There are people in this world who love to draw attention to themselves by point out pressing issues without offering credible solutions to solve these issues.  Princeton University Professor Cornel West is one of these individuals.  West, along with his PBS partner in crime, Tavis Smiley have been protesting the rising occurrence of poverty in American society.  They have denounced allegedly rapacious bankers and Wall Street investors, and even have timidly criticized Barack Obama for this sad situation..  However, West and Smiley are the latest in the long line of self-serving leftist blowhards who are more interested in self-promotion than actually contributing to constructive public debate.

West, or Brother West, as his drooling disciples call him has lived a charmed live in the creme de la creme at America's preeminent academic institutions.  He was a professor for many years at Harvard until the university's former President Larry Summers dismissed him for devoting to much time to his celebrity role as a "public intellectual" and not enough time to teaching and conducting work appropriate academic research.  The prolific West founded a soft landing waiting for him at Princeton University and took his golden parachute down the Atlantic seaboard. 

Since Princeton is a private university, it's not possible to find out how much West earns for his "services" to this institution.  However, it's safe to say he has a comfortable six figure income just from his salary and benefits.  Unfortunately, New Jersey does not provide unrestricted public access to local property tax records, like my state of Indiana does, but a commercial website lists the median house price for Princeton as being $442,675.  In addition, 2009 statistics from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey reveal that this community's median annual family income is $147,819.  Perhaps West lives in a gated community within Princeton with various kinds of restrictive covenants to keep non-liberal riff-raff away.  A January 2002 National Review critique of West revealed his lecture fee was $15,000 per appearance at the time.  I expect that inflationary upgrades and ego enhancements have increased that drastically over the last decade.

The recent rise in poverty is a cause for concern but West, Smiley, and others of the Occupy Wall Street cult are advocating the wrong answers.  You would think West would be familiar with the works of Edward Banfield, Charles Murray, and Marvin Olasky which have thoroughly documented the abysmal failure of Great Society antipoverty programs and the devastating damage they've caused Black families.  West and his acolytes should also consult government statistics put out by agencies as diverse as the Census Bureau, Federal Reserve Board, Government Accountability Office,  and Bureau of Labor Statistics to demonstrate the failure of government antipoverty programs and the acute financial situation our country faces due to personal and governmental financial profligacy.  Of course, factual reality is a concept beyond Cornel West's grasp, since he remains stuck in a Jim Crow time warp and conducts himself like a aging 60's radical who tries to be cool by embracing rap music and presenting a Shaft Goth couture image and persona for the 21st century world of instantaneous communication and media exposure.

It would be interesting to see West's recent itemized federal income tax returns.  There's a Pulitzer Prize waiting for any investigator who can find out what charitable contributions, if any, West has made.  Has he helped Habitat for Humanity or provided direct financial assistance to a New Jersey charter school like Facebook founder Marc Zuckerberg did?  West and Smiley should tell their followers and the Occupy Wall Street dregs to embrace individual personal moral responsibility, staying in school, planning for their future, and striving to better themselves personally and financially instead of blaming "the man", casting anti-Semitic slurs on financial leaders and institutions, denouncing the "capitalist system," and embracing socialism despite its multiple failures.  As an academic, West should embrace the moral responsibility to inspire and uplift students instead of promoting an ideology of victimization.  West and his sycophants may think he's a modern day example of the Old Testament prophet Amos crying out against societal injustices but biblical quality prophecy is beyond West's capabilities.

Unfortunately for West, he can't deal with the failure of Barack Obama's Keynesian redistributive delusions which have weakened our economy, created further moral decline, and injured our standing in the world despite laudable drone strikes against Islamist terrorists.  West forgets that Amos was not a publicity seeking demagogue, but a concerned and patriotic Jew concerned about his country's moral standing and that Amos did not advocate public policies which failed to improve Israel's spiritual condition.  A better biblical analogy to describe Cornel West and his self-serving public advocacy of failed policies is provided in Proverbs 26:11 which informs us "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."  Scripture provides ample additional examples of fools and their behavior who are historical antecedents of Cornel West.

Last night saw the latest in the series of Republican presidential debates occur in Las Vegas.  Most of the usual candidates were there except for Jon Huntsman.  Rick Perry actually demonstrated a pulse for the first time in these debates although he wasted his energy on Romney's Massachusetts health care plan which has moved on what it was in the nearly five years since Romney left the governor's office.  Perry wasted more energy with his petulant attack on Romney for having supposedly let an illegal alien work on his Massachusetts residence a few years ago.  Romney said he had the alien and their employer fired once he found out about this.

Rick Perry has zero credibility on the illegal immigration issue because of his college tuition subsidy for these individuals.  Does Perry expect every potential political candidate to conduct an indepth background investigation of all individuals and firms who work on their house?  Do we have to everify the cashier every time we go to the grocery or department stores?  I'm against illegal immigration as much as anybody, but we're really getting into nanny state territory every time some one asks us if we've associated with illegal aliens.

I like Rick Santorum's strong commitment to traditional moral values and his desire to emphasize how the decline in such values has economic and sociological impacts on our society.  Unfortunately, he comes across as needy and he neglected to tell the audience last night that the individual he defeated in the 1994 Pennsylvania Senate race was Harris Wofford instead of Bill Clinton's electoral impresarios Paul Begala and James Carville.

Romney showed true passion when debating Perry, kept his cool when attacked by Santorum and Perry, and Herman Cain's 999 plan got well-deserved criticism for its manifold weaknesses.  Despite the contentiousness of segments of last night's debate, American political debate is like old ladies at a tea party when compared with British parliamentary style question times.  Cain's foreign policy unsuitably was again demonstrated when he essentially stated that he would consider trading Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo for American hostages.  Such dangerous naivete cannot be tolerated from a presidential candidate.

