The Commoner

Reflection on Our Command Change In Afghanistan - An Opinion

2010-06-24T07:30:00.000-07:00

By now most Americans are aware that the former commanding general in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been replaced by former Central Command head, Gen. David Petraeus, the officer who brought us success against a wily insurgency in Iraq.

The crux of McChrystal’s demise – that he and his staff were grossly insubordinate and disrespectful of the civilian chain of command – is entirely accurate. As much as we might disagree with President Obama and his advisers in terms of military policy, the United States is not a third-world country and can’t be allowed to mimic one. Civilian leadership of the military must be preserved, without question, at all times, regardless of who is commander-in-chief and how badly we may disagree with his point of view and policies. If you disagree, imagine for a moment that we had a commander-in-chief you did support, and this same general and his staffers made the same remarks.

Having said that, regardless of whether Gen. McChrystal had made his sentiments public or not, the fact is there are problems with our strategy. First, we are currently operating under a grossly unrealistic timeframe here in Afghanistan, and that much, at least, is the president’s responsibility. For it is he who, on the advice of his national security and policy team, set the now widely quoted deadline of June 2011 to begin pulling out U.S. forces – a deadline I criticized at the time as wrongheaded and unrealistic, and one that is being used by our friends and enemies alike in a manner detrimental to our overall war strategy and the safety of our troops and those of NATO.

It was wrongheaded for a number of key reasons, not the least of which, I worried, is that it would cause Afghan President Hamid Karzai angst and make him nervous and unreliable, since he knows better than anyone his own army and national police are nowhere near ready to assume the role of U.S. and NATO troops in providing peace and security to this war-torn nation.

As pointed out by columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, the deadline – and the lack of substantial progress in preparing Afghan forces to assume our role – has forced Karzai to begin “working in secret back channels to cut a deal with the Taliban.”

Worse, Buchanan reports – quoting British news sources – Pakistan’s intelligence service, long supporters of the Taliban, may actually be fully cooperating with them now, which means our pseudo-allies in Islamabad are cooperating with the very forces that are killing our soldiers.

Clearly the Afghan theater of “overseas contingency operations” – the Obama administration’s politically correct name for the former “Global War on Terror” – is out of control, rudderless, and is being run by incompetent, inexperienced, disinterested parties in Washington, D.C.

In short, the Afghan theater of operations is shaping up to be our next Vietnam, even though once upon a time we had the Taliban and al Qaeda down, out and on the run. We are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and Gen. McChrystal’s “misguided” commentary is merely a symptom of this disease process; clearly he was frustrated by both the pace of the war and, most likely, the manner in which he was asked to fight it. Sure, the current COIN (counter-insurgency) strategy was authored by him, but we don’t know the parameters he was given when the Obama national security team asked him to devise a new Afghan strategy.

Further, there are no clear military objectives here – and if there are, no one seems to know them – other than to “avoid civilian casualties.” In terms of genuine war strategy, I am betting you can’t find 10 privates in the entire country who know what our military objectives are, let alone senior non-commissioned officers or regular officers. None of us really know what we are supposed to be accomplishing, with the exception of immediate goals: perform our missions, try to stay alive and kill the enemy if we happen to see him and we’re allowed to shoot. That’s not strategy; that’s aimlessness, which leads to futility, which will eventually lead to what I call “defeat by attrition” – we lose the initiative and, while the enemy can’t beat us head-to-head, they merely do enough to keep us from regaining the initiative, and they win – simply because we didn’t.

By any stretch, the resilient Taliban is following that tact. And so far, we don’t have a legitimate answer.

During my months here, in our sector, I’ve seen combat action go from largely encountering IEDs and occasional IDF (indirect fire) to a rise in IED incidents combined with complex ambushes. And while we were “warned” when we arrived in country that the spring and summer months meant an increase in enemy activity, we’re not sure it was supposed to be this bad. For an American public that is expecting results, I’m not sure that, overall, their military has delivered enough of them, though we’ve certainly tried.

That’s not the fault of the soldiers and commanders here. We are doing our level best to accomplish our mission and, even still, the overall objective of “winning the war” by being successful in our own right. But that’s not enough. We need a cohesive strategy – one that involves every unit, in every theater of operation that puts us closer to the overall singular goal of “victory.”

I’ve often wondered if President George W. Bush would have pulled out all of our forces at the conclusion of the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in, say, late 2003, there would have been no doubt we could have realistically declared victory and no one would have argued with us. But now, nine years into this war, with a resurgent enemy and no clear objectives, we can no longer pull out and say that, at least with a straight face.

