Hope is Not a Foreign Policy

“Five Days in Pyongyang” – A Good Friend’s Account of his Trip to North Korea

Tom Skypek — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:37:33 +0000

Please check out these two outstanding articles in National Review Online (Part I and Part II) written by my good friend, Reggie Gibbs. His account is truly fascinating.

Why Obama Wants Democrats to Lose in November

Tom Skypek — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:18:03 +0000

One word: re-election. I know it sounds ridiculous and unbelievable to some, but President Obama does not want the Democrats to retain the House or Senate this November. It all comes down to his bid for re-election in 2012. Quite simply: Obama wants to run against a Republican Congress in 2012. He needs to be able to point at someone else and blame them for his shortcomings as a leader. Right now, he can’t do that. If he points across the street to Capitol Hill he’s pointing directly at his Democratic brethren in the House and Senate. Think about Bill Clinton in 1996, he had Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to demonize. Obama needs an enemy–although he’s still trying to blame his sorry lot on George W. Bush, rather than his anti-growth, anti-business, redistributive economic policies.

While I think the GOP will succeed in taking back the House this November, capturing the Senate is a bit more challenging. Thinking strategically about 2012, it would not be the end of the world if we were unable to take back the Senate this November–as long as we have the majority in the House. Controlling the House will enable a significant check on Obama’s power. What we need in the Senate is enough votes to filibuster another Supreme Court nominee. If confirmed, Kagan will not shift the balance of power on the Supreme Court. Obama’s next pick will, however–hence we need enough votes for a filibuster. That’s what this upcoming election is about: putting the brakes on Obama’s policies. 2012 is about making sure Barack Obama is a one-term president. We need a president who loves this country unconditionally and who believes that the U.S. Constitution is more than a dated piece of paper.

Obama, White House officials: al Qaeda a ‘racist’ organization–really, ya think?!

Tom Skypek — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:12:06 +0000

Al Qaeda–racist? Really? Apparently, the Obama administration has just now reached this conclusion, nearly nine years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ”In short,” one administration official explained, “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.” Yes, al Qaeda does not value human life. And yes, it is happy to treaty people like cannon fodder. My question is: what are people doing in the administration who are just now realizing the truly despicable nature of this organization? Should they really be serving in important national security positions? Rarely do I find myself speechless but this is one of those times.

The Passing of Two Yankees Legends

Tom Skypek — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:37:57 +0000

A terrific piece from the NRO’s Daniel Foster on the passing of George Steinbrenner and Bob Sheppard, the legendary voice of the New York Yankees from 1951 – 2007.

It has been a tough week for the Yankee faithful. First, legendary Stadium announcer Bob “the Voice of God” Sheppard passed over the weekend (I’ll always remember his wonderful palindromes: ”Now batting, numbah 2, the shortstop, Derek Jee-tuh, the shortstop, numbah 2, now batting.”). And now the news that The Boss, George Steinbrenner, has died at age 80.

That’s exactly how Sheppard used to introduce the players. Here’s a great tribute. I went to my first Yankee game in 1989. I can’t say that I remember his voice that very first game; I wasn’t even ten years-old yet. But as I grew up and went back to Yankee Stadium during the 1990s, I came to love that voice. Listening to Bob Sheppard introduce the starting line-ups, batters, and pitchers was an unforgettable part of going to the Stadium.

As far as the Boss goes, he was a winner and a straight shooter, through and through. A pure capitalist, he made a lot of people very wealthy and a lot of families very happy. Some of my fondest memories growing up are days I spent at Yankee Stadium. It has been a tough week for the Yankee faithful, indeed. George and Bob, RIP.

Mattis is a Great Pick to be CENTCOM Commander

Tom Skypek — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:23:27 +0000

U.S. Marine Corps General James N. Mattis, who currently serves as the commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, has been selected to lead U.S. Central Command. This is an outstanding pick by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Mattis is an exemplary general officer and a true strategic thinker. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is beating up on Mattis for some comments he’s made in the past about warfare. His remarks were candid and, unfortunately, have been taken out of context. One misleading headline reads: “James Mattis: ‘It’s fun to shoot some people.’” Here’s the context for the quote:

You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years, because they didn’t wear a veil. You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot ‘em.

I know this might come as a surprise to some people but our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan are not good people. They intentionally target and kill civilians. They are the types who think it’s okay to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. They hold the nineteen hijackers who killed nearly three-thousand Americans on September 11, 2001 in high esteem. They treat women as second-class citizens and view it as their duty to kill Christians and Jews.

So Mattis isn’t politically correct; he’s a warrior and he’s exactly the type of man I want defending this country. It’s a blessing that we have men like James Mattis and it’s a travesty that his reputation be marred in anyway by a handful of so-called journalists. The Senate should waste no time in confirming General Mattis.

John Kerry’s Misinformed Position on the New START Treaty

Tom Skypek — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 02:16:40 +0000

Yesterday, Senator John F. Kerry wrote an op-ed in response to Mitt Romney’s piece published earlier this week in which the former governor argued against ratifying the New START Treaty. Kerry’s op-ed was not only hyper-partisan but, as The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano notes, quite inaccurate as well. Kerry’s op-ed was little more than partisan drivel. It lacked any sort of serious analytical rigor. I would expect a better quality of analysis and thought from the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

For the Obama Administration, the Rule of Law is Malleable (Very Malleable)

Tom Skypek — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:15:10 +0000

The Obama administration is going to sue Arizona for enforcing federal immigration law but they won’t prosecute these guys for voter intimidation? Really? It’s decisions like these that tell you everything you need to know about this administration and how they view the rule of law.