The most irritating thing at last night debate was the sophomoric performance of CNN's Anderson Cooper.  CNN is a decidedly leftist network, but Cooper was more interested in promoting discord among the GOP candidates and demonstrating his leftist street cred than promoting serious discussion of the policy issues facing this country.  For instance, Cooper went wacko on Dallas minister Robert Jeffress' criticism of Mormonism as a cult.  Perry had already said he disagreed with Jeffress' appraisal but Anderson, being the unctuous left-wing student government type that he is, insisted on Perry and other candidates repudiating Jeffras.  What the candidates should have told Cooper was that they were not going to play his infantile left-wing college thought police political correctness game. 

One unfortunate profile in cowardice by all candidates in last night's debate was their refusal to endorse the scientifically sound and research endorsed finding that Nevada's Yucca Mountain is the best and safest repository for the  U.S.' nuclear waste.  This has been an issue that has dragged on for to long due to the whining of Nevada politicos.  No other state is going to have enough empty space that is geologically suited for this responsibility.  A possible compromise would be placing the waste on Harry Reid's property.   Speaking of property, another failure of courage last night was in responding to a question about the mortgage foreclosure crisis.  While it is valid to criticize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and predatory lenders in some case, none of the candidates had the courage to denounce individuals who knowingly buy more house than they can afford to pay for and expect taxpayers to subsidize their financial incompetence.  The candidates should have said that a household mortgage is not a Las Vegas crap shoot, but comparable to a marriage in that it has to be worked on and attended to regularly and that individuals and families must learn to live within their means and not give a hoot about the social status of their residence.

It would be nice if we had journalists intelligent enough to ask questions of real substance.  For instance, last night Ron Paul said he'd eliminate the Interior Department.  One question that could be asked of him is whether he favors turning national parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite and national military parks like Gettysburg to the private sector and how we would preserve the natural, historical, and cultural integrity of these sites?  Michelle Bachman should be asked what specific statutory or regulatory evidence she has that the controversial Independent Payment Advisory Board in Obamacare will be a "death panel."?

Samples of additional probing questions would be:

Do you think China and the U.S. are destined for military conflict within the next two decades?  If so, what steps will you take to ensure U.S. victory?

Do you favor getting rid of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and eliminating federal bureaucracies that have kept American Indians from becoming full participants in the American dream?

What personal and business loopholes do you favor removing from the tax code and why?

What specific policy steps will you take to decrease direct governmental involvement in the agricultural sector and will these steps be part of the next quinquennial farm bill?  Describe how these steps will increase competition and lower food prices.
While obtaining greater energy independence is desirable, the U.S. is to populous and technologically productive to be completely energy independent. What specific steps will you take to promote increased domestic energy production and conservation?

The Arctic Ocean is becoming an increasingly important international trade route due to climate change and it's vast mineral resources also have attracted the interest of the U.S. and other international powers.  What specific steps will you take to advance U.S. interests in this region and prevent powers such as Russia and China having hegemony over this region?

What steps will you take to prevent imbecilic programs such as the Obama Administration's Fast and Furious from being implemented?

What steps will you take to reduce U.S. drug consumption which provides financial sustenance to Mexican and Latin American narco-terrorists?

Herman  Cain is a heckuva nice guy.  He has a compelling personal story and a stunning list of business accomplishments.  It's also wonderful that he is a graduate of the university where I work and does not play the victim card of used by so many black politicians.  Recent weeks have seen him enjoy a remarkable ascendancy to the top of GOP presidential polls.  A lot of this rise is attributable to his 999 plan calling for a 9% personal income tax, 9% business income tax, and 9% national sales tax.  Being an astute businessman, Cain knows how to market effectively using a catchy and succinct slogan.  Unfortunately, 999 is not viable economic or public policy as effectively documented http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278668/nein-nein-nein-kevin-d-williamson
by National Review's Kevin Williamson.

Cain has failed to contribute any serious governmental spending cuts proposals or to address the culture of incessant advocacy of governmental spending increases driving our policymaking.  Cain fails to admit that it would be easy for Congress to increase any of these taxes and not address the underlying spending, tax, and regulatory structure driving our economic stagnation.  He has complained about government regulations but not said which regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations he'd repeal or modify to enhance national economic competitiveness.  Do Cain and other Fair Tax advocates want to usurp states powers to levy sales taxes at the same time they proclaim their fealty to the 10th Amendment?  It's one thing to say your a problem solving businessman who can turn around companies like Burger King and Godfather's Pizza.  However, it's far more complicated to turn around the economy of the world's largest country.  We need much more substantive solutions than gotcha and gimmicky corporate sloganeering such as 999.  Cain's business experience would prove valuable in federal agencies such as the Commerce Dept. or Small Business Administration but his sloganeering is to superficial for the presidency.

Another concern about Cain is his claiming that the American people don't want a politician in the White House.  While there are plenty of politicians of both parties who have disgraced public service, a President needs to have real world political legislative or executive policymaking experience to carry out their multifaceted responsibilities.  A President needs to know the intricacies of how government agencies and legislatures do and don't work and be highly observant of their operational nuances and chameleon like personalities in order to extract funding, legislation, and consistently high quality job performance from them.  Dealing with domestic or international political leaders is far different than dealing with shareholders, boards of directors, and company employees though such business experience can have useful applications in the presidency.

I'm also very troubled by Cain's lack of awareness of international affairs.  This first occurred at a debate when he admitted he didn't understand the nature of the "right of return" issue as applied to Israel and the Palestinean Authority.  Not understanding the vital importance of this matter to Israel, our most critical ally in the Mideast, reflects an amateurism that we cannot afford in our Commander-in-Chief.  Cain has also stressed he doesn't care who the leader of ...istan is.  This is actually a surprising admission from a business leader who surely understands the importance of successful cultivating and maintaining professional and personal relationships with business associates, suppliers, and customers.  The same principal also applies to international relations.  A President needs to be able to conduct business with a variety of international leaders from different cultural, religious, and personal backgrounds.  One of the reasons President George H.W. Bush was able to build an international coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait in 1990-1991, was having the experience of knowing a wide variety of international leaders and knowing how to effectively communicate with them to build the broad-based international coalition that was able to liberate Kuwait.  Cain needs to understand that it takes far more than "getting the best people around you" to be effective in international relations.  It takes a willingness to immerse yourself in international issues and get to know the personalities, politics, and cultures of other friendly and hostile actors on the international stage.  Such professionalism, backed up with the ability and willingness to use military force, is the essence of skilled geopolitical craftsmanship and national military leadership.  We are already seeing the consequences of foreign policy amateurism in Barack Obama's presidency.