But the alternative – staying for many more years – isn’t, in my view, a feasible strategy either. We have obviously chosen not to dedicate the proper amount of resources and adopt the proper strategy to win here. And nation-building, which is what we seem to be more interested in now, is not a viable strategy either. We would have to remain here another 100 years for that kind of strategy to work, if it even would by then (remember, Afghanistan’s people are stuck in the 7th century) and I’m betting the American people aren’t going to buy off on that.

If there is some other reason why our leaders want to remain in Afghanistan – and there could be – then they need to tell us that reason. Not just soldiers, but the American people as well, who support us back home with their tax dollars, patience and prayers. Otherwise, we all might as well start coming home with Gen. McChrystal.

-30-

A Fine Mess

2010-06-22T06:26:00.002-07:00

When you have normally rational, highly educated thinking people begin to speculate about the demise of our great nation, average Americans ought to start paying attention because it means something is terribly wrong.

Just this week conservative writer and scholar Thomas Sowell warned that the Obama regime has so regularly violated the letter and spirit of the Constitution that the likelihood of future administrations following suit – and expanding such violations – is dangerously great. He wrote of the American equivalents of the “useful idiots” referenced by Vladimir Lenin in the heady days when he was implementing authoritarian communism in the former Soviet Union.

After already commandeering the banking and automobile industries – in the name easing crises – Sowell worried that the recent White House shakedown of BP, in pressuring a private company to pony up $20 billion that some administration aide can distribute as he or she sees fit, was just a prelude to further abuses of power in the years ahead. Not that BP shouldn’t be held liable, Sowell argued, but he points out – correctly – that the Constitution grants no power to the federal government to confiscate a private company’s resources “without due process of law.” BP’s liabilities should be decided by a court, as well as how damages will be paid out – not some White House hack with an agenda.

A few months ago commentator, writer and former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan openly hypothesized that, under current governmental abuses, America could not survive. And fellow scholar and economist Walter Williams posited that our differences had grown so sharp and the political chasm so wide that perhaps it was time for American to peacefully divorce – with the political right and left dividing simply agreeing to disagree and parting ways.

Whether you agree politically with these men or not, none of them are prone to excitable hyperbole. They are very obviously concerned about the direction our country is headed and, indeed, whether or not our republic will even survive.

Whether we are battling ourselves over the recent Gulf oil spill and whether or not we should continue to exploit our own resources versus depending on other volatile nations for our energy needs; over gays in the military; over what to do about illegal immigration; over who is most at fault for the recent financial meltdown; over the massive new healthcare entitlement; over the widening budget deficit; over what does and does not constitute marriage; over God in our schools and in public; over the right to keep and bear arms anywhere and everywhere; or over half-dozen other issues – it is painfully obvious that our nation hasn’t been this divided, this politically crippled, and this financially strapped perhaps in our history – the notable exception being the time of the Civil War.

Who is at fault is less important than what we are to do about our issues and problems. Can they really be solved? It’s doubtful at this point.

Some say the art of politics centers around the art of compromise but too many of us feel we have compromised too much already and, frankly, we are tired of compromising – because each time we do, we also compromise our principles, our Constitution and our republic.

Let’s look at just the last two presidents, since they have elicited the sharpest responses from both sides of the political fence.

Backers of George W. Bush would deny this, but Obama supporters believe he was the most constitutionally compromising president in U.S. history. Obama supporters would deny this, but Bush supporters believe Obama fits that bill. The fact is both of them have had their extra-constitutional moments, but when you look at motivation – if there needs to be any justification for ignoring constitutional mandates – clearly the pendulum swings against Obama and his socialistic thinking and policies.

For instance, Bush may have authorized widespread wiretapping and less-than-savory interrogation techniques of terrorist suspects in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, but a number of constitutional scholars have argued that as commander-in-chief and chief executive he had the power and right to do so during a time of war to protect the country from future threats. By any measure, Bush was successful in doing that.

Obama, by comparison, has overseen a government takeover of the automobile and financial industries; passage of the largest entitlement (healthcare) bill in U.S. history; the shakedown of a private industry; the appointment of dozens of unelected, unaccountable “czars” to oversee a variety of policy initiatives, outside of Congress’ – and the public’s – purview; and he is pushing new bills that will further erode private enterprise and industry in favor of more government control and oversight.

Obama’s vision is not that of a constitutional republic, clearly. So it’s with good reason that a number of our brightest thinkers increasingly view this administration as not only dangerous to the future of our freedom but the survival of the republic itself.

And yet it is possible Obama knows exactly what he is doing. For if the country remains in perpetual “crisis,” then he will portray himself as perpetually “doing what he must” in order to “maintain order” and “head off disaster,” even if – or especially if – it means trashing the Constitution.