Romney on the New START Treaty

Tom Skypek — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:36:40 +0000

It’s hard to pick President Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake. As far as I’m concerned, his general conduct of American foreign policy has been subpar and a bit too Carteresque. According to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney the New START Treaty is a leading candidate for this administration’s worst foreign policy mistake. In an op-ed in yesterday’s WaPo, Romney presented a very clear argument in opposition to the New START Treaty. I agree wholeheartedly with his advice that the treaty, in its current state, should not be ratified by the United States Senate. Romney argues, “He [Obama] acceded to Russia’s No. 1 foreign policy objective, the abandonment of our Europe-based missile defense program, and obtained nothing whatsoever in return.” I have no problem giving something up to receive something in return–that’s how negotiations work. But it’s unclear to me what exactly we are receiving in return.

Entering into treaties is serious business because it reduces our sovereignty. How does this treaty advance the national interest? That is the question I would need answered, if I were voting on this in the Senate. Flowery language about “Global Zero” and nuclear disarmament would not suffice. To use an Obama phrase, let me be clear: I think a productive relationship with the Russian Federation could be a strategic asset in the coming decades, especially with the rise of China now upon us. However, a productive working relationship must be built on mutual trust and respect. This treaty is simply too one-sided to create the foundation for a stronger relationship with Moscow.

For an opposing view, check out Pavel Podvig’s response.

Steele’s Failed Critique Highlights Division Among Conservatives on War Strategy

Tom Skypek — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:18:38 +0000

In 2006, I was really pulling for Michael Steele in his battle to win a U.S. Senate seat in Maryland. Unfortunately, Ben Cardin won and Steele wound up running the Republican National Committee. Steele’s odd remarks about the war in Afghanistan have led to a growing number of calls for his resignation among prominent conservatives. The war in Afghanistan was definitely not a war of President Barack Obama’s choosing, as Steele suggested in his remarks at a Connecticut fundraiser. This factual inaccuracy made the rest of Steele’s comments seem off-the-wall, but it appears as though he was trying to challenge the president’s strategy for prosecuting the war. He just failed miserably:

Well if he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that’s the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan. Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops.

To an extent, Steele is right: historically, Afghanistan is where great powers go to die. Some conservatives view the current strategy for the war in Afghanistan as fundamentally flawed–myself included. Our political objectives in Afghanistan are unclear and it is unlikely that we have the long-term political will to stay in Afghanistan for the time that’s required, nor the will to allocate the requisite number of troops. George Will wrote a great op-ed last year in which he argued that airpower, rather than land power, may be sufficient to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan. Steele, however, failed to present clearly a viable alternative to a land-based, counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy for Afghanistan. His hollow critique lacked credibility because of his factually inaccurate statement about the genesis of the war. Conservatives are split on the issue of Afghanistan and the Steele flap highlights this division. At face value, the conservative uproar is focused on Steele’s bogus suggestion that America elected to fight this war, unprompted. The real issue is the division on strategy among conservatives. Because Steele did such a poor job of communicating this alternative viewpoint, this division remains largely unexplored.

Very simply, the RNC needs a chairman who can raise lots of money and who can present clear, and viable policy alternatives to the current administration. The RNC chairman doesn’t need to be a foreign policy expert, but he/she needs to present his/her ideas in a clear and unambiguous manner. Steele has been unable to do this on several occasions.

What I care about most are the November elections. Right now, conservatives are tracking to make impressive gains in the House and Senate. The Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration are imploding politically. Their liberal ideology is simply incompatible with an electorate that is, at the end of the day, center-right. So while Steele is an imperfect chairman, selecting at a new high-profile chairman at this time could become an unnecessary distraction from November. Every minute spent on Michael Steele is less time that’s spent thinking about how to win in November. Steele’s definitely no Lee Atwater or Haley Barbour, but I don’t have any better suggestions at the moment. Mitt Romney is an outstanding administrator and would do well, but the legacy of his government health care program in Massachusetts would render his opposition to nationalized medicine impotent. Plus, he would probably view the gig as a demotion–going from serious presidential candidate to party chairman. Or maybe he wouldn’t. Part of me thinks that Romney could be a powerhouse at the helm of the RNC. I’m just not sure how he would be able to handle the health care issue. This is the same issue that could potential hobble his 2012 ambitions.

Happy Indendence Day – Get a Free Pocket-Sized Declaration of Independence & Constitution

Tom Skypek — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:32:16 +0000

Happy Independence Day to all! Thank you to all the military men and women who have fought to secure our freedom. It is my sincere hope that our friends in Congress and the White House will take time to reacquaint themselves with this very important document. I think that every public servant ought to carry a copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Too many have long forgotten the history of this nation’s founding and simply do not understand the principles of limited government and individual liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Thankfully, you can get a FREE, pocket-sized edition of these two documents from the good people at The Heritage Foundation.

You can find Thomas Jefferson’s immortal words below:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock

Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire:
Mathew Thornton