I think it would be nice to see Cain get an important position in the next Republican administration where he could be a key economic policy advisor to the President .  Unfortunately, he does not have the broad based governmental experience or substantive knowledge to master the subtleties of international affairs to be a credible President.  Fortunately, we have the candidate with those abilities and the capacity to bring about genuine and enduring conservative political reform in Mitt Romney.

Unhappiness with current economic conditions has resulted in several demonstrations throughout the county.  Cities such as New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia have seen a motley debris of rag tag leftists spouting incoherent gibberish about Wall Street and capitalism.  While some of these individuals have been genuinely hurt by our economic troubles, the vast majority of these protesters are latte sipping parasitic leftists, who are dismayed by the failure of their false messiah Barack Obama to deliver the hope and change they deluded themselves into believing was "just around the corner" three years ago.  The absolute incoherence and stupidity of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is remarkable.  They call for higher taxes on Wall Street and banks when these financial institutions, which are capable of making mistakes, need money and economic and regulatory certainty to create the jobs they purportedly desire to obtain.

These same dimwits who use creations of capitalist creativity such as Iphones and Blackberries to organize their flash mob demonstrations on Facebook, have no clue as to how wealth is created and maintained in society.  Instead, they resort to the infantile class warfare and economic ignorance which have characterized leftist "thinking" in the western world since the French Revolution.  These are the spoiled brat spawn of incompetent parents who have coddled these kids, refused to teach them about sacrifice and adversity, and given them everything they demanded regardless of whether the kids needed or deserved these items.    These demonstrators reflect the consequence of moral relativism and the failure of parents and our educational institutions to explain the realities of the free market, the consequences of debt, and the adversities that can occur in life.
These fools, to quote from a Queen song of the 1980's "want it all and they want it now" but fail to understand that it takes hard work, sacrifice, and setbacks to "get it all" and even then you end up with a hole in our soul when you realize that life is about far more than material possessions.

Yet the denizens of Obamaville and Barackburb are encouraged by their dimwitted dolt of a President, who has been reduced to mouthing inane soundbites such as "pass this bill," despite its egregious Keynesian flaws, and is so bad that even the Democratic controlled Senate doesn't want to vote on it.  Obama also mutters equally fallacious tripe such as "shared sacrifice" and making the rich "pay their fair share" when, in fact, the wealthiest American individuals and corporations already pay a disproportionate share of national income taxes.  Contrary to what the demonstrating imbecilic morons say, corporations are actually people who, while capable of sin like all humans, actually create goods and services and spread wealth around to benefit the people of this country, our economy, and the people and economies of other countries.  The abject failure of this President becomes more apparent each day as scandals such as Fast and Furious and Soylendra (a textbook pay to play scandal) based on the delusional panacea of multitudinous "green jobs" expand in scope and severity.  Having no substantive economic accomplishments to run on, Team Obama and his demented minions will unleash unprecedented class warfare on their Republican opponents in a display of spiteful fury not seen since Robespierre's sans culottes rampaged through Parisian streets during the Reign of Terror, and Lenin's proletarian parasites ravaged the Soviet Union just after World War I.  If the demonstrators seeking to "Occupy Wall Street" want to experience real oppression, I suggest they take their road show to Damascus, Tehran, or some other totalitarian enclave where they can experience the brute fists dished out by the Assad and Ahmadinejad regimes.

There is a lot to admire about Rick Perry.  In an era of reticent politicians afraid to speak truth to power for offending some individual or group, Perry is an admirable straight shooter.  His strong defense of Texas' death penalty against the whiny leftist MSNBC questioning during the Reagan Library debate is a welcome corrective to those who are enamored with criminals facing the death penalty for their violent crimes.  I lived in Texas between 1989-1994 and got familiar with the sometimes smash mouth nature of Texas political culture and debate.  I voted for Perry as Agriculture Commissioner in 1990 and 1994.  Although he has some rough edges, he has been a generally effective leader.  He would be a significant improvement over Barack Obama and I would support him if he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.

Sometimes, though, Perry has demonstrated he doesn't have the intellectual maturity to be President.  He is correct to criticize Social Security's long-term financial failings.  Calling it a Ponzi scheme is flat out wrong and unnecessarily frightens individuals who have made it their sole source of retirement income.  He should follow up his rhetorical criticism of Social Security with an intellectually credible plan for reforming Social Security and other entitlement programs while also promoting a culture of savings and long-term financial planning.  Perry was also wrong in saying that Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke would be considered as treasonous in Texas.  The fed's quantitative easing policies and other decisions by Bernanke have not helped our economic problems and can be legitimately criticized for many intellectually credible reasons.  Saying they are treasonous reflects intellectual superficiality not fitting for a would be President.

Perry also was wrong with his decision mandating the use of Gardacil to vaccinate Texas girls against cervical cancer.  There was absolutely no public health reason to mandate this vaccine.  Decisions about children's health should be made by their parents and family doctors instead of government bureaucrats without compelling public health requirements for such vaccination such as an epidemic.  Fortunately, Perry has apologized for this.  I am also troubled by Perry's essentially pro-illegal immigration stance including giving illegal aliens college tuition benefits.  While Texas' Hispanic population is increasing, these individuals can best be assimilated into the mainstream of American life by following the laws for legal immigration and by promoting policies for securing our border with Mexico.

Perry needs to move beyond Texas machismo swagger and exert the ice cold steely and disciplined resolve of an assassin when addressing national security threats to the U.S.  While such swagger may appeal to the conservative base, and that includes me, he needs to recognize that not everyone in the U.S. is enamored of rhetorical exaggeration.  Although Perry leads the GOP field in most polls, additional polls show that he trails Obama in a potential matchup and that Mitt Romney LEADS  Obama in polls positing a election contest between these two.  Republican primary voters need to select someone who can appeal to independents if we are to be rid of the Barack Obama plague.  We also need to choose someone who's geographic electoral appeal transcends the south which Perry is not likely to do.   

