Last year there was justifiable outrage on conservative blogs for Barack Obama's pathetic apologies to the Muslim world for alleged U.S. crimes and misdemeanors.  Obviously, none of those apologies have resulted in tangible benefits to the U.S. in that region as Iranian deception and intransigence over their nuclear weapons program demonstrates.  Naturally, it is hard for leftist dimwits who hate the United States, or any other country they live in, to learn from their mistakes and our "Commander-in-Chief" is such an individual and his administration of foreign policy dunces has just demonstrated why.

Apparently, Arizona's sensible immigration law against illegal aliens is attracting outrage from a motley assortment of  leftist multiculturalist meatheads who are horrified that any governmental entity would seek to control its borders.  During a recent meeting with Chinese officials, a guilt ridden State Dept. policymaker Michael Posner brought up Arizona's  law as a topic of discussion without Chinese prompting.  It now appears that China has become the newest supporter of illegal immigration to the U.S. and is accusing the U.S. of "human rights violations."  We live in an age where hypocrisy is especially prevalent in our globalized 24/7 news cycle, but this Chinese charge of alleged U.S. human rights malfeasance absolutely takes the cake for international diplomatic hypocrisy.

This charge comes from a governmental regime that is one of the world's worst human rights violators.  This regime regularly imprisons Christians, practitioners of Falun Gong, Tibetans, Uighurs, supporters of Taiwanese independence, murders unborn children, and others with the audacity to criticize the purportedly  omniscient wisdom of the ruling Communist Party.  The Chinese government has set up a system of prison camps, called laogai, that rivals the former Soviet Union's gulag archipelago.  This same regime has the blood of tens of millions of individuals on its hands thanks to the famines caused by the disastrous Great Leap Forward of the late 1950's and early 1960's, the "Cultural Revolution" a few years later, its support for Cambodia's genocidal Khmer Rouge regime in the 1970's, the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, a botched war with Vietnam in 1979, and numerous other incidents.  In quantitative terms of the number of deaths it has caused, the Chinese Communist regime is only rivaled by the former Soviet Union and makes the Nazis look like amateurs when it comes to mass murder.  This same regime and its military are actively seeking to increase their power and challenge the U.S. for maritime supremacy in the western Pacific and using their growing prosperity (fueled by the U.S. and other countries consumers) to expand their geopolitical influence in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.

If we had a competent President and Secretary of State, they would fire this idiotic official Posner and tell China that U.S. domestic laws are none of China's business.  The Chinese respond to criticisms of their human rights policies by telling their critics that they are "internal matters" and none of their business.  We need to respond like this in the bluntest possible language when China or any other country (particularly one with a hideous human rights record) has the temerity to criticize our domestic policymaking.  Could you imagine what would happen to someone who would try to enter China illegally?  Imprisonment under harsh conditions and  without due process or death would be the inevitable result.

Sadly, the Obama-Clinton State Dept. and the highest levels of the executive branch are now controlled by self-hating dimwits who want to wail and gnash their teeth for imagined U.S. sins instead of forcefully and persuasively promoting and defending U.S. interests, freedoms, and values to the international community.  This is what you get when you entrust leftist imbeciles with control of U.S. foreign policy.

An advantage of the U.S.' federalist governmental system is that it gives states the opportunity's to enact laws that may be more beneficial to their state than federal laws and that do a better job of addressing problems existing in their state than federal laws in that area.  Arizona's recently enacted immigration law is a perfect example of this.  The federal government has done a miserable job of enforcing an already extensive corpus of illegal immigration law.  Consequently, many illegal aliens, the vast majority of whom are Mexicans, have criminally entered the U.S., intentionally violated U.S. laws, and consciously applied for and received the vast array of federal social benefits at the expense of law-abiding U.S. citizens who have paid for these benefits with their taxes and have more right to them than illegal alien squatters.

The Obama Administration and its subversive apologists in the illegal immigration movement such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and a host of "immigration rights" lawyers are planning to file lawsuits against this legislation and threatening to organize consumer boycotts of Arizona.  As conservatives we should fight back against these illegal alien influxes by enacting similar laws in our own states and municipalities, defending Arizona's law in letters to the editor, our state and congressional representatives, and in various online forums.  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has made an excellent response http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary to critics of this legislation. We should encourage our national legislators to enforce already existing legislation against illegal aliens and increase deportation of these individuals and those smuggling them into the U.S., while also strengthening border security by erecting a high tech Berlin like wall system from Brownsville, TX to San Diego.  Arizona should also consider strengthening its newly enacted statute by directly billing MALDEF, LULAC, immigration attorney organizations, and individuals arrested in protests against this law for the costs it incurs in dealing with illegal immigration!   The behavior of illegal immigrants and their apologists also reflects badly on the generations of Latino immigrants who entered this country legally, abide by our laws, and make valuable contributions to our country.

We should also bluntly tell Mexican President Miguel Calderon that our immigration policies are  none of Mexico's business and that his government should work on controlling its population and creating more economic opportunities for its citizens instead of encouraging them to illegally migrate to the U.S.  This is especially true given Mexico's own highly restrictive immigration laws and restrictions on advocating for illegal immigration in Mexico which have been ably pointed out in many recent journalistic writings.  Finally, we should support Arizona by buying products and services produced in that state, consider going there for vacation, and consider holding professional meetings or conventions there as a way of countering the leftist histrionics and demagoguery about racial profiling which are standard rhetorical tactics used by leftist bullies.

