Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » American Politics

Crossroads GPS: Shovel Ready

Tom Skypek — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:35:01 +0000

It’s a bold move–laughing about a $1 trillion spending policy that didn’t work while the national debt exceeds $14 trillion and 14 million Americans are unemployed.

Atlas Shrugged Movie Trailer

Tom Skypek — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:44:36 +0000

Help promote conservative film. Spread the word about Atlas Shrugged. Check out the trailer here.

Libya Highlights Obama’s Foreign Policy Confusion

Tom Skypek — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:39:18 +0000

There are few things more important to a statesman than credibility and consistency when it comes to administering a nation’s foreign policy. The Obama administration’s response to recent events in Egypt and Libya underscore its foreign policy confusion. The White House has a peculiar habit of treating allied governments and adversarial governments as equals. This stems from President Barack Obama’s professed belief that all nations are indeed equal in Washington’s eyes. Of course, the reality of international politics is quite the opposite. More than two-thousand years of human history support this fact. Some states, whose national interests overlap and intersect, join together as allies. States whose national interests collide tend to have more adversarial relationships.

Understanding the role alliance systems play in international politics is a basic requirement for any successful statesmen. Judging by the administration’s impartial treatment of other nations (both allies and adversaries), it appears as though this important fact is lost on the president and his senior advisors. Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War communicates not only the centrality of military power in the conduct of international politics but the critical role of alliance systems. While its primary actors were the city-states of Athens and Sparta, the story of the Peloponnesian War is a tale of alliance systems. In the end, it was the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League that defeated the Athenian-led Delian League.

Now consider President Obama’s treatment of Egypt (a U.S. ally) and Libya (a U.S. adversary). The Obama administration was more than eager to push former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power. The president held two major press conferences and issued numerous statements through White House channels urging, albeit in sometimes veiled language, for Mubarak to step aside. Mubarak, a benign dictator and strong U.S. ally, received no support from the White House during the crisis, whose message was based more on platitudes than substantive and thoughtful policy. Now a military dictatorship has supplanted Mubarak and it appears that elections may follow at a later date. The risk, of course, is that an Islamist government assumes power democratically and then proceeds to turn Egypt into a one-party state.

Now take Libya and its flamboyant and repressive leader, Muammar Gaddafi, who has masterminded and been linked to numerous terrorist attacks over the last four decades, many of which have led directly to American deaths. Some of Gaddafi’s terrorist bona fides include: the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, the 1986 bombing of the German discotheque, and Pan Am Flight 103. During the recent protests, Gaddafi has used tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft to attack civilian protesters (one report puts the death toll at 560); Mubarak did no such thing in attempting to maintain civil order during the protests in Egypt.

One would reasonably assume that Gaddafi’s regime should be on the receiving end of much more critical rhetoric from the White House. However, it was Egypt—a U.S. ally—which received more pointed criticism from the White House, along with the de facto request that Mubarak step aside so that another dictatorship could assume the reins of power. Gaddafi—a longtime adversary with American blood on his hands—has received virtually the same treatment afforded Mubarak. What type of message does this send to U.S. allies? Certainly not a message of consistency, credibility, or reassurance.

During the 2009-2010 popular uprisings in Iran following the Iranian presidential election, the White House was mostly reticent as the regime violently suppressed the protests. Again, President Obama’s reticence is difficult to understand; the protesters were standing in opposition to the brutally repressive and staunchly anti-U.S. regime in Tehran. Washington should have been more vocal in its support of the protesters. The Obama administration’s inconsistency in dealing with Egypt and Libya highlights its poor understanding of the role alliances play in international politics. The president and his senior advisors need to re-read Thucydides.

It’s the Oil, Stupid – Part II

Tom Skypek — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:53:30 +0000

Oil prices jumped 8.5% today as the popular uprisings in Libya continued. This is exactly what I was talking about last week in my post, “It’s the Oil, Stupid.” Instability creates uncertainty and uncertainty drives up oil prices. Because we’re slaves to Middle Eastern crude oil, Washington has to cow-tow to two-bit dictators and the price-fixing cartel OPEC. This is a choice, though. When we get serious about energy independence we can fundamentally change this dynamic. Unfortunately, as I noted last week, “The Obama administration has declared war on the coal industry through its proposed cap-and-trade legislation (and likely forthcoming EPA regulations); the licensing process for building new nuclear power plants has not been accelerated and the administration refuses to grant additional offshore drilling permits.”