Romney has actually produced a substantive economic plan that addresses creating jobs, energy, spending, health care, and enhancing the efficiency of governmental programs.  Although I have some reservations about what could be an overly confrontational trade approach to China, I commend him for recognizing China's currency manipulation and serial violations of intellectual property rights.  In his 2010 book, No Apology,  Romney also addresses serious foreign policy issues such as Russia, Iran, and North Korea.  He is a staunch defender of Israel and will not be seduced by the dangerously deceptive rhetoric of Palestinean statehood which would be an absolute disaster for Israel and the entire Middle East.

We need to move beyond just denouncing Barack Obama and offering credible policy alternatives to his incompetent and corrupt rule.  Mitt Romney has the intellectual tools and the communication skills to present credible conservative policymaking alternatives that move beyond the Tea Party and resonate with independents and other Americans who are disenchanted with the foolish choice of Barack Obama to direct our national destiny.   Mitt Romney is the candidate with the intellectual substance, self-discipline, private and public service performance record, and crossover electoral appeal to make the case for serious governance if we are to have the chance of escaping from the economic, foreign policy, national security, and social disasters Barack Obama's ego and incompetence are driving us toward.  I enthusiastically endorse Romney and encourage conservatives and other intelligent Americans to do the same!

The future of Social Security has been a subject of contention between GOP presidential frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.  Perry was audacious enough to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme for which he was criticized by Romney and other figures across the political spectrum.  Social Security is one of those subjects that it is nearly impossible to have an adult conversation about due to Democratic Party demagoguery and scaremongering.  When the Social Security Act was first passed in 1935 the average life expectancy for American men was 59.9 and 63.9 for women.  The most recent life expectancy statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics say the these figures have risen to 75 for men and 80 for women.  Consequently, you have a larger number of people living longer and the number of workers paying into this system is not keeping pace.  While Perry is being hyperbolic in calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, he is right to emphasize that it is not financially sustainable in its present form, needs drastic reforms, and is an integral part of the burgeoning growth in entitlement expenditures creating our national fiscal profligacy.  Romney is also right in saying that older Americans who have paid into Social Security should be able to receive their contributions for financial security in their sunset years.  He is also correct in warning that even the appearance of tampering with Social Security is electorally injurious given the higher voting rates of elderly Americans.

This debate should be an opportunity for Romney and Perry to promote the vital importance of saving for the future to Americans.  Social Security needs significant reforms such as raising the present retirement age of 65, means testing, and prudent investment policies yielding higher investment returns than the present system to give Americans at least a minimum level of financial security.  However, it is long overdue to start promoting the importance of savings in American economic activity and beginning retirement planning at an early age.  In his well-written and thought out economic plan, Romney promotes the importance of Americans earning less than $200,000 annually to have their savings exempt from federal income tax.  In a recent GOP debate, Herman Cain correctly pointed out how Chile has moved all of its retirement planning to the private sector giving its workers the option of choosing from multiple retirement plans.  We should retain Social Security as a minimal retirement safety net, with significant reforms, but give workers tax incentives to develop a diversified portfolio of prudent long-term savings options to plan for their retirement. 

The idea of Social Security actually originated in Bismarckian Germany in the late 1800s and fit the domestic political and economic environment present in Germany at that time.  When it was enacted in the U.S, it sought to protect workers from the ravages of the depression.  Unfortunately, to many political figures remain trapped in a 1930s time warp and do not account for the diversified retirement planning options available in today's global economy and the extensive amount of information available to individuals today to make wise decisions about their individual financial future and that of their families.  Federal and state governments, and private sector financial institutions, should work together to promote transparent and easily understandable laws and regulations to protect us from unscrupulous financial hucksters while also empowering us to make the retirement planning decisions that are in our own best interests.  We can not rely on the "one size fits all" formula of Social Security but include Social Security in a diverse and multifaceted spectrum of retirement planning options.   You won't hear such economic wisdom and prudence from Barack Obama and the Democrats so this is a wonderful opportunity for Perry, Romney, and other GOP presidential aspirants to step up to the plate and provide Americans with the intellectual and moral leadership necessary to promote sensible and liberating retirement policy reforms in our political debate.

I've recently purchased a Kindle and one of the first books I'm enjoying on it is former Vice-President Dick Cheney's memoirs In My Time.  As a conservative, you've got to love Cheney for the way he drives leftists into an absolute frenzy.  Cheney is a cerebral conservative who does not pander to the leftist "bien pensants" in the U.S. or internationally.  He calmly does his job, speaks truth to power, and is serene in knowing that the overwhelming preponderance of public policy decisions he makes are correct.  His support of enhanced interrogation of terrorists resulted in many intelligence successes including the murder of Osama Bin Laden earlier this year.  Bush Administration policies kept America safe from further terrorists attacks in the U.S. during the remainder of that administration which is a enormous security accomplishment.

Cheney's refusal to "apologize" for supporting such coercive interrogation is particularly gratifying given the egregious incompetence and ignorance of much of the western world, most recently demonstrated by a European Parliament report condemning extraordinary rendition, in understanding the vicious and uncompromising nature of Islamist terrorism and its adherents.  Our country and other democracies need such clear eyed leaders as we deal with current and emerging security threats in the first quarter of this century.

 His memoir, ably co-written with his daughter Liz, describes his life growing up in Nebraska and Wyoming, his significant public service career in Washington, DC serving as an official in the Nixon Administrations' Office of Economic Opportunity, his service as President Ford's White House Chief of Staff, his tenure in the House of Representatives, service as Secretary of Defense during an epochal four year period, and his highly influential time as Vice-President.  He also tells about his service with Halliburton Corporation which is a prominent and skilled energy services company targeted for its success by leftist luddites and neanderthals.  He also speaks candidly about his heart problems, his relationship with his family, and his relationships with policymaking colleagues.