Thursday's British election was truly an interesting affair.  Like our 2000 presidential election, they experienced some electoral machinery snafus though this had to do more with student voters not bring their id cards and relying on an antiquated and inefficient paper ballot system.  The overall results are a mixed bag.  The Conservatives won the most seats in the House of Commons and defeated Gordon Brown's Labour Party Government by over 2 million votes, but they did not win enough seats to achieve a majority.  Consequently, they are trying to negotiate an agreement with the Liberal Democrats and their leader Nick Clegg, who finished third in the balloting to achieve some sort of coalition government under the leadership of probable Conservative PM David Cameron.  There are also some additional minor parties in the mix as well representing Scottish separatists, Welsh nationalists, and various Northern Ireland factions.

Despite his party's worst defeat since 1931, Gordon Brown still gets to squat on as Prime Minister in 10 Downing Street.  This election illustrates the absolute folly of having more than two parties in a major democracy.  The Conservatives may be able to reach a temporary working agreement with the Liberal Democrats, despite their significant ideological differences, but such an agreement will probably only last a year at the most before it collapses and new elections will be required.  It is even possible that Labour and the Liberal Democrats may negotiate a deal that would give them power but there are also big differences between these two leftist parties and deep personal animosity toward Brown outside of the Labour Party. 

Since early 2006, Canada has had a minority Conservative government under the able leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  This government has been able to function somewhat effectively due to divisions among the other Canadian political parties.  However, it could be toppled at any time and early elections could occur if the three major Canadian opposition parties decide to collaborate together on no confidence motions or budget votes.  Parliamentary systems are somewhat capable of dealing with minority governments even though they are limited in how much political leverage they have or decisive action they can take.  Britain is facing serious budget problems and is well aware of the problems facing Greece and, potentially, other Eurozone countries.  It will be tough for a Conservative lead government to make the necessary budget reductions to lessen British debt if it has to collaborate with the Liberal Democrats or some other parties. 

Our U.S. governmental system with its separation of powers  is not equipped to handle such multiparty government.   How would congressional committees organize themselves if no single party has a majority in the House or Senate?.  If you have a committee with 25 members, you could have 14 members on it from one party and 11 members from the other party.  In a three party system where no party has a majority in either House one party might have 11 members on this committee, another 10, and a third part 4 members or  a whole variety of arrangements.  Who would direct Committee business?  How would legislative business be transacted on the House or Senate floors.   Would presidential cabinets appointments be divided by party e.g. Secretary of State Republican; Secretary of Defense Democrat-Secretary of Agriculture Democrat; Secretary of Energy-Republican; Transportation Secretary-Libertarian etc?

Hopefully, the British can work out a reasonably effective system that will reflect their electorate's preference for more Conservative policies.  Those of you who are third party enthusiasts should take caution from the British example which is even more complicated in many European democracies where it can take several weeks to form a government after an election.

This coming Thursday British voters have a chance to choose their government in national parliamentary elections.  Unlike the fraudulent change Barack Obama seduced American voters with in 2008, the British electorate has the chance to embrace real qualitative change.  For the past 13 years, Britain has been run by the leftist Labour Party which has won three straight elections.  The Prime Minister from 1997-2007 was Tony Blair.  Blair, to his credit went against leftist peacenik loons in his own party, to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and numerous British soldiers have paid the ultimate sacrifice for this.  For this first couple of years in power, Labour even adhered to the previous Conservative Government's spending targets.

Beyond that things get ugly.  A country I admire deeply has become mired in debt due to the spending spree initiated by Blair and his Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury Secretary) Gordon Brown who has been Prime Minister since 2007.  Crime has become a big problem in Britain due to politically correct Labour ideology that gives criminals, instead of the police and law-abiding citizens, the benefit of the doubt in legal proceedings.  The absence of the death penalty makes matters worse as even the most violent criminals get taxpayer subsidized food and medical care.  Multicultural mush has lead to an huge influx of extremist Muslims who do not share western democratic values of freedom of religion and pluralism.  The 2005 London bombings and other arrests of such individuals in terrorist plots is further illustration of multiculturalism's failure.  The response of Brown and his leftist cognoscenti to public concerns about this is absolute arrogance.  This past week a woman (who was a Labour Party supporter) came up to Brown while he was campaigning and expressed her concerns about these matters.  Brown got into his car and, forgetting he was on a live microphone, muttered that this woman was a bigot.   Such a typical leftist response to anyone with the audacity to disagree with their world view on any issue especially if it involves the talismanic phrase "diversity."  Needless to say, you know what hit the fan in British media coverage of this.  Brown went back to the woman's house to "apologize" the next day and, to her credit, she refused to appear in public with him.

Another wild cared in this campaign has been the rise of the Liberal Democratic Party.  There's actually been a Liberal Party in England since the 1800's that actually stood for free markets and restrained government spending at one time under leaders like 19th century Prime Minister William Gladstone.  The modern incarnation of this party is lead by Nick Clegg who did fairly well in the first of three leadership debates with Brown and Conservative leader David Cameron and caused many leftist hearts to get that tingly feeling Chris Matthew gets about Barack Obama.  The Liberal Democrats are leftists without the union background of Labour and are generally more affluent.  Utopian fool Clegg actually favors eliminating Britain's Trident submarine nuclear deterrent, imposing a sales tax on the sale of new homes, and promoting amnesty for illegal aliens.  The reaction to such policies in the U.S. would be radioactive and it's been equally radioactive in Britain as well.   The Liberal Democrats rise has them running neck and neck with Labour for second place and may actually produce a hung parliament in which no party has a majority and may have to try to govern with the Liberal Democrats support.  Talk about a recipe for chaos and paralysis!

