not be paying half of every single employee’s SS taxes any longer — allowing them to invest in technology, more jobs, etc. It could lead to a huge economic boom.

Comment: Kavon W. Nikrad

Amen a thousand times Matt C.

Tax cuts are not the problem. The three most infamous supply-side tax cuts: the Kennedy Tax cuts, the Reagan Tax Cuts, and the Bush Tax Cuts, all resulted in INCREASED revenue. The problem is that Government has never cut SPENDING except for a few year in Reagan’s first term and for a few years in the 1990’s.

The idea that placing additional an tax burden on job creators and American families will result in more prosperity is ludicrous, quite frankly.

This is where “The Old Man” was right. Many ridiculed his constant harping on Earmarks and Pork Barrel spending during the campaign. But let’s give credit where it is due, he was right—it is the spending that is killing us.

Comment: MWS

“Tax cuts are not the problem. The three most infamous supply-side tax cuts”

I agree they are not the problem, in and of themselves, but when we are so far in hoc, they become part of the problem.

(KN) “The idea that placing additional an tax burden on job creators and American families will result in more prosperity is ludicrous, quite frankly.”

To clarify, the purpose of tax increases would not be to create prosperity, but to avoid disaster from the mountain of debt. That’s why I tagged it the “Era of Austerity.” It’s not so much about artificially creating boom times anymore through buying what we cannot afford, but heading off catastrophe by paying for what we already bought.

And that is just a few of the comments left on the post, I encourage you to go read through them. As for the content, I do not agree with everything they all wrote. However, most of it makes sense, I especially am intrigued by the 1% national sales tax that is strictly for paying off the debt and once the debt is back to manageable the tax is gone, getting rid of social security, and privatizing the post office. Also, a must is consolidating social programs to make them more cost efficient and more beneficial to the public. There is no reason to have 20 different programs for the same thing.

What are your thoughts?

Hilarious! Yet while that provides a good chuckle, many of the concerns addressed in the video are valid. There is little agreement in the economic community that the stimulus will have any positive effect on the economy. There are many who suggest that it will actually do further damage to the economy. Walter Williams, an economist at George Mason University, wrote one of the most thought provoking pieces I have read on the stimulus and the even larger problem of the federal government’s role in all facets of our life.

On the stimulus he wrote:

In 1893, there was a depression; we got out of it without a stimulus package. There was a major recession of 1920-21; though sharp, it quickly reversed itself into what has been call the “Roaring Twenties.” In 1929, there was an economic downturn, most notably featured by the stock market collapse, after which came massive government intervention — you might call it the nation’s first stimulus package. President Hoover and Congress responded to what might have been a two- or three-year sharp downturn with many of the policies President Obama and Congress are urging today. They raised tariffs, propped up wage rates, bailed out farmers, banks and other businesses, and financed state relief efforts. When Roosevelt came to office, he became even more interventionist than Hoover and presided over protracted depression where the economy didn’t fully recover until 1946.

Roosevelt didn’t have an easy time with his agenda; he had to first emasculate the U.S. Supreme Court. Higgs points out that federal courts had respect for the Constitution as late as the 1930s. They issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional the New Deal’s centerpieces such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other parts of Roosevelt’s “stimulus package.” An outraged Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court, and the Court capitulated to where it is today giving Congress virtually unlimited powers to tax, spend and regulate. My question to my fellow Americans is: Do we want a repeat of measures that failed dismally during the 1930s?

There is very little evidence that government intervention in down economy will have any positive effect whatsoever. While there is example after example of where too much government involvement causes economic stagnation or recession. Even the everlasting ideological battle between capitalism and communism or, to a lesser extent, socialism exemplifies this.

In communist and socialist economies there is very little growth and prosperity. Western Europe over the past many years shows that socialist economic policies cause very little growth. While the United States was enjoying consistent economic growth of around 3.5%, France’s economy was stagnant at about .5% growth, which was less than the inflation rate, thus they were digressing. Whereas Eastern Europe and China (a self-proclaimed Communist country) have embraced capitalism and are flourishing. Certainly all of these economies are struggling now, but that does not mean that capitalism is a failed system.

On the contrary, any system based on market fluctuation is going to go through bad times and good times. Markets are self-correcting and that is what it is doing now.We would be wise to be patient allow the market to largely work itself out.

All of that being said, I am not wholly opposed to government aid. I would just rather the government come out and say what it is doing, and that is attempting to help the people through the hard times. Well, I suppose they are saying that, but more so they are saying that this is going to jump-start the economy.