Regardless of your political leanings, you can’t be supportive of any leader who wants to emulate the path Vladimir Lenin, Adolph Hitler and, more recently, Hugo Chavez, took to power.

If you are, you are one of the “useful idiots” contributing to the fine mess we currently find ourselves in.

But there is a way out and it starts with getting educated, getting involved, and getting to the polls this November. Peaceful resolution of this conflict is much better than the alternative. And there’s no time to waste.

-30-

2010-06-22T06:26:00.001-07:00

‘Two-Father’ Homes Aren’t Good for Children

2010-06-21T06:23:00.000-07:00

All societies evolve, but when we have “evolved” to the point where we can no longer recognize or accept reality – because of some arbitrary political and societal rules imposed upon us by an out-of-touch class of elitists – can our decline and fall be much further behind?

Over the weekend President Barack Obama, already identified in many circles as perhaps the most left-wing of all our presidents, recognized Father’s Day during his Saturday morning radio and Internet address. In doing so he praised equally all sorts of fatherhood – the traditional father-and-mother model; the single-father model; guardianship-style fatherhood; and, finally, “two-father” homes.

By praising “two father” homes on Father’s Day, Obama was, of course, voicing approval for, and agreement with, children being raised by homosexual partners – a position not supported by sound scientific research, as well as plain old common sense.

Obama’s galling comparison notwithstanding, some fathers in a mom-and-dad household are far from perfect – I should know because I was one of the less than perfect. And not all mother-and-father households are the picture of wholesome goodness. But overall, they are much better suited to raising balanced, well-adjusted kids than are “two father” or, for that matter, two-mother, homes.

And that doesn’t even take into account the sinful nature of homosexuality, which is another societal issue in and of itself. But the fact is the order of living things on this planet is prefaced on male-female procreation and interaction; male-male and female-female interaction is simply outside the norm of behavior, human and otherwise, because it isn’t conducive to survival of the species.

And since it’s not the norm, it only follows that those forcefully exposed to it – like children of two-daddy homes – are subjected to a range of mental and behavioral issues they otherwise wouldn’t have to, and shouldn’t have to, deal with. In fact, homosexual couples who subject children to their lifestyles because they think it’s their right to do so are being incredibly selfish; children exist in a social environment that is tough and unforgiving enough. Making them do so as children of homosexual parents, in a world where most kids have mommies and daddies, is cruel – not “enlightened” or “progressive.”

Yet here is our president not only recognizing the phenomenon of homosexual households with children but actually praising them, as if there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles. There is ideology and there is reality, and seldom the two meet. And truth is truth; it never changes, regardless of how much certain self-righteous factions wish it would.

Obama’s might be the politically correct position, as it were, but in the real world it is the wrong position. Worse, if we as a people can’t recognize this and other simple and obvious truths because we’re too afraid of what self-anointed people think of us, then we are on an unsustainable path as a society.

If consenting adults want to choose homosexuality as a lifestyle, fine – but let’s leave the kids out of the equation.

30-

Death Knell for the Constitution

2010-03-26T03:30:00.000-07:00

As brilliant and divinely inspired as our founding fathers were, they made a serious mistake in judgment.

For they believed that future generations of Americans would not only share their same desire and vigor for individual freedom and liberty, but their deference to statesmanship over politics and, above all, dedication to the principles of limited government they laid out in the Constitution.

The passage of so-called “health care reform” last week by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by President Obama should, once and for all, put to rest the fantasy that our elected officials – descendants of our revolutionary representatives – live and breathe by those same founding principles.

The irony of all this is that the most divisive piece of legislation in a generation – and the one that has contributed more to the demise of our future freedoms and liberty – was signed into law by a president who used to teach the Constitution to college students.

Is the situation really so dire?

When you consider that the U.S. health care system amounts to one-sixth of our entire annual economy; that health care touches 100 percent of our population; and that the recently passed health care reform law mandates coverage at risk of penalty and/or jail, the answer is resoundingly in the affirmative.

In terms of advancing the scope of the federal government – a principle so anathema to our founders that they dedicated an entire section of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) to enumerating the federal government’s very few and very specific powers – the takeover of our health care system amounts to a coup de grace for statists and big government supporters.

From now on, unless states can successfully challenge the law at the Supreme Court level, or unless Republican promises of repeal become reality, Washington’s sycophants, miscreants and derelicts will have cradle-to-grave control over your life in some form or fashion.

It’s not a pretty picture. But more than that, it’s not the vision our founders fought, bled and died to create.

When asked by a reporter a few months ago about the constitutionality of the Democrats’ health care takeover, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California chided the questioner with temerity and derision, positing simply in response, “Are you serious?”