Under Cameron's leadership, which has stressed the need to decrease Britain's debt, provide sufficient support for British military forces, and recognizes the critical importance of the family in British societal development, the Conservatives have a modest lead in the polls and look like they'll get the first chance to form a government.  They have been airing television ads warning of the consequences of a hung Parliament and how critical it is that they get a clear majority so they can began cleaning up the mess left by Labour.  Cameron has done a good job expanding the Conservatives appeal to ethnic minorities who wish to assimilate and be valued law-abiding members of British society.  He has a good support team of George Osborne (the potential Chancellor of the Exchequer) and William Hague a former Conservative Party leader who is likely to become Foreign Secretary.  Hopefully, the British electorate will have the intelligence to end their drunken thirteen year orgy with leftist imbecility and elect a majority Conservative Government and begin the road back to greater societal cohesion, economic solvency, and international credibility which has made Britain one of the world's great countries.

The Pelosi-Reid Congress, in its increasingly finite wisdom, is trying to convince legislators and the American public that a federal consumer protection agency is needed to prevent Americans from suffering financial misfortunes like the subprime mortgage and investment frauds such as those committed by companies like Goldman-Sachs.  It's true we live in a complicated and increasingly diversified and globalized economic environment.  However, instead of creating a new federal agency with undefined and potentially dubious constitutional powers, the government should set a better example by promoting expanded, continual, and higher quality consumer economic education in our school system and in our families. 

Many states have councils for economic education and existing federal agencies such as the Education Dept, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Trade Commission and these organizations should collaborate with state education departments and private educational organizations to develop common sense consumer education programs.  These should include the basic principle of not spending money you don't have, minimizing the use of credit, carefully reading information on how to use or not use products, balancing your checkbook, paying your bills on time, getting mortgages you can afford to make payments on over the long haul, making and adhering to individual and family budgets, saving money for the future, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of investments, making long-term financial plans instead of fixating on instantaneous gratification.

U.S. consumers and the U.S. economy has gotten into so much debt because we have ignored basic economic principles as we seek no consequence material gratification.  Have we become so stupid that we need the federal government to be our mommy and daddy and oversee every personal financial transaction we make with companies or other service providers?  Do we really want our economy to become so highly regulated that it creates punitive taxation rates and strangling laws and regulations that make it impossible to create jobs and new wealth? 

In countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Iceland and, potentially Ireland, we are witnessing or recently witnessed the consequences of excessive personal and governmental spending, making imprudent speculative economic decisions, and the absence of individual and collective financial responsibility as these Eurozone (except Iceland) countries face serious financial problems.  Their instinctive response, like that of a drug addict or alcoholic, is seeking financial help from more economically responsible Eurozone countries like Germany to bail them out of their mess.  Understandly, German taxpayers are resistant to bailing out their profligate neighbors.  Considering our increasing national debt and the growing amount of it held by countries such as China, we should not think that we are immune to such scenarios.  In fact, the health care expenditures from the recently enacted health care legislation are likely to be far higher than estimated  by the Obama Administration and the Congressional Budget Office.

Instead of creating a new federal bureaucracy and further judicial litigation in our personal and national economic activity, we should rediscover the virtues of prudence, planning, saving, and frugality in our personal and national economic activities.  Such action would be a true profile in political courage instead of further empowering the American government at the expense of our personal economic freedom.

Today we learned the sad news that Poland's President and a number of significant Polish governmental and national security officials were killed in a plane crash in Russia.  They were on their way to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Massacre when nearly 15,000 Polish military officers were murdered by Stalin's Soviet Government in the early months of World War II.  Russia has still not apologized for this hideous crime but there has, apparently, been some improvement in Polish-Russian relations in recent years.  The bilateral relationship between these two countries has been a deeply troubled one as anyone relatively familiar with European History can tell  you.

It appears the Polish delegation was flying in a very old Russian built plane with a history of repeated mechanical failures.  Why the Polish Government had not invested in better quality and newer American or even western European airplanes for such an important delegation is a question the Polish Government must answer as soon as possible.   Why so many important Polish officials, particularly national security officials, were on such a decrepit aircraft is another question worthy of serious investigation?   If finances were a problem, surely the U.S. could have worked out a sweetheart deal for our NATO allies who have so many of their compatriots living in the U.S. and who have also assisted us in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Understanding the tragic history of Russian-Polish relations, it's easy to assume that foul play on Russia's part was involved and, frankly, I don't trust Vladimir Putin or Dimitri Medvedev.  However, Putin has taken charge of the investigation into the plane's crash and I think he'll have the political authority to see that the investigation has some semblance of thoroughness.  There have been news reports that the plane's pilot ignored the advice of Russian air controllers to not land at the Smolensk airport to due heavy fog and that's something that needs to be examined in any investigation.

We'll see how this story plays out in the days and weeks to come, but for now we must remember Poland in our prayers at this difficult time.