Much media attention has been focused on his criticisms of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.  Tension between policymakers in the U.S. Government and other national governments (whether they are democratic or dictatorial) is par for the course and as old as human history.  Both Powell and Rice are distinguished public servants, but they are not immune from criticism for their policies.  Powell was more concerned with currying favor with the Washington establishment instead of promoting a more assertive foreign policy demanded by the post 9/11 global security architecture.  Rice, who will overall be regarded as a good Secretary of State, unfortunately let herself get captured by the appeasement oriented foreign service establishment into believing that a nuclear agreement was possible with the brutal and narcissistic North Korean government.  Rice's memoirs of her time as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State are due out in November so it will be interesting to see how she responds to Cheney's criticisms of her and how she interprets Bush Adminstration foreign and national security policies.  Different policymaker viewpoints on issues are an intrinsic part of the governmental process and a key fabric in the tapestry of historical writing.  Cheney's perspectives must be included with the perspectives already provided on Bush 43 presidency historiography with the accounts already provided by President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and the soon to be published work by Secretary Rice.

Dick Cheney will go down as one of America's most powerful and influential Vice-Presidents.  Despite his fragile heart health, he made significant, substantive, and good contributions to American politics, government, and national security for nearly four decades.  He will be ranked historically as one of our most influential government officials who never became President and, hopefully, he will continue enhancing our knowledge of domestic and international affairs in the years to come, while also driving leftists into apoplectic frenzies with his candor, unvarnished realism, and tenacious sagacity.  

It is pleasing to see the collapse of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's regime.  However, we should not get in a celebratory mood.  The mad dog remains at large and his fanatical supporters will fight with demonic ferocity to cause trouble for the suddenly victorious rebels.  A lot of questions remain about the rebels.  Some probably are committed to something resembling western democracy.  Others are opportunistic turncoats who worked for Gaddafi, then decided they should back the rebels to preserve themselves and their financial interests.  It's also possible some of the rebels are Al Qaida and other Islamist militants who see the chance to make a bid for power in the chaos following the downfall of a despised dictatorial regime.  Libya is likely to experience continued internecine strife since it is a tribal society with multiple factions.

As an oil rich country, Libya has potential.  It could update its oil infrastructure and become an increasingly important player in world oil markets.  If it's able to achieve stability and promote some form of relative democratization and religious pluralism, it could become an attractive tourist destination for Europeans.  Many Australians would love to visit the site of World War II's Tobruk battlefield where their Diggers played a key role in defeating the Nazis.  However, the much heralded Arab Spring is not living up to the promises of its idealistic proponents.

We are seeing this in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining strength and the border with Israel is no longer secure.  This was demonstrated last week when an Israeli bus carrying civilians was attacked by Al Qaida affiliated terrorists resulting in fatalities and Israeli retaliation.  For all of former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak's faults, there were no attacks against Israel from inside Egypt during his rule.  Yemen still remains a scene of turmoil and is heavily targeted by Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.  While Syrian rebels can take heart at Gaddafi's demise, they are confronting a far more brutal and effective regime lead by Bashir Assad that has proven how far it is willing to go to maintain its grip on power.  This same regime also has Iranian backing as a trump card.

It would be nice to think that Libya without Gaddafi would become a more responsible member of the international community and seek to meet the material needs of its people.  However, I'm afraid its still tied up in Islamic tribalism to become a model nation in the Mideast.  The refrain from the Who's classic rock anthem "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" is likely to apply to Libya for the foreseeable future.

I've been saddened but not surprised to see the riots plaguing London and other British cities.  I am an ardent anglophile with London being my favorite city in the world and I've been blessed to spend over a month of my life visiting and living there.  Samuel Johnson once said that when one's tired of London, one's tired of life because London offers everything in life.  London's history, culture, scenic beauty, and community life and unmatched and it's even sadder to see this happening just a year before it hosts the 2012 Summer Olympics.

Various reasons have been offered for this violence.  The usual leftist chattering classes have denounced racism and government spending cuts as their first and only rhetorical recourse.  (In fact, the British Government has had to slow the rate of government spending due to the debts incurred by the previous Labour Party government which had been in power for 13 long years from 1997-2010.  Leftist mythology was effectively demolished by Conservative Education Minister Michael Gove http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgXuX32ot8w in a debate with ditzy Deputy Labour Party leader Harriet Harman.

There are several factors contributing to these riots.  The first and most egregious one is the insidious growth of secularism in British society over several decades.  Like many western countries, Britain used to have strong Judeo-Christian values which were taught in schools and churches and throughout society.  Sadly, secularism has become more predominant in the decades since World War I as evidenced by the precipitous decline of Christians in all aspects of British life and the insidious influence of moral relativism and situational ethics.  When parents do not teach their children absolute standards of right or wrong and fail to model such standards in their own lives, it's not surprising that children will act out their nihilistic passions because they don't see any negative consequences for bad behavior.

A second major factor is Socialism.  This has grown particularly true with the growth and evolution of the welfare state since Clement Attlee's Labour Government just after World War II.  Although, there was a partial reversal of these statist polices during Margaret Thatcher's tenure, the growth of a cradle-to-grave entitlement system accelerated again during Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's premierships.  A distressingly large portion of  Britons expect the government to meet all of their material and even non-material needs and have lost their sense of self-discipline, initiative, personal responsibility, and the imperative of living a life where there is absolute right and wrong and consequences for behaving properly and improperly.

You also have the dangers of multiculturalism as well.  Many immigrants from all over the world have successfully assimilated into the mainstream of British society, but many haven't including some Blacks, Muslims, and a multiracial motley of sociopaths.  The British abolished the death penalty in the 1960s and during the Blair/Brown tenure, police became deathly afraid of being accused of racism as they went about their duties in high crime areas.  More police were assigned to do paperwork about their activities and promote diversity instead of actually being involved in their communities, patrolling the streets, and getting to know the people they serve and protect.  Efforts were made to excuse the evil hooliganism of lawless jerks as stemming from social alienation or some other nonsense, instead of dealing face to face with the intrinsic sinfulness of human behavior.  Britain needs to restore the death penalty, require perpetrators and their families to pay financial restitution to individuals and businesses injured, damaged, or even murdered by this rioting, prudently liberalize personal gun ownership laws, and give police whatever rules of engagement are necessary to crush these crimes including using live ammunition.  Hopefully, Home Secretary Theresa May will follow up on these suggestions with constructive long-term policies that enable Britons and others visiting this once magnificent country to feel safe on its city streets.  This is an excellent opportunity to cull the herd of mob elements who are disgracing Britain.