Thus is the level of contempt modern-day legislators, who brand themselves enlightened “progressives,” display for the very document which allowed them the individual freedom to seek office in the first place, and to which each of them pledged allegiance and obedience upon taking their seat as representatives of the people.

And yet, the very same post-modern lawmakers who, on the one hand, hold such scorn for the Constitution when it blocks advancement of their ideology, will use its supposedly intractable provisions when it is advantageous to them. Can you imagine, for instance, Pelosi – as third in line of succession to the White House, should tragedy befall both Obama and Vice President Biden simultaneously – hesitating to take her place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Or any liberal decrying the First Amendment’s free-speech provisions as loudly as they do the Second Amendment’s guaranteed personal ownership of a firearm?

Of course it is impossible for our founders to physically witness today the America they created two-and-a-half centuries ago. But if it were possible, it’s more likely they would never recognize it – and just as likely they would consider the bulk of today’s legislators in Washington the same enemies of liberty as was King George and his Court.

There is no way the founding fathers could have improved on the Constitution in a way that would have prevented the passage of a blatantly unconstitutional law like we just saw in the health care reform bill. The Constitution is already clear about what powers Washington does – and does not – possess.

What our form of government requires to function properly, therefore, is a group of individuals who value and aspire to preserve our founding principles; statesmen who zealously guard the integrity of the Constitution’s limited federal role; men and women who forego the ugly pettiness, convenience and personal gain of politics in lieu of protecting and preserving what was, when it was first implemented, the most radically liberating and empowering form of government ever devised.

Obama is touting health care reform as a victory for the American people, while mocking those who rightfully deride his and his party’s new law as an insult to our forebears and a rejection of all they stood for.

With any luck, maybe the judicial branch of government still has enough founding principle left to put the kibosh on this blatant power grab. Short of that, there is no recourse left for the American people, save following the example of our founders.

-30-

Time to be Honest about Race

2010-03-05T02:38:00.000-08:00

If you thought the election of Barack Obama as the nation’s first black president would end the accusations from some quarters that America is still an inherently racist nation, you were mistaken.

Such predictions were as wrong as they were when, way back in 1870 and with the haunting memories of the Civil War still fresh in Americans’ minds, Joseph Rainey of South Carolina became the first black elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives; when, a century later, Thurgood Marshall became the first black U.S. Supreme Court Justice; and when, in 1990, Sharon Pratt Dixon became the first black woman sworn in as mayor of Washington, D.C.

Of course blacks – and other Americans of a non-white ethnicity – have made innumerous advances over the years, equaling or surpassing whites in virtually every sector of society, as the country moved towards a colorblindness that has become so seamless that, for the vast majority of us, the issue never even enters into our consciousness.

Until it is purposely put there by race hustlers who, without the divisiveness of the issue, would cease to be relevant - even to the point of losing their ability to make a living (could you imagine Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton working construction or doing the Walmart greeter thing?).

This week it was longtime black activist Tavis Smiley’s turn to stir the racial pot. The PBS host announced he was organizing a “gathering of African-American advocates,” The Associated Press reported, to “press the case” for what he labeled the “black agenda.”

Smiley, who has a reputation for decrying perpetual injustice against black Americans, says he was “compelled” to call for the gathering because of “recent statements from some black leaders (who are) downplaying the need for President Barack Obama to specifically help African-Americans,” AP said.

Smiley’s is a crusade in search of a battle. Despite his grousing and that of a handful of like-minded hustlers – the afforementioned “reverends” Sharpton, Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan come immediately to mind – the issue of race in America was largely solved, settled and dismissed decades ago.

While it is true that as long as there are human beings walking the earth there will be racism, ethnic tensions and jealousies, the kind of “institutional racism” Smiley and Co. regularly rail against simply does not exist in the United States anymore.

That Obama would be criticized by these hustlers for being too “race neutral” is remarkable in and of itself, especially in these times when the nation has moved on to more pressing – and more real – problems. Consider that, were George W. Bush or even Bill Clinton, the self-proclaimed “first black president,” criticized by so-called “white activists” for not pursuing a “white agenda,” the radical left – the media, entertainment and political elite that backs the Tavis Smileys of the country – would have collectively had a stroke caused by their unquenchable tide of outrage.

But given a pass to level ridiculous charges, they are free to wag a finger at Obama, himself born of a white mother, for doing too little to advance a cause that has long since ceased to be a “cause” needing advancement. They think of him as a traitor to their race, when in reality he represents exactly what makes America, in Ronald Reagan’s words, “the shining city on a hill.”