A book written about the 1986 tax reform act was called something like "Showdown at Gucci Gulch" in honor of the well clad footwear worn by lobbyists representing various interest groups in the hallways outside congressional committee hearing rooms.  There are a lot of terms you could use to describe the horsetrading and legislative browbeating being done by President Obama and his Democratic legislative sycophants on the Hill as they plunge hellbent for leather to produce health care legislation that no sane American who has studied it wants.   This is one of the potentially defining moments in American political history when we will find out if the American people want to embark on the road to governmental health care serfdom or retain some semblance of individual autonomy in our personal health care decision-making.

Despite being rebuked by gubernatorial voters in New Jersey and Virginia, and senatorial voters in Massachusetts, the Obama Administration and the Democratic congressional leadership have staked their political credibility on the role of a health care dice which Americans of multiple political shades have said they don't want.  These Americans realize an expanded governmental involvement in our  health sector will not improve the quality of our health care, will not decrease costs, and will result in further national debt and budget deficits that will make it impossible for our economy to create new jobs with benefits and increase our debt and make us increasingly vulnerable to hostile foreign economic coercion.  Obama and congressional Democrats should have heeded the warning shots fired across their bows by these three elections and scaled back their lofty aspirations.  They should have used these events as signs that Americans don't want more governmental control over their health decisions and decided to work with congressional conservatives to produce incremental health care reform in areas such as tort reform, increased electronic record keeping, being able to buy health insurance across state lines, and giving small businesses and individual entrepreneurs the opportunity to cooperatively purchase discounted health insurance coverage.  Hubris, however, rules the day and Obama and company have decided to go for all or nothing.

They may momentarily succeed in their goals due to parliamentary procedural trickery, but they will have lost any claim to moral authority when the U.S. is confronted with a more serious political or security crisis such as a terrorist attack and they demand respect and trust from the American people.  Administering the bureaucratic leviathan this bill is will increase the burdens on doctors, patients, medical personnel, and insurance companies and worsen an already challenging situation.  Their will be tons of legal suits brought, some legitimate and some bogus, which will keep America's medical community from working effectively with we the care receivers to get the high quality and affordable attention we sometimes require.  Hopefully, this hideous legislation is about to be strangled and our congressional personnel and executive branch politicos sit down and draft health care legislation that Americans actually want and can support in a bipartisan fashion instead of at the egocentric bull whip of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the ghost of Ted Kennedy.  Hopefully, we can defeat this insidious legislation and begin decisively accelerating Barack Obama's political and presidential downfall!

A sign of the declining influence and credibility of Obama Administration foreign policy occurred in Israel this week.  Vice-President Biden was visiting Israel in an attempt to restart the delusion known as the "Middle East Peace Process", encourage the Israelis to give coercive sanctions against Iran another chance, and seek to remedy the damage done to our bilateral relationship by Obama's apology tour which has included regional visits to Turkey and Egypt but NOT to our most reliable friend in that part of the world.  One of the talismanic tenets of U.S. and international policy toward the "Middle East Peace Process" is that Israel as a sovereign state is not allowed to build housing for its populace in a section of its national territory encompassing East Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan River which Israel liberated in the Six Day War of 1967.  Could you imagine some foreign power or coalition of powers telling the U.S. Government or commercial developers that they couldn't build housing in eastern Washington, DC or the adjacent Maryland terrain because it might offend a hostile foreign power or coalition of powers?

Fortunately, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government are made of sterner stuff than Barack Obama's multiculturalist mush.  They announced that they were meeting there population's critical housing needs by constructing additional residences in East Jerusalem while Biden was in Israel.  Practitioners of traditional diplomacy are undoubtedly appalled  by what seems like the poor timing of slapping a friend in the face while he was visiting.  However, I think we should learn that we should not pressure friends to do things they don't want to do or are injurious to their national interests.  We should be putting more pressure on Arab Governments and Islamist terrorist groups that think they can push Israel into the sea even though six decades of experience should have taught these idiots the contrary.  Peace can come to that part of the world, when Arab countries quit clinging to the sadistic and delusional fantasy that they can destroy Israel and when the educational systems of these countries start portraying Israelis as human beings who have made and are making valuable and essential contributions to that region.  Let's burn the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and other anti-Semitic garbage and let Israel exercise the rights of being sovereign nation including the freedom to build housing for its people within territorial boundaries.

In 1823 President James Monroe issued a seminal foreign policy statement which has become known as the Monroe Doctrine.  This stated that the United States would view any European involvement in Latin America as a threat to the United States to be resisted.  At the time of its issuance, the U.S. did not have the military power to effectively enforce this so the Royal Navy served as the de facto enforcer of this policy until the U.S. gained requisite military strength around the turn of the 20th century.

In 1904 President Theodore Roosevelt issued the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine by declaring that the U.S. and the right to intervene to economically stabilize Caribbean and Central American countries.  In 1912, in response to concerns that Japan was seeking a foothold in Mexico, Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge succeeded in getting Congress to pass the Lodge Corollary which sought to forbid any foreign power from gaining a foothold in the Western Hemisphere if such a presence gave that government de facto control of that country's territory.

Nearly a century has passed and a lot of water has passed under the bridge in Latin American geopolitics including the tumult of the Cold War.  Now a new power is starting to make its presence more visible in Latin America and that power is China.  Beijing has sought to cultivate influence in this region by encouraging nations to cut their diplomatic ties with Taiwan and diplomatically recognize China to be eligible for foreign economic assistance packages that do not contain the political or economic restrictions that U.S. foreign assistance frequently does.  The Chinese have sold arms to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and are seeking to expand their access to Latin American natural resources including oil to fuel China's growing economic power.  If China is allowed to gain a military foothold in Latin America it could threaten the Panama Canal and U.S. access to the southern Caribbean and western Pacific in the event of a future crisis that could be precipitated by the U.S. becoming to economically dependent on Chinese loans.