So far, British  Prime Minister David Cameron seems to be saying and doing the right things.  It will take months or years for this to be resolved.  A parliamentary debate is expected tomorrow and, hopefully, many of these subjects, including the ravages of  secularization, will receive serious attention.  The idea that individuals and nations can live without God should have been thoroughly debunked by the failed totalitarian fiascoes of the 20th century.  Sadly, it now seems 21st century democracies are seeing the chickens of secularism and moral relativism come home to roost.  My sympathies go out to the families and friends of those who have been murdered and who have had property damaged, stolen, or destroyed.  We should not feel that we are exempt from this unrest in America considering the economic problems we face and are yet to face and the growth of moral relativism in our own country.

The debt agreement reached earlier this week is more positive than negative, but much work still remains to be done.  Controlling only 1/2 of the legislative branch, conservatives still were able to roll the increasingly inept President enough to begin the long and painful process of budget cutting.  While I would have preferred that the debt limit not be raised, pragmatically I realize that we won more than we lost and agree with Speaker Boehner's assertion that we got 98% of what we wanted.  To get the whole economic enchilada, however, we need to retain control of the House next year, win the Senate, and win the presidency.  Next in line in selecting the six Republican members of the super committee which will have the power to enact spending cuts.  The Senators I recommend for this are Kyl of Arizona, Coburn of Oklahoma, and Toomey of Pennsylvania.  They will provide conservative fiscal expertise, different levels of senatorial experience, and geographic balance.  Representatives I recommend include Ryan of Wisconsin, Hensarling of Texas, and I haven't decided my third representative yet.

While we are right to reject personal and corporate income tax increases as options, I think we should be open to other revenue enhancers including closing certain loopholes.  Corporate jet owners should be willing to fly coach to safe on business expenses and I'm strongly in favor of income tax surcharges on persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters and same sex couples.  In terms of cutting the budget we should go through every cabinet level department and independent agency and look for programmatic duplication and obsolescence.  For instance, the Agriculture Department does not need the Rural Utilities Service which is a New Deal era agency created to bring electricity to the farm.  We can also cut some segments of defense spending without harming national security.  For instance, defense procurement and contracting costs can be trimmed significantly, we can consolidate defense scientific research agencies, trim healthcare expenses and defense pension expenses, and reduce duplicative offices within DOD's civilian bureaucracy which impinge on combat readiness.  Eliminating unnecessary weapons systems such as the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter would also help as would not providing funding to implement the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell."

We need to provide our Representatives and Senators with recommendations for specific programs to eliminate or reduce during the next three months as the super committee begins its work.  Today's 513 point fall of the Dow Jones market, continuing rises in unemployment, and declining economic growth statistics make economic recovery our highest national priority.  Mitt Romney's campaign has released an extremely effective campaign ad documenting on how much unemployment has gone up in Chicago since Obama became President.  If a president can't even improve economic conditions in his hometown, than you know for certain he will fail miserably at national economic policy as the past 2 1/2 years of his presidency demonstrate.  Sadly, it appears we are about to enter a double dip recession and it's President Barack Obama's whose administration is SOLELY responsible.  He cannot blame congressional Republicans or the long gone George W. Bush Administration for his own egregious economic incompetence.

The U.S. Constitution's 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 during the throes of Reconstruction.  A primary focus of this amendment was organizing government in the aftermath of the Civil War.  The 4th section of this amendment has drawn immense attention and controversy because some individuals, including disgraced former President Bill Clinton, believes President Obama should use this section of the 14th amendment to unilaterally increase the United States debt without congressional approval.  Obama has said his lawyers have told him this is not feasible.

Let's take a look at what this section says.  It reads:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment for pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, should not be questioned.  But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void."  Modernizing the constitution's 18th and 19th century rhetoric to include more succinctness and specificity would help prevent the recurrence of egregious interpretive errors.

It's clear this language was included ONLY to deal with economic and governance matters pertaining to the Civil War's aftermath and implementing reconstruction.  Only someone with delusions of grandeur or a crack addict would think that the President could use this as a means of subverting Congress to raise the U.S. debt ceiling.  Let's consult another section of the U.S. Constitution.  Article I Section 7 reminds us that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives and Article I Section 8 explicitly states that as part of its power of the purse ONLY Congress can pay debts and borrow money on United States credit.  Consequently, any presidential step to usurp this congressional power should precipitate a constitutional crisis and Congress would be within its rights to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Obama if he took such action.  While we can all be frustrated with the struggle between Congress and its multiple factions and between Congress and the President over the national debt, we must not make the mistake of ignoring the Constitution and giving the President the power of the purse which Congress properly has even if it has made poor use of it in raising our debts to such expansive levels.

When writing the constitution, the framers were well acquainted with the British experience with governmental debt.  For centuries, monarchs had been able to spend freely without restraint often imposing acute hardship on governmental finances and acute strain on personal finances.  It took several decades of civil war in the 17th century and the 1688 Glorious Revolution to establish Parliament as the supreme arbiter of spending the nation's financial resources.  Our founding fathers understandably did not want to give the executive branch and its leaders unrestricted access to the public's money.  Instead, they required that all governmental expenditures be approved by the public's elected legislative representatives in the House and, eventually, the Senate.

Giving the President the power to raise the debt on his or her own accord would be a dangerous surrender of constitutional and fiscal responsibility by Congress and faciliate untold abuses of power and economic health by the executive branch.  Let's kill this baby in the cradle before it has a chance to grow and strangle our country.