Obama’s policies aside, the fact that he is sitting in the White House as leader of the free world represents the crowning triumph over race issues in a country that killed more than 600,000 of its own citizens over the practice of enslaving those of another race. If only some of the African nations – where so many of our “African” American leaders claim kinship but have never lived or visited there – were as racially tolerant.

I would suggest that a more worthy “cause” Smiley, et al, should pursue is one that sees racial preferences now written into law repealed, in order to end the reverse discrimination they foster, thereby allowing blacks and other minorities to compete based on their own merits rather than seek advancement based on no more than the color of their skin.

Would that be hoping for too much?

Perhaps. Smiley and those like him would first have to be convinced that blacks and other minorities are more than capable of campaigning successfully in today’s America and don’t need special considerations to get ahead.

Why blacks aren’t outraged at people like Smiley who, by their insistence on special treatment, overtly intimate that men and women of color aren’t smart enough, or talented enough, or brave enough, or proficient enough to make their way without help is something of a mystery to me and, I suspect, most of America.

Most Americans have moved past the “race issue.” But until the perfumed elite in this country begin to apply the same kind of stringent standards of behavior and provability to black and other minority race hustlers as they do whites, we’ll continue to have a small army of race “activists” searching for relevance.

-30-

The System's Not 'Broken'

2010-02-20T00:35:00.000-08:00

Vice President Joe Biden declared in an interview with CBS’ “Early Show” this week, “Washington, right now, is broken.”

Biden was referring specifically to the state of Congress, claiming, “I don’t recall a time in my career where to get anything done, you needed a supermajority, 60 out of 100 senators.

“I’ve never seen it this dysfunctional,” he lamented, not bothering to mention he himself spent more than three decades in the Senate, a span of time in which, without question, had its share of “dysfunctional” periods.

The vice president’s whining was eerily similar to that of an ideological soul mate, U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, who – in announcing his decision not to seek reelection this year – also diagnosed Congress as “broken.”

“There’s just too much brain-dead partisanship, tactical maneuvering for short-term political advantage rather than focusing on the greater good,” Bayh complained.

Well. A year ago, when Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress and the presidency, the sky was the limit. There was nothing that stood in the way of “progressive” ideals that, for far too long, had simmered on the back burner.

It was time to move America into the 21st century. The people had spoken. The mandate was clear.

Or was it?

Now, just 12 months later, two Democrats – one a sitting vice president – have pronounced our system “broken” and “dysfunctional,” even though their party – while less powerful that it was – still soundly controls two of three branches of government.

What happened? Why would Biden pronounce dead a system he and his boss, Barak Obama, thought worked perfectly not long ago? Why would a sitting U.S. senator with a large lead in the polls decide to opt out of running for reelection? Why do they now believe, suddenly, that the system is broken?

Could it be that what’s really occurring is wholesale rejection of the Obama agenda these and other like-minded Democrats once believed was a slam-dunk? The takeover of health care; a jobs-killing cap-and-trade “environmental” bill based on shoddy and, quite probably, incorrect “scientific” data; legislation that punishes job-creating corporations at a time when unemployment is at near-term record highs; government control over banks and car companies; a foreign policy perceived as weak and apologetic – on all of these issues, Americans have begun to push back, and push back hard.

First, they have done so by electing Republicans to offices and seats long held by these same Democrats. Second, they have begun to organize like never before and voice dissent that has manifested itself in angry town hall meetings over health care last fall, and tea party protests all over the country.

In essence, the American people are rejecting the Big Government agenda long envisioned by the Obama “progressives,” and re-embracing the American principles of hard work, freedom, liberty, fair play and – did I mention freedom?

For that these Americans are being pilloried by the elitist mainstream media and many in the Obama administration as angry crackpots who don’t have a clue and who couldn’t find one with several obvious hints.

Fact is, these Americans know precisely what is going on – they see it daily out of this administration and its ample allies on Capitol Hill – and they don’t like it.

Obama’s poll numbers, as well as those for Congress in general, reflect the mood: downward trends for both, and in terms of Congressional approval, you might even get more support for Joe Stalin or Pol Pot than for that august body these days.

So it rings a bit hollow to hear the likes of Biden and Bayh complain about our “broken” legislative branch. It sounds an awful lot like it is working perfectly: the people are demanding representation on the issues at hand, and judging by the failure of so many left-wing, anti-constitutional measures put forth by the Obama-ites, they are being heard.

More likely these two are complaining about the inability to pass their agenda, which they still advocate for, even though solid majorities of Americans from both parties don’t agree with them.

That’s not a broken system. It’s sour grapes.

-30-

When in Doubt, Posture

2010-02-11T05:18:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama – Barry to his closest friends – and fellow Democrats, who are 0-3 in the last three important elections around the country, including losing their filibuster-proof Senate majority with the election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts, have had a bit of an epiphany recently.