I have no problem with the government helping people out through a tough time; though many in my political party do I do have a problem with the government putting it’s hands where they don’t belong; in control of a significant segment of the economy. Certainly there needs to be regulation, tax, and economic policy, but nationalization, wasteful spending in the name of fixing the economy, and creating trillion of dollars of debt is not and never will be a good idea.

I am no economist, so I am not one qualified to say definitively whether or not the economic recovery package will work. But from what I have seen of it there are some things to like and some things not to like about it. Unfortunately, there are more things not to like than like.

The Good:

- Contains some tax cuts. While I don’t think the tax cuts go far enough, I will give the Dems a little credit for throwing a bone to we less-taxes folk. The Republicans introduced a stimulus bill and all it was, was tax cuts; it was ridiculous and I am a Republican. This bill contains both spending and tax cuts, despite containing too much spending and too little cuts, I will give them credit

- Transparency and accountability. Well, they aren’t being wholly transparent yet as the complete contents of the bill are not yet released as I understand it, but the bill does call for accountability and transparency on the part of those receiving the money, or I should say from the businesses receiving the money. Money spent of any kind from taxes should be held with the highest regard by our government and should constantly be accounted for and cared for. While our government is horrible at this, at least this bill calls for it.

The Bad:

- Excessive government spending on things that will do little to jump start the economy. I understand that in politics if you want a small, seemingly insignificant (or controversial) project funded and passed one needs to attach it to a bill that is large, important, and easy to hide things in. Such as this bill. Many times, this act, while less than ideal, doesn’t really bother me. But in this case it does. It does because this bill, if we are to believe the President, is of huge import. Apparently the sky is about to fall so we must pass the bill immediately (I happen to disagree). So if this bill is THAT important, it is to important to play politics with. This bill should be solely limited to fixing the economy (something I think the government has no chance at being successful with). It is too important for pet projects, pork, and the like. Keep this one “meat and potatoes” and leave out the rest.

-Big Brother like health care provisions. Consider:

Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Are you kidding me?! This deserves a whole post in and of itself, but I will keep it short. The last thing the Federal Government should do or is smart enough to do is “guide your doctor’s decisions”. All they will do is screw it up and ensure that we don’t get the care we need. Universal health care, which this is obviously a first step toward, would be an unmitigated disaster. I have had significant health care issues in both Canada and the U.K., both have nationalized health care systems and both are terrible. There is a reason Canada’s best doctors come to the U.S.; they can get paid. Competition breeds excellence; a nationalized health care system ends that.

-Max pay for employees of firms receiving help is too low. Despite being a solid capitalist, I have no problem with capping the salaries of CEO’s, but $500,000 is way too low. To me and most American’s it is a lot, but not in terms of senior business leadership. Unfortunately I don’t think there is a right number, it is really just arbitrary, but I think a max of between 2-3 million would be just about right. Keep in mind, many of these people and their companies work ridiculous hours and make obscene amounts of money the run our economy and country and employ vasts amount of people. Too little pay limits incentive. A highly capable leader may be rather inclined to just quit and go to another company, allowing the failing, yet apparently essential company, to be lead by someone who is ok with just $500K, meaning they probably aren’t very good at their job.

Ultimately there is some to like, but mostly to dislike about the bill. I would have voted against it, I don’t think it is necessary. I have faith in the capitalist system and I think it would have pulled itself out of this mess quicker than the government can do it. In the 1930’s at the start of the Great Depression, many argue that it was the government action that prolonged the misery. I am concerned that the same could happen here. The government continues to show that it is inept in nearly everything it runs, what makes them think they can fix our economy?

Among the many things that President Obama did and called for in his first week as President of the United States was a lightly covered, highly overlooked, yet extremely significant statement regarding his desire for a global ban on space-based weapons.

I, for one, am all for this ideologically, but only IF it could work. The ban must be an absolute global ban. Russia and China specifically must not only be on board, but must enthusiastically sign the treaty. Even then I wouldn’t trust them to adhere to the treaty with the leadership they currently have in place.

In no way should America ever remotely consider banning their use and development of space-based weaponry without major support from Russia and China to do the same and with checks to ensure compliance.

The problem is, I have absolutely zero confidence it would work. As a result, while I would love to have a global ban of space-based weapons (and nuclear weapons for that matter), I am a realist. The fact of the matter is, there are many powerful countries who do not share the liberal and semi-passive values that permeate the west. I understand the need to hold ourselves (the U.S. and Europe) to a higher standard to be an example to the world, but we shouldn’t do so in compromise of our security or way of life.

