Farewell to a president

George W. Bush gave his farewell address to the nation last night.  I thank him for his service. And in some important ways I will miss him.

Yes, there is plenty for conservatives to lament about his presidency. He presided over an unprecedented expansion of government pork and failed at every turn to rein in the profligate spenders in Congress. From 2001 to 2006 he presided over a unified government where the opportunities for driving home small-government conservatism were everywhere. But, alas, George W. Bush proved himself to be a big government conservative instead – failing to veto a single bill spending until 2006 (after the Democrats took control) and allowing a vast expansion of Medicare entitlements under his watch. Clearly, George Bush is no Ronald Reagan.

But it is equally clear to me that after 9/11, George Bush made a deal with himself and the nation: he would work tirelessly to keep us safe, even if he had to make compromises with Congress on spending and the economy. For as painful as the recent economic meltdown is, it is not fatal. 9/11 put this presidency on a wartime footing and in war you sometime make deals with the devil. FDR, the president the left likes to prominently stand up as the ideal Democrat, interned thousands of Japanese Americans in the name of national security.

War isn’t pretty. It requires lots of compromises in both policy and practice, and sometimes you have to do things that you don't want to do. One guesses that Barack Obama will soon see how tough this is.

So, George Bush decided that to keep Congress in line on fighting Al Qaeda and taking out Saddam Hussein, he would allow all sorts of domestic shenanigans. And this included looking the other way as the risks associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac escalated, fueling the sub-prime mortgage mess that exploded late in the 2008 campaign. Yes, there were warning signs galore – the collapse of Bear Stearns, the puncturing of the housing bubble, the government’s own internal audits.

But it hardly mattered to this war president: By 2006, with Iraq in disarray and verging on catastrophic failure, the president was focused exclusively outward. The slow fires burning at home were nagging problems that could hardly compare to the challenges of war in the Mid East. Bush – nor anyone else – could have predicted the massive crisis that has ensnared the world economy.

This, of course, doesn’t give the President a pass. Hardly. His failure to create and sustain a clear philosophy on economic matters helped to ensure that the storm that hit the financial markets would be stronger and more sustained than it ordinarily might have been. He was derelict in his leadership, of that there is no question – and history will judge him so.

But I give the man ample credit for trying to change the balance of power in the Middle East and in keeping the homeland safe from attack. No one on 9/12/2001 would have bet that Al Qaeda would not attack again and soon. His strength and unwavering discipline to do “what is necessary” to keep America safe is something that he will be lauded for in years to come. And his courage to take out Saddam and create a democracy in Iraq has the chance to remake the Arabian peninsula for years to come.  And while he has failed to confront Iran with sufficient force, the opportunity to make Iraq into an ally in the region should provide a useful base from which to both oppose Iran and support Israel.  Iraq -- if successful and intelligently utilized -- can provide a critical "balance shifter" in the fight against Shia extremism.

Time will tell if the Obama administration will risk or reward this grand effort.

In the end, my guess is that George W. Bush will be kindly remembered by historians, though like Truman, it may take a generation or two for it to happen. The long-term impact of Iraq and the overall war on terror will not quickly be clear. But when it is, he will get much credit for seeing evil and trying to defeat it.

We can only hope that his successor has such clarity.

BHO steers US toward Eurosocialism

As Barack Obama is about to be inaugurated as America’s 44th President, a huge question mark hangs over the future of American society and, by extension, over the future of freedom in the world: Will a majority of the American people turn their backs on individual responsibility, free enterprise and the Constitution and follow in Europe’s Socialistic footsteps, or will they remain true to America’s exceptional heritage and destiny? As they make their fateful decision amid talk of Big Government entitlements, bail-outs and deficit spending, I would strongly urge them to ponder the penetrating analysis which Barry Goldwater made of the effects of the Welfare state on individual freedom in The Conscience of A Conservative almost fifty years ago:

“The currently favored instrument of collectivization is the Welfare state. The collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal – to subordinate the individual to the State – but their strategy has changed. They have learned that Socialism can be achieved through Welfarism quite as well as Nationalization.

They understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as by expropriating it. They understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the State – not only by making the State his employer - but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave.

Moreover, they have discovered – and here is the critical point – that Welfarism is much more compatible with the political processes of a democratic society. Nationalization ran into popular opposition, but the collectivists feel sure the Welfare State can be erected by the simple expedient of “free” hospitalization, “free” retirement pay and so on… (…)

I do not welcome this shift of strategy. Socialism-through-Welfarism poses a far greater danger to freedom than Socialism-through-Nationalization precisely because it is more difficult to combat. The evils of Nationalization are self-evident and immediate. Those of Welfarism are veiled and tend to be postponed. (…) The effect of Welfarism on freedom will be felt later on – after its beneficiaries have become its victims, after dependence on government has turned into bondage and it is too late to unlock the jail.”

Judging by Goldwater’s 1960 impeccably conservative standards, Big Government in a country like France has spread so much wealth around to build a Welfare state of its own that French society often feels like a gulag.

As Barack Obama’s term as President of the United States is about to start, calls for philosophical and political restraint within the GOP sound irresponsible, if not cowardly. Due respect for the democratic process should not be mistaken for acquiescing in America’s destruction as an exceptionally freedom-loving country.

As in 1964, 1980, 1984 and 1994, it is time for Conservatives to stand up and be counted.

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, er, nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European and US politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.

GOP: Reclaim the spirit of Lincoln

Lincoln inevitably came to mind when I toured the Civil War coin exhibit currently on display at the American Numismatic Museum in Colorado Springs. My grandson asked me to take him to see the exhibit which he'd already seen  a few times and will likely see several more times before the exhibit moves on in October.  The museum is a hidden gem, and the Civil War displays are well worth your time.  My grandson is an avid coin collector, history buff and is developing a very keen interest in our presidents, at the tender age of 6. The Civil War era holds so much history beyond the typical textbook renditions.  As we hear alot about Mr. Obama hoping to fashion his presidential career after that of Abraham Lincoln, I've spent time delving into some of the oft-missed historical content of Lincoln's presidency and politics of the day.  As a quilter, I'm intrigued with the accounts of the Underground Railroad quilts, love letter quilts women made to send with a loved one going off to war, and the message quilts that were hung on clotheslines to assist soldiers in avoiding nearby enemy encampments, or depicting a route they could take if wanting to defect. It is incredible to ponder what it must have been like for the women that stayed behind, with some having sons fighting against each other.  The conflict and mental anguish they must have suffered is beyond my comprehension.  There are amazing stories also of women that joined the soldiers in the combat fields, served as surgeons, helped with burials, and other sobering duties.  Many women believed so strongly one way or another on the slavery issue that they disguised their femininity and enlisted under a man's name.  They fought and died side by side with men.  The issue of slavery and civil rights in general caused great divide and aroused fervent passion and desire to stand up for what one believed.  There were few 'moderates' in terms of support for or against Abraham Lincoln.   People were outspoken with respect to how they viewed their president.  Families were often divided in opinion and friendships were severed.  The press frequently did it's best to undermine Lincoln and create dissent.  Sound familiar?

The Obama's visited the Lincoln Memorial over the weekend and it's reported Mr. Obama will be sworn in with his hand on the same Bible that Lincoln used, and will dine on some of Lincoln's favorite foods for his Inaugural luncheon.  While neither Lincoln nor Obama were born in Illinois, it's reasonable to expect certain similarities between the two, both coming to the White House from the state of Illinois .  {Of note, Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois, yet little recognition  is made in that regard.}  Some are suggesting Mr. Obama may be going a bit too far in trying to mimic President Lincoln.   No matter, the coming Inauguration will be, as always, a monumental point in America's history.  Our system allows for a peaceful transfer of government with as much pomp and circumstance and celebration as the incoming President chooses to enjoy.  The true connection between Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln is yet to be revealed in terms of how the country will be governed.