Suddenly they seem more eager to “cooperate in the spirit of bipartisanship” with Republicans on Obama’s signature domestic issue, health care.

At least, that’s what they are saying, but be careful about jumping too quickly onto that band wagon.

Granted, what a difference a few election losses can make. Earlier this winter Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), were boasting about how they were prepared to ram controversial health care bills through Congress “with or without Republican help” because they had the majorities to do so. The message: Republican ideas not needed or wanted; we’ll handle this ourselves.

But then something happened. Americans spoke, and in regions of the country that have marched traditionally in lockstep for the Party of Bigger Government, Democrats were sent a message by some of their own voters who said, in essence, we’re not with you on this one.

Humbled (and angered) by the sudden loss of favor among once reliable electorates, party leaders have now resorted to fabrication in order to make it seem like they got the message. Last Sunday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada even had the audacity not to hope but instead to tell reporters that Democrats “have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one.”

This was news to anyone with an IQ above 10 and who also owned a television or had access to the Internet over the past six months.

Reid is a lot of things but bipartisan isn’t one of them. Still, his monumental stretching of the truth is typical mojo for Democrats: When backed into a corner and when it doubt, posture. Tell a whopper. Make something up. The mainstream media will repeat it like lemmings and hopefully, ordinary Americans won’t be any wiser.

Only, ordinary Americans these days are much, much wiser, not only to the tactic but to Democratic priorities in general, one of which is a takeover of the nation’s health care industry, not high on the list of things Middle America wants its leaders in Washington to deal with.

Nevertheless, now comes Obama with his “offer” to reconcile competing health care reform measures with Republicans, in what is no doubt a calculated effort by the president to showcase not his intention to work with the GOP but rather to portray conservatives as obstructionist and out-of-touch with voters.

Already Obama has said he is not interested in “starting over” on a new bill and trashing a nearly 2,800-page health care measure backed by liberals, progressives and “Independents” who crave more power in Washington. Republican leaders have said unless the president is truly willing to do that, there is no sense presenting their ideas – again – only to have them ignored – again.

So what’s the point? Because the president believes just calling for this “bipartisan health care summit” is enough. He thinks good posturing – trying to “look presidential” and “even-handed” – will be enough for him to score political points.

The fact is if Obama was truly interested in vetting the best health care proposals and getting them inserted into a measure both parties would support, he would have enlisted Republican help long ago, well before being forced to do so politically, and real health care reform – if indeed it is even needed – would be law already.

Instead, Obama and Co. are proposing this phony “summit,” yet have set the tone by complaining that there hasn’t been enough “bipartisanship” already, automatically putting the onus on the GOP to produce some “workable solutions.”

For the record, Republicans have made proposals, contained in three separate bills since last summer. The other side, however, wasn’t interested.

The gridlock over health care reform occurred because Democrats who once held veto-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress didn’t think they needed Republican cooperation or support. What’s more, they didn’t want it.

And let’s never forget that Obama and the Democratic leadership are statists at heart. Their first love is government, which is why their initial “solution” to “fixing” the “health care crisis” was (and remains) to let Washington set the tone, make the rules and run the ship.

Recalling expensive, government-run, politicized health care disasters of the past, America said, “No, thanks.”

Which brings us now to Obama’s “offer” to reach a workable solution – which means, of course, workable only to him and the Democrats.

So let the posturing begin. And may the best ideas lose.

-30-

Uncle Sam's Sex Problem

2010-02-03T01:45:00.000-08:00

Most Americans don’t receive the Armed Forces Network, the Department of Defense-staffed and supported television and radio organization responsible for bringing commercial news and broadcasts to military personnel worldwide.

But any consumer of the network – which features civilian programming from the U.S. interspersed with military public service messages – will tell you that, several times per day, there is one urging servicemembers to refrain from committing sexual assault.

The spokesmen are usually the top officers of major commands and they all say the same thing: Don’t do it, and if you do, you face severe penalties, up to and including jail time.

The frequency of such broadcast messages, coupled with the military’s widespread dissemination of printed materials on the subject, along with the Pentagon’s requirement that everyone wearing a uniform attend mandatory annual anti-sexual harassment training, should tell you a couple of things: one, that the military is serious about stamping out the problem; and two, that the problem is widespread enough to warrant so much attention in the first place.

Yet now the president and fellow Democrats want to make it worse by introducing open homosexuality into the ranks.

Forget the fact that politics, and not reasonable, sound military judgment is in play here. Open sexuality of any orientation – heterosexual, homosexual, or a combination thereof – is not just a bad idea, it is one the Pentagon has struggled with for years, despite spending billions of dollars in training and other preventative measures.