This increasing Chinese influence in Latin America is being reflected in scholarly literature, military and international affairs analyses, and in governmental reports.  A 2008 report prepared for the Senate Foreign Relations by the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service addresses the use of Chinese "soft power" in South America, Africa, and Asia.  Agencies such as the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission have prepared detailed analyses of China's interest in Latin America and in 2005 the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute prepared this report on the national security implications of Chinese involvement in Latin America.  The U.S. Naval War College also has recently established a center to study Chinese maritime affairs as part of additional military concern over China's growing international assertiveness.
It's possible Chinese intentions toward Latin America are benign, but the history of the rise of international great powers from non-democratic regimes does not give one reason to be optimistic.

Consequently, the United States needs to prepare an updated 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine which states that China or any other non Western Hemisphere power will not be allowed to gain a geopolitical or strategic presence in Latin America which could threaten the U.S. economy or national security interests.  I don't expect this will happen during the Obama Administration which continues to practice appeasement at a rate pleasing to Neville Chamberlain.  We can hope that congressional Republicans will take notice of this growing Chinese interest in Latin America and that prospective 2012 GOP presidential candidates will also begin educating the public of the dangers of increased Chinese involvement in Latin America.

Last year's apology tour by Barack Obama was bad enough as he apologized for alleged U.S. national security and foreign policy sins during the Bush Administration which have, undoubtedly, emboldened our enemies.  Just when you think it can get no worse it has.  Obama has now decided to antagonize our friends.  Not just any friends in the global  neighborhood, but Great Britain, our most loyal friend.  In a February 23 State Dept. press briefing, departmental spokesman "Mr. Crowley" responded to a question about a dispute between Britain and Argentina over oil drilling in the Falklands by declaring that the U.S. was neutral on the question of the Falkland Islands sovereignty and that the U.S. was willing to serve as a mediator between these two countries.  British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, mustering a considerable amount of diplomatic tact, politely declined this treacherous U.S. mediation offer.

Crowley's imbecilic comment reflects the low level of relations between the Obama Administration and Britain, this administration's abject ignorance of the history of this question, Obama's gross insensitive to British feelings on this subject, and has been justly criticized in British newspapers such as the Times and Daily Telegraph as well as British political blogs including Nile Gardiner's March 3 posting and British Conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Daniel Hannan's Feb. 26 posting.  British settlers arrived in the Falklands around 1833 and have remained there since then.  They have repeatedly stressed their desire to remain British to anyone who has bothered to ask them.  In 1982, with a failing economy and deteriorating domestic political situation, an Argentine military government decided to invade the Falklands in the belief that the British were to troubled with domestic economic troubles to care and that their female Prime Minister had no desire or willingness to go to war over remote islands several thousand miles south of London.

Unfortunately, for the Argentinians they made the mistake of messing with the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.  Demonstrating sterling courage and unflinching leadership, Thatcher and her government assembled a naval force that sailed across the equator and, with significant help from U.S. intelligence assets provided by Ronald Reagan, successfully defeated the Argentineans and liberated the Falklands.  This victory helped the west in numerous ways during the Cold War and would eventually lead to a restoration of democracy in Argentina.  The British paid a heavy price in losing 255 soldiers in this campaign, but defending liberty against dictatorial governments and groups with malevolent aspirations is not cost free.

More than a quarter century has past and historical amnesia has set in.  Despite the repeated expressions by Falklanders of their desire to remain British the Argentineans remain clueless.  Argentina's President Christina Kirchner has called for the Falklands to be restored to Argentina and she is joined in this by Venezuelan dunce king dictator Hugo Chavez.  During Hillary Clinton's recent visit to Argentina, she could have demonstrated statesmanship and geopolitical courage and even true diplomatic friendship by bluntly and publicly telling Kirchner and Falklands revanchists in Argentine political life that the Falkland Islands are British, always have been British, always will be British, and that they should quit clinging to fantasies that they will ever be able to incorporate the islands into Argentina. 

Unfortunately, Kirchner comes from the same leftist ideological gene pool as Hillary Clinton.  Kirchner's husband Nestor actually preceded her in the Argentine presidency in a example of Southern Cone political nepotism.  Like Hillary, she has catapaulted to power on her husband's coattails, so when she and Hillary met recently it was truly a case of two madonnas from the leftist sisterhood of political power having a egocentric girl power love fest instead of the need for Hillary to speak truth to power to her ideological kindred spirit.  Hopefully, Argentineans will soon tire of their love affair with leftist Peronist ideology and choose a more intelligent Conservative political course as their Chilean neighbors have done by electing Sebastian Pinera as their incoming President.  This Obama Administration diplomatic fiasco involving our closet friends is acutely embarrassing and reflects rank amateurism that our country cannot afford as we enter this second decade of the millenium.

This week congressional committees have been holding lengthy and often emotional public hearings into the mechanical failures experienced by Toyota cars.  These failures have, sadly, resulted in the deaths of a number of individuals and done grievous damage to Toyota's product quality reputation and, potentially, to the automotive giants long-term economic viability.