China and Russia are actively seeking to obtain the global influence that the United States has had for the last 20 years. They want nothing more than to be a counter-weight to the U.S. While I think it is probably healthy to have a multi-powered world, a semi-unilateral banning of space weapons, nuclear weapons, or anything for that matter would only make the U.S. and Europe vulnerable. And considering the three most powerful countries in the world are the U.S., China, and Russia and the fact that the latter two don’t hold the same value of freedom and democracy that we in the west so espouse, it is in the world’s best interest for the United States to maintain it’s position as among the world’s power. We absolutely cannot allow the West to fall and have China or Russia replace the United States. At least not as those countries are currently lead and constituted. Thus, any vulnerability should quickly be remedied by the West.

So while I actively support President Obama pushing for a world-wide ban on such weaponry, he needs to proceed cautiously and realistically. And realistically, there is zero chance that space-based weaponry will be forever banned. Power corrupts, and people/nations that see a vulnerability in another, especially a rival, will use whatever is necessary to exploit it when the time is right. Sad but true.

Driving into work today I was listening to a local radio station and every 20 minutes or so they give the news headlines. One of this morning’s headlines was a doozy, “Barack Obama, yesterday, signed an executive order stopping the torture of terror suspects...” I literally yelled at my radio. Whatever happened to truth in journalism, to accuracy and honesty? Listen people, it is fairly common knowledge that torture occurred in the Bush administration, but that depends on what your definition of torture is. Waterboarding, in my book, is likely torture. Waterboarding ended something like 3 years ago. But what happened at Abu Ghraib, a controversy blown way out of proportion, was not. Inappropriate and regrettable, yes, but not torture. Besides that had NOTHING to do with Bush or his administration. That would have happened under Gore or Obama or anyone else. The thing is torture has not occurred in at least the last three years. Simply detaining a person in fairly squalid condition and then interrogating them is not torture. Obama’s executive order did not end torture, torture was not occurring in the first place.

So what exactly did Obama do in his executive order. Well there were three things: the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year, instituting new interrogation policies, and creating a task force on how to deal with detainees. Though the most frustrating comment he made was when he said his administration would “abide by the rule that says we don’t torture”. It is not frustrating because I disagree, I don’t and I hope we abide by that rule it is frustrating in that it implies torture has been going on at Gitmo continuously under the Bush administration. It wasn’t. The people there were treated humanely, international rights groups had regular access to observe the conditions. Were they great conditions and comfortable? Of course not, but their living conditions did not constitute torture.

In regards to the closing of Gitmo, how I feel about it will largely deoend on the outcome. If the terrorists held there are prosecuted and locked away and/or executed according to rule of law, it is fine with me. If Obama’s administration deports most of them or just lets them go I will have a huge issue. That would show that he does not take our security seriously and he would have weakened the country.

What concerns me though is that there is an apparent lack of foresight. So he signs an order demanding that Gitmo be closed but gives no recommendation on what to do with the prisoners. So he just created a problem on an issue that wasn’t broken and has no solution. What kind of leadership is that? Sure he has called for a task force to figure this out, but he has been campaigning on closing Gitmo for over 3 years, how did he not create a solution in that time? What this tells me is this is an act not based on fact or reality, but based on political expediency and making a constituency of his happy. For me that has no place in the Presidency, whether Republican or Democrat.

The Gitmo issue is one that stirs the passion on both sides of the political aisle. The website, Politico.com, has a daily debate on various issues and the current one speaks about this particular problem. A few of the arguments I agreed with, most upset me. But the best comment was from S.E Cupp an author and columnist. She sums the issue up the best:

“Closing Gitmo” has become a dividing wall between the left and the right over the past year, and Obama took up the cause during the election because it would win him favor with his far-left constituents. “Closing Gitmo” is a symbol of that polarizing “choice between our safety and our ideals,” as Obama said in his inaugural speech. But “closing Gitmo” is really just a red herring. Close it...who cares? The real issue, of course, is what next? Barack Obama’s offered no real-world solutions as to how to deal with enemy combatants and suspected terrorists. Canada just turned Bill Ayers away at the border...if we think our allies are going to take our detainees, we’re crazy. “Closing Gitmo” is the easy part. What’s next is what really matters.