Adding a new dimension to the problem is only bound to make it worse, which will in turn reduce military readiness, destroy unit cohesion and unquestionably weaken the good order and discipline civilians can’t understand or abide by but which is critically important to the proper function of the military.

Supporters of the president’s position will simplistically deride any criticism as “hateful fear-mongering intolerance,” but such hypocritical characterizations are as incorrect as they are reactionary.

The fact that the Pentagon has placed so much emphasis on the problem of sexual assault is an obvious indicator of its seriousness and scope. Further, anyone who seriously believes adding openly homosexual behavior into the mix won’t worsen the problem is either delusional or refusing to admit the obvious truth for ideological reasons.

At present the military – correctly – discourages and, under most circumstances patently bans, open heterosexual behavior and contact among troops for the same reasons I mentioned, most notably because it is anathema to good order and discipline. How can open homosexual behavior and contact among like-minded troops be treated or expected to turn out any differently?

The issue of sexuality is unquestionably the military’s biggest social problem, bar none. When you get (mostly) young men and women, in their prime, in such proximity, under stressful conditions, doing jobs that, frankly, require a high degree of aggressiveness, by default you are creating an environment that is conducive to rampant sexual tension. To say that homosexuals in the same situations wouldn’t react the same way is to suggest that gay men and lesbian women are Vulcan-like in their self-control and don’t share the same human sexual desires as heterosexuals, which is absurd on its face.

That’s not to say every male and female soldier is guilty of sexual promiscuity anymore than it is correct to say the same of men and women in the civilian world. But, as the Pentagon’s anti-sexual assault blitz proves, obviously the military has an issue with overt sexuality.

Adding to this already daunting problem may be politically palatable to certain ideologues who – unlike the Pentagon they seek to override – won’t have to deal with the after-effects of their decision. But without a doubt reversing the military’s current ban on open homosexuality will worsen, not improve, its overall readiness.

The current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy may not allow open homosexuality, but it does allow homosexuals to serve. What opponents of the policy refuse to acknowledge is that upon entering the service recruiters don’t ask if you’re straight either.

The bottom line is the military already officially doesn’t care about orientation. Pentagon leaders, however, just aren’t keen to compound what has proved to be a tenacious problem within their ranks – especially in the middle of two wars.

-30-

Real Devastation

2010-01-27T06:11:00.000-08:00

Most everyone with a pulse knows that politicians are prone to hyperbole, especially in today’s political environment, where sound bites count as policy statements and most mainstream reporters sop them up as gospel without so much as a second glance.

But just every so often a politician utters something so ridiculous and hypocritical that it makes even the most seasoned cynic recoil.

This week’s winner is none other than President Barack Obama.

Last week he you may recall he waxed indignant after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 partisan ruling, overturned a century-old law which placed limits on what corporations and labor unions can spend on the endorsement of political candidates. The court ruled that the financial limits amounted to limits on the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

He railed against the ruling on its face, saying he couldn't "think of anything more devastating to the public interest."

“This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy,” he further complained during his weekly Saturday radio address, adding: “The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

Forget for a moment that Obama, last August, managed to win the “support” – read, paid political advocacy – of the special interests of Big Pharmacy, the AARP, the American Medical Association and the large Services Employees International Union, all of which ponied up a combined $150 million to produce ads supporting his health care plan – a plan the majority of Americans now oppose.

Obama went on to say he has instructed his administration to work with Congress to "fight for the American people" and develop a "forceful bipartisan response" to the high court’s decision. "It will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.”

Let’s talk about Supreme Court-induced “damage” for a moment.

If the president wanted a serious dialogue on the subject of “damage” done to our society by a Supreme Court decision, he needn’t look any further than the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Since the high court, in its wisdom, issued that ruling – overturning abortion bans in all 50 states at the time – some 50 million children have lost the opportunity to have a full, productive life, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics.

Fifty million, Mr. President. I’d say the untimely deaths of so many American children has caused incalculable damage to our society. Then again, as a state senator in Illinois, the would-be president also voted against even partial birth abortion legislation.

So maybe his idea of what is and is not truly "damaging" to our society shouldn't surprise us. Still, let's consider the implications of what abortion has cost us in real, human terms so far.

We don't know, for example, if we’ve already killed the person who could have solved our long-term energy needs.

We don’t know if we’ve killed the person who would have invented an AIDS cure.

We don’t know if we’ve killed the person who could have cured cancer or diabetes.

We don’t know if we’ve killed the person who would have had the leadership qualities to end conflict as we know it.

We don’t know if we’ve already killed the person who could have finally healed the divisive race issues in our country.

