Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Wall Street Journal

Obama is “The Alien in the White House”

Tom Skypek — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:05:57 +0000

If you haven’t read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, you should. It is one of the most articulate and sobering critiques of Barack Obama and his administration that I’ve ever read. It’s sad that an article like this needs to be written. The fact of the matter is that Obama’s love for this country is conditional. He views himself as a world citizen first and an American second. This administration apologizes for this country on a regular basis, both at home and abroad. This country’s top counter terrorism official, John Brennan, has made excuses for those who have killed Americans, saying that “violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces.”

“One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street,” writes Rabinowitz. To me, that says everything you need to know about our 44th president.

Jon Kyl Takes Lead on Nuclear Policy

Tom Skypek — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:47:09 +0000

United States Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) made a compelling argument in today’s Wall Street Journal against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). For nearly two decades the United States has relied on technical extrapolations to verify the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. But these technical extrapolations are essentially ”best guesses” based on historical trends and data. As I said in a recent post, “The only way to be certain a weapon is reliable is to test it.” Kyl is right when he argues that the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is dependent on the reliability of our stockpile. As I’ve mentioned previously, as the credibility of our deterrent decreases, friends and allies may be forced to develop their own nuclear deterrents.

Critics argue that failure to ratify the CTBT will hinder Washington’s ability to lead global nonproliferation efforts. Such arguments are unconvincing, however. As Kyl notes, the U.S. has an impressive record when it comes to nonproliferation:

Aside from the fact that countries will act in their best interest whether or not the U.S. “leads” them, no one can legitimately question U.S. commitment on proliferation issues. No nation has worked harder than the U.S. to pressure North Korea and Iran, and there is no evidence that Russia and China would suddenly help us if we ratified the test-ban treaty.

Moreover, unlike other nations, the U.S. has not conducted a nuclear-weapons test since 1992; it has not designed a new warhead since the 1980s or built one since the 1990s. It has reduced its nuclear-weapons stockpile by 75% since the end of the Cold War and 90% since the height of the Cold War. Meanwhile, the U.S. has spent more than $7 billion on the Nunn-Lugar program, which deals with the “loose nukes” threat, and it will spend more than $2 billion on nonproliferation measures such as securing loose nuclear material this year alone. There is again no evidence one more symbolic gesture is going to change anything.

Kyl is absolutely right. It is clear that U.S. behavior is not the primary driver of other state’s decisions to acquire and/or proliferate nuclear weapons. These efforts did nothing to dissuade North Korea or Iran from developing offensive nuclear weapons programs. As I wrote in The Weekly Standard in March 2009:

It remains fashionable in liberal foreign policy circles to argue that Washington’s behavior is the main catalyst for the decision of other states to acquire nuclear weapons. Of course, Washington’s behavior influences other states–but only to a degree. Washington’s decision to reduce the number of its operationally deployed warheads from around 6,000 to approximately 2,000 has done nothing to dissuade Pyongyang or Tehran from operating aggressive nuclear weapons programs.

Jeffrey Lewis at ArmsControlWonk rightly notes the domestic political challenges associated with a resumption of nuclear testing. However, Lewis’s analysis is incomplete because he neglects the broader strategic issue of why we have nuclear weapons, how they are critical to U.S. national security, and the importance of credibility. Not only does our stockpile keep us safe from a state-sponsored nuclear attack, but it also provides us with bargaining advantages in the diplomatic arena (although the Obama administration clearly doesn’t seem to grasp this concept). It is also important to distinguish between a resumption of nuclear testing and maintaining the capabilities required to conduct a nuclear test. Many of the scientists and engineers who possess this specialized knowledge are Baby Boomers and either have retired or will be retiring in the next few years. It is important to make sure younger generations are developing these capabilities in the event an urgent need for testing surfaces.

Dismissing the importance of testing (and the necessity of maintaining the capabilities required to test) is not only weak analysis but it’s bad policy, too. Let’s say we ratify the CTBT. President Obama will certainly get praise from the Davos crowd–and perhaps another Nobel Prize. But will North Korea suddenly see the light? Or Iran? This token gesture will undoubtedly score the U.S. some political points with the Davos crowd, but it’s highly unlikely that ratification of the CTBT will result in any favorable outcomes for the U.S. It’s highly unlikely that ratification of the CTBT would finally convince Moscow and Beijing to support a real sanctions package against Iran.