As we look at some historical context, let's clarify that Lincoln was a Republican.  I spoke with a woman during the campaign that said she was voting for Obama because he was going to be the next Abe Lincoln.  I kindly suggested that might be difficult if Obama follows a partisan agenda.  She looked confused, so I told her Lincoln was a Republican.  She was immediately angry and disputed it.  She had believed her entire life that Lincoln was a Democrat.  Afterall, he was against slavery and he wanted equal rights for all people.  It was hard for her to swallow the idea that 'all men are created equal' and civil rights, personal freedoms, along with small government have been foundations of the Republican platform since inception.   Democrats have done a good job of convincing the electorate that it is their party that is compassionate and protective of rights.  I wonder as Lincoln's name continues to be invoked during the coming presidency, how many people will learn for the first time of his political party!

During the Inauguration festivities we will hear repeatedly about the phenomenon of our country electing the first black president.  While it is rarely stated that Mr. Obama is actually bi-racial, the country as a whole should be proud of this  accomplishment.  A particular landmark that is significant to many has been achieved.   Yet, there has been no support from the Left for other African Americans that happen to also be Republicans.  When I think of Ken Blackwell, Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, Lynn Swann and Condi Rice of our modern era, I believe any of these individuals may well possess the qualities, experience and background requisite to serve our country as President or any high office in government.  They are Americans of great character and integrity. The media and Democrats as a whole have little to no respect for these individuals, but still claim to be the party of progression and fairness and equality for all.   

Just as many may not know Abe Lincoln was a Republican President, some may also not realize that the great civil rights activist, Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Republican.  His niece, Dr. Alveda King, also a Republican, is an accomplished author, college professor and believes the most significant civil rights issue of our time is school choice.  She is also adamantly pro-choice.  While the election of Mr. Obama is a historical benchmark, the clear division in our country that follows party lines veils the deserved acknowledgement of other black Americans that have equally remarkable personal stories,  professional accomplishments and contributions to their country.  As Mr. Obama settles into the Oval Office, hoping to fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, he must recognize that the great divide in thinking and opinion today is not necessarily between races, but rather between political parties.  It is partisan politics that has diminished our standing in the world and divided families and friends.   It is the vitriolic and caustic rhetoric of the Left, supported by the MSM, that inflames dissent and inspires anger.  To be fair, there are some extremes also on the Right, however, they don't get nearly as much media coverage, and often when they do, they are quoted out of context within 30 second sound bytes.

The heroics of Harriet Tubman during the Civil War are very inspiring.  The restraints of space here don't allow an adequate tribute to her contribution to civil rights and humanity in general.   History also recounts the difficult work of Sojourner Truth, who also fought hard in the Abolition, and later stood up for women's rights.  Both black women staunchly supported their Republican president and praised his work in supporting freedom for slaves.   In the post-war late 1860's black men were granted the right to vote.  Women--black or white--were not yet allowed to vote, but many Republican women became activists.  Black women are credited for recruiting many Republican voters in the South during this time.  They supported their fathers, husbands and sons as they started to run for office, make speeches on the issues  and other political involvement.  Black women organized political rallies, marches and parades to support Republican candidates, and many became very active in making speeches themselves and worked to get out the vote.  This effort to support Republican causes did not go forth without conflict and threat to personal safety.  In South Carolina, Democrats still angry over the freeing of slaves organized raids to terrorize blacks that were so vocal in support of the Republican Party and it's platforms. 

Today, it is little reported and seldom mentioned that it was the Republican Party, lead by Abraham Lincoln, that stood for free speech, abolition of slavery and women's suffrage.   At the time the Republican Party was founded, the country was divided by political discord among Democrats and a handful of other parties, such as the Free Soil Party, the Whig Party of the South and their spin-off, the the Conscious Whigs of the North that were anti-slavery.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act provided for states and territories to determine for themselves whether or not slavery was legal.  President Lincoln saw the great divide all these radical factions were causing.  He won the presidency campaigning on determined action and strong resolve to end slavery and bring the country together.