These are challenging times for the U.S. and global auto industry.  We've seen Chrysler and General Motors have to turn to the federal government and to taxpayer dollars to sustain their operations and both of these moves have been greeted with extreme displeasure by many people of all partisan and ideological stripes.  Car companies also are having to cope with declining sales in a global recession and with various environmental, safety, and fuel economy mandates issued by various governmental laws and regulations.

These companies have also hurt themselves by making their cars to complicated, excessively dependent on electronic technology, and pandering to lazy consumers and their spoiled brat kids by installing unnecessary devices such as GPS satellite technology, cell phone players, satellite radio,  and DVDs.  In Toyota's case, a vainglorious drive to become the world's number one car company resulted in an institutional working culture that essentially compromised auto safety to achieve production and market share goals.

Toyota and other car companies should learn that they must first make dependable, durable, safe, and high quality cars that meet citizen's basic transportation needs without unnecessary technological ruffles and flourishes.  Consumers don't need GPS to find their way around town or across the country.  They just need to read and comprehend a paper map and pay attention to where they are going by planning ahead.  Even Obama zombies are intellectually capable of that!  Consumers also need to read their cars owners manuals and take care of them by getting regular oil changes and other preventive maintenance so these cars can last several years.  Toyota and other car companies are perfectly capable of producing such cars if they'd stop pandering to self-indulgent consumers who think the car they drive must be some personalized expression of an idealized image.

The federal government also needs to take a close look at how it interacts with car companies.  Congress should use the Toyota recall to examine the quality of the automotive industry laws it has written and determine whether all of them are necessary.  It should look carefully at the way the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been effective or ineffective in its regulation of the auto industry and also scrutinize and reverse possible harm EPA and Energy Dept. policies may have had on auto industry safety performance.  Congress should also look carefully at its own oversight performance, and recognize how a culture of automotive industry incompetence has been encouraged by Detroit area congressional representatives such as John Dingell through their insistence that U.S. auto companies and workers could ignore the growing globalization of car production and continue spending more money on its elements of a sometimes unproductive workforce and their union allies than they could afford.

The Toyota crisis should be a time of soul searching for all auto companies and government regulators.  The car plays a profound ly important role in American economic development, societal mobility, and in promoting personal freedom.  It's time for all of us to work to ensure that the cars of the future meet the basic transportation needs of individuals, families, companies, and the government without compromising safety and without unnecessary technologies which complicate their operations and make operating and maintaining these vehicles unnecessarily expensive.

Indiana politics was stunned the other day when two-term Democratic Senator Evan Bayh announced he would not seek reelection.  The Bayh family has been something of an Indiana political dynasty and have been compared to the Kennedy's although; unlike the Kennedy's, they are essentially moral individuals who have flawed political convictions.  A number of Republican candidates have thrown their hats into the ring and eventually some Democrats will as well.  This is now a wide open race which had previously been a cinch win for Bayh despite this year's difficult political environment for Democrats.

Anti-incumbency sentiment is in the year and many people are looking for a "fresh start" to address our country's compelling political, economic, social, and national security travails.  In many areas of the country a "throw the rascals out" sentiment is justifiably present.  In Indiana, however, we are blessed that a conservative statesman who has extensive congressional and governmental experience has decided to seek the call of public service again.  At a time, when our country and Congress urgently need wise and experienced Conservative leadership, we would be wise to accept Dan Coats' candidacy to run for the Senate again.

Coats served as the congressional representative for northeastern Indiana's 4th district from 1981-1989.  When Dan Quayle was elected Vice-President in 1988, then Gov. Robert Orr appointed Coats to Quayle's Senate seat.  Coats won election to this seat in 1990 and 1992 before deciding to retire in 1998.  Since that time Coats has served as U.S. Ambassador to Germany, an important European ally, and served as a lobbyist for various organizations.

During his time in the Senate, Coats served on the Armed Services, Intelligence, and the Labor & Human Resources Committee (now Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee.)  He developed a reputation for doing substantive work and seeking to enhance the national interest by working with his colleagues (regardless of their beliefs) without compromising his beliefs as a full spectrum conservative.  Coats was a strong advocate for the best interests of the American family and remains committed to the traditional social values such as protecting the life of the unborn, defending traditional marriage, supporting policies that keep the government's budget balanced and enable individuals, families, and our nation to live within its means.  He will also oppose idiotic and reckless social experiments such as repealing "Don't ask,  Don't tell," which would destroy military cohesion at a time of acute national security challenges for our uniformed personnel.  Coats supports a strong and forceful national defense that will enable us to fight and defeat Islamist terrorism while effectively addressing emerging national security threats such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, information warfare, and other threats which may emanate from an increasingly assertive China.

Dan Coats will not require on-the-job training if he's elected again because he's familiar with Senate institutional practices.  He will be able to begin serving Hoosiers and fighting for our national interests once he's sworn in.  One of his primary opponents State Senator Marlin Stutzman has, in a surprisingly leftist populist attack, claimed that Coats work has a lobbyist somehow makes him unsuited to be a Senator.  I would remind Stutzman that he needs to read the U.S. Constitution which permits citizens to petition the Government for redress.  Individuals and organizations have a clear constitutional right to petition all branches of all levels of government to pursue policies that are advantageous to their individual or organizational interests.  While some lobbyists are unethical, there are plenty of lobbyists who pursue their trade honorably and within the letter and spirit of the law.  Unless Stutzman can document specific examples of illegal behavior by Coats he should concentrate on other more important issues.  Coats may have lobbied for foreign governments, but these governments are allowed to present their views on public policy issues affecting their countries, just as the U.S. Government is allowed to present its views on legislation or regulations affecting it and U.S. citizens and companies in foreign countries.  Do we really want to restrict the ability of the U.S. to lobby for favorable policies in foreign countries if we deny the same rights to foreign governments in the U.S.?