At the end of the day, how does ceding our right to test advance the U.S. national interest?

Rush Limbaugh, the St. Louis Rams, and the NFL

Tom Skypek — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:03:50 +0000

What is there to say? Rush Limbaugh got sandbagged by both the mainstream media and his business partners. Whether you’re a liberal or a conservative, you should care about the St. Louis Rams debacle and what happened to Rush. Rush was discriminated against just because he’s an outspoken conservative. In America, anyone should be able to purchase whatever they want, regardless of political ideology. I’m not a fan of Michael Moore, but if he wanted to buy the Detroit Lions he certainly has the right. There is a double-standard for conservative and liberals. You can read Rush’s recent article in The Wall Street Journal; he chronicles some of the more memorable remarks of the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Of course, it turns out that many of the objectionable quotes reported by CNN and other news outlets were falsely attributed to Rush. The thought police are everywhere these days, including the NFL.

Bailout Language Benefits Democrats, ACORN

Tom Skypek — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:26:13 +0000

Here’s a must-read op-ed from The Wall Street Journal. It details how groups like groups ACORN are likely to benefit–at taxpayer expense–from the bailout legislation proposed by the Democrats. ACORN is a “non-partisan” partisan organization that has spent $16 million this year registering Democratic voters. If you look up “voter fraud” in the dictionary, ACORN will be cited as one of the most egregious offenders.

Taxpayers are naturally suspicious that political insiders and contributors on Wall Street are going to make out like bandits once Washington starts spending the $700 billion in the financial market rescue. But Democrats have already decided to spin off potentially billions of taxpayer dollars from the bailout fund to their own political buddies — not on Wall Street but on nearby K Street.

The idea that special-interest groups on the left or right should get a royalty payment for monies that are repaid to the Treasury is a violation of the public trust. We’re told the White House and House Republicans are insisting that the Acorn fund be purged from the bailout bill. The Paulson plan is supposed to get us out of this problem, not start it over again.

The House and Senate Democratic drafts contain an indefensible and well-hidden provision. It would mandate that at least 20% of any profit realized from the sale of each troubled asset purchased under the Paulson plan be deposited in either the Housing Trust Fund or the Capital Magnet Fund. Only after these funds get their cut of the profits are “all amounts remaining . . . paid into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.”

Here’s the exact, amazing language from the Democratic proposal, breaking out how the money would be divided and dispensed:

“Deposits. Not less than 20% of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

“Use of Deposits. 65% shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act . . . ; and 35% shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund . . .

“Remainder Deposited in the Treasury. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.”

What we have here essentially are a pair of government slush funds created in July as part of the Economic Recovery Act that pump tax dollars into the coffers of low-income housing advocacy groups, such as Acorn.

Acorn, one of America’s most militant left-wing “community activist groups,” is spending $16 million this year to register Democrats to vote in November. In the past several years, Acorn’s voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Washington, while several of their employees have been convicted of voter fraud.

Along with other potential recipients of these funds, including the National Council of La Raza and the Urban League, Acorn has promoted laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which laid the foundation for the house of cards built out of subprime loans. Thus, we’d be funneling more cash to the groups that helped create the lending mess in the first place.

This isn’t the first time this year that Democrats have tried to route money for fixing the housing crisis into the bank accounts of these community activist groups. The housing bill passed by Congress in July also included a tax on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raise an estimated $600 million annually in grants for these lobbying groups. When Fannie and Freddie went under, the Democrats had to find a new way to fill the pipeline flowing tax dollars into the groups’ coffers.

This is a crude power grab in a time of economic crisis. Congress should insist that every penny recaptured from the sale of distressed assets be dedicated to retiring the hundreds of billions of dollars in public debt that will be incurred, or passed back to taxpayers who will ultimately underwrite the cost of the bailout.

Corrupt organizations like ACORN should never receive taxpayers dollars. Americans work hard for their money and it should not be redistributed to groups like ACORN. Contact your Members of Congress and tell them that you don’t want the ACORN provisions in the bailout legislation.