We are just a week away from Obama's self-declared debt default deadline.  After two years in the White House, the apostle of "change you can believe in" has become the self-serving Washington insider and apostle of the fiscal status quo he claimed was causing our national economic problems.  Despite having large majorities in both houses during the first two years of his presidency, the Barackster was unable to pass a single budget his administration introduced.  Consequently, he has relied on a series of continuing resolutions, produced a inept Keynesian stimulus passage, introduced and passed an unconstitutional and unaffordable health care program, managed to increase unemployment from 7.3 to 9.2%, and has increased the size of our national debt at a faster rate than all of his predecessors.  His administrative partners in crime, including Treasury Secretary Tim Boy Geithner, have failed to advance anything resembling a serious long-term plan to reduce our national debt.  Consequently, it has been up to congressional Republicans to advance serious plans like "cut, cap, and balance" to restore fiscal solvency to our country. 

Unfortunately, despite controlling the House and getting this legislation through the House, it went down to a debate free party line vote in the Senate.  This chamber is still controlled by the Democrats whose leader Harry Reid's knowledge of substantive economic policy is limited to what his Las Vegas gambling cronies and financial benefactors whisper to him in drunken moments by the craps table.  Obama's response to our likely credit rating downturn and potential default is not to show leadership but revert to the retromingent Democratic practice of class warfare including tax increases.  Anyone with even a miniscule knowledge of economic history knows that tax increases are the last thing a fragile economy needs if it wants to grow and create jobs.

The tax system does need to be streamlined and made flatter and some loopholes could be eliminated and generate additional revenue without causing economic hardship.  However, tough spending cuts will need to be made including to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare and even to some defense programs.  Most Democrats are naturally loath to trim entitlement programs because their political power base depends on increasing public dependency on government programs.  Some Republicans, unfortunately, fail to realize that the government needs money to operate critical programs and that a certain amount of taxes are required to properly fund these programs.  Even though I consider myself an uberhawk on defense issues, there can be a bromance element to conservative support for the military that fails to recognize there is significant waste in areas of defense spending such as health care costs, procurement, and research and development.

There will be significant consequences if we default on our debts but, hopefully, enough sane members of both  parties in Congress will be able to persuade the  Administration to stop the debt hemorhaging and begin the painfully long-term but essential process of paying down and eliminating our debt.  Australia was actually able to do this during the conservative coalition government lead by Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello between 1996-2007 and we should look to them for inspiration.

The vast majority of individual Americans and their families have no choice but to live within our means.  We can't pass "continuing resolutions" or increase our personal debt ad nauseum.  We have to deal with creditors, foreclosures, bankruptcies, lowered credit ratings, and other unpleasant consequences of fiscal profligacy.  I know there would be serious societal economic consequences, and even international economic consequences, if we were to default on our debts, but now is the time to make a stand and stop the continuing and spiraling growth of our national debt and budget deficit.  We cannot let ourselves become subject to economic blackmail by hostile creditors like China or enslave future generations.  Now is the time to draw the line in the sand.  Sadly, we have a President who's more interested in engaging in infantile class warfare than showing truly courageous and transformational leadership which could earn him a positive place in history.  Barack Obama is now proceeding toward a historical presidential verdict that will begin with "The first President to lead the United States to defaulting on its national debt and having its international credit rating downgraded."  That would rank with impeachment as being the most damning verdict on presidential performance. 

The space shuttle is currently on its last mission delivering supplies to the International Space Station.  Once its mission is completed it, and its remaining companion shuttles, will return to earth and be stored at various locations in the U.S. including the Air and Space Mission.  The shuttle has had a three decade operational life and experienced some successes but has been marred by cost overruns and the Challenger and Columbia tragedies.  The U.S. space program has experienced remarkable successes but has also experience political parochialism and short-sightedness that have kept it from reaching its optimum potential.  The shuttle program began as a successor to the Apollo program during the Nixon Administration but it took nearly a decade before Columbia was launched in 1981.

This final shuttle mission is a good time for America  to look at its role in space.  Let's start with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  This agency was originally founded in 1915 as the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) to promote aeronautical research.  It became NASA in 1958 and while most people associate it with the space program it also does aeronautical research.  Thanks to political and financial earmarking by Congress, NASA developed a presence in many areas of the country including Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and California  The trouble is there is another federal agency that already conducts such research and its the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  A future incarnation of NASA should discard its aviation functions to the FAA and morph into a National Space Administration (NSA).  This agency should focus on giving the U.S. a permanent manned presence in space.  One part of this administration can focus on expanding international scientific knowledge and striving keep a permanent U.S. civilian manned presence on the moon and also focus on a manned landing on Mars.

The primary focus of this agency should be working with the military (particularly the Air Force's Space Command) to develop a permanent manned military presence in space and on the moon including claiming the moon as sovereign United States territory.  Despite sanctimonious United Nations rhetoric about space being part of humanity's common heritage and a venue for international cooperation, space is another arena of international geopolitical conflict.  The former Soviet Union viewed space as part of its strategic interests and China is slowly but steadily seeking to expand its military presence in space.  It's high time for the United States to regain the initiative while we can before we are faced with the possibility of a space-based Chinese preemptive stranglehold against our national security interests.  Do we really think Russia will be a dependable provider of space launch capabilities and services?  If so, we are appallingly naive.

We should encourage collaboration with the emerging commercial U.S. space industry to develop and launch affordable but effective spacecraft and support vehicles to carry some civilian but mostly military personnel into space to ensure that we have hegemony over space extending to and including the moon.  We should strive to achieve these objectives by 2025 and encourage financial, scientific, and military collaboration with truly friendly nations who have not succumbed to unctuous United Nations space policy humbug.  Despite such possible collaboration with allies, we must make it clear that we are the final arbiters of how to use these human and technical resources to defend our national interests in space.   The 21st century will be the era in which space truly becomes an arena for human strategic competition just as the skies did in the 20th century.  Let's seize the initiative while we still can or China, Russia, or some other detrimental combination of powers will.
 