As Republicans, let's stand up for our conservatism.  Let's not allow the Beltway Boys, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan and other moderate-to-left voices carry our message.  While they have every right to speak and have opinion, they do not speak for us on many issues.  Here in Colorado, don't let our GOP leadership whither away until the next election draws near.  Get involved, ask why you aren't receiving weekly emails with updates about Party activity in your county and our state.  If you don't get the desired response, make noise at the state level and ask why.  Help identify bright, energized, articulate, persuasive, charismatic youthful conservatives and then get behind efforts to set them up for speaking engagements at our colleges, universities and civic organizations.  Find out what is being taught to kids in your school district in terms of accuracy in civics and government.  We need to make sure people around us know who the Republican Party is, what we've done, what we stand for and where we intend to lead.  We aren't just the minority party, we also have an uphill battle to get any press coverage or make any opposition known.  A great effort continues to silence questions and differing points of view.  In the spirit of our founding fathers, we have a responsibility to defend our right of free speech.  As they say in the football coaching industry, "Next year starts today." We won't win back anything in '10 or '12 unless there is activism and movement happening today.

Perhaps Democrat leadership will help us out.  As government grows larger and becomes more intrusive, our version of hope can be that our country takes a hard look and decides it wants some of the freedoms back, and change of a different sort will be desired during the next election cycles.  

Bold leadership worked for Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan in bringing about real change.  It's past time for Republicans to do some history homework and revisit what wins elections and brings people together.  Reclaim Lincoln's goal to "lift the artificial weights from all shoulders, and clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all."  Thomas Jefferson had the same philosophy in mind.  Reagan perfected it.  Freedom of expression, free markets and enterprise, freedom to vote, freedom to practice religion, and opportunity limited only by an individual's personal desire to succeed are the foundations of the Republican Party.   As the spirit of Abe Lincoln prevails during next week's Inauguration, I'm inclined to believe he'd have stern words today for his party:  "Return to your party's values and core principles, and do not become weary in that pursuit."

The church of climatology

One of the things that has always confounded me about many liberals is their arrogance. They are so darn certain they are right that they are unable to entertain any divergent views. Ever try and have a truly rational discussion with a liberal on race? On abortion? How about the war in Iraq? Or Guantanamo Bay? As they say on the Sopranos: Fuggedaboutit.

There are no areas of compromise on what I call the signal issues of the left. And even worse, if you dare to think differently, you are immediately attacked as a racist, a sexist, a fascist or just plain stupid. Using such personal attacks with such highly inflammatory labels has the effect of putting those with opposing views on the defensive, and distracting the discussion from the issue at hand. It is a very common -- and very effective -- way for the left to quell honest debate on many of the most important issues of the day. It's disingenuous. And it works.

Climate change is a perfect example of this. Bill McKibben at the left-leaning Foreign Policy magazine has a fantastically irresponsible piece on global warming where he claims without qualification that global warming is an irrefutable fact and that it might already be too late to save the planet. The science is apparently settled:

Every national academy of science, long lists of Nobel laureates, and in recent years even the science advisors of President George W. Bush have agreed that we are heating the planet. Indeed, there is a more thorough scientific process here than on almost any other issue: Two decades ago, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and charged its scientists with synthesizing the peer-reviewed science and developing broad-based conclusions. The reports have found since 1995 that warming is dangerous and caused by humans. The panel’s most recent report, in November 2007, found it is “very likely” (defined as more than 90 percent certain, or about as certain as science gets) that heat-trapping emissions from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.