Eric Cantor Continues to Draw Ire of Conservatives

Tom Skypek — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:21:39 +0000

Great piece from Erick Erickson at Red State aptly titled, “Eric Cantor’s Failure of Leadership.”

Huckabee Declines to Take Shot At Daniels

Tom Skypek — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:01:57 +0000

Via Tim Alberta at the National Journal:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) doesn’t like the idea of Republicans calling a “truce” on social issues to focus on fixing the economy — but that doesn’t mean he’s eager to take on the man pushing that message, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R).

“I’m a fan of Mitch Daniels,” Huckabee said on a conference call with reporters Monday, adding that Daniels has “an extraordinary skill set not only to be governor but to be president.”

Huckabee was speaking with reporters one day before the release of his book, “A Simple Government,” in which he writes: “I’ve been criticized many times for talking so much about ‘social issues’ when the real issue now, according to some people, is the economy. Well, buckle up, Turbo, because here’s a simple, inarguable fact: Every broken, fatherless family has a tremendous economic impact.”

Huckabee made it clear that while he admires Daniels and could even see himself supporting the Hoosier for president, Republicans “don’t need to be talking about a truce.”

“I believe conservatives can walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Huckabee, who stressed that one of the underlying themes of his book is that “there’s no way to disconnect social issues from the economic,” because there are “direct consequences from social breakdowns.”

Last year, Huckabee was critical of Daniels’ proposed truce on social issues, and his book shows that he won’t be shy about continuing to express his disapproval of the idea.

Huckabee’s book, which runs 210 pages, carries the subtitle: “Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don’t!)”

A lesser man would have taken this opportunity to slam Daniels over his “truce” comments. Say what you will about Mike Huckabee but he’s a stand-up guy.

Does Eric Cantor Want a Third Party?

Tom Skypek — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:57:46 +0000

The Republican Party doesn’t want the Tea Party movement to spin off and form its own political party. At the presidential level, this would be a disaster, at least in the near-term. However, this is becoming an increasingly greater possibility as elected Republicans in the 112th Congress shrink from their responsibilities, as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently did when he, along with 91 other Republicans, voted against the Jordan amendment to cut $100 billion in federal spending.

$100 billion is a drop in the bucket. We have no money. I thought the message of the November 2010 elections was crystal clear: cut federal spending. This message seems lost on many in GOP leadership positions. What we expect are deep cuts and bold proposals. Rand Paul has been leading the charge by suggesting across-the-board cuts. This is what Tea Partiers expect. You can’t cut enough from the budget.

This was an important vote and will not be forgotten by the Tea Partiers who made calls, stood in the blistering cold and scorching heat at so many rallies in 2009 and 2010, and gave their time to help candidates during last the last election cycle.

Cantor and 91 Other House Republicans Cower from Spending Cuts

Tom Skypek — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:40:30 +0000

As Adam Bitely from NetRightDaily.com reported, 92 House Republicans voted against Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan’s amendment to the Continuing Resolution which would have cut nearly $100 billion in spending. Among those voting against the spending cuts were House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy. The real conservatives in Republican leadership positions, Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Republican Caucus Chairman Jeb Hensarling, voted in favor of the amendment.

Either you’re serious about cutting spending or you’re not. Despite his tough talk, Cantor let down the voters of Virginia. We have no money. We’re broke. This isn’t the first time that Cantor has failed voters. In 2009, Cantor and 84 other Republicans voted to support the unconstitutional AIG bonus tax. These firms shouldn’t have been bailed out in the first place but passing a law taxing individuals only added insult to injury.

Has the Republican leadership forgotten about the elections of November 2010? The Tea Party movement should be angry. Republicans who talk tough about spending cuts and then fail to deliver on critical votes are no better than their liberal-progressive counterparts. This was an important vote. Even if the measure had passed, $100 billion doesn’t even big to scratch the surface. If the Republicans are going to accomplish any of their objectives they need strong conservatives in leadership positions. Cantor should step aside.

The Tea Party Movement Must Stand with Governor Walker

Tom Skypek — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 01:01:00 +0000

Like the federal government and much of the rest of the country, Wisconsin is broke. As such, Governor Scott Walker has courageously asked public employees to make a 5.8% contribution to their pensions, which is roughly equal to the national average. He’s also asked them to pay 12.6% of their health insurance costs, which is about half the national average. These are hardly unreasonable requests considering that most Americans are paying much more out of their own pockets. At a time when most Americans are tightening their family budgets these unions expect a free ride when it comes to health care and retirement savings. Governor Walker stands in stark contrast to Barack Obama who has passed up every opportunity to cut the deficit and reduce our debt. Then he has the audacity to call Walker’s proposal an “assault” on unions. Talk about playing fast and loose with the facts.