Tonight President Obama announced that U.S. forces would begin withdrawing from Afghanistan starting next month.  He announced that this would be a phased withdrawal of 33,000 troops which would be completed by October of 2012.  Of course, this is the month before the presidential election so it's timing is politically convenient.  Unfortunately, for Obama and the Afghan people this announcement is welcome news for Al Qaida and the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Through the heroic efforts of our forces and the stellar leadership of General Petraus, we have made significant progress disrupting and destroying significant portions of the Islamist terrorist network in this region which allowed the launching of the 9/11 attacks.  We have also begun the long-term cultivation of the Afghan population and training of their military forces necessary for that country to defend itself, build stable societal foundations, and viable institutions so that in the decades to come that country has a chance to become a part of the international community.  Unfortunately, tonight's decision undercuts all of our hard work and sacrifice by demonstrating that we don't have the intestinal fortitude and long-term perspective necessary to achieve victory and help the Afghan people become something resembling a normal country.

Instead, we have a President who is more interested in pandering to the moveon.org and Code Pink wings of his political base instead of a leader who recognizes Afghanistan's geopolitical importance to the war on Islamist terrorism and in the emerging strategic importance of South Asia which will involve the intersection of powers such as the U.S., Iran, Pakistan, India, China, and other adjacent countries.  The U.S. Geological Survey and its Afghan counterparts have discovered large reserves of lithium (used in batteries and Blackberry's) which could help Afghanistan become more economically sufficient and move away from its dependence on opium to achieve a more moral means of economic development.  It will require a stable security environment to help Afghanistan make effective use of this lithium.  However, Obama's decision to pull the plug on our efforts which are beginning to yield positive results undercuts the Afghans who are struggling to free themselves from the Taliban and Pakistani efforts to encourage the Taliban and Al Qaida.

The American public must get over its war-weariness (which is historically miniscule compared to the Civil War and two World Wars) and recognize that our national strategic and moral credibility are dependent on achieving reasonably successful results in Afghanistan.  In 1993 Bill Clinton decided to "cut and run" when things got difficult in Somalia and that country has remained a lawless harbor of anarchy and Islamist terrorism.  By making this decision to begin withdrawing our forces against the advice of our military, Obama has updated Clinton's "cut and run" mindset and applied it to Afghanistan.  This, unfortunately, will hurt the Afghan people we are trying to help and embolden our enemies in that part of the world.  All the more reason, for us to elect a President next year who understands geopolitics, the need for sustained military operations against Islamist terrorist, and the imperative of America keeping its commitments to other countries even when the going gets tough.

The NATO military operation against Libya's Muammar Qaddafi is turning into a protracted farce.  The Libyan dictator has the innocent blood of Americans and other nationalities on his hands through his regime's four decades of supporting terrorism.  If we were engaged in a real military operation against Qaddafi, we would have sent ground troops in a long time ago and the Libyan dictator's regime would be no more.  Unfortunately, Obama and his clueless administration, in their desire to obsequiously pander to the Islamic street and internationalist ideology, decided to outsource this operation to NATO with incredibly restrictive rules of engagement.

For one thing, Obama promised that the U.S. and NATO would not commit ground troops to this operation.  The first rule of any kind of contest with an adversary is to never tell them what you will not do!  This incredible error by Obama gives Qaddafi and his regime the hope that we will eventually tire of this half-cocked operation and not have the intestinal fortitude to topple his regime.  Our bombing raids have been episodic instead of concentrated and sustained.  Do NATO pilots go on a multiweek vacation after completing a single sortie?  We have no knowledge of the ideology of the Libyan rebel forces beyond their antipathy to Qaddafi.  After a few months we still don't know what domestic or foreign policies they will pursue, their opinions of the United States, Israel, and Al Qaida.  We have let ourselves be bamboozled by the worst sort of sentimental humanitarianism without determining whether it is in our strategic interests to spend money and blood in the Libyan skies and sands.

In response to this muddle, a motley assortment of bipartisan members of Congress have decided to file suit against the Obama Administration claiming it is violating the War Powers Act.  This pathetic piece of legislation was passed by Congress in 1973 as a result of disenchantment with the Vietnam War and increasing animosity between Congress and then President Nixon.  The War Powers Act requires the President to report to Congress 90 days after the inserting military troops into combat operations.
Credible students of constitutional law and military affairs analysts think the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional usurpation of the President's powers as commander-in-chief.  Both Republican and Democratic presidents have held this act in contempt since its enactment, via congressional veto override, nearly four decades ago but no administration has had the cojones to directly challenge its constitutionality.  The leaders of this recent lawsuit include such dim bulbs as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich which says a lot for the credibility of this action.  Many members of Congress still adhere to the quaint notion that only Congress can legally declare war.  While it's desirable for Congress to be able to debate the potential commitment of U.S. military forces to war, the fast moving pace of contemporary military and geopolitical trends make such debate impossible in a way the founders could not have envisioned.  That's why it is so important that Americans have a commander-in-chief who can capably decide when it is or isn't in our national interest to use military force and commit the resources necessary, with congressional support, to achieve a victorious result from committing our military forces.  Barack Obama is not such a leader! 

Last week, the White House sought to comply with the War Powers Act reporting provisions by releasing a lamely reasoned paragraph seeking to justify U.S. involvement in Libya.  Unfortunately, it contained no compelling strategic reasons for committing U.S. forces, gave no timetable for when the operation would be concluded, let alone successfully concluded, and was of such shallow reasoning that it would be rejected by an elementary school teacher.  Congress can use its constitutional power of the purse to cut off funding for this sideshow operation, but it's doubtful it will carry out this action. 

We are again seeing the consequences of a strategically incompetent administration that is more concerned with surrendering command of U.S. military forces to an international coalition which does not have the guts or means to do the nasty work of toppling a third rate thug and his bloodthirsty regime.  This action is seriously damaging the credibility of the NATO alliance and its ability to respond effectively to emerging threats from Iran or even a revanchist Russia.  This inept operation is also being closely observed in Pyongyang, Beijing, and Caracas.  We are seeing the abject failure of liberal internationalism to carry out a multilateral military operation.  While some of our NATO allies, such as Britain, still have significant military assets and capabilities, the fact of the matter is only the U.S. can successfully carry out longer term military operations such as the one in Libya.  The old saying that if you want something done, do it yourself, applies to the military operations in Libya.  To many cooks in a military operation spoil the broth and damage the produce and its end result.