According to McKibben, the IPCC (a UN sponsored body that is rife with political considerations) has decided that humans are warming the planet -- and so it must be true. He speaks as if the science of geologic activities on the earth -- a planet billions of years old -- is settled fact because a group of scientists have been studying the issue for twenty years or so. That he speaks with such certainty of the science behind temperature change within earth's complex ecosystem is the height of arrogance. How do we know that this isn't normal change in the ebb and flow of the earth's climate process? Doesn't anyone recall that the earth was once covered in ice? And that the onslaught of the ice age happened so quickly that it wiped the dinosaurs from the face of the planet?

McKibben has no such questions, however. His article also includes a strange defense of China as a main culprit of the carbon dioxide that he blames for heating up the earth -- and herein lies a clue as to his political motivations. McKibben argues that while it is true that China has overtaken the U.S. as the main producer of carbon emissions, the only fair way to view the issue is on a per capita basis: because China has four times the population of the U.S., China is not as bad a carbon scofflaw as America is:

And by that standard, each Chinese person now emits just over a quarter of the carbon dioxide that each American does. Not only that, but carbon dioxide lives in the atmosphere for more than a century. China has been at it in a big way less than 20 years, so it will be many, many years before the Chinese are as responsible for global warming as Americans.

Starting to see the picture? China produces more carbon emissions that the U.S., but we are the bigger sinners, since they are new to the game and we've been doing it for years. And, if that isn't bad enough, McKibben actually gives credit to the Chinese political leadership for doing more about global warming than we are:

What’s more, unlike many of their counterparts in the United States, Chinese officials have begun a concerted effort to reduce emissions in the midst of their country’s staggering growth. China now leads the world in the deployment of renewable energy, and there’s barely a car made in the United States that can meet China’s much tougher fuel-economy standards.

Maybe McKibben hasn't been paying attention to the air quality issues athletes faced at the Beijing Olympics, or the tremendous air quality problems throughout China that have created serious health issues. China has one of the worst environmental records in history, and their rapid industrialization has been virtually without restraint.

But none of this matters when you worship at the Church of Climatology, where faith trumps fact every time. It is more important to punish the culture of consumption in the United States and place the blame on Americans who drive SUV's and other cars that the left finds to be a sin against their belief that everyone should ride a bike to work. We are the original sinners, after all; we are the true crucible of industry. It is because of America that the automobile is so ubiquitous in our world.

So according to McKibben we must repent and change our deadly ways. And even then, it may be too late:

The only question now is whether we’re going to hold off catastrophe. It won’t be easy, because the scientific consensus calls for roughly 5 degrees more warming this century unless we do just about everything right. And if our behavior up until now is any indication, we won’t.

And the left always says that conservatives practice scare tactics!

Now, I'm not a scientist and I don't pretend to play on on the Internet. But I've done a little bit of research, and the science of climate change is not settled. Take a quick look at the informative article, for example, at the aptly named JunkScience.com, which takes you through the science of greenhouse gasses and global warming. The most interesting section is the following:

Who says it (the earth) is warming catastrophically?

Humans have only been trying to measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. As we've already pointed out, the estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth's temperature, generally given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004

We are pretty sure it was cold before the 1880 commencement of record and we would probably not handle the situation too well if such conditions returned but there has been no demonstrable catastrophic warming while people have been trying to measure the planet's temperature.

If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded history" should happen just about every year -- although half a degree over a century is hardly something to write home about -- so there's really nothing exciting about scoring the highest number when looking at such a short history.

The JunkScience.com article has lots of interesting graphs -- perhaps the most interesting is the one which shows the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature. For a full resolution image of the graph, click here.  This graph shows a slight uptick in temperature (to the tune of .5 degree centigrade over 120 years), but you see a much larger increase in carbon dioxide over the same period. Doesn't look like a clear causal relationship between the two to me -- and this is the primary foundation for both McKibben's article in Foreign Policy and almost all climate change policy.

The point here is not that the earth isn't warming -- clearly, it is to a small degree. Rather, the issue is how much and why: the left wants us to believe that the science is clear that we are to blame, and that the impact of this change will be catastrophic. These scare tactics are designed to quell open debate about climate change, and to make it impossible to discuss alternative explanations (or solutions) to the problem.