She is absolutely right. Gitmo is a red herring. It is just a symbolic gesture. What happens with the detainees is key. Do they get sent to another country that happens to be an ally? Not a chance, Most likely they will be sent to a facility in the United States. But what states’ people are going to want those people near their homes. The perfect thing about Gitmo was that it was surrounded by ocean and Castro’s Cuba; not a wal-mart and interstate highway. What happens if one of these guys gets off and stays int he United States or returns home and then launches an attack against the U.S.? Obama is finished, especially if the detainee either escaped or was released in the U.S.

Also, why do people continue to think that the detainees should be afforded the same rights as American citizens? They don’t. Prisoners of War or these detainees are not Americans. The laws dictating their treatment are not the same as America’s rules for criminal justice. So why do people insist they be given them? It is utterly ridiculous. These people are not common criminals, they are terrorists and the left in our country insist on treating them with kid gloves. It is ridiculous. But again, if they are tried and found guilty and locked away, it is fine with me if they close Gitmo. Just do it because it is the right thing for the country and not for political expediency. Bradley Blakeman in the Politico article stated:

The President needs to get all the facts and listen first and foremost to the professionals and not the politicians, before acting too hastily. The President should not make decisions based on what the public “wants” because the public doesn’t know the facts.

The current detention and interrogation policies should be reviewed and if after review, there are changes to be made, then make them based on policy not politics. The fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11, has very little to do with luck and everything to do with prevention, intervention, and interrogation. The risks of acting politically and at the expense of sound policy and results, will make us more vulnerable to attack and weaken our intelligence capabilities. As far as the detainees are concerned, we need to try them, or deport them ASAP.

He is exactly right. Be deliberate, not haste Mr. President. If you run your Presidency based on public opinion, like Clinton did, you will never be anything more than a mediocre President.

This is my first post in about 2 months, that is quite a long time and I apologize to my readers. Following the election and it’s aftermath, I was so burned out from blogging that I needed some time away to clear my head, purge myself of politics, and enjoy college football (way to go UTES!). I decided that I would get back to blogging on inauguration day and focus much of my writing on following Barack’s Presidency.

There are three striking observations that I have regarding the period of transition between President Bush and President Obama. The first observation is the cult-like fawning and love our media and many of our people have for Obama. I recognize that this is an historic election. I too am excited about our first black President and I am proud of our country. But the fawning is getting out of hand. I went down to DC a few weeks ago, bought a Metro ticket and the ticket had a picture of Obama printed on it. Are you kidding me?

People through the country are gushing, crying, and nearly worshiping Barack. It is getting out of hand. If I didn’t know better I would think that we are ushering the next emperor of the Roman Empire or the successer to Kim Jong Il in North Korea (have you seen the god-like environment he has created there? Crazy.) I don’t blame any of this on Barack Obama himself. I don’t think he has encouraged it, but it does appear that it may be getting to his head. It will be interesting to see.

The second observation is the extremely smooth transition provided by President Bush for the incoming Obama administration. I think it says a lot about the character of President Bush for the way he has handled the transition. It has arguably been the smoothest, most productive, and most efficient transition in our history, especially considering it is a transfer of party as well. I think President Bush really respects the office he holds and believes it should be held above partisanship. Regardless of what you may think of Bush, you have to admit that he has handled the transition well.

Finally, I have noticed with great interest that Barack Obama sure has been talking like a moderate-conservative. I am pretty well fine with his cabinet appointments. I am absolutely thrilled that he is leaving Secretary Gates at DoD, for example. Really I question only two appointments (that I have noticed) thus far, Tom Daschle at Health and Human Services and Leon Panetta at CIA. What? Leon Panetta will be serving as DCI? A man with zero intelligence experience? I am more qualified for that post than he is. Well, ok, I have more intel experience, but he has me on presidential employment, management, leadership, and all around good looks.

Anyway, Barack has undoubtedly moved to the right with his pre-inauguration actions and it is making the lefties who supported him very nervous. But I think the realities that face the President of the United States force any president to govern pragmatically and realistically rather than ideologically; at least in terms of major issues like security and economy. The most partisan impact a President has comes with lower-level issues like social issues and, sadly, education. Even President Bush (contrary to the mistaken beliefs of his haters) governed as a moderate. He was never a extreme right winger, an extreme right winger would never spend like Bush did for example.

All in all, Obama is off to a pretty good pre-start. It will be an interesting ride beginning today with his inauguration. Congratulations President Obama.