We don’t know. And we’ll never know. But the odds are that we have likely killed a number of individuals who could have made substantial positive contributions to our society and to our world.

Talk about a Supreme Court decision that caused real “damage” to our country.

It’s too bad our president doesn’t see it that way. But then, what does he have to worry about?

His mother chose life.

And he became the first black president in the history of our country.

Imagine if she hadn’t.

-30-

Wanted in Washington: Leadership

2010-01-24T02:42:00.001-08:00

What is Washingtonspeak for "putting off a problem"?

Appointing a task force.

The Obama administration has just played this well-worn political hand, allegedly to "solve our long term fiscal challenge" and get the spiraling budget deficit under some semblance of control.

The American people can be forgiven if they are not doing cartwheels and declaring an end to budget deficits in our time, for they have seen this show before.

They know, for instance, that no "panel" or "task force" is needed to understand one of the most basic of accounting principles - that in order to maintain financial solvency, you can't spend more than you take in.

They also suspect, correctly, that the strategy for fixing the nation's budget crisis is as simple as it is impossible.

Simple, because only a combination of equally shared taxes and dramatic spending cuts are going to be necessary in order to bring the budget back under control.

Impossible, because they also understand that the largest slices of the federal budget consist of "fourth rail" entitlements that amount to political suicide for any politician who dares suggest curtailing program benefits or, egads, replacing the government entitlement with a free-market solution.

The people are convinced that their congressional representives are addicted to power instead of focused on genuine problem-solving, so they don't expect any serious effort to be made to curb the out-of-control growth of the federal budget, the president's new "task force" proposal notwithstanding.

Worse, Americans see an administration and congressional majority that, in the midst of our second-worst financial crisis ever, wants to spend even more debt-ridden money by creating a huge new healthcare entitlement bureaucracy, in spite of majority opposition among the people.

They view the president's "new commitment" to "fiscal responsibility" as nothing more than a stereotypical political delaying tactic meant only to carry his party through the next election cycle without shedding too much of its own blood.

And they see nothing in Congress' behavior over the past generation to convince them otherwise.

Americans believe they are about to be treated to another round of political theater, which would play out something like this: Sometime next year after the fall elections, this task force will indeed produce a set of "recommendations" to reduce the federal budget, but none of them - or, at least, none that make the most sense or would produce tangible, positive results - will be enacted. Rather, the entire process will degenerate into political finger-pointing, with one party blaming the other as being"obstructionist," while the other blames the former for being "too partisan."

And in the end, of course, the federal budget and the taxpayers will be the biggest losers.

If the rampant rise of Tea Parties and the defeat of President Obama's agenda in the gubernatorial races of New Jersey and Virginia - both states he won in November 2008 - don't prove that the American public generally seems less and less tolerant of political posturing and political posers these days, maybe the historic election of Republican Scott Brown in all-blue-state Massachusetts - the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat, no less - does.

Others who sell themselves more as problem-solvers than political hacks are liable to do as well in the months and years ahead, regardless of - or even in spite of - political party and affiliation.

The days of party line obstructionism are gone. The American public no longer has the stomach for it. They want results. They want a return on their political investment. They want responsiveness from their elected leaders. They want accountability. And they want it now. For they know our problems have become too daunting to ignore and too pressing to be subjected to the circular, self-serving nonsense that now passes for political process in the nation's capital.

They know we need leaders to step up and guide us towards the future - one that is less certain today than just 1o years ago.

The current financial crisis, our mounting debt, the ongoing global threat posed by terrorism and the politics of stalemate in Washington have all combined to make political parties in this day and age if not obsolete then at least unimportant.

Americans can sense danger and they know we are in dire need of leaders who are constitutionally astute, singularly focused and who have the vision, wisdom and passion to care more about solving problems than carrying water for their party.

They see the dripping irony that is Washington, D.C., a city built to house our leaders that is itself so devoid of leadership. And they wonder: Have we no true statesmen left?

-30-

Introduction

2010-01-24T02:01:00.000-08:00

Hello, and welcome to my blog. The name I have chosen, "The Commoner," is a continuation of a column theme I developed while working for WorldNetDaily.com some years ago. As an American of Irish descent, I figured you can't get much more common than that.

The cornerstone of this column is that it takes a look at politics and the day's most pressing issues from, I hope, the perspective of the everyday man and woman who is an occasional politico and who is basically most interested Thomas Paine's philosophy about government: He who governs least governs best, which means the least amount of interference and intrusion from state and federal governments into our lives, the better.

Thanks for visiting. I hope you enjoy the ride. And if you ever want to give me feedback, feel free: doughertyj@embarqmail.com. I may even post your email so send it with that in mind.

Jon E. Dougherty