Most religions are organized around fear to a certain degree, and the Church of Climatology is no different. It's a powerful motivator for change. In this case, that change is to remake the world in a more progressive fashion -- wind, solar, electric cars, etc. The only way to get to this in a rapid fashion is to galvanize people through tales of Armageddon. How much are you willing to spend to save the earth from certain destruction? To the green movement's lasting delight the answer is plenty. And with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge, you can bet that the money will be flowing for the foreseeable future.

We are all Israelis now

For those now condemning Israel's decision to confront and destroy Hamas, I suggest reading Ron Rosenbaum.  Rosenbaum, who wrote the book "Explaining Hitler", has written a compelling piece entitled Some differences between Hamas and the Nazi Party.   Rosenbaum doesn't mince words -- arguing in effect that Hamas represents a bigger threat to Jews than even the Nazis did: The Hamas founding covenant explicitly calls for the extermination of all Jews. Hitler never made total extermination an official plank of the the Nazi party platform. (see Holocaust scholar Omar Bartov’s article in the February 2, 2004 issue of The New Republic. 7th article of the founding Hamas covenanat which cites the Hadith (saying of the prophet). Here is a translation of the Hadith ina deeply disturbing summary of Hamas’ exterminationist anti-semitismby the Brown University scholar Andrew Bostom:

“The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985). 

In other words, Hamas is not committed merely to the political goal of expelling Jews from the land of Israel but to what they believe is a sacred religious goal of exterminating all Jews everywhere behind every tree in creation. (I’m not pinning any hopes on “the Gharqad tree”). I’d suggest those who deceive themselves into believing Hamas is just another Palestinian rights group, maybe a little on the extreme side, read the whole Bostom article. The exterminationist anti-semitism of Hamas is more excessive than Hitler’s.

Many might take issue with Rosenbaum's position by noting that Hitler actually killed millions of Jews at the head of a mighty industrial Nazi machine, and that Hamas has done comparatively little to carry out its genocidal ambitions.  But in this day of WMD and nuclear technology, it is important to give a disproportionate weight to intent: one suicide bomber with sarin gas or a nuclear bomb, and Article 7 of the Hamas covenant could be realized in an instant.

Nonetheless, Israel has (again) come under terrible fire from the left for it's "disproportionate response" to Hamas and the "poor people of Gaza" -- citing the fact that many Palestinian civilians have been killed and wounded. Of course, it is Hamas' strategy to put women and children in the path of the Israeli attack, so that civilians will be killed. Hamas knows that on the left, nothing Israel ever does in right, and that media pictures of civilian destruction is certain to bring condemnation from the UN, the EU and the other Palestinian apologists. Its so predictable -- and to Israel's credit, they have not been intimidated by it.

Nor should they be. Let's put this into perspective: suppose Al Qaeda -- a group with a sworn objective to destroy the United States and kill every last infidel in the West -- had developed a settlement over the U.S.-Mexico border and was lobbing missiles into San Diego on a daily basis, terrorizing the civilian population and killing and wounding American citizens.

Is there any chance in a million years that the United States would not wipe those settlements off the face of the earth to protect American lives?

Of course not. But because the much of the world wallows in anti-semitism and has fallen in love with the "Palestinian cause" there is a double standard at work. When Israel acts to defend itself, the world protests. No other nation would live under such a threat. But that doesn't matter -- because Israel never gets the benefit of the doubt.

In the end, we should be grateful that Israel has the courage to do what needs to be done. If they are successful here, they will destroy Hamas and free the Palestinian people to pursue statehood under a peaceful two-state system. That's the only future for the Palestinian people that makes sense. Israel is doing them a favor.

Let's hope that Israel is successful, and that this is but a precursor to them taking on (and taking out) the real 800 pound gorilla in the region: a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. This is a threat that Europe and a post-Iraq America have failed to face up to. Israel can't afford to be so cavalier.

We are all Israelis now.