The late South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond made a wonderful assessment of Senator Coats in a 1998 farewell address on the Senate floor as the following passage demonstrates:

"The Midwest has the uncanny way of producing men and women of imminent sense and decency, individuals who have the ability to see to the heart of a matter and find a way to resolve a problem.  Such skill is extremely valuable in the U.S. Senate, a body by its very design that is supposed to foster compromise between legislators on issues before the Nation.  Without question, DAN COATS is a Senator who worked hard to bring parties together, find common ground, and to get legislation passed.  That is certainly a fine legacy with which to leave this institution." [Senate Document 105-35, p. 12].

The nation needs to do more than express visceral emotive opposition to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.  We need to elect proven and principled Conservative leaders who will present credible alternatives to Obama's failing economic, social, moral, foreign relations, and national security policies.  We need the prudential wisdom of Conservative servant leaders and elder statesmen like Dan Coats in the United States at this time in our history.

Since the Obama Administration's advent just over a year ago, American political debate has seen the emergence of a new populist movement known as the Tea Party Movement.  Such movements are common to U.S. political history and the political history of many other countries.  One of the first movements of this nature in our political history was the Shays Rebellion against high taxes which occurred in western Massachusetts during the early years of our republic.  The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the emergence of the leftist oriented populist movement which sought to protest what it regarded as the monopolist practices of railroad companies, agricultural distress, and various purported real and purported evils of Wall Street, high finance, and governmental policy.

Today's Tea Party movement protests against the Obama Administration's attempts to increase spending and national debt and enhance governmental authority over our complicated health care system.  The vast majority of Tea Party protestors are, undoubtedly, sincere individuals who are concerned about our country's direction.  However, it is not enough to be opposed to governmental policies you don't like.  You must pose credible alternatives to those policies and, unfortunately, Tea Party members have not appeared willing to present us with specific alternatives to control our budget deficit, national debt, governmental spending, or resolve health care issues.  A recent article in Canada's conservative National Post newspaper elaborates on this by mentioning that the recent Tea Party conference in Nashville, TN saw delegates present no specific suggestions for reducing entitlement program spendings.  Since they held their meeting in the Volunteer State, I wonder if any Tea Party delegates would have come out in favor of privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority which has provided electric and hydroelectric power for significant portions of the south since the New Deal.

For the Tea Party to be a true force for good, it will have to work with existing Republican Party political leaders and the vast network of conservative think-tanks to pose credible public policy alternatives to the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress.  It's not enough to say you're against Obama Administration policies, you need to know the nuts and bolts of government administration i.e. what's the difference between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Minerals Management Service and what roles these agencies play in national energy policy.

Grassroots populist movements, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, tend to take two courses.  They fall apart for personality conflict reasons or factional disagreements about goals, or they and their concerns get absorbed or coopted into the policy platforms of the political parties they are closest to.  A good example of this latter situation occurred in Canada in the last decade of the 20th century and the first decade of this century.  The Reform Party, a populist Conservative movement from western Canada which became disenchanted with the ideological incoherence of the country's misnamed Progressive Conservative Party, split from this Party and was able to win a number of seats in the House of Commons.

However, Reform never gained enough seats outside of western Canada to threaten the then ruling Liberal Party's hold on power.
Reform Party leaders realized this as did the more realistic members of the Progressive Conservative Party from eastern Canada.  The two factions worked diligently to find common ground and reemerged in 2003 as the Conservative Party of Canada.  Stephen Harper of Alberta, a key leader in the Reform movement which had become the dominant faction in Canadian conservatism, became the leader of this reunited party and in 2006 became Canada's Prime Minister by leading this party to victory.   Harper's Conservatives remain in power today and are doing a far better job of helping Canada cope with the global economic down than we are due to their practice of more intelligent fiscal and regulatory policy.

 A key lesson to learn from this is that protest movements who are willing to learn the substance of governmental policymaking and be serious about providing high quality governmental service, instead of whining about the unjustness of current governmental policies, have a serious chance of being able to obtain real political power to improve the material lives of their countries citizens.  Protest movements that learn how to "play the game" and advocate an ethos of praising public service, have a chance of reaching beyond their political base and offering credible public policies that can benefit citizens who share or don't share their political or ideological objectives.  Tea Party members should resist the temptation to create a third party and seek to enhance their practical knowledge of governmental policymaking and offer the GOP substantive, specific, constructive, and well-crafted public policy alternatives to Obama Administration policies instead of babbling about socialized medicine or dangerously high national debt.

During the Progressive era in the early decades of the 20th century, reformers of varying political stripes sought to enhance the quality of governmental policymaking and citizens ability to influence this policymaking through the electoral process.
One example of this was the citizen's ballot or referendum initiative enacted in California.  In the century since this was enacted into California law several, hundred citizen initiatives have been placed onto California state ballots for the Golden State's electorate to determine whether these measures should be passed to repeal existing laws or recommend new laws to that state's legislature.  These initiatives have covered a variety of topics including economics, education, immigration, and other policy issues.