Our socialist friends and the mainstream media want us to believe that the protests in Wisconsin are organic, grassroots demonstrations. Out comes the class warfare card. The reality is that this is an astroturf operation if there ever was one. Obama’s campaign organization–Organizing for America–and the Democratic National Committee–are funding and busing in union members throughout the country. This is classic campaign politics. Obama wants to win re-election and he can’t do that without the union vote.

This is where the Tea Party movement needs to step in and help out the govenor. The movement can’t fade away now that November 2010 has come and gone. This is another fight that needs to be won.

Book Giveaway and Review: “The Dollar Meltdown” by Charles Goyette

Tom Skypek — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:51:56 +0000

The Dollar Meltdown: Surviving the Impending Currency Crisis with Gold, Oil, and Other Unconventional Investments

by Charles Goyette

Penguin (October 26, 2010)

272 pages.

List Price: $17.00 Amazon Price: $11.56

Charles Goyette has made an important contribution to the conservative and investment literature by distilling complicated economic and financial matters into an easily digestible volume. This is a must-read for conservatives and personal investors in search of a better understanding of a host of economic and financial topics including: the federal bailouts, the national debt, monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, inflation, and the role of gold in currency valuation throughout history.

The author’s thesis is simple: America’s massive national debt, coupled with reckless intrusions by government regulators, have put this country on a crash course toward high inflation and dollar devaluation. Goyette divides the book into four sections: Where We Are, How We Got Here, What Happens Next, and What to Do.

The author provides common sense strategies for personal investors looking to shield their assets from the dollar devaluation. Goyette provides the reader with a blueprint for building a diversified investment portfolio with holdings in tangible commodities including gold, silver, and oil. He even provides information on specific investment vehicles such as the SPDR Gold Shares exchange-traded fund to help you jump-start your investment research. One of the best features of the book is that it has an appendix full of investment resources. Of course, before you invest in anything you should always do your own research and never, ever buy on speculation.

This book also highlights the damage that has been done to our economy by incompetent public officials (Republicans and Democrats) in Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the Executive Branch. Timothy Geithner stands out, though:

Timothy Geithner, soon to be named President Obama’s new treasury secretary, was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time. He had solemnly explained the prior April that but for the Fed’s bailout, the failure of Bear Stearns would have led to falling stock prices and downward pressure on real estate prices. Such a failure, said Geithner, would have led to “a greater probability of widespread insolvencies, severe and protracted damage to the financial system and, ultimately, to the economy as a whole.” This, of course, is precisely what happened after the bailout. (pg. 14)

Government bailouts and Keynesian economic policies do not work. Yet we have public officials like Geithner who continue to occupy positions of power despite incredibly poor past performance. Geithner was dead wrong on the Bear Stearns bailout. The company failed and was sold in a fire sale to JP Morgan Chase. So why would Geithner think that an even bigger bailout, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), would work months later?

Empirical evidence should have told him that bailouts were ineffectual. Government has an innate compulsion to “try to do something.” Instead, they should let the market correct itself. This means that companies who made poor business decisions should reap the consequences. The government’s meddling in the markets has created an environment of socialized risk and privatized gain.

How to win a free copy of The Dollar Meltdown by Charles Goyette:

Penguin was kind enough to give me three copies of the book to give away to readers of Hope is Not a Foreign Policy. The rules are simple. For each action you take (see list below), leave a comment indicating what you’ve done. Leave a new comment for each new action that you take. For example, if you blog about the giveaway on your blog, leave a comment. If you post the giveaway on your Facebook News Feed, leave a comment. The winners will be determined by a randomized number drawing, so the more comments you leave, the better your chances of winning.

Call your Representative or Senator and tell them to cut at least $61 billion from the Continuing Resolution (HR 1) which will fund the government through Sept. 30. More is better, but this CR cannot be passed without significant cuts. Let me know who you called.
Blog about the book giveaway on your blog and link to Hope is Not a Foreign Policy. Post the link to your blog post in the comments section. This counts as 3 entries.
Post the giveaway on your Facebook News Feed
Tweet about it on Twitter
Post the giveaway on a forum.
“Like” this on Facebook
Add this post to StumbleUpon, Delicious, or Reddit
Follow Hope is Not a Foreign Policy on Networked Blogs
Let me know which potential Republican presidential candidate you’ll be pulling for.

The giveaway will close on Friday, February 25. Good luck!