1978 saw the passage of conservative inspired Proposition 8 which was intended to reduce increasingly onerous property tax rates and other citizen ballot initiatives have produced results favorable and unfavorable to conservative political and governmental aspirations.  A succinct summary of the origins of these Progressive era reforms can be found in Kevin Starr, Inventing the Dream:  California Through the Progressive Era, New York:  Oxford University Press, 1985, 235-282.)  The political careers of many figures were launched as a result of California's Progressive Era including Hiram Johnson (1866-1945) who was California's Governor from 1911-1917 and later served as U.S. Senator.

A more recent demonstration of this positive reformist instinct has been Proposition 8 which passed during the November 2008 elections.  This resolution sought to reaffirm traditional California state law that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  In passing this resolution (on the same day that it decisively elected Barack Obama to the presidency), California voters joined electors in more than thirty states and in global cultures of various religious perspectives in reaffirming their commitment to traditional marriage.  Unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society and proponents of same-sex marriage have become increasingly vociferous in trying to impose their moral and political agenda on society making concerted use of the judicial system to coercively enact their beliefs. 

Litigant Kristin Perry has filed suit against Proposition 8's constitutionality and the case is being heard in a San Francisco federal district court.  Many constitutional law experts believe this case will eventually be referred to the U.S. Supreme Court which will have to issue a ruling on whether same-sex "marriage" is constitutional.  Perry and her allies arrogantly believe they can use the court system to impose public policy and legal rulings on our polity which have been repeatedly rejected by American voters when these voters are given the chance to express their views on this issue.  If Proposition 8 or any other electorally approved issue stance is rejected by rampaging judicial activists at the urgings of litigious malcontents such as Kristin Perry, we might as well shred our constitutional electoral rights and call ourself a litigious judicial dictatorship.  Do we still want to consider ourselves a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or a government of judicial tyranny bankrolled and manipulated by affluent litigants who seek to impose their lifestyle practices on our communities, cities, and nation?

Rep. Steve Buyer announced his retirement from his congressional seat yesterday.  Buyer has served in Congress since he was first elected to Indiana's 5th district congressional seat in 1992.  Indiana lost a congressional seat in 2001 as part of post-2000 Census congressional redistricting and he represented Indiana's 4th congressional district since then.  Before being elected to Congress, Buyer served in the military and his service included action in Operation Desert Storm in 1991.  Buyer was one of the many soldiers who's health was adversely affected by what became known as Gulf War syndrome.  Instead of complaining about his disability and harboring hostility toward the federal government, Buyer decided to make constructive use of his God-given abilities to enhance national life.

At the time of the Gulf War, the 5th district was represented by Democrat Jim Jontz.  Jontz was a throwback to 19th century agrarian and labor populism who managed to experience some political and electoral success in the Indiana General Assembly and later would become the head of the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action.  Jontz, unfortunately, decided to oppose Operation Desert Storm and drew a challenge from Buyer who defeated the three term incumbent to restore the congressional representation of this part of Indiana to its more traditional Republican moorings.

During his nine terms in Congress, Buyer has been an articulate and principled proponent of the three pillars of contemporary conservatism:  fiscal, foreign policy/national security, and social.  His congressional tenure saw him serve on numerous House committees including  Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, and Veterans Affairs.  Buyer's service on the House Judiciary Committee granted him national recognition during Bill Clinton's impeachment and he was one of the House managers selected to present impeachment articles to the Senate.  (This accomplishment alone should earn him the eternal gratitude of conservatives.)  I highly recommend reading Buyer's remarks in the House Judiciary Committee's 1998 report recommending Clinton's impeachment (House Document 105-830, pp. 155-199).

 Supporting American veterans was another important attribute of Buyer's congressional career.  He chaired the House Veterans Affairs Committee during the 109th Congress and was involved in attempts to improve the woeful security of Dept. of Veterans affairs personnel records and was also instrumental in helping veterans who were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan get the medical and mental health treatment they needed as a result of the unprecedented injuries they experienced during their combat operations.

Buyer has received some criticism in recent months for a scholarship fund he has tried to establish but which has not issued any scholarship awards and has been targeted for investigation by a self-appointed leftist ideological group.  Anyone who is experienced with higher educational funding matters, however, knows that it takes a long time to achieve the financial capitalization necessary to endow and sustain a scholarship.  When Buyer announced his retirement yesterday, he mentioned that the serious illness of his wife was the reason for this decision.  Buyer represents a secure district and could have held this seat as long as he wanted to. 

I'm proud Steve Buyer has been my congressman these past few years.  He and his staff respond to constituent inquiries with professionalism and courtesy and without regard for their constituent's partisan persuasion. He sponsored several job fairs at various locales in this district which extends from Monticello to south of Bloomington and also conducted public meetings on health care legislation. In a time period where we have seen the ethical sins of politicians as ideologically diverse as Mark Sanford and John Edwards paraded before the public, it's refreshing to see a politician end his political career because he loves his wife and places her well being above his political aspirations and desire to oppose the Obama Administration and its ill-advised policies.  We need to resist the temptation of believing that all politicians are corrupt and that we should "throw the bums out."  As conservatives, we need to reject the folly of term limits as the esteemed Illinois conservative Republican Rep. Henry Hyde did, and promote an ethos of public service as being consistent with the highest intellectual and moral principles we as Conservatives must espouse and adhere to. We need more articulate and principled conservatives like Steve Buyer who defend unborn children, traditional marriage, fiscal responsibility, and a strong and assertive national defense against the unprincipled individuals and groups opposing